Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #14

[Warwick7]

I don't understand why a thorough search for Suzanne has not been made. 90 or 100 searchers for 2-3 days is definitely not enough in this terrain.

Why has Texas Equusearch not been brought in?

From what I gather that is not correct. They are a non stop searching machine since May 11, 2020.

 

[J.M. Bee]

My biggest problem w/ believing BM is guilty, is that it requires me throwing away all that I have been told about SM.
It requires me to lump her together w/all the other women who have been forced thru
different circumstances to remain in an abusive marriage. the biggest and most difficult to overcome are financial and support system. SM has financial, family, community support, and her daughters are old enough to be support as well.
“The husband is most likely suspect” doesn’t quite hold up for me.

It doesn't need to have been an "abusive" relationship. It could have actually been a reasonably good relationship until relatively recently. All of their photos certainly suggest that it was. (Yes, I know they're only photos.)

However, a man's feelings can change relatively quickly, and I can think of at least two scenarios in which BM might have killed SM despite never having been abusive. Both involve him having an affair, and both involve his quality of life depending to some extent on SM's money or SM's family's money. Scenario one is this: SM finds out about the affair, confronts him and tells him she is leaving him. BM sees that he will have to move out and live on a fireman's/dirt-layer's salary. BM can't conceive of giving up the life he is currently leading, and only sees one way out. He kills Suzanne. In scenario two, SM doesn't find out about the affair, but BM is so "in love" with the new (younger) woman that he decides to kill SM because this is the only way he will be able to lead the life he wants to lead, i.e., have the younger woman and the affluent lifestyle afforded by SM's or SM's family's money.

Neither of these scenarios require BM to have been "abusive".

 

[LietKynes]

It doesn't need to have been an "abusive" relationship. It could have actually been a reasonably good relationship until relatively recently. All of their photos certainly suggest that it was. (Yes, I know they're only photos.)

However, a man's feelings can change relatively quickly, and I can think of at least two scenarios in which BM might have killed SM despite never having been abusive. Both involve him having an affair, and both involve his quality of life depending to some extent on SM's money or SM's family's money. Scenario one is this: SM finds out about the affair, confronts him and tells him she is leaving him. BM sees that he will have to move out and live on a fireman's/dirt-layer's salary. BM can't conceive of giving up the life he is currently leading, and only sees one way out. He kills Suzanne. In scenario two, SM doesn't find out about the affair, but BM is so "in love" with the new (younger) woman that he decides to kill SM because this is the only way he will be able to lead the life he wants to lead, i.e., have the younger woman and the affluent lifestyle afforded by SM's or SM's family's money.

Neither of these scenarios require BM to have been "abusive".

bbm
It seems like there could be some sort of financial element here.
More so than a possible other person/woman.
And I agree that photos do not tell the entire picture.
Imo.

 

[LietKynes]

From what I gather that is not correct. They are a non stop searching machine since May 11, 2020.

Agreed.
The searchers (with the exception of the fire dept.) involve professionals and it's possible they're going on what evidence that gps/phone pings/etc. provide.
My .02 is that they're looking for a body and want to find Suzanne without having to make a deal or proceed with a 'no body' case !
Hoping there are answers soon.

 

[Janeumayer]

I don't understand why a thorough search for Suzanne has not been made. 90 or 100 searchers for 2-3 days is definitely not enough in this terrain.

Why has Texas Equusearch not been brought in?

Because the family has to request them and LE has to approve it:

How, When and Why We Search

How, When and Why We Search

People often ask how, when and why Texas EquuSearch conducts searches for missing people.

When we start the actual search depends on many things. Before Texas EquuSearch will enter a missing person case, the missing persons family must have already filed (documented) a missing person report with the law enforcement agency in the city where the missing person was last seen. So if you have a family member that is missing, your first step should be to contact local law enforcement.

REQUESTING HELP
After filing a missing person report with law enforcement, the family representative should then contact Texas EquuSearch. One of our Search Coordinators will then gather information from the family representative regarding the circumstances surrounding the missing person’s disappearance.

Prior to your conversation with our Search Coordinator you should have the following items:
• An accurate description of the missing person
• A recent photo
• The law enforcement agency’s case number, the investigator’s name & phone number.

We will then evaluate whether our resources can be of any success in locating the missing person. Texas EquuSearch must be contacted by the investigator to determine whether our team and/or resources can be of assistance in the missing person case. Texas EquuSearch must have approval of the law enforcement investigator before we will actively enter a missing person case.

 

[Warwick7]

Because the family has to request them:

How, When and Why We Search

How, When and Why We Search

People often ask how, when and why Texas EquuSearch conducts searches for missing people.

When we start the actual search depends on many things. Before Texas EquuSearch will enter a missing person case, the missing persons family must have already filed (documented) a missing person report with the law enforcement agency in the city where the missing person was last seen. So if you have a family member that is missing, your first step should be to contact local law enforcement.

REQUESTING HELP
After filing a missing person report with law enforcement, the family representative should then contact Texas EquuSearch. One of our Search Coordinators will then gather information from the family representative regarding the circumstances surrounding the missing person’s disappearance.

This begs the question:

Why hasn't the family representative contacted Texas EquuSearch???

 

[KLM6]

It is if you know there was never a bike ride. Hell, I’m surprised they invested that much time.

Due diligence I guess.

Equusearch is great if you actually have a general idea where to begin looking. <modsnip: removed direct accusation>

BBM: They had to find the bike. I wonder what that bike told them with its wheel facing, well....

Thats an interesting point you make.

 

[CronesEye]

This video, which is 5:58 in length, takes you from the top of the Fooses Creek descent all the way down past Fooses Lake, the Dam, and out onto CR 225. The Fooses Creek Dam bridge goes by at 2:49. The riders are nearly decapitated by a fallen tree across the trail at 3:57. Unless I missed it, the video stops just short of the "Y" in CR 225 that offers a choice either to SM's house or back up CR 225 to to US 50. They stop about 600 yards, as the crow flies, from her house.

Do you think SM did this route often? Since it led to her doorstep almost? It is a bit extreme, the descent. One could easily get injured and a bike damaged, even the younger guys. Wouldn't be good to go alone on that trail.
The trail seems good for younger thrill seekers. Thinking of all that adrenaline rush I am reminded of a gambler that goes for the high of a win. The win being to not wipe out. I imagine those bikers come down that descent either exhausted or charged up. Don't know I would want a house at the end of that trail. I'm just extrapolating but it would be kind of like living next to a bar, casino or drug dealer if someone was looking to get a rush from a ride. Don't listen to me though, I am just a feeble old one eyed crone, those young whipper snappers, it's good healthy exercise but just a bit too charged for me. Risk takers, eh?
Good research Dave F. Very insightful. I have learned a lot.

I read that book at the beginning on Flow, "...at great cost..." Yup

 

[Backstroke10]

What I don't understand is why LE haven't obtained any local camera footage, not that I am aware of anyway.

Even if they suspect the husband or someone else, surely it would potentially help their case either way to look at it?!

I don't know, this case is so bizarre simply because of the lacking info.
MOO

BBM You’re correct in that we don’t know if they have or haven’t. They could be reviewing camera footage this entire time but aren’t going to tell the public about it. It’s a very time-consuming process. If they obtained camera footage from a particular home or business, I’m sure they told the homeowners not to speak about it. MOO

 

[Murphy1950]

While we wait for MSM verified reports
- is our timeline good?’
Timeline

MISSING: Colorado woman vanishes after going for a bike ride

RSBM
As usual Oviedo, incredible work, we are all grateful. And in addition the recent sharing of your job knowledge/wisdom has been invaluable. Thanks!

I don't understand why a thorough search for Suzanne has not been made. 90 or 100 searchers for 2-3 days is definitely not enough in this terrain.

Why has Texas Equusearch not been brought in?

I could be wrong here but it sounds to me like the thought here is they should just search willy-nilly, as long as manpower is available, walk wide and far with no other reason than hey, there's land here. It doesn't work like that and it shouldn't. ...IMO

It doesn't need to have been an "abusive" relationship. It could have actually been a reasonably good relationship until relatively recently. All of their photos certainly suggest that it was. (Yes, I know they're only photos.)
However, a man's feelings can change relatively quickly....

RSBM...In fairness, or Suzanne's feeling could have changed relatively quickly. She could have tolerated a certain behavior for years and then just decided...enough.

 

[J.M. Bee]

Suzanne, 49, has not been heard from since May 9. A bike owned by the mother-of-two was recovered from a bridge close to her home on May 10, according to local sources – the same day she was reported missing.
________________
A few points of interest:

• The article doesn't say who "heard from" SM on May 9th.
• The article doesn't state what type of contact was made with SM, i.e., in person, phone, text, etc.
• The article doesn't cite their source for the info that she was last heard from on May 9th.

If someone "heard from" SM on May 9th via text vs. speaking with her directly, then I'm not sure we can safely assume that SM was alive and well on May 9th.

Interesting. I am trying to figure out how to approach this post because in thinking about the timeline I am getting a little twisted up in the logic. So let me begin with a few important questions:

• according to BM, when did he leave for Denver? what did he tell LE on this point?
• according to BM, when did he last speak to, see or hear from SM? what did he tell LE on this point?
• is BM this last person to have "heard from" SM referred to in the quote above, or is that someone else?

Now a few points:

• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, kissed his wife goodbye, etc. then the above would read "has not been heard from since May 10"; therefore BM must have told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday (I am ruling out Friday for reasons I will explain later)
• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday, then BM must be this "last person" to have "heard from her" (he presumably, supposedly would have spoken to her before going to bed on Saturday night; if he didn't say he spoke to his wife before going to bed on Saturday night, they would have had additional questions)
• except even the timeline above makes no sense, because LE would certainly have asked him if he called his wife on Sunday morning when he woke up; I guess it's possible that he said he didn't or that he did and got no answer, although the latter would prompt additional questions, e.g., weren't you a little concerned you got no response?
• I am going to go out on a limb and say that I am struggling so much with this timeline in part because there is something wrong with this timeline; further, that there is something wrong with this timeline might be one reason LE is looking at BM

Finally, here is what BM told Tyson Draper about his departure for Denver. You tell me what this tells us about the timeline.

TD: "You were in Denver, but how long before someone noticed she was gone?"

BM: "It was Mother's Day so...um...we uh...had two daughters that were coming home from the trip and I had that job in Denver that I wanted to get started on on Sunday set it up for my workers, my workers were coming in Sunday night. Normally I don't work Sunday night. I work Monday, but I being the owner I wanted to get everything lined up so that I didn't have to worry about Monday morning, just get busy working. So I told my wife, I said, 'Listen, the girls are gonna be home; they want to spend Mother's Day with you. Mind if I go get started with this?' She said, 'That's fine....'. She bikes ... She'd ride the bike ... The girls would get home; they'll be together. That's what we thought was gonna happen. The girls were running late so they texted Happy Mother's Day. She didn't text back. So we went to ... they called my neighbors. And said listen, it's Mother's Day, I'm a little worried and will you go check the house? And the neighbor went and checked the house. Saw that her car was there but the bike was gone. She called me in Denver and said, "Hey, we're just a little worried." And I go, "Well, I am too. Why don't we just call the police, just to be safe?"

There are many things to say about BM's answer above, but to me it sounds like his story is that he left for Denver on Saturday.

In some ways it sounds like his story is that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, but if that were the case, wouldn't he have told LE that he saw / spoke to SM on Sunday morning, and wouldn't the article above therefore say that SM "has not been heard from since May 10"?

Something is not right about the timeline.

 

[al66pine]

Searches. More? Where?

Suzanne deserves physical searches be made for her in the area from which she disappeared....

@brooks sbm
1) Physical searches for her started the same day she was reported missing, a massive search at that, and continued for a few days. Do you mean more searches? Is it possible LE/task force/S&R has conducted further searches which were not MSM-covered? A long haul (~ 2-3 hrs one way on the road?) for Denver or Co Springs MSM reporters to secure a few min of air-worthy/stream-worthy vid, without an arrest or other significant development. Not much for print media either.
2) In the area of disappearance? LE searched area from which she initially, reportedly went missing and since then may have either:
--- found evd (objects during searches or evd found elsewhere) sending LE in another direction (no bike ride at all that day or previous several days?), or
--- not yet found evd of other specific areas to search.
^ just maybe, imo, not stating as facts^

 

[mom2chloe]

I don't understand why a thorough search for Suzanne has not been made. 90 or 100 searchers for 2-3 days is definitely not enough in this terrain.

Why has Texas Equusearch not been brought in?

My best guess is because LE knows there is zero reason to bring them in. Maybe nothing to find given the circumstances but I hope not. IMO

 

[mom2chloe]

@Dave F. Please if you’re able, is there an ability to share the videos and thoughts you’ve shared via a map? And if not is anyone else able to chime in to assist? I am a visual person and feel if I could visually peruse the areas you speak to I could better understand what you’re attempting to explain here. Thank you and I appreciate your efforts and input so much. I just lack the understanding and remember a 6th grade teacher lamenting our entire class misunderstanding of geography/topography and maybe have a mental block on what’s offered versus what my brain processes. TIA!
ETA does my request even make sense because I think I know what I am trying to say but I was also a single woman in the 80s who couldn’t manage to connect a VCR to a TV with instructions despite the images provided lol
Again, TIA to anyone who can offer support in this area.

 

[KLM6]

Interesting. I am trying to figure out how to approach this post because in thinking about the timeline I am getting a little twisted up in the logic. So let me begin with a few important questions:

• according to BM, when did he leave for Denver? what did he tell LE on this point?
• according to BM, when did he last speak to, see or hear from SM? what did he tell LE on this point?
• is BM the last person to have "heard from" SM referred to in the quote above, or is that someone else?

Now a few points:

• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, kissed his wife goodbye, etc. then the above would read "has not been heard from since May 10"; therefore BM must have told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday (I am ruling out Friday for reasons I will explain later)
• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday, then BM must be this "last person" to have "heard from her" (he presumably, supposedly would have spoken to her before going to bed on Saturday night; if he didn't say he spoke to his wife before going to bed on Saturday night, they would have had additional questions)
• except even the timeline above makes no sense, because LE would certainly have asked him if he called his wife on Sunday morning when he woke up; I guess it's possible that he said he didn't or that he did and got no answer, although the latter would prompt additional questions, e.g., weren't you a little concerned you got no response?
• I am going to go out on a limb and say that I am struggling so much with this timeline in part because there is something wrong with this timeline; that there is something wrong with this timeline might be one reason LE is looking at BM

Finally, here is what BM told Tyson Draper about his departure for Denver. You tell me what this tells us about the timeline.

TD: "You were in Denver, but how long before someone noticed she was gone?"

BM: "It was Mother's Day so...um...we uh...had two daughters that were coming home from the trip and I had that job in Denver that I wanted to get started on on Sunday set it up for my workers, my workers were coming in Sunday night. Normally I don't work Sunday night. I work Monday, but I being the owner I wanted to get everything lined up so that I didn't have to worry about Monday morning, just get busy working. So I told my wife, I said, 'Listen, the girls are gonna be home; they want to spend Mother's Day with you. Mind if I go get started with this?' She said, 'That's fine....'. She bikes ... She'd ride the bike ... The girls would get home; they'll be together. That's what we thought was gonna happen. The girls were running late so they texted Happy Mother's Day. She didn't text back. So we went to ... they called my neighbors. And said listen, it's Mother's Day, I'm a little worried and will you go check the house? And the neighbor went and checked the house. Saw that her car was there but the bike was gone. She called me in Denver and said, "Hey, we're just a little worried." And I go, "Well, I am too. Why don't we just call the police, just to be safe?"

There are many things to say about BM's answer above, but to me it sounds like his story is that he left for Denver on Saturday. It almost sounds like his story might be that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, but if that were the case, wouldn't he have told LE that he saw / spoke to SM on Sunday morning, and wouldn't the article above say that SM "has not been heard from since May 10"?

His whole response here, in my honest opinion, sounds like he thought about that story on repeat for hours. He walked all the way around the simple question with a complete defense argument. And very little, if any, true emotion. Im leaning toward she went missing before Sunday.

 

[Warwick7]

Interesting. I am trying to figure out how to approach this post because in thinking about the timeline I am getting a little twisted up in the logic. So let me begin with a few important questions:

• according to BM, when did he leave for Denver? what did he tell LE on this point?
• according to BM, when did he last speak to, see or hear from SM? what did he tell LE on this point?
• is BM this last person to have "heard from" SM referred to in the quote above, or is that someone else?

Now a few points:

• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, kissed his wife goodbye, etc. then the above would read "has not been heard from since May 10"; therefore BM must have told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday (I am ruling out Friday for reasons I will explain later)
• if BM told LE that he left for Denver on Saturday, then BM must be this "last person" to have "heard from her" (he presumably, supposedly would have spoken to her before going to bed on Saturday night; if he didn't say he spoke to his wife before going to bed on Saturday night, they would have had additional questions)
• except even the timeline above makes no sense, because LE would certainly have asked him if he called his wife on Sunday morning when he woke up; I guess it's possible that he said he didn't or that he did and got no answer, although the latter would prompt additional questions, e.g., weren't you a little concerned you got no response?
• I am going to go out on a limb and say that I am struggling so much with this timeline in part because there is something wrong with this timeline; further, that there is something wrong with this timeline might be one reason LE is looking at BM

Finally, here is what BM told Tyson Draper about his departure for Denver. You tell me what this tells us about the timeline.

TD: "You were in Denver, but how long before someone noticed she was gone?"

BM: "It was Mother's Day so...um...we uh...had two daughters that were coming home from the trip and I had that job in Denver that I wanted to get started on on Sunday set it up for my workers, my workers were coming in Sunday night. Normally I don't work Sunday night. I work Monday, but I being the owner I wanted to get everything lined up so that I didn't have to worry about Monday morning, just get busy working. So I told my wife, I said, 'Listen, the girls are gonna be home; they want to spend Mother's Day with you. Mind if I go get started with this?' She said, 'That's fine....'. She bikes ... She'd ride the bike ... The girls would get home; they'll be together. That's what we thought was gonna happen. The girls were running late so they texted Happy Mother's Day. She didn't text back. So we went to ... they called my neighbors. And said listen, it's Mother's Day, I'm a little worried and will you go check the house? And the neighbor went and checked the house. Saw that her car was there but the bike was gone. She called me in Denver and said, "Hey, we're just a little worried." And I go, "Well, I am too. Why don't we just call the police, just to be safe?"

There are many things to say about BM's answer above, but to me it sounds like his story is that he left for Denver on Saturday. It almost sounds like his story might be that he left for Denver on Sunday morning, but if that were the case, wouldn't he have told LE that he saw / spoke to SM on Sunday morning, and wouldn't the article above say that SM "has not been heard from since May 10"?

BBM
137 words were spoken by BM before he ever answered the question.

137!!!!!!!

Edit:
When someone goes on and on and gives you too much information — information that is not requested and especially an excess of details — there is a very high probability that he or she is not telling you the truth.

Liars often talk a lot because they are hoping that, with all their talking and seeming openness, others will believe them.

It seems like a way for the liar to build credibility, and maybe distract from the point of answering your question directly.

 

[J.M. Bee]

His whole response here, in my honest opinion, sounds like he thought about that story on repeat for hours. He walked all the way around the simple question with a complete defense argument. And very little, if any, true emotion. Im leaning toward she went missing before Sunday.

Exactly. He was asked a relatively simple question: "when did someone first notice she was gone?" But rather than answering that question --- e.g., "Well, my daughters texted her at such-and-such time and .." he gives us this long rambling explanation of why he wasn't there and why he was in Denver.

Even when he gets around to answering the question, his answer is a little odd. First, why doesn't he say what time the girls texted their mother and got no response? I mean, this is kind of important. Why is he so vague about this? Second, why does he say, "so we went to" when describing what the daughters did, then correct himself and say "they called my neighbors"? This pronoun / subject inconsistency is odd.

 

[MassGuy]

His whole response here, in my honest opinion, sounds like he thought about that story on repeat for hours. He walked all the way around the simple question with a complete defense argument. And very little, if any, true emotion. Im leaning toward she went missing before Sunday.

Agreed. That entire interview is a textbook example of deception. In terms of tactics, is strikingly similar to that of Letecia Stauch.

It’s not hard to answer a question directly, unless you are actually forced to think about that answer.

A lot of irrelevant information, speaking in generalities, and no cold, hard facts.

 

[Brubon]

When LE requested that people save their video recordings from May 8- May 12, I thought of Gannon's case. LS was so busy covering her tracks the two days after she called 911. Could that be why LE would like video from May 11 and May 12 preserved in Suzanne's case? Are they looking for disposal activity by the perp during the two days following the call to 911?
(Obviously LS used more than those first two days to conceal Gannon, as we sadly have learned.)
IMO

 

[mom2chloe]

Exactly. He was asked a relatively simple question: "when did someone first notice she was gone?" But rather than answering that question --- e.g., "Well, my daughters texted her at such-and-such time and .." he gives us this long rambling explanation of why he wasn't there and why he was in Denver.

Even when he gets around to answering the question, his answer is a little odd. First, why doesn't he say what time the girls texted their mother and got no response? I mean, this is kind of important. Why is he so vague about this? Second, why does he say, "so we went to" when describing what the daughters did, then correct himself and say "they called my neighbors"? This pronoun / subject inconsistency is odd.

Either LE told him not to disclose that info or he chose not to, although likely told him to keep mum; At the least his attorneys told him to zip it!
IMO