Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #54 *ARREST*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still waiting for LE to tell us...

1) Which of Suzanne’s items was found along the highway?
2) When was Suzanne’s last verified contact?

‘We aren’t telling because it’s our policy and we aren’t obligated to’ is poor Public Relations on the part of the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Department.

JMO
 
Minordetails said:
Still waiting for LE to tell us...

1) Which of Suzanne’s items was found along the highway?
2) When was Suzanne’s last verified contact?

‘We aren’t telling because it’s our policy and we aren’t obligated to’ is poor Public Relations on the part of the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Department.

JMO
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's poor public relations. The public doesn't have any "right" to know what LE has uncovered in any investigation, especially if the information could damage the integrity of the investigation. I am curious though, why you think the public is entitled to this information, and how it would serve to help in any way?

jmo
 
Ontario Mom said:
I disagree that it's poor public relations. The public doesn't have any "right" to know what LE has uncovered in any investigation, especially if the information could damage the integrity of the investigation. I am curious though, why you think the public is entitled to this information, and how it would serve to help in any way?

jmo
Click to expand...
Making this information public does not damage the integrity of the investigation. LE and the killer both already know the answers to these questions. Sharing this information with the public earlier could have led to additional tips. The easy thing for LE to do is say nothing. Especially when no one is asking. And if the people who should be asking for information aren’t asking, then does it really matter? And when the public stops asking for updates, then what happened in Toronto can happen anywhere.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/13/canada-bruce-mcarthur-lgbt-serial-killer/?outputType=amp
Independent review finds 'serious flaws' in how Toronto police handle missing person reports
 
Minordetails said:
Making this information public does not damage the integrity of the investigation. LE and the killer both already know the answers to these questions. Sharing this information with the public earlier could have led to additional tips. The easy thing for LE to do is say nothing. Especially when no one is asking. And if the people who should be asking for information aren’t asking, then does it really matter? And when the public stops asking for updates, then what happened in Toronto can happen anywhere.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/13/canada-bruce-mcarthur-lgbt-serial-killer/?outputType=amp
Independent review finds 'serious flaws' in how Toronto police handle missing person reports
Click to expand...

But that's just the thing, it has not been verified what the object(s) was, and it has not been confirmed who the last known contact was, so without knowing this info, along with loads of other info LE have that we're unaware of at this time (and I guarantee, there's lots, as there always is) then we the public, cannot possibly know if releasing it to the public would harm the investigation, or not. And, since they haven't released it, it's quite possible it would harm the investigation.

I don't think the public asking questions matters one way or another, for LE to do the job they were trained to do.

jmo
 
Ontario Mom said:
But that's just the thing, it has not been verified what the object(s) was, and it has not been confirmed who the last known contact was, so without knowing this info, along with loads of other info LE have that we're unaware of at this time (and I guarantee, there's lots, as there always is) then we the public, cannot possibly know if releasing it to the public would harm the investigation, or not. And, since they haven't released it, it's quite possible it would harm the investigation.

I don't think the public asking questions matters one way or another, for LE to do the job they were trained to do.

jmo
Click to expand...
LE has designated more resources to Suzanne’s case than to the average missing woman. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with the public? Also, I believe there are other lead investigators out there who would have made this information public. This group of lead investigators has chosen to adopt the silent strategy. Many are confident it’s working and is a good choice. Personally I don’t like it.
JMO
 
Minordetails said:
LE has designated more resources to Suzanne’s case than to the average missing woman. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with the public? Also, I believe there are other lead investigators out there who would have made this information public. This group of lead investigators has chosen to adopt the silent strategy. Many are confident it’s working and is a good choice. Personally I don’t like it.
JMO
Click to expand...

If the people of Chaffee County don't like the sheriff or prosecuting attorney, they will vote for someone else. It is really their decision and the opinions of anonymous internet people doesn't matter much.
 
Minordetails said:
LE has designated more resources to Suzanne’s case than to the average missing woman. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with the public? Also, I believe there are other lead investigators out there who would have made this information public. This group of lead investigators has chosen to adopt the silent strategy. Many are confident it’s working and is a good choice. Personally I don’t like it.
JMO
Click to expand...

I can't say if the CCSO has designated more resources to Suzanne's case than the "average missing woman". The CBI and FBI were called in simply because they have resources the local sheriff's office doesn't have. Would they have done the same for any other missing woman in their county? I can't say. Every case is different, with a completely unique set of circumstances so it's not really fair to compare them. Honestly I don't think it had anything to do with the "public" since the FBI and CBI were on board in like, 2-3 days.

I know of other agencies/cases that loads more info was released but again, every case is different so, I leave it in the more than capable hands of the local LE agency to handle it the way they see fit.

jmo
 
Knox said:
New Colorado DA Linda Stanley Talks Cold Cases | PODCAST #12 | Profiling Evil
Click to expand...
Quoting my own post sorry-

I hope folks take the time to listen to this episode in it's entirety. Linda Stanley is an amazing woman. We should all be so lucky to have a DA exactly like her in our local jurisdictions!!

Disclaimer- no discussion on Suzanne's case. But what you will learn by listening to her discuss her professional history, philosophies, and current cases, will tell you everything you need to know. Suzanne's case will move forward, no doubt in my mind. If You Want Peace, Work for Justice -
 
Minordetails said:
Making this information public does not damage the integrity of the investigation
Click to expand...
RSBM
And you know this how?
Minordetails said:
1) Which of Suzanne’s items was found along the highway?
2) When was Suzanne’s last verified contact?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make to you what was found? How does announcing, “We found SM’s wallet/phone/helmet/shoe etc etc” make a difference in this case?
How would releasing her last verified contact make a difference to the general public? LE asked people to come forward if they spoke to SM on social media and asked people to save footage from security video between May 8th and May 12th.

You want to know it. You don’t need to know it. And that is a huge difference.

You have no right to know the evidence collected in any investigation until a case goes to trial.
People think transparency in a criminal investigation means LE has to reveal all their evidence. It does not. Transparency means that you are doing your due diligence. CCSO has provided periodic, although not frequent, information as to the status of their investigation; man hours, tips received, participating agencies, etc. They owe you no more whether you like it or not.
 
OldCop said:
RSBM
And you know this how?


What difference does it make to you what was found? How does announcing, “We found SM’s wallet/phone/helmet/shoe etc etc” make a difference in this case?
How would releasing her last verified contact make a difference to the general public? LE asked people to come forward if they spoke to SM on social media and asked people to save footage from security video between May 8th and May 12th.

You want to know it. You don’t need to know it. And that is a huge difference.

You have no right to know the evidence collected in any investigation until a case goes to trial.
People think transparency in a criminal investigation means LE has to reveal all their evidence. It does not. Transparency means that you are doing your due diligence. CCSO has provided periodic, although not frequent, information as to the status of their investigation; man hours, tips received, participating agencies, etc. They owe you no more whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you OLD COP. As my husband likes to say , " it's on a need to know basis, and YOU don't need to know!
 
LE withholding investigation findings (evidence) to the public rules out false confessions faster. Yes, they do happen. Some person who confesses to a crime who has mental health issues or some idiot in prison who wants something to do, or take a trip to “show” police a non existent buried body, as an example. A complete waste of time because the person is playing games.

Then the tactic of non public investigation evidence not being released and a suspect slipping up and mentioning it during an interrogation, as an example. That’s another reason to keep it non public.

Gone are the days (many many years ago) where LE pukes up information to the public that I’m sure over time with studies have told them the advantages to keeping it close are greater than revealing.

IMO
 
<modsnip> Andy owns a business where he has public customers (IIRC). The pic reminded me of a reporter catching someone where they knew they would be in public. Is this where Andy would want to meet CM and talk about his missing sister when he’s literally working?

So, did poor Andy know CM was coming or did he just show up? IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 3,333 (members: 96, guests: 3,237)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
3,237
Total visitors
3,333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,595
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top