Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #20

[Sillybilly]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
I have read the guidance -- so, we can't discuss the camping trip at all (about how convenient for BM it was, who arranged it, etc.) because the daughters went on it? If that's true, of course I will shut up, but I'd like to know. Thanks!

My previous Admin notes were made at a time when members were enquiring as to the current whereabouts of the daughters (where and with whom they may be residing).

While no sleuthing of the daughters is allowed, what has been said in MSM and other approved sources about the camping trip is open for discussion and reasonable speculation.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes, @Warwick7 replied that they were told the fire guys were not allowed 'up there"

IMO, the Sheriff's office was not authorizing firefighters or any volunteers, only LE resources.

I could be wrong but am skeptical and just think it is open to interpretation as there is some ambiguity in the wording. Possible scenario:

Firefighter calls Sheriff "We want to help with the search"
Sheriff "Nope, we are sticking entirely with our LE resources"
Firefighter then says "Sheriff told us we aren't allowed up there"

(May 15 CBS Local)
Crews are using drones and search dogs to try and locate Morphew. Members from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the South Ark Swiftwater Rescue Teams have also searched nearby watersheds. Authorities are not asking for help from volunteers in the search.

(May 20 Daily Mail)
Morphew’s fire department colleagues have been ordered not to take part in the search by police, although locals said Morphew and his friends have been out looking for Suzanne.

(May 21 Crimeonline)
Bertram also noted that the fire department is not working with the Chaffee County Sheriff’s office or state and federal authorities on the search for Suzanne Morphew, but said that some firefighters had been volunteering their time to search for the missing woman. He acknowledged a possible disconnect between Morphew’s friends and family and the law enforcement officers conducting the investigation.

(May 23 Daily Mail)
Morphew's fire department colleagues have been ordered not to take part in the search by police, although locals said Morphew and his friends have been out looking for Suzanne. ...

Morphew's colleagues from the Maysville Fire Station have also been attempting to help with the search, although one told DailyMail.com they have been warned off by police.

Tim Nelson, 33, said: 'The Sheriff's office, they told us none of the fire guys are allowed up there.

(June 10 The Denver Channel; Susan Medina, CBI)
As of Wednesday morning, there was not a need for volunteer search groups.

“They have done a number of targeted searches with specialized investigators and different groups that have come to do searches over the past month,” Medina said. “As for volunteer search groups, at this point, the sheriff was indicating that he wanted to continue to utilize law enforcement resources to conduct those searches.”

 

[LietKynes]

My theory: Barry and the Morphew daughters won't speak because anything they say -- and their demeanor while saying it -- will be dissected & disbelieved by the public at large. The majority of comments I've read on WS and FB don't focus on the actual meaning of Barry's words during the 26-second video but instead examine his demeanor or a turn of phrase. It's pretty clear that the public is in no way presuming Barry innocent until he's proven guilty: more interviews would simply be like throwing meat to a pack of wolves.

If a loved one goes missing it's hardly likely the family is concerned w/what's being said about them.
As we're allowed to sleuth the words that have been said thus far by the husband --- Imo, they're troubling , even though they haven't exactly been dissected by anyone here.
The forum here is for theorizing and coming up with feasible scenarios and I'm thankful for posts that speculate and are at their core trying to find Suzanne or answers to "..what happened.." (LE's words as well.).
Lots of good posts here and WSers' (as in --we strive to rise above social media and the general public; imo.) are hardly a "pack of wolves".

Much more compassion has been shown here than elsewhere !

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

Everything about Suzanne's disappearance has been troubling, including the most recent msm describing the husband as 'grieving', when Suzanne is still just missing.
Hoping for a break in this case soon !
Imo.

 

[Error505]

Suzanne being hit by a car is a possibility, especially if the driver of the vehicle is: drunk, on drugs, on probation, a felon, guilty of other driving offenses, etc. It could be enough of a reason, in the criminal’s mind, to hide or take her body. The thing is, it appears from LE’s behavior that there isn’t evidence to support this theory. Judging from their behavior it doesn’t look like THEY feel this is a viable scenario.

IMO

Agree 100%. I don’t think there would be such a strong focus on the home search warrants if LE thought she was involved in a “true accident”.

 

[gliving]

I think the personal item is her bike.

 

[Chocoholic]

Hi, I'm new here and from Wales, UK.

Has there been any new information released as to when SM was definitely last seen and who by?

I know I’m late to the party, but wanted to say welcome. I love it here and hope you do too! Lots of intelligent and warm people here.

 

[10ofRods]

Hi, I'm new here and from Wales, UK.

Has there been any new information released as to when SM was definitely last seen and who by?

No, not at all. BM says he had a conversation with her on Sunday morning, before he left for Denver for site prep. <modsnip>

Early on, there was something posted here about a text from or to Suzanne on Saturday, but I believe that was rumor (although if you try to catch up on reading these threads, you'll probably come across it).

 

[JnRyan]

I think the personal item is her bike.

I believe LE stated it was not her bike. Although, LE has never said what the personal item was and LE has never confirmed that they found her bike.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

<snip>

And yet we are told the daughters are choosing to live with dad rather than Mom’s family.
Different explanations for the daughters continuing to reside with their dad have been outlined in this thread, and I understand them, but I’m thinking SM’s family might be struggling with this. But maybe the family knows something that we don’t?

The girls didn't choose "to live with dad" before SM disappeared - that's, why I wonder about it very much. I think, BM would be able being alone at home for some time as he is probably working all day any way. It would be different, if an elderly parent suddenly is alone because the partner got lost; they would need support from family of course. But BM? - Another thought: BM thinks, his pretty spouse Suzanne had possibly been abducted and now his pretty young girls are living at the same dangerous place, where an incident of some sort may have happened? Wouldn't they be safer where they used to be?
As I already said: wondering .....

 

[Dave F.]

What does BM think happened then? This creek theory is all I have heard from him.

Since I'm saying I don't think the creek is his theory, I guess it's safe to say that I think you haven't heard any theory at all from him, only some ramblings about other people's theories.
Many of you know my good friend was brutally murdered in college. There was no reason at all for it to happen. None. For an uncomfortable amount of time, my young mind simply refused to accept that it had happened. I had all of the functional intelligence of an unplugged Alexa. I don't know how anyone copes with it, with grace. So, I give him more benefit of the doubt that many are willing to extend. I'm trying to listen to the few words he has spoken seeking facts. The puma, the creek, and even the bridge aren't facts................they are somebody's theories.
If you listen really close to what TD was telling us before and after he met BM, theories is exactly what he drove all the way from Arizona for. TD turned it right around, giving us theories that can be discussed endlessly. The only facts I saw in the whole four video set were when BM pointed over in the trees and sad "There's where they found the bike." IMO

 

[TIGER0822]

Yeah I think they'd find blood or something if she was hit near where her bike was presumably found.

I agree. One thought is that as part of the staging she was deliberately hit by a vehicle enough to damage the bike, but not hard enough to damage the vehicle. She was then moved into the vehicle alive (to avoid cadaver dogs picking up the scent). A horrible crime was committed at the place the body was hidden.

 

[dkryder]

Since I'm saying I don't think the creek is his theory, I guess it's safe to say that I think you haven't heard any theory at all from him, only some ramblings about other people's theories.
Many of you know my good friend was brutally murdered in college. There was no reason at all for it to happen. None. For an uncomfortable amount of time, my young mind simply refused to accept that it had happened. I had all of the functional intelligence of an unplugged Alexa. I don't know how anyone copes with it, with grace. So, I give him more benefit of the doubt that many are willing to extend. I'm trying to listen to the few words he has spoken seeking facts. The puma, the creek, and even the bridge aren't facts................they are somebodies theories.
If you listen really close to what TD was telling us before and after he met BM, theories is exactly what he drove all the way from Arizona for. TD turned it right around, giving us theories that can be discussed endlessly. The only facts I saw in the whole four video set were when BM pointed over in the trees and sad "There's where they found the bike." IMO

BM also mentioned that LE kinda mucked up the area by too many people walking around. He also mentioned that several people handled the bike, If I remember, he said 10. Not sure if he was presenting the info as fact or just his opinion but the bike over there comment was either fact or opinion also.

 

[AbigailHobbs]

One thing Lauren mentioned was that the Morphew daughters are living with Barry. The younger daughter, per Lauren, stayed with her boyfriend's family the week of the 1st search of the Morphew home.

To me, this is a point -- albeit a circumstantial one -- in favor of Barry's non-involvement: is it reasonable to believe that they'd remain with their dad if they strongly suspected that he was involved in harming their mother? Of course, they could choose to remain with Barry for other reasons -- fear, loyalty, indecision -- but no evidence of the existence of these reasons has been brought forth yet.

Most kids support their parent this early on or very good evidence thats undeniable supports guilt. Cases like these are hard for the kids bc they usually can't believe it and live in a bit of denial bc they just lost one parent. And this is a two parent long term marriage. I doubt the police tell the kids anything directly so they get info from their dad.

 

[Poedelini]

Most kids support their parent this early on or very good evidence thats undeniable supports guilt. Cases like these are hard for the kids bc they usually can't believe it and live in a bit of denial bc they just lost one parent. And this is a two parent long term marriage. I doubt the police tell the kids anything directly so they get info from their dad.

Kids in almost all general hard situations will almost always side by the parents. Loyalty from kids to their parents are amazingly high. Even in abuse situations. Jmo

 

[Charlot123]

@Boxer, Barry has suggested the mountain lion dragged her away and also random abduction, hence his reward.

And this is somewhat suspicious. Imagine someone comes home, and the spouse had disappeared. What would be the response? I think, bombarding police with questions, not throwing theories at LE. The difference between “what do you think happened to my wife?”, and “I think it was a mountain lion” is the same as between open-ended and closed-ended question - the second, essentially, offers no alternative scenarios, and maybe be misleading.

 

[al66pine]

IN. Property & Gdn'ship; Closing the Prop. Sale.

A new filing* in the guardianship case ....in Indiana) gives me further doubt about a financial motive to harm Suzanne on Barry's part, at least with respect to any assets in Indiana. The inventory shows that the joint assets of Suzanne and Barry total $300,000, which consists wholly of land in Hamilton County. No stocks, bonds, bank accounts, or interests in any businesses are listed...

@lamlawindy sbm bbm & rbm Agreeing w your post that BM seeking gdn'ship to complete the IN. prop. sale* does not equal strong $$$ motive for him to harm SM. Seems imo, filing in IN. where prop is located, makes sense, legally & practically. A couple other thoughts about BM's actions.
Part 1.
Q: Why seek Gdn'ship? (Sorry to plow ground if already covered; this is for others, not you @lamlawindy)
Well, if BM had simply said to buyers* ~ nevermind, not selling after all, wife is missing, not closing the sale, or had said ~ you'll get your earnest money/deposit back, he could have faced buyers' lawsuit for specific performance under the contract and could have ended up in court w no plausible legal defense or excuse** for breach of contract, and then could been forced to seek gdn'ship anyway.
Part 2.
Q: Why not just sign SM's name (by BM) on deed to close the sale? Or if BM signs SM's name on deed & doc's at closing, w'out a doc authorizing it, such as Power of Attorney doc or Letter of Guardianship & Order & Letter Appointing Guardian, so what? If Buyers*** do not object, who cares?
Well, the title ins co. 'Commitment for Title Insurance Policy' for Owner & Lender's **** policies is contingent on completion & signatures of doc's at closing. One of those required doc's is the deed w prop owners' proper execution. A deed signed by Person H (purportedly) on behalf of Person W (even if husband & wife), w'out document (such as Power of Atty or ct-issued Letter of Guardianship & Order/Letter Appointing Gdn.) authorizing it is not what a title ins co considers a properly executed deed, esp'ly for a $ X00,000+ property.
Q: Without ^, if title ins co does not issue Owners or Lender's policies so what? Who cares?
Typically the title ins co's local branch/affiliate is responsible for having all -
--- the required doc's w I's dotted & T's crossed;
--- the required signatures***** on those doc's.
Sooo, if title co agency/affiliate makes boo-boo by failing to get all required docs properly executed, the sale transaction does not close, or is at the very least is postponed. That's why BM seeking guardianship and apptmt as guardian made sense to me.
As always, I welcome comment, clarification, or correction, esp'ly from our professionals here, whether atty, real est, or tile ins co. just my 2 cts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: Buncha (even more) Tedious Details.
* Assuming IN. property was already "under contract" before SM's May disappearance, i.e., BM & SM as Sellers had already accepted & signed Buyer's offer - the initial sales contract doc's - before SM went missing in May.
** Defenses/excuses for breach or non-performance of contract: unilateral, mutual, or transcription mistake; duress or undue influence; misrepresentation; illegality; etc. AFAIK, none of these would apply.
*** Or Buyers' atty, if they have one. Ime, experienced real est atty defers to title ins. co's requirements.
**** The Lender's or 'Loan Title Insurance Policy' aka mortgagee's policy. It protects the lender's interest in the mortgaged prop in event of foreclosure and is a common req'mt in loans eligible for re-sale to entities such as Fannie Mae, but typically not for 'friends/family' type loans. It is separate from Owner's Title Insurance Policy, which protects new Buyer from title defects. American Land Title Association forms, including Schedule A & Schedule B/Exclusions from coverage, are used thru-out US. Title insurance - Wikipedia
***** Signatures of participants, such as buyers, sellers, title ins co home office, title ins local rep's/affiliates, lender, and in some contracts, real estate agents, atty's, taxing authorities, et al.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Above hypothetical is imo/ime, based on my law/compliance dept. employment w a nationwide financial institution which regularly encountered similar questions; my having completed nearly 30 buy & sales transactions in three different states over a 30 yr period.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

What a great catch! I suspect she “disappeared” at night. Either Friday night or Saturday night OR LE would have asked for video prior to May 8th from area residents. MOO

Some people use evening and night interchangeably. If the call to LE went out at 5:46 PM, it may be as simple as TM would refer to that time as "night", rather than the more precise "evening". Example: Last night I went to dinner with some friends.

 

[al66pine]

Just One IN. Property Listed in Inventory? ResJudicata?

A new filing.... at least with respect to any assets in Indiana. The inventory shows that the joint assets of Suzanne and Barry total $300,000, which consists wholly of land in Hamilton County. No stocks, bonds, bank accounts, or interests in any businesses are listed....

bbm sbm

They, together, own more properties. That filing does not include bank accts or other assets...

bbm sbm

But why would one plot owned jointly be included in the inventory but not the others? As for bank accounts and other assets, it lists the categories (stocks, bonds) but states that their value is $0.

sbm @lamlawwindy and @ marylamby In reading link to "Guardian's First Inventory" more carefully, I noticed this language: "The following items are all the property of the PROTECTED PERSON in the State of Indiana of which the guardian has knowledge. Any encumbrances, liens and other charges on any item are also stated." rbm bbm
So appears imo, at time of filing petition seeking Gdn'ship, BM's/atty's July 6 inventory listed only the one piece of real/est which was under contract (not all SM's/their IN real est).*
Makes sense imo that a petitioner seeking a guardianship of missing person & to be appt'ed Gdn, and to intially complete sale of one IN. property only, would specify only that one IN parcel he wanted to complete the sale on.
IIRC, a hearing for perm gdn'ship is scheduled for Sept. In the meantime/prior to hearing, it may make sense to amend inventory to specify other IN. real est in which SM holds/held an interest, esp'ly if BM contemplates selling any. As I mentioned ~ weeks or a month ago, IN statute provides for transferring Gdnship procedure into and out of IN. ct. Ditto CO statutes IIRC.
Will BM take action to transfer (part of) Gdn'ship procedure from IN to CO?
If so, is IN ct's finding of SM not able to be located status res judicata in CO ct?
Also makes sense imo that BM/atty does not list intangibles, such as bank a/c, stocks, bonds, mut fds, brokerage a/c's et as being in IN, if those assets are now based in CO.
As always, I welcome comments, clarification, correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. jmo.
.............................................................................................................
* The July 6 inventory listed one real est parcel & these other assets in the st. of IN:
"II. Furniture and Household Goods................................................ $0.00
III. Corporate Stock.......................................................................... $0.00
IV. Mortgages, Bonds, Notes, Other Written Evidence of Debt...... $0.00
V. Bank Accounts, Money, Insurance policy to Estate.................... $0.00
VI. All Other Property...................................................................... $0.00"

 

[AbigailHobbs]

Just One IN. Property Listed in Inventory? ResJudicata?
bbm sbm
bbm sbm
sbm @lamlawwindy and @ marylamby In reading link to "Guardian's First Inventory" more carefully, I noticed this language: "The following items are all the property of the PROTECTED PERSON in the State of Indiana of which the guardian has knowledge. Any encumbrances, liens and other charges on any item are also stated." rbm bbm
So appears imo, at time of filing petition seeking Gdn'ship, BM's/atty's July 6 inventory listed only the one piece of real/est which was under contract (not all SM's/their IN real est).*
Makes sense imo that a petitioner seeking a guardianship of missing person & to be appt'ed Gdn, and to intially complete sale of one IN. property only, would specify only that one IN parcel he wanted to complete the sale on.
IIRC, a hearing for perm gdn'ship is scheduled for Sept. In the meantime/prior to hearing, it may make sense to amend inventory to specify other IN. real est in which SM holds/held an interest, esp'ly if BM contemplates selling any. As I mentioned ~ weeks or a month ago, IN statute provides for transferring Gdnship procedure into and out of IN. ct. Ditto CO statutes IIRC.
Will BM take action to transfer (part of) Gdn'ship procedure from IN to CO?
If so, is IN ct's finding of SM not able to be located status res judicata in CO ct?
Also makes sense imo that BM/atty does not list intangibles, such as bank a/c, stocks, bonds, mut fds, brokerage a/c's et as being in IN, if those assets are now based in CO.
As always, I welcome comments, clarification, correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. jmo.
.............................................................................................................
* The July 6 inventory listed one real est parcel & these other assets in the st. of IN:
"II. Furniture and Household Goods................................................ $0.00
III. Corporate Stock.......................................................................... $0.00
IV. Mortgages, Bonds, Notes, Other Written Evidence of Debt...... $0.00
V. Bank Accounts, Money, Insurance policy to Estate.................... $0.00
VI. All Other Property...................................................................... $0.00"

It seems like a sneaky work around whether it's legal or not. I hope that he's not given guardianship permanently. It's kind of an insult to the concept of a will if she is deceased. If she's not, well maybe she's okay with this, but maybe not all other decisions he can make. It seems too easy to get authorization to act on someone's behalf without declaring one way or the other what happened to the legal adult who should be making those questions. And he could be getting clearance while not being declared a POI, but by October he is and then what? It seems to erase the checks and balances of dead/alive or incompetent/competent

Just sounds like something a Carole Baskins would do

 

[susiQ]

Some people use evening and night interchangeably. If the call to LE went out at 5:46 PM, it may be as simple as TM would refer to that time as "night", rather than the more precise "evening". Example: Last night I went to dinner with some friends.

If I truly believed my hubby went on a bike ride, in the morning, before church and was never seen again, I would believe he went missing in the morning. I would not then say he went missing at night. But that’s just me.