Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #29

[Warwick7]

Anybody think LE is tracking BM as we speak?

Do they know his every move by, maybe tracking his vehicles?
We know this was done in the case in S. Ohio where the 8 family members were murdered.
Is this something LE typically does in other cases?

A tracking device was attached to L. Stauch's VW quite quickly....

 

[katydid23]

Unfortunately I agree with you Gitana, I don't believe Suzanne's remains will be found either. I believe her murderer had ample experience in digging and burying things.

Like Kelsey, Jennifer Dulos, Susan Powell, Natalie Holloway and so many more. I cannot imagine the pain these families have gone through.

Yes, it is a big fear of mine too.

A professional landscaper can bury something deep, and then restore the area, so perfectly, that it wouldn't even look like a hole was dug. That's what they are paid to do. He could bury a body and then put a full grown bush or small tree on top of it, as a camouflage. It is very frustrating.

And that's not even discussing the other possible ways, such as wood chippers or bonfires...

 

[tresir2012]

West Fork Disc Golf Course | Highlands Ranch

There is a map of the disc golf course at this link. Perhaps we can determine which number the remains were found from the pics in MSM.

 

[katydid23]

While I'm not convinced that Barry is responsible for Suzanne's disappearance, those 5 reasons -- taken together -- do indeed provide strong justification to suspect Barry. I would want to see actual evidence of a motive on Barry's part: Not mere speculation but something tangible or digital.

Being married to someone since just after high school, is a motive in itself. "Familiarity Breeds Contempt."

Just 'being married' is a motive. It is not hard to imagine that someone might want to end their marriage, without the bother and expense of splitting all of the assets.

He would have had to sell all their properties because he couldn't afford to buy her out. And he seems to be a busy little bee when it comes to real estate.

 

[enelram]

Or maybe he was trying to say that someone might be “saved” by being more cautious? So it’s okay that she disappeared? (Which would be very odd, IMO).



Yes. What concerns me though is that many no body cases don’t result in prosecutions. In fact, it’s super hard to get there without very compelling evidence.

HAH! I just heard this statement on TV on a true crime show. How they explained it was:
No body + weak evidence = no conviction but
No body + very good evidence= more likely conviction.
aren't you thrilled we're confirming your statement via a tv entertainment show?

 

[enelram]

Being married to someone since just after high school, is a motive in itself. "Familiarity Breeds Contempt."

Just 'being married' is a motive. It is not hard to imagine that someone might want to end their marriage, without the bother and expense of splitting all of the assets.

He would have had to sell all their properties because he couldn't afford to buy her out. And he seems to be a busy little bee when it comes to real estate.

yes, I've known several well off men who set the old wife up in her own new home separate from
the marital home, where he stayed and then brought in his new honey and they all lived happily ever after.
The ones I know never divorced.

 

[Poedelini]

Just watched some video's about the Susan Powell disappearance.
It makes me scared for this case. Because there was a lot of suspicion and circumstantial evidence on Josh but they could not arrest him.

Hopefully there will come a swing of things and the case gets solved. Jmo

 

[Fireflize]

I agree that it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack, but it will probably give AM some comfort knowing he is doing something to try to find his sister.

I hope that maybe there will be some type of resolution before the search even happens.
I feel for this poor family.

Do you think BM will join in the search effort?

I think he is scheduled to be in Denver or Colorado Springs for fire training during the search. Moo

 

[enelram]

I think he is scheduled to be in Denver or Colorado Springs for fire training during the search. Moo

if I'm not mistaken, I think that's also the first week
of open musket hunting for the rare dodo bird.

 

[kkdj]

My intuition tells me it wasn’t that kind of abuse. Something more subtle. Control is often not seen or regarded as abuse by the victims of it. I think perhaps there were secrets BM was keeping, both financial and otherwise that hit critical mass. While I side on the premeditation scenario, I also admit I could be wrong. As @MassGuy pointed out earlier, a case can be made for both, and I agree, with the limited information we have at this point. MOO

BBM
As I've understood it, SM started dating BM at a young age (teens) that progressed into marriage. She wouldn't have had anything to compare his controlling behavior to as far as a relationship. Also, as she got older she may have became more her own woman which can be threatening to a controlling mate. jmo

 

[oviedo]

BBM
As I've understood it, SM started dating BM at a young age (teens) that progressed into marriage. She wouldn't have had anything to compare his controlling behavior to as far as a relationship. Also, as she got older she may have became more her own woman which can be threatening to a controlling mate. jmo

I really believe her cancer helped bring a new awareness to her life and someone may not have liked that -
JMO

 

[kkdj]

I really believe her cancer helped bring a new awareness to her life and someone may not have liked that -
JMO

I suspect so too. It may have been happening anyway with the maturing process, but having the cancer recently may have really accelerated it, especially if SM felt neglected in time of need.

 

[lamlawindy]

Being married to someone since just after high school, is a motive in itself. "Familiarity Breeds Contempt."

Just 'being married' is a motive. It is not hard to imagine that someone might want to end their marriage, without the bother and expense of splitting all of the assets.

He would have had to sell all their properties because he couldn't afford to buy her out. And he seems to be a busy little bee when it comes to real estate.

Restpectfully, I disagree with your first premise. There are literally millions of people around the world who marry at around age 18 (the approximate high school graduation age in the US) who do not kill their spouses. While some may develop murderous antipathy toward their spouses during their marriages, I am aware of no studies that show that the marriage act itself was the cause of the hatred of the spouse, absent perhaps the existence of a forced marriage. In sum, I think that one would need an additional element -- such as abuse or infidelity -- plus the marriage to show a motive, with the exception of the unusual situation (in the US) of a forced marriage.

Your second premise -- that of greed -- may certainly be a motive, but I have yet to see evidence of that in the Morphews' case. I've heard and read a lot of speculation about this, but I have yet to see tangible or electronic evidence that demonstrates this motive. If, for example, texts or e-mails were produced that demonstrated that Barry was relying on Suzanne succumbing to cancer in order to own all the family's property, then I would consider that solid evidence of motive.* If a friend of Barry's came forward and revealed similar evidence, I would also consider this evidence of motive**, though less reliable than tangible or electronic evidence coming from Barry himself.

* Of course the texts or e-mails would have to be authenticated per Rule of Evidence 901. Any such statement in an e-mail or text -- if made by Barry himself -- would not be hearsay but would instead be a "statement by a party-opponent" and would be admissible against Barry.

** Again, anything Barry tells such a person would be a "statement by a party-opponent" and would be admissible against Barry. Human memory being what it is -- and the possibility of the friend lying -- would, IMHO, give the testimony less weight.

 

[katydid23]

I really believe her cancer helped bring a new awareness to her life and someone may not have liked that -
JMO

One of my friends went through a 2nd round of breast cancer, after being in remission for 20 years. She is in her early 50's, and has beat it again-- so far anyway.

And she has been very edgy and kind of short with people, including her husband. She apologises but says that she cannot keep quiet anymore when she feels she is wasting time or energy these days. She promised herself she would not stay quiet and be a people pleaser anymore.

And I have wondered if Suzanne may have had a similar awakening recently?

 

[KLM6]

I really believe her cancer helped bring a new awareness to her life and someone may not have liked that -
JMO

I can really relate to such an awareness. I think that could very well be possible.

 

[katydid23]

Restpectfully, I disagree with your first premise. There are literally millions of people around the world who marry at around age 18 (the approximate high school graduation age in the US) who do not kill their spouses. While some may develop murderous antipathy toward their spouses during their marriages, I am aware of no studies that show that the marriage act itself was the cause of the hatred of the spouse, absent perhaps the existence of a forced marriage. In sum, I think that one would need an additional element -- such as abuse or infidelity -- plus the marriage to show a motive, with the exception of the unusual situation (in the US) of a forced marriage.

Your second premise -- that of greed -- may certainly be a motive, but I have yet to see evidence of that in the Morphews' case. I've heard and read a lot of speculation about this, but I have yet to see tangible or electronic evidence that demonstrates this motive. If, for example, texts or e-mails were produced that demonstrated that Barry was relying on Suzanne succumbing to cancer in order to own all the family's property, then I would consider that solid evidence of motive.* If a friend of Barry's came forward and revealed similar evidence, I would also consider this evidence of motive**, though less reliable than tangible or electronic evidence coming from Barry himself.

* Of course the texts or e-mails would have to be authenticated per Rule of Evidence 901. Any such statement in an e-mail or text -- if made by Barry himself -- would not be hearsay but would instead be a "statement by a party-opponent" and would be admissible against Barry.

** Again, anything Barry tells such a person would be a "statement by a party-opponent" and would be admissible against Barry. Human memory being what it is -- and the possibility of the friend lying -- would, IMHO, give the testimony less weight.

My first 'premise' was more of a joke than an actual serious premise. Just saying that anyone that has been married for decades to their first and only love, might begin to have homicidal feelings, more often than naught.

 

[enelram]

One of my friends went through a 2nd round of breast cancer, after being in remission for 20 years. She is in her early 50's, and has beat it again-- so far anyway.

And she has been very edgy and kind of short with people, including her husband. She apologises but says that she cannot keep quiet anymore when she feels she is wasting time or energy these days. She promised herself she would not stay quiet and be a people pleaser anymore.

And I have wondered if Suzanne may have had a similar awakening recently?

Interesting.
2 points-
For some women, maturation alone without cancer can bring the enlightenment to
"Not Be A Doormat". It happens.
Also I've read some studies that have connected some forms of cancer, including breast cancer, having some connection to being the compliant, bite your tongue, don't say anything type personality- to being more prone to getting cancer. I believe it's due to the chemical reactions in our bodies when we're
upset but don't let off the steam.
MOO- cause I hope it's OK to post.
But I think SM's cancer was a catalyst to changing dynamics at home.

 

[enelram]

One of my friends went through a 2nd round of breast cancer, after being in remission for 20 years. She is in her early 50's, and has beat it again-- so far anyway.

And she has been very edgy and kind of short with people, including her husband. She apologises but says that she cannot keep quiet anymore when she feels she is wasting time or energy these days. She promised herself she would not stay quiet and be a people pleaser anymore.

And I have wondered if Suzanne may have had a similar awakening recently?

Interesting.
2 points-
For some women, maturation alone without cancer can bring the enlightenment to
"Not Be A Doormat". It happens.
Also I've read some studies that have connected some forms of cancer, including breast cancer, having some connection to being the compliant, bite your tongue, don't say anything type personality- to being more prone to getting cancer. I believe it's due to the chemical reactions in our bodies when we're
upset but don't let off the steam.
MOO- cause I hope it's OK to post.
But I think SM's cancer was a catalyst to changing dynamics at home.

My first 'premise' was more of a joke than an actual serious premise. Just saying that anyone that has been married for decades to their first and only love, might begin to have homicidal feelings, more often than naught.

yes, yes.
Dr. Joyce Brothers,the late tv psychologist and marriage counselor was once asked in an interview if she'd ever considered divorcing her husband. She said, divorce? No. But murder, YES!!

 

[Dr.StClements]

CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26
^^See the entire post quoted by OP for clarity at link #26 above.



@RumorMonger,
I don't believe I've had the privilege to know you or your posts so I apologize in advance if I get this wrong.

But before I advance one keystroke further, I have to say that I'm absolutely dumbfounded by OP's ability to retrieve my post of 18 August from three (3) locked threads ago. BRAVO??!!!

I'm sure I speak for others in desiring OP's knowledge of how to quote archived posts from a locked thread. Please tell! My practice limits me to only linking my locked posts from thread #26 (linked above for clarity).

I'm also not sure about this "putting me on the spot."
When one is addressed directly, is the courtesy of a reply not required?
(Don't say it-- probably another redundant British practice)...

OK, getting back to your stated assumptions that people that know the respondent and the family dynamics are supposed to speak for the missing person and protect their interest, and they are allowed and encouraged to have legal counsel themselves, I agree in part, and offer the following:

To be clear, my quoted posts on the matter of guardianship for a missing person are not intended to challenge or allege in any form that BM has done anything illegal or underhanded by petitioning for guardianship of SM.

I cannot find fault with BM, or any other petitioner, for using the only law available to them under the circumstances of a missing wife. That would make no sense to me.

However, what I am doing in this post is using BM's petition, and his circumstances, to further my opinion that serious flaws exist in the Indiana State Statute providing for guardianship of missing persons.

Indiana Law defines who is entitled to notice that a petition has been filed for your loved one and that a guardianship hearing has been scheduled. If you're not entitled to be notified, there is no provision in the IC for a guardianship petition hearing regarding your loved one to be publically advertised to alert or otherwise notify interested parties such as, in this case, SM's father, siblings, Godmother, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.. People, that as you stated, are best suited to understand the family dynamics of the missing person in order to determine where intervention is needed.

More specifically, IC 29-3-6-1(a) states:

(4) If it is alleged that the person is an incapacitated person, notice of the petition and the hearing on the petition shall be given to the following persons whose whereabouts can be determined upon reasonable inquiry:

(A) The alleged incapacitated person, the alleged incapacitated person's spouse, and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children, or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents.

Applying the Indiana guardianship rules pursuant to IC 29-3-6-1(a) to BM's circumstances and petition for guardianship of his wife, only two people were required notified that the serious issue of guardianship of SM was even before the Indiana court. I don't understand how any intervention, as you stated, would be possible under this law.

(A) The alleged incapacitated person [SM], [missing, cannot be notified],
the alleged incapacitated person's spouse [BM],
and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children [MM],
or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents [not applicable].

According to public records, BM filed a Petition to Establish Guardianship of SM and other documents including Consent of Interested Party in Hamilton County, IN, on June 1, 2020 - only weeks after SM was reported missing. Court records also indicate a Motion was filed to Waive the Hearing, and by Court Order, BM was granted Temporary Guardianship of SM on June 5, 2020.

In the Hamilton Superior Court 1, Hamilton County, Indiana
Case No. 29D01-2006-GU-000096

A Guardianship Has been established for:
Suzanne R. Morphew
Incapacitated Adult/Minor
Year of Birth: 1971
Guardianship Type: Temporary

Guardian(s) Guardianship Of Issue Date Expiration Date
Barry L. Morphew Individual and Estate
6/5/2020
9/3/2020

https://public.courts.in.gov/grp/Search/Detail/187708?Detail=True
Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

Since June 5, 2020, BM has had Letters of Guardianship for SM, empowering him to have full control over his Ward's (wife) entire estate without anybody ever knowing except for his adult daughter (and/or anyone BM chose to tell or confide in).

Reportedly, none of SM's family had any knowledge whatsoever that the issue of SM's guardianship was before any court! If not for a reporter reaching an unnamed sibling, seeking any comment about BM selling real estate located in Hamilton County, IN while SM was missing, it's quite likely they still would not know that BM was granted guardianship by court order.

Again, let me be clear that according to Indiana law, BM had/has no legal requirement and was under no obligation to inform anybody about his petition for guardianship except for his adult daughter, who also provided her consent. BM is guided by the law for missing persons, and it's my position that Indian law fails to protect missing persons including SM.

It's my opinion that Indiana law approving a grieving spouse and adult child--probably in shock, to consent to life-changing decisions on behalf of their missing wife and mother (pretty much in secret), less than a month since she vanished does not adequately protect the missing, respondent. I believe it was the fore founders of probate court that recognized the need to prohibited certain actions for six months as a safeguard to protect the grieving from bad decisions during a fragile period.

To answer your last question, I do not believe the solution here is "just providing a free lawyer."

I've made other suggestions on what I think the Indiana General Assembly might consider changing in a subsequent post in closed Thread #26, linked below.

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

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

MOO

Thank you for these insights, Seattle1.
Reading the information makes me feel physically sick - a real physiological reaction to what I see as a gross injustice. I can't remember where I first read that Suzanne comes from a family who have built up their businesses and are financially comfortable as a result, and that during the earlier years of SM and BM's marriage, Suzanne's parents helped them financially.
If that is the case - irrespective of how financially healthy the couple is now - I find the current situation even more sickening.
I get that there was a house sale in progress before SM went missing and that in order to complete the sale, BM had to seek help via the courts to complete the sale in July 2020.

However, I find it offensive in the extreme that he has free rein to do what he wants with their joint assets only a month after Suzanne first goes missing.

Would there have been any way for the courts to have limited BM's authority to the one transaction (house sale)? It beggars belief that oversight is vested only in the older daughter. What a responsibility to place on her when she is already so traumatized and grieving for her mother.

I linked the video, 13 minutes long from NBC news.

I linked the video, 13 minutes long from NBC news.

I linked the video, 13 minutes long from NBC news.

I linked the video, 13 minutes long from NBC news.

I linked the video, 13 minutes long from NBC news.

@Dr.StClements sbm Thank you for your post.
{{{ETA: after reading @Seattle1 's comments as quoted in @marylamby 's post 528, upthread, I feel Seattle1 may have more info and insight into specifics of BM's petition and the ct. order, but I'll leave this post intact, as FYI re what I believe to be gen bus. practice. TYVM, @Seattle1 }}}

Bbm #1. Iiuc, BM was given authority by ct, to close June?July? IN. prop sale. Not sure if BM has free rein already w all their jt. assets. Iiuc (and not saying I do, because I have not seen pleadings, ct orders, & other dox), ct appt'ed him as Gdn/granted him auth'y. to act only as to that one home prop, which would imo have been specifically listed in the petition originally filed.
Also iirc, BM/BM's atty did not file an inventory until after first ct order/apptmt re that one prop. was issued.

Bbm #2. Based on gen business practices described below, I doubt that now/before Sept(?) hearing, that BM can manage to wangle any real est or brokerage a/c transactions. But no predictions from me about what will happen in the fall or re bank accts.
Stepping away from the M's specifically, say, Harry Husband & Wanda Wife, ( my favorite hypo couple), are in a situation in which HH petitions for Gdnship , because of WW's long term coma after car crash. HH files petition and inventory of prop, assets, accts, etc and requests apptmt/authority over all of them. Something like this, but more details, addresses, etc -->
Inventory: 1st Nat'l Bk checking a/c ($5,000); Derrill-Bynch brokerage ($ 15,000 IBM common stock); Gedility Mutual Funds ($ 30,000); Rental house ($ 125,000); Rental duplex ($ 200,000); Rental office bldg ($ 350,000),
< in WW's name only.

Iirc, the court (virtually? always) specifies in its Order/Letter, the properties, assets, accts, which HH has auth'ty to handle. At least IME at HQ of a national investment brokerage, HH is not allowed to place buy or sell orders for stocks, mut fds, etc, or make withdrawals, write checks, etc , in WW's a/c, unless/until home office law/compliance dept had reviewed ct doc's to verify that HH had been given auth'ty by the ct do do so.*
IME w real est, title ins. co's exercise similar scrutiny over real est transactions.

Personally cannot address bank practices, so hoping some others , esp'ly our legal professionals, will weigh in, to
comment, clarify, or correct. And if their exp. w other types of businesses or institutions is different from mine.
my2cts
----------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, some other situations allow HH to transact business for WW, for ex. if WW is named as trustee of WW's trust agreement of tr dox, or if WW executed a power of atty authorizing him to do so.

@Dr.StClements sbm Thank you for your post.
{{{ETA: after reading @Seattle1 's comments as quoted in @marylamby 's post 528, upthread, I feel Seattle1 may have more info and insight into specifics of BM's petition and the ct. order, but I'll leave this post intact, as FYI re what I believe to be gen bus. practice. TYVM, @Seattle1 }}}

Bbm #1. Iiuc, BM was given authority by ct, to close June?July? IN. prop sale. Not sure if BM has free rein already w all their jt. assets. Iiuc (and not saying I do, because I have not seen pleadings, ct orders, & other dox), ct appt'ed him as Gdn/granted him auth'y. to act only as to that one home prop, which would imo have been specifically listed in the petition originally filed.
Also iirc, BM/BM's atty did not file an inventory until after first ct order/apptmt re that one prop. was issued.

Bbm #2. Based on gen business practices described below, I doubt that now/before Sept(?) hearing, that BM can manage to wangle any real est or brokerage a/c transactions. But no predictions from me about what will happen in the fall or re bank accts.
Stepping away from the M's specifically, say, Harry Husband & Wanda Wife, ( my favorite hypo couple), are in a situation in which HH petitions for Gdnship , because of WW's long term coma after car crash. HH files petition and inventory of prop, assets, accts, etc and requests apptmt/authority over all of them. Something like this, but more details, addresses, etc -->
Inventory: 1st Nat'l Bk checking a/c ($5,000); Derrill-Bynch brokerage ($ 15,000 IBM common stock); Gedility Mutual Funds ($ 30,000); Rental house ($ 125,000); Rental duplex ($ 200,000); Rental office bldg ($ 350,000),
< in WW's name only.

Iirc, the court (virtually? always) specifies in its Order/Letter, the properties, assets, accts, which HH has auth'ty to handle. At least IME at HQ of a national investment brokerage, HH is not allowed to place buy or sell orders for stocks, mut fds, etc, or make withdrawals, write checks, etc , in WW's a/c, unless/until home office law/compliance dept had reviewed ct doc's to verify that HH had been given auth'ty by the ct do do so.*
IME w real est, title ins. co's exercise similar scrutiny over real est transactions.

Personally cannot address bank practices, so hoping some others , esp'ly our legal professionals, will weigh in, to
comment, clarify, or correct. And if their exp. w other types of businesses or institutions is different from mine.
my2cts
----------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, some other situations allow HH to transact business for WW, for ex. if WW is named as trustee of WW's trust agreement of tr dox, or if WW executed a power of atty authorizing him to do so.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide information re Q I raised in my post - much appreciated! -

 

[katydid23]

Interesting.

yes, yes.
Dr. Joyce Brothers,the late tv psychologist and marriage counselor was once asked in an interview if she'd ever considered divorcing her husband. She said, divorce? No. But murder, YES!!

Yes, there is something to that^^^. When someone has been dating/married to someone since they were teens, they often feel like they could never allow someone else to love and marry them---but they don't want to be married to them any more either. [If I can't have you...]

It is kind of like an 'all or nothing' situation when it's your first love and things go sideways.

I do feel like there might be an element of this mixed in with whatever financial motive might be triggering him as well.