Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #47

[10ofRods]

As far as I know Andy said Barry was at the edge of his property with a gun over his shoulder. He didn't say that he felt threatened or that anyone felt threatened. He didn't say his behavior was menacing or that he appeared angry. He said that Barry made a comment informing them they were
about to trespass on private property. Nobody crossed the property line and that seemed to be the end of it.

Actually, Colorado law says it's the intent of the gun-bearer that matters, not the amount of fear in the other person. It must be a difficult law to enforce.

It's interesting that MG says she's afraid of BM. I'd love to know more about why that is.

 

[Megnut]

But if the bike was just thrown down there, it's possible there may not have been any footprints where the bike was found?

I think that's the point of his presplain. LE probably pointed out a lack of footprints, among other anomalies in the bike story, when they questioned him. His answer, there were footprints (of an abductor or Cat) but LE destroyed them, so that it only appeared to be no footprints/tracks.

Some people have an answer for everything.

Leteciarrhea comes to mind.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

"Open Carry"

As long as you don't menace anyone (make people afraid by carrying a gun). Menacing people with weapons is illegal in CO. This applies to all weapons, and not just guns, so does not show up as a "gun law." It also applies to things that can be used as a weapon (e.g. autos, hammers, power tools, hockey sticks and baseball bats). If the intent is to make another person change their behavior through fear (intense anxiety would count), then it's illegal...

@10ofRods sbm I understand your post and do not disagree. My earlier post simply provided a citation to CO statute and a wiki source.
Now to add/clarify: CO law allows 'open carry' of both handguns and long guns, whereas in some states open carry as shown in pix below in and of itself (without any further action/stmt by the carrier) is not lawful.*
If pix below were in non-open-carry (aka nonpermissive open carry) states, ppl shown would be violating st. law.
Definitions, discussion, a map and table of states are at link. jm2cts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. "Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article." ^ some bbm. @10ofRods, this would be "menacing" in CO.
"... Forty five states' constitutions recognize and secure the right to keep and bear arms in some form, and none of those prohibit the open carrying of firearms...."
"Permissive open carry states
a state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws, with few exceptions. They do not prohibit open carry for all nonprohibited citizens and do not require a permit or license to open carry. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle."
"Nonpermissive open carry states
open carry of a handgun is not lawful or is lawful only under such a limited set of circumstances that public carry is effectively prohibited. They may include when one is hunting or traveling to/from hunting locations, on property controlled by the person carrying, or for lawful self-defense."
Open carry in the United States - Wikipedia.

^ Pix depicting 'open carry' of handguns, from wiki link.

 

[NWLady]

The person had to get to the point where they threw the bike (they had to stand somewhere on the edge of the little gully or climb down into it). LE would notice right away that the bike appeared to have come from above - on the rim of the gully, it could not have come from somewhere else. They would look immediately for tire tracks. While doing that, they would also look for car tracks and foot prints.

The person who put the bike in the gully had to get near the gully somehow. If LE in fact never looked down at the crowd any where near the bike scene then that was a big error. Personally, I don't think that's the case at all.

Yes, I understand all of this ^^^ - it's common sense IMO. In my previous post, I was replying/commenting in regards to the area where the bike itself was found, or to be more specific, the immediate area where the bike was found (and not the area where the bike may have been thrown FROM.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

JMO

 

[ethereal*22]

As far as I know Andy said Barry was at the edge of his property with a gun over his shoulder. He didn't say that he felt threatened or that anyone felt threatened. He didn't say his behavior was menacing or that he appeared angry. He said that Barry made a comment informing them they were
about to trespass on private property. Nobody crossed the property line and that seemed to be the end of it.

Thanks @MsBetsy - and not directing this you — Exactly! Soooooo—Ok, now I’m going to ask why are there pages and pages discussing this? If what you’ve stated is true, why all the discussion of Colorado gun laws and brandishing/menacing of weapons and the day of the search of PP property?

It’s one thing to speculate theories, but to give all this energy to something it seems did not happen, seems odd.

Sorry to disappoint, but it seems obvious that BM acted within his rights and the law that day. It may disgust people personally but nothing illegal occurred. We can’t make it so by dissecting laws either, or there would have been charges. BM was not charged with any violation of laws during the search. Morally he may have violated many of the public’s opinion, that’s what this thread has become based on without anything else happening through statements from LE.

 

[al66pine]

Amid BM's Multiple, Ill Conceived Stmts ....

As far as I know Andy said Barry was at the edge of his property with a gun over his shoulder. He didn't say that he felt threatened or that anyone felt threatened. He didn't say his behavior was menacing or that he appeared angry. He said that Barry made a comment informing them they were about to trespass on private property. Nobody crossed the property line and that seemed to be the end of it.

... ^ this ^ seems to be a noteworthy exception, raising the trespass issue rather than making explicit threats.

@MsBetsy bbm Thx for your post.

 

[Hatch]

But if the bike was just thrown down there, it's possible there may not have been any footprints where the bike was found?

If BM did not wash his hands there may be some blood evidence under his DNA prints.

 

[al66pine]

Proving Intent?

Actually, Colorado law says it's the intent of the gun-bearer that matters, not the amount of fear in the other person. It must be a difficult law to enforce...

@10ofRods bbm sbm I daresay it's difficult for prosecutors to prove to judge or jury, anyone's intent. Yet the def's state of mind/intent/mens rea is an element of many/most crimes, whether misdemeanor or felony; state or federal.

For anyone interested in intent, "knowingly," and related terminology in CO crim statutes, this law review article Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code has 58 pages of hair-splitting discussion on state of mind.
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=articles
And take it from me, I know hair-splitting when I see it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-3-206. Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury..." bbm https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2016-title-18.pdf
Or see Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-206 | FindLaw

 

[ethereal*22]

Proving Intent?

@10ofRods bbm sbm I daresay it's difficult for prosecutors to prove to judge or jury, anyone's intent. Yet the def's state of mind/intent/mens rea is an element of many/most crimes, whether misdemeanor or felony; state or federal.

For anyone interested in intent, "knowingly," and related terminology in CO crim statutes, this law review article Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code has 58 pages of hair-splitting discussion on state of mind.
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=articles
And take it from me, I know hair-splitting when I see it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-3-206. Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury..." bbm https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2016-title-18.pdf
Or see Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-3-206 | FindLaw

@al66pine - this is informative indeed.

The matters of brandishing and menacing are covered in-depth and required as part of the Colorado mandatory safety course for concealed carry permit. You must complete the course prior to obtaining your CCW permit.

I took the course, after almost 20 years of firearms experience and safety handling I found the course extremely educational and useful. The information provided on brandishing and menacing was straightforward as most/all information on firearms. Brandishing or menacing with a firearm is never acceptable. Period.

I thought we were speaking specifically about the fact he had a firearm. That was the crux of the situation. Not simply menacing- it was the gun being present and that it was somehow used to intimidate or waved about. If in fact just the sight of the gun frightened some, that is another conversation.

 

[al66pine]

@al66pine - this is informative indeed.
The matters of brandishing and menacing are covered in-depth and required as part of the Colorado mandatory safety course for concealed carry permit. You must complete the course prior to obtaining your CCW permit.
I took the course, after almost 20 years of firearms experience and safety handling I found the course extremely educational and useful. The information provided on brandishing and menacing was straightforward as most/all information on firearms. Brandishing or menacing with a firearm is never acceptable. Period.
I thought we were speaking specifically about the fact he had a firearm. That was the crux of the situation. Not simply menacing- it was the gun being present and that it was somehow used to intimidate or waved about. If in fact just the sight of the gun frightened some, that is another conversation.

@ethereal*22 Agreeing w you, 100% ----
"Brandishing or menacing with a firearm is never acceptable. Period."

On that search day, did BM brandish or menace anyone, w a gun or other weapon? Aside from hearing/reading AM said BM had a gun, I have no idea about what, if anything, BM did or said that particular day.

Were some ppl upset about BM there on PP prop w a gun and being seen in public? It's private prop and lawful.

If ppl were upset/offended about it, they needed to stay off that prop. Or if already on it, to leave. Gun or no gun.

Bad optic for BM, amid other PR faux pas he's made? Okay, hard to argue w that. jm2cts.

 

[Trackergd]

First, the Solemate software is fantastic. That said, some questions:

1. In those first few hours, it was just the CCSO on site - no FBI ERT team, yet. That being the case, would the LE on site that first evening have the same evidence collection training that the ERT team does? (no, I'm not giving any credit to the accusation made that the CCSO doesn't know how to treat a crime scene). In other words, would the CCSO use the same software or is that why the FBI's ERT was called in?

2. Is it possible they ID'd footware tracks through this process, then found the same brand of footware in the house that very same night?

I'm just wondering how fast they would have had evidence that points right at BM, through this process.

Unlike the 80's, even 2 man rural police departments do basic CSI evaluation of a potential missing person, abduction or homicide scene. I am frequently surprised by how much evidence is gathered. The Jacob Wetterling case had good footprint evidence, the SCSD chose to ignore, even with FBI review that pointed to a known child molester and named an innocent man a POI.

As we got to the late 80,s - early 90's LE would already have pictures of the prints when we arrived on scene. Today many have the prints scanned and the entire scene scanned with Faro laser scanners and a 3D rendering. But back to your question, I doubt CCSO would have obliterated a missing person scene. Even if they had, the SAR Trackers could have sorted out the LE prints from the others.

 

[Trackergd]

The person had to get to the point where they threw the bike (they had to stand somewhere on the edge of the little gully or climb down into it). LE would notice right away that the bike appeared to have come from above - on the rim of the gully, it could not have come from somewhere else. They would look immediately for tire tracks. While doing that, they would also look for car tracks and foot prints.

The person who put the bike in the gully had to get near the gully somehow. If LE in fact never looked down at the crowd any where near the bike scene then that was a big error. Personally, I don't think that's the case at all.

I agree. As I have had to prove time and again over the years, show me a spot along any pathway where you claim there are no prints, and I'll show you at least a dozen.

 

[Trackergd]

I have a question that sort of relates to your post, hoping @Trackergd can answer.

Theoretically speaking - let's say Suzanne's bike was carried down to the spot it was found, not thrown from the edge of the road we have all seen in the TD video.
The area was accessed by going down at the bridge and walking along the river directly to the spot it was found.

Would Suzanne's scent on the bike be sufficient enough to lead scent dogs from the house to where the bike was found?

Hope my post makes sense.

The dogs may have not had a scent trail to the bike if it was carried to the spot by the actor, but they would have alerted to the scent on the bike if they had been lead to it and allowed to compare the scent on the bike to the one they had been imprinted with by the scent article. There would have also been prints going down to where the bike was found, both going down and back up, as well as in the softer ground near the river. Heals digging in going down and toes digging in coming back up. Try walking down an embankment, then back up. Look at your prints.

 

[swedeheart]

I’d throw in that you’d also have to believe CBI and the FBI are incompetent, and their actions are being guided by something other than evidence.

You’d have to believe they never treated this as a kidnapping, because they took a guess.

That’s not how they operate, and that’s now how this works.

I would also like to add:

Here are 2 missing persons casing in Chaffee County that have transpired since SM went missing:

1. On May 29, a 4 year old female went missing from a residence, and emergency personnel responded immediately. 2 hours later, they found her, about a mile from where she disappeared. 4 year old found safe - Chaffee County Sheriff

2. On July 24, a 60 year old male did not return home from a hike. All of the same personnel was dispatched, and 5 days later, they found him deceased, on West Apostle Peak, so in rugged and steep terrain, while experiencing bad weather, as well.
Missing hiker located - Chaffee County Sheriff

While we might not appreciate or like their silence on this case, I have faith that they have very capable Search and Rescue/First Responder teams.

The main question remains: What lead them to discount BM's theories so soon after Suzanne's disappearance? I would say their expertise is what lead them to that conclusion. They knew from day 1 we were not dealing with just a "missing person."

This was the last statement on the May 29 press release:

"This is so important to recognize these many agencies who responded immediately as this once again confirms the commitment of our First Responder group to each other and to our community. A huge thank you!!!!!!"

They were obviously already feeling public heat, just a week after Suzanne went missing, and yet they have still remained silent thus far. That means something significant.

JMO.

 

[ethereal*22]

@ethereal*22 Agreeing w you, 100% ----
"Brandishing or menacing with a firearm is never acceptable. Period."

On that search day, did BM brandish or menace anyone, w a gun or other weapon? Aside from hearing/reading AM said BM had a gun, I have no idea about what, if anything, BM did or said that particular day.

Were some ppl upset about BM there on PP prop w a gun and being seen in public? It's private prop and lawful.

If ppl were upset/offended about it, they needed to stay off that prop. Or if already on it, to leave. Gun or no gun.

Bad optic for BM, amid other PR faux pas he's made? Okay, hard to argue w that. jm2cts.

@al66pine - to quote you ...agreeing with you 100% on all of this! Oh yes.

 

[Megnut]

For someone who may be an uncleared person of interest in a possible murder, patrolling one's property seems ill-advised. We know he's a hunter but highlighting it in the midst of a search for his missing wife?

Idle threat?

Unveiled threat?

Or modus operandi.

Don't cross me or ....

Or what?

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Thanks @MsBetsy - and not directing this you — Exactly! Soooooo—Ok, now I’m going to ask why are there pages and pages discussing this? If what you’ve stated is true, why all the discussion of Colorado gun laws and brandishing/menacing of weapons and the day of the search of PP property?

It’s one thing to speculate theories, but to give all this energy to something it seems did not happen, seems odd.

Sorry to disappoint, but it seems obvious that BM acted within his rights and the law that day. It may disgust people personally but nothing illegal occurred. We can’t make it so by dissecting laws either, or there would have been charges. BM was not charged with any violation of laws during the search. Morally he may have violated many of the public’s opinion, that’s what this thread has become based on without anything else happening through statements from LE.

I think this happens when there is a lull in a case. We endlessly pick over and sort through legalities and review seemingly minute details. In part, it keeps the case alive and the details fresh in our mind.

Basically, it bides our time. Some move on to other cases, others use the time to catch up on what we have ignored while glued to the case. Things like cleaning our house, laundry, doing real jobs that pay bills, get out and meet friends.

Boring. Bleecccchhhh.

jmo

 

[Warwick7]

.

 

[Hannah3105]

Forgive me for posting something that I remember being discussed at length several threads ago, I’ve only been a spectator recently rather than a participant due to work pressures, although I am up to speed.

I recall several people questioning the note BM left with the employee at the market, how he wrote on two separate lines and his mixed use of lower case and capitals. IIRC it prompted people to question whether a handwriting analyser could chime in and I specifically mentioned that my step dad is a “manual worker” and writes in a similar way and that I probably wouldn’t look too much in to it.

My step dad sent me this note this morning as I was picking him and my mum some groceries up. Note the mixture of capitals and lower case. It reminded me of BM’s note. I truly think this is just common among manual workers who perhaps don’t have to write on a regular basis.

JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

They were obviously already feeling public heat, just a week after Suzanne went missing, and yet they have still remained silent thus far. That means something significant.

{SBM for space}

Silence about investigations is standard. I can't think of any case I've followed in recent years that had LE spilling the details. They just don't release much, and in CO in particular they are quite adept at protecting their cases for future prosecutions.

As for thanking other agencies, that too is common, if you ever watch a press conference after an arrest has been made, most of the conference is various LE speaking and thanking other LE agencies. Chaffee County is small and having these other resources helping them is a huge benefit.

Public pressure and social media tantrums, which seems to happen regularly, will not get a suspect arrested any faster.

IMO