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

[marylamby]

I don't think it's been confirmed one way or the other. The reporter interviewed by Nancy Grace claimed the neighbor said she did see her on the bike while another source interviewed the stepmother of SM's daughter's friend, who said nobody saw her. Yet the DM said the neighbor declined an interview so I doubt anybody ever spoke to her. Jmo

I've never heard anything about a neighbor seeing SM on a bike on Sunday, May 10. Would you please furnish that audio?
Thanks so much in advance.

 

[Murphy1950]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>....Not only observing LE's activities but the total lack of SM's family involvement in contrast. The total neglect of the "Find me page", not one update in over a month, (wasn't much before ) the refusal of Barry to speak with MSM but readily avail himself to a stranger. The zero updating on Barry's searches, where they've been...(personally I doubt they exist.) Reward for safe return...Hell if you have the $$$ to offer a reward, it should be for any information, that leads to Suzanne (sadly, dead or alive,) wouldn't you want your loved one back? and said "reward" should be offered through a verified source "Crime Stoppers" for example, otherwise, it's just hot air talk, filling column space, a joke IMO.


Had the family made the slightest effort, I'd be more than ready and receptive to listen.

 

[Warwick7]

agree...LE has to have probable cause to get a search warrant--in this case, IMO, the probable cause might have been a rush to judgement.

MOO is LE's judgement is right on target.

 

[Moonchime]

MOO is LE's judgement is right on target.

I'm in total agreement. LE knows exactly what they're doing.
MOO

 

[Warwick7]

I’ve been searching for this article. I’d forgotten where I‘d read this tidbit, but another piece of evidence that LE does not suspect stranger abduction is this quote:

“On Monday, CBI Spokesperson said there were no searches today or over the weekend. Many people have asked if it is safe to go hiking and biking in the area and investigators said there has been no specific information that should cause alarm to the community.”

Teal and yellow ribbons raise awareness for Suzanne Morphew

If LE believed that SM had been abducted from that road, that would qualify as alarming to the community IMO.

MOO

Good catch!!

 

[Goldenseal]

Duck Formations. Timing?
@Goldenseal sbm My apologies for taking the liberty of rephrasing some of your question.
Q1. What determines arrest & trial timing? One factor is Speedy Trial clause of CO. Constitution* & statutes.
When/even if LE 'knows' who did it, LE continues gathering more evd until prosecutor believes, a jury/judge would likely/probably/certainly find def. Guilty BaRD at trial. If LE & prosecutor act prematurely and later seek postponement of trial, then judge can rule that def's right to a speedy trial was violated and dismiss case with prejudice. So no other chance to try crim case against that def.
Q2: Is it possible LE is now focusing on Unidentified Subject (Bad Guy, as you say) other than BM? Yes, imo.
Q3a. If LE releases public stmts focusing on BM, does LE have more time to investigate Unsub? No, imo.
Q3b. Does LE have reason to want or need 'more time to get their ducks in a row?' No, imo as LE can investigate until CO. statute of limitations** bars prosecution. When's that? Without knowing which, if any, crime was committed, we do not know which SoL applies, but for felonies, CO. SoL range from no limit to three yrs.
IOW, despite MSM/soc media/family/public pressure, LE does not face an urgent, looming deadline, imo.

As always, welcoming comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. TiA.
....................................................................................................................................................
* CO. Constitution: "Section 16. Criminal prosecutions - rights of defendant. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to...., and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed." bbm
From https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2017-title-16.pdf and re US Constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause#:~:text=The%20Speedy%20Trial%20Clause%20of,similar%20charging%20instrument%20and%20the
** CO Statute, C.R.S. 16-5-401. "Limitation for commencing criminal proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings
"Murder, kidnapping,....:No limit
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit murder; attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit kidnapping;...No limit"
"Other felonies:Three years
"Misdemeanors:Eighteen months."
^ Colorado Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw and https://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-criminal-statute-of-limitations-laws.html

Thank you!

 

[LietKynes]

Yes, I agree with all your statements...BUT LE has and does make mistakes on occasion; IMO, it seems like in this case, the first of the preliminary investigatory steps were bypassed, and LE immediately started building and framing their investigation of SM's disappearance around BLM as their only viable suspect.

I'd have to disagree.
LE have been remarkably silent and I think this is because they are proceeding carefully and cautiously.
And they're going where the evidence leads them !
It's doubtful imo that LE want to pursue BM as a suspect, and indeed they haven't labeled anyone as such; not even a poi.
The words from sheriff Spezze were (paraphrased) "BM is cooperating and we hope he continues to do so..."
Quite a loaded statement.

There haven't been any more statements from LE about anyone at all.
Not clearing anyone, or even that this is solely a missing/abducted person.
Imo.

I agree that LE sometimes makes mistakes. Can you tell me what preliminary investigatory steps were bypassed?

bbm
Good point.
And as we aren't privy to the inner workings of this investigation, I'd have to think that as far as we're aware no preliminary investigatory steps were bypassed at all !
LE are going on where the evidence leads.

If that evidence leads to the husband or to someone else, it's hardly the fault of LE but shows that they're doing their job.
Imo.

 

[Madeleine74]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

IMO:

I haven't made up my mind; I follow a case and acknowledge what LE is doing. Since no information or evidence has been released I can't say who's actually guilty of disappearing SM. I'm watching and waiting until such time as more info comes out. If that takes months or even years, so be it.

/IMO

 

[Warwick7]

Please note the BBM....Not only observing LE's activities but the total lack of SM's family involvement in contrast. The total neglect of the "Find me page", the refusal of Barry to speak with MSM but readily avail himself to a stranger. The zero updating on Barry's searches, where they've been...(personally I doubt they exist.) Reward for safe return...Hell if you have the $$$ to offer a reward, it should be for any information, that leads to Suzanne (sadly, dead or alive,) wouldn't you want your loved one back? and said "reward" should be offered through a verified source "Crime Stoppers" for example, otherwise, it's just hot air talk, filling column space, a joke IMO.


Had the family made the slightest effort, I'd be more than ready and receptive to listen.

Bam!!!!

 

[gitana1]

IMO:

LE is following where their investigation leads them. Those closest to the missing person, in particular an intimate partner, as well as family, would be interviewed first.

In their interviews they may have seen an indication of deception or something that didn't quite sit right or set off their hinky meter. Not their first rodeos as the saying goes.

LE would be remiss if they didn't explore the possibility that harm came to the missing person before the day they were reported missing.

Probable cause is the standard to seek a warrant to be able to search someone's house, their vehicles, their digital equipment, etc. It's not just a fishing expedition, it's to ascertain if the victim was hurt (or possibly killed) in her/his home, if there was some kind of trouble going on that led to their disappearance, etc. That LE also went and did an excavation at a site where BM did some work is another area that could be connected to the disappearance.

Exactly. I think of all the missing persons cases involving adults and this matches certain ones. It doesn’t match stranger abduction, voluntary missing/suicide or accident cases.

Yes, I agree with all your statements...BUT LE has and does make mistakes on occasion; IMO, it seems like in this case, the first of the preliminary investigatory steps were bypassed, and LE immediately started building and framing their investigation of SM's disappearance around BLM as their only viable suspect.

But did they? It’s seems like they searched the location of her bike route and all around where her bike was found, extensively. Search dogs, etc. but by day three they called in the FBI and CBI and the focus shifted.

 

[marylamby]

Madeleine74, I understand your points here..."What evidence is leading to an oppositional viewpoint?" and I am wondering what your take is concerning LE immediately doing a sweep of SM's house, her husband's vehicle, phone etc.? Isn't it standard LE practice to quickly retrieve as much evidence and profile possible suspects and likely scenarios that might have happened leading to someone's disappearance, so they can expediently capture potential evidence and eliminate a line of inquiry if it doesn't produce results? I think LE's narrow focus on BLM happened for a combination of reasons...not the least of which his peculiar behaviors and confrontational personality played a big role. Without LE telling us specifically why they first focused their investigation on BLM, we can only speculate on why BLM was in LE's crosshairs. IMO, LE also focused on the possibility of an abduction by closing the road and searching where SM's personal belongings were found, and by also searching the Arkansas river area close to where the bicycle was found. IMO, as it stands now, nothing has been ruled out by LE accept an animal attack in the disappearance of SM. And, I don't see any current hints from LE as to where they are going with this case.

LE saying that locals and visitors alike don't have anything to worry about in the area is enough for me to eliminate a predator on the prowl.
IMO

 

[gitana1]

IMO:

I haven't made up my mind; I follow a case and acknowledge what LE is doing. Since no information or evidence has been released I can't say who's actually guilty of disappearing SM. I'm watching and waiting until such time as more info comes out. If that takes months or even years, so be it.

/IMO

Same here. I do lean one direction but I’m not certain. Not nearly enough info for me.

 

[LietKynes]

Please note the BBM....Not only observing LE's activities but the total lack of SM's family involvement in contrast. The total neglect of the "Find me page", not one update in over a month, (wasn't much before ) the refusal of Barry to speak with MSM but readily avail himself to a stranger. The zero updating on Barry's searches, where they've been...(personally I doubt they exist.) Reward for safe return...Hell if you have the $$$ to offer a reward, it should be for any information, that leads to Suzanne (sadly, dead or alive,) wouldn't you want your loved one back? and said "reward" should be offered through a verified source "Crime Stoppers" for example, otherwise, it's just hot air talk, filling column space, a joke IMO.


Had the family made the slightest effort, I'd be more than ready and receptive to listen.

lavender bolding mine
Agreed.

On the "Find Me Page", there should have been a recent photo and a description of the clothing she was wearing and of the bike as well. (Not that anyone saw her riding a bike. So where did that information come from ? It would appear from the husband. But maybe not. So where ? Who said it ?)

Anyone including a stranger could offer 200,000 for Suzanne's safe return with "no questions asked".
It doesn't mean they have it or would be compelled to pay up if Suzanne was recovered safely; as much as many of us would wish !
Imo.
Sadly, someone else promised that if their wife was returned no questions would be asked and she is still missing.

 

[gitana1]

If it is somehow a kidnapping, would there be any records of previous/ongoing missing persons cases that this one can be linked to?
Not from the area.

But IMHO, I have a sinking suspicion it's not a kidnapping.

Someone posted a link about a guy who had been approaching female bike riders, pretending to be LE, about 2.5 hours from where SM lives. It appears they know who the dude is because they have photos of the van and license plate. Either LE or a witness must have taken photos of the van. But the stickers match someone who fancies themselves to be LE.

That’s the only thing close,
IMO, that could be an avenue worth exploring.

 

[gitana1]

LE was reaching out to the public asking for help and tips...IMO

Pretty common in missing person cases.

Yes. But what they haven’t done is what’s NOT common when they believe a possible abduction is on the table.

Again, those of us who have been following these cases for decades know what we are seeing.

 

[gitana1]

agree...LE has to have probable cause to get a search warrant--in this case, IMO, the probable cause might have been a rush to judgement.

Probable cause is based on evidence/facts.

 

[trujac]

I agree that LE sometimes makes mistakes. Can you tell me what preliminary investigatory steps were bypassed?

Thanks for your support and the question...I think a preliminary step for LE would have been to reach out to SM's neighbors immediately requesting that they save any outdoor camera related video tape; as a preliminary step LE would have also canvassed the Salidas residents for relevant information/camera footage, etc. In other words, several investigative steps that LE took after they dug deep into SM's husband for evidence that he was responsible for her disappearance should have been done in the very beginning when SM was reported missing. A wide net around the area of her disappearance should have been cast with investigators gathering as much as they could from sources that could have provided leads that were possibly lost because no one was looking beyond the assumption that BLM had something to do with his missing wife.

 

[Warwick7]

Thanks for your support and the question...I think a preliminary step for LE would have been to reach out to SM's neighbors immediately requesting that they save any outdoor camera related video tape; as a preliminary step LE would have also canvassed the Salidas residents for relevant information/camera footage, etc. In other words, several investigative steps that LE took after they dug deep into SM's husband for evidence that he was responsible for her disappearance should have been done in the very beginning when SM was reported missing. A wide net around the area of her disappearance should have been cast with investigators gathering as much as they could from sources that could have provided leads that were possibly lost because no one was looking beyond the assumption that BLM had something to do with his missing wife.

BBM
We do not know any of this information. We are not privy to LE information.

 

[Madeleine74]

IMO

Are assumptions being made that LE is not conducting a thorough or accurate investigation and mistakes have or are occurring? Is this assumption arising because LE is not sharing information and talking about all they've found so far?

If yes, that's unfortunate because there are hardworking people behind the scenes who take their work seriously and are diligent, and LE's job is to protect the integrity of the case so any suspects won't know the details, and future litigation can proceed by the DA's office, if it comes to that, and not be tried in the "court of public opinion."

/IMO

 

[dkryder]

I'm hoping that Suzanne was the type of person that liked keeping track of her physical exercise and activities. I'd wager she was due to her serious illnesses and her dedication to her recoveries. If she was one who liked tracking her progress then there's a good chance there is some type of online records left by her devices. If all the usual tracked activities stopped earlier than 5/10 that would raise some red flags. If some of her devices had cell capability and could make connections that is a huge plus cause then there probably is a record of what the path of her ride was and where it stopped. I get the feeling that the "extended" family may have as many questions as do the members in this thread but the families' silence is deafening to me. MOO.