Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #19

[MrsWatson]

The point is that the homeowner was never connected to the case, in any way. LE cannot "clear" someone who they have not investigated. Therefore, saying the homeowner has been cleared while the husband has not is not a valid conclusion IMO

Why would they have any reason to investigate the homeowner in the first place? The only connection to Suzanne is that her husband worked a job site there and GPR indicated something that merited further investigation. Not because the homeowner did anything suspicious or questionable. So I guess I am still missing your point? Who cares who owns the property? What difference does it make?

ETA: I think the sheriff said specifically that the homeowner was not connected to get in front of any rumors that may have been brewing. And to prevent the homeowners from being hounded.

 

[10ofRods]

The person who produced that article seems to have just used a list of bullet points that were posted elsewhere, but not actually researched and certainly not stated by LE. Also based on an article from several weeks ago.

That's routinely what happens in this kind of case. Some people (myself included) think it's very important to keep such cases in the media as long as possible. It's very hard to do when there's nothing new, but sometimes on a slow news day, a reporter can be persuaded to do a rehash.

To me, that's better than nothing.

 

[GordianKnot]

LE stated the homeowner of the property where the concrete was dug up is not connected to SM's disappearance.

LE stating the homeowner isn't connected means he/she is not a suspect.

LE came out and directly stated that the property owner is not connected to SM's disappearance because they didn't want their actions to be misinterpreted by the public.

LE didn't want that search to cause the public to cast their suspicions on an innocent property owner.

They wanted to make it abundantly clear that it was someone else's connection to that property that led them there.

It ain't complicated.

JMO.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Reporting as fact, something that hasn't been verified isn't helpful.
There are ways to keep a case in the public view other than brainlessly or lazily repeating what others have reported, especially when it's clearly not backed up by LE.

ETA: The article that appears now is full and lovely (still contains a couple of unsubstantiated points, though) and is nothing like what some of us first saw there when I posted my comment - now, I see that earlier account was likely just placeholder text.

 

[LietKynes]

Didn't they also say the woman who called SM in as missing was not a person of interest?

Yes, there are no poi's and my opinion is that LE have done this for a reason.
The waiting is difficult.
And yes Suzanne is just 'missing'.
Yet LE's actions are intriguing; MOO.

 

[kay74]

BBM
What exactly do you think they’ve being doing? I have no doubt LE have been working this daily and it is a high priority for them to find resolution to what happened to SM. BM asserts he’s been cleared to TD. Where have LE stated this? They have not.

I don't know what they have been doing?! IMO Barry is innocent so hope they start looking at someone else. All their concentration on Barry and they turn up nothing.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Why would they have any reason to investigate the homeowner in the first place? The only connection to Suzanne is that her husband worked a job site there and GPR indicated something that merited further investigation. Not because the homeowner did anything suspicious or questionable. So I guess I am still missing your point? Who cares who owns the property? What difference does it make?

ETA: I think the sheriff said specifically that the homeowner was not connected to get in front of any rumors that may have been brewing. And to prevent the homeowners from being hounded.

I think they would have to do a very basic look into any possibility that the homeowner and husband were connected in any way. Apparently, they did check it out and clear it. If something piqued their curiosity, they'd investigate it deeper.

Totally, completely fictional: a husband has been having affair with a woman who is building a house. Husband plans (with or without gf's knowledge) to do away with his wife and bury her on gf's property.

 

[KLM6]

LE has stated the homeowner of the property where the concrete was dug up is not connected to SM's disappearance.

LE stating the homeowner isn't connected means he/she is not a suspect.

The fact that LE came out and directly stated that the property owner is not connected to SM's disappearance means that they wanted to make sure that their actions were not misinterpreted by the public as signaling they suspected him/her of being involved.

LE didn't want their search to cause the public to cast their suspicions on an innocent property owner.

They wanted to make it abundantly clear that it was someone else's connection to that property that led them there.

It ain't complicated.

JMO.

ITA. Thank you for a better explanation.

To circle back to the start of this topic of discussion and perhaps better word my contribution, LE has had ample opportunities to clear the air of BM's name, and they have not. Even in spite of seemingly taming other rumors as they appear. The only person who they have specifically said is "not connected" is the homeowner of the search site. The only person who has potentially said BM has been cleared, is BM himself.

 

[Minordetails]

^^^ Also a great post.

IF BM was not there if and when the bike was found, how the heck would he know that ten people handled it ?
And if the area was trampled...

IMO “10 people” handled the bike is an exaggeration on BMs part. But think about this, BM is on his way back from Denver, probably in contact with LE and friends seeking updates. He’s informed that they found the bike. BM arrives soon after. You don’t think they allowed him to see where the bike was found? At that point in time, a mountain lion was still a reasonable possibility. IMO if BM was never actually at the scene where the bike was recovered, he had friends there.
MOO

 

[susiQ]

I don't know what they have been doing?! IMO Barry is innocent so hope they start looking at someone else. All their concentration on Barry and they turn up nothing.

Forgive me, but how do you know they have turned up nothing? On the contrary, the fact that they are looking at him tells me otherwise. Takes time to build a solid case a DA is willing to take to trial. There’s no body yet, so it’s just that much more complicated.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,
Join us at Eastern time at 2:00 pm (ish running late) for Websleuths YouTube chat. We'll update you on the latest true crime news from Websleuths.com CLICK THIS LINK

 

[FelicityLemon]

That's routinely what happens in this kind of case. Some people (myself included) think it's very important to keep such cases in the media as long as possible. It's very hard to do when there's nothing new, but sometimes on a slow news day, a reporter can be persuaded to do a rehash.

To me, that's better than nothing.

The article that appears now is full and lovely (still contains a couple of unsubstantiated points, though) and is NOTHING like what some of us first saw there when I posted my comment - now, I see that earlier account (it wasn't an article) was likely just placeholder text. I wish I had taken a screenshot - it was actually kind of like a punch in the stomach - no humanity, just a few fragments, points, no story, no pictures, it was shocking in it's ... I don't know, seven blunt and simple statements. I think it was posted by mistake.

 

[Minordetails]

I find it difficult to believe that BM would have planned/ premeditated a murder of his spouse for financial gain and then hid the body.
MOO

 

[swedeheart]

I find it difficult to believe that BM would have planned/ premeditated a murder of his spouse for financial gain and then hid the body.
MOO

why is that difficult to believe?

 

[Minordetails]

why is that difficult to believe?

With regards to Life Insurance policies, my understanding is that it’s more difficult to collect without a body.

And regarding other financial opportunities, I don’t feel SM suddenly became a financial roadblock for BM after several decades of marriage.
JMO

 

[Tate123]

dbm

 

[FelicityLemon]

why is that difficult to believe?

The process in declaring a missing person to be deceased is long and involved. It takes several years and is painful for family. If speaking strictly about a life insurance payout - it would be an even more involved fight because they don't want to pay if there's no proof of death. Only in the short term, financially speaking, it might not matter there's no body.

 

[Knox]

1. Patterns of behavior (except for habit evidence of the specific defendant) & legal statistics aren't generally admissible at trial. Of course, we notice certain patterns, but they aren't used in the case-in-chief.

2. Looking at the spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is logical. However, it shouldn't automatically be the exclusive channel of inquiry. In this case -- again, because the PCAs have been sealed even though the searches were completed weeks ago -- we don't know if other possibilities have been considered.

Thanks for replying.

I think given the agencies involved it's more than reasonable to assume looking at BM is not the only channel of inquiry.

MOO, this is not a case of LE having tunnel vision.

Nor does the silence or length of time the investigation is taking, relate to it's eventual success.

I'm patiently waiting and glad the case discussion is continuing, despite the lack of anything new to dive into

 

[Seattle1]

The person who produced that article seems to have just used a list of bullet points that were posted elsewhere, but not actually researched and certainly not stated by LE. Also based on an article from several weeks ago.

No sign of Colorado woman who vanished on Mother's Day

by McKenzie Stauffer
Tuesday, July 7th 2020

Yes, this (from 2KUTV) comes to us from Salt Lake City, Utah based network.

 

[oviedo]

The process in declaring a missing person to be deceased is long and involved. It takes several years and is painful for family. If speaking strictly about a life insurance payout - it would be an even more involved fight because they don't want to pay if there's no proof of death. Only in the short term, financially speaking, it might not matter there's no body.

Not always -
Michael Chambers went missing March 11, 2017 and she got a death certificate June 2017.
TX - TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #8

June 7th of this year (his death certificate was issued on June 7, 2017):
View attachment 237634 View attachment 237635 View attachment 237636 View attachment 237637 View attachment 237638 View attachment 237639 View attachment 237640