Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Suzanne Morphew: Remains identified as missing Colorado mom | LiveNOW from FOX" video.

I just listened to two local media videos; one mentioned two bodies were found while they were searching for a different person; and one was hers. It also mention other missing people had been found here in the past. Now, I will ask the question is this the dumping ground for multiple murderers or is there a serial killer involved. Two bodies while looking for a third person, and bodies found there in the past raises that question.
7
First this guy assumes there is a murderer. Considering probable on animal scavaging (he finally mentioned though. The probability of biological evidence that could prove anything is very low, contamination and deterioration is likely. He is talking off the top of his head since he is hardly in a position toknow all the facts.
5
I just listened to another, more informative news video, and like I was worried about; animals had dug up the grave and scattered the bones hereby making it far more difficult to determine cause of death unless a stab wound or bullet hit a bone and that no animal marred the evidence. Evidence of strangulation will be difficult since the small bone involved will be difficult to locate and easily damaged by scavenging. Contamination of any DNA if any is found will be difficult. Also, he was charged and later the charges dropped without prejudice when an investigator for the state slipped up and mentioned that finger prints found in her car were tied to three sexual assaults. This is exculpatory evidence and the prosecutor's withheld it from the defense which is a Brady Violation which could have resulted in the case being dropped with prejudice. The prosecution dropping the charges allowed them to refill if the found actual evidence and protected them from ethical and possibly civil charges for violating his right to a fair trial. I forgot to add that no comment was made if her clothing was found. If it was, shooting or stabbing could be determined if not too damaged by animals, if they weren't found it would indicate an attempt to make identification harder, a murder scene somewhere else, and or sexual assault. What is available so far indicates that getting a conviction will be harder than you think. As I said, forensic expert or not opining without all the data is just repeating textbook data not case facts. While not the same, I was taught how to look at very old aircraft crash sites for remains, since we were responsible for initial reconnaissance into scenes from smoking debris to crashes decades old. So, while no expert, I do have some knowledge of the difficulties.
3
@tlindsay1007 A grave would indicate murder in today's society. So, i stand corrected if there was a grave murder is the most likely.
2
@makaimaukahasopinions848 If you are referring to my post, I was pointing out that he is not the forensic expert working the case and would not have access to all the details unless someone broke protocol, and nothing that he said supports that. Most of his comments fall in the realm of maybe and possibly. Contamination can be from bacteria in the soil, and a small (possibly shallow) grave doesn't preclude scavenging. Scavenging is possible if a grave was dug, because something had to disrupt it enough for it to be found, and again once exposed, contamination is possible. Finally, was the person killed on scene inn or was the person killed elsewhere and buried there. In either case was the clothing on the body, buried with the body or removed and disposed of elsewhere; something which was not commented on in the video. My point isn't to impune his ability, but to rather point out that most of what he said (and he did include some conditional statements) could come out of a textbook. Nothing said incorrectly, just without first hand knowledge and if he had that he won't have given that interview while the investigation was going on unless either the defense or victims family had gone for a second opinion. Look at past cases.
1
@galaxia4709 Unless something hit a bone it is unlikely a stabbing, or missile wound will leave a trace on a body scavenged by animals which had distributed bone over a large area. Her body had been dug up and scavenged by animals. Those will also leave some markings on the bones, so it would have to be determined if the markings are more than animal teeth marks. Rumors abound in cases like this, the police are holding facts close so far, and we need to be careful of rumors that support beliefs based on a person's appearance or behavior. Remember besides her husband's DNA or figure prints in her vehicle, and those tied to three sexual assaults, her lovers were found there. Yes, this poor victim of spousal abuse was cheating on her husband. Whose to say that one or the other tried to break the affair and it led to violence. So, three very different but equally lethal scenarios. Angry and abusive husband, some form of lovers quarrel, and a sexual assault/murder, you are supposed to act as a jurist with an open mind. If you set aside personal biases, do they have any evidence that proves beyond a doubt which is true. So far, I haven't heard of anything that supports any of these.
1
@lynnhexler-haan3357 i know, if you read my posts I said unless the stab wound or missile woundvhits a bone there will be no trace given the condition of the remains, scavenged and scattered by animal which would make bone damage from a weapon or projectile harder to determine.
1
@Breezy-bv9te Iinitial reports didn't mention grave, and by the way there was no body found, scattered and scavenged bones. The grave had been dug up by animals. So once it was clear that there was a grave murder is a valid assumption.
1
@beverlythurston7160 You missed my point, the original post that I was commenting on was before a grave was mentioned. So yes, a grave indicates a murder; but it does name a killer, no much how much you would like it.
1