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

[EggSalad]

This case just seems to have a curtain of silence like I haven't seen before. It gives me the impression that LE and family are trying to keep SM safe, as in she is being held against her will.

But to be honest it is all gut feeling, I genuinely see him talk and don't think he is lying. I also don't see any evidence presented to us that makes me believe he is guilty.

I have to admit, after being wrong on the HB case about her fiancee, if I am wrong here and he is guilty which the majority think, I will never again trust my judgment on human beings!

MOO

If someone was holding SM against her will, they would want something in return for giving her up. Given the financial means of the M’s, I’d imagine we would have seen that transaction occur by now.

I also doubt LE would have gone to the lengths of holding the house for 10 days and digging up an innocent homeowners home improvement project.

 

[gitana1]

I also don't think this was just consent from the owner without a warrant.

This is the event that makes me think the case is solved, they are just gathering up enough evidence to get a conviction.

Think about it. They didn't dig up the whole foundation, they dug up one small square. Presumably he laid dirt over the whole area and had access to the entire site but LE focuses on just 50 sq feet? The whole site would look disturbed with ground penetrating radar, it was a construction site.

Perhaps they did retrieve something there, we wouldn't know; except they allowed construction to proceed making it almost impossible to go back there.

There had to be a specific, credible reason.

Yes. And you know if they were just going there to look around, even with scent dogs, I wouldn’t be certain there had to be a search warrant, if the owner consented. That happens. “Hey, can we search your property?” “Of course!”

But they used sonar and dug up a cement pad the owner had paid to install. That’s a lot more intense.

And would insurance even cover that if he consented?

 

[Poedelini]

In the last month, since Suzanne’s disappearance, not one named individual (of which I’m currently aware) has come forward to give a positive comment on the Morphew’s marriage or BM’s character. Not exactly a glowing recommendation from the friends and family. Sad.

Only silence and it for sure means something only we don't know what yet. Jmo

 

[branmuffin]

It's been mentioned that only about 130-150 people live in Maysville and many of them are seasonal residents. Canvassing that small area would be relatively easy for LE. A town of 5000 is exponentially more difficult. The thing is Salida has a thriving downtown area, unlike Maysville, where people congregate and talk. And we probably already know what the main topic of conversation has been for the last 30 days. Canvassing the residents of Salida might be like popping a pimple.

I lived in small town of 1000 people for 25 years. Whether you like it or not, people know your business.

 

[oviedo]

Regards the timing of the canvassing:

It really interesting that Saladia has a population of about ~6,000 residents; and all of Chaffee County is ~20,000 residents. Yet the police have received over 500 tips. On top of that, it’s such a remote area so it’s no like a big city where you see a lot of coming and going or noticing what others are up to.

That seems like an extraordinary amount of tips given the small population.

It seems like this weeks canvassing would definitely be a targeted approach because they’ve already cast the wide net so to speak (and may have done an initial canvas that we don’t know about too).

But why so many tips? The M’s had only lived in that town for less than 2 years. Did the community have interactions with SM or BM that cause them to really want to help the police? Were SM and BM more interwoven in the community than we’ve learned so far?

That really is a lot of voluntary information for such a small town/county.

that's really interesting - statistically speaking. what could the tips be? I suppose everything from I saw her at the deli to she's not able to ride a bike because she's been sick to she's my BFF and I haven't spoken to her since the end of April.....all speculation of course.
JMO

 

[gitana1]

Regards the timing of the canvassing:

It really interesting that Saladia has a population of about ~6,000 residents; and all of Chaffee County is ~20,000 residents. Yet the police have received over 500 tips. On top of that, it’s such a remote area so it’s no like a big city where you see a lot of coming and going or noticing what others are up to.

That seems like an extraordinary amount of tips given the small population.

It seems like this weeks canvassing would definitely be a targeted approach because they’ve already cast the wide net so to speak (and may have done an initial canvas that we don’t know about too).

But why so many tips? The M’s had only lived in that town for less than 2 years. Did the community have interactions with SM or BM that cause them to really want to help the police? Were SM and BM more interwoven in the community than we’ve learned so far?

That really is a lot of voluntary information for such a small town/county.

It does seem like a lot. The thing that gives me pause though is how many people call tip lines for things like, “I feel you need to search x, y or z.”

They may just call that kind of thing a “tip” as it’s called into a tip line and it might help pressure someone into thinking they’re close.

I don’t know.

 

[Cassady]

There is no way that a search warrant would not be sought regardless of consent. That would be super risky and be outside the bounds of any police protocol in the nation in a case of this magnitude.

I guarantee there was a search warrant.

Many cases are based on consent searches only. Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement. Most agencies actually have search consent forms and courts have no problem approving searches done with consent.

Here, a contractor would not have a reasonable expectation to privacy at a previous job site and would not have standing to challenge any search of the property, whether via consent or a SW.

If there was a SW it would be sealed, but there would be a record of the sealing, like with the SW conducted at the missing person's residence....which the spouse would have standing to challenge.

Without standing you cannot challenge a search.

 

[carbuff]

I think because BM is a good-looking man, and specifically because he is not businessman-like, more like a “nice neighbor next door” type, it might be harder to believe that he is implicated in SM’s disappearance. Especially since they both made such a handsome couple, and SM’s posts were nice, one wants to believe that she was happy despite all her life circumstances.

Here is the article that I am sure many have read. In 55% of cases it is an intimate partner, and 83% in total, it is someone the victim knew. So statistically speaking, the “stranger abduction” theory is not likely. And if it is not the husband, then one has to look at other people surrounding SM.

What really surprised me is nr. 1 some researchers list as nr 1 reason for killing an intimate partner.

The Twisted Reasons Why Some Husbands Kill Their Wives

But we aren't talking "stranger" abduction. We're talking "someone the victim knew," or who knew the victim (like Jayme Closs and Mollie Tibbits). @Dave F. above had a nice list of the kind of people who she might have known-but-not-known.

 

[oviedo]

Does the 500 tips include; double tips or tips that had nothing to do with Suzanne? I wonder. Imo

It is alot indeed with the amount of residents but i do not have anything to compare it with really.

I thought I would do a search on tips for other CO cases - still looking btw - but ran across this article - and it really helps me to look at this investigation with "fresh eyes" - it's quite fascinating IMO how things were unfolding and being interpreted by LE in the early days of Kelseys case. very interesting and I think we can speculate what's being done for Suzanne at this point.
JMO
'We never wanted to let her down': Meet the investigators who helped solve Kelsey Berreth's murder

 

[Truecolors]

It's so striking to me that you would associate eating lunch with home ownership and building sites! It makes me hungry, and wanting to watch the Food Network, and build something, all at the same time! JMO

People do it!

I had improvements done on my property, and I chatted up every subcontractor. Of course, I was living on the property at the time, but I met them all.

My friend was a business owner, and I worked for him. The only time he could get to the home site during construction hours was lunch. He’d drive there, observe and chat, and grab drive thru on the way back to the office. He took me with him sometimes. It was fun.

I don’t think it’s unusual for the homeowner to watch over a build, especially if they have some construction knowledge or interest.

MOO

 

[gitana1]

But the Fourth Amendment rights of anyone other than this homeowner wouldn't apply to a search of this site, correct? So if the police have the third-party consent of the owner to show the judge, would any of the other conditions about showing a crime was committed, etc, need to be presented to the judge? Those conditions do not seem to be a requirement for third party consent for police searches without a search warrant, which have been deemed constitutional.

True. Unless the property owner was put on trial, fourth amendment rights of someone else would not apply to his property.

However, what if the property owner ended up being involved? I don’t believe that’s close to the case here but something like that could occur.

This wasn’t just a basic search of the property to see if they could locate a missing person: “Hey, we are looking for so and so. Can we take a look at your property to make sure she’s not there, injured somewhere?”

They used sonar and destroyed property during the search.

Maybe @riolove77 can give her a wisdom here when she gets a chance. As a prosecutor she’s going to know for sure.

 

[Madeleine74]

Only silence and it for sure means something only we don't know what yet. Jmo

IMO we can surmise the following meanings (and there will likely be others too):

- LE is going to protect the case and the investigation from prying eyes and interference.
- The public will not be privy to many details, not until a trial.
- Any potential perp will not be privy to what LE knows or has found until they are arrested, then they will find out after indictment.
- LE is working the case and that work continues (without "assistance" from people not part of the investigation).

 

[Poedelini]

IMO we can surmise the following meanings (and there will likely be others too):

- LE is going to protect the case and the investigation from prying eyes and interference.
- The public will not be privy to many details, not until a trial.
- Any potential perp will not be privy to what LE knows or has found until they are arrested, then they will find out after indictment.
- LE is working the case and that work continues (without "assistance" from people not part of the investigation).

LE is quiet also but we all know indeed the above possible meanings. What about the family and friends. Jmo

 

[dspdenver]

In the last month, since Suzanne’s disappearance, not one named individual (of which I’m currently aware) has come forward to give a positive comment on the Morphew’s marriage or BM’s character. Not exactly a glowing recommendation from the friends and family. Sad.

It turns out BM's uncle was named:
“Everybody loves Suzanne and Barry,” family member wants Chaffee County mother’s safe return
[Bob Morphew said he believes his nephew, Barry had absolutely nothing to do with Suzanne’s disappearance.]
[He added for those pointing the finger at Barry, “I think they can bury that kind of thought.” Bob went on to say, “tell that to the Chaffee County Sheriff.” “They’re a loving couple and I’ve never seen any kind of unhappiness with each other or produced by either one of them,” Bob Morphew said.]

 

[Ontario Mom]

No. IMO that wouldn’t be anywhere close to enough to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and evidence could be found there. There has to be something more.

It might be interesting to hear what you and everyone else would require as a judge to establish that there is reasonable suspicion to indicate a crime was committed and that evidence could be found in a specific location, such that that location could be searched and even dismantled, in order to find evidence.

Remembering that the fourth amendment to the constitution holds that:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's really a great question.

Considering they were searching under a concrete slab that had already been poured over the compacted dirt BM was hired to move, we know they were likely searching for a deceased person. Or, property connected to her, or to the crime itself (that would implicate the person responsible).

So first I'd need documentation to show that the likelihood of her still being alive, is very low. Such things as a complete lack of normal activity (for her) would have all had to cease on the same day. All banking, contact with family, friends, co-workers, social media use, missed appointments, meds not taken (if she uses a pill organizer) or prescriptions not picked up/refilled, nothing missing from the home (suitcase, passport, clothing, etc.) to implicate she left on her own, things of that nature.

Next, I'd need to see documentation that connects her directly to that location. Much more than the fact that BM was hired to work on site, I'd need something concrete like, his vehicle's GPS data (or his google location data from his phone) shows him to be at that site on either the 8th, 9th or 10th, when he said he was in Denver that weekend (or at least on the Sunday). The data would have to show he was there before the concrete was poured but after SM went missing. Or it could be something like a delivery to the location, that he signed for on-site, on a day he shouldn't have been there.

Then, IF LE had already spoken to the property owner and used ground penetrating radar or whatever that machine is, and it hit on something under the concrete that shouldn't have been there, and that was included in the affidavit as well, then I think I'd go ahead and sign off. But even without that last bit, if it could be reasonably demonstrated to me that she is a.) likely deceased b.) that her husband's Denver alibi is not accurate and c.) data places him at that site immediately before she was reported missing, then I think I'd issue the warrant.

I'm sure I missed a ton of legal stuff, but that's why I'm not a judge (or a lawyer!) Still a really great question.

 

[Poedelini]

I thought I would do a search on tips for other CO cases - still looking btw - but ran across this article - and it really helps me to look at this investigation with "fresh eyes" - it's quite fascinating IMO how things were unfolding and being interpreted by LE in the early days of Kelseys case. very interesting and I think we can speculate what's being done for Suzanne at this point.
JMO
'We never wanted to let her down': Meet the investigators who helped solve Kelsey Berreth's murder

Thanks Oviedo! It is hard to search for that on the internet. (Im a noob Sleuther)

 

[Cindizzi]

Regards the timing of the canvassing:

It really interesting that Saladia has a population of about ~6,000 residents; and all of Chaffee County is ~20,000 residents. Yet the police have received over 500 tips. On top of that, it’s such a remote area so it’s no like a big city where you see a lot of coming and going or noticing what others are up to.

That seems like an extraordinary amount of tips given the small population.

It seems like this weeks canvassing would definitely be a targeted approach because they’ve already cast the wide net so to speak (and may have done an initial canvas that we don’t know about too).

But why so many tips? The M’s had only lived in that town for less than 2 years. Did the community have interactions with SM or BM that cause them to really want to help the police? Were SM and BM more interwoven in the community than we’ve learned so far?

That really is a lot of voluntary information for such a small town/county.

The number of tips doubled! From 100 to 200 between May 16 and May 21.

May 15 Hwy 50 closed down for search
May 15 CCSD holds press conference, announcing personal items were found May 14, prompting the HWY 50 search
May 17 Dive teams searched bodies of water
May 17 Reverse 911 call sent to residents to preserve video footage

Search continues for Suzanne Morphew - Chaffee County Sheriff

May 21, Investigation continues for missing woman - Chaffee County Sheriff

 

[Cassady]

True. Unless the property owner was put on trial, fourth amendment rights of someone else would not apply to his property.

However, what if the property owner ended up being involved? I don’t believe that’s close to the case here but something like that could occur.

This wasn’t just a basic search of the property to see if they could locate a missing person: “Hey, we are looking for so and so. Can we take a look at your property to make sure she’s not there, injured somewhere?”

They used sonar and destroyed property during the search.

Maybe @riolove77 can give her a wisdom here when she gets a chance. As a prosecutor she’s going to know for sure.

The extent of damage caused in the search is not relevant to standing. The issue is whether the person challenging the search had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched so as to have standing to challenge the search.

Here the property owner would have standing if they were implicated by the search. Yet, if they consented voluntarily to the search, it would likely be validated by a court...IMO

 

[CronesEye]

We are sooo bad! JMO lol, nowI am going to be so freaked out, whenever someone says “ listen”not laughing at you, laughing at me. As soon as I read the posts, I started thinking who says that? I know two, so far and now I am going be focused... they are good guys, I think?

Could be just a habit of speech of a person or group. Could be more. I had a friend who would always say, "Trust me...blah, blah, blah...". Did I trust her? Not when she told me to all the time, I started to not trust her. Why do you have to tell someone to listen or trust you? Is it a command? A poorly thought out speech habit? A particular groups cliche? Regardless of it's origin, it has an effect, one way or another.

 

[Bridger]

Many cases are based on consent searches only. Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement. Most agencies actually have search consent forms and courts have no problem approving searches done with consent.

Agree with others that this was absolutely done with a search warrant. The risk of the owner withdrawing that consent once the jackhammers came out would have been too big (and entirely likely, IMO).