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

 

[GrandmaBear]

But often they say that when another hasn't even been talked to and no, it often leads to false info or the more guilty party getting the deal first and the lesser guilty party holding the bag. How is that right?

Ideally they get it from both and then determine who is telling the truth between all of the details. I don't think that deal at that point is all that common and certainly is not a typed out signed promised deal on some first night questioning and gathering of evidence imo. We hear of such but I don't think it is the norm. Once they have a strong knowledge ore evidence that say the stepfather killed the child then they may try to get mom to turn more by not offering a deal as to threaten her with charges making it seem like a deal. Farther into a case it may be when they just do not quite have enough. I don't think initially much would be promised when they don't know who did what. Hints and playing that may go on though. You know, the old, a judge is likely to go lighter on you if you can show you did the right thing" type of thing. Or a jury. Or us. (LE)

There HAVE been some bad deals though, unforgivable almost. Canada Karla Homolka. Colorado Krystal Kenney in the Frazee case. They NEVER should have gotten off so light although help in putting the men away was needed but the did not need to OFFER such light things for them. Unacceptable. CO never even tried to stand firm on harder. Can't remember with Homolka. Did she go entirely free?

But again I don't think this is the general thing, case, etc. And you know even then it is up to a jury to decide if they are truthful, if the deal was the reason they said something, and so forth. That is used by defense just as a jailhouse snitch is claimed to be unreliable.

And then there is this. It is not enough of a case on just one participant's say so. There has to be evidence rather than just hearsay or maybe "eyewitness" testimony from a participant or spouse the perp told, etc.

Again I just don't think it is that common. So much more these days is required and I don't think deals are struck that easy.

Look at the Kline thing. I think he hoped to play it and hold back until they agreed to free him of his charges. Of course they didn't do that. And he went to prison. Homolka and Kenney were WRONG deals and in Kenney's case she was still required to show them evidence to corroborate. BUT in both cases they did get the men. Women who could let such happen to another woman make me ILL and in both I don't think they just "let" they participated.

I don't think there is a one size answer like I said. And IF such is done, allowed or wrong, it certainly can be and IS called out.

Good debate though and discussion.

I may seem to fall on one side hard in many a case but it truly depends on the case. Again all are different. Some are such slam dunks they never need to do such a thing. The perp was stupid and left enough evidence. In most murders there is ONE perp and no co conspirator to play against the other or cut a deal with which again I don't think is that common early on especially. In other cases the alleged perp lawyers up right away so no there is no lying to him to get the truth.

So I don't feel it is even the norm and I know or think may agencies don't even use the lying technique but if it is case where it comes to that then yes they have/do/can.

I have a headache from he77 and actually am losing track of what my point is. I have 800 mg Ibuprofen that don't even touch it.

 

[Mel70]

Oh s*** this is the "Morphew" Thread. Sorry.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Where they say "We have you on video" or "We have a witness". I don't see a false confession if they know that wasn't true.

I don't believe in false confessions for the most part. I know we can't know but I can't imagine anything done forcing me to give one short of maybe torture which they can't do.

I know where I was and where I was not and what I did or did not do. Now if they asked me where I was five years ago on a certain date maybe not but if they said I was in Philadelphia at a home of some person I never knew nor would go to, I'd know it was untrue. If they claimed I was at church I would know it to be untrue (unless a funeral). Etc. You cannot have me on video nor a witness not have mixed me up with someone else because I was never there, would never go there, had no reason to be there, etc. If they said I was swimming at a beach one day and drowned another person uhm FALSE. I don't swim. And I did not drown the other swimmer trying to save myself either as I never would have been out there to begin with!

If they said my route of travel was down Interstate #, FALSE. I never take freeways or Interstate if I can help it. If they said I was caught on video at a bar late night (or even early) FALSE. If they said I went out for sushi ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Or a gf said we had sushi before running off to murder someone. False, false, false.

Yeah I don't buy false confession claims. Almost ever. For these reasons and more.

I do know sometimes rules are screwed up, someone not Mirandized etc. or they ask for an attorney and don't get one and are ignored. I don't think that is the norm either. LE knows how stinking careful they have to be these days PLUS what would be worse than to get a confession, not have Mirandized and have it thrown out??

I don't believe claimed false confessions means the person was innocent, they get off on a technicality.

BUT with anything, I am never saying there never a NEVER could happen. I just think its the exception rather than common and the norm. And of course I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it.

 

[Guess Who]

Ideally they get it from both and then determine who is telling the truth between all of the details. I don't think that deal at that point is all that common and certainly is not a typed out signed promised deal on some first night questioning and gathering of evidence imo. We hear of such but I don't think it is the norm. Once they have a strong knowledge ore evidence that say the stepfather killed the child then they may try to get mom to turn more by not offering a deal as to threaten her with charges making it seem like a deal. Farther into a case it may be when they just do not quite have enough. I don't think initially much would be promised when they don't know who did what. Hints and playing that may go on though. You know, the old, a judge is likely to go lighter on you if you can show you did the right thing" type of thing. Or a jury. Or us. (LE)

There HAVE been some bad deals though, unforgivable almost. Canada Karla Homolka. Colorado Krystal Kenney in the Frazee case. They NEVER should have gotten off so light although help in putting the men away was needed but the did not need to OFFER such light things for them. Unacceptable. CO never even tried to stand firm on harder. Can't remember with Homolka. Did she go entirely free?

But again I don't think this is the general thing, case, etc. And you know even then it is up to a jury to decide if they are truthful, if the deal was the reason they said something, and so forth. That is used by defense just as a jailhouse snitch is claimed to be unreliable.

And then there is this. It is not enough of a case on just one participant's say so. There has to be evidence rather than just hearsay or maybe "eyewitness" testimony from a participant or spouse the perp told, etc.

Again I just don't think it is that common. So much more these days is required and I don't think deals are struck that easy.

Look at the Kline thing. I think he hoped to play it and hold back until they agreed to free him of his charges. Of course they didn't do that. And he went to prison. Homolka and Kenney were WRONG deals and in Kenney's case she was still required to show them evidence to corroborate. BUT in both cases they did get the men. Women who could let such happen to another woman make me ILL and in both I don't think they just "let" they participated.

I don't think there is a one size answer like I said. And IF such is done, allowed or wrong, it certainly can be and IS called out.

Good debate though and discussion.

I may seem to fall on one side hard in many a case but it truly depends on the case. Again all are different. Some are such slam dunks they never need to do such a thing. The perp was stupid and left enough evidence. In most murders there is ONE perp and no co conspirator to play against the other or cut a deal with which again I don't think is that common early on especially. In other cases the alleged perp lawyers up right away so no there is no lying to him to get the truth.

So I don't feel it is even the norm and I know or think may agencies don't even use the lying technique but if it is case where it comes to that then yes they have/do/can.

I have a headache from he77 and actually am losing track of what my point is. I have 800 mg Ibuprofen that don't even touch it.

It happening even once should never, ever happen. You don't solve a case by convincing and convicting an innocent person, do you? Doesn't the real criminal go free that way? How is that ok with anybody? Too many cases that this actually happens. My state even has an AG that fought to keep a person IN prison that was found, without a doubt, to be Innocent by actual evidence. Evidence that was withheld, by the way. This guy did more than 20 years for a crime he did not commit and then it took another year and fight to get released. How is any of that ok with anybody?

 

[Mel70]

It happening even once should never, ever happen. You don't solve a case by convincing and convicting an innocent person, do you? Doesn't the real criminal go free that way? How is that ok with anybody? Too many cases that this actually happens. My state even has an AG that fought to keep a person IN prison that was found, without a doubt, to be Innocent by actual evidence. Evidence that was withheld, by the way. This guy did more than 20 years for a crime he did not commit and then it took another year and fight to get released. How is any of that ok with anybody?

Of course not.

 

[Mel70]

Your "Miranda" Rights. Right to an attorney is read. And asked if they understood. I couldn't be convinced I did it. Therefore there is no evidence. I want an attorney.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I think in all cases of juveniles. The parents should be notified before interrogation. I've seen plenty where they were NOT!!! That isn't right!!!

I forget what case but in the last week or two I saw or read something where cops do not need your permission to question your minor. I think it may have been the case where one of the two men married with adopted kids went missing. Or it was another where some parent would not let their kids be questioned or tried for that, not sure I am correct on which one. It surprised me.

But if you think about it, if you are pulled over driving at 16, the officer questions you and does not have to get your parents. If it is worse than just a traffic offense and you are arrested for theft or something or running away you are probably brought in and questioned, no parents at that moment.

I do agree with you though. I at least think a parent should have to be present (although they may be less apt to tell the truth in that case in some instances) but that questions should be answered unless the parents lawyer you up and that a parent should be present. But from what I saw somewhere recently, this is not a requirement of cops and they absolutely can question your children. I'm talking teens here younger children even more so imo.

Just like with the other subjects I am torn and don't think there is one good answer that fits all.

A kid for instance should be able to be talked to if there is evidence of abuse without that ALLEGED abusive parent present or should they? You know, lots of different situations.

What if a kid and dad committed a murder together and kid helped dad? Should the kid not be able to be questioned separately? You know, did dad threaten you if you did not help him kill and clean up? Did dad manipulate you, tell you the person was bad and needs to be killed?

I guess I'm just trying to say there are different situations.

I do firmly believe children should be protected and I firmly believe parents rights of what happens to their children is primary and should NEVER be taken from them. Again in most situations. Of course there are very bad parents who should lose their kids but other than that I mean. When the Obamas tried to dictate what you could pack in a kids' school lunch for instance, bullsh*t you should be able to interfere with a parent's decision or what the child will eat UNLESS of course your child is sick, underfed, the food is poisoned, etc. No one should interfere with parents' rights UNLESS REAL LEGITIMATE cause. I STRONGLY believe in that.

And I would not want my minor child questioned without me on something that could severely affect their life. But that too has a not one size fits all. I believe strongly in general that parents' rights should not be messed with. But if there is a missing child suspected to be murdered by the parent and the other kids are professionally talked to, well... Then I of course waver... They need to be taken out and protected. But the parent is not convicted yet. There really are no easy answers and no situation is identical.

Boy I am going on. Don't know why as I have a headache from he77 and it only makes it worse.

 

[Guess Who]

Your "Miranda" Rights. Right to an attorney is read. And asked if they understood. I couldn't be convinced I did it. Therefore there is no evidence. I want an attorney.

But that is YOU. Do you realize how many people have no idea what that even means and their heads are already swimming because of being taken in and being questioned relentlessly before actually being arrested? To the point where everything being said to them is just wah-wah-wah like the teacher on Peanuts. I know what I would most likely do, but that is ME and I would have no clue that this actually happened to people if not for my interest in these cases. Most people do not have a clue. Most people believe they don't/can't lie to you. Most countries don't allow it for a reason.

 

[Mel70]

I'm thinking of strictly murder cases.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm thinking of strictly murder cases.

The case I am speaking of that my AG refused to release the dude WAS a murder case!

 

[Mel70]

But that is YOU. Do you realize how many people have no idea what that even means and their heads are already swimming because of being taken in and being questioned relentlessly before actually being arrested? To the point where everything being said to them is just wah-wah-wah like the teacher on Peanuts. I know what I would most likely do, but that is ME and I would have no clue that this actually happened to people if not for my interest in these cases. Most people do not have a clue. Most people believe they don't/can't lie to you. Most countries don't allow it for a reason.

I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it though. They acknowledge they understand their rights. That's what is needed. Right to remain silent. Right to an attorney.

 

[Mel70]

The case I am speaking of that my AG refused to release the dude WAS a murder case!

I know. I was just saying in other types of cases I wasn't talking about. From what GBear was talking about that's all.

 

[Guess Who]

There are multiple cases in my state where a person that was convicted of murder was found to be innocent just because of the investigators being able to lie to the person. My state alone and that is just the ones we know about.

 

[Mel70]

The case I am speaking of that my AG refused to release the dude WAS a murder case!

No. That's completely WRONG!!!!

 

[Mel70]

There are multiple cases in my state where a person that was convicted of murder was found to be innocent just because of the investigators being able to lie to the person. My state alone and that is just the ones we know about.

To prevent false convictions. The prosecution needs to have irrefutable evidence of guilt. A confession is a starting point. I have seen with a confession, Before trial. The person could not have done it. And unfortunately long after being in prison. By DNA usually.

 

[GrandmaBear]

How is lying to people following the evidence? It's manufacturing evidence to fit what you believe happened and should not be allowed. Most countries have banned it for a good reason. It is also 100% why I totally encourage absolutely anybody to get an attorney, whether guilty or innocent. THIS is what having an attorney can prevent from happening. It keeps their questions legit.

It's a lot different to say someone is fairly certain they saw you at Dunking Donuts at 9 a.m. and what do you have to say about that, is that possible or where were you if not there, than outright lying or manufacturing solid evidence. Are you saying they are manufacturing solid evidence? That's where I am saying there needs to maybe be a balance between trying to elicit info and saying we found your DNA under her fingernails. Now that I agree is an outright threatening cornering lie if untrue. HOWEVER IF this is some time in and they have solid other evidence and the guy still hasn't lawyered up and you need more then I don't know... I guess I agree it is a bit unfair.

However, when have you ever heard of that or how often? I don't think it is common nor am I sure I have ever heard of something that outrageous of a lie and if you have or we have, how often and in how many cases and how recently?

Cops are under fire for everything. Yet there are still dirty or ones that do bad or have a missing body cam or one that didn't work etc. but do you notice how LITTLE we are hearing of that since the big cases like Chauvin? Now that man was stupid. I know you and I agree on body cams always for all.

I am not disagreeing overall. Again I just think there is a lot more to it than an overall answer.

Tell me as a parent how you get/got the truth out of your child. I am not saying I lied, not sure I ever did but I would use techniques. Or act as if I knew. Of course you raise them in a way as I did too to have trouble not being honest and wanting to do right.

Do you think child professionals shouldn't be able to question children taken from a home where a sibling hasn't been murdered. And of course they shouldn't "lead" but give them a doll and ask them to treat the doll like a mommy or daddy would? Or ask them what went on the last day they saw their sister or brother?

I know that is off track but I am just saying there is so much gray area and different circumstances and cases and again I don't think the norm or the usual is what you are talking. I also don't think like emu does that every defendant is being wrongfully charged or convicted, I think it is the rarity and even more so these days.

And believe me I in no way don't think many are self serving and power abusing in many a justice system but how far they will take it is another thing. I am NOT enamored with our system and say it constantly. I have never felt anything but despise for Chauvin and in the Arbery case for those men, one thinking hew as connected and couldn't be touched but just a big dumbarse racist cop. In both cases though, I do not the think the defendants were lily white but they did not deserve what happened and not a one of us is lily white.

Here is another example. Ethan Crumbley. As to minors. Mom washed his jeans. Mom covered. Ethan committed an adult crime and stabbed a young classmate so many times I can't even recall. It was a LOT, MANY. Should they even be able to take him in a cop car without mom guiding and with him? I mean he is a minor. Or question him? Or even arrest him? Curious on your thoughts on that part of it?

I too thought for some reason we were in the soft on crime thread. How did that happen? I think @Mel70 may have thought so too. That is where I thought I started commenting on all of this. sh*t.

 

[Mel70]

I see your point Guessy. And I respect you. I just personally don't find it cut and dry.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It happening even once should never, ever happen. You don't solve a case by convincing and convicting an innocent person, do you? Doesn't the real criminal go free that way? How is that ok with anybody? Too many cases that this actually happens. My state even has an AG that fought to keep a person IN prison that was found, without a doubt, to be Innocent by actual evidence. Evidence that was withheld, by the way. This guy did more than 20 years for a crime he did not commit and then it took another year and fight to get released. How is any of that ok with anybody?

I am not disagreeing and yeah, many proven innocent the state or county DA refuses to release or acknowledge it. Not know of that in my state but sure have heard of it. And yes one time is too many. But one can't base everything on the few either. And an upside IS that it is being called out these days and I think never was the norm and is very rare and thank people and the internet imo for that, body cams, and videos of interrogations and more. That is why you and I (I think) believe in bodycams, videos of court proceedings and interrogations, etc.

No it should never happen but what of any event in this world is a never. It is full of people and imperfection. A kid in school should never be picked on. Who would disagree? But can it ever be an absolute? Of course not. There should NEVER be a worthless attorney but is there? Of course. Are there doctors that should not be practicing? Of course. Should a wrongful conviction never happen and is one too many? OF COURSE. Should you judge ALL by that? Of course NOT. So you say one is too many and that should be the basis for all that should happen or be done or changed when probably millions of RIGHT convictions have went on?

Someone got killed by a semi. Now should that semi driver be off the road or ALL semis?

A child whose mom was not watching him drowned at a beach. Should that beach now be closed for good to all?

I know these are not perfect parallels or the same at all, just saying our system is weak enough and getting worse.

You know the one that keeps crossing my mind is Steven Avery. Exonerated and freed. And then he killed. I'm sure some think he was set up the second time and it was all some grand conspiracy.

I don't think much of our system and I beyond a lot of people have seen the sheer corruptness in even our local one over many years but thinking most these days carry it to such a serious point I have trouble buying or that it is common or most would go that far.

If proven guilty as you say and these states like yours refuse even then to release them or acknowledge it is not okay. I agree. Not an argument with that at all.

Anyhow there are TONS of variables in all of this. And I don't think there is a perfect, blanket answer to much in life. And while it is horrible if one person is wrongfully convicted, you can't do things based on that and ignore the 99 others of the 100 who deserved to be put away and were guilty where the system worked.

And it IS being brought out these days, things ARE changing. COPS etc. and judges don't dare (some still do I am sure but have to worry more) pull something that us public might latch onto and yell about and there goes their career, their reputation and more AND possibly face charges. It still goes on no doubt but not so much because it is not as easy and they could be ruined in a day with the internet and they are at a far greater risk. I don't think for one minute everyone crooked in Murdaugh has been called to task or charged. The Arbery case, do you notice the crooked DA comes up very rarely in fact it has been awhile and we should YELL about what the heck is going on with her MINOR charge? As you can see I am on the same page on a lot of things with you, just not all. I just don't think what we are talking of is the norm. By a long shot.

I could go on. Obviously right? These posts should be moved to the soft on crime thread. It is somewhat active and heated here and I think I am posts behind and it is Morphew. I did not realize either until Mel mentioned it so how did that happen?

 

[GrandmaBear]

But that is YOU. Do you realize how many people have no idea what that even means and their heads are already swimming because of being taken in and being questioned relentlessly before actually being arrested? To the point where everything being said to them is just wah-wah-wah like the teacher on Peanuts. I know what I would most likely do, but that is ME and I would have no clue that this actually happened to people if not for my interest in these cases. Most people do not have a clue. Most people believe they don't/can't lie to you. Most countries don't allow it for a reason.

Children may not know but every adult that is not challenged in some way knows what their rights are. Do they ever expect to be in such a situation? If innocent I'd say not. If guilty I'd hope they had a brain cell and could realize that could happen.

I intensely disliked the teacher on Peanuts by the way. Snoopy rocked. As did Woodstock. The rest of the crew is pretty messed up and their parents should come home and supervise their children.

We have had years now of crime shows every where one turns. I am talking FICTIONAL shows. Law and Order and we could all name tons more.

I disagree. Most people do not know how the process, system and court works and even what the standard filing is of various documents, unless the follow these kind of true crime things/sites BUT all know their basic rights or most all do. The crime shows fiction even show such. The MOST watched shows many of them.

What I notice more is the court process or filings. Many will think an affidavit is automatically fact. It is NOT. We have seen recently where some think a defense filing to the supreme court is fact and a ruling by the supreme court. Duh. Not to make fun but come on.

Who but the most simplest blocked from any kind of life do not know you have a right to an attorney? Or have to be read your rights? That anything you say can be used against you in a court of law? I learned that in grade school. Maybe it is the fault of the schools. Now there's another subject... But let's blame them now. And I've seen it in many as how from back in the day Perry Mason, Columbo, etc. to the now even more prolific law and order type shows. EVERYONE knows this short of the most sheltered or ignorant person. They may not know the criminal court process etc but they know this.

So no, I don't believe most don't know this. And since we are in the Morphew thread I will tie that in. Do you think Barry at his age did not know he did not have to talk to LE or could lawyer up? Really? Long before charges? Of course he knew. What 99.9 percent are doing is thinking they are smarter and can get out of it, sway the direction, etc.

It is my belief to this day that Barry never for a moment thought some housewife from nowhere Colorado would turn into big news. He never thought he wouldn't be believed or be able to point it in another direction right off and with his alibi and all. He never believed detectives from podunkville would do an investigation and he wasn't far wrong from the screw ups that first night. You know after all he is smarter than the average bear. cop, investigator, mountain lion, elk or anyone or anything. Or as Linda calls him Bear-Bear or is it Barr-Barr...

As far as other countries, most also don't do DP and won't extradite to here if the person is facing the DP. They are softer yet on crime. Unless you talk third world countries that still stone people and worse. That doesn't mean anything to me in citing the other countries. The soft bit is not soley on us OMG have you looked at sentences in other countries or how limited they are in their investigators being allowed tools to solve anything or charge?

Sorry @Tresir but yours is one of them. A year or two ago I was watching some British true crime series on like cold cases or like a forensic file, 48 hours or some such. Several. And I became absolutely disgusted that not only are they as bad as we have gotten but may have been so first with no life sentences for murder, light sentences, and no true sentencing (full real time served) and more. I'd listen to these horrific cases which I knew nothing about and at the end would be the sentence and I'd be like WHAT??

 

[GrandmaBear]

I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it though. They acknowledge they understand their rights. That's what is needed. Right to remain silent. Right to an attorney.

EVERY PERSON short of someone sheltered and raised in a cave KNOWS their rights. Agree.