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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s interesting that Rose says it’s common for investigations to start from the home and then work their way out or something like that. So why didn’t they do this a week ago? Why now? Is it due to obtaining a search warrant? How long do those usually take to get approved?
Recall the Mollie Tibbetts case. The FBI obtained a search warrant for her home five days after her disappearance, despite there being no evidence at that time that she was the victim of foul play.

Boyfriend of missing Iowa woman vows to 'never stop' searching
 
If the bike was staged, how did the perp know that it wouldn't be found fairly quickly by the traffic in the area and reported (or even reported later about being there for a while if it was staged the day before)?

The perp would have wanted the bike to be found, if they left it propped up or failed to hide it after Suzanne propped it up.
 
We know they brought in divers from Pueblo County to search the waterways and plenty of firefighters from surrounding counties that can assist if necessary. Probably no different than when legal professionals have to recuse themselves regarding family or conflicts of interest. The intent is the same, protect the integrity of the investigation. MOO
Ohhh, they would still want his phone. His alibi being rock solid does not mean that he didn't contract a killer. Also, he could have done something in the days before he left for his supposed "alibi trip." Lastly, if he had a girlfriend, she might have done something without his knowledge. So there are many good reasons for the police to take the phone, even with a good alibi.

That’s my point bc clearly an alibi isn’t rock solid if you are being treated as a suspect.
 
Yes, that's the question. IMO, the reporter may have just been reporting what she "heard" and didn't actually speak to the neighbor herself. She should have clarified that if that's the case. Take it with a grain of salt at this point. I commented something similar in an earlier post about this. Nicole doesn't say how she knows this as fact, that the neighbor supposedly saw SM on a bike. It seems unlikely that the neighbor did.

Also, on the podcast, in the very next breath, Nancy mentions the unconfirmed report that a daughter, unable to reach SM, "calls the neighbor and asks her to call... Jackie, are you saying she asked her to call the mom or asked her to call police?" Answer: "Call the police."

Then Nancy says, "So in any event, you're correct, that it is the neighbor. I was wondering what prompted the neighbor to realize that Suzanne was missing." And then tells Nicole to pick it up from there. Nicole says, "So authorities were alerted and..." So the whole thing about "wait was it the daughters who called the neighbor or did the neighbor notice on her own that she saw Suzanne leaving for a bike ride and never return home" clarification kind of got glossed over.

Thank you for this. I listened to the podcast and found it frustrating as times. NG talks over and interrupts her guests often. The first podcast I ever listened to of hers was the one on missing child Serenity Dennard. It was so full of false info by NG and her other guests with the exception of the gentlemen from the Polly Klass Foundation, he was on point.

Edited to add: IMO
 
This post lands at random.

It is okay to link to an obituary that is found as a result of sleuthing the victim. You can paraphrase here without using names, but do NOT sleuth or bring the names of any of those individuals to this discussion.

For example: mother is deceased, there are X siblings

Hope that clarifies.
 
A couple things that have crossed my mind. We don't know for sure if and when the neighbor said she saw SM riding her bike.
Also, if she saw someone on Mother's Day, can she be certain if was SM?
 
Good afternoon sleuthers! Or what do we call ourselves? I’m brand new here and I am obsessed! I took part in the SM live chat last night and couldn’t wait to get all my chores done this morning so I could get back on here!!! Anyway so I’m trying to quote K9 Enzo here because I feel the same way as what she said. I love when my husband is gone out of town and I have the house to myself! I can do what I want, watch what I want, eat what I want, walk dogs, take long bath, drink wine & stay online for hours! Lol :D I have an older child who was away at college (b4 Covid) and if she would have had other plans on Mother’s Day weekend we would just celebrate Mother’s Day another day or go out for dinner probably after MD when it’s less crowded (again b4 Covid). As long as she called me on MD I’d be good and I would hope my spouse would acknowledge MD in some small way if he were gone perhaps leave me a card or small gift or flowers but I wouldn’t mind if he was not home...quite the opposite! So if SM was home alone on MD and she wanted to take a bike ride right before sunset in the beautiful area where she lives then I don’t find that odd at all. But not taking her cell phone in case of an emergency is a red flag to me. And we still don’t know if she did or didn’t take the phone right? But I’m quite sure LE knows if she took her phone and has a record of all pings, calls & texts that transpired. There is so much going on behind the scenes that we don’t know and it’s so frustrating. After years of watching Dateline my mind goes to the spouse and I hope for the daughters sake that is wrong and they will not lose both parents. Further I hope & pray above all else that she will still be found alive!! And that BM is innocent and we will all feel guilty as hell for thinking otherwise. <modsnip: not victim friendly>
 
I'm not going to claim to be a journalism expert, but my recollection from journalism class (from YEARS ago) is that this is essentially reporting hearsay/rumor. The mother heard it from her daughter who allegedly is friends with BM/SMs daughter who may or may not have had first hand knowledge that nobody saw her mother on a bike (and, actually, could likely only have first-hand knowledge that the neighbor didn't seen SM on the bike as opposed to actually knowing that no one saw her on the bike). I think that's a long way around the barn - and while it may be true - I think it's published hearsay and I'd be cautious at this point about taking it as fact. JMO.
Yes, that's true. In a situation where someone said something to someone that someone else said, it's just too many "someone's" for me.

That's why I would like some clarification as to whether or not Suzanne actually went out on a bike ride that day or not.

I'm not even sure what the DM's source was that the bike was found on a bridge. They refer to local sources but don't really say how they obtained the information.

Imo
 
The last post on that page was BM's plea to the unknown person(s) who may have taken Suzanne o_O
That timing is certainly very interesting.

Has Suzanne's nephew (who was running the FB Missing page) been interviewed by the media since the video was posted on the Missing page? I'm thinking not, but my memory is faulty.

To be clear, I'm very much on the fence, but also very much leaning with my heart. Because that's how I want it to go.

Thank you @sillybilly for the clarification above! :)
 
Thank you for this. I listened to the podcast and found it frustrating as times. NG talks over and interrupts her guests often. The first podcast I ever listened to of hers was the one on missing child Serenity Dennard. It was so full of false info by NG and her other guests with the exception of the gentlemen from the Polly Klass Foundation, he was on point.

Edited to add: IMO

First time I ever heard her, was the Caylee Anthony case.
I knew 2 people directly involved in that case (I never followed here) and I knew for a fact she was dead wrong about a handful of things she was reporting on at the time and it drove me nuts.
I was folding laundry and I threw bundled socks and stuff at the tv, and yelled to hubby "you know she's lying!" and he just sort of laughed and said "I know, but what are you going to do about it?".

That was my intro, to Nancy Grace. o_O
 
That timing is certainly very interesting.

Has Suzanne's nephew (who was running the FB Missing page) been interviewed by the media since the video was posted on the Missing page? I'm thinking not, but my memory is faulty.

To be clear, I'm very much on the fence, but also very much leaning with my heart. Because that's how I want it to go.

Thank you @sillybilly for the clarification above! :)
Is it normal for the family spokesperson to never go on tv? I haven’t even seen his face.
 
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.
Great post and thank you! Where do you think the bike was found?

Later MSM articles describe “a bridge” as where the bike was found - nearby or at we don’t know. The search areas were around CR 225/Hwy 50 and then later slightly up west to Monarch Pass.

Which river, creek, or gully crossing would you most say a layperson would describe as a “bridge” and not a culvert?
 
LE Holding BM's Phone?
@Rrock22 :) In MP/suspicious disappearance cases, when a spouse's/SO's alibi of being 500 miles away at the relevant times has been verified as rock solid, that does not negate the LE's need for data from spouse's/SO's phone/e-devices.

Possibility of accomplices to commit the crime in person, while spouse/SO is halfway around the planet, ya know.
Not saying that ^ applies in this case. jmo

But she hasn’t been found and they are supposedly treating the case as a missing person.

So if a person is just missing and no foul play suspected there is no reason to take the phone of a spouse immediately, what would be the point?

Why take a phone before a body is found confirming foul play in a missing person case unless that person is very much suspected of foul play regardless of where or what they claim? Hence no rock solid alibi
 
This struck me as odd, from the beginning. It makes zero sense that LE would risk that people even know how to save footage. How many even know how often it gets over written? I don't on mine, plus online is different than local storage, and local storage can vary by memory card size. It just screams that they are saying "it's cool, we've got this figured out."

Agreed. It came across to me as if they don’t think they will need any of the footage bc they have a good idea what happened already and that was more of a safer than sorry thing, save your video bc we may want it later after arresting the culprit for further proof of the crime committed.

They would be making pleas to the public to send in home video if they didn’t have a clue what happened, so clearly they know something
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know what the typical time frame of evidence being removed from a scene and lab test & results being completed usually is?
Depends on what it is to be tested, what test(s) need to be performed, which specialist/scientist, if testing can be done in-house or needs to be sent elsewhere, what else is in the queue or a higher priority, etc, etc. Could be anywhere from a couple weeks to months. And things being tested aren't all ready at one time.
 
But she hasn’t been found and they are supposedly treating the case as a missing person.

So if a person is just missing and no foul play suspected there is no reason to take the phone of a spouse immediately, what would be the point?

Why take a phone before a body is found confirming foul play in a missing person case unless that person is very much suspected of foul play regardless of where or what they claim? Hence no rock solid alibi
They supposedly took the car too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
3,459
Total visitors
3,612

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,815
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top