Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #35

[ivegotthemic]

ITA, we have no way to assess the covid factor in this investigation, but IMO, it has been bigger than we suspected. I’m also afraid it has given our bad guy a lot of cover.

Id argue thats BM didnt seem to concerned about following COVID guidelines when SM was alive even though she was a cancer survivor, whose immune system was potentially compromised. I mean he did promise to be there in an interview and if we cant trust his word when given to a reporter when he knows it will be recorded as news then when can we trust his word (if i had to guess id say never )

 

[MsBetsy]

I'm confused. Are you saying you think Husband suspects Brother?? I've never seen or heard suggestion of such. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. or mixing up some initials.

I don't think it's so much that Barry is "suspicious" of AM, but rather he is projecting his own feelings of guilt onto someone else. AM said, "My brother-in-law wants to throw rocks at everybody else for not communicating with my sister."

Barry has blamed Suzanne's family, the FBI, and the sheriff's office for what happened but as far as we know has never expressed any feelings of guilt or regret.

Even in cases where the husband is guilty they will often say something like, "It's my fault because I left her alone," or something that points towards responsibility without actually admitting to the crime, but so far we haven't seen that here. I wonder if he made a comment like that during one of his interviews with LE.

 

[10ofRods]

they were range rovers but to and to the fun since 2008 range rover is owned by land rover

That's why I love WS. That change went completely unnoticed by me. And I drive Toyotas.

Up until 2018 (16-402 Carpenter v. United States (6/22/2018)), subpoena's were used freely since investigators across the country relied on only obtaining a court order for [voluntary] disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (1986).

The rule had never been challenged until Carpenter. Subpoenas can still be used unless it's clear the government acquisition of cell records is a Fourth Amendment search (i.e., Fourth Amend protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well) -- official intrusion requires a warrant supported by reasonable cause.

Tracking a person's movements clearly defies an individual's expectation of privacy, and now requires a warrant -- not a subpoena/court order.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

ETA: Significant difference between a subpoena (court order) and the higher burden required for a warrant: court order requires reasonable grounds to believe the records will aid an ongoing criminal investigation.

Thank you. I did know that putting a tracker on someone required more than just a subpoena.

I'm guessing that a warrant was used in this case, and that it is sealed with the others for the time being (as it should be). In that way, it's possible that MG's phone became subject to a warrant as well. Which is interesting.

 

[Seattle1]

MVHO, AM truly suspects BM, doesn’t make him guilty.
BM truly suspects AM, doesn’t make him guilty, either.

^^RSBM

Somewhere it seems you left out that it's LE that obviously suspects BM, and why WS is allowing this thread to follow the lead of LE.

I don't recall AM coming forward until after LE reportedly told SM family members sometime late August that it was not true that BM had been cleared and passed polygraph over SM's disappearance. IMO, AM was given good reason to be suspicious of BM.

I don't recall any evidence that LE suspects AM. Where is this coming from?

 

[Dalgliesh]

MG may well be an employee - under all kinds of laws, it's tough to make someone who looks like an employee into an independent contractor. Here's only one example, from WC. Similar rules apply for other benefits.
​

Independent Contractors

Under Colorado Law, an individual is presumed to be in covered employment unless and until it is shown that the individual is free from control and direction in the performance of services, both under contract and in fact, and that the individual is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession or business related to the work performed. This means that the worker will be presumed to be in covered employment until the putative employer meets its burden to establish otherwise. This burden may be shifted to the Division, however, through the use of a written document or contract. If the contract meets all of the requirements of the law, the worker would be presumed to be an independent contractor and it would be the worker's burden to establish otherwise. Please keep in mind this does not mean the worker would ultimately be determined to be an independent contractor, only that the burden of proof would be shifted.

To create the presumption of an independent contractor relationship, the writing or contract must contain the following clauses that both parties agree to and that, in fact, both parties act accordingly.

The company does not require the individual to work exclusively for the person for whom services are performed, except that the individual may choose to work exclusively for the said person for a finite period of time specified in the document,

The company does not establish a quality standard for the individual, except that such person can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the individual as to how the work will be performed.

The company does not pay a salary or hourly rate but rather a fixed or contract rate.

The company cannot terminate the work during the contract period unless the individual violates the terms of the contract or fails to produce a result that meets the specifications of the contract.

The company does not provide anything more than minimal training for the individual.

The company does not provide tools or benefits to the individual, except that materials and equipment may be supplied.

The company does not dictate the time of performance, except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established.

The company does not pay the individual personally but rather makes checks payable to the trade or business name of the individual; and

The company does not combine their business operations in any way with the individual',s business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct.
In addition to including the above factors, the contract must contain a disclosure, in type which is larger than the other provisions in the document or in bold-faced type or underlined type, that the independent contractor is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits unless unemployment compensation coverage is provided by the independent contractor or some other entity, and that the independent contractor is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on any moneys paid pursuant to the contract relationship.

Only if both of the above requirements are met will the presumption of an independent contractor relationship be created.

from: Independent Contractors | Department of Labor & Employment

 

[Ssschu]

Well if he has convinced them she was kidnapped they wouldn't want to be in the house IMO.

It's ok....the mountain lion doesn't have a key. Lol

 

[Mama Cat]

Who had been scheduling and rescheduling the Broomfield job prior to the 10th, the client or BM?

And did that scheduling have anything to do with their daughter’s canceled/rescheduled camping trip?

 

[fraudqueen]

Just so you remember to watch for this little bit of body language in these interviews....when a person is lying they look up and to the right. When they are telling the truth, they look to their left. The only people who can lie looking straight at you are psychopaths.

 

[Backstroke10]

rbbm
Hi don't think this is gonna make much sense typed out, but what the heck, I shall give it a go - if what is reported in DM is accurate, his GPS data wouldn't match up to what BM had previously (reportedly) said would it? If BM drove to and checked in HIE Saturday, stayed there until Sunday late afternoon/evening - how did he see SM at home 5am Mother's Day? His GPS is showing "BM" at HIE and not in Maysville - which is where he said he was 5am Mother's Day, so he is either lying about being at home, or lying about being in the hotel, or lying that it was him driving, or just lying and lying and lying - urgh lies and secrets, secrets and lies - what a load of ****

BBM My apology for not being clear in my post. I was speculating that BM checked into the hotel on Saturday (to set up his alibi), drove back home to kill SM and then drove back to the hotel on Sunday. With MGs new information and JP saying he saw BM on Saturday, I have no idea anymore. I wish LS would ask BM when he checked into the hotel or possibly speak to a hotel employee that was there. I can’t figure out the timeline and the conflicting information (DM article saying he checked in on Saturday) is driving me crazy. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

That's why I love WS. That change went completely unnoticed by me. And I drive Toyotas.



Thank you. I did know that putting a tracker on someone required more than just a subpoena.

I'm guessing that a warrant was used in this case, and that it is sealed with the others for the time being (as it should be). In that way, it's possible that MG's phone became subject to a warrant as well. Which is interesting.

If you were unaware of the 2018 Supreme Court Ruling, you probably wouldn't know about the warrant requirement-- after court order used for decades.

Also, it's likely that MG consented to give LE her phone data but tracking her whereabouts and/or the location of her phone pings while she was communicating with others including BM most likely obtained under SW.

MOO

 

[ivegotthemic]

I'll bet all the donuts that he pays his crew as subcontractors. Some day, we may know for sure.


So let me make sure I get it.

LE in this case got search warrants (we don't know exactly for what or how many, right?)

Would there be something to prevent a judge from including BM's cell phone? Why would LE take MG's cell phone if they can't legally look at it? Was a warrant issued for her phone as well - or did LE merely take the phone off of MG to make some other point (just to deprive her of a cell phone)?

What's your opinion? I would think the warrants would cover cell phones and that a digital footprint involving the phone carrier's records would be normal in this case (as well as FB, and other SM information).

If LE has not been able to obtain records for BM's cell phone carrier, FB and other similar data (including GPS data from the truck), then this investigation can't be going very far, based on what we know.

It is odd that they have MG's phone too...especially if they can't look at it.

I like your questions! So a warrant will only be signed if LE can prove to a judge they have probable cause o believe some specific information can be found on BM's phone. Theres no set rule for whats enough to meet probable cause, but it must be more likely than not that the specific items to be searched for are connected with criminal activities and that these items will be found in the place to be searched. so for example they could probably make a case for SM's text given that we know she abruptly stopped talking in the middle of a conversation. If LE truly believes BM had something to do with SMs disappearance the gps would likely be enough but they have to have some sort of proof to show the judge why theyve come to that conclusion.

In the case of MG I thought I had read she voluntarily gave her phone to LE, she wouldnt have had to without a warrant. I had assumed since she was cooperating with LE that she likely gave them her password. obviously i cant say for sure. LE does not need a warrant when they get consent from the owner.

LE could also take the phone if they had reason to believe vital evidence would be immediately deleted that they couldn't recover. Police-Created Exigency Doctrine: Under this doctrine, police may not rely on the need to prevent the destruction of evidence when that exigency was created or manufactured by the conduct of the police. In applying this exception for the creation or manufacturing of an exigency by the police, courts require something more than mere proof that fear of detection by the police caused the destruction of evidence. So it has to be a genuine emergency and the judge can throw out any information discovered if he finds out the warrant was granted under false pretenses

honestly, I dont think i could make a guess in this case. we literally have NO IDEA what LE has found. however i will say the fact that theyve served multiple warrants on BMs house and at his work sites is promising, they have something indicating they should be looking in his direction so I would assume, and i have no factual basis for this that they may have access to his texts at least

 

[Seattle1]

BBM My apology for not being clear in my post. I was speculating that BM checked into the hotel on Saturday (to set up his alibi), drove back home to kill SM and then drove back to the hotel on Sunday. With MGs new information and JP saying he saw BM on Saturday, I have no idea anymore. I wish LS would ask BM when he checked into the hotel or possibly speak to a hotel employee that was there. I can’t figure out the timeline and the conflicting information (DM article saying he checked in on Saturday) is driving me crazy. MOO

It was the six-hour roundtrip (Salida to Broomfield) that could not be accommodated in the DM report that kept me from giving their Saturday check-in any credibility. JMO...

 

[RumorMonger]

That's not necessarily true. We already heard from a family member, from an approved source, that BM called the shots.
If he were in control of the bills, just as he was in control of the IN to CO move, then it's quite possible that she did not have the authority to have cameras repaired (or reinstated with service) or take it upon herself to have the landline hooked up.

I find that to be a huge leap. I don't even know what "control of bills" means. If SM called the phone company and requested a landline be installed it would happen. She does in fact have authority to install a landline just by being an owner of the house. Other homeowners and/or residents may not like it, but CenturyLink (or whoever) takes no responsibility for that. They certainly would not ask for a permission slip. IMO

 

[Ssschu]

from PE:

AM and crew are headed to colorado, from indiana, in a caravan on sept 22 (about 35 people). he plans to get with the sheriff and CBI first thing.

mark johnson's (lawyer, CEO of Visual Labs) company specializes in forensic documentation and forensic visualization, showing accurately a crime scene, or a disaster scene, using digital tools and interfacing with LE groups, as well as search and rescue. they use drone technology with thermal-based sensors to detect activity and disturbances and clandestine graves, things not apparent to the naked eye. they have new software developed to coordinate on the ground, so as to not waste resources and/or time. since it's such a remote area, they also have access to image libraries, both aerial satellite- based and terrestrial photo-dimetric imaging, so it's possible to go into the historical record and see if they can find any useful info. he's going to be pulling some of the aerials, from mother's day, to identify potential areas to make available for the search teams! wow! (mark also helped with the daybell case.)

per andy, they have collected EVI (electric vehicle information). the cell phone info has been kept very private by the investigators, and AM feels there must be a reason behind that, so he's not questioning it. he is hoping once he gets to colorado, they will give him and his crew suspect areas to search.

mike asks andy to share with the viewers (and mark, the guest) the change that has happened in the last 4-5 weeks since he went public with his pleas for help. andy replies, "LS from fox21 did some really interesting interviews that i would beg you to watch. if you thought some things were sinister before, when you watch those, you're really gonna think that. i know i do. my sole mission is to find my sister. i'm not a judge, a jury, or the police. they can deal with the rest. i just need to find suzanne. that's my goal. my only goal."

So many great forces joining together for Suzanne!!

 

[Backstroke10]

It was the six-hour roundtrip (Salida to Broomfield) that could not be accommodated in the DM report that kept me from giving their Saturday check-in any credibility. JMO...

He could have left Salida at 5am on Saturday, gone to Broomfield and been back in Salida by 11am (working with MG). I think it’s possible but no, I don’t think it’s what happened. MOO

 

[JEM1975]

Does anyone know how many members of this group are signed up to help? I'd love to if I lived closer!

I live 4 hours away in Frederick, CO and my sister and I are signed up and going

 

[JEM1975]

Does anyone know how many members of this group are signed up to help? I'd love to if I lived closer!

I live 4 hours away in Frederick, CO and my sister and I are signed up and going

 

[TKG]

I live 4 hours away in Frederick, CO and my sister and I are signed up and going

Me and my husband are signed up and going.

 

[Seattle1]

I live 4 hours away in Frederick, CO and my sister and I are signed up and going

Good on you and your sister!

(Frederick is a town of lovely people -- I was there for SW's celebration of life).

 

[Blue Amethyst]

Thanks @Fireflize & WS family! I would rather the roof get ripped off than lose my internet connection...or AC! Lol

Love and Keep safe from Canada. We will be thinking about you.