CO SUZANNE MORPHEW: Missing from Chaffee County, CO - 10 May 2020 - Age 49 *Found Deceased*

A Chaffee County woman is missing after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned, sparking a search involving more than 100 emergency personnel.

The Chaffee County Communications Center received a report on Sunday at 5:46 p.m. regarding a missing woman in the area of County Road 225 and West Highway 50.


Anybody who has information on Morphew’s whereabouts is asked to call the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office at 719-539-2596 or Chaffee County Crime Stoppers at 719-539-2599.

Chaffee County woman missing since Sunday after neighbor said she went out for bike ride

A woman is missing after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned, sparking a search involving more than 100 emergency personnel.

www.thedenverchannel.com

edited by staff to add media link

SUZANNE MORPHEW is still #missing from Mayesville, CO. Her husband was arrested in 2021 for her murder!

A Chaffee County woman is still missing from Colorado after a neighbor said she went out for a bike ride Sunday and never returned in May of 2020.

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Guess Who]

They can, he lawyered up and refused to talk. I've already said it seems obvious that BM did it, but I want to know more about the partial DNA match that you said everybody would have a match to a violent criminal from.

Yes, I think they did run those other DNA matches through CODIS, but nothing came up. That throws your theory of everyone having a partial match out the window.

where did I ever say everybody would have a match to a violent criminal? You asked if I would and I said I would and how. Never did I say everyone would.

You still haven't answered my question about what possible question they couldn't ask you just because you have an attorney present.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

where did I ever say everybody would have a match to a violent criminal? You asked if I would and I said I would and how. Never did I say everyone would.

You still haven't answered my question about what possible question they couldn't ask you just because you have an attorney present.

The can ask you anything. If you tell them to go through your attorney and refuse to answer anything then they can't ask any questions anymore if the person doesn't want to answer any. This guy did answer the question as to whether or not he was the guy they wanted to talk to.

Go back and re-read your stuff. I forget exactly where you said it, but you said that you would have a connection to make the point that almost anyone could have a partial match to a violent offender.

 

[Guess Who]

The can ask you anything. If you tell them to go through your attorney and refuse to answer anything then they can't ask any questions anymore if the person doesn't want to answer any. This guy did answer the question as to whether or not he was the guy they wanted to talk to.

Go back and re-read your stuff. I forget exactly where you said it, but you said that you would have a connection to make the point that almost anyone could have a partial match to a violent offender.

Key word....COULD. I have never said it WOULD. Huge difference.

Again...just because you have an attorney, there is no valid question they can't ask you. They CAN ask you questions if your attorney is present. They just can't ask any further questions until then. Again, huge difference.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Key word....COULD. I have never said it WOULD. Huge difference.

Again...just because you have an attorney, there is no valid question they can't ask you. They CAN ask you questions if your attorney is present. They just can't ask any further questions until then. Again, huge difference.

Your point was that it wasn't significant. They never met with him and his lawyer, so I'm assuming he didn't want to answer anything lawyer or not. They might not have pushed further because it might screw up their theory.

I still think it's best to solve that before trial. I'm sure the guy who went to see him will be called as a defense witness.

 

[Guess Who]

Your point was that it wasn't significant. They never met with him and his lawyer, so I'm assuming he didn't want to answer anything lawyer or not. They might not have pushed further because it might screw up their theory.

I still think it's best to solve that before trial. I'm sure the guy who went to see him will be called as a defense witness.

But the more important thing is WHERE it was found and even more importantly, where it wasn't and how minute of a quantity it is or isn't. Those things are far more important in this case and those things have not been made public.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Violent crime?



Maybe because they are stuck on one guy and don't want anything else looked at.

What @Kimster said above is true. The defense is going to bring it up and it'll need to be explained.

And they will explain as it HAS been and the jurors will get it as SOME of us do. Watch Lauren Scharf on STS I think it was all she could DO not to roll her eyes on the DNA tak when she knows it all SO WELL. I wish there was still an eye roll here but I think they took it away because someone abused it/used it too much... Just saying....

Dear Emu, you are going beyond. You are a defense's dream. Not reasonable doubt but give you any reason at ALL to go down a hole... Sorry but just sayin'...

 

[Tresir]

Just reading all the different opinions about the DNA in here confirms my suspicion that when this goes to trial, they better explain this DNA very carefully. And in great detail that isn’t so complicated that the jurors get lost.

It only needs reasonable doubt which we already have on here it seems.

 

[Tresir]

The emu is falling for the defense's drama, just as they hoped.

Reasonable doubt is enough. It has to be addressed if they want to charge BM again IMO.

 

[Tresir]

And they will explain as it HAS been and the jurors will get it as SOME of us do. Watch Lauren Scharf on STS I think it was all she could DO not to roll her eyes on the DNA tak when she knows it all SO WELL. I wish there was still an eye roll here but I think they took it away because someone abused it/used it too much... Just saying....

Dear Emu, you are going beyond. You are a defense's dream. Not reasonable doubt but give you any reason at ALL to go down a hole... Sorry but just sayin'...

It only needs one on the jury to have reasonable doubt and we seem to have 2 on here so far.

 

[Tresir]

But the more important thing is WHERE it was found and even more importantly, where it wasn't and how minute of a quantity it is or isn't. Those things are far more important in this case and those things have not been made public.

So the prosecution will have to convince the jury it is meaningless.

 

[Guess Who]

It only needs one on the jury to have reasonable doubt and we seem to have 2 on here so far.

but if they explain it away fully and that one person still is stuck on it, then that is not good at all.

 

[Guess Who]

So the prosecution will have to convince the jury it is meaningless.

which they should be able to do and they need experts that have the ability to educate> if their "expert" can not explain this very simply, they need a new expert. My fairly laymen's knowledge of dna even allows me to see that it is not what many think it might be.

 

[Tresir]

ok, answer this. IF the defense is so adamant that this dna might exonerate their client, why are they not testing and matching it? That makes absolutely no sense that they aren't. Nope, they are just blowing smoke.

I am also still waiting for one question that if you are innocent, LE can't ask you just because you have an attorney present. Just one.

It isn't the defense's job but is the prosecution's job to rule it out or not. They have to make sure they charge the right guy.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The can ask you anything. If you tell them to go through your attorney and refuse to answer anything then they can't ask any questions anymore if the person doesn't want to answer any. This guy did answer the question as to whether or not he was the guy they wanted to talk to.

Go back and re-read your stuff. I forget exactly where you said it, but you said that you would have a connection to make the point that almost anyone could have a partial match to a violent offender.

It IS something like that almost ASTRONOMICAL.
I have told you Lauren Scharf and tried in my limited time to find it AND Nate. I am sure you can go find it with those two leads on it that it isn't momentous AT ALL.

 

[Tresir]

which they should be able to do and they need experts that have the ability to educate> if their "expert" can not explain this very simply, they need a new expert. My fairly laymen's knowledge of dna even allows me to see that it is not what many think it might be.

But you have to explain it away which you have not done yet to convince me and emu by the look of it. Never mind the prosecution having to explain it and convince a jury it is meaningless.

 

[Tresir]

but if they explain it away fully and that one person still is stuck on it, then that is not good at all.

That's how juries work though.

 

[Guess Who]

It isn't the defense's job but is the prosecution's job to rule it out or not. They have to make sure they charge the right guy.

It's the defense's job to defend their client, isn'[ it? Wouldn't any defense attorney worth their title be doing everything to exonerate their client? Nope. These guys just blather on but are doing nothing because they know exactly what they are doing right now and evidently it's working. I can guarantee you that if I was innocent of something I'm being blamed for and this evidence might exonerate me, my attorney better get off his azz and find out who it belong to. That's what he's getting billable hours for..

 

[Guess Who]

But you have to explain it away which you have not done yet to convince me and emu by the look of it. Never mind the prosecution having to explain it and convince a jury it is meaningless.

Because I don't have the info as to where it was found, the quantity that was found, etc or I bet I could explain a lot of it. That info has not been released so I can't. The defense is making it sound like the prosecution totally bypassed it and not put it in discovery when it is right there in the AA and states that the only connecting dna between any of the items is SM,BM and one item one of the daughers. We all know the AA is just a basic rundown of the case and how they went about getting the info to arrest him. They aren't going to show their entire hand right now. But quantities and exact location of it is key here.

 

[GrandmaBear]

But you have to explain it away which you have not done yet to convince me and emu by the look of it. Never mind the prosecution having to explain it and convince a jury it is meaningless.

The DNA is not very relevant. It is ridiculously minor. You can find it with Lauren Scharf and I believe Nate and others as I have said before repeatedly. You can believe what you like but if you haven't seen such OR read the AA then don't assume such.

To each their own but this sh*t doesn't even come CLOSE to the weight against Barry.

Barry Morphew murdered his wife Suzanne. In my very educated opinion on this case. Imo. Imho. Jmo. Etc.

And it sure the he77 wasn't Jeff Libler.

No offense but it is clear you haven't followed all nor has emu. I get it because I sure don't have the time these days to keep up with all. And I am not being a hypocrite as I will admit like in Delphi I haven't read the whole defense filing but in THIS case I have followed ALL.

And again to each their own and hugs and love ya but it is obvious neither you nor emu know what you are talking about!

I have butted heads on occasion with @Guess Who but that s just life and never is it personal, It is kind of fun in fact and then we end up in a Barbie massacre and having the time of our lives. We all love, agree and disagree but on this one she is right and she just read the AA and is the freshest on it. I read it back when but am not as fresh. And even aside from that from following from day one, BARRY killed SUZANNE. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However you are questioning things that I believe ARE in this thead. As is the emu and he is going deep down a rabbit hole in a few cases lately.

I do have to chuckle though. A lot of back and forth and interest on this case EVEN if frustratingly repetitive pounding of the same thing.

Just a question, are you still on LIbler and if not, what made you drop taht?

 

[Tresir]

It's the defense's job to defend their client, isn'[ it? Wouldn't any defense attorney worth their title be doing everything to exonerate their client? Nope. These guys just blather on but are doing nothing because they know exactly what they are doing right now and evidently it's working. I can guarantee you that if I was innocent of something I'm being blamed for and this evidence might exonerate me, my attorney better get off his azz and find out who it belong to. That's what he's getting billable hours for..

We already know it doesn't belong to the accused. That's enough for reasonable doubt. It's not the defense's job to solve the crime. That's for the prosecution.