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

[marylamby]

Not saying it is the case here but to address the question generally, I would say if an abduction was thought to be random, a warning would most likely be issued. If an abduction was targeted however, a warning would not likely be issued as there is no threat to the community at large.

Still catching up, maybe forever, but not only didn't they issue a warning but when asked, LE said there's nothing to worry about.
I took that to mean both a man-hungry mountain lion or a psychopath who could pose a threat to hikers, bikers or the general public.
Who's to say if an abductor wouldn't take more than one person. That's something one would not assume, IMO.
IF LE thought she might've been abducted, they would have reacted very differently, IMO.

 

[marylamby]

In an investigation where there is one primary focus, alternative theories are not necessarily explored due to confirmation bias, pressure, etc. This is exactly what we defense attorneys look for . We do not have a lot of innocent clients: we have not guilty clients. One way to raise reasonable doubt is to show that police did not sufficiently disprove an alternate reasonable theory.

Those alternative theories certainly are explored by competent law enforcement officers, especially the FBI.

 

[lamlawindy]

I had not reason to dislike him until he didn't give a flying 'fig' about alerting the public to his wife's disappearance.

He made exactly two appearances. One was a very short FB video (a week after her disappearance) and the second was a supposedly accidental video.
I don't believe for a second that he didn't know he was being recorded. He saw TD on the road with his video camera and, in my opinion, thought that it was his opportunity to put forth his 'theories'.

He hasn't done otherwise. No pleas, no showing up, no LE pressers and certainly no interviews.
I don't care if you're a defense attorney but the average analytical person would perceive all of these facts (and every action by LE) from a different point of view. Including a jury.

And yes, a $200,000 reward for a SAFE RETURN is a huge indicator to LE and the peanut gallery, btw.

Why did you change hats from a prosecutor to a defense attorney? I know that's a personal question but I'm just curious, if you don't mind sharing. TIA.

I get that Barry Morphew does not appear to be a likable guy. I would advise caution about making any final judgments based on demeanor and public acts about a person who is under the tremendous pressure. I don't know the dude personally, but I also cannot even imagine what it's like to have a missing spouse.

As for why I became a defense attorney... let's just say that I exercised my First Amendment freedom of expression one time too often & in a manner that was too rash. That said, it all worked out in the end .

 

[lamlawindy]

Those alternative theories certainly are explored by competent law enforcement officers, especially the FBI.

Yes, but not all agencies have the FBI's ability to wait & launch multi-year investigations. Local agencies often work under extreme time pressure from the public, media, and town/city/county officials. In this case, investigators may very well be considering other theories, but that doesn't always occur.

 

[lamlawindy]

At this point, I think there’s no benefit to them talking. It does appear they have been asked not to comment on the case anyways.

If this was a potential abduction, then I’d be really shocked that no one was out there keeping her in the news.

I’ve got to believe they know what this is, but I’d love to know the specifics as to what they know, and how they know it.

Perhaps it was as simple as law enforcement telling them “we don’t believe Suzanne was abducted. Please don’t talk to the media while we work on getting to the bottom of this.”

I have seen this exact same behavior in murder cases before. The difference though is that those cases had a body.

So this is weird.

It really is weird. Adding to the oddity is that nobody from Suzanne's family or circle of friends is commenting at all. Ordinarily -- even if police asked them not to talk -- one would expect at least one person to seek his/her 15 minutes in the limelight. The discipline that they've showed is extraordinary.

 

[EggSalad]

I have a question that I’m wondering if one of our legal, law, or experienced members can answer....

Let’s say the soil samples from the dig at BM’s job site went to a lab and the results came back that they contained ashe, bone fragments or DNA of SM. But let’s say that LE doesn’t have a strong enough case yet against their POI.

Would it be typical in that situation that no arrest would be made until they felt like they had a very strong and complete case? Would it be typical that they did not announce to the public that some remnants had been found but perhaps tell the family in private to provide a little bit of closure?

 

[Birmingplumb]

I have a question that I’m wondering if one of our legal, law, or experienced members can answer....

Let’s say the soil samples from the dig at BM’s job site went to a lab and the results came back that they contained ashe, bone fragments or DNA of SM. But let’s say that LE doesn’t have a strong enough case yet against their POI.

Would it be typical in that situation that no arrest would be made until they felt like they had a very strong and complete case? Would it be typical that they did not announce to the public that some remnants had been found but perhaps tell the family in private to provide a little bit of closure?

Lines up with my thinking 100% and why I asked the question... would L.E. be REQUIRED to report/ disclose to Child Protective Services their "findings" ( we think the dad did it based on dig findings -get the kid out of there somehow....) in order to satisfy legal obligations to notify the minor daughters legal government "protector" (CPS) and how do we get Lauren Shiff to ask CPS? .

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It really is weird. Adding to the oddity is that nobody from Suzanne's family or circle of friends is commenting at all. Ordinarily -- even if police asked them not to talk -- one would expect at least one person to seek his/her 15 minutes in the limelight. The discipline that they've showed is extraordinary.

Everyone is searching on Fb. for a runaway cat or a runaway dog or for his stolen car or what else. Nothing seems to be asked for by family. Amazing.

 

[Dave F.]

I have a question that I’m wondering if one of our legal, law, or experienced members can answer....

Let’s say the soil samples from the dig at BM’s job site went to a lab and the results came back that they contained ashe, bone fragments or DNA of SM. But let’s say that LE doesn’t have a strong enough case yet against their POI.

Would it be typical in that situation that no arrest would be made until they felt like they had a very strong and complete case? Would it be typical that they did not announce to the public that some remnants had been found but perhaps tell the family in private to provide a little bit of closure?

It would be extremely improbable that LE would announce:
"Investigators searched several locations on the property; however, they were unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case at this time"
if they were awaiting evidence testing which might indicate a connection to this case.
The behavior of LE in this case is certainly not open, but maintaining a high level of public faith in their honesty and integrity is always a priority of any LE. It's just common sense that LE can't do that by blatantly lying to the public. IMO

May 24th, Press Release - Chaffee County Sheriff

 

[Dave F.]

It really is weird. Adding to the oddity is that nobody from Suzanne's family or circle of friends is commenting at all. Ordinarily -- even if police asked them not to talk -- one would expect at least one person to seek his/her 15 minutes in the limelight. The discipline that they've showed is extraordinary.

It's almost like they were afraid of being involved, which we don't see much anymore. IMO

 

[Birmingplumb]

It would be extremely improbable that LE would announce:
"Investigators searched several locations on the property; however, they were unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case at this time"
if they were awaiting evidence testing which might indicate a connection to this case.
The behavior of LE in this case is certainly not open, but maintaining a high level of public faith in their honesty and integrity is always a priority of any LE. It's just common sense that LE can't do that by blatantly lying to the public. IMO

May 24th, Press Release - Chaffee County Sheriff

what about the qualifier....."At THIS time?

 

[JosieMae]

Hi OldCop, I just posted on post 22 of this forum on page 55. I would hugely appreciate your input into this. I am pasting the post below. Thanks!


IMO the ‘personal item’ found on the first night, (not the bike) had to tie the suspect immediately to the scene. Did the suspect drop this item during staging ?
It would be great if OldCop could reads this post and give his informed opinion.
Why did LE stop cooperating with BM the first night? Is this typical?
I would think that LE would be comforting the family and sharing updates?

Interesting! It never occurred to me that the item (or "article" as BM put it) could belong to the suspect. I assumed, perhaps from a press release, that the item/s belonged to SM.

What do you all think?

 

[DizzyB]

what about the qualifier....."At THIS time?

I believe the qualifier was a “just in case”, but I truly believe that they didn’t find anything that they had hoped to find. I went back last night to that press release to see if they left any wiggle room. They really didn’t-“unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case” is pretty big. If they said “to Suzanne Morphew”, I would question if they found a weapon, or clothing, etc-just not Suzanne. But they said to the case.

 

[Dave F.]

what about the qualifier....."At THIS time?

According to Word Hippo, there are 53 different synonyms for "at this time". Please be my guest.....take your pick.
I'm kind of fond of "hic et nunc", but I have to admit I've never heard it before, even after two years of Latin class in school. It just sounds like it ought to be used in this debate, to me. (At least it does, to me at this time). IMO
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/at_this_time.html

 

[Goldenseal]

Hi, @TIGER0822. I think a lot of folks here on WS have been speculating as to why LE seemed to narrow their focus very early on in this case. First, to clarify a couple of things: LE has never admitted that they found SM’s bike on the night she was reported missing. That information came from BM’s nephew, TN. I believe the personal item you are referring to was actually found on the following Thursday, 10/15. That find, which LE did admit to, was discovered up near the intersection of Hwy 50 and Rte 225 and caused a large search to be initiated on the following day, Friday. That search resulted in Hwy 50 west towards Monarch Pass being closed off for a greater part of the day on Friday. To our knowledge no additional evidence was found during that search.
Going back to your original question, no one but LE knows at this point what compelled them to narrow the focus of their search so early. They were very quick to rule out accident and mountain lion attack. It seems they have also found no evidence of an abduction. The most common theories that we have come up with is that something about the bike itself was off early on. Perhaps it was un-rideable, perhaps it was staged at its location. Perhaps a neighbor reported something, a neighborhood video caught something on camera, or there was something very incriminating at the scene.
You are correct when you say you might expect LE to be reassuring and comforting to the family of a missing person and that they would stand with them to get find out what had happened to their loved one. BM has been vocal, (on the TD video), about his criticism on how LE handled this case from the beginning, but that may be a boisterous bluff. We don’t know what LE found out very quickly but it appears to have been quite incriminating.

Thank you for all this! May I add, as a person who has a slender connection to search dogs (drug and bomb dogs specifically), my opinion is that the dogs on the scene of the searches literally had nothing to follow in the area around the bike. Dogs that hit a scent become highly active and curious, and fast. If they had scented SM they'd have been off like a shot -- so LE ruled out an injured SM wandering around. If the dogs had scented a mountain lion, they would have been even more aroused by that scent -- so, no mountain lion. I think the dogs looked up at their handlers and said, "Uh, nothing here, dude!" Just IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

And the please give me site. That happened very quickly.

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[EggSalad]

It would be extremely improbable that LE would announce:
"Investigators searched several locations on the property; however, they were unable to make any connection to Suzanne Morphew’s case at this time"
if they were awaiting evidence testing which might indicate a connection to this case.
The behavior of LE in this case is certainly not open, but maintaining a high level of public faith in their honesty and integrity is always a priority of any LE. It's just common sense that LE can't do that by blatantly lying to the public. IMO

May 24th, Press Release - Chaffee County Sheriff

I tend to agree with you in the big picture. However, what you are saying does not conflict with the hypothetical question that I asked.

I’d expect LE to not be able to make a connection at the time of the dig given that they were sifting through dirt and what ever samples were collected would take time to test. So the leeway they gave themselves by saying “at this time” opens up the door for the hypothetical question I wad asking.

 

[Warwick7]

In this case I believe that LE was given consent and/or access to the home the night Suzanne was reported missing. This would only be to check to see if the missing person was ill, injured, or deceased inside. That would have been the evening of May 10. Reports indicate that the home was sealed off when Barry returned from Denver and he was not allowed inside.
The first SW was served on May 20, 10 days later. This indicates that LE was building their probable cause during this time.
The second SW was served on July 9th. This indicates that LE received new information/evidence which gave them additional probable cause to search again.
As far as welfare checks, it can be a bit hazy. A lot depends on the entirety of the circumstances under which LE is asked to go to a home and check on someone’s welfare as to whether they are justified in breaking down the door. Consider these scenarios:
Caller informs 911 that they live out of state and haven’t been able to reach an elderly parent for several days.
Caller informs 911 that they live out of state and haven’t been able to reach their college student daughter for several days.
Caller informs 911 that he believes that his friend is suicidal.
Caller informs 911 that he hasn’t seen his next door neighbors for several days and fears something may be wrong at the home.
Caller informs 911 that her neighbor who is out of state has called and asked her to check on his wife who reportedly went on a bike ride and never came home.
I think you can see why you can’t justify warrantless searches on every welfare check. It must be decided on a case by case basis.
How would you feel if you went on a spontaneous mini vacation and came home to find your door broken in by the police? What if while they were in there they discovered the meth lab in your basement?

@OldCop
Ok.....let's say the meth lab was found. Does it at that point become closed up and then they seek a search warrant?

By the way, I appreciate your simple yet direct explanation.

 

[DizzyB]

@OldCop
Ok.....let's say the meth lab was found. Does it at that point become closed up and then they seek a search warrant?

By the way, I appreciate your simple yet direct explanation.

Get out of my head! I was going to use the meth lab example as well! First SW-Do they have to be super specific in what they are looking for, and then, if they spot the meth lab, can they touch it? Or if there is no meth lab specified in SW#1, do they have to go back and request SW #2 for the meth?

 

[lonetraveler]

I'm a contrarian by nature, so it's reflexive for me to go against the crowd. That being said, the danger of fixating on one person -- in this case, Barry Morphew -- is that alternate possibilities are not explored or investigated. I think that is what has needled me more than anything.

I for one would like to hear what you think about this case while wearing your Prosecutor's Hat.