Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #4

[whitelilac]

For those of us who were wondering if BM went in or stayed at his home after he arrived: looks like the answer is no.

"But DailyMail.com can now reveal that Morphew, 52, has not been allowed to enter the home he shared with Suzanne since he returned from his trip to Denver."

Police search and carry out evidence bags from the $1.5M home of missing Colorado mom | Daily Mail Online

I didn't catch this....not being allowed in the home at all since he came back, presumably at night on the 10th?, maybe the 11th.
I wonder how Daily Mail reporters get this information, when seemingly more local ones don't.

"can now reveal"? does that mean they knew some time before published?

 

[Dave F.]

Me too. I didn't kidnap anyone, and I'm not related to anyone that's been kidnapped. I think the plan to use an easily contacted, safe go-between is an excellent idea. It's certainly not new. The FBI employed it with success in the 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping, after all other avenues had failed. That investigation "wrote the book" on kidnapping for LE and is the very reason behind the FBI presence in the case from the beginning.. I certainly don't see LE objecting to anything that has been done yet by family in this case.
If this turns out to be other than a kidnapping, my remarks will be lost below all of the "I Told ya so"s and the " I knew all along"s, but at this time it is still a search for a missing person. IMO

 

[NervousNellie]

That part keeps getting repeated. But, lets remember the daughters are not allowed in the house either.

Until authorities tell me something else, the husband was in Denver and the girls were camping.

I believe you misunderstood the point of my post - it was to refute a member’s post that implied BM had been living in the home until the time the search warrant was served (is that the correct term?). The DM (fwiw) indicates otherwise. That is all.

Of course the daughters (and anyone else) would be prevented from entering the home as well - it was being held in an investigation. My heart goes out to Suzanne’s entire family.

 

[TristanP]

I don’t know how to post photos, but someone said the spray bottle in one of the photos might be luminal. If it is, it looks like they used almost all of it.

I’m way behind on posts, but I don’t think that’s luminol. I think it’s a cleaning solution being taken from the house to be tested. Crime scenes being cleaned up is like Cop 101...of course they’re going to test or at least make a record of every cleaning product in the house.

 

[NervousNellie]

I’m way behind on posts, but I don’t think that’s luminol. I think it’s a cleaning solution being taken from the house to be tested. Crime scenes being cleaned up is like Cop 101...of course they’re going to test or at least make a record of every cleaning product in the house.

She is taking potential evidence from the home without wearing gloves? I hope not.

 

[Warwick7]

She is taking potential evidence from the home without wearing gloves? I hope not.

Thats what I thought too. But she could have gloves on and we just can't see them. Or, that's luminol. Or it is something else. Either way they are experts in their field--Ill bet they are all very careful.

 

[Melrose]

Another thought I have. With the girls having been gone for their own adventure, why did Suzanne not go to Denver with Dennis for the Mother’s Day week-end? A wonderful romantic weekend for just the two of them. Denver would have many things for Suzanne to do while Dennis was busy at his meetings and training. They could go out for dinner and the evening, or if the meeting ran late, go out for drinks.
I always loved going away on hubby’s weekends.

I hear you, but for some spouses a whole weekend of alone time is a big treat.

I didn't catch this....not being allowed in the home at all since he came back, presumably at night on the 10th?, maybe the 11th.
I wonder how Daily Mail reporters get this information, when seemingly more local ones don't.

"can now reveal"? does that mean they knew some time before published?

I stopped believing anything the Daily Mail says after I read the details they got wrong about PH and M. Markle's stay in Canada. "Remote mansion" and "mansion in Vancouver" etc.

 

[Dave F.]

I didn't catch this....not being allowed in the home at all since he came back, presumably at night on the 10th?, maybe the 11th.
I wonder how Daily Mail reporters get this information, when seemingly more local ones don't.

"can now reveal"? does that mean they knew some time before published?

For thirty years, our local newspaper has dropped newspapers in my driveway on key advertising days, to legally fill bloated claims to advertisers of their readership. I pick them up when I see them and carry them back to the city garbage dumpster in the alley behind my garage, without ever unfolding them. Some days I forget to look, and that newspaper lying in my driveway makes it look like we aren't in town, to passersby. The thought has occurred to me that if I purchased a paper subscription to the DM, then I would need to check every day and have a better reason to throw news away without reading it. I'm still thinking about it. JMO

 

[Dave F.]

Sorry I got lost in all your techno talk. What is your point in reference to BM?

Call me and we'll discuss it. Don't worry, my phone is secure. (wink,wink)

 

[perception≠reality]

She is taking potential evidence from the home without wearing gloves? I hope not.

When I followed the Stauch case, the officials carrying evidence always had gloves on, and everything was in brown paper bags.

Those carrying out the CSI tools and garbage/misc. materials not evidence didn’t have gloves.

The same seems to hold true in this case since the man with an evidence bag had gloves on, and she is holding other items and no gloves.

My guess is she’s just carrying CSI supplies, and perhaps the bag is filled with garbage-drinks they had, discarded gloves or other items like paper towels, etc...

IMO JMO MOO

 

[ventuc]

I’ve seen a few people mention that it might be a bottle of luminol being carried by an official at the house, and that it looked like they had used up most of it (implying, I suppose, that there might have been large or numerous areas in the house that needed it). But would they have necessarily started with a new, full bottle?

 

[Warwick7]

1. SM just received the all clear following a cancer diagnosis.

2. Daughters could never get a hold of their Mom on Mother’s Day.

3. No one has seen (or was it had contact with) her since May 9.

4. No one saw SM leave on a ride.

 

[Seattle1]

My point is that simply inserting a new SIM card after surrendering one's phone to LE is not secure. Your post is about ease of technology and contains no information that would dispute my assertion of risk, but thank you for implying that I'm behind the times. I'm old enough and wise enough to consider that a complement. IMO

That is a myth. I have swapped phones with my wife simply by taking them to the carrier and having the SIM cards switched. The two phones are on completely different accounts and have never been related in any way until the swap. For a week, my phone was an extension of hers, connected through the cloud. IMO

^^bbm

Hold on there @Dave F. -- nowhere did you state 'your point' in the post I replied to!

To be clear, you stated "That is a myth" in response to OP post regarding the ease to replace a phone -- whether taken by law enforcement or loss by other means, by switching the sim card with a new instrument.

In response to your belief of "That is a myth," I simply provided the names of specific models that have since been coming with dual sims and also an esim to make replacing the phone instrument that much more simple and convenient.

If you want to change your point from "That is a myth" (after it's been challenged) to that of risk or security, you do not have permission to switch out your words (like a sim card) and/or ignore them when they don't suit your response. Nope, that's uncool for a hip guy such as yourself.

MOO

 

[OnlyFacts]

I believe you misunderstood the point of my post - it was to refute a member’s post that implied BM had been living in the home until the time the search warrant was served (is that the correct term?). The DM (fwiw) indicates otherwise. That is all.

I'm sorry, I quoted your post but my post wasn't directed at you. Like I mentioned , it just keeps getting repeated.

 

[TristanP]

She is taking potential evidence from the home without wearing gloves? I hope not.

I didn’t catch that she isn’t wearing gloves. My bad. I have always assumed luminol would need to be protected from light!

 

[katydid23]

I hadn't caught this before:

"Morphew’s fire department colleagues have been ordered not to take part in the search by police, although locals said Morphew and his friends have been out looking for Suzanne."

"Morphew’s colleagues from the Maysville Fire Station have also been attempting to help with the search, although one told DailyMail.com they have been warned off by police."

"Tim Nelson, 33, said: ‘The Sheriff’s office, they told us none of the fire guys are allowed up there."

I find this^^^ extremely interesting. I know that the police and the sheriffs usually rely heavily upon the fire departments , including the volunteers, for search and rescue operations. Especially in a smaller, remote area like that.

Cutting them all out like that is very revealing, in my opinion. JMO

 

[katydid23]

She is taking potential evidence from the home without wearing gloves? I hope not.

If it is luminal and she took it in with her to test some areas, then she wouldn't need to be wearing gloves while she was leaving with the luminal bottle. She would have already disposed of her gloves after doing the testing and now she is just taking her supplies back to the truck, most likely. No gloves needed for that.

 

[Sarahlou]

I don't know; I find the idea that this might be a kidnapping a bit ludicrous. Wouldn't kidnappers contact the husband/family relatively shortly after taking her? Wouldn't there be a ransom note or a ransom phone call of some kind? Given there has never been any of this, what reason does anyone have to think that this is what has occurred?

And this is what makes Barry's video even weirder. Why is he talking about her situation as though he has reason to believe she might have been abducted? He doesn't. It makes me think he might have simply been narrative-building in that video. And that may be what the bike near the bridge is as well: narrative-building. The video is weird. There's no getting around that.

I've always thought the kidnapping suggestion was a distraction. Everything about this feels like a domestic to me. JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

I find this^^^ extremely interesting. I know that the police and the sheriffs usually rely heavily upon the fire departments , including the volunteers, for search and rescue operations. Especially in a smaller, remote area like that.

Cutting them all out like that is very revealing, in my opinion. JMO

We know they brought in divers from Pueblo County to search the waterways and plenty of firefighters from surrounding counties that can assist if necessary. Probably no different than when legal professionals have to recuse themselves regarding family or conflicts of interest. The intent is the same, protect the integrity of the investigation. MOO

 

[katydid23]

We know they brought in divers from Pueblo County to search the waterways and plenty of firefighters from surrounding counties than can assist if necessary. Probably no different than when legal professionals have to recuse themselves regarding family or conflicts of interest. The intent is the same, protect the integrity of the investigation. MOO

True. It would be a big ugly mess if one of his good friends from his crew happened upon her remains....what a legal nightmare for all involved...

Both sides would be questioning it and creating conspiracy theories around it...