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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
10ofRods said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if Suzanne was prescribed anti-depressants when she had cancer but apparently in 2013 she had a "breakdown" or was diagnosed with Depression and she was "browbeaten" by BM almost every day, according to AM. It was at that time he was against her taking medication, and more recently against her trying medical marijuana.

Imo
 
10ofRods said:
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.
Click to expand...
And also now thanks to the opioid crisis doctors are very reluctant to prescribe a large amount of pain meds. So an antidepressant might have been a good alternative. Although like you said the benefit v. risk must be weighed against the neurological effects of coming off of them. I have a friend who took a very popular antidepressant for years and getting off of it caused withdrawal sickness just as bad as any opiate withdrawal. She weaned off of it slowly after she thought she was going to be ok without it and she still had months of feeling sick, sleepless nights, sweating and brain zaps! And then her depression came back worse than before. Maybe she was on it for too long but I think many people are if they need it. So maybe marijuana is a better option for cancer patients? I don’t know a lot about it but since it is a plant maybe it doesn’t have those bad withdrawal symptoms? All I know is it would be absolutely horrible to be in pain and depressed and the one person who should be doing whatever they can to help you is shaming you for needing something for pain relief. I would imagine that cancer in your lymph nodes is very painful! Not to mention all the side effects from chemotherapy. It’s good for increasing appetite and isn’t it helpful with nausea too? Poor Suzanne after surviving all of that...who could be that selfish & evil?! (That’s a hypothetical that most of us can answer!) :mad:
 
MadTing said:
Can't believe this didn't come to my mind until now! This would not surprise me at all. How could you not want your wife to try any drug out there that could possibly help?
Click to expand...
This would only have alleviated discomfort, not contributed to her getting better. My mom’s doctor recommended MMJ when she had terminal cancer and it was a godsend for pain management, though it didn’t improve her health. I am horrified that BM didn’t “allow” Suzanne this additional comfort - and they no one was able to override this controlling j*ckass.
 
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Suzanne's LinkedIn profile shows someone very interested in exercise/food/fitness as relief for anxiety and depression, IMO. The bike itself may be the "marijuana" in this story - she could relieve her depression and anxiety by getting out of the house (not waiting for BM to come home) and making her own self happy, on her own, in the bright Colorado air, in the beautiful mountains. She was no longer as dependent upon him.

She was hoping for her own career as a Fitness Life Coach, if you ask me (and I think she would have been wonderful at it). She was trying to re-establish a post-cancer identity, but also break free a little from her husband. There's lots more I could say about this potential dynamic, but it can be jarring to even a fairly healthy relationship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ivegotthemic said:
A fun but little known fact is lawyers love law so much we wrote our own body of law that governs the professional conduct of lawyers. (because more law is always better) but that scenario your describing is sadly not that uncommon especially in cases involving minors. Just generally A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. im going to paste the exact annotation because it explains it way more eloquently then I can:

"11. Lawyers are frequently asked to represent a client under circumstances in which a third person will compensate the lawyer, in whole or in part. The third person might be a relative or friend, an indemnitor (such as a liability insurance company) or a co-client (such as a corporation sued along with one or more of its employees). Because third-party payers frequently have interests that differ from those of the client, including interests in minimizing the amount spent on the representation and in learning how the representation is progressing, lawyers are prohibited from accepting or continuing such representations unless the lawyer determines that there will be no interference with the lawyer's independent professional judgment and there is informed consent from the client. See also Rule 5.4C. (prohibiting interference with a lawyer's professional judgment by one who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another).

· 12. Sometimes, it will be sufficient for the lawyer to obtain the client's informed consent regarding the fact of the payment and the identity of the third-party payer. If, however, the fee arrangement creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer, then the lawyer must comply with Rule. 1.7. The lawyer must also conform to the requirements of Rule 1.6 concerning confidentiality. Under Rule 1.7(a), a conflict of interest exists if there is significant risk that the lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest in the fee arrangement or by the lawyer's responsibilities to the third-party payer (for example, when the third-party payer is a co-client). Under Rule 1.7(b), the lawyer may accept or continue the representation with the informed consent of each affected client, unless the conflict is nonconsentable under that paragraph. Under Rule 1.7(b), the informed consent must be confirmed in writing."

and Rule 1.7 in summary says If a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of the client

.... i think thats what you were trying to ask, if not let me know. we have like a ton more equally fun laws lol
Click to expand...

Yes! That was it! Well of course lawyers have laws that cover that kind of situation. Duh! What was I thinking. Lol :D But it would still feel weird though. Thanks @ivegotthemic! I can tell you are going to be a most excellent attorney!
 
Rumpole22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

BBM:

"Well, exactly."
In point of fact, I believe that's called perjury, which is itself a crime.

As an aside, welcome to Websleuths!
Love your username!
Rumpole of the Bailey is an old favorite of mine.
Love that guy.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
Dalgliesh said:
Precisely. If he is not a sociopath pretending to have Christian faith, and if he is a member of a community of Christians, he must be experiencing tremendous stress.

snipped for focus
.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of times, sociopaths who are pretending do not realize that's what they are doing. They have fundamental mental problems. Freud called them "lacanuae of the ego," meaning "Big Holes in their Mental Processes," holes that they either fill with their own thoughts - sometimes delusional - or that they cannot see.

I say this because I have many very religious family members and over decades, I was pretty much surprised and sometimes alarmed by their ability to compartmentalize their view of themselves as Good Christian Men (I had one uncle who absolutely jonesed to be the only Praying Person at any family gatherings - to the point where my grandma, who also liked to pray, threw up her hands and said, "Just have him do it!") This same uncle also did a few things that are seriously wrong - but that didn't stop him from getting "pastoral education" from a random non-accredited "seminary," so that he could have a doctorate and lead a church.

No church ever found him to be a reasonable choice as a pastor, so instead, he signed up to be a pastor at every nursing home, longterm care facility and jail within driving distance. So that he could tell everyone and their brother he was a Pastor and then launch into his Pastor-speech.

He once told me that since his own father was an evil man and abusive, he needed to be a pastor to avoid going down that path.

He was never physically violent with my aunt (my mom's sister), but he was physically violent repeatedly with other males that he didn't like. He also cheated on my aunt, but throughout the entire event, was so lovey-dovey to my aunt and so solicitous of her health, that unless you knew the situation (straight from the woman's mouth, btw) you would never have thought of him as anything but a Good Christian Man. Which is how he styled himself. Lots of abusers and pedophiles do this; there are tons of "Good Christian" drug abusers and alcoholics (a good friend of mind, a Christian therapist, has a whole clinic of such people - and has written a number of self-help books for them, as well as juried academic articles on the topic).

In my own experience, having to live with a man who "goes off" on others (even if only other men - and even if somewhat justified), is scary. You just never know when they'll turn that anger and physical power against you.
 
10ofRods said:
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.
Click to expand...
to piggyback off this Premeditation, being a process of the mind, is wholly subjective and hence not always susceptible to proof by direct evidence. It may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the event. It is not necessary for premeditation to exist for a specific length of time. While premeditation requires no specific period of time for deliberation, some amount of time must pass between the formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.

A premeditated decision to kill may be reached in a short period of time (its debated by a minutes is enough). However, an unconsidered or rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not premeditated. premeditation is the deliberate formation of and reflection upon the intent to take a human life, and involves the mental process of thinking beforehand, deliberation, reflection, weighing, or reasoning for a period of time, however short.

A defendant's actions before and after a murder are relevant to the question of premeditation. Evidence that the defendant had previously sought to carry out or had made preparations for the killing of the victim tends to establish deliberation and premeditation and is, therefore, relevant. Evidence regarding the accused's behavior after the killing may include evidence of the accused's treatment of the victim's remains, or of the accused's behavior and demeanor.
 
MsBetsy said:
I'm not sure if Suzanne was prescribed anti-depressants when she had cancer but apparently in 2013 she had a "breakdown" or was diagnosed with Depression and she was "browbeaten" by BM almost every day, according to AM. It was at that time he was against her taking medication, and more recently against her trying medical marijuana.

Imo
Click to expand...

Poor Suzanne. I'm afraid her life should have been so much happier, if life had been fair. Antidepressants absolutely relieve unnecessary suffering and save lives. I think BM was more secure in his control when she was too depressed or too sick to enjoy her life.
Sending wishes his way for many years of unmedicated major depression.
Moo
 
LE Chain of Custody, Criminal Case
Episode after episode, TV programs show LEOs and Techs using & initialing evidence baggies.
Altho it may not seem to apply a person's remains, principles for handling and documenting it are (virtually) the same as described in example below from wiki link. Well, typically fewer ppl handle remains. jm2cts

"Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence.
"When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been "planted" fraudulently to make someone appear guilty."

"An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence.... evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).

'"An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at a murder scene
  1. Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container, then gives it to forensics technician Bill.
  2. Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.
  3. Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting everyone who has accessed the original evidence (the knife, and original copies of the lifted fingerprints).
"The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.

"In the courtroom, if the defendant questions the chain of custody of the evidence it can be proven that the knife in the evidence room is the same knife found at the crime scene. However, if there are discrepancies and it cannot be proven who had the knife at a particular point in time, then the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the resulting evidence declared inadmissible." bbm sbm

Chain of custody - Wikipedia

Further discussion in Public Defender Reporter, by a professor of law at
Case Western Reserve U.
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
Tho published in 1993, a good explanation about CoC, among other evidence issues.
 
Last edited:
Rumpole22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome Rumpole. :):):)
Hope to hear loads more from you, as we try to work out happenings.
Your post is most helpful,as I expect more words of wisdom as to further proceedings from you.
Pressure yeah!
 
Dalgliesh said:
Is this reported in MSM? If not, how do we know?
Click to expand...
No no not at all. It was only reported that they had their own attorney. Not who is paying for the attorney. I should have said MOO! Unless the girls have many thousands of dollars in their own savings accounts. The youngest would still be a dependent. But if they aren’t in communication with the Moorman’s then who else would be paying the attorney? BM or their grandmother or aunt - someone from BM’s camp? I am curious what you are thinking but don’t want to cross into sleuthing the daughters territory. I was just questioning the legal dilemma it would seem to cause. But several OP have responded to that already.
 
Last edited:
mom2chloe said:
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
Click to expand...

Allegedly....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 3,368 (members: 150, guests: 3,218)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
3,218
Total visitors
3,368
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,612
Messages
17,971,767
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top