Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #17

[Hannah3105]

Just putting this out there, HYPOTHETICALLY of course. If LE took the computer module with GPS data from BM’s truck, causing BM to need to visit a dealership to go and get a new one, would you suggest that this points to the fact that he 100% has not been cleared, as he suggested in the video with TD? MOO.

 

[enelram]

Every time I watch that 26-second clip, it puts me in mind of a hostage video.

I keep waiting for BM to hold up a newspaper showing the date on it.

JMO.

Love, love the way your brain works!!!!!!

You must be a HOOT in real life.

 

[enelram]

Just putting this out there, HYPOTHETICALLY of course. If LE took the computer module with GPS data from BM’s truck, causing BM to need to visit a dealership to go and get a new one, would you suggest that this points to the fact that he 100% has not been cleared, as he suggested in the video with TD? MOO.

My Hypothetical Meter says "Definitely".

 

[kiwi50]

I’d feel similar, if I didn’t believe the entire thing was scripted. To me, it almost sounds like the start to some love poem or country song:

“Oh! Susanna, Oh don't you cry for me,
I've come from Indiana
Wid my banjo on my knee.”

That’s the exact same thought that came to me.

 

[lamlawindy]

Because, once again, the issue is not what’s smart. It’s simply about human nature.

How do innocent people behave when someone they love is missing and they’re desperate to get them back? It’s not about how you think they SHOULD behave when it comes to cooperation with the cops. It’s what innocent people who actually love their missing loved one and desperately want them back, act.

The thing is, norms of human behavior exist and we base judgments and assessments on those norms all the time.

So in a case like this, if someone refused to cooperate with the police, take a lie detector test, and lawyers up right away, it’s a very bad sign, regardless as to how corrupt cops can be and how pragmatic it is to get a lawyer and refuse a lie detector test.

You're correct about norms of human behavior, and making judgments based on norms of behavior is perfectly reasonable. For example, if I know that a money manager is cheating on his wife, I'm not going to invest with him: he's already shown dishonesty in one area of his life, so trusting him with my money would be foolish.

However, in this situation, we have two competing norms:

1. How do innocent people who desperately want their loved one back act?

2. How do innocent people who believe that they are suspected by investigators for their loved one's disappearance act?

The second norm exists because it's become a rule of thumb that when a person goes missing, his/her spouse/GF/BF is immediately placed under the microscope due to statistical probabilities. After all, how can the innocent spouse/BF/GF
ensure that the loved one is found if s/he is in jail based on an erroneous focus by investigators?

Now, I'm not saying that I know that Barry Morphew is innocent or not. I am saying that conclusions should not necessarily be drawn based on the exercise of one's 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's interesting that SC is picking out the same things in BM's micro statement that we are. When something is odd and doesn't feel right ...

I noticed SC didn't talk at all about his body language, the head shaking no on just about every sentence. That jumped out at me immediately when I first watched his 25 second "plea."

 

[lamlawindy]

Both teams are search and rescue, as far as we know. The dogs are trained to find people, living or dead. They are NOT trained to sniff a couch and sign whether a dead body has laid on it. The Colorado corrections system has three different dog programs, with almost no information published about two of them. First, there is a prisoner / K9 rescue program at both Fremont county prisons and Buena Vista. In this effort inmates live with and train rescue dogs to become adoptable pets and companion animals. The program has high reviews for aiding both the dogs and the handlers become model citizens. The second is an elite team of K9 aearch dogs and prison employees with full LE powers that are trained specifically to run down escapees from any facet of the legal system. Very little is known about them, other than they have a very high success rate. The third are several teams of search and rescue dogs. Two of those teams, both from Fremont county prisons, were used in the search for SW. IMO

Thank you for this info! Here in Indiana, there are specific prisons that have similar programs that pair up inmates & animals: dogs, cats, retired racehorses.

 

[vaporlass]

I wasn't considering the GiveMeMoneyFund but you're right! Even though it was (allegedly) his nephew who set it up, it's clear the family does not need the $$$ and they have plenty to support themselves and their family members. IMO

I think he was and is in charge of the Give Me Fund, regardless of whose name is on it. It’s as if they are trying different tactics to see whose name/ or what works best to bring in the most money. He is quite the “wheeler-dealer” in everything it seems.
It is this focus on “accumulating” money during this time that feels so very wrong to me. Why are there are NO requests for volunteers to help search? If anyone is searching - it must be very small groups.

 

[MrsWatson]

All of the financial aspects of this are confusing, concerning, and mysterious, IMO.

 

[vaporlass]

Loopholes?
Death benefit of life ins. is not likely to be paid for 5 years in CO. Usu. takes legal procedure, so court can determine presumed death of MisPers in CO. As always, I welcome comment, clarification, correction, esply from our legal professionals. <---Gist of my prior post 473.

@vaporlass sbm What do you see as loopholes w this? Who potentially benefits from them; who is potentially harmed? Sorry to be dense, so heading to the kitchen for more coffee. TiA.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean. In the Michael Chambers case, his wife was able to get him declared deceased despite no body being found. She did this in a matter of WEEKS after his disappearance. Maybe you can explain to me how she managed it? I am calling it a “loophole” but you may use a different terminology for it?
In SM’s case, BM can’t file for Life Insurance death benefit for 5 years if no body is found, right? Yet he can and did have her labeled “incapacitated” in order to complete property sale and collect the funds.
I am calling that a “loophole” as well because it seems to be a “work-around” to gaining access to 100% of joint funds that I’m assuming he would otherwise only legally be entitled to 50% if SM was here and involved in the closing.

 

[Dave F.]

Just putting this out there, HYPOTHETICALLY of course. If LE took the computer module with GPS data from BM’s truck, causing BM to need to visit a dealership to go and get a new one, would you suggest that this points to the fact that he 100% has not been cleared, as he suggested in the video with TD? MOO.

I'm sure that "computer module" disables the vehicle of it is removed. LE can download the entire module memory of data to a jump drive quite easily. I believe that particular brand of vehicle can also perform the download remotely at the manufacturer's end. Either way, the manufacturer requires a warrant.
In any scenario, news cameras or drone-like news helicopters would not have captured the process in images or video.
IMO

 

[DizzyB]

I assume that LE would have taken the information from the pickup GPS already, and I would assume that they continue to keep track of his whereabouts-not through that GPS but perhaps through another GPS now located on his vehicle. It would be the prudent thing to do, c0nsidering he seems to be out and about and they are still searching for Suzanne.

 

[Goldenseal]

You're correct about norms of human behavior, and making judgments based on norms of behavior is perfectly reasonable. For example, if I know that a money manager is cheating on his wife, I'm not going to invest with him: he's already shown dishonesty in one area of his life, so trusting him with my money would be foolish.

However, in this situation, we have two competing norms:

1. How do innocent people who desperately want their loved one back act?

2. How do innocent people who believe that they are suspected by investigators for their loved one's disappearance act?

The second norm exists because it's become a rule of thumb that when a person goes missing, his/her spouse/GF/BF is immediately placed under the microscope due to statistical probabilities. After all, how can the innocent spouse/BF/GF
ensure that the loved one is found if s/he is in jail based on an erroneous focus by investigators?

Now, I'm not saying that I know that Barry Morphew is innocent or not. I am saying that conclusions should not necessarily be drawn based on the exercise of one's 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

I would add a #3: How do innocent people who were considering divorcing their "loved" one act? I bet their body language is VERY conflicted.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

That bothered me as well when in his under 30-second video BM began with "Oh, Suzanne..." It seemed a chiding remark to me. It felt as if he was blaming her for what had happened. MOO

Just re the “oh Suzanne”, as someone mentioned a while back in one of the threads, can’t remember who it was now, apologies, that it’s possible he’s saying “hello Suzanne”, I’ve replayed it a few times and slowed it down, and yeah it could be “hello”, I’m no speech expert, but I’m leaning towards “hello” too ...

 

[Dave F.]

I assume that LE would have taken the information from the pickup GPS already, and I would assume that they continue to keep track of his whereabouts-not through that GPS but perhaps through another GPS now located on his vehicle. It would be the prudent thing to do, c0nsidering he seems to be out and about and they are still searching for Suzanne.

He had GPS in his vehicle, had his phone with him, and drove through multiple traffic cameras. It is impossible for me to believe that LE hasn't confirmed or refuted his alibi............and that stretching the timeline back to May 8th only lessens the traffic cam exposure. IMO

 

[Dave F.]

Just re the “oh Suzanne”, as someone mentioned a while back in one of the threads, can’t remember who it was now, apologies, that it’s possible he’s saying “hello Suzanne”, I’ve replayed it a few times and slowed it down, and yeah it could be “hello”, I’m no speech expert, but I’m leaning towards “hello” too ...

Speaking directly to the victim, rather than the abductor, is a pretty standard ploy to involve the victim as a third party in the negotiation process for ransom payment, thereby adding assurance that the victim is alive. IMO

 

[RickshawFan]

I tend to think that people would remember her because, physically, she was lovely.

We don't know that. No current photo is available. Also, an "attractive" descriptor is in the eyes of the beholder, i.e. your personal "attractive" meter: not everyone's, maybe not most people's.

 

[OldCop]

Ignoring what’s actually in the video, the fact that the video even exists, is extremely troubling to me.

An appeal should have been made as soon as possible, with a spokesperson appointed if necessary. That’s what we’ve seen in countless missing persons cases, and it’s the type of thing that pays dividends.

Instead, we got “too soon,” and a spokesman who issued a set of demands, one of which was to not appear on camera.

Vanessa Guillen’s family (for instance) is like that of so many families we’ve seen before; they are screaming from the mountaintops, begging for every second of attention to be paid to their missing loved one.

Here, BM appears to be hoping for the opposite.

It’s a moot point probably, as Suzanne was never kidnapped. It’s almost as if someone knows that, and wants this to just go away.

It won’t. Thank God.

Exactly. If he felt he HAD to make the video because pressure was building for some kind of statement from him, why only put the video on FB? Why not a public release thru the media? It’s like he wanted as few people as possible to see it.

 

[Willowwood26]

He had GPS in his vehicle, had his phone with him, and drove through multiple traffic cameras. It is impossible for me to believe that LE hasn't confirmed or refuted his alibi............and that stretching the timeline back to May 8th only lessens the traffic cam exposure. IMO

How do you know he had his phone?

 

[darring21]

You're correct about norms of human behavior, and making judgments based on norms of behavior is perfectly reasonable. For example, if I know that a money manager is cheating on his wife, I'm not going to invest with him: he's already shown dishonesty in one area of his life, so trusting him with my money would be foolish.

However, in this situation, we have two competing norms:

1. How do innocent people who desperately want their loved one back act?

2. How do innocent people who believe that they are suspected by investigators for their loved one's disappearance act?

The second norm exists because it's become a rule of thumb that when a person goes missing, his/her spouse/GF/BF is immediately placed under the microscope due to statistical probabilities. After all, how can the innocent spouse/BF/GF
ensure that the loved one is found if s/he is in jail based on an erroneous focus by investigators?

Now, I'm not saying that I know that Barry Morphew is innocent or not. I am saying that conclusions should not necessarily be drawn based on the exercise of one's 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

Agree. Plus, what is normal behavior? Who defines that? Do we get to convict everyone with non-normal behavior of crimes? Only on social media, I guess. It really is a ridiculous premise.