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

[MsBetsy]

WOW. Yeah, that is new news for sure. And that’s from People. Somewhat credible, I suppose.

What authorities? Authorities at People, who called BM and asked him?

I am emailing the author of the article to ask her source.

jmo

I'm assuming they wrote that he was not a suspect because LE has not named him as a suspect. I doubt they actually interviewed LE for the article. All of their information seems to come from other news sources or police statements.

So it's true that he has not been named a suspect, but that doesn't mean that he is not. I doubt "People" know the specifics of the case. There's no way they could know who is a POI and who has been ruled out.

I think LE would announce a suspect during a PC before they would tell a journalist from People Magazine.

IMO

 

[Error505]

[

Wow!!!Where does this come from? "Her husband is not considered a suspect or person of interest in the case, according to authorities."
Really??

Stunning to see "Her husband is not considered a suspect or person of interest in the case, according to authorities."
in black & white by msm, but (in moo) the statement is “factually” correct as the husband has not been “formally” named by LE as a “suspect” or POI. BM must be just beaming with chest puffed out to read this “news.” He’s guilty af in my own opinion, but that’s just my 2cents.

Where is your wife, BM?

#FelonyFriday can’t come soon enough! I pray today is the day, but it’ll probably happen after new DA is sworn into office!
#JusticeForSuzanne
#WeWontGiveUp

ETA @MsBetsy Just saw your post. My sentiments too!

 

[Error505]

Since it was mentioned, and in case anyone is interested, I have 8 archives on Drew Peterson's crimes.
The main case archive and 7 sub-sections that are subject-specific. That one remains close to my heart.
Stacy Peterson - Kathleen Savio -IL-

You are such a valuable contributor/asset to WS. Thank you for your dedication and all you do, Amanda! I hope everyone recognizes & appreciates your contributions! ((Hugs))

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm assuming they wrote that he was not a suspect because LE has not named him as a suspect. I doubt they actually interviewed LE for the article. All of their information seems to come from other news sources or police statements.

So it's true that he has not been named a suspect, but that doesn't mean that he is not. I doubt "People" know the specifics of the case. There's no way they could know who is a POI and who has been ruled out.

I think LE would announce a suspect during a PC before they would tell a journalist from People Magazine.

IMO

One of these things is true: People Mag talked to LE, and LE said he was not named a suspect; someone misspoke; or they didn’t get a recent update from LE. Otherwise it is just sloppy reporting.

I emailed them and I have a call into their corporate number. Doubt I will hear back, but I will just annoy them for clarification.

jmo

 

[wishBones1962]

Stunning to see "Her husband is not considered a suspect or person of interest in the case, according to authorities."
in black & white by msm, but (in moo) the statement is “factually” correct as the husband has not been “formally” named by LE as a “suspect” or POI. BM must be just beaming with chest puffed out to read this “news.” He’s guilty af in my own opinion, but that’s just my 2cents.

Where is your wife, BM?

#FelonyFriday can’t come soon enough! I pray today is the day, but it’ll probably happen after new DA is sworn into office!
#JusticeForSuzanne
#WeWontGiveUp

ETA @MsBetsy Just saw your post. My sentiments too!

Yes! This^^^ I tend to agree here. LE is still in discovery mode, and investigations. Nothing new to report here. LE appears to be just keeping SM case in the news, until something definite is recovered. What...a PR every so many weeks? I don't know is they keep some sort of PR schedule. If LE never said anything, THEN it would appear to be going cold case.
Yes? No? Maybe?
MOO MOO JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Isn't People Magazine crime-investigation-savvy enough to know that "not named a suspect" is meaningless without "ruled out as a suspect"?

Rhetorical question, of course, but are they unethical enough to dismiss that distinction for a smidge more drama in their report?

Or is that more likely carelessness on the reporter's part?

 

[LietKynes]

Isn't People Magazine crime-investigation-savvy enough to know that "not named a suspect" is meaningless without "ruled out as a suspect"?

Rhetorical question, of course, but are they unethical enough to dismiss that distinction for a smidge more drama in their report?

Or is that more likely carelessness on the reporter's part?

Imo, People mag. is about as accurate as the Daily Mail in their articles.
Although the DM is tops when it comes to photos and covering articles not found elsewhere in msm.

 

[Hair of the Dog]

Powers of Atty. (again)
@Hair of the Dog bbm. Yes, my earlier post did not come across as clearly as your ^ wording, but it was intended to make just that point. Thank you for making it crystal clear.

During my employment in law/compliance dept of a NYSE firm, we rejected some acct-holder submitted PoAs for failure to include the 'magic language' in the powers clause, for absence of notarization, etc. We offered as an alternative, a PoA form w the magic language an acct-holder could sign & have notarized, to authorize an agent to place buy and sell orders for specified types of investments, to withdraw and deposit $ and securities from the acct, etc, etc, etc. on the acct holder's behalf. The form also included indemnification provisions, etc. for protection of our firm and was drafted to apply only to the acct-holder's & agent's dealings w our firm; it was not a doc the agent could submit to, say, a bank or a real estate agent to handle that $ or prop.

Well, exactly @al66pine!

The forms protect the firm that is taking the risk and contain very specific language that a generic POA from the internet or prepared by an attorney, may not contain.

MOO

 

[Hair of the Dog]

Who Compelled What?
@LietKynes sbm
bbm 1. Respectfully, do we know as a fact, that SM had executed a PoA w terms sufficient for Title Ins (TI) co. and/or IN. homebuyers' lender to accept it, so BM could use the powers specified therein to sign deed to transfer SM's legal interest in their IN home to Buyers? Maybe, I could have missed it. A link, anyone?
Notwithstanding that XYZ title ins. co. may have allowed BM or SM to use a PoA for a previous prop transfer does not necessarily compel ABC title ins co or lender to accept that doc for this sale. Also the law and/or a co's protocols change over time, so a PoA which a TI co accepted 1 - 5 - 10 years ago may not fly in 2020 in the same co.

bbm 2. IN court did not compel BM to file for Gdnship. Only after BM filed petition, did the ct rule on Gdnship petition & appt, which I believe the TI co. compelled him to seek, to sign deed on SM's behalf to close the sale.
Before issuing title ins policy, TI co requires any person w an ownership interest to sign deed to transfer that
interest. If an owner is not available/able to sign, then TI co requires an authorized person to sign on other's behalf. TI co's require proof of authorization, a document in the form of a PoA the co. finds acceptable, or court issued Letters of Gdn'ship & Appt'mt. Another type of document may be accepted. Yoohoo, title ins co. people?

bbm 3. IN statute* specifies that a judge may appoint a guardian for a person who "cannot be located after reasonable inquiry." That may not be your idea or John Q. Public's idea of being incapacitated, but it is one of multiple "incapacitated person" definitions the IN legislature enacted (in addition to a person unable to provide self- care, etc.) for judges to use in determining incapacity and need for a Gdnship.**

ETA: Welcoming comment, clarification, correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals and ppl w title ins co's. JM2cts.
___________________________________________
* Incapacitated person” means an individual who: (1) cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry; (2) is unable: (A) to manage in whole or in part the individual's property; (B) to provide self-care; or..." bbm
Indiana Code Title 29. Probate § 29-3-1-7.5 | FindLaw
** I'm not delving into discussing specifics of what BM/atty offered as proof that SM could not be located, or whether judge had evd to determine that SM could not be located. Just addressing how IN law defines "incapacitated" for purposes of Gdn'ship.

If Barry had and presented a POA to the title company, they may not have wanted to accept it under the circumstances (she is missing!) or for any number of other reasons. The title company wanted/needed authorization from a higher authority to close the transaction to protect themselves from any potential claims in the future.

MOO

 

[10ofRods]

Isn't People Magazine crime-investigation-savvy enough to know that "not named a suspect" is meaningless without "ruled out as a suspect"?

Rhetorical question, of course, but are they unethical enough to dismiss that distinction for a smidge more drama in their report?

Or is that more likely carelessness on the reporter's part?

She's probably hoping to get an interview with BM.

 

[Dalgliesh]

I wholeheartedly agree everyone should have a Will and a General POA, (add a POA- healthcare and a specific DNR state form).

In Suzanne's case it's a gray area to me. BM and SM might have had a POA, but a POA is no longer valid upon death. I suspect that is why BM needed legal "Guardianship" to close the real estate transaction. If she was alive, the POA would have been sufficient, if she had been declared as deceased, her Will or Trust would be the overriding legal document.

IANAL, so attorney's - please jump in here!

From the Colorado Bar Association:

When does a power of attorney terminate?

A power of attorney terminates when: (1) the principal dies (and the agent has knowledge of the death); (2) the principal becomes incapacitated, if the power of attorney is not durable; (3) the principal revokes the power of attorney; (4) the power of attorney provides that it terminates; (5) the express purpose of the power of attorney is accomplished; or (6) the principal revokes the agent’s authority, or the agent dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns, and the power of attorney does not provide for another agent to act under the power of attorney.

Is my power of attorney valid in other states?

A power of attorney is valid in any state, regardless of where the individual lived when the power of attorney was created. However, laws regarding powers of attorney vary from state to state.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Isn't People Magazine crime-investigation-savvy enough to know that "not named a suspect" is meaningless without "ruled out as a suspect"?

Rhetorical question, of course, but are they unethical enough to dismiss that distinction for a smidge more drama in their report?

Or is that more likely carelessness on the reporter's part?

Thing is, it would have been okay to say he was not “named” as a suspect. But they said “her husband is not considered a suspect or person of interest in the case, according to authorities”, implying that LE has ruled him out. Which is extremely unlikely, and if they had ruled him out, they wouldn’t be telling that to a tabloid first.

Wish I knew where the mag got their info. Outdated info? Or did they call ‘husband’ and he said “let me tell you want happened.”

People Mag is stinking up the place with this latest “update”.

And yeah, I know, I’m beating a dead mountain lion.

jmo

 

[Orso49]

LS posted on October 20 Fox21News article that "Investigators have not named any suspects or persons of interest, and no arrests have been made. Suzanne Morphew’s case is still classified as a missing person." Could the People Magazine reporter be using this as reason to say Barry is not a person of interest?

 

[Teche]

Yes. That was it for me. They specifically said social media. This is where, IMO, you communicate with people who typically don't live with you. You also, sometimes chat with people you don't know. It's kind of the point depending on your interests. Then they listed several specific platforms. This was not about BM. This was about SM's activity. IMO

Now, BM's actions that weekend still doesn't make sense to me, especially with LS last report about how he really didn't have an urgent need to start that job and appears he did without the proper permit. I think he would absolutely know better.

When this story first broke and everyone was making a big deal about SM being home alone on MD, my first thought, this is a husband that uses his work to stay away from his home and marriage. Not thinking anything suspicious of him at that time. IMO

It seems that with all the technology available, LE would have access to all of her online communications. Why would you need others to come forward other than to confirm the findings?

 

[lonetraveler]

I wonder if the journalist fact checked the piece. I don’t know know why I am so annoyed that she said Suzanne was on a bike ride, and especially about authorities not considering BM to be a suspect. What a piece of garbage piece.

JMO but I'm finding that bonafide journalism has become very rare.

 

[Ontario Mom]

It seems that with all the technology available, LE would have access to all of her online communications. Why would you need others to come forward other than to confirm the findings?

Pure speculation of course but, it's entirely possible all the convos/chats/private messages (or even just specific convos) on SM's device(s) had been deleted (and not recoverable from the device or from the social media platform itself, for a variety of reasons), so the investigators want to see those convos from the people she was in contact with (who wouldn't have had any reason to delete their convos with her).

jmo

 

[lonetraveler]

Incentive to Talk?
@lonetraveler Thx for your post, interesting comparison.
Drew P* has been in prison for several yrs, for murder of W#3/Kathleen (in 2013, 38 yr sentence) and for soliciting murder for hire of lead prosecutor (in 2016, additional 40 yrs.). If he was involved in Wife 4/Stacy's disappearance or knows location of remains, after spilling the beans on that, Drew is still stuck behind bars for a loooong time.
OTOH ---
BM is still out amongst us, not arrested, much less convicted. If he was involved in disappearance or knows location of remains, he can offer LE/prosecutor valuable info, w potential for conviction of less severe crime or to lessen sentence. Not commenting on what LE or prosecutor should do, just saying BM may have something worth trading to benefit him. jm2cts

__________________________________________________
* Drew Peterson - Wikipedia plus many threads here on WS.

I've followed the Stacey Peterson case since day one. I was so disgusted that Drew Peterson did not reveal where Stacey's remains were in order to make a deal on the sentencing for Kathleen, but he didn't. I do hope that BM will tell all in order to help himself.

 

[oceanbreezedawn]

It seems that with all the technology available, LE would have access to all of her online communications. Why would you need others to come forward other than to confirm the findings?

When people use some of those apps they can only see that the app was used but not what was said.

JMO

 

[fcavanaugh]

Sooo for me personally, the theory some person that Suzanne “knew well“ harmed her, requires too many mental gymnastics to make it work/be believable.

By all accounts, Suzanne was a caring, loving, beautiful soul. I have no reason to believe otherwise, nor do I think Suzanne was having an affair.

If a person she knew wanted more than friendship with her and she let them know the feelings weren’t mutual, ok so what then? This person goes into if I can’t have her no one can thinking and decides to ambush her at her home, and killed her right then and there? Or less likely, Suzanne invited this person into her home to discuss things, they tried to put the moves on her, she resisted and they killed her in a fit of rage in the home? Or they abducted her from the home, killed her at another location or didn’t kill her and are holding her hostage somewhere?

First, obviously for any of the above scenarios to be possible, would have to have been carried out on Sunday after BM left for Broomfield. Second, this person would have to have known Suzanne was going to be all alone on Sunday, doubt she’d tell this person she’d be home alone since she knew they wanted more than her friendship and she’d be alone and vulnerable living in a remote area. Third, doubt Suzanne would invite this person over for a chat for same exact reason as the aforementioned.

If this person by some other chance knew Suzanne would be alone and snuck in, ambushed her and killed her, what did they do with the body/where did they hide the body so well it may never be found? Abducted her and holding her hostage somewhere? Doubtful.

Lastly, WHY on earth would this person stage a bike ride scene???? And WHY would LE dig up and search the Husband’s job site????

That’s all I got for now, I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things, feel free to offer thoughts or pick it apart lol.


IMHO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[al66pine]

Synonymous?

Isn't People Magazine crime-investigation-savvy enough to know that "not named a suspect" is meaningless without "ruled out as a suspect"?
Rhetorical question, of course, but are they unethical enough to dismiss that distinction for a smidge more drama in their report? Or is that more likely carelessness on the reporter's part?

@Auntie Cipation Good point about difference between BM "not named" as a suspect and "ruled out" as a suspect. People mag stated: BM is "not considered a suspect or person of interest ... according to authorities."

The three phrases sound similar but each has a different meaning, at least when LE uses in a media release or at a presser, or later when read closely. The gen public may read all three ^ as identical in meaning, but they are not synonymous. Our astute, observant true crime sleuthers here notice the difference, as do LE, attys, & some others.

Though @Auntie Cipation asked rhetorically about the ethics issue, I'll jump in. Yes, journalist may have weaseled the wording for more drama, or may have done what reporters for gen circulation publications also do: they tend not to repeat a phrase but to vary it, leaving the specific meaning open to interpretation, esp'ly to attentive true crime readers.

TL; DR. I don't know if writer fact checked w LE, or used dramatic license, or was plain sloppy, or all the above. Just possibilities. Or are some ppl around here splitting hairs? [[[ checks mirror. Aha, found the culprit.]]]
jm2cts.