Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #23

[RumorMonger]

And following on with your line - what does the 10 day gap before getting a search warrant suggest about their evidence? Obviously, there was nothing initially. Or there was something initially that they were able to get a SW but found nothing? I keep editing my post. Wasn't there an initial search warrant followed by a 10 gap and another search?

The first SW on the home was 05/20. The second SW on the home was on 07/09. In between, there was a SW executed at a third-party construction site. Sources and more detail posted on the timeline in this thread and linked below. IMO all SWs are sealed as "part of the investigation."

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #23

 

[MassGuy]

Agree with this. I think the item was tossed to make it look like a kidnapper went that way. In my imagination, I wonder if maybe the person responsible was so confident that LE would buy the stranger abduction, that he actually did discard her that a way, not hiding her well. But that's probably wishful thinking. Moo

I think that would make the most sense if the condition of her body would allow for it.

It may not have though, especially if she was shot.

 

[K9Enzo]

IMO, if the bike was planted, then so was the personal item. Right now, I do think they were both planted.

I would speculate that the bike was planted first, then the personal item was second. My reasoning, being seen with a bike that's later connected to a missing person is risky. If you pulled this off, without presumably being seen, then you plant the other smaller personal item. IMO The whole bike thing comes off as such a foolish move to me. Perhaps we'll know one day how LE investigated it and their conclusions about it, along with the personal item.

Thinking back to GS case, as soon as LS said he stayed home sick from school that day but later went to a friends house, I called BS. It just didn't ring as a true story to me. Of course what was to come was beyond appalling with the lies.

IIRC, the Sheriff's office did send in their own dive team to search several water sites in May. I believe these searches were soon after she was reported missing, within the first week. I'm still curious what information led them to search the water or were they just covering all their basis. A person reported missing after leaving their home for a bike ride does not automatically equal a water search. IMO Perhaps during family interviews it was mentioned that SM often stops at the shoreline to rest, did they think an accident could have caused her to land in the water, or she could have been dumped in water, did dogs scent her to the water? Who knows.

I've always wondered when was the last time SM took a bike ride prior to her disappearance. Was it days before, weeks before, etc. ?

IMO

 

[Fireflize]

I think that would make the most sense if the condition of her body would allow for it.

It may not have though, especially if she was shot.

True.
Moo

 

[Seattle1]

I do too. Plant the bike to sell an abduction, and plant a personal item to perhaps sell some sort of struggle, or leave a false trail as to where she was taken.

Since we really don't know what the personal item is, it may prove to be inconsequential, and only served to get SM's scent in the area or a location relative to the bike.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes....and say the bike wasn't planted Suzanne just lost control, skid down the hill and rolled into the water unconscious , how do you explain the other items found elsewhere?

Respectfully, if I believed the bike wasn't planted, and SM really had a terrible accident where she landed in the creek, unconscious, we would not be having this "planted evidence" discussion.

 

[OldCop]

Great point. If she fell in the river, her personal item had no way of getting to where it was found. In my mind that rules out her getting into the river. Moo

Maybe she had an accident and got in the river, then was dragged up hill by a mountain lion to where her personal item was found, and then a car came along, scared the mountain lion away and the driver of the car abducted her.
Bam! This would finally fit the narrative!

 

[Fireflize]

Maybe she had an accident and got in the river, then was dragged up hill by a mountain lion to where her personal item was found, and then a car came along, scared the mountain lion away and the driver of the car abducted her.
Bam! This would finally fit the narrative!

Thx old cop. I knew you would solve this case.

 

[Murphy1950]

Maybe she had an accident and got in the river, then was dragged up hill by a mountain lion to where her personal item was found, and then a car came along, scared the mountain lion away and the driver of the car abducted her.
Bam! This would finally fit the narrative!

So if she shows up unharmed...do they have to split the reward with the mountain lion (?)..I mean, after all

 

[Seattle1]

IMO, if the bike was planted, then so was the personal item. Right now, I do think they were both planted.

I would speculate that the bike was planted first, then the personal item was second. My reasoning, being seen with a bike that's later connected to a missing person is risky. If you pulled this off, without presumably being seen, then you plant the other smaller personal item. IMO The whole bike thing comes off as such a foolish move to me. Perhaps we'll know one day how LE investigated it and their conclusions about it, along with the personal item.

Thinking back to GS case, as soon as LS said he stayed home sick from school that day but later went to a friends house, I called BS. It just didn't ring as a true story to me. Of course what was to come was beyond appalling with the lies.

IIRC, the Sheriff's office did send in their own dive team to search several water sites in May. I believe these searches were soon after she was reported missing, within the first week. I'm still curious what information led them to search the water or were they just covering all their basis. A person reported missing after leaving their home for a bike ride does not automatically equal a water search. IMO Perhaps during family interviews it was mentioned that SM often stops at the shoreline to rest, did they think an accident could have caused her to land in the water, or she could have been dumped in water, did dogs scent her to the water? Who knows.

I've always wondered when was the last time SM took a bike ride prior to her disappearance. Was it days before, weeks before, etc. ?

IMO

Wait!

I absolutely believe the intensive search of the river ASAP by dive professionals called in from Pueblo was necessary and required.

I'd be questioning the Sheriff if this was not done.

I think BM's theory that SM crashed her bike, was disoriented and wandered away very plausible. In an accident, SM could have climbed out of the ravine, and in trying to find her way home, easily end up in the searched waterbody.

On the other hand, SM could have been the victim of foul play while riding on the bike trail and also end up in the river.

Just because evidence must have pointed the investigation in another direction doesn't mean that BM never had the benefit of the doubt by investigators. These are trained professionals that were going to explore every possible event when was reported missing.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

I don't think that they were stringing him along. In my experience, investigators aren't going to just sit by instead of asking for a warrant if they believe probable cause exists. I certainly may be wrong, though.

If Barry Morphew acquiesced to their cordoning off the house for 10 days -- and, again, it is unclear what exactly occurred with regard to this -- then that's on him. The law usually is not going to protect an adult who doesn't insist upon the exercise of his/her rights.

My question was more, "Do you think LE was diligent in pursuing the warrant?" in this case. After @OldCop's excellent post, above, about delays in the local investigative process, my thinking is that they were diligent, but the courts were less accessible and there are understandable forensic delays (so that the July warrant was probably based on slow analysis of digital information).

10 days may or may not represent a "diligent attempt," but surely the Judge would base a decision on actual facts. Things are a little fraught right now.

 

[Boxer]

Great point. If she fell in the river, her personal item had no way of getting to where it was found. In my mind that rules out her getting into the river. Moo

To me the place the bike was found looks like the last place a person could fling a bike off the road without being visible from Hwy 50.
MOO means an abductor or a family member capable.
MOO also means there was an exit onto 50 by a vehicle with a perpetrator.

If an abduction took place right where the bike was, found, MOO it indicates stalking or planning even if just a few minutes.

There are limited roads out of the intersection of 50 and 225. They searched up 224. But along these rural highways I beleive someone somewhere always has a camera on their frontage.
I assume sheriff or support agencies started on the 11th to eliminate all vehicles they can on these roads for a 4 day period.

We know the police don't stop investigating nor publicize after finding one piece of damning evidence. Whether it is a domestic or stranger crime. They continue to amass what they hope will be an overwhelming amount of evidence of the crime.

 

[10ofRods]

And following on with your line - what does the 10 day gap before getting a search warrant suggest about their evidence? Obviously, there was nothing initially. Or there was something initially that they were able to get a SW but found nothing? I keep editing my post. Wasn't there an initial search warrant followed by a 10 gap and another search?

Suzanne disappeared May 10; search warrant was May 20 (we have no way of knowing to what degree CoVid slowed that down), next search warrant was mid-July).

Why would the delay in the search warrant make you think they "had nothing"?

Let's imagine a scenario in which LE is invited inside the house by a household member to do an initial welfare check, notices certain things, perhaps even has probable cause to...look in the garage, check out each room of the house, and certainly can make note of things. 2 half-full wine glasses still in the kitchen? Might be nice to get DNA off them, right? That would take a warrant unless BM consents (which he might, whether guilty or innocent - he certainly would want to appear innocent).

Or, let's say LE sees remnants of breakfast (but no other meal) in the kitchen. They note that, start thinking about timeline. 3 days later, they decide they need a warrant (and it takes a week - that's not surprising to me).

Or, when doing a basic check of the house and yard, LE notices that Suzanne's biking shoes are neatly stored near the bike area in the garage. They ask household members how many pairs she had and are told "just one."

Even worse, they go into the home (with permission from household members) and see that the oven is on and dinner is still in it. Hmm. That speaks to time of day for the crime, right? Narrows down when and how it was done?

Or there's water in the bathtub. But no Suzanne (who draws a bath right before a bike ride?) Or evidence of recent water in the bathtub, but no towels used. I could go on and on.

All of these things would be noted on an early welfare check (which should have been permitted by household members of a missing woman, especially as none of them were anywhere near the residence and they're trying to get a missing person found).

Her sunglasses are still where she usually keeps them. (Be interesting if one "spare pair" is the found personal item - even more interesting if that item is one of the ones a sharp-eyed cop noticed on Day 1, inside the house or on the visor of her car).

I bet others can think of any more relevant examples, but I do believe BM acted as an innocent person would on days 1-3 or longer, was barred from searching, said "too soon," went into video production mode at friend's house - but that initially, he did indeed allow police in the house - and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he accompanied them all around the property and the house when he returned home. I'm not confident of DM"s "he never went in the house at all" insinuation.

So did he have a suitcase full of clothes in his truck, for his quick trip to Denver? I bet not. Did other family members go in and get his stuff, while he was forced to wait outside by LE? On Day 1?

If so...wow, they had to have seen or heard something really suspicious in that case.

Personally, I think something was said to LE by any one of a number of concerned family members and that made them more sharp-eyed during the phase of welfare check/establishment of a missing person case.

My daughters know my unlock code to my devices. They'd give LE permission to check them in a heartbeat (as would my DH, but let's say he's in Denver and unavailable). My devices would show at what time my apple watch went out of wireless range, more or less. Suzanne may have had a fancier kind that gave more info. Even spotty cellular service will transmit the small packets that allow the watch to give info to the cloud (which then shows up on the phone back home).

If Suzanne left home without her watch, phone, sunglasses, biking shoes...and there's no sign of struggle in the house...pretty sure police would be quite suspicious. Anyway, I do believe LE was able to look around the house (but not seize banking records or devices or use luminol or any of that) from May 10-May 19, more or less.

 

[DizzyB]

Suzanne disappeared May 10; search warrant was May 20 (we have no way of knowing to what degree CoVid slowed that down), next search warrant was mid-July).

Why would the delay in the search warrant make you think they "had nothing"?

Let's imagine a scenario in which LE is invited inside the house by a household member to do an initial welfare check, notices certain things, perhaps even has probable cause to...look in the garage, check out each room of the house, and certainly can make note of things. 2 half-full wine glasses still in the kitchen? Might be nice to get DNA off them, right? That would take a warrant unless BM consents (which he might, whether guilty or innocent - he certainly would want to appear innocent).

Or, let's say LE sees remnants of breakfast (but no other meal) in the kitchen. They note that, start thinking about timeline. 3 days later, they decide they need a warrant (and it takes a week - that's not surprising to me).

Or, when doing a basic check of the house and yard, LE notices that Suzanne's biking shoes are neatly stored near the bike area in the garage. They ask household members how many pairs she had and are told "just one."

Even worse, they go into the home (with permission from household members) and see that the oven is on and dinner is still in it. Hmm. That speaks to time of day for the crime, right? Narrows down when and how it was done?

Or there's water in the bathtub. But no Suzanne (who draws a bath right before a bike ride?) Or evidence of recent water in the bathtub, but no towels used. I could go on and on.

All of these things would be noted on an early welfare check (which should have been permitted by household members of a missing woman, especially as none of them were anywhere near the residence and they're trying to get a missing person found).

Her sunglasses are still where she usually keeps them. (Be interesting if one "spare pair" is the found personal item - even more interesting if that item is one of the ones a sharp-eyed cop noticed on Day 1, inside the house or on the visor of her car).

I bet others can think of any more relevant examples, but I do believe BM acted as an innocent person would on days 1-3 or longer, was barred from searching, said "too soon," went into video production mode at friend's house - but that initially, he did indeed allow police in the house - and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he accompanied them all around the property and the house when he returned home. I'm not confident of DM"s "he never went in the house at all" insinuation.

So did he have a suitcase full of clothes in his truck, for his quick trip to Denver? I bet not. Did other family members go in and get his stuff, while he was forced to wait outside by LE? On Day 1?

If so...wow, they had to have seen or heard something really suspicious in that case.

Personally, I think something was said to LE by any one of a number of concerned family members and that made them more sharp-eyed during the phase of welfare check/establishment of a missing person case.

My daughters know my unlock code to my devices. They'd give LE permission to check them in a heartbeat (as would my DH, but let's say he's in Denver and unavailable). My devices would show at what time my apple watch went out of wireless range, more or less. Suzanne may have had a fancier kind that gave more info. Even spotty cellular service will transmit the small packets that allow the watch to give info to the cloud (which then shows up on the phone back home).

If Suzanne left home without her watch, phone, sunglasses, biking shoes...and there's no sign of struggle in the house...pretty sure police would be quite suspicious. Anyway, I do believe LE was able to look around the house (but not seize banking records or devices or use luminol or any of that) from May 10-May 19, more or less.

Can you imagine if an item was indeed seen in the home during that welfare check the first night, and was then found and identified as Suzanne’s, a few days later along the road? So many unknowns to c0nsider.

 

[K9Enzo]

Wait!

I absolutely believe the intensive search of the river ASAP by dive professionals called in from Pueblo was necessary and required.

I'd be questioning the Sheriff if this was not done.

I think BM's theory that SM crashed her bike, was disoriented and wandered away very plausible. In an accident, SM could have climbed out of the ravine, and in trying to find her way home, easily end up in the searched waterbody.

On the other hand, SM could have been the victim of foul play while riding on the bike trail and also end up in the river.

Just because evidence must have pointed the investigation in another direction doesn't mean that BM never had the benefit of the doubt by investigators. These are trained professionals that were going to explore every possible event when was reported missing.

MOO

IMO, when the call came in of a person long overdue after leaving for a bike ride and was unreachable, that mobilized SAR. I don't believe there was any reason not to treat this as a person who maybe had an accident and was waiting for a rescue, they could have been severely injured or even deceased from an accident. The clock is ticking.

There are many outdoor misadventure scenarios that were possible, IMO. The area is not like looking in an open field or along a simple road. Folks that mountain bike are on some tough/challenging trails sometimes. The water searches, as I stated, could have been covering all their bases. However, IMO, there could have been specific information that caused those water searches. We don't know.

 

[Boxer]

IMO, when the call came in of a person long overdue after leaving for a bike ride and was unreachable, that mobilized SAR. I don't believe there was any reason not to treat this as a person who maybe had an accident and was waiting for a rescue, they could have been severely injured or even deceased from an accident. The clock is ticking.

There are many outdoor misadventure scenarios that were possible, IMO. The area is not like looking in an open field or along a simple road. Folks that mountain bike are on some tough/challenging trails sometimes. The water searches, as I stated, could have been covering all their bases. However, IMO, there could have been specific information that caused those water searches. We don't know.

Once a bike was found and no rider - gears shifted.
Walked away dazed, abducted. They covered that first.

She might still be in the river, as no search is perfect.

But a human and a vehicle is most likely.

 

[Seattle1]

And following on with your line - what does the 10 day gap before getting a search warrant suggest about their evidence? Obviously, there was nothing initially. Or there was something initially that they were able to get a SW but found nothing? I keep editing my post. Wasn't there an initial search warrant followed by a 10 gap and another search?

^^bbm

Actually, I believe there were two search warrants obtained for the residence that were almost a month apart and not 10 days.

When you say it was obvious there was nothing there, if you mean nothing there that was sufficient to immediately arrest a suspect, this is true. However, it does not mean that no evidence was obtained during any of the searches. We have no knowledge here because both warrants were sealed by the court.

It was around May 19 that photos of what appeared to be evidence bags carried away from the residence surfaced and inquires generated about whether or not the house was under a search warrant.

I recall that initially, the CCSO denied or attempted to discount a report of the house being searched. However, a day later CCSO officially confirmed that authorities had obtained a search warrant for the residence as part of the ongoing investigation for missing SM, and stated the warrant was sealed by the court.

On May 26, several local media sources reported the CCSO released Suzanne Morphew’s residence back to the family after seizing it with a search warrant to investigate her May 10 disappearance.

On July 9, 2020, about 3 weeks after the last confirmed search, local media reported that local, state, and federal investigators returned to search the Morphew property for any additional information related to SM's disappearance.
Confirmation that a second search warrant was obtained for the residence was not immediately obtained but has since been confirmed by Fox21's LS after a recent inquiry to the officials.

Respectfully, as to a 10-day gap before a search warrant, this only applies if you chose to believe Daily Mail's report (around May 19) stating that the residence was seized by police and BM barred from the property, since May 10 or the day SM reported missing.

Denver CBS4 link below includes news video providing that it's not clear if police were holding the home earlier or if they waited a week [i.e., for the confirmed search warrant] to hold the property. Personally, I think DM the only source pushing this, and I take DM's content with a large grain of salt -- relying on the local media and favorite reporters for the facts. (However, if I want photos -- DM is hands down my go-to source)!

Search For Suzanne Morphew: Sheriff Says Search Warrant Is Sealed

Chaffee County sheriff release's Suzanne Morphew's home to the family

 

[Warwick7]

Suzanne disappeared May 10; search warrant was May 20 (we have no way of knowing to what degree CoVid slowed that down), next search warrant was mid-July).

Why would the delay in the search warrant make you think they "had nothing"?

Let's imagine a scenario in which LE is invited inside the house by a household member to do an initial welfare check, notices certain things, perhaps even has probable cause to...look in the garage, check out each room of the house, and certainly can make note of things. 2 half-full wine glasses still in the kitchen? Might be nice to get DNA off them, right? That would take a warrant unless BM consents (which he might, whether guilty or innocent - he certainly would want to appear innocent).

Or, let's say LE sees remnants of breakfast (but no other meal) in the kitchen. They note that, start thinking about timeline. 3 days later, they decide they need a warrant (and it takes a week - that's not surprising to me).

Or, when doing a basic check of the house and yard, LE notices that Suzanne's biking shoes are neatly stored near the bike area in the garage. They ask household members how many pairs she had and are told "just one."

Even worse, they go into the home (with permission from household members) and see that the oven is on and dinner is still in it. Hmm. That speaks to time of day for the crime, right? Narrows down when and how it was done?

Or there's water in the bathtub. But no Suzanne (who draws a bath right before a bike ride?) Or evidence of recent water in the bathtub, but no towels used. I could go on and on.

All of these things would be noted on an early welfare check (which should have been permitted by household members of a missing woman, especially as none of them were anywhere near the residence and they're trying to get a missing person found).

Her sunglasses are still where she usually keeps them. (Be interesting if one "spare pair" is the found personal item - even more interesting if that item is one of the ones a sharp-eyed cop noticed on Day 1, inside the house or on the visor of her car).

I bet others can think of any more relevant examples, but I do believe BM acted as an innocent person would on days 1-3 or longer, was barred from searching, said "too soon," went into video production mode at friend's house - but that initially, he did indeed allow police in the house - and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he accompanied them all around the property and the house when he returned home. I'm not confident of DM"s "he never went in the house at all" insinuation.

So did he have a suitcase full of clothes in his truck, for his quick trip to Denver? I bet not. Did other family members go in and get his stuff, while he was forced to wait outside by LE? On Day 1?

If so...wow, they had to have seen or heard something really suspicious in that case.

Personally, I think something was said to LE by any one of a number of concerned family members and that made them more sharp-eyed during the phase of welfare check/establishment of a missing person case.

My daughters know my unlock code to my devices. They'd give LE permission to check them in a heartbeat (as would my DH, but let's say he's in Denver and unavailable). My devices would show at what time my apple watch went out of wireless range, more or less. Suzanne may have had a fancier kind that gave more info. Even spotty cellular service will transmit the small packets that allow the watch to give info to the cloud (which then shows up on the phone back home).

If Suzanne left home without her watch, phone, sunglasses, biking shoes...and there's no sign of struggle in the house...pretty sure police would be quite suspicious. Anyway, I do believe LE was able to look around the house (but not seize banking records or devices or use luminol or any of that) from May 10-May 19, more or less.

Yes!!!!

 

[Puzzles8]

I have to wonder what parameters SAR used to search on Sunday night 5/10. How did they know she was not inside of her own home? Either alive, injured or dead.

IANAL or LE, but I would think the house might have been one of the first places to look for her. If I had a bike accident and was injured, I know the first thing I would try to do is get back to my home.

If BM arrived back in Maysville about 9pm - don't you think LE would request to search their home?

If BM was keeping in character (as the very concerned and devoted husband) there would be no reason to deny SAR and LE access.

JMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Fireflize]

I have to wonder what parameters SAR used to search on Sunday night 5/10. How did they know she was not inside of her own home? Either alive, injured or dead.

IANAL or LE, but I would think the house might have been one of the first places to look for her. If I had a bike accident and was injured, I know the first thing I would try to do is get back to my home.

If BM arrived back in Maysville about 9pm - don't you think LE would request to search their home?

If BM was keeping in character (as the very concerned and devoted husband) there would be not reason to deny SAR and LE access.

JMO, MOO, etc.

Following that idea, her possible making it back to the house after a biking accident, would LE have asked permission to look for her inside the house before BM got back? Moo