Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #11

[10ofRods]

ITA as soon as I read that comment I thought - control is very important to the husband -IMO

And I had the same thought while watching and rewatching his youtube video. I've already mentioned all the details that say 'controlling director' of the short video.

Since then, in his next video appearance, I've noted his apparent tendency toward hyperbole/mistakes with details such as numbers. He has a lot of unfinished sentences and unintelligible words in the TD "interview." This works only with him in control of a situation, it would not work if he was speaking to a jury or to LE or to an actual reporter. He needs the listener to stay passive, not be intrusive, not make assumptions, ignore the leaps in meaning.

He is said to be somewhat introverted, so I think he trails off or restarts sentences with entirely new premises because he is thinking very carefully about what he wants to say (controlling the narrative).

He falters the most when he can't work out how to continue speaking without the narrative going somewhere he doesn't want it to go. He seems nervous, as well (and many would be, under the circumstances; others would be glad of an attempt to get someone to help find Suzanne).

And what he says, so far, never goes to "Please help me find Suzanne, she was last seen at X time, they found her blue bike, we don't know what happened to her, etc. etc" If he thinks it was a mountain lion, then he should also appeal to all the backwoodsmen/women and hunters, because they might pick up some clues (especially if we knew what shoes Suzanne was wearing - or what helmet, because mountain lions do not eat helmets).

I think it takes super self-control for the distraught husband of a woman who vanished 3 weeks ago to not stray into territory that he's previously decided is off-limits. I would say only a small fraction of people can speak for as long as he did and keep themselves away from certain topics.

 

[FelicityLemon]

YT guy making the video of BM: making it might not be a legal issue (a moral issue, for sure) but posting it on yt might be a problem of interference for the investigation. imo of course.

 

[10ofRods]

Thank you for sharing the definition of “sleuth”. I know nothing about the use of the English language.
<modsnip>

You are very welcome here. Your questions and perspectives matter and are a reason the rest of us keep thinking and rethinking. I think I've been guilty of spreading what later turned out to be gossip (maybe not on this case, but on others). Sometimes it's very hard to remember exactly where one sees something (so, I tending to stay off the FB groups in this one - but darned if twitter doesn't occasionally throw up some offbeat ideas, too).

Plus, sometimes someone tries to quote someone else here, from memory, and a little detail changes (so that now, for example, most of us are convinced the bike was in a ravine, even though the person who first said it - the Fire Chief, AFAIK, probably or likely got that info from BM. The nephew's info about the bike being found must surely have come from BM. So, that starts to "feel like a fact," but we really don't know. The nephew early on said something about the brakes being jammed, and one explanation could be that the brake lock device was on - but we don't know.

None of that is "meaningless" gossip, they are things that keep getting said by various actors in this case - just not by LE. IMO

And nothing you've posted, that I've seen, is meaningless OR gossip. We're all in the spitballing phase, and we get to have opinions! (Scroll and roll is a good motto).

 

[Seattle1]

Sunday will be a month Missing - wonder what will happen - if anything ?

Painful to read this. Where are you Suzanne?....

 

[FelicityLemon]

When thinking a person is missing in a nature setting like this, the first thing that comes to my mind isn't that a crime occurred; it's that we need to rush to find the person missing, especially before it gets dark. I assume (yes, I'm an *advertiser censored*) that there's little to no thought about preserving any 'scene' for evidence other than any sign of what happened and where which direction did the person go. Of course, there'd be all kinds of people walking around 'trampling' the area because they're organizing a search and rescue effort unless there are indications that point to a crime. If that was the case from the get-go, then I can see BM being frustrated at LE.

 

[Acorunadepor]

And I had the same thought while watching and rewatching his youtube video. I've already mentioned all the details that say 'controlling director' of the short video.

Since then, in his next video appearance, I've noted his apparent tendency toward hyperbole/mistakes with details such as numbers. He has a lot of unfinished sentences and unintelligible words in the TD "interview." This works only with him in control of a situation, it would not work if he was speaking to a jury or to LE or to an actual reporter. He needs the listener to stay passive, not be intrusive, not make assumptions, ignore the leaps in meaning.

He is said to be somewhat introverted, so I think he trails off or restarts sentences with entirely new premises because he is thinking very carefully about what he wants to say (controlling the narrative).

He falters the most when he can't work out how to continue speaking without the narrative going somewhere he doesn't want it to go. He seems nervous, as well (and many would be, under the circumstances; others would be glad of an attempt to get someone to help find Suzanne).

And what he says, so far, never goes to "Please help me find Suzanne, she was last seen at X time, they found her blue bike, we don't know what happened to her, etc. etc" If he thinks it was a mountain lion, then he should also appeal to all the backwoodsmen/women and hunters, because they might pick up some clues (especially if we knew what shoes Suzanne was wearing - or what helmet, because mountain lions do not eat helmets).

I think it takes super self-control for the distraught husband of a woman who vanished 3 weeks ago to not stray into territory that he's previously decided is off-limits. I would say only a small fraction of people can speak for as long as he did and keep themselves away from certain topics.

This can be read in multiple ways. He is in shock, which is normal, and thus nothing makes sense to him. Then it is completely normal to mix up words and intonation, start sentences and break them off. And most of all having a feeling of malaise, literally feeling sick.

On the other hand if he is the controlling sociopath, he is not doing a great job. Every chance he gets to portray himself turns out in a painful watch. He actually is offering no narrative, and thus not controlling one. Maybe he tries to play the distraught husband being in shock, but it is not convincing.

I am offering up these two options, just to see how they would fit. IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

YT guy making the video of BM: making it might not be a legal issue (a moral issue, for sure) but posting it on yt might be a problem of interference for the investigation. imo of course.

I don’t think it’s an issue. What he did was legal, as you say, and he’s not a party to the case.

This sort of thing is actually pretty common in major cases.

 

[GordianKnot]

Speaking as a bicyclist, helmets, when properly attached, do not come off easily without human intervention. For safety they’re designed that way, not unlike seatbelts. IMO

If it was the helmet that was found, that's suggestive, because as you say, it's not something that just "falls off" in a scuffle.

Most mountain lions don't know how to untie a strap, much less want to bother with one.
So there's that.

It's a bit of stretch to imagine an abductor taking the time to remove their victim's helmet before throwing her into the trunk of their vehicle, either.

So there's that, too.

I think depending on how close the item(s) found were to the location her bike was retrieved, some of the more likely possibilities are:

• SM's bike helmet
• SM's phone
• One of her shoes

I don't think the perp will have left an article of her clothing due to the risk of touch/trace DNA.

JMO.

 

[LietKynes]

I’m not interested in people laughing at me or my questions or piling on or berating me. Number one, I’m trying to learn. and number two, I can give my opinion as well as anyone else can. If people can answer my questions it really helps me because so many posters are experienced. And I really appreciate them.

If all they can say is “Do you really....” as an attempt to shut me down because I am taking their time, I will just keep asking. I can’t keep up with every post on the thread.

No one is laughing at you and we are all trying to learn.
Your posts are appreciated.

 

[citygirl]

And I had the same thought while watching and rewatching his youtube video. I've already mentioned all the details that say 'controlling director' of the short video.

Since then, in his next video appearance, I've noted his apparent tendency toward hyperbole/mistakes with details such as numbers. He has a lot of unfinished sentences and unintelligible words in the TD "interview." This works only with him in control of a situation, it would not work if he was speaking to a jury or to LE or to an actual reporter. He needs the listener to stay passive, not be intrusive, not make assumptions, ignore the leaps in meaning.

He is said to be somewhat introverted, so I think he trails off or restarts sentences with entirely new premises because he is thinking very carefully about what he wants to say (controlling the narrative).

He falters the most when he can't work out how to continue speaking without the narrative going somewhere he doesn't want it to go. He seems nervous, as well (and many would be, under the circumstances; others would be glad of an attempt to get someone to help find Suzanne).

And what he says, so far, never goes to "Please help me find Suzanne, she was last seen at X time, they found her blue bike, we don't know what happened to her, etc. etc" If he thinks it was a mountain lion, then he should also appeal to all the backwoodsmen/women and hunters, because they might pick up some clues (especially if we knew what shoes Suzanne was wearing - or what helmet, because mountain lions do not eat helmets).

I think it takes super self-control for the distraught husband of a woman who vanished 3 weeks ago to not stray into territory that he's previously decided is off-limits. I would say only a small fraction of people can speak for as long as he did and keep themselves away from certain topics.

Keen observation but, IMO, so unconvincing.
Operative words.....controlling the narrative.
So sad for this pretty missing mother and her two lovely daughters.
I can't help shake the feeling that this is an ages old saga.
MOO.

 

[MassGuy]

If it was the helmet that was found, that's suggestive, because as you say, it's not something that just "falls off" in a scuffle.

Most mountain lions don't know how to untie a strap, much less want to bother with one.
So there's that.

And most abductors don't take the time to remove their victim's helmet before throwing her into the trunk of their vehicle, either.

So there's that, too.

I think depending on how close the item(s) found were to the location her bike was retrieved, some of the more likely possibilities for the item(s) LE found are:

• SM's bike helmet
• SM's phone
• One of her shoes

I don't think the perp will have left an article of her clothing due to the risk of touch/trace DNA.

JMO.

The item seems to have been positively identified (as hers) very quickly, so I’m leaning towards it being her phone or keys.

It doesn’t sound like BM was asked to identify it, and if someone close to him was asked to provide that information, I think he would know.

 

[TobyWong*]

Sunday will be a month Missing - wonder what will happen - if anything ?

Ikr? Seems like this shouldve been handled and solved the first week or two. Its the radio silence that has me thinking we just need to figure out when she was last heard from and where she/her body has been put... Then we can begin prosecution...Imo

 

[Boxer]

If BM did this, her body is somewhere on the way to Denver.

 

[K9Enzo]

The item seems to have been positively identified (as hers) very quickly, so I’m leaning towards it being her phone or keys.

It doesn’t sound like BM was asked to identify it, and if someone close to him was asked to provide that information, I think he would know.

It took your post for it to click for me. It could be her phone or keys. IMO, BM would know if they are not at the house, assumed she had them with her but still not know exactly what LE recovered.

I’ve also thought a shoe or lightweight jacket/pullover.

 

[Warwick7]

If BM did this, her body is somewhere on the way to Denver.

Yes! And probably done on the 8th.
moo

 

[FelicityLemon]

I don’t think it’s an issue. What he did was legal, as you say, and he’s not a party to the case.

This sort of thing is actually pretty common in major cases.

True, but BM is I do think it's more likely that BM's -attorney if he's got one- requested or threatened that the yt'er remove it. I also think that any suspect (not saying BM is a suspect) who gives interviews, posts on social media is providing information with every word.

In another thread, someone was questioning what he could have said that would be of import and we know that, sometimes it's the fact that someone contradicts themselves with statements provided earlier and it's on the record. Especially if it's not a structured interview because a free-flowing chat or stream of consciousness can sink any of us, lol.

 

[Minordetails]

Thanks for the link, Cindizzi !
I'd also like to know who told him the bike was in a ravine ?
Not that I doubt it completely, I just want to know how he heard this ?
Because I'm certain it wasn't LE.
Imo.

My brother is a police officer and volunteer fire fighter.

 

[GordianKnot]

The item seems to have been positively identified (as hers) very quickly, so I’m leaning towards it being her phone or keys.

It doesn’t sound like BM was asked to identify it, and if someone close to him was asked to provide that information, I think he would know.

The discussion of found items has my brain veering in another direction.

Bear with me here.

LE has stated they have recovered a certain item, or items, belonging to SM.

They have not told anyone, including BM, what they have recovered.

Okay. Next:

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're the perp, and that your motive for disappearing SM was largely a financial one.

That being the case, I think one of two things would be true in this case:

1. SM wasn't wearing her wedding ring when she "went for a bike ride."
2. The perp couldn't bring himself to dispose of that ring along with her body, because it obviously has significant monetary value.

So, what would you do if you knew that SM always wore her wedding ring?

I'm thinking you'd likely squirrel that ring in a spot where you could safely retrieve it down the road, figuratively speaking, if not literally.

Now imagine as the perp that you hear LE has recovered certain item(s) belonging to SM.
But they haven't disclosed what they've found.

Even though you know that the overwhelming odds are that they found the item(s) you intentionally and somewhat conspicuously planted for them to find, would you or would you not fight an almost irresistible urge to go reassure yourself that the ring was still hidden where you had placed it?

You see where I'm going with that?

JMO.

 

[Feistyomi]

JMO....... to call LE selfish is pretty ballsy. They have more information on this case than what you could ever know. Just because they are being tight lipped on what they know, doesn't really mean the public should criticize how the handle this and move forward.

respectfully, that should have been obvious, it was intended as humor, please do not judge me on one small joke. I have said it before, I repeat: I am one of the most pro LE members here, the statement was simply levity. Why would anyone here think they could solve this case any better than LE? LE have the skills, tools, etc that we will never have. This really isn’t a
comedy forum, but sometimes when things get going we need a little jog. Obviously people are still frustrated no info. Rather than criticize persons who are critical of LE, I hoped to make such an outrageous claim, it would make some stop and think....and LOL

 

[MyBelle]

I think they have ruled it out. The Sheriff said it didn't seem likely. I have no doubt he has his reasons to come to such a conclusion. Nothing was found of Suzanne in that area. You can't tell me that the mountain lion dragged her other personal belonging 2000 feet from her house.

Or that the mountain lion possibly left evidence at her husband's work site under the concrete.

I do understand about coyote attacks and other wildlife and needing to take precautions with pets. I live in the country with plenty of wildlife.

The Sheriff said he didn't think a mountain lion attack was likely AFTER the extensive search when the bike was found. No poster on this forum has even speculated a mountain lion dragged SB's personal items "2000 feet from her house." Nobody has said LE spotted the mountain lion was within 2000 feet of the family home or that anything was found at any of her husband's work sites.

I think they have ruled it out. The Sheriff said it didn't seem likely. I have no doubt he has his reasons to come to such a conclusion. Nothing was found of Suzanne in that area. You can't tell me that the mountain lion dragged her other personal belonging 2000 feet from her house.

Or that the mountain lion possibly left evidence at her husband's work site under the concrete.

I do understand about coyote attacks and other wildlife and needing to take precautions with pets. I live in the country with plenty of wildlife.

BBM. I do believe the search for around where SM's bicycle was found and was because that is where the LE spotted the mountain lion. If evidence was found, it could tie her disappearance to an attack by a mountain lion. Apparently nothing was found that would lead the sheriff to continue to believe her disappearance is related to an attck by a wild animal. LE's job is to follow leads and tips which is why they searched under the concrete. Apparently nothing of evidentiary value was found there, either. I think LE routinely search a home of a missing person. It is possible SM had communication with someone she didn't know was dangerous.

JMO