Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #33

[MassGuy]

time place?

Fox21. All her reports have aired after the first commercial break, 13 minutes in.

So 9:13 local, 11:13 Eastern.

 

[Goldenseal]

Just anti-Suzanne.

Yep, and don't forget that he wouldn't 'allow' her to try another medicine as well (depression med? I forget) to ease her pain and anxiety.
BM's motto: "how much horrible controlling behavior can I burden Suzanne with, just for fun?" After hearing that about the MJ and med, I had no doubt that BM was a truly rotten human being.

Edited to add : I don't know if BM's objections had any influence over SM's actual actions with the MJ and meds, but it sounded like AM was irked that BM pretty much stopped her from getting some relief from them. It would be bad enough for him to give her grief over MJ at all, since that decision was strictly between her and her doctor.

 

[Ontario Mom]

If BM was that adamant against SM trying legal weed (in whatever form) as AM told us he was, it must have been kind of annoying to him to go out in public (shopping, dining, city parks, anywhere retail is and people are) where you can literally smell it everywhere you go. That does strike me as odd that he'd chose to move there if he's so against it.
Or, maybe he's just super anti-social and he just managed to avoid it?

jmo

 

[Lilypad13]

In cases where an attorney represents multiple members of a family in the same case, attorneys have a professional responsibility to inform their clients of future potential conflicts and how they could impact their individual representation. Clients can still maintain the same lawyer but they would have to sign a waiver stating they understood and were okay with the potential conflict

Thanks @ivegotthemic but in this case if BM has his own attorneys and the daughters have their own attorney but BM is paying for both. Maybe “conflict of interest” isn’t the best description. Just saying what if I’m representing the daughters and being paid by their father and they have to testify against him type of situation. BM’s paying me but my duty is to represent/protect the daughters. So can BM fire me or not pay me? See what I mean? It would be an awkward position to be in. Or maybe the attorney fees are being paid from the account as OP suggested. I don’t know how far that would go with two attorneys.

 

[Dalgliesh]

If BM is paying for their attorney I wonder if that’s a conflict of interest for the poor attorney?

My guess: it could be. It's not uncommon for attorneys to take on parties who have a potential conflict of interest. What they must do is disclose, in writing, the potential conflict and get the written consent of all their clients to advise them all. This can be risky: if the conflict becomes manifest down the road, the attorney may have to resign from representing ALL the parties. In this case, consent is complicated by the fact that one of the clients is a minor, and the potential conflict is with her parent.

 

[Dalgliesh]

Thanks @ivegotthemic but in this case if BM has his own attorneys and the daughters have their own attorney but BM is paying for both.

Is this reported in MSM? If not, how do we know?

 

[MsBetsy]

Question for veteran sleuthers. In premeditated murder cases, what evidence has proven premeditation? Please save my poor old brain from having to speculate on this, by sharing your knowledge. TIA

I've seen evidence like previous threats to harm or kill the victim, buying a gun before the murder, taking out an insurance policy, having an affair, and purchasing items that were later used in the crime, just to name a few.

I don't think it takes much for a murder to be premeditated. In crimes of passion, it depends on whether or not there is "cooling off period." Even when someone loses control, at some point a reasonable person has time to consider the consequences of their actions. If they choose to continue, knowing they could cause harm or death, it can be considered premeditated murder.

Imo

 

[Ontario Mom]

Is this reported in MSM? If not, how do we know?

It was reported by AM on a 1 time only approved link from a non-msm youtuber/podcaster.
I don't have the link off hand, but I'm sure someone does

ETA: found the link, if you haven't seen it yet:

 

[10ofRods]

Question for veteran sleuthers. In premeditated murder cases, what evidence has proven premeditation? Please save my poor old brain from having to speculate on this, by sharing your knowledge. TIA

The answer is really complex. It would require indexing tens of thousands of homicide cases over a long period. And juries vary in their interpretation of law and of jury instructions.

What is important to remember is that while planning and gathering weapons is obviously a sign of premeditation, most cases are not that cut and dried.

Strangulation, for example, may result in a verdict of first degree murder, even if the killer had never consciously thought of murdering his/her victim. This is because at some point during strangulation, the victim is limp and unconscious (and in need of medical help). If the murderer continues to strangle, it's been ruled premeditated in some cases - because the victim's body sent a signal (limpness) that death was impending, the victim is no longer any kind of physical threat to the assailant, they have to continue to strangle for another 3-5 minutes (or more) to ensure death - they have plenty of time to reconsider and it's obvious that they are still consciously directing their hands to apply pressure.

Kicking someone who is down, kicking an unconscious person, leaving one's child in a hot car...all have been charged as premeditated (1st degree) murder, if the victim dies.

Smyrna hot car death: Father Dylan Levesque charged with murder

Conversely, Charles Manson was convicted of 1st degree murder almost entirely because of evidence that he was the "premeditator" of the killings - he wasn't even there.

If a person is engaging in a premeditated crime (such as robbery or the person went to a house to "beat down" a a victim) and the victim dies (even though there was no intent to kill the victim - it just "happened" in the course of another felony - that's often charged as first degree/premeditated.

So, if BM strangled Suzanne, and I were on that jury, I would consider it premeditated, as all adult humans know that strangulation is lethal if applied in a lengthy fashion, and the length of time is long enough to reconsider one's actions.

If, on the other hand, I think I can stop a fight between my dog and the neighbor's dog by shooting at the enemy dog (but I hit the neighbor instead, who promptly bleeds out because I hit the femoral artery), a jury might consider that unpremeditated (because I impulsively was trying to save my dog).

More commonly, a person does something stupid, like that man who wanted to avoid the work of drilling a hole in the side of his house for the cable to come in. He and his wife determined that shooting a hole would make pleasant work of the task and be more efficient. So, she went outside to "look at where the hole should go" and he let off a round at the level and place he thought maybe the hole should go - but that single bullet hit his wife and killed her.

That was decided to be not premeditated. There are quite a few like that. A man shot a Joshua Tree (illegally, was showing off for girlfriend, girlfriend was filming, Tree fell on girl, girl died). Man was convicted of a few things, but not premeditated murder.

Juries are ultimately very very influential in all of this, although many jurors are heavily instructed by the judge via jury instructions to reach a particular conclusion. IMO.

 

[Lilypad13]

Absolutely they can! And they do! Just have to be 21.

That’s so crazy...so if I went to Co to participate in the search I could legally buy whatever I wanted while I’m there and take some edibles on the trail with me? That’s so wild! There must be a limit or else wouldn’t people travel there just to stock up? I guess it’s not legal to use it once you return to your home state. But I can sure envision a lot of illegal activity stemming from this type of scenario. I understand there are political & financial reasons why not but wouldn’t it be better if the marijuana laws were the same in every state? And just for the record I would love to be able to join the search for Suzanne and not because I could go weed shopping!

<modsnip>

 

[TKG]

Is this reported in MSM? If not, how do we know?

Yes, this was in the video with AM and the indynews that was posted a day or two ago.

 

[GordianKnot]

LS sent me a pm that her next piece is tonight

I know we're all eager for news, but I'm really, really hoping that LS gets the green light from LE first before airing anything from potential witnesses in the case.

My sense is that she'll run it past the CCSO first to make sure none of the info shared will jeopardize their investigation in any way.

Like everyone else, I want info.
But I don't want it at the expense of justice for Suzanne.
And I certainly don't want Barry to know anything LE doesn't want him to know about their investigation.

JMO.

 

[Fireflize]

The answer is really complex. It would require indexing tens of thousands of homicide cases over a long period. And juries vary in their interpretation of law and of jury instructions.

What is important to remember is that while planning and gathering weapons is obviously a sign of premeditation, most cases are not that cut and dried.

Strangulation, for example, may result in a verdict of first degree murder, even if the killer had never consciously thought of murdering his/her victim. This is because at some point during strangulation, the victim is limp and unconscious (and in need of medical help). If the murderer continues to strangle, it's been ruled premeditated in some cases - because the victim's body sent a signal (limpness) that death was impending, the victim is no longer any kind of physical threat to the assailant, they have to continue to strangle for another 3-5 minutes (or more) to ensure death - they have plenty of time to reconsider and it's obvious that they are still consciously directing their hands to apply pressure.

Kicking someone who is down, kicking an unconscious person, leaving one's child in a hot car...all have been charged as premeditated (1st degree) murder, if the victim dies.

Smyrna hot car death: Father Dylan Levesque charged with murder

Conversely, Charles Manson was convicted of 1st degree murder almost entirely because of evidence that he was the "premeditator" of the killings - he wasn't even there.

If a person is engaging in a premeditated crime (such as robbery or the person went to a house to "beat down" a a victim) and the victim dies (even though there was no intent to kill the victim - it just "happened" in the course of another felony - that's often charged as first degree/premeditated.

So, if BM strangled Suzanne, and I were on that jury, I would consider it premeditated, as all adult humans know that strangulation is lethal if applied in a lengthy fashion, and the length of time is long enough to reconsider one's actions.

If, on the other hand, I think I can stop a fight between my dog and the neighbor's dog by shooting at the enemy dog (but I hit the neighbor instead, who promptly bleeds out because I hit the femoral artery), a jury might consider that unpremeditated (because I impulsively was trying to save my dog).

More commonly, a person does something stupid, like that man who wanted to avoid the work of drilling a hole in the side of his house for the cable to come in. He and his wife determined that shooting a hole would make pleasant work of the task and be more efficient. So, she went outside to "look at where the hole should go" and he let off a round at the level and place he thought maybe the hole should go - but that single bullet hit his wife and killed her.

That was decided to be not premeditated. There are quite a few like that. A man shot a Joshua Tree (illegally, was showing off for girlfriend, girlfriend was filming, Tree fell on girl, girl died). Man was convicted of a few things, but not premeditated murder.

Juries are ultimately very very influential in all of this, although many jurors are heavily instructed by the judge via jury instructions to reach a particular conclusion. IMO.

Many thanks!

 

[Rumpole22]

Very astute! I am reminded that the courts permit LE to lie (not just the FBI, but all LE) as may be necessary to get at the truth of the case.

Hello All;
As a former state trial judge doing criminal cases exclusively for over thirty years, I am making my initial foray onto this site. I have a lot of catching up to do but this comment about courts permitting LE to lie to get at the truth of a case was so overboard that I wish to correct its breath. Courts do not operate on the theory that the end justifies the means 'to get at the truth of a case'. It is OK for LE to tell a suspect that their fingerprint was found at the scene in an effort to get an admission or some statement for the suspect. Courts do not sanction lying in court to a judge or jury regarding facts.

 

[Lilypad13]

The answer is really complex. It would require indexing tens of thousands of homicide cases over a long period. And juries vary in their interpretation of law and of jury instructions.

What is important to remember is that while planning and gathering weapons is obviously a sign of premeditation, most cases are not that cut and dried.

Strangulation, for example, may result in a verdict of first degree murder, even if the killer had never consciously thought of murdering his/her victim. This is because at some point during strangulation, the victim is limp and unconscious (and in need of medical help). If the murderer continues to strangle, it's been ruled premeditated in some cases - because the victim's body sent a signal (limpness) that death was impending, the victim is no longer any kind of physical threat to the assailant, they have to continue to strangle for another 3-5 minutes (or more) to ensure death - they have plenty of time to reconsider and it's obvious that they are still consciously directing their hands to apply pressure.

Kicking someone who is down, kicking an unconscious person, leaving one's child in a hot car...all have been charged as premeditated (1st degree) murder, if the victim dies.

Smyrna hot car death: Father Dylan Levesque charged with murder

Conversely, Charles Manson was convicted of 1st degree murder almost entirely because of evidence that he was the "premeditator" of the killings - he wasn't even there.

If a person is engaging in a premeditated crime (such as robbery or the person went to a house to "beat down" a a victim) and the victim dies (even though there was no intent to kill the victim - it just "happened" in the course of another felony - that's often charged as first degree/premeditated.

So, if BM strangled Suzanne, and I were on that jury, I would consider it premeditated, as all adult humans know that strangulation is lethal if applied in a lengthy fashion, and the length of time is long enough to reconsider one's actions.

If, on the other hand, I think I can stop a fight between my dog and the neighbor's dog by shooting at the enemy dog (but I hit the neighbor instead, who promptly bleeds out because I hit the femoral artery), a jury might consider that unpremeditated (because I impulsively was trying to save my dog).

More commonly, a person does something stupid, like that man who wanted to avoid the work of drilling a hole in the side of his house for the cable to come in. He and his wife determined that shooting a hole would make pleasant work of the task and be more efficient. So, she went outside to "look at where the hole should go" and he let off a round at the level and place he thought maybe the hole should go - but that single bullet hit his wife and killed her.

That was decided to be not premeditated. There are quite a few like that. A man shot a Joshua Tree (illegally, was showing off for girlfriend, girlfriend was filming, Tree fell on girl, girl died). Man was convicted of a few things, but not premeditated murder.

Juries are ultimately very very influential in all of this, although many jurors are heavily instructed by the judge via jury instructions to reach a particular conclusion. IMO.

Wow some really crazy cases! In the one BBM what if he really said stand right here honey and knock on the wall so I can mark the correct spot?

 

[10ofRods]

Yep, and don't forget that he wouldn't 'allow' her to try another medicine as well (depression med? I forget) to ease her pain and anxiety.
BM's motto: "how much horrible controlling behavior can I burden Suzanne with, just for fun?" After hearing that about the MJ and med, I had no doubt that BM was a truly rotten human being.

Edited to add : I don't know if BM's objections had any influence over SM's actual actions with the MJ and meds, but it sounded like AM was irked that BM pretty much stopped her from getting some relief from them. It would be bad enough for him to give her grief over MJ at all, since that decision was strictly between her and her doctor.

This one really bugs (you guys have no idea how much, as I am trying to remain ladylike and calm).

Pain is made worse by lack of serotonin in the brain. Pain uses up serotonin in the brain. Pain leads to depression. Depression is a terrible name for this brain condition.

In the English-speaking world, and beyond, "depression" is thought of as "melancholy or sadness." But there are literally hundreds of disorders of the body that are connected to down-regulation of serotonin which is what the SSRI's (their true name) are prescribed for, not just for mood states.

These drugs are not perceptibly "psychoactive." They are not LSD. Or even cannabis (although cannabis seems to help regulate endorphins and serotonin in some people).

SSRI's are frequently prescribed to cancer patients, not because they are in despair (which they may be), but because pain management and appetite management can be helped without massive doses of opioids. I bet BM would have no trouble with being prescribed a "pain pill" by a doctor - he sounds like one of those millions of people who think pain pills are what they need for pain (yep, they work -but they can also lead to lifelong addiction and abuse and while some SSRI's have neuro symptoms when people are coming off them, they are not sold on the street and abused the way oxycontin is). I wonder if BM was okay with Tylenol (a dangerous drug for pain management which some of you surely know).

Anyway, SSRI's don't always work for pain (CBD may be better) but they are certainly commonly prescribed to cancer patients to combat myriad symptoms of chemo.

 

[10ofRods]

Wow some really crazy cases! In the one BBM what if he really said stand right here honey and knock on the wall so I can mark the correct spot?

She was standing about 10 yards away, shouting at him, according to witnesses. I have no idea how her shouts were supposed to help him - he thought he was firing a "test bullet" and he also hoped it would be in the right spot. Neither of them appeared to take into account that he was firing directly into an area where she was standing, thereby breaking one of the key rules of gun safety.

Man Installing Satellite TV Shoots, Kills Wife

It was satellite TV, not cable. The witnesses were their two children.

 

[mom2chloe]

So BM refused his wife access to marijuana and antidepressants against her own doctor’s advice.

He refused to give up the monies which were initially to help find his missing wife, despite the fact that she is still missing.

He has hired defense attorneys for both daughters and himself.

His wife recently inherited $500,000 and he begrudgingly offers a $100,000 reward for her safe return only.

He continues to isolate daughters from Moorman family despite knowing GM is terminally ill. GM is not only ill but cannot exercise his rights as a father to search for his daughter and his son is having to go this alone while taking more time away from family who needs him.

BM had to be the most selfish ******* I’ve ever imagined. IMO

 

[10ofRods]

I assumed the OP was referring to medical marijuana not producing euphoria. I'm not sure if that's true, though. Marinol is synthetic and it has the same side effects. IMO

Medical marijuana and CBD are two different things. Medical marijuana typically has THC in it (the mind-part). Not sure "euphoria" is the right word, depends on the individual and the dose.

Two kinds of THC (indica and sativa), is my understanding. Indica is more helpful with pain, anxiety, relaxation and sleep. It's often the one that actual medical doctors will prescribe.

CBD has few psychoactive effects (may aid in forming sleep chemicals in the brain) but appears to help with pain, blood pressure, regulation of blood sugar.

Marinol has never been shown to work as effectively at most intended purposes of cannabis. At least, that was what presented in Colorado during the long process of legalizing cannabis (first medically, then recreationally, IIRC).

Some people think CBD is the only form of medical marijuana, but I believe it is made from hemp, not cannabis.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Hello All;
As a former state trial judge doing criminal cases exclusively for over thirty years, I am making my initial foray onto this site. I have a lot of catching up to do but this comment about courts permitting LE to lie to get at the truth of a case was so overboard that I wish to correct its breath. Courts do not operate on the theory that the end justifies the means 'to get at the truth of a case'. It is OK for LE to tell a suspect that their fingerprint was found at the scene in an effort to get an admission or some statement for the suspect. Courts do not sanction lying in court to a judge or jury regarding facts.

Welcome to WS

You may want to consider becoming a verified professional here. Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters