Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #80 *arrest*

[Seattle1]

I think the objection may have been about HIS ring, that he didn't wear it. Meling it down was probably his explanation. Which means it might not have been true! He's wearing a ring in the infamous shoelace tying photo shortly after Suzanne "dsappeared". To little, too late but not too soon?

JMO

And the tell-tale sign, when the ring looks too small on pudgy fingers. MOO

 

[al66pine]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
[QUOTE 10ofRods said: ↑
So we can expect to see consultation with both daughters.
The way I read the CO VRA is that only the daughters would qualify (unless Suzanne had set up a will leaving some of her estate to her siblings or other relatives). I find it highly improbable that Suzanne did that. [/QUOTE] bbm
="CGray123, post: 17062181, member: 289196"] Suzanne's siblings would also be defined as "victims" under the VRA and therefore entitled to be notified, present and heard regarding any proposed acceptance of a plea agreement, among other listed events, including setting of bond. Here's the pertinent language of section 24-4.1-302 (5) BBM:
"(5) 'Victim' means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.  For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated.  It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term 'victim' shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term 'victim'."[/QUOTE] @10ofRods
@CGray123 Yesterday or day before I replied to post saying only under CO VRA only the dau's would be victims and quoted VRA definitions of "victims" as you did, plus the def. of "victim's immediate family. " Both def's include siblings.

Also from my post:
"Second, .... so seems they qualify for various rights under CO VRA imo. If the act excludes them, I've missed it or misread those sections. Or maybe another CO law addresses .... but I'm puzzled about why that issue would hinge on whether the deceased left them gifts by will."

@10ofRods Still puzzled about the bolded in my earlier post excerpt above. Is this OP's interp? Based on which statute or ___?
@@CGray123 or anyone else? Thx in adv.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I think the objection may have been about HIS ring, that he didn't wear it. Meling it down was probably his explanation. Which means it might not have been true! He's wearing a ring in the infamous shoelace tying photo shortly after Suzanne "dsappeared". To little, too late but not too soon?

JMO

We also have no idea if her 50 reasons were true, not true, projections, a pros and cons list or what her mood was when she wrote it. People whose marriage is in bad shape and contemplating divorce are generally "looking" for brievances and the cons and not the pros.

 

[GatorFL]

If a witness described BM carrying an elk, it may have been a calf.

According to the Forest Service:

"Elk are the second largest members of the deer family. Adult male elk, referred to as bulls, attain their largest size at 7 years old. Once fully grown, a bull elk averages 5 feet tall at the shoulders and can weigh between 700 and 1100 pounds. Female elk, known as cows, weigh between 500 and 600 pounds, and stand an average of 4.5 feet at shoulder height."

The world record in the deadlift is 501 kg or about 1,100 pounds. So, it's conceivable BM could lift a mature elk if he's a competitive weightlifter, but I have seen nothing to suggest he could carry it any distance.


That said, the point is well made that big strong BM could carry a 100-pound woman a fair distance.

I'm not a huge hunter but I know a little. If you were going to carry an elk out you would have to break it down into convenient pieces. You're also typically using a pack to carry a butchered animal out of the woods.

Carrying a 100# woman into the woods would be different, IMO unless of course she was broken down into convenient pieces as well.

 

[Seattle1]

While sifting through articles, I ran across one with some interesting information - what happened to SM's ring. I feel it speaks to the acrimony of their relationship and perhaps Barry's need for cash.

"While Suzanne’s phone has not been found, investigators were able to recover documents from her iCould account. One of those documents was a list Suzanne made on May 8, entitled “grievances.” It included notes like “wedding ring,” which Barry allegedly took and melted at some point."
Prosecutors Outline Barry And Suzanne Morphew's Movements On Days Around Her Disappearance

JMO

I think it's very likely that BM replaced SM's original wedding set (with rock seen in photos) and wouldn't think twice about destroying the initial set. There's nothing sentimental to a narc. In BM's mind -- it was "his property."

How does a narcissistic person behave?
Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder - HelpGuide.org.

 

[CGray123]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
USER=247143]@10ofRods[/USER]
@CGray123 Yesterday or day before I replied to post saying only under CO VRA only the dau's would be victims and quoted VRA definitions of "victims" as you did, plus the def. of "victim's immediate family. " Both def's include siblings.

Also from my post:
"Second, .... so seems they qualify for various rights under CO VRA imo. If the act excludes them, I've missed it or misread those sections. Or maybe another CO law addresses .... but I'm puzzled about why that issue would hinge on whether the deceased left them gifts by will."

@10ofRods Still puzzled about the bolded in my earlier post excerpt above. Is this OP's interp? Based on which statute or ___?
@@CGray123 or anyone else? Thx in adv.

Sorry I missed your post! I am so behind...

I believe that the definition of "victim" in the VRA includes "other personal representative." I suspect that @10ofRods correctly interpreted this to include the person designated in SM's will as the decedent's "personal representative" or executor. The daughters would have their own independent rights under the statute, regardless whether they were beneficiaries under SM's will.

MOO (non-attorney).

 

[al66pine]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?

Sorry I missed your post! I am so behind...
I believe that the definition of "victim" in the VRA includes "other personal representative." I suspect that @10ofRods correctly interpreted this to include the person designated in SM's will as the decedent's "personal representative" or executor. The daughters would have their own independent rights under the statute, regardless whether they were beneficiaries under SM's will.
MOO (non-attorney).

@CGray123 Respectfully,imo SM's siblings are included as both "victims" and/or "victim's immediate family" regardless of whether the sib's receive any gifts thru SM's will (or whether they are named as personal rep, administrator, executor etc.).

* 24-4.1-302. Definitions.
(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct, or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative...."

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.


(6) "Victim's immediate family" means the spouse, any child by birth or adoption, any stepchild, the parent, the stepparent, a sibling, a legal guardian, significant other, or a lawful representative of the victim.

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.

______________________
OP post says ---VRA includes "other personal representative." bbm
Both statutory def's refer to "lawful representative." bbm

 

[10ofRods]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
[QUOTE 10ofRods said: ↑
So we can expect to see consultation with both daughters.
The way I read the CO VRA is that only the daughters would qualify (unless Suzanne had set up a will leaving some of her estate to her siblings or other relatives). I find it highly improbable that Suzanne did that.

bbm
="CGray123, post: 17062181, member: 289196"] Suzanne's siblings would also be defined as "victims" under the VRA and therefore entitled to be notified, present and heard regarding any proposed acceptance of a plea agreement, among other listed events, including setting of bond. Here's the pertinent language of section 24-4.1-302 (5) BBM:
"(5) 'Victim' means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.  For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated.  It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term 'victim' shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term 'victim'."[/QUOTE] @10ofRods
@CGray123 Yesterday or day before I replied to post saying only under CO VRA only the dau's would be victims and quoted VRA definitions of "victims" as you did, plus the def. of "victim's immediate family. " Both def's include siblings.

Also from my post:
"Second, .... so seems they qualify for various rights under CO VRA imo. If the act excludes them, I've missed it or misread those sections. Or maybe another CO law addresses .... but I'm puzzled about why that issue would hinge on whether the deceased left them gifts by will."

@10ofRods Still puzzled about the bolded in my earlier post excerpt above. Is this OP's interp? Based on which statute or ___?
@@CGray123 or anyone else? Thx in adv.[/QUOTE]

I believe the order of the kin listed is the order in which most courts regard the situation. The victim's spouse is first (but wouldn't be in this case, obviously), then the children, and so on. When official notice is given to "victims" of doings in court, the entire list is used where applicable (so...I would assume GM and Suzanne's siblings were noticed during the guardianship hearing). But the court will decide which victims get to weigh in on plea bargains and on sentencing, and my prediction is that this Judge will (properly) decide that the two daughters will weigh in (he can't stop others from requesting to be involved, but I don't think he's going to listen to, say, JL, who is technically a "significant other" of Suzanne).

The two daughters must be allowed their right to use the provisions of the Act, IMO, as they are next after "spouse" and "spouse" is actually the criminal defendant...not the victim.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
[QUOTE 10ofRods said: ↑
So we can expect to see consultation with both daughters.
The way I read the CO VRA is that only the daughters would qualify (unless Suzanne had set up a will leaving some of her estate to her siblings or other relatives). I find it highly improbable that Suzanne did that.

bbm
="CGray123, post: 17062181, member: 289196"] Suzanne's siblings would also be defined as "victims" under the VRA and therefore entitled to be notified, present and heard regarding any proposed acceptance of a plea agreement, among other listed events, including setting of bond. Here's the pertinent language of section 24-4.1-302 (5) BBM:
"(5) 'Victim' means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.  For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated.  It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term 'victim' shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term 'victim'."[/QUOTE] @10ofRods
@CGray123 Yesterday or day before I replied to post saying only under CO VRA only the dau's would be victims and quoted VRA definitions of "victims" as you did, plus the def. of "victim's immediate family. " Both def's include siblings.

Also from my post:
"Second, .... so seems they qualify for various rights under CO VRA imo. If the act excludes them, I've missed it or misread those sections. Or maybe another CO law addresses .... but I'm puzzled about why that issue would hinge on whether the deceased left them gifts by will."

@10ofRods Still puzzled about the bolded in my earlier post excerpt above. Is this OP's interp? Based on which statute or ___?
@@CGray123 or anyone else? Thx in adv.[/QUOTE]
I am skeptical they had their retirement planning in place. If they had he would have had POA over her and she would have had POA over him for health and financials. It's possible they had a simple will they made shortly after the birth of the kids...that is not uncommon, but generally people who have assets move to a trust as they hit their middle years.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm not a huge hunter but I know a little. If you were going to carry an elk out you would have to break it down into convenient pieces. You're also typically using a pack to carry a butchered animal out of the woods.

Carrying a 100# woman into the woods would be different, IMO unless of course she was broken down into convenient pieces as well.

A lot of men carry 100 pound packs for short distances. Some carry that weight for long distances. Barry was said by Suzanne's stepbrother to have carried an entire elk (which I find unbelievable, but at any rate, the emphasis was on how Barry was just about the strongest person he knew).

I myself can lift a 100 pound person off the ground, but cannot carry them. I bet Barry, if he had a backpack designed for game carrying, could easily have gone a half a mile or more with 100 pounds on his back.

From what I read, going uphill with that weight is something mountaineers do as training (I personally trained with far more than I would have actually carried on a long hike). So, from reading what mountaineers say about this, it seems that going down hill is the hard part (the weight forces you to take quicker steps and puts great strain on the knees, and the backpack will tend to pull you over backwards.

Normally, when hiking long distances, a pack of 50-60 lbs is considered upper limit for men, but there are plenty of records of men carrying more than that, especially in the mountain man days.

There's even a Guinness world record for fastest marathon with a 100 pound pack. Barry likes feats of strength and setting records (push-ups at the gym).

 

[Seattle1]

OK, I'm familiar with the statutes and my head is spinning!

Just to be clear - four separate statues have previously been discussed here and are each independent of each other:

Colorado VRA: § 24-4.1-302.5. Rights afforded to victims
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Administration :: Article 4.1 - :: Crime Victim Compensation and Victim and Witness Rights :: Part 3 - :: Guidelines for Assuring the Rights of Victims of and Witnesses to Crimes :: § 24-4.1-302.5. Rights afforded to victims

Colorado Wrongful Death: Part 2 - Damages for Death by Negligence
§ 13-21-201. Damages for death
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 13 - :: Courts and Court Procedure :: Damages and Limitations on Actions :: Article 21 - Damages :: Part 2 - :: Damages for Death by Negligence :: § 13-21-201. Damages for death

Guardianship - Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-5-1
Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-5-1 | FindLaw

Conservatorship - Colorado § 15-14-425. Powers of conservator in administration
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 15 - :: Probate, Trusts, and Fiduciaries :: Colorado Probate Code :: Article 14 - :: Persons Under Disability - Protection :: Part 4 - :: Protection of Property of Protected Person :: § 15-14-425. Powers of conservator in administration

 

[GatorFL]

A lot of men carry 100 pound packs for short distances. Some carry that weight for long distances. Barry was said by Suzanne's stepbrother to have carried an entire elk (which I find unbelievable, but at any rate, the emphasis was on how Barry was just about the strongest person he knew).

I myself can lift a 100 pound person off the ground, but cannot carry them. I bet Barry, if he had a backpack designed for game carrying, could easily have gone a half a mile or more with 100 pounds on his back.

From what I read, going uphill with that weight is something mountaineers do as training (I personally trained with far more than I would have actually carried on a long hike). So, from reading what mountaineers say about this, it seems that going down hill is the hard part (the weight forces you to take quicker steps and puts great strain on the knees, and the backpack will tend to pull you over backwards.

Normally, when hiking long distances, a pack of 50-60 lbs is considered upper limit for men, but there are plenty of records of men carrying more than that, especially in the mountain man days.

There's even a Guinness world record for fastest marathon with a 100 pound pack. Barry likes feats of strength and setting records (push-ups at the gym).

It's not the weight, carrying a person a long distance is awkward because of the long limbs.

I've seen some smaller elk in Colorado, maybe 100-150# size. Carrying an unprocessed elk would also be awkward.

 

[al66pine]

50 REASONS? Wedding Ring?

We also have no idea if her 50 reasons were true, not true, projections, a pros and cons list or what her mood was when she wrote it. People whose marriage is in bad shape and contemplating divorce are generally "looking" for brievances and the cons and not the pros.

@Momofthreeboys Yes, some posts seem to be presenting guesses or theories as facts.
At PH, iirc, LE said, LEO found "Wedding Ring" on the 50 reasons list, iirc but we don't know if the "he had it melted down" claim had any basis in fact. Was that phrase also noted on the list, or did someone tell LE-- Oh, yes, I remember last month (or 25 yrs ago), I think SM told friend who told me (yada, ring, yada).

Is the referenced ring the one SM wore? Her original W.Ring? Or a later "upgraded"/pricier one?
Or, if later, maybe BM told her it was an upgrade, but he subbed cubic zirconia for the original pricey diamond?

Did her list refer to BM's ring?
Maybe lost it. Hid it? Irreparably damaged it during landscape work? Bought a new one close to time of disappearance, started wearing?

Could it refer to a Moorman family ring, w little $ value, but lots of sentimental value for SM, anticipating giving to dau later?

@Momofthreeboys Yeah, we don't know about that point in particular and don't know much about the other 49 points either. my2ct

 

[CGray123]

SM'S Siblings as "Victims." Only if Beneficiaries of SM's Estate?
@CGray123 Respectfully,imo SM's siblings are included as both "victims" and/or "victim's immediate family" regardless of whether the sib's receive any gifts thru SM's will (or whether they are named as personal rep, administrator, executor etc.).

* 24-4.1-302. Definitions.
(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct, or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative...."

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.


(6) "Victim's immediate family" means the spouse, any child by birth or adoption, any stepchild, the parent, the stepparent, a sibling, a legal guardian, significant other, or a lawful representative of the victim.

Per this ^ def,
SM's dau's are included.
SM's siblings are also included, by virtue of their family relationship w SM.
If, hypo only, SM's brother AM, is named as SM's personal representative of her estate/will, then AM, would be included.

______________________
OP post says ---VRA includes "other personal representative." bbm
Both statutory def's refer to "lawful representative." bbm

ITA

 

[Brubon]

We also have no idea if her 50 reasons were true, not true, projections, a pros and cons list or what her mood was when she wrote it. People whose marriage is in bad shape and contemplating divorce are generally "looking" for brievances and the cons and not the pros.

I wish SM had listed 51 reasons.
"#51. I am afraid Barry, the father of our two daughters, is going to murder me because I want a divorce."

MOO

8 more days...

 

[Seattle1]

It's not the weight, carrying a person a long distance is awkward because of the long limbs.

I've seen some smaller elk in Colorado, maybe 100-150# size. Carrying an unprocessed elk would also be awkward.

I dunno -- firefighters are trained to carry bodies without breaking them apart. Not saying BM hiked SM's body to burial -- just pointing out that he was trained to move her. MOO

 

[al66pine]

CO. VRA. Victims?

Sorry I missed your post! I am so behind...
(1) I believe that the definition of "victim" in the VRA includes "other personal representative." .... (2) The daughters would have their own independent rights under the statute, regardless whether they were beneficiaries under SM's will.
MOO (non-attorney).

@CGray123 sbm for focus r#bm No worries about being behind. I appreciate your posts w quotes and citations from various statutes and legal lit. on this thread and look forward to reading more of them.

(1) Both CO VRA statutory definitions* for "victims" and "victims' immediate family" refer to "lawful representative." bbm
Your earlier post and your post above says VRA says ---VRA includes "other personal representative." bbm
The two phrases are not synonymous as legal terms, at least not necessarily. In some contexts they could be. Not speaking to CO law specifically, but IME ---
"Lawful representative" may refer to a person acting as an agent under a power of attorney, an attorney at law, a trustee of a trust for an individual or family, a conservator for an incapacitated person, a trustee in a bankruptcy case, or acting in other roles as well.
"Personal representative" more commonly refers to a person acting regarding the probate estate of a deceased person. Alternatively may be designated as "executor," "administrator," or another term, by statute or by local practice.

May seem like I've got my hair-splitting scissors out, but I'll put them away now.

(2) Yes per statutory definitions of "victim" and "victim's immediate family" in VRA, dau's are included.
I believe my earlier posts also said that.

_________________________________________________
* CO VRA 24-4.1-302. Definitions.
(5) "Victim" means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct, or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative...."
(6) "Victim's immediate family" means the spouse, any child by birth or adoption, any stepchild, the parent, the stepparent, a sibling, a legal guardian, significant other, or a lawful representative of the victim...."
http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/dcj/DCJ External Website/OVP/CRS 24-4.1-302 Definitions.pdf

 

[10ofRods]

The Judge is definitely treating the daughters as victims, in court.

I don't see any evidence yet that he is treating AM or MM as victims, in court. He doesn't mention their access to the AA or their need to "process things."

 

[10ofRods]

Suzanne's siblings would also be defined as "victims" under the VRA and therefore entitled to be notified, present and heard regarding any proposed acceptance of a plea agreement, among other listed events, including setting of bond. Here's the pertinent language of section 24-4.1-302 (5) BBM:

"(5) 'Victim' means any natural person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted, unless the person is accountable for the crime or a crime arising from the same conduct or plan as crime is defined under the laws of this state or of the United States, or, if such person is deceased or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, legal guardian, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, significant other, or other lawful representative.  For purposes of notification under this part 3, any person under the age of eighteen years is considered incapacitated, unless that person is legally emancipated.  It is the intent of the general assembly that this definition of the term 'victim' shall apply only to this part 3 and shall not be applied to any other provision of the laws of the state of Colorado that refer to the term 'victim'."

I'm reading that with an exclusive "or." You're reading it with an inclusive "or."

 

[Deleted member 222031]

We also have no idea if her 50 reasons were true, not true, projections, a pros and cons list or what her mood was when she wrote it. People whose marriage is in bad shape and contemplating divorce are generally "looking" for brievances and the cons and not the pros.

I always feel like a voyeur into her most private of thoughts when the 50 list is discussed. It seems to be written in a personalized shorthand meant for her eyes only.

Not criticizing discussion of it since it is a form of evidence, however limited. But if it were my list, I would hate it being public. My Bible was stolen. It had poems and personal thoughts of mine in it that I would never want shared after death when I could give no perspective or understanding or even an update since that was 20+ years ago.

The 50 list really touches me deeply.

JMO