Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry if this has been posted:

5/21/20 from twitter, aerial shots of the home

Stephanie (Butzer) Rose on Twitter
Stephanie (Butzer) Rose on Twitter
Here are the aerial photos included with Stephanie's tweet:





Stephanie (Butzer) Rose

@stephaniebutzer


Here are some aerial shots of the Morphew home from this morning. Two law enforcement vehicles are in the driveway. The sheriff said the home is one of the many areas of focus during this investigation. Search warrant is sealed (per usual with cases like this). #SuzanneMorphew





9:13 AM · May 21, 2020·TweetDeck
 
I might be way off the mark as we're all different.

My husband was/is both military and LE. I sometimes look forward to having my time home alone if he's traveling for work. We like to miss each other. It's always worked for us. On those alone days at home I like my own schedule, making meals that are fun for just me to eat, watch a chick flick & fall asleep on the sofa, get my dogs out for a hike, have a friend over for a glass of wine, etc.

That was my thought behind my comment. She of course could have felt differently about that weekend which regardless had a devastating end.
I might be way off the mark as we're all different.

My husband was/is both military and LE. I sometimes look forward to having my time home alone if he's traveling for work. We like to miss each other. It's always worked for us. On those alone days at home I like my own schedule, making meals that are fun for just me to eat, watch a chick flick & fall asleep on the sofa, get my dogs out for a hike, have a friend over for a glass of wine, etc.

That was my thought behind my comment. She of course could have felt differently about that weekend which regardless had a devastating end.
 
A valid search warrant must meet four requirements:

(1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer;
(2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search;
(3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and
(4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
^^SBM

How does LE go about satisfying #4. If they haven't been in the place or have seen anything in there how can they be specific as to where they want to look and what they may want to remove. What do they do if when they get in there, they see something not listed in the warrant but is obviously of importance? Thank you.

Relative to item #4, I believe the following example illustrates the broad umbrella LE has to work with when drafting the search warrant for a Judge's signature:

For example, the specific area need only be defined in the warrant as the
the physical address of the residence being searched.

The specific items seized may be defined as property believed stolen or embezzled, or is designed or intended to be used for commission of a committing a criminal offense, is or has been used as a means of committing a criminal offense, or is illegal to possess, or would be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution......with an attached Statement to the Search Warrant citing that the listed items, if located during the search will be recovered as evidence.

Also, LE can search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are protecting their safety or the safety of others, or if they are acting to prevent the destruction of evidence. LE may also seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they are in plain view during the course of the search.

EXAMPLE: Affidavit to the Court for the issuance of a Search Warrant

upload_2020-5-21_8-46-7.png
upload_2020-5-21_8-49-9.png
 
I'm with you, I just don't think the husband has hurt her.

Even as the days are passing and it's starting to point more in his direction (removal of evidence from the house, not being allowed in the house etc.) I still believe he is sincere.

I hope we are right...but then what has happened?

MOO
I really wish we had more information as to their relationship as a couple. The minimal information out there portrays them as perfect but we all know that no marriage is perfect. I’d like to know more about their personalities. I can’t say one way or the other whether he’d hurt her because I don’t know them personally. You can’t believe what you see on social media because their photos are very posed etc. No one is saying anything negative(except that one politician) so that’s a good sign. If he’s innocent then let them go through his things. He has nothing to hide. Rule him out and keep searching.
 
Okay, between the Daily Mail article and Nancy Grace, both of whom have some really questionable reporting, I think I'm just more confused than ever about the bike ride.

One one thing about the Mail: They always have the best pictures. Always. Even if the articles are ridiculous and apparently never edited by anyone, let alone someone with a journalism degree.

So did she go on a bike ride and the neighbor saw her or not? Heck if I know.

Also, if the neighbor saw Suzanne with the bike, wouldn't there be some sort of alert as to what she had on? At the very least,the colour? E.g. "She had on a green biking outfit." That at least gives an idea.

MOO
 
No. Probable cause must relate to an alleged crime or criminal activity. It is not a crime to go missing.
Welcome Verified Attorney, Chomsky!!!
So glad to have you on board!!!
I have so many questions you would probably have me fired from WS...
So I will not belabor you with them now...
BUT... I AM eagerly awaiting your answers to questions from less amateurish sleuthers than myself! :)
 
No. Probable cause must relate to an alleged crime or criminal activity. It is not a crime to go missing.
Welcome Verified Attorney, Chomsky!!!
So glad to have you on board!!!
I have so many questions you would probably have me fired from WS...
So I will not belabor you with them now...
BUT... I AM eagerly awaiting your answers to questions from less amateurish sleuthers than myself! :)
 
I really wish we had more information as to their relationship as a couple. The minimal information out there portrays them as perfect but we all know that no marriage is perfect. I’d like to know more about their personalities. I can’t say one way or the other whether he’d hurt her because I don’t know them personally. You can’t believe what you see on social media because their photos are very posed etc. No one is saying anything negative(except that one politician) so that’s a good sign. If he’s innocent then let them go through his things. He has nothing to hide. Rule him out and keep searching.
Well here’s their marriage license info - aug 5, 1984

not really earthshaking info
 

Attachments

  • DA01D3DA-D94A-4E21-8729-3AE420509CE1.png
    DA01D3DA-D94A-4E21-8729-3AE420509CE1.png
    151.2 KB · Views: 51
I believe that people using the trails would have noticed the bike abandoned by/near the bridge, especially if it had been there for a day/few days. That makes me think it wasn't there before Mother's Day, so does that mean she did go missing on Mother's Day and not before? Or did LE get tips that it had been seen earlier?
 
So did she go on a bike ride and the neighbor saw her or not? Heck if I know.

It makes it so much harder because virtually every news story starts with "woman goes missing on bike ride." They just picked up original headline and keep repeating it. But it's like almost everything online - try to do some historical research and it's 100's of pages repeating the same thing, word for word.
 
^^bbm

WS members are most fortunate to have a new verified attorney @Chomsky that's been active here and provided guidance on similar questions earlier in this thread.

Specific to a search warrant for missing person case, take note that it's not a crime to go missing.

It's my understanding here that probable cause must relate to an alleged crime or criminal activity.

There would first have to be credible information that the person is not voluntarily missing, where they're missing against their will and/or under the influence of a third party (e.g., abduction, murdered victim).

It seems to me that we have a good grasp of the four requirements for a valid search warrant as itemized below but fall short on truly understanding how probable cause is established - especially in relation to a search.

A valid search warrant must meet four requirements:

(1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer;
(2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search;
(3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and
(4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

@Chomsky - can you perhaps help us marry these two legal concepts of how to establish probable cause to satisfy the requirement in a valid search warrant. Thanks again for your courtesy.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/search-seizure-faq/

Probable Cause (PC) for a search warrant (SW) requires showing that there is a substantial probability that items searched for are:

(1) Connected with criminal activity, and;
(2) Likely to be found on the premises.

How do the police persuade an impartial magistrate that there’s a substantial probability of items connected with criminal activity and that such items are likely found on the premises? In the warrant application, criminal investigators will submit sworn statements listing their reasons for believing both (1) and (2) are the case. The affidavit cannot say, “In my considered judgment as a criminal investigator, there is a substantial likelihood that there are items on the premises connected with criminal activity and they are likely to be found on the premises.” Instead, the affidavit must assist the impartial magistrate in making an independent judgment that both (1) and (2) are true.

So, take the case of Casey Anthony. Imagine the sworn statements the investigators submitted in their application for a search warrant. Or, take a look at the application and warrant here:

https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/60117140-casey-anthony-various-documents.pdf

I hope that's helpful.
 
I believe that people using the trails would have noticed the bike abandoned by/near the bridge, especially if it had been there for a day/few days. That makes me think it wasn't there before Mother's Day, so does that mean she did go missing on Mother's Day and not before? Or did LE get tips that it had been seen earlier?
True, it would have been noticed if it had been there for a while. So I'm of the option MOO that it had not been there long before it was found. However, we cannot know who put the bike there. We don't even know what day SM went missing. MOO
Welcome to Websleuths
 
If the neighbor's house was on a different access road (which seems to be the case), did the neighbor use Country Road 225 when she went to check on Suzanne? If yes, wouldn't she be crossing two bridges on the way (South Arkansas River and Fooses Creek)? In case Suzanne's bike was leaned against one of them, the neighbor would have noticed the bike (maybe not knowing whose it was) before even reaching the house. Is there a shortcut between the two houses?
 
BM could have given permission last week, as I understand things. Obviously he wouldn't, so the need for a warrant. Warrants can take time. you have to identify a "reason" why it's warranted but they could have done the same with Barry's permission.

They could've done an initial search with consent that we just don't know about, and came back with a warrant to collect evidence.
 
My dad never uses his cell phone and my mom and I constantly have to remind him to take it golfing or out with him on errands. I don’t don’t find it odd that he has not replaced it. If he doesn’t use it much it may not be important to replace.
I find it odd that he doesn't have his phone. It's obvious to me at least, that investigators aren't going with a kidnapping scenario because they would want him to have the phone in case a ransom demand is made.
 
According to the Nancy Grace article, the neighbor did see Suzanne on her bike. The Daily Mail claims that no-one saw her on her bike but when they approached Ritter, she declined to comment.

So I'm not sure which to believe.

Nancy Grace interviewed a reporter named Nicole who claimed that the neighbor did see her biking that day. It's hard to hear because NG kept interrupting her and talking over her when she was trying to talk.

The DM claimed the stepmother heard it from her stepdaughter who apparently heard it from Suzanne's daughter so there is no direct quote from either source. I doubt the stepmother actually spoke to the neighbor but I guess it's possible.

So it's hard to say which is accurate, since they are conflicting reports and nothing has been confirmed yet by LE.

Imo

I don't believe SM went missing during a bike ride.

But in the interest of discussion, I encourage everyone to go to Google Maps, and use the street view of Hwy 50 west of Maysville. You'll be able to "see" the terrain, and why I think it highly unlikely that neighbor JR saw SM leave her house for a bike ride. The houses are across the river from each other.

Start your "drive" just west of Maysville, and travel along Hwy 50, until you get to the Monarch River Estates sign, which is the entry to Monarch River Drive (to the right after turning off the highway) and Monarch Estates Drive (to the left after turning off the highway).

Turn the "driving" camera angle to the south (left if you are driving up the highway to the pass), and zoom in to look at Monarch Estates Drive road to your left. You will see a flat concrete span (might be a large culvert) that is the bridge over the South Arkansas River, and will give you some idea of what the bridges on the other subdivision roads probably look like.

Monarch River Drive, to the right after turning off the highway, is the road JR lives on, which is across the S Arkansas River from the Morphew house.

If you continue "driving" up the highway, turn to the south on occasion, and you will see the Morphew house across the way. The high roof peak with the large windows will be visible over the trees from the highway. Continue on up the highway, there are two homes on Monarch River Drive, JR's house is the second house in the trees on the highway side of the river. The structures are not totally exposed to the highway, but are somewhat visible through the trees.

This can get a tad confusing, but stick with me.

If SM went on a bike ride, she would have ridden down her driveway to Puma Path, then turned right, which would take her close to the river and a two-track trail, or she walked her bike across the river and up to JR's house.

Yes, there could be a small walkover bridge between the two homes, but JR's house is on a cul-de-sac, meaning after leaving the cul-de-sac, SM would have had to either go west across private property (several lots) and the river again to get to County Road 225. Or she'd have to take Monarch River Drive east out to Hwy 50, and ride along the highway back to the west to the trailhead.

Or there is one way for SM to ride close to JR's house. If SM turned right out of her driveway onto Puma Path, it looks like there is a two-track trail that passes below JR's house on SM's side of the river, then it curves back up to County Road 225. The two-track crosses private property, but it is vacant lots, so probably not an issue. SM might have been visible to JR if JR was out on a deck or looking out a window at the time SM rode by down below.

It's hard to tell on Google Maps if the two-track is rideable. But in any case, I think SM riding by JR's house is too complicated and unnecessary for SM to take that route.

I'm fairly certain SM would not have ridden by JR's house. It's out of the way, and in the opposite direction from County Road 225 and the trailhead to the west. It appears that there are several choices for places to ride at that trailhead at the junction of Hwy 50 and County Road 225.

I think it more likely she turned left out of her driveway onto Puma Path, and passing one driveway and house, rode to County Road 225, where, again, she could go left or right. Left takes County Road 225, past one driveway and house, to a trailhead area by Fooses Dam and Fooses Lake, where the road turns into the Colorado Trail.

Right takes her toward Hwy 50 and the trailhead, in which case she would cross Fooses Creek (likely just a concrete span like on Monarch Estates Drive as mentioned above). She'd also cross S Arkansas River, probably across a concrete span like the one across the river on Monarch Estates Drive. So not bridges in the truest sense of the word, or how many people are imagining a bridge.

Again, I don't believe she went on a bike ride. But if she did, it is HIGHLY unlikely that neighbor JR saw her leave.

I'll try to post some screenshots of the Google Maps streetview I took as I "drove" the highway, but I encourage each of you to go and look for yourself at the area. I think it would eliminate a lot of the inaccurate and unrealistic posts about the roads and highways and waterways and neighbors, etc. This is a rural area, and the idea of subdivision here is radically different than a subdivision in a suburb of a city or even a town.

In way of giving some heft to my statements above: I live in a rural area, in a rural subdivision, in a mountainous area, with homes on private wells, and septic tanks with drainage fields. I'd absolutely live where SM does, if I were looking for a new place. Where I am now is very similar, albeit closer to the town area.

I'm also a retired CAD jockey--I was a draftsman, a mapmaker, using AutoCad for many years, working for an engineering firm. I love maps, which is how I orient myself wherever I am. Which probably explains why I like maps to show north UP. Always. Less room for confusion and misinterpretation.

As always, IMO on the statements that are my supposition.
 
ITA and on thinking about this further, I wonder if that is why the reverse 911 went out. It struck me as odd that there would be a request for door ring cameras etc. out there around where she lived. The homes are so far apart and then down into Maysville where there, again, are few homes and the businesses are back from the road. It isn't until you get near and into Salidas that ring cameras could be present and helpful.
I wonder if they had a tip about a vehicle, either parked in a lot or along side the road there where the "item" was found. Perhaps LE is going through tons of tapes to see if they can map a particular car coming and going. That takes time.

LE asked for people *not* to send in the videos just yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
2,873
Total visitors
3,044

Forum statistics

Threads
592,132
Messages
17,963,738
Members
228,690
Latest member
aishavn
Back
Top