Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #28

[Mimi in London]

I remember several news stations having phone interviews with TN and they are hard to find now. This article seems to have more quotes than others. Not sure if this is what you are looking for but it strikes me now.
More about sharing the fundraiser than boots on the ground.JMO


Trevor hopes to keep the attention on his aunt and said the best way volunteers can help is by “pounding the keyboard.”

“We need people on their phones, people on their computers, posting the Facebook page, posting the ********, so if anyone has seen anything or knows someone who has, they must call the tip line,” Noel said.

Family pleads for safe return of missing Colorado mom Suzanne Morphew who disappeared after Mother’s Day bike ride

May 15 - audio only with nephew TN and the search efforts by team BM:

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

Thank you @Cindizzi and @Seattle1 for the info from TN phone interviews.

The missing piece is from one of the networks that concluded its interview with a question along the lines, ‘Am I right in saying you do not want people to come along and help with the searches.’

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Please stop the absolute trashing of Barry Morphew with the wild speculation and allegations that Suzanne was a victim of domestic abuse throughout 27 years of their marriage.

AFAIK, the only things in MSM that appear to have spawned this type of discussion are a reference by the Moorman family that Barry could be "somewhat controlling" (while there have been indications from others that they were a "happy couple").

Thanks.

 

[10ofRods]

Agree. Refusal by itself isn’t an indicator of guilt for me, it’s actually smart. Innocent people have been railroaded by LE and any decent lawyer will tell their client, even the innocent ones, not to take one.

But if someone refuses and there is a lot of other behavior and inconsistencies that point to the person being involved, then I’d consider a refusal as part of a constellation of guilt indicators.

—-

BM’s construction gear: I’m thinking the “mountain lion” he keeps bringing up is actually his bobcat.

If I had a criminal defense lawyer who told me he'd fire me as a client if I took a polygraph (because I think there are reasons to do it), I'd get a new lawyer.

The thing is, if a person is innocent, we all know the results can't be used in court. Even a modestly deceptive polygraph in which the suspect gets a few weird readings isn't going to result in an arrest warrant (cf Barbara Thomas case).

But, from a self-PR point of view, I know that my willingness to take the polygraph will cause LE to think me less suspicious and to move on to other suspects (unless of course I bomb all the crucial questions).

I'd say "Bring it on" if I were innocent and I'd get a lawyer who knew enough about human nature and about PR that s/he would be right there with me at the (inadmissible in court) polygraph. The best way to get LE to move on to other suspects is to cease being one, yourself. LE uses statistics and models like every other profession and we all know intimate partners are suspects when someone suddenly goes missing, without a trace, especially in the midst of a conversation with a friend - and especially when they do not communicate afterward with their beloved daughters. 70% of the time, it's an intimate partner, and BM has managed to get most of us to scale him up to at least 80% on our personal hinky meters.

Taking a polygraph, giving an actual interview, showing himself in the process of searching, showing himself putting pins on a map of where he's already searched, sitting with his daughters and discussing Suzanne...all of that would reduce the perception that he did it.

But none of that is going to get him convicted - that's a different matter. He is and will remain a suspect until either Suzanne is found or someone else has accrued so much evidence against them that another person is arrested (isn't BM trying to imply there's a guy who worked for him who could have done it?)

 

[Fireflize]

bbm
Except maybe his mother ?
MOO
Speculation :
I do wonder what she thought she was doing with BM the day of TD's video ?
Did she think she was helping to look for Suzanne ?
What has BM told her ?

Yeah, seems like there's a little bit of immeshment going on between BM and his mother. It will be interesting.... Moo

 

[al66pine]

dbm.

 

[Diddian]

I think the intent to sell the property is evidenced by the amount of time it was on the market. I think any disagreement may have revolved around what was to be done with the proceeds of the sale.

That may well be. The property had been listed with one agency from March to end of October 2018 (original list $980,000, with subsequent drops to $950,000; $895,000, and $840,000), then that listing agency was dropped and the home was listed at $800,000 with another agency for around 60 days (with price dropping to $795,000 at around 30 days), and then the listing returned to the original agency and was sold for $750,000 around 4 months later. (ETA: I do not know if the listing returned to the same individual agent at that agency.)

However, given the timing of the close (after SM's disappearance), the price drop in the six months before sale, the potential for conflict when the same person has served as both purchaser and seller's agent, and BM's hurry to invest those proceeds in another property, if I were LE, I'd want to independently verify a couple of things: (1) that SM knew about the transaction (Did SM ever share that info with close friends and/or members of her own family?); and (2) that the transaction was arms length (i.e. did not involve a close friend, associate, or family member of BM as either purchaser or mortgage broker).

 

[Leader6518]

Sometimes I wonder if he realized it was even mother's day. (if he's the guilty party)

Just doesn't make much sense, if planned, to do it on mother's day (er night before?).

Wouldn't he realize his daughter's would be trying to get a hold of her rather quickly?
Not to mention others trying to wish her a happy mother's day etc. I'm assuming to which there was no replies back all day.
Wouldn't he also realize it's somewhat sketch to be working mother's day (a sunday) to fix a year old screw up...during a pandemic, no less.


But then again Frazee chose Thanksgiving knowingly, so who knows. I don't have the rational of killers, apparently.

IMO, if BM is responsible for SM's disappearance, I think it happened in the heat of the moment Saturday evening or night. There is a reason her communication was abruptly ended.

The 45 second plea he did for SM starting with Suzanne, oh Suzanne, raised a red flag for me.

 

[ivegotthemic]

dbm full response below

 

[K9Enzo]

Has this been discussed here yet? Is it permitted?

It's PE talking to LS about her interview with BM.

 

[al66pine]

....There could be a totally innocent reason, but LE can use the refusal to show that hes not cooperating and not telling the truth...
... criminal defense firm ... my boss always advised client to take the test when something questionable popped up. It served two purposes, if they refused he knew they were probably lying. If they agreed he would use the test to try and get a better plea $350 is alot to pay out of pocket for someone if they think they'll fail (we used a private company)...

. @ivegotthemic bbm sbm Thank you for your post. Great to have input from those in the legal field. Not sure I am following ^.

bbm #1. LE can use refusal to show non-coop? When? Where? In court? To the public? It's been a loooong time, maybe decades, since I've heard/read/seen any LE publicly announce before or after an arrest --Professor Plum, a PoI, refused to take a LTD. Still not admissible in ct.

bbm #2 &3. Post refers to privately administered LDT's which def atty arranges for person/suspect to take. And def atty is not obligated to release results, either to LE or to public, and afaik, not admissible in ct. I recall instances where a def atty announced that client client Prof. Plum "passed" a (cough, mumble, privately administered, mumble) LDT. A PR move imo. Is it possible atty uses this as a screening device re client intake process, to gauge (a) whether client will grumble about $$$, and (b) likelihood of client compliance w atty's advice? Just thinking aloud, my2cts.
As always, welcoming comment, clarification and correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals.

 

[sunflowerchick]

Does he get a pass for not a)showing his own face or b)using his own voice to find his wife?

Let’s just put the lie detector aside for a moment.

This man will not even show up in ANY capacity for his missing spouse.

It’s like a toddler who learns to play hide n seek, the child covers his own eyes and thinks he is hiding, or hides behind the curtain with feet clearly sticking out.

Barry, we can STILL see you. We are still looking at you.

You are absolutely correct. Which is why I said I would give him a pass for the lie detector ONLY. All other things are a large problem for me (and everyone else I am sure). I have no doubt LE is looking at BM, and looking for a reason.

 

[al66pine]

sorry for the confusion, what i meant is someone is has been verified as an expert /professional.. not sure how the works here
and in the second half i was referring more to having something helpful in working out a plea deal later on

@ivegotthemic Okay, I think I see what you mean about LDT as a tool in plea negotiating. Thx for the explanation.

 

[ivegotthemic]

. @ivegotthemic bbm sbm Thank you for your post. Great to have input from those in the legal field. Not sure I am following ^.

bbm #1. LE can use refusal to show non-coop? When? Where? In court? To the public? It's been a loooong time, maybe decades, since I've heard/read/seen any LE publicly announce before or after an arrest --Professor Plum, a PoI, refused to take a LTD. Still not admissible in ct.

bbm #2 &3. Post refers to privately administered LDT's which def atty arranges for person/suspect to take. And def atty is not obligated to release results, either to LE or to public, and afaik, not admissible in ct. I recall instances where a def atty announced that client client Prof. Plum "passed" a (cough, mumble, privately administered, mumble) LDT. A PR move imo. Is it possible atty uses this as a screening device re client intake process, to gauge (a) whether client will grumble about $$$, and (b) likelihood of client compliance w atty's advice? Just thinking aloud, my2cts.
As always, welcoming comment, clarification and correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals.

sorry this loaded really weirdly before. they would never be allowed as proof. in general the prosecutor and the judge are the only ones who take it into account during sentences or plea bargaining. for example he had a client charged with several counts of embezzling and fraud but our client swear up and down he had no idea his business was fraudulent. he passed the LDT with rays expert and with le enforcement's expert. and he agreed to come in for interviews multiple times. did he still commit embezzlement? absolutely but the evidence proving he knew about the fraud could have gone either way ray convinced the prosecutor to drop the felony fraud charges to misdemeanors in light of the results and how helpful he had been. but I do think releasing the results to LE or the public prior to any charges can help rule someone out quicker.

yes, with private the attorney doesn't have to share the results and yes definitely a pr move. i dont think it would be used for screening each test is like $300-500 out of the clients pocket and thats a lot for most people right out of the gate. Ray used this most often in cases of probation violations. a number of clients will swear up and down it was a false positive and they didnt drink and judges have literally heard every excuse under the sun so while it doesn't prove innocence it can help make the clients claim seem more reasonable. It doesnt always help change the outcome , its just a nice tool to have when arguing

 

[Hatch]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Depending on her cancer and treatment protocol, SM could have not been well enough to handle business for quiet sometime. Do we know her cancer and treatment timeline? With BM and SM being business owners they would of had to carry their own health insurance at a very high premium price per month. Leaves me to wonder , did they have health insurance or were they paying bills out of pocket? Which could have been $$$$$
I know many folks that do not have health insurance privately because of the exorpitant premium prices. Do not know the laws regarding hospital bills in IA or Colorado, but some states will aggressively seek your property to settle up.

 

[Fireflize]

sorry this loaded really weirdly before. they would never be allowed as proof. in general the prosecutor and the judge are the only ones who take it into account during sentences or plea bargaining. for example he had a client charged with several counts of embezzling and fraud but our client swear up and down he had no idea his business was fraudulent. he passed the LDT with rays expert and with le enforcement's expert. and he agreed to come in for interviews multiple times. did he still commit embezzlement? absolutely but the evidence proving he knew about the fraud could have gone either way ray convinced the prosecutor to drop the felony fraud charges to misdemeanors in light of the results and how helpful he had been. but I do think releasing the results to LE or the public prior to any charges can help rule someone out quicker.

yes, with private the attorney doesn't have to share the results and yes definitely a pr move. i dont think it would be used for screening each test is like $300-500 out of the clients pocket and thats a lot for most people right out of the gate. Ray used this most often in cases of probation violations. a number of clients will swear up and down it was a false positive and they didnt drink and judges have literally heard every excuse under the sun so while it doesn't prove innocence it can help make the clients claim seem more reasonable. It doesnt always help change the outcome , its just a nice tool to have when arguing

I assume the non-cooperation could have a negative impact on the judge's decision? How much impact?

 

[Fireflize]

Depending on her cancer and treatment protocol, SM could have not been well enough to handle business for quiet sometime. Do we know her cancer and treatment timeline? With BM and SM being business owners they would of had to carry their own health insurance at a very high premium price per month. Leaves me to wonder , did they have health insurance or were they paying bills out of pocket? Which could have been $$$$$
I know many folks that do not have health insurance privately because of the exorpitant premium prices. Do not know the laws regarding hospital bills in IA or Colorado, but some states will aggressively seek your property to settle up.

Good point Hatch. I always assumed that she had insurance, but if not, that's a problem. Moo

 

[susiQ]

Depending on her cancer and treatment protocol, SM could have not been well enough to handle business for quiet sometime. Do we know her cancer and treatment timeline? With BM and SM being business owners they would of had to carry their own health insurance at a very high premium price per month. Leaves me to wonder , did they have health insurance or were they paying bills out of pocket? Which could have been $$$$$
I know many folks that do not have health insurance privately because of the exorpitant premium prices. Do not know the laws regarding hospital bills in IA or Colorado, but some states will aggressively seek your property to settle up.

Iirc SM was rediagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma around the time of the move to CO which was in 2018. She was due to attend a follow up appointment to her “all clear” determination on 5/11/20. Of course, we know she never made it to that appointment

 

[Cindizzi]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>
This is from Crime Online

‘We’re in the dark’: Missing Suzanne Morphew’s family waits and worries two weeks after Colorado mom’s mysterious disappearance [EXCLUSIVE]
A relative of missing Colorado woman Suzanne Morphew says Suzanne’s family members have very little information to go on, as investigators concluded a three-day search of a residential property not far from Suzanne’s Maysville home on Sunday without finding any evidence connected to the case.

The relative said that some of Suzanne’s family members, including at least one of Suzanne’s siblings and Barry Morphew’s mother — who Suzanne is reportedly close to — traveled to the area after Suzanne was reported missing.

The relative did not know where Suzanne’s two daughters were staying, as police have taken possession of the Morphew’s home as part of the ongoing investigation.

“I think they are being protected,” the source said.

The relative said they have never seen or heard about any specific issues in the Morphew’s marriage, and that the couple seemed happy. But they did indicate that Barry could be somewhat controlling.

Lauren Scharf interviewed the Uncle and I don’t think he said anything about it.

“Everybody loves Suzanne and Barry,” family member wants Chaffee County mother’s safe return | FOX21 News Colorado

 

[Warwick7]

I guess I am missing something, how is a 21 year old is being denied access to the Moormans?

You might be missing something. This might help.

 

[ivegotthemic]

I assume the non-cooperation could have a negative impact on the judge's decision? How much impact?

im going to say it depends on the circumstances of the cases and how egregious the charges are. Judges want to see the person is remorseful for their actions. and cooperating can imply that. the defendant doesnt have to cooperate, but in cases where guilt is inevitable a showing of remorse can be the difference between getting the max sentence and getting an average sentence.