Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #19

[Sillybilly]

Members are responsible for previewing their posts to make sure they appear correctly. When one member posts a broken quote and it gets requoted over and over, eventually it becomes impossible to know who originally said what as the wrong words get attributed to another member. Not nice !

The word QUOTE in square brackets starts the quote and the /QUOTE in square brackets ends the quote. Those words or symbols in square brackets are commands, html language that determines how your post will appear.

When you click on Reply, always remember to NOT type anything inside those square brackets. DO NOT MESS WITH SQUARE BRACKETS You can avoid them entirely by going past that last set of square brackets that contain the /QUOTE, drop down a line or two and type your response.

If you don’t know how to quote properly, please private message a Mod or Admin and we will walk you through it. We’d rather spend a few minutes doing that than spend time trying to clean up the mess it makes, or having to close a thread so it doesn’t get even worse.

 

[Knox]

What's the point of an investigation if it isn't to secure a conviction in a court of law? If prosecutors only prove that Barry Morphew was "overwhelmingly likely" the cause of harm to Suzanne (which is akin to a "clear and convincing evidence" standard), then he's "not guilty," since the criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm also at a loss at all the "reading" of Barry's demeanor. Very few people will have the experience of having their spouse go missing. Given this, why do we have a standard "expected" behavior for such a situation. In other words, whatever Barry's demeanor may be, I'm unsure it provides anything one way or the other.

In your years as a prosecuting attorney you never noticed patterns of behavior in the guilty? What about legal statistics related to cases of domestic violence homicide?

Suzanne's age, lifestyle, and location of residence, present a very low risk for stranger abduction/murder. Not to say it doesn't happen, but the probability is low.

Odd behavior and coincidences aside, to NOT look at the spouse in this case would be unusual, MOO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Why is it assumed that he didn't call his mother? They appear to be quite close. I would assume that he did. IMO

It’s sarcasm. I don’t know if he called his mother. I can just see him trying to make an excuse why he didn't call his mother or call Suzanne.
ETA: Pretty cold if he called his mother and not Suzanne. Bad enough he’s attending fire training. Oops. Wrong weekend, let me think here, what was I doing away from home on Mother’s Day weekend? Umm. Let’s see what I wrote down that I did while I was gone. Oh, right. Big new project on Monday. I was power hosing down the heavy equipment so there would not be any prints, cough cough, dirt on the tracs.
More sarcasm. Fyi.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

What's the point of an investigation if it isn't to secure a conviction in a court of law? If prosecutors only prove that Barry Morphew was "overwhelmingly likely" the cause of harm to Suzanne (which is akin to a "clear and convincing evidence" standard), then he's "not guilty," since the criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't think Suzanne was abducted, harmed by wildlife, was hit by a car, etc. From my point of view -- a legal one, admittedly -- I want to see what actual evidence they have connecting Barry Morphew to Suzanne's disappearance. I also have no idea whether investigators screwed up: they have kept the details of the investigation to themselves (BTW, so have the Delphi murder investigators...and here we are 3 years since Abby & Libby were murdered).

I'm also at a loss at all the "reading" of Barry's demeanor. Very few people will have the experience of having their spouse go missing. Given this, why do we have a standard "expected" behavior for such a situation. In other words, whatever Barry's demeanor may be, I'm unsure it provides anything one way or the other.

The point of an investigation is many fold. Primarily to investigate and come to a conclusion. Or finding. Was she lost? Did they find her? Was she abducted? By whom? Was she in an accident? Foul play?
Crime is not always the result of an investigation. If not a crime, it follows that there will be no conviction. Leave your mind open to all possibilities. It’s still a missing person investigation. There is no conclusion yet.

 

[TIGER0822]

BBM:

Me, too.

Because absent her body, unless there's compelling circumstantial evidence to prove that she's deceased, this case will not go to trial.

More MSM articles r/t No-Body Murder Cases below:

Leesburg murder case with no body a rarity for prosecutors
SABBM:

DiBiase said prosecutors rely on forensic evidence in no-body cases, along with confessions to police, friends or family members.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a0bffa-206b-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html
SABBM:

“They are difficult. With a no-body case, you don’t have the essential piece of evidence,” said former D.C. prosecutor Tad DiBiase, author of the book “No-Body Homicide Cases: A Practical Guide to Investigating, Prosecuting, and Winning Cases When the Victim is Missing.”

When prosecutors do decide to file charges in such cases, DiBiase said, it often means they have collected a significant amount of evidence. That can include witness statements, DNA or statements from other defendants.

Getting a murder conviction without a body is tough, but technology is making it easier
SABBM:

Without a body, prosecutors must first prove that someone has died. Then they must persuade a jury of how someone died, or where and when it happened, said DiBiase and Brenda Beadle, the chief deputy Douglas County attorney, who has prosecuted no-body murder cases. <snip>

Circumstantial evidence becomes much more important, the two prosecutors said. But, they added, improvements in DNA evidence, as well as advances in cellphone and Facebook records, are helping fill in the blanks created when there’s no body found. <snip>

Not only do social media and text messages provide insight into someone’s thoughts and emotions, but they provide an “electronic trail” that investigators can use to show where a defendant, and victim, were, and at what time, DiBiase said. Plus, there are surveillance cameras everywhere today, he said. <snip>
____________________________

A lot of the no-body articles I've read that include interviews with Tad DiBiase.
Another article I linked earlier included a quote by him comparing no-body cases to a 3-legged stool.
One of the legs is forensic evidence, like blood, another is a confession to police and the third is a confession to a friend, family member or cellmate/informant.
Ideally, the prosecution has all three.

DiBiase's contention is that if none of those are three are present, the case won't stand up in court.

So, the question becomes:

Do Sheriff Spezze and Co. have any of those requisite legs, and if so, how many?

JMO.

This is a great post. I hope they LE can build a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Areas which I hope they can find DNA are
-On the bike. BM was furious with the way LE handled the bike. When speaking with TD, he stated that ten people handled it (that is a lot of people!).IMO he was trying to start his own defense in that LE ‘destroyed‘ the DNA evidence. He also mentioned that LE trampled all over the place (IE destroying footprints).
-On the other items found the first day scattered near the search.
-On the unknown item which was related to SM and which was found on Thursday500 meters 1/3 mile from their house and in a location which was different from where the bike was found. IMO I hope that the person who committed the crime dropped it during the crime.
IMO, MOO

 

[TIGER0822]

Who mumbled it the sheriff? Why did he "mumble" it??

Correction to this post and my apologies. BM very deliberately mumbled that he was cleared by LE when speaking with TD. I had to listen several times to pick up what he was saying,

 

[lamlawindy]

The point of an investigation is many fold. Primarily to investigate and come to a conclusion. Or finding. Was she lost? Did they find her? Was she abducted? By whom? Was she in an accident? Foul play?
Crime is not always the result of an investigation. If not a crime, it follows that there will be no conviction. Leave your mind open to all possibilities. It’s still a missing person investigation. There is no conclusion yet.

Oh, I agree with you! My rhetorical question was in response to the statement, "I'm not looking at convicting [Barry Morphew]. I'm looking at what is overwhelmingly likely."

 

[lamlawindy]

In your years as a prosecuting attorney you never noticed patterns of behavior in the guilty? What about legal statistics related to cases of domestic violence homicide?

Suzanne's age, lifestyle, and location of residence, present a very low risk for stranger abduction/murder. Not to say it doesn't happen, but the probability is low.

Odd behavior and coincidences aside, to NOT look at the spouse in this case would be unusual, MOO.

1. Patterns of behavior (except for habit evidence of the specific defendant) & legal statistics aren't generally admissible at trial. Of course, we notice certain patterns, but they aren't used in the case-in-chief.

2. Looking at the spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is logical. However, it shouldn't automatically be the exclusive channel of inquiry. In this case -- again, because the PCAs have been sealed even though the searches were completed weeks ago -- we don't know if other possibilities have been considered.

 

[lamlawindy]

Exactly what part?? I'm truly curious.

Well, during voir dire, the jurors would be questioned about their knowledge of the case, if they have certain expectations about how a husband with a missing wife might act, and if they have drawn any conclusions about the case. If indeed a potential juror already believes that it is "overwhelmingly likely" that Barry Morphew is involved in Suzanne's disappearance -- as MassGuy indicated, unless I'm misconstruing his post -- then the defense could (and IMHO, should) ask for the panel member to be dismissed for cause. This is because the fact that the potential juror already views guilt as "overwhelmingly likely" could reasonably endanger the defendant's right to an impartial jury.

 

[lamlawindy]

Even if this guy is innocent there will be those who ask the question: Why were you not there on Mother's Day?

That was a question in my mind from the start, actually. I know that couples celebrate Mother's Day / Father's Day in different ways -- for 16 years now, on Father's Day, I get to go to hardware stores to just browse or to the shooting range to see if my eyesight has degenerated -- but the women in my life (wife, mom, grandmas, mother-in-law) wanted their loved ones all together with them on Mother's Day. I found it peculiar that the Morphews didn't spend Mother's Day together, but perhaps that wasn't their family tradition.

 

[Minordetails]

The press conference was on May 15 and BM didn’t run into TD until 2 weeks later around June 1st.

Again, just speculating, but I think long before BM sounded off to TD, he was critical of LEs handling of the bike. It may have already been on MD, and perhaps one of BMs first responses, when he arrived home from Denver that evening.
If BM was critical of LE from the get go, it may speak partly to why LE has taken their ‘quiet’ approach. Also, BM would have done nothing to help his cause by being critical of the investigation before the investigation had even really started.
MOO

 

[TIGER0822]

I'll add to that TD's video where BM is talking about bike. He talks about its location, its position, and his thoughts about how LE (mis)handled it. It doesn't make sense that he'd be talking about LE finding his wife's bike, if they hadn't found it.

I will add to this post. The nephew was asking people to ask LE what shape the bike was in. Sort of an odd question to ask if no bike was found!

 

[oviedo]

Just coming on here tonight and skipped to the last posts.
Did something happen today?

Not really - tweets that no searches held family cooperating etc
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[kay74]

I think you misread this.
What @gitana1 was saying was, that it was interesting they made a point to say they were clearing the property owner, but they did not say they were clearing the husband... as in, they didn't extend BM the same "cleared" status.

He is the property owner!

 

[Area52]

He is the property owner!

I believe Gitana is referring to the owner of the property that was dug up by LE. The sheriff made a statement that the property owner was not involved, thus clearing him. However, he did not clear BM.

 

[Willowwood26]

There's no standard. But I've done a lot of work in jails, prisons and mental hospitals and I have my views on how people look and behave in various situations. "We" are not one group here - some of us see BM's utterances one way and some see them another. I gave my first impressions ages ago, and have my opinions (which I generally keep to myself).

I'd make a good juror. If this comes to trial, I am certain there will be evidence to consider.

You may be right - perhaps there is none and we will all be here a year from now, wondering Where is Suzanne?

Because it happens. But I don't think she went off on her own. You'll never convince me that she did. And since WS isn't a court, we deal in more than just legal guilt. I want to know what happened to Suzanne Morphew.

I have a strong feeling that more will come out of this case - before a year is up. Until then, I see no way in which BM is helping find Suzanne. None. Nothing. Nada. Crickets. I don't believe

There was BM out near the house (we see that on TD's video) doing what-not. But Suzanne is not there, it's already been searched. And instead of directly TD to a search area, he waves vaguely.

I'd have USGS maps at the ready if I ran into a single person who might help....

Thank you for the distinction between impression and opinion. A lot to ponder on that wisdom.

 

[susiQ]

He is the property owner!

BM does NOT own the property that had the foundation dug up by LE. THAT property owner was “cleared” by LE, NOT BM. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding
CAPS are only for emphasis here. Not yelling

 

[LietKynes]

BBM
What exactly do you think they’ve being doing? I have no doubt LE have been working this daily and it is a high priority for them to find resolution to what happened to SM. BM asserts he’s been cleared to TD. Where have LE stated this? They have not.

Ita.
I think it's important to remember that LE in many cases do consider many possibilities, but in Suzanne's case they seem to keep coming back to the spouse and not clearing him.
As in, the search and removal of items from the Morphew house and the destruction of the concrete foundation of the homeowner who btw has been cleared.
Etc.
Imo.

 

[KLM6]

BBM
What exactly do you think they’ve being doing? I have no doubt LE have been working this daily and it is a high priority for them to find resolution to what happened to SM. BM asserts he’s been cleared to TD. Where have LE stated this? They have not.

Imo, Spezze has been quick to tame multiple viral rumors in this case by repeating the same statement, SM has not been found, No one has been arrested in relation to the case, This remains a missing person case. Spezze has also replied to comments about family cooperation. So while he has had plenty of opporunities to do so, he has only announced that one person has been cleared, and that person was not BM. Jmo.

 

[Truecolors]

That was a question in my mind from the start, actually. I know that couples celebrate Mother's Day / Father's Day in different ways -- for 16 years now, on Father's Day, I get to go to hardware stores to just browse or to the shooting range to see if my eyesight has degenerated -- but the women in my life (wife, mom, grandmas, mother-in-law) wanted their loved ones all together with them on Mother's Day. I found it peculiar that the Morphews didn't spend Mother's Day together, but perhaps that wasn't their family tradition.

If you believe BM’s own words on the TD video, the family had a plan for Mother’s Day. The plan was for the girls to spend the day with SM, and that’s why BM asked if it was ok for him to be in Denver.

From that conversation, I infer that Mother’s Day was important and family-centered for them.

The question that arises for me is: when did BM realize that the girls were not going to make it home to spend the day with her, and did the family communicate about that change of plans? Were phone calls made? Texts? Nothing?

MOO