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

[al66pine]

Judicial notice of MSM re search for Suzanne?

Well, remember that the Petition asked the court to take judicial notice of the MSM coverage of the search for Suzanne. In other words, there needn't be any independent "reasonable inquiry," IMHO. The court, no doubt, was able to see for itself that a diligent search was conducted by Chaffee County authorities.

@lamlawindy bbm sbm I hesitate to comment without having seen actual petition itself or other dox filed, but apparently in issuing Ltrs/Gdnship (temp only, and to complete sale of only one property ? IIRC), the ct did take Judicial Notice. Seems unexpected to me. As I understand per Fed R/Evd 201(b)*, J/N** gen'ly falls into two categories (okay, this is st ct, not fed ct, but still):

1. Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or
2. Those that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date). bbm

Here's my issue w ct possibly taking J/N of MSM coverage of LE searches as evd that SM cannot be located and ct possibly finding as fact that she is incap'ed, so IN gdn'ship continues for other IN property SM may hold and for their jt. props there: Aaaalllll those searches have been conducted based on BM's stmts re SM (poss'ly dau's and neighbor too).
The issue is not whether MSM are accurate sources or even whether LE's media/press releases/FB are accurate sources, and cannot reasonably be questioned. The issue is whether BM is a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably be questioned, and therefore, ct should take J/N. Seems sum total of BM's effort in inquiry has been, ~30 sec plea FB vid, offering $$$,000 safe return reward, and rather unlikely claim of his 200 mi. radius search, w his posse (over ten weeks?) AFAIK.
If at upcoming hearing, BM/atty does not offer further evd of inquiry (what would it be?), any chance the ct will rule there's not sufficient evd of inability to locate SM, so perm. gdnship hearing is continued indefinitely, pending submission of further evd? Or ct could grant a 90 day extension, per IC 29-3-3-4 (a). Or ?????
just thinking aloud.

* Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
** Judicial notice - Wikipedia

 

[girlhasnoname]

If LE thought that was a likely scenario, I’d think that a description of SM’s biking gear would be important. Her biking shoes, at the very least, should be easy to id and describe to the public (in case a hiker came across one on the riverside).

I really do wonder why they haven’t released that information!

MOO

ITA and the fact remains that LE haven't really released any facts regarding the details of the case other than Suzanne is missing.

No confirmation of when or where she was last seen in person, who she last spoke with, heck even the bike ride is debatable at this point IMO.

Definitely not the standard missing persons case response that I've ever seen. It really has my curiosity raised, and I'm actually impressed that LE have been able to keep such a tight lid on the information. <Although a little impatiently annoyed >

 

[lamlawindy]

Judicial notice of MSM re search for Suzanne?
@lamlawindy bbm sbm I hesitate to comment without having seen actual petition itself or other dox filed, but apparently in issuing Ltrs/Gdnship (temp only, and to complete sale of only one property ? IIRC), the ct did take Judicial Notice. Seems unexpected to me. As I understand per Fed R/Evd 201(b)*, J/N gen'ly falls into two categories (okay, this is st ct, not fed ct, but still):

1. Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or
2. Those that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date). bbm

Here's my issue w ct possibly taking J/N of MSM coverage of LE searches as evd that SM cannot be located and ct possibly finding as fact that she is incap'ed, so IN gdn'ship continues for other IN property SM may hold and for their jt. props there: Aaaalllll those searches have been conducted based on BM's stmts re SM (poss'ly dau's and neighbor too).
The issue is not whether MSM are accurate sources or even whether LE's media/press releases/FB are accurate sources, and cannot reasonably be questioned. The issue is whether BM is a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably be questioned, and therefore, ct should take J/N. Seems sum total of BM's effort in inquiry has been, ~30 sec plea FB vid, offering $$$,000 safe return reward, and rather unlikely claim of his 200 mi. radius search, w his posse (over ten weeks?) AFAIK.
If at upcoming hearing, BM/atty does not offer further evd of inquiry (what would it be?), any chance the ct will rule there's not sufficient evd of inability to locate SM, so perm. gdnship hearing is continued indefinitely, pending submission of further evd? Or ct could grant a 90 day extension, per IC 29-3-3-4 (a). Or ?????
just thinking aloud.

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_201

That's federal court jurisprudence regarding judicial notice. As you can probably guess, each state treats J/N somewhat differently. Here in Indiana, J/N is left to the judge's discretion. While this seems like it could be abused, recall that we have elected trial court judges: any judge who misuses J/N will quickly make an enemy of the local bar, an occurrence that does not usually lead to re-election.

 

[oviedo]

Judicial notice of MSM re search for Suzanne?
@lamlawindy bbm sbm I hesitate to comment without having seen actual petition itself or other dox filed, but apparently in issuing Ltrs/Gdnship (temp only, and to complete sale of only one property ? IIRC), the ct did take Judicial Notice. Seems unexpected to me. As I understand per Fed R/Evd 201(b)*, J/N** gen'ly falls into two categories (okay, this is st ct, not fed ct, but still):

1. Those that are "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" (e.g. locations of streets within the court's jurisdiction) or
2. Those that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (e.g. the day of the week on a certain date). bbm

Here's my issue w ct possibly taking J/N of MSM coverage of LE searches as evd that SM cannot be located and ct possibly finding as fact that she is incap'ed, so IN gdn'ship continues for other IN property SM may hold and for their jt. props there: Aaaalllll those searches have been conducted based on BM's stmts re SM (poss'ly dau's and neighbor too).
The issue is not whether MSM are accurate sources or even whether LE's media/press releases/FB are accurate sources, and cannot reasonably be questioned. The issue is whether BM is a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably be questioned, and therefore, ct should take J/N. Seems sum total of BM's effort in inquiry has been, ~30 sec plea FB vid, offering $$$,000 safe return reward, and rather unlikely claim of his 200 mi. radius search, w his posse (over ten weeks?) AFAIK.
If at upcoming hearing, BM/atty does not offer further evd of inquiry (what would it be?), any chance the ct will rule there's not sufficient evd of inability to locate SM, so perm. gdnship hearing is continued indefinitely, pending submission of further evd? Or ct could grant a 90 day extension, per IC 29-3-3-4 (a). Or ?????
just thinking aloud.

* Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
** Judicial notice - Wikipedia

I do not believe IN has public access to the pet for guardianship And other petitions -has someone found this online with a verifiable link ?

 

[GordianKnot]

Yeah, it reappeared on Facebook a couple days ago, but they cut the Barry being cleared and that she disappeared on a bike ride.

Looks like they’ve Tweeted that same edited video.

Both local and national news outlets did release BM’s plea before this.

Speaking of ID and bikes, where's Paul Holes when you need him?

Answering my own question: He's in Colorado!

We need Paul Holes on this case.

Even if there's no DNA evidence, we just need Paul Holes.

JMO.

 

[al66pine]

IN. Rules of Evd: Judicial Notice.

That's federal court jurisprudence regarding judicial notice. As you can probably guess, each state treats J/N somewhat differently. Here in Indiana, J/N is left to the judge's discretion. While this seems like it could be abused, recall that we have elected trial court judges: any judge who misuses J/N will quickly make an enemy of the local bar, an occurrence that does not usually lead to re-election.

@lamlawindy Thanks for your post. IN rule at this link * is virtually the same as fed rule I linked above.
As you say, cts can treat differently. Thx again.

BTW, also came across a law review article re developments in IN rules of evd, 2002-2003. An interesting read.
https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol37p1093.pdf

.............................................................
* https://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/rule-amends-2009-0909-evid201.pdf

 

[Seattle1]

I just don't see a ten-day "impound" (I'd still refer to it as a seizure) as reasonable. In McArthur, the case that @Seattle1 posted, a two-hour "temporary impound" of a home was found reasonable. I simply don't believe that McArthur can be employed to justify a ten-day "impound" to buy time to get a warrant.

Note that if Barry Morphew voluntarily stayed away for that time, it's neither an "impound" nor a seizure, since a homeowner is free to stay away from his own house if he wishes to do so.

@lamlawindy, for the sake of argument, let's explore an alternative lawful search and seizure method -- more specifically sealing the residence from the outside, restricting entry while waiting for the warrant. Questions in red text.

In the full opinion of Illinois v McArthur, the conclusion references Segura v United States, the court considered the admissibility of drugs which the police had found in a lawful warrant-based search of an apartment, but only after unlawfully entering the apartment and occupying it for 19 hours.

[Although LE unlawfully entered, they still occupied the residence for 19 hours. Do you think officers believed this a reasonable period of seizure? The majority held that the drugs were admissible even when the entry was unlawful because had officers done everything correctly, they could have discovered and seized the drugs with a valid warrant. Do you have a problem with the drugs being admissible? If so, why?]

The majority held that the drugs were admissible because, had the police acted lawfully throughout, they could have discovered and seized the drugs pursuant to the validly issued warrant. See id., at 799, 814-815 (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920)). The minority disagreed.

However, when describing alternative lawful search and seizure methods, both majority and minority assumed, at least for argument's sake, that the police, armed with reliable information that the apartment contained drugs, might lawfully have sealed the apartment from the outside, restricting entry into the apartment while waiting for the warrant.
Compare Segura v. United States, 468 U. S., at 814

[The alternative theory seals the perimeter of the residence and restricts entry into the residence while waiting for the warrant. We know in Illinois v McArthur, there was significant support because officers made reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy, only preventing McArthur from entering unaccompanied. Why bother allowing McArthur to enter while officer watching from the doorway if officers could have just sealed the outside restricting entry while waiting for the warrant?]

("Had police never entered the apartment, but instead conducted a perimeter stakeout to prevent anyone from entering ... and destroying evidence, the contraband ... would have been ... seized precisely as it was here"), with id., at 824, n. 15 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)

("I assume impoundment would be permissible even absent exigent circumstances when it occurs 'from the outside' -when the authorities merely seal off premises pending the issuance of a warrant but do not enter");

[Again, why not just seal off McArthur's premises pending the issuance of a warrant? What is a reasonable time to prevent entry from a sealed perimeter? What about if the property owner was not present and/or out of town for a few days?]

see also Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394 (1978) (exigent circumstances do not justify search where police guard at door could prevent loss of evidence); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 52 (1951) (same).

In various other circumstances, this Court has upheld temporary restraints where needed to preserve evidence until police could obtain a warrant. See, e. g., United States v. Place, supra, at 706 (reasonable suspicion justifies brief detention of luggage pending further investigation); United States v. Van Leeuwen, supra, at 253 (reasonable suspicion justifies detaining package delivered for mailing).

[If reasonable suspicion of a crime, is detention legal if no intent to obtain a search warrant? i.e., Detention such as luggage or package ].

 

[Dr.StClements]

^^sbm

@RumorMonger - members are certainly free to use their own judgment on how much weight to give each WS approved news source which includes DM and Radar Online, each known to pay for news. Personally, I turn to DM first when looking for photos but take their content with a large grain of salt-- but that's just me.

I've also followed many Colorado cases and have come to rely on the local news networks for accurate reporting on local cases.

As a perfect example of DM's reporting inaccurate case information compared to local networks, on about May 20, DM reported that BM was a Chaffee County firefighter, and he was attending firefighter training in Denver on Mother's Day -- May 10, citing an unidentified relative.

DM report proved false when BM himself confirmed that he was in Denver working on a landscape project.

Take note that all local news networks never reported the false firefighter training story after they could not confirm the information when they reached out to the Chaffee County Fire Chief (May 21). More important, local news networks had previously interviewed the family spokesperson TN (BM's nephew) who reportedly would only provide that BM was in Denver -- refusing to elaborate on his activity in Denver.

Given the quality, accurate reporting by local news networks, I have no reason to accept DM content when it's not corroborated by the local, boots on the ground reporting. My own opinion.

.

Hi. I agree with you about the DM content. And senior journalists didn't do themselves any favours in the past by resorting to phone-hacking - including the phone hacking of a young girl who had been murdered.
DM is notorious for wanting to break high profile stories and have employed nefarious means to do it in the past. Listening to the voice messages on a murdered teenager's phone crossed one line too many for me.
Please forgive me if I have the wrong person. I've seen replies to my previous posts, some requesting more information. There's no reply option under your post, if it was you (there are others too). If it was you - I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I'm back to hospital having had secondary breast cancer confirmed in the last week and I'm not spending a lot of time on this site = at least not enough to always respond to queries about my posts
Was it you who asked about more construction-related details at the Salida site? I was trying to message you and someone else and seem to have only managed to post myself a message!! I'll see if I can find the original articles I read.
One reference here relates to BM's working timeline: Finding Suzanne Morphew: Investigators Search Husband's Job Site Near Salida

where the property owner mentions that he's only known BM for 3 weeks, and that BM started work there approximately 1 week before SM was reported missing.
Sorry for the late reply - and for hijacking you here I didn't know what else to do (embarrassed face emoji...)

 

[MsBetsy]

Thank you for posting! Note that a two-hour impound was found reasonable in McArthur. Here, we're supposedly -- though the record is unclear -- dealing with a ten-day bar.

If I had to wager, I'd bet that Barry Morphew agreed to stay out for all that time. That wouldn't be a seizure or impoundment: a homeowner is perfectly free to stay away from his own property. More importantly, I do not think that CCSO would be so inexperienced as to forbid a homeowner entry into his own house for ten days, as it does not take so long to secure a warrant, even at the height of Covid-19 infection in Colorado.

Apparently he did stay somewhere else that whole time. I believe it was his firefighter friend who said that he and the girls were staying with him since there were more bedrooms and space in his home. There were several family members from out of town staying there as well, if I remember correctly.

Imo

 

[Topppps]

Massguy thanks for the recommendation on the profiling evil. Those pictures it sure looks like it's unlikely she fell in the water.

 

[Ontario Mom]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Based on the way things transpired, I'm not at all convinced BM even knew the MeFundGo site was launched when it was.
I do believe that was the doing of a family member with their heart in the right place.

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Hi. I agree with you about the DM content. And senior journalists didn't do themselves any favours in the past by resorting to phone-hacking - including the phone hacking of a young girl who had been murdered.
DM is notorious for wanting to break high profile stories and have employed nefarious means to do it in the past. Listening to the voice messages on a murdered teenager's phone crossed one line too many for me.
Please forgive me if I have the wrong person. I've seen replies to my previous posts, some requesting more information. There's no reply option under your post, if it was you (there are others too). If it was you - I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I'm back to hospital having had secondary breast cancer confirmed in the last week and I'm not spending a lot of time on this site = at least not enough to always respond to queries about my posts
Was it you who asked about more construction-related details at the Salida site? I was trying to message you and someone else and seem to have only managed to post myself a message!! I'll see if I can find the original articles I read.
One reference here relates to BM's working timeline: Finding Suzanne Morphew: Investigators Search Husband's Job Site Near Salida

where the property owner mentions that he's only known BM for 3 weeks, and that BM started work there approximately 1 week before SM was reported missing.
Sorry for the late reply - and for hijacking you here I didn't know what else to do (embarrassed face emoji...)

@Dr.StClements -- wow,
I am sorry to hear of your diagnosis and that you are returning to the hospital. Best wishes and thoughts that you will receive healthy options and enjoy restored health very soon.

I don't recall asking questions or requesting information about the Salida construction site previously searched mainly because the mods have warned us not to discuss this private residence on the main thread.

Also, it sounds to me like you may be posting from your mobile phone. If you turn your phone sideways (horizontal), I believe you will see more options on your screen that are not visible when your phone is upright.

Cheers!

 

[GordianKnot]

Based on the way things transpired, I'm not at all convinced BM even knew the MeFundGo site was launched when it was.
I do believe that was the doing of a family member with their heart in the right place.

jmo

BBM:

I do believe that the Gimme was "officially" launched by a family member of BM's.

I do not for one second believe that BM had no idea that the family member would launch a Gimme.

In fact, I'd bet on the exact opposite:

I think BM pulled at the (heart)strings of someone in such a way that he knew it would result in the family member being inspired to help BM raise funds to (ostensibly) aid in covering the costs to the "family" for the search effort.

Puppets and Puppeteer.

That's what I'm seeing here.

So. Much. Manipulation.

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

BBM:

I do believe that the Gimme was "officially" launched by a family member of BM's.

I do not for one second believe that BM had no idea that the family member would launch a Gimme.

In fact, I'd bet on the exact opposite:

I think BM pulled at the (heart)strings of someone in such a way that he knew it would result in the family member being inspired to help BM raise funds to (ostensibly) aid in covering the costs to the "family" for the search effort.

Puppets and Puppeteer.

That's what I'm seeing here.

So. Much. Manipulation.

JMO.

Regardless, he had the ability to shut it down at any point.

Interestingly, that never happened.

 

[Seattle1]

Regardless, he had the ability to shut it down at any point.

Interestingly, that never happened.

$32,372 raised of $50,000 goal, 311 donors, last donation 6 days ago.

 

[MassGuy]

$32,372 raised of $50,000 goal, 311 donors, last donation 6 days ago.

I look forward to the promised “report of costs.”

 

[Seattle1]

I look forward to the promised “report of costs.”

You and the individuals that have requested the promised itemization to no avail.

 

[Topppps]

There was an interesting graphic during one of Lauren’s interviews with the “Profiling Evil” guys.

Basically, had she gone off that ledge, she would have been horribly injured. The water is something like 100 yards away from that spot.

So if the bike was found where they believe it was found (Lauren and those guys), then her ending up in water would have been next to impossible.

She couldn’t have landed there, and would have struggled to get there after crashing.

Besides that, something is clearly telling law enforcement that whatever happened to her was nefarious.

The FBI doesn’t dedicate these types of resources to an accident, nor would we see multiple search warrants executed.

I'm watching those videos, it appears that Lauren Scharf has the bike route Suzanne took wrong and she seems to assume the water height was the same in May as it is now. That water was probably a lot higher and wider. Scharf is also assuming that particular spot is the spot that Suzanne Morphew fell which not be right, she might not have fallen the same area the bike did. Other locations along the road look closer to the river.

 

[MassGuy]

I'm watching those videos, it appears that Lauren Scharf has the bike route Suzanne took wrong and she seems to assume the water height was the same in May as it is now. That water was probably a lot higher and wider. Scharf is also assuming that particular spot is the spot that Suzanne Morphew fell which not be right, she might not have fallen the same area the bike did. Other locations along the road look closer to the river.

Regardless, it seems readily apparent that LE doesn’t believe an accident occurred.

You need evidence to have the probable cause to search a home, and that’s doubly true to do it a second time.

 

[10ofRods]

Thank you for posting! Note that a two-hour impound was found reasonable in McArthur. Here, we're supposedly -- though the record is unclear -- dealing with a ten-day bar.

If I had to wager, I'd bet that Barry Morphew agreed to stay out for all that time. That wouldn't be a seizure or impoundment: a homeowner is perfectly free to stay away from his own property. More importantly, I do not think that CCSO would be so inexperienced as to forbid a homeowner entry into his own house for ten days, as it does not take so long to secure a warrant, even at the height of Covid-19 infection in Colorado.

Agreed. Although sometimes I envision a period of time in which BM may not have slept well and perhaps was helping with the search outside the property - it went for 3 days. If he granted access to the house at that time (pre-warrant), then perhaps he went to stay/occasionally rest with his supportive friends, at the nearby house of the one friend.

I've known quite a few people who, in the grips of a tragedy, want constant things to do and socialization even when they are exhausted. Others of course, prefer solitude or outright leaving the scene for a while, in grief.

So by the time BM got into the mindset to produce his video, it was what 5-6 days later? I think the video may have been done over a period of time. In that way, BM may have not pressed the matter and then he was told: we search early next week, CoVid delays.

BM would have no way of knowing how long such a thing would take.

Do you think LE was stringing him along?