Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26

[Lilypad13]

Do you think the Bobcat and trailer were part of the LE search at the home? I've considered that because it was off the trailer. If it were Barry's what did he do, bring it back with him at 9:00 Sunday night? Was he doing work at his house in the week after Suzanne went missing? I guess with what we've seen that wouldn't be surprising, but super poor form when your wife has been abducted to be working on your driveway

I noticed the dirt or gravel on the trailer matches the driveway. Probably nothing but the driveway area is lighter colored dirt with a layer of darker dirt/gravel spread on top.

 

[Boxer]

IIRC, reducing a body completely to ashes would take a lot of heat, and some time. Just thinking about the timeline. MOO.

The west is dry. All fires are unwanted and highly noticed.

 

[Hatfield]

Do you think the Bobcat and trailer were part of the LE search at the home? I've considered that because it was off the trailer. If it were Barry's what did he do, bring it back with him at 9:00 Sunday night? Was he doing work at his house in the week after Suzanne went missing? I guess with what we've seen that wouldn't be surprising, but super poor form when your wife has been abducted to be working on your driveway

JMO
If SM was buried anywhere near the property that Bobcat could have been moved right from the Salida site over to the home late Saturday night/early Sunday morning. And since someone had no problem working in the dark then it wouldnt take much to use it to place a very large boulder over the spot with the hopes nobody would ever decide they need to look under a large boulder.

She of course could have been taken elsewhere too and maybe the Bobcat has nothing to do with the case. Although we did hear the Salida neighbor talk about some equipment being moved and that trailer and bobcat may have been it. JMO of course.

 

[Lilypad13]

LE's Diligence
@Lilypad13.
Recently read a book re a teen's remains discovered 50 ft off a highway 30+ yrs ago. When sifting materials around remains for personal belongings of victim or perp, LE worked w screens so fine, that they located a contact lens. Amazing.

Wow! That’s pretty incredible! The day I posted that I googled other FBI searches involving sifting and I found an interesting famous case from the 70’s. Etan Patz was a young boy from NYC who went missing the first time he was allowed to walk to school by himself. He was the first Missing child on a milk carton. The FBI dug up a concrete basement and the photos while decades old looked very similar to the dig site in SM’s case. They had on the same FBI jackets and were carrying out big chunks of concrete and sifters. But they ended up not finding anything. The case was very convoluted and this other man was a POI for years and he was arrested on other charges and Etan’s father sent him a photo of Etan every year on his birthday and the day he went missing and on the back he wrote, “What have you done with my son?” So sad. But it turns out it wasn’t even him and the true perpetrator worked in a convenience store where the boy had stopped to buy a drink. He was finally tried and convicted in 2017! Sorry if this is a little OT but we are discussing interesting cases that have similarities r/t our discussions about certain aspects of SM’s case so hopefully it’s allowed if it doesn’t derail the thread.

 

[NoSI]

**Disclaimer: I ain't no Miss Cleo.**

Here are some things I'm predicting we might hear from BM in the upcoming interview, though:

Denial that he is in any way responsible for SM's disappearance.
Statement that he doesn't know what happened to her or where she is.
Statement that she was alive and well when he last saw her on Sunday morning.
Statement that he and the girls miss SM and need her home.
If asked by LS, a glowing description of who SM is as a person and/or as a mother.
Statement re: the 210k reward offer and/or an appeal for anyone who knows anything, thinks they've seen SM, etc., to contact the authorities.
Statement that he can't get into specifics about the case because the investigation is ongoing.
Denouncement of SM rumors.

What I’m paying close attention to/listening for in this interview:

• Does he answer questions directly?
• Is he specific in his responses?
• Does he pause before responding to questions?
• Do his answers make sense?
• Does he use distancing language?
• Does he attempt to misdirect/steer the interview away from any subjects?
• Which questions, if any, does he refuse to answer?
• If the subject of the "bike ride" comes BM say about it?

JMO.

Very solid list! Do you predict that there will be a "Oh Suzaaanne..." somewhere during this interview?

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Part of me thinks SM was taken deep into a hidden cave or mineshaft. The timeline was too short to play bobcats, trucks and atv’s. All that and/or doing something to the body itself is just too many moving pieces, for that amount of time. MOO.

I agree. Barry is physically capable to dispose of SM in a low tech manner. He’s really big and strong; with a shovel, he could dig a deep hole pretty quickly. Don’t want to seem morbid, but I think he could drag or carry Suzanne for some distance.
IMO

 

[RealForReal]

Can 'missing'= 'incapacitated?' Grounds for guardianship in IN? <Yes. Conservatorship in MN????
@RealForReal Welcome to Websleuths. Always good to have input from professionals in the legal field w experience in the topic under discussion.
MN law.
On its face the MN. section below seems imo to grant authority to MN ct. to appt a conservator on basis of person being "missing, detained, or unable to return to United States." Similar, but not identical to IN.* Just my2cts, could be wrong.
As always I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals, including you, @RealonReal. W a very, very quick review, I did not see MN's I/P definition including the same criteria as IN re absent or missing persons but noticed this:
"524.5-409 FINDINGS; ORDER OF APPOINTMENT.
§ Subdivision 1.Limited or unlimited conservator.
(a) The court may appoint a limited or unlimited conservator for a respondent only if it finds that:
(1) by clear and convincing evidence, the individual is unable to manage property and business affairs because of an impairment in the ability to receive and evaluate information or make decisions, even with the use of appropriate technological assistance, or because the individual is missing, detained, or unable to return to the United States;..." * bbm sbm ubm
from Sec. 524.5-409 MN Statutes
*"This section has been affected by law enacted during the 2020 legislative session. More info..."
"524.5-409 has been amended by Chapter 86, Article 1, Section 28"
Newly adopted section 1, paragraph (1) language remains unchanged.

And afaik, SM has no property in MN, so above is not relevant to this case, just gen fyi. Where is SM?
_______________________________________________
* IN statute. Quoting from IN definition of Incapacitated Person.
Indiana Statutes, Title 29 Probate, Article 3. Indiana Code 2019 - Indiana General Assembly, 2020 Session
GUARDIANSHIPS & PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
"Sec. 7.5. "Incapacitated person" means an individual who:
(1) cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry; ...." bbm sbm ubm
^ Section continues definition of "incapacitated person"as a person unable to care for self, manage property, because of mental/physical illness, etc.<---the usual kinds of things we think of in connection w guardianships or conservatorships.

Thanks for checking the Statutes! I only referenced MN because there was a difference in IN and CO law and I thought the discussion said that CO followed Uniform Code like MN. I guess I wish it was in MN because I know the particular scrutiny MN gives these cases. Being that the reporting software system they developed was meant to serve as an example for other states. And sometimes the oversight seems to be hawkish, but given the fraud that can occur I think it’s a good thing.
Also I noticed the statute you listed puts it as a “limited conservatorship” and I guess my concern was that BM was moving to make the limited to a full on Guardianship.

 

[Seattle1]

* IN statute. Quoting from IN definition of Incapacitated Person.
Indiana Statutes, Title 29 Probate, Article 3. Indiana Code 2019 - Indiana General Assembly, 2020 Session
GUARDIANSHIPS & PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
"Sec. 7.5. "Incapacitated person" means an individual who:
(1) cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry; ...." bbm sbm ubm
^ Section continues definition of "incapacitated person"as a person unable to care for self, manage property, because of mental/physical illness, etc.<---the usual kinds of things we think of in connection w guardianships or conservatorships.

^^rsbm

In my opinion, what I think happened here, is that somebody, after experiencing the trials and tribulations of trying to manage the affairs of a missing person with no legal authority to do so, had the ear of the General Assembly, and they simply moved to tweak the IC definition of incapacitated.

I think the real solution here is to repeal the inclusion of missing persons in the definition of incapacitated. After that's completed, I think the public of your state (Indiana) would be best served by the enactment of a law to help manage the affairs of people who are missing, where the intent of the law is to safeguard a loved one’s assets in their absence, and where both the court and guardian have to take into account the missing person's wishes.

^^rsbm

@al66pine - thanks for posting about both MN and IN as I think it's a very valuable reminder to all readers how any person responsible for disappear1ing their loved one may be able to legally use the laws of their respective state to their advantage.

Again, the emphasis here is State Probate Court (hears Guardianship cases) is governed under each state's own laws.

Pay attention -- don't let your own state get sloppy with their definition of "incapacitated." Let "incapacitated" stand on its true definition, and insist on a separate state Act for missing persons.

And if you're a resident of IN and fear being disappeared, move now-- unless you are OK with becoming a state Ward overnight, for no reason other than somebody disappeared you! If it happened to SM, it can happen to you.

MOO

 

[lamlawindy]

I do not mean that everyone must buy Barry Morphew's version of events hook, line & sinker, but I hope that everyone simply watches & listens to him without being preoccupied with how to use his words & demeanor against him. After all, this is what everyone has been clamoring for for months now.

I would've advised him to NOT speak because I'm convinced that people do not want to hear him speak to learn information; they want him to speak so that they can turn his words & demeanor into cudgels to use against him. I hope I'm proven wrong.

 

[Barry]

MOO, doing interview is not a bright move.

 

[Barry]

DBM double post.

 

[GordianKnot]

Very solid list! Do you predict that there will be a "Oh Suzaaanne..." somewhere during this interview?

BBM:

"That's a negative, Ghost Rider."

We won't be hearing any "Oh, Suzanne"s in that interview.
We won't be hearing about mountain lions, and how they like to drag their prey.
We definitely won't be hearing that, "it's too soon."

I have no doubt he's been scouring the internet reading what people have been saying online about the case.

Image is Everything.

He's in damage control mode right now.

LE has him on the defensive.

JMO.

 

[DizzyB]

This isn’t a game but I’m thinking there’s an over and under bet on how many words Barry says. I believe Barry will not be as chatty as he was when Tyson Draper showed up.

 

[al66pine]

What Info Can BM and LE Provide in IN Guardianship Procedure?

The statutory language actually states that "Any person may apply for permission to participate in the proceeding," subject to the court's permission. IC § 29-3-5-1 (emphasis supplied). If the General Assembly wanted certain persons excluded, it certainly could have done so. IMHO, it's not a standing question, though the judge can certainly deny a request to take part.
I agree that they would be revealing quite a bit about their case if police took part and, accordingly, are unlikely to do so. It would certainly be unorthodox for police to attempt to take part, but the ability to get a possible suspect to answer questions under oath doesn't occur very often....

@lamlawindy
I wondered a couple threads back about what BM/BM's atty would or could offer re SM "not being located on reasonable inquiry" the IN statutory language. IIRC, you said petition asked ct to take judicial notice of absence from from media clippings/attachments.
Now, for longer term picture, I wonder what else BM might offer?

AND LE? Any possibility sheriff or designee either would write, sign, file an affidavit or perhaps, testify at hearing --- since [date] CCSO has been investigating SM's absence as a suspicious disappearance (possibly a criminal matter) and has not cleared anyone of being a suspect???
^ does not disclose any definitive LE findings, not endanger the investigation.
^ any danger of BM (plausibly) claiming defamation of character?

Thoughts on ct's reaction to ^?

 

[Cassady]

I do not mean that everyone must buy Barry Morphew's version of events hook, line & sinker, but I hope that everyone simply watches & listens to him without being preoccupied with how to use his words & demeanor against him. After all, this is what everyone has been clamoring for for months now.

I would've advised him to NOT speak because I'm convinced that people do not want to hear him speak to learn information; they want him to speak so that they can turn his words & demeanor into cudgels to use against him. I hope I'm proven wrong.

If the spouse of the missing person has an attorney and that attorney has practiced criminal law for at least 6 hours, there is no way they would agree to this interview under these circumstances unless:

1. They were confident in their client's alibi.

and/or

2. They were given info by LE indicating their client was cleared and not a POI

IMO

 

[oviedo]

MOO, doing interview is not a bright move.

ITA what does this mean ? I’m perplexed
JMO

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

MOO, doing interview is not a bright move.

Definitely! I think the questions, the answers and the talking will be very limited.

 

[Hatfield]

I do not mean that everyone must buy Barry Morphew's version of events hook, line & sinker, but I hope that everyone simply watches & listens to him without being preoccupied with how to use his words & demeanor against him. After all, this is what everyone has been clamoring for for months now.

I would've advised him to NOT speak because I'm convinced that people do not want to hear him speak to learn information; they want him to speak so that they can turn his words & demeanor into cudgels to use against him. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Thats fair enough. Im going to try to wipe clean everything we have learned so far and try to listen to the new information as if I was hearing about the case for the first time.

It will be interesting if we get any vibes one way or the other.

 

[oviedo]

Hmm in thinking about this perhaps it is a pre-emptive strike Considering we are 12 days away from a permanent guardianship hearing ???
JMO

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
We should know soon enough what Lauren has for us. My guess right now is we wont get to see Barry. Im not even sure we will get to hear him. He may have sent her a statement or maybe a phone interview if the last part of her update is supposed to be a hint.

Her update about Fox21 report is the first video at top here.

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv?lang=en