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

[Hoosierfan72]

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

“DiBiase said it may be that prosecutors, without a body, work to amass more evidence before taking such cases to trial.

“You’re not going to take a weak no-body case to trial,” he said.”

I linked to the quickest article (found in my daily “last 24 hours” search for SM info). I just think that without a body, that envelope that Andy cited has to be overflowing. No sense in bringing a case to trial that might end in an acquittal, when there is no reason to rush. Suzanne isn’t coming back. If everyone around Barry wants to watch him blow through their money, that isn’t LE’s problem. It’s better that he gets a couple of years of looking over his shoulder, followed by his remaining years in a cell, than a lifetime of freedom for a murderer.

I agree. And I am still of the mindset that it will come sooner than a couple of years..... closer to a couple of months. MOO.

 

[Megnut]

I agree. And I am still of the mindset that it will come sooner than a couple of years..... closer to a couple of months. MOO.

@Hoosierfan72, is your sense cold, preplanned or crime of passion/rage/fear?

Is it possible he's struggling with coming to terms with what he's done, never thinking he'd be capable?

And the dramatic cover up, a desperate measure to protect his hard-fought image of the Godly man?

This "thing" that has happened to him...

I'm guessing NO ONE dreamed (nightmared) he could do such a thing, perhaps including him????

JMO

 

[LietKynes]

BM keeps on 'giving' when he talks.
I wish a savvy reporter (I know, I miss LS and wish she could be brought back on the Suzanne case !) could play the 'good cop' and get him to open up.
Sorry for that reporter, though.

When BM posited that Suzanne may have met harm with (paraphrased) "...someone known to her" I had chills.
WHO was it, Barry ??????
Almost like a confession of sorts.

I'd imagine he may return to bury or move evidence.
Bet LE have their incognito eye on him.
What's the saying ?
"No rest for the wicked" ?
IMO.

 

[Trackergd]

I would really love to overlay satellite earth shots from last year to most recent for all the properties involved. I would be looking for ground disturbances and anything else that changed from last year to now. Too bad I don't have the ability to task an NRO Keyhole satellite...

 

[OldCop]

You're making this needlessly complicated. To prove murder without a body you typically need very good evidence. Usually it's one of four things: a confession, witness, large amount of blood, or bones. Finding blood or bones is evidence of a struggle and I don't think LE was deceptive with their answer to Andy.

Therefore I don't believe LE has the goods.

I beg to differ on this one. You could sneak up behind someone and hit them over the head with a hatchet, shoot them, or strangle them, but there’d be no signs of a struggle. On the other hand, there’d be plenty of evidence.

 

[lamlawindy]

If we had the opportunity to be given only one piece of factual information regarding any aspect of this case what would you prefer it to be?

I'd want to know exactly the piece of information that indicated to LE the 'missing during a bike ride' story was bogus (if, indeed, it is bogus).

What's yours?

Good question! I'd want to know location data from Suzanne's phone for Sunday, Saturday, and Friday.

 

[Madeleine74]

I've noticed there comes a time in cases that take longer than a few months to get solved where some case followers feel like the case will never move forward, beliefs emerge that perhaps LE either doesn't know what they're doing or they simply have "nothing" or "nothing much," and a general malaise can set in. Some might start to feel this after just a few weeks, others after 2 or 3 months, but it seems to occur pretty often if a case ticks towards 6 months or more.

We live in a society of "just add water & stir," instant results, fictional crime dramas in which complex cases are solved under an hour, and it can be challenging to confront the reality of real life cases and how many take longer than what is expected or imagined.

My sense is the SM case has entered this phase of uncertainty. It's one reason why following other cases in the meantime can be useful. There's no lack of cases that need smart people to look at them--many hundreds are on WS and there are so many missing people of all ages.

IMO

 

[susiQ]

I just read an interesting article about 11 no-body cases that resulted in first degree murder convictions.

In each of the cases, there were commonalities:

-there was no body
-no certain time of death
-no certain means of death
-no eyewitness
-no confession
-no murder weapon
-bloodstains were not conclusively the victim’s as DNA was not yet being utilized
-no forensic evidence such as blood or hair was found

Some key quotes:

“It cannot be stressed strongly enough: if you don’t have a body, proceed as if you will never have one.”

“....A murderer should not be entitled to an acquittal on the basis that he was able to dispose of the body.” “That is one form of success for which society has no reward.” People v. Manson, 139 Cal. Rptr. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).

https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Legal-and-Investigative-stratigies-No-Homicide.pdf

jmo

Excellent points to remember! Thank you!!

 

[LietKynes]

I just read an interesting article about 11 no-body cases that resulted in first degree murder convictions.

In each of the cases, there were commonalities:

-there was no body
-no certain time of death
-no certain means of death
-no eyewitness
-no confession
-no murder weapon
-bloodstains were not conclusively the victim’s as DNA was not yet being utilized
-no forensic evidence such as blood or hair was found

Some key quotes:

“It cannot be stressed strongly enough: if you don’t have a body, proceed as if you will never have one.”

“....A murderer should not be entitled to an acquittal on the basis that he was able to dispose of the body.” “That is one form of success for which society has no reward.” People v. Manson, 139 Cal. Rptr. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).

https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Legal-and-Investigative-stratigies-No-Homicide.pdf

jmo

Great post !
Thanks for the link.

 

[MassGuy]

I just read an interesting article about 11 no-body cases that resulted in first degree murder convictions.

In each of the cases, there were commonalities:

-there was no body
-no certain time of death
-no certain means of death
-no eyewitness
-no confession
-no murder weapon
-bloodstains were not conclusively the victim’s as DNA was not yet being utilized
-no forensic evidence such as blood or hair was found

Some key quotes:

“It cannot be stressed strongly enough: if you don’t have a body, proceed as if you will never have one.”

“....A murderer should not be entitled to an acquittal on the basis that he was able to dispose of the body.” “That is one form of success for which society has no reward.” People v. Manson, 139 Cal. Rptr. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).

https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Legal-and-Investigative-stratigies-No-Homicide.pdf

jmo

And I’m convinced that cell phone evidence will be one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle in this one, which those cases also didn’t have the benefit of.

Digital evidence has been called “the new DNA.”

 

[susiQ]

All really good questions, for sure.
After hearing JP say he felt like the hotel/jobsite in Broomfield was part of an ailibi, it really made me wonder what the neighbor at PP saw, heard, and felt that day, and how the CCSO responded to what she had to say.

Did she feel like something was off with BM calling her?
When she went over the first time, did she go inside the house? (msm reports vary)
If yes, what did she see in the house?
Did she notice an odor of bleach?
Did she mention that in her 911 call or in her statement to the CCSO?
When BM asked her to go back to the house a second time, to see if SM's bike was there, did that feel like a strange thing to ask, or a red flag in any way?

I do think that whatever the neighbor heard and saw, coupled with the way the bike was dumped down a ravine, and then whatever BM had to say or how he was acting when he arrived around 9pm is a big part of the reason the CCSO never ever treated this case like a missing person's case. There were red flags immediately pointing them in a completely different direction.

jmo

Good questions! What I find very odd is that the girls called the neighbour (perhaps GD’s wife, not the one that called 911) to wish her a happy Mother’s Day, yet then the elderly neighbour was called and asked to go to the house to check on SM. Why wasn’t GD called? My answer to that question is that BM needed GD for another job, to be there when the bike is found and to report back to BM.

I suspect the elderly neighbour found it odd that she was called for this task. JMO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

And I’m convinced that cell phone evidence will be one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle in this one, which those cases also didn’t have the benefit of.

Digital evidence has been called “the new DNA.”

Love your new avatar.

 

[nyvictoria]

Isn't that chilling ?
My god I think LE knew she was dead in a few days if not that evening !

Also my .02 is that they found evidence in the house search, in the form of excessive blood or other dna .
But I think LE want to find her body.
As AM said, '...fill the envelope before sealing it'.

IMO LE knew BM’s story was BS the minute they spoke to him face to face. Hearing that the girls were away and he was “working” on Mother’s Day had to set off alarm bells for LE. It certainly did for us.

Although it’s awful for Suzanne, speaking strictly from an evidence standpoint, I hope they found excessive blood. Enough blood to be able to say with certainly that Suzanne could not have survived. <modsnip: Politicizing is not allowed>

 

[10ofRods]

You're making this needlessly complicated. To prove murder without a body you typically need very good evidence. Usually it's one of four things: a confession, witness, large amount of blood, or bones. Finding blood or bones is evidence of a struggle and I don't think LE was deceptive with their answer to Andy.

Therefore I don't believe LE has the goods.

I'm a bit confused by last sentence. No one has said no blood was found. Why are you saying that no blood was found?

If bones were found, I do believe they would announce the recovery of remains (once it was established whose bones are found). I think it's fairly safe to assume no bones have been found.

But blood evidence? It can be in so many forms and in so many places. Do we really know that there isn't any? Since it was noted that bleach smell was in the house (and the hotel room), presumably the police have collected all manner of samples.

We don't know anything about those samples, but we do know that LE told Suzanne's sister that the case was moving forward, that there would appear to be a lull at some point, but not to give up, that the case was going forward. What could this mean?

They have to have someone on their radar (or more than one someone). We also do not know how many of the many interviews they've taken have included useful information. Juries have convicted on no body cases with no bones or blood (many times, really).

I do believe there's way more digital evidence than what we imagine here on WS.

 

[10ofRods]

What I meant was to me the whole bike story does not make sense. A bike at the bottom of a ravine, 'an article' found up the hill on the other side of a highway, dogs pick up no scent, no signs of an a struggle, etc., etc. Whether one believes abduction, robbery or mountain lion, the story just does not add up. imo

Oh - very true. But I don't think there was a stranger abduction, a robbery or a mountain lion.

70% of women who are murdered are murdered by an intimate partner. The bike appears to be staging, as Suzanne's phone last pinged at her house, her body wasn't found near the bike, there was no sign of her being near the bike, there was apparently no sign the bike was hit by a car. The helmet was tossed by someone, perhaps to make it appear to be an abduction. I wonder if it was buckled or unbuckled.

The reason the bike story doesn't make sense is that it was staging, designed to do exactly what it has done: confuse the scene, cause extra investigation, cause delays in finding out what really happened.

Why do you give only three options in your last sentence when the statistical advantage goes to a different explanation?

 

[samsmom]

I would really love to overlay satellite earth shots from last year to most recent for all the properties involved. I would be looking for ground disturbances and anything else that changed from last year to now. Too bad I don't have the ability to task an NRO Keyhole satellite...

This sounds like something that should be sent to those guys at Profiling Evil. Have you thought about that? I think they have some type of tip line or something on the site.

I’ll send it if you want.

 

[Boxer]

Suzanne's phone is a problem for BM, I would imagine.

If you want LE to believe that she went on a bike ride, then you need the phone to go on a bike ride.

But you don't want LE to actually have her phone, because of the conversations they will find.

If the phone last pinged in the house, but was not found, what explanation could there be that will support the bike ride?
Moo

Agree.
How to destroy or dissappear it is a problem. AM says it last pinged in the home. Then what?

 

[Trackergd]

The phone pinged in the house. The phone was not found in the house, nor was it found with the bike and helmet. Do we know (probably not) if LE was able to ping the phone? Were parts of the phone found in one or more search locations? I agree with others that this will most likely be part of the evidence trail. While phones make interesting and distinctive marks in the ground when dropped, I have not yet been able to track one. Edited to add that you can find one that is buried, in tall grass, in undergrowth and in the water with a metal detector.

 

[skyvoyager]

Oh - very true. But I don't think there was a stranger abduction, a robbery or a mountain lion.

70% of women who are murdered are murdered by an intimate partner. The bike appears to be staging, as Suzanne's phone last pinged at her house, her body wasn't found near the bike, there was no sign of her being near the bike, there was apparently no sign the bike was hit by a car. The helmet was tossed by someone, perhaps to make it appear to be an abduction. I wonder if it was buckled or unbuckled.

The reason the bike story doesn't make sense is that it was staging, designed to do exactly what it has done: confuse the scene, cause extra investigation, cause delays in finding out what really happened.

Why do you give only three options in your last sentence when the statistical advantage goes to a different explanation?

I don't think there was a stranger abduction, robbery or mountain lion either. Which goes back to my original comment regarding BMs 'let me tell you what happened' stories being bogus. Had I been looking for another explanation, I am sure I could have gained 'statistical advantage' but that was not the purpose of my answer to your question(s).

 

[MassGuy]

Suzanne's phone is a problem for BM, I would imagine.

If you want LE to believe that she went on a bike ride, then you need the phone to go on a bike ride.

But you don't want LE to actually have her phone, because of the conversations they will find.

If the phone last pinged in the house, but was not found, what explanation could there be that will support the bike ride?
Moo

It’s a problem with no solution, at least as far as BM is concerned.

That phone had to be dead before he left the house, as he had to take it with him to dispose of it.

In BM’s bike ride narrative, he’d claim that the phone is missing because Suzanne had it with her. The issue is her phone had to have gone dark many hours before. So she’d have to have gone on a bike ride with a phone that was turned off, and never powered on since BM “last saw her at 5am.”

What’s it called when you checkmate yourself?