Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #32

[happyday]

Good info. So it would appear that BM either knew her password, or did the reset option you mentioned.

It REALLY wouldn’t surprise me if he knew her password or easily guessed it. Couples who have known each other that long would know passwords they use or where they write them down. No matter the state of the relationship.MOO

 

[NuttMegg]

I refer to the most excellent post above, which expounds on the Fox story by Lauren.
I want to add, that if you watch the video of her newcast, BM provides another interesting detail. It's right after he says, "listen....I'll pay you good money..."
Then he says, "...they jumped on it."
Iirc, JP saw BM on Saturday. So it looks like they might have been all together and BM hired all three of them at the same time. Just seems a little last minute. Moo

Good catch, >1 person at that "job interview". I would guess that a lot of his employees are paid off the books with cash. Otherwise he'd be paying a certain rate, overtime on Sundays. contracts, etc. Are they independent contractors for IRS purposes? IF so, he would send them 1099s at year's end and he would want the write off for his own records. Or is his business model to just slip buddies "good money".

At about 10:00 in the following video, AM is on the PE show, and discussing conversations he had with BM, regarding the ex employee who supposedly threatened his family (but not badly enough for BM to get his license plate or car description ...............) So AM asks BM "how did you pay your employees" BM said "mostly by check". AM was wondering if the address was on the check, but BM had secured work for the guy in his own immediate neighborhood anyway, so the address on the check wouldn't matter.

It jumped out at me that BM said he paid employees "mostly by check". A real contractor with a professional business would not do that, IMO. RE: "mostly". If paying cash he would open himself up to lawsuits by angry ex-employees claiming that they hadn't really been paid, and he would need proof of the employee payment as a bonafide business expense. Yes I realize there could have been electronic transfers instead of checks, or physical receipts for cash payments, but I doubt that in this case, just a hunch.

 

[branmuffin]

So I have to assume that if the girls couldn't contact their mom it was after 12:30 pm which is when the abrupt end to a convo came to be. Had they been in contact with SM prior to that? And if they had why would they be so concerned? Perhaps after 12:30 pm is the first time they tried to contact their mom and if it was why would they be so concerned if she regularly went for bike rides? If BM was trying to buy time by pretending to be SM to her friend why wouldn't he have done it with his kids instead of creating a potentially dangerous situation like the one that unfolded?

 

[Dr.StClements]

Interesting rebuttal with a dash of an attempt to discredit a potential material witness. Clever, isn't he?
Missing Suzanne Morphew’s husband Barry Morphew responds to bombshell claims about hotel room the weekend his wife disappeared

He thinks he's clever. But it is his narcissistic PD - his conceited, self-inflated ego - that leads him to think he's cleverer than LE, and just about everyone else. He still believes his manipulative behavior is working.
BM is confusing arrogance with being clever. He's already tied himself in knots with his scheming and lying. Arrogance is his weak spot and will be his downfall.

MOO

 

[K9Enzo]

So I have to assume that if the girls couldn't contact their mom it was after 12:30 pm which is when the abrupt end to a convo came to be. Had they been in contact with SM prior to that? And if they had why would they be so concerned? Perhaps after 12:30 pm is the first time they tried to contact their mom and if it was why would they be so concerned if she regularly went for bike rides? If BM was trying to buy time by pretending to be SM to her friend why wouldn't he have done it with his kids instead of creating a potentially dangerous situation like the one that unfolded?

IMO, because it’s actually Sunday that the girls can’t reach her & the audience is supposed to believe she’s out for a bike ride.

 

[Backstroke10]

It REALLY wouldn’t surprise me if he knew her password or easily guessed it. Couples who have known each other that long would know passwords they use or where they write them down. No matter the state of the relationship.MOO

I agree. I think he knew her passwords. He seems like the type that wouldn’t allow her much privacy. I’m sure he knew all of her passwords but she probably didn’t know all of his. MOO

 

[Karen Walker]

I notice too, in the CCSO press release, the sheriff says their focus is to find Suzanne or learn what happened to her.

That is a huuuuuuuge sentence.

Or learn what happened to her.

Kelsey Berreth. Jennifer Farber Dulos.

Sadly some women are never found because of the heartless manner in which they were destroyed.

It's time to bring in Tammy Lee.

JMO

Yes, excellent point, I noticed that too. But who's Tammy Lee?

 

[EggSalad]

Was there a consensus on what Hoosierfan72’s info means? Seems it means SM or BM logged in to the other’s FB on their own device causing “friend SM” suggestions to pop up on BM’s friends pages, right?

Is it most likely it was BM logging in to hers on his device? That’s what I came away with, just making sure that’s what most are thinking? So of course the timing of the logging in would be crucial to the investigation.

IMO, it’s pretty clear what happened. Before it is known that SM is missing, multiple people that are connected to BM on Facebook but not SM, start receiving notifications that they should connect with SM.

For the algorithm to make that suggestion, something needed to happen for it to connect SM’s profile to BM’s contacts.

Facebook states this: Help Center

What that link is saying is that any device you use to log into your profile on the Facebook app and separately Facebook messenger app, the apps will be allowed access to all of the contacts you have saved on that device.

The algorithm then takes in these new contacts and makes suggestions on connecting.

So if BM logs into to Facebook or Facebook messenger as SM on BM’s phone, SM’s profile then reads all of BM’s contacts (since it’s his device) and for any of those contacts that SM is not connected to, it suggests that they connect.

Thus why you have all of BM’s contacts receiving notifications to connect with SM before she is even reported missing.

 

[Barry]

He thinks he's clever. But it is his narcissistic PD - his conceited, self-inflated ego - that leads him to think he's cleverer than LE, and just about everyone else. He still believes his manipulative behavior is working.
BM is confusing being arrogant with being clever. Arrogance is his weak spot and will be his downfall.
MOO

ITA. To add, arrogance - empathy = dangerous. MOO.

 

[Megnut]

IMO, because it’s actually Sunday that the girls can’t reach her & the audience is supposed to believe she’s out for a bike ride.

Audience indeed.

And sadly we've seen this production before.

It started bad. It's not going to end well.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Yes, excellent point, I noticed that too. But who's Tammy Lee?

The expert interrogator who walked Chris Watts right into a full confession.

JMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Re the fb activity (thanks @Hoosierfan72 for sparking so much interesting speculation). I think we should keep in the equation the most simple explanation - it was Suzanne herself.

Imagine if something had come to light, a suspicion or more, that your husband was playing away. It's quite possible that you would be all over their social media, including looking up their female friends, what posts had he liked, location check ins etc. This would generate friend suggestions I believe.

Just an alternative thought.

 

[Karen Walker]

The expert interrogator who walked Chris Watts right into a full confession.

JMO

Thanks, I haven't followed that case. Yes, bring her in please.

 

[Dr.StClements]

ITA. To add, arrogance - empathy = dangerous. MOO.

Agree - and he's becoming increasingly dangerous as the walls close in around him. This is someone who'll become more calculating, more defiant, less cooperative (if that's possible).
He's already tried using his daughters as a shield. Nothing is off-limits.

 

[K9Enzo]

Re the fb activity (thanks @Hoosierfan72 for sparking so much interesting speculation). I think we should keep in the equation the most simple explanation - it was Suzanne herself.

Imagine if something had come to light, a suspicion or more, that your husband was playing away. It's quite possible that you would be all over their social media, including looking up their female friends, what posts had he liked, location check ins etc. This would generate friend suggestions I believe.

Just an alternative thought.

This was exactly my guess.

It was SM, on her own device, on her own FB account and going through BM’s friends profiles.

In this scenario, I’m assuming SM is either friends with BM on FB or his FB account is public. IMO

 

[Dalgliesh]

I saw recent posts that described the law of Indiana concerning circumstantial evidence, and that suggested circumstantial cases are more difficult to prove than cases with direct evidence. That is not the law in Colorado. Here is the Supreme Court standard jury instruction on circumstantial evidence:

D:01

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—NO DISTINCTION

A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is
necessarily more reliable than the other.

Direct evidence is based on first-hand observation of the fact in
question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a
window and saw snow falling might be offered as direct evidence that it
had snowed.]

Circumstantial evidence is indirect. It is based on observations of
related facts that may lead you to reach a conclusion about the fact in
question. [For example, a witness’s testimony that he [she] looked out a
window and saw snow covering the ground might be offered as
circumstantial evidence that it had snowed.]

COMMENT

1. See People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466, 469 (Colo. 1973) (“we now cast
aside as outmoded and as confusing the requirement that the prosecution’s
evidence, when wholly circumstantial, must exclude every reasonable
hypotheses other than that of guilt and no longer require such an
instruction or such a test to be applied”).

-----------

Of course, the prosecutor in all cases bears the burden of proving each element of the crime to the jury's satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is the jury instruction on that aspect of the case:

E:03

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, AND REASONABLE DOUBT

Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This
presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial
and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all of the
evidence, you are then convinced that the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove to the
satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of all of the
elements necessary to constitute the crime charged.

Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common
sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all of the
evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a
vague, speculative or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause
reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.

If you find from the evidence that each and every element of a crime
has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the
defendant guilty of that crime. If you find from the evidence that the
prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of a crime
beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of
that crime.

 

[EggSalad]

Re the fb activity (thanks @Hoosierfan72 for sparking so much interesting speculation). I think we should keep in the equation the most simple explanation - it was Suzanne herself.

Imagine if something had come to light, a suspicion or more, that your husband was playing away. It's quite possible that you would be all over their social media, including looking up their female friends, what posts had he liked, location check ins etc. This would generate friend suggestions I believe.

Just an alternative thought.

If it was SM herself, she wouldn’t log into her profile on his phone. There would be no use for that since she can look at her profile on her own phone anytime.

She’d either log on to his profile on her phone or she’d just look at his profile on his phone.

And if she logged in to his profile on her phone, the inverse of what happened would happen. Basically, SM’s contacts would receive a notification to connect with BM.


Also, I don’t believe just looking at someone’s profile or liking content is what the algorithm uses to make connection recommendations. But I could be wrong.

 

[Fireflize]

IMO, it’s pretty clear what happened. Before it is known that SM is missing, multiple people that are connected to BM on Facebook but not SM, start receiving notifications that they should connect with SM.

For the algorithm to make that suggestion, something needed to happen for it to connect SM’s profile to BM’s contacts.

Facebook states this: Help Center

What that link is saying is that any device you use to log into your profile on the Facebook app and separately Facebook messenger app, the apps will be allowed access to all of the contacts you have saved on that device.

The algorithm then takes in these new contacts and makes suggestions on connecting.

So if BM logs into to Facebook or Facebook messenger as SM on BM’s phone, SM’s profile then reads all of BM’s contacts (since it’s his device) and for any of those contacts that SM is not connected to, it suggests that they connect.

Thus why you have all of BM’s contacts receiving notifications to connect with SM before she is even reported missing.

Many thanks to Hoosier for this great information! And to eggsalad for explaining it so well that even I can understand!

This a preview of what LE has. I hope eggsalad will be here when the arrest affidavit is released to explain more tech issues!
Moo

 

[oviedo]

Re the fb activity (thanks @Hoosierfan72 for sparking so much interesting speculation). I think we should keep in the equation the most simple explanation - it was Suzanne herself.

Imagine if something had come to light, a suspicion or more, that your husband was playing away. It's quite possible that you would be all over their social media, including looking up their female friends, what posts had he liked, location check ins etc. This would generate friend suggestions I believe.

Just an alternative thought.

That’s what I’m thinking and she was messaging about more than the wedding with her friend ..
JMO

 

[Fireflize]

Dbm