Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #16

[happyday]

I see it as a way to distance himself from the immediate family.

That’s how I read the whole statement!— I started this, now wish I didn’t, call MM, not me. I’m OUT

 

[marylamby]

I don't believe that was planned. TD is an affable kind of non-threatening guy. He disarms people and they let him in.

I had a sneaking suspicion that BM (and/or whoever) had seen him driving, walking around videotaping.
Not saying that TD planned it but BM may have taken the opportunity it presented.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

It is so bizarre. So bizarre. The words "extended family" jumped straight out at me. Since TN is supposedly skilled in publicity, what could he possibly mean by using "extended"? Why not "the whole family" or "Suzanne's family and friends"? Usually when we use the words "extended family" we are referring to family members who are not in the immediate core of the family -- the great aunts, the cousins, nieces and nephews, etc. What could possibly be the purpose of using that phrase in this crafted update? It sounds like TN is leaving out BM and the daughters! What the heck? Is this just an inadvertent mistake? Am I reading too much into this?

The kindest interpretation, the one I would have if said by known innocent folks, is to imply that the funds won't be used by BM or the daughters (they would be immediate family, not extended family) except to compensate them for any lost wages. Mostly for out of town family who might need logistical assistance re food, lodging, and for volunteers to cover supplies, etc.

As I said, that's the kindest interpretation I can whip up.

 

[MassGuy]

I gotta say I am SHOCKED at the family's lack of involvement in the case. No appearances no information. I don't know what to think. This is not adding up as a normal missing person or even abduction case. I don't know what this is anymore. Middle aged woman married 30 plus years has 2 kids just vanishes and the family has nothing to say? What is this really?

Yes, none of this is normal.

I have seen this behavior in homicide investigations where there is a body, but not in any other scenario.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the family knows what this is, even though they may not have settled on the party responsible.

 

[Fireflize]

The kindest interpretation, the one I would have if said by known innocent folks, is to imply that the funds won't be used by BM or the daughters (they would be immediate family, not extended family) except to compensate them for any lost wages. Mostly for out of town family who might need logistical assistance re food, lodging, and for volunteers to cover supplies, etc.

As I said, that's the kindest interpretation I can whip up.

But really, TN has no control and probably no idea how the fund is being used. So it sounds nice but it's meaningless. Moo

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I understand it was a general discussion regarding transparency. I also understand (and agree) that Mr. Morphew is being treated as suspect, or at least was at one time. I'm not talking about Mr. Morphew either; I was just making some generalized comments to follow up.

In this specific instance, I don't necessarily agree that his silence says "prove it;" his silence could simply be his compliance with LE requests. I simply think we don't have the necessary information to make the determination some have, although I certainly understand why others want to/have done so. Namely, whether law enforcement told him to shut his hole or not.

I don’t see any reason for LE to encourage BM’s silence. LE would want BM to talk. BM’s silence is due to self incrimination, not to any request made by LE. IMO

 

[GordianKnot]

@GordianKnot, I hope you don't mind the snip for focus.

I practice primarily med mal defense. One of my favorite attorneys and best friends is one of my "foes." A dirty, ambulance-chasing, cheating, lying Plaintiff's attorney . Why mention this?

These conditions between law enforcement and suspect in practice are generally much more nuanced. Defense lawyers know D.A.'s, go have beers together, discuss their client's issues with each other "off the record", etc.... If one is innocent, has a lawyer, and wishes to pass information to police on, there are ways. It isn't totally adversarial. D.A.'s and defense attorneys don't shoot each other down in public at the mere sight of each other.

Also, it's not just job security for defense attorneys to advise criminal clients this way. Police enforce laws. That is their job. It is to make sure the stuff lawyers write down in code is being followed. When it is not, it is their job to gather information pertinent to a prosecution of a breach of those laws. Enforcing laws. As a suspect, they are not your friend. They are gathering info to put you in the slammer, no two ways about it. That's ok, and what as a citizen I expect from my LE. That is, by definition, their job. It is what it is.

A defense attorney's role in this process is to make sure that the LE are playing by the rules. If that involves telling a client to shut up and step back/don't comply, so be it. It is what it is.

Checks and balances, and necessary to have a healthy judicial and executive system.

BBM:

Thanks for your reply!

Here's the thing:

If I ever committed a crime, I'd have a lawyer on retainer faster than you can say, "Miranda!"

Having said that, I simply can't subscribe to the notion that LE is out there trying to gather info for the purpose of tossing innocent people into the hoosegow.

For me, that's a bridge too far.

If I have nothing to hide, my inclination is to hold up the palms of my hands so that LE can see that they're empty.

Not hide them behind my back, so that LE starts asking themselves what it is I'm withholding from them.

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

I don’t see any reason for LE to encourage BM’s silence. LE would want BM to talk. BM’s silence is due to self incrimination, not to any request made by LE. IMO

Yes. The prime suspect talking to the media is pure gold. Look no further than Letecia Stauch and Chris Watts.

If he’s not talking, it’s because he doesn’t want to. Sickening really.

 

[AugustWest]

A suspect won't be arrested on failed polygraph alone as the exam is not admissible in court. So yes, if you fail a polygraph you can either remain a POI/Suspect while more evidence against you is obtained, or you may end up cleared if credible evidence comes up that points to the real perp and exonerates you. MOO

I wrote up a more thorough take on this and deleted it earlier. I'll try to make a point with what I was proposing before I hit delete and hope it comes out right.

There are generally four outcomes of a polygraph (per question of course):
1. Respondent innocent, deception (-)
2. Respondent innocent, deception (+)
3. Respondent guilty, deception (-)
4. Respondent guilty, deception (+)

No. 1 is the outcome wanted by law enforcement and suspect. No. 4 is only wanted by law enforcement. The other two are false positives and are totally worthless. Law enforcement also know that they are unreliable, and thus discount positives where outcome No. 1 above occur. As well as No.4. Polygraph misleads law enforcement as often as it helps, and LE can do better than what it offers. They are smart cookies, and have a ton of reliable tools better suited for investigation, and work on 100% fact.

Are you willing to clear a person, or is the bar low enough for arrest and prosecution, to rely on something that "70% of the time, works every time?" It isn't reliable for either, rather any, of its outcomes.

 

[swedeheart]

BBM:

I agree.

This may be one of the few scenes surrounding SM's disappearance that wasn't staged.

I don't think BM planned to encounter TD that day.

I do think it ended up being a case of mutual usury.

TD got his big scoop, and BM got a chance to recount his version of events to a member of the public.

While both parties saw an opportunity to use the other, I'm not sure it ended up benefiting both of them.

In fact, I see that interview as being highly disadvantageous to one of them.

JMO.

totally agree. i have never gotten the impression that TD and BM were in it together. TD would have NEVER brought up chris watts and patrick frazee if TD had been there to make BM look good or something. lol. i've always felt like they both took the interaction/situation and mutually felt they benefitted from it, albeit for very different reasons.

 

[AugustWest]

I don't believe that was planned. TD is an affable kind of non-threatening guy. He disarms people and they let him in.

I don't think he is threatening or non-affable, but if you think he ran into Mr. Morphew in Maysville Freaking Colorado, pop. 400 and a dog, just out of the blue, I got some ocean front property here in Oklahoma to sell ya, real cheap.

 

[gitana1]

@TxGidget
I can’t vouch for the legitimacy of the site, but I am almost certain all of the compiled interviews, were from accepted MSM sources. IMO this is a clearer picture of the Ms from the people who knew them best. It explains so much. For me to take each separate interview, speculate they are incorrect, is a little like calling everybody who knows the Ms liars. JMHO
further, the range of spokespersons, covers family, friends, and coworkers.
I’ve been convinced of BMs innocence, perhaps my brain did this compilation for me, very little new info.
Which brings me back to this—- WHERE is Suzanne? WHO has her?, don’t think we need continue pondering why, or when, so much.
BMs honesty, tells us if he said Sunday, it should be fact.
Start from there.
Instead of questioning that, consider that it could provide evidence of stalking.
I’ve wondered abt the RV park? Confident it was in canvassing. It is interesting how it seems to join up, trail and utility right of way w the road near Ms.
Also, the house is visible from 50, barely, but w/ less trees leafed out, even more.
There is a straight line from RV park to Ms, but there is no way to account for elevation, etc. Google Earth doesn’t go off main roads for the street view, so it is not possible to tell whether binoculars or telescope would be able to view the home. We had incredible drone footage, from Gannon's case, which lead me to this, drones new surveillance tool for criminals?
IMO, LE has the ability to investigate all locals, etc. Random stranger, is harder.
I’m kinda counting on my random stranger status here, to give me a different perspective.
Doesn’t really mean you don’t have any doubts, but what if?

That’s fair. I don’t think you’re stupid for your feelings about and analysis of this case. You’re not being illogical, IMO.

And I do appreciate the different perspective. I think it was you who said, “Who cares that much if we’re right?”

That’s true. In the final analysis, whether we are right or wrong doesn’t matter. I do get peeved when people defend a clear POI or suspect, casting aside tons of evidence in doing so, and instead accuse the victim, or blame some other, innocent person. That’s wrong and hurtful.

And I will admit to getting frustrated at times when there’s a total lack of logic in a position. Other than just “gut”. Because sometimes gut instinct can be super valuable, despite all indications to the contrary.

I have no problem considering a different point of view. I’m not ready to say anything about this case with certainty. But I certainly lean hard in one direction.

But the points you’ve made about his reputation are valid, IMO. So far, that’s all we know.

I will say, however, that in several high profile cases, like Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, Mark Hacking, Chris Watts, etc., there was nothing but good things that came out about the ultimate defendant - at least at first. And there have been cases where people talked poorly about innocent folk as well (in the Heidi Broussard case). For whatever that’s worth.

But it is a different perspective to discuss. We’ve heard nothing negative about this guy so far. No one has come out and said anything (at least publicly). No evidence of an affair. Of a sudden life insurance policy. A planned divorce or separation. Nothing yet.

 

[kkdj]

@GordianKnot, I hope you don't mind the snip for focus.

I practice primarily med mal defense. One of my favorite attorneys and best friends is one of my "foes." A dirty, ambulance-chasing, cheating, lying Plaintiff's attorney . Why mention this?

These conditions between law enforcement and suspect in practice are generally much more nuanced. Defense lawyers know D.A.'s, go have beers together, discuss their client's issues with each other "off the record", etc.... If one is innocent, has a lawyer, and wishes to pass information to police on, there are ways. It isn't totally adversarial. D.A.'s and defense attorneys don't shoot each other down in public at the mere sight of each other.

Also, it's not just job security for defense attorneys to advise criminal clients this way. Police enforce laws. That is their job. It is to make sure the stuff lawyers write down in code is being followed. When it is not, it is their job to gather information pertinent to a prosecution of a breach of those laws. Enforcing laws. As a suspect, they are not your friend. They are gathering info to put you in the slammer, no two ways about it. That's ok, and what as a citizen I expect from my LE. That is, by definition, their job. It is what it is.

A defense attorney's role in this process is to make sure that the LE are playing by the rules. If that involves telling a client to shut up and step back/don't comply, so be it. It is what it is.

Checks and balances, and necessary to have a healthy judicial and executive system.

Love this post! Thank you!

 

[LietKynes]

I don't think he is threatening or non-affable, but if you think he ran into Mr. Morphew in Maysville Freaking Colorado, pop. 400 and a dog, just out of the blue, I got some ocean front property here in Oklahoma to sell ya, real cheap.

I can swing either way re. TD and BM.

Have to add that there are an awful lot of coincidences piling up around this case.
Imvho.

 

[AugustWest]

I don’t see any reason for LE to encourage BM’s silence. LE would want BM to talk. BM’s silence is due to self incrimination, not to any request made by LE. IMO

That's not the issue I am discussing. I'm not discussing law enforcement's motive for requesting, disapproving, denying, etc... his silence.

Above, you only assume they want Mr. Morphew to speak, and that his silence is due to his desire not to incriminate himself. Unless I missed this information?

 

[MassGuy]

The @gofundme page for #MissingPerson #suzannemorphew has given an update: "The extended Morphew Family would like to offer our most sincere and heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has contributed to our efforts in #FindingSuzanne ..."
https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1273721580003024896?s=21
https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1273721580003024896?s=21

 

[AugustWest]

BBM:

Thanks for your reply!

Here's the thing:

If I ever committed a crime, I'd have a lawyer on retainer faster than you can say, "Miranda!"

I simply can't subscribe to the notion that LE is out there trying to gather info for the purpose of tossing innocent people into the hoosegow.

If I have nothing to hide, my inclination is to hold up the palms of my hands so that LE can see that they're empty.

Not hide them behind my back, so that they start asking themselves what it is I'm holding from them.

JMO.

I don't subscribe to the notion that LE is out to throw innocents in the slammer either. But people make mistakes; lawyers, doctors, mechanics, coaches, teachers, law enforcement. It is a shared weakness of the human condition. We are all fallible. Generally speaking.

In the instant, my only point here is to ask yourself "Well what if LE did ask Mr. Morphew to hold up his palms, he complied, and I just don't know that he did." That's it.

 

[happyday]

I wrote up a more thorough take on this and deleted it earlier. I'll try to make a point with what I was proposing before I hit delete and hope it comes out right.

There are generally four outcomes of a polygraph (per question of course):
1. Respondent innocent, deception (-)
2. Respondent innocent, deception (+)
3. Respondent guilty, deception (-)
4. Respondent guilty, deception (+)

No. 1 is the outcome wanted by law enforcement and suspect. No. 4 is only wanted by law enforcement. The other two are false positives and are totally worthless. Law enforcement also know that they are unreliable, and thus discount positives where outcome No. 1 above occur. As well as No.4. Polygraph misleads law enforcement as often as it helps, and LE can do better than what it offers. They are smart cookies, and have a ton of reliable tools better suited for investigation, and work on 100% fact.

Are you willing to clear a person, or is the bar low enough for arrest and prosecution, to rely on something that "70% of the time, works every time?" It isn't reliable for either, rather any, of its outcomes.

My personal belief is that polygraphs are pretty much only used for interrogation purposes. They don’t even have to tell you the truth about your results and I don’t think LE are as interested in the results as they are using it as an interrogation tool.
I would take one in a heartbeat if my child or spouse went missing. I would submit DNA, fingerprints—anything at all to get moving on to finding my loved one. Because who cares?!—my child/spouse is MISSING. No one is going to get convicted on a failed polygraph.

 

[gitana1]

@GordianKnot, I hope you don't mind the snip for focus.

I practice primarily med mal defense. One of my favorite attorneys and best friends is one of my "foes." A dirty, ambulance-chasing, cheating, lying Plaintiff's attorney . Why mention this?

These conditions between law enforcement and suspect in practice are generally much more nuanced. Defense lawyers know D.A.'s, go have beers together, discuss their client's issues with each other "off the record", etc.... If one is innocent, has a lawyer, and wishes to pass information to police on, there are ways. It isn't totally adversarial. D.A.'s and defense attorneys don't shoot each other down in public at the mere sight of each other.

Also, it's not just job security for defense attorneys to advise criminal clients this way. Police enforce laws. That is their job. It is to make sure the stuff lawyers write down in code is being followed. When it is not, it is their job to gather information pertinent to a prosecution of a breach of those laws. Enforcing laws. As a suspect, they are not your friend. They are gathering info to put you in the slammer, no two ways about it. That's ok, and what as a citizen I expect from my LE. That is, by definition, their job. It is what it is.

A defense attorney's role in this process is to make sure that the LE are playing by the rules. If that involves telling a client to shut up and step back/don't comply, so be it. It is what it is.

Checks and balances, and necessary to have a healthy judicial and executive system.

But this isn’t about a defense attorney’s role. As far as I know one hasn’t been retained and if they have this early in the game that would be a blood red flag to me.

This is about what we see in case after case as basic human nature when someone you love disappears. Again, I have yet to see a totally innocent person do anything to stifle LE this early on. After they’re arrested? Yes. But not before. Because they’re desperate.

This has nothing to do with whether that’s wise, whether that’s what an attorney would advise, what our rights are, etc. It’s not about defense attorneys and prosecutors having beers together.

It’s about certain universal behaviors that occur when people are desperate to find someone they deeply love.

Now if it is someone they don’t care about that much and they’re knowledgeable about and/or suspicious of how LE operates, evidence, and their constitutional rights? That’s different.

But anyone who professes to adore the person who is missing is going to do everything possible to help LE, even if it risks self incrimination or the wrong focus. Because they won’t be thinking about that. They will be thinking that they need to do whatever they can to stop the pain and fear. They will be thinking that they have to allow
LE to eliminate them in order to refocus and find their loved one.

Ask John Walsh. Ask Marc Klaas. Ask any loving and innocent parent or partner of someone who has gone missing.

 

[MrsWatson]

The following is MOO.

I think BM wants the general public (us) to think that LE has told him to stay quiet. Whether or not LE has actually requested that is unknown.

If my spouse went missing, I would be Total Opera Diva and I would be in LE's back pocket. If they told me to simmer down, I'd appoint a spokesperson to keep the word out. I would be terribly uncomfortable soliciting money to find my missing spouse yet not accounting for everything that the donations were used for, i.e., "Thanks to the generous donation of Mr XYZ we were able to do a drone search on..."

I think it's entirely possible that the video with TD was not completely spontaneous. Too many curious coincidences that easy to figure out with a little social media sleuthing.

I think SM's family may be silent because of concern for the daughters. I also think it's possible SM's family has a pretty good idea of what happened. Maybe not the details,but the end result. Some of this may not be mysterious to them, at all.

MOO