CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #15 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone else think they have a problem?

I have a pile of gifts to wrap, recipes to make, a house to clean, and yet here I am.

Crime Solvers Anonymous : "Hi...I go by the name tictoc...I am a Crime Head...my last true crime show was in the last 12 hours..." o_O

Truth is, while I learn so much from all you caring sleuths, I for one really need to wait for the missing pieces to come out. Happy holidays everyone.
 
Ultra Violet said:
I will happily volunteer this morning. I cannot be the only one craving these 24/7 lately. Although, hurry and take one, there are never leftovers at my house. :)

HAPPY SUNDAY! Hugs to Kelsey and her family. <3

img4l.jpg
Click to expand...


You feed us and you'll never get rid of us. You know that, right?

And...these look delish! :)

jmo
 
esayer said:
Why would she pay the father of the child to look after her?
Click to expand...

In ordinary circumstances she would not. But in context of the discussion another poster and I were having that PF was OVER both KB and the baby and not emotionally involved, I had to ask myself WHY he was devoting so much time to childcare.

She seems to have worked as much as 12-hour days, plus had a long commute, maybe another couple of hours.

He's a rancher, outdoorsman.

Either he really, really loves his child or if he's as selfish as many appear to think, then he would not be caring for a baby with KB's schedule. He'd be insisting that she find childcare.

Consideration of PF's financial needs suggested it. Again, it was just one part of a discussion.

Either he was OVER both the mother and baby and therefore had some good reason for providing the child care (lots of other fathers would balk at that kind of time. There's no way my husband would have watched our son those hours.) Or he genuinely loves the baby and this was about custody.

Or something else not yet considered .. .

Doesn't his expenditure of such long hours of childcare make you wonder?
 
CuriousCricket said:
In ordinary circumstances she would not. But in context of the discussion another poster and I were having that PF was OVER both KB and the baby and not emotionally involved, I had to ask myself WHY he was devoting so much time to childcare.

She seems to have worked as much as 12-hour days, plus had a long commute, maybe another couple of hours.

He's a rancher, outdoorsman.

Either he really, really loves his child or if he's as selfish as many appear to think, then he would not be caring for a baby with KB's schedule. He'd be insisting that she find childcare.

Consideration of PF's financial needs suggested it. Again, it was just one part of a discussion.

Either he was OVER both the mother and baby and therefore had some good reason for providing the child care (lots of other fathers would balk at that kind of time. There's no way my husband would have watched our son those hours.) Or he genuinely loves the baby and this was about custody.

Or something else not yet considered .. .

Doesn't his expenditure of such long hours of childcare make you wonder?
Click to expand...
No. As many have said he didn't have much money, he lived with his mom, he probably had her taking K***** when he wasn't there and insisted they have K***** and not childcare in order to save money. IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am still going with 'custody battle' as the main motive. Until I know for sure that he was on the birth certificate, I think he was worried about her moving back home, and taking 'his' child. JMO

If he was not on the BC, and they never lived together, then I don't think he would have been able to stop her from moving.
 
Last edited:
CuriousCricket said:
In ordinary circumstances she would not. But in context of the discussion another poster and I were having that PF was OVER both KB and the baby and not emotionally involved, I had to ask myself WHY he was devoting so much time to childcare.

She seems to have worked as much as 12-hour days, plus had a long commute, maybe another couple of hours.

He's a rancher, outdoorsman.

Either he really, really loves his child or if he's as selfish as many appear to think, then he would not be caring for a baby with KB's schedule. He'd be insisting that she find childcare.

Consideration of PF's financial needs suggested it. Again, it was just one part of a discussion.

Either he was OVER both the mother and baby and therefore had some good reason for providing the child care (lots of other fathers would balk at that kind of time. There's no way my husband would have watched our son those hours.) Or he genuinely loves the baby and this was about custody.

Or something else not yet considered .. .

Doesn't his expenditure of such long hours of childcare make you wonder?
Click to expand...

My hunch is that he wasn't the one watching the baby the entire time. I think his mom provided much of the care, especially when the baby was younger and easier to keep track of (before walking and crawling). My other hunch is that he spent a bit of time on the home property - taking care of the animals and such, while going in and out of the house quite a bit during the day.

So he was caring for her, but tag-teaming it with his mom (who I suspect did the bulk of the cooking, feeding, cleaning, etc that is involved with childcare). I do think he was active in baby care, but probably not doing 100% of the work while Kelsey worked.

It's possible they paid the mom for her help, but unknown.

I think he figured they could carry on that mother-son childcare arrangement without Kelsey. My gut tells me Kelsey didn't fit in with his family - just speculation. There might have been some tension/judgement about her being away so many hours and maybe there was the attitude that the baby was more "theirs" than "hers" because of the hours they spent with baby without mommy around. (Not saying this is the right attitude - I'm speculating it might be their attitude.)

I think all that is a contributing factor to the murder, not primary motive.

For now, I think she was just someone he wanted gone and she would never be gone (because they share a child) unless she were dead. I don't think he wanted to break up, but rather, he wanted no further trace of her in his life. I think he's that cold.

jmo at the moment
 
I wish I wasn't typing this...
I wonder if the evidence that was found at KB's home had to do with things found in the plumbing.
Clearly, this is MOO, but I think the possibility of dismemberment is all to realistic.
I haven't been able to read every post, so sorry if I have missed some information, but upon reading about LE checking the septic tank, makes me wonder even more.
 
Hatfield said:
The distance from a home to a septic tank will vary though depending on how old the tank is and who put it in the ground and hooked it up. Mine is about 15 feet out from the wall of the house. Mine is an older home and an older tank. Mine is solid concrete with a concrete lid that has an opening that is definitely large enough to squeeze a smaller person down through the hole.

I mentioned before that I get scared driving the rider mower over it now after I learned how big the opening was. LOL.
Click to expand...
Ours would hold a riding lawnmower too! The lid is really thick concrete.
They didn't bury it deep enough when the house was built and the bottom of it cracked, so we replaced it with a much bigger one, since we had the opportunity. I think it's about 4ft deep itself and buried maybe 2 ft below the yard surface.
It's 25 years old.
I'm still upset because of the leech field in the backyard we can't have an inground pool.

From the pictures I saw I was not sure how deep they actually dug.

If a cadaver dog did alert to that area, then that would explain why they are certain she is dead.

I also wondered if that was a place where he buried his dogs. All of ours were buried close to each other, but, when the last one died we could not remember exactly where they were so, since he was a larger dog, we have a new pet cemetery.
Anyway, he'd be stupid to bury her on that property or along with any pets, but, as we've seen he is not the brightest crayon in the box!
Moo
 
Reading between the lines, what this suggests to me is that police know who helped PF with the murder, and they have collected evidence in the area of the cell phone ping that could lead to another arrest soon.

"Federal agents and local law enforcement officials in Twin Falls, Idaho, have served several search warrants and “processed some items of evidence” related to the disappearance of Woodland Park mother Kelsey Berreth, Twin Falls police said in a statement."​

Possible evidence in Kelsey Berreth investigation found in Idaho
 
kettle1 said:
Didn't look like the baby was dressed warmly enough either in some of those pictures. Do you think her dad had enough clothes for her? Maybe he was going back and forth between his place and Kelsey's using the clothes as a reason for going in to the house.
Click to expand...
You're right, I should have said the baby's poor BARE, thin arms
and legs. If I recall daddy had a warm jacket and hat on and poor baby looked so underdressed.
 
Possible motive:
Perhaps KB was dating other people.
PF, being the primary caregiver during the week, might not have been able to handle the fact that KB would have the baby on the weekends and possibly bring the baby around a new boyfriend.

Perhaps PF was a jealous man that couldn’t take the fact that KB could spend time on weekends with the baby and a new boyfriend and saddle PF with the baby all week while she enjoyed her successful career.

A man that plotted his wife’s murder (and a gruesome one) doesn’t seem like he’d be loving enough to care about a one year old baby. He deprived the baby of his mother and now, of himself, due to his own selfishness, jealousy, and possible sociopathy.

I agree with MassGuy’s theory that he dismembered her. I also believe LE knows she is dead from discovering her blood via using luminol in her home.

PF seemed like an ANGRY man. Telling reporters “Get off my property!” and STEWING in the car while a reporter questioned him at the window. PF couldn’t put on “a good show” of concern for his missing wife. He hated KB enough that he was happy to sacrifice his reputation by appearing as an arrogant jerk in the public eye.

He hated KB so much that he didn’t care that his demeanor caused LE to be even more suspicious of him.

IMO, He hated her enough to likely spill her blood all over the home and possibly slaughter her like cattle (my theory only).

I think he is a true sociopath.

I do not wish good things for PF and Monster Watts in prison.
 
Last edited:
Inthedetails said:
Knowing what evidence was found in Twin Falls would be so helpful! I wish they'd release that info soon.

jmo
Click to expand...

We know that the phone was in the Twin Falls area on November 25. We know that police did not find evidence by chance, but instead had search warrants. We know that the evidence they collected is related to her murder.

I think there's a good chance that they found the phone, and possibly more evidence that places the occupant of the place that was searched near Kelsey's home on Thanksgiving.
 
otto said:
Reading between the lines, what this suggests to me is that police know who helped PF with the murder, and they have collected evidence in the area of the cell phone ping that could lead to another arrest soon.

"Federal agents and local law enforcement officials in Twin Falls, Idaho, have served several search warrants and “processed some items of evidence” related to the disappearance of Woodland Park mother Kelsey Berreth, Twin Falls police said in a statement."​

Possible evidence in Kelsey Berreth investigation found in Idaho
Click to expand...

JMO
I totally agree because this part "have served several search warrants" indicates that LE went to someone's house.

At least that is the way I interpret it. Like "serving" papers to someone that is present.
 
CuriousCricket said:
In ordinary circumstances she would not. But in context of the discussion another poster and I were having that PF was OVER both KB and the baby and not emotionally involved, I had to ask myself WHY he was devoting so much time to childcare.

She seems to have worked as much as 12-hour days, plus had a long commute, maybe another couple of hours.

He's a rancher, outdoorsman.

Either he really, really loves his child or if he's as selfish as many appear to think, then he would not be caring for a baby with KB's schedule. He'd be insisting that she find childcare.

Consideration of PF's financial needs suggested it. Again, it was just one part of a discussion.

Either he was OVER both the mother and baby and therefore had some good reason for providing the child care (lots of other fathers would balk at that kind of time. There's no way my husband would have watched our son those hours.) Or he genuinely loves the baby and this was about custody.

Or something else not yet considered .. .

Doesn't his expenditure of such long hours of childcare make you wonder?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t make me wonder. Would the expenditure of long hours make you wonder if KB was the primary caregiver? Remember, most people are two income families today.

KB made more money than him and had a successful career.

PF did not work nearly enough as KB, thus, it only made sense for him and his mother to watch the baby.

PF and KB probably chose this arrangement over paying for childcare.

When two people are working full time, child care is mostly done by a nanny, daycare, or a grandparent.

Most people are two income families today.

PF probably tasked his mother with the bulk of the baby’s care.

Also, I believe the reason why neighbors assumed PF lived with KB is because he probably brought the baby over during the week on evenings and spent time with KB.

It’s possible KB wanted to move closer to her family and have her mother watch the baby during the day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 247 more.
Total: 2,344 (members: 248, guests: 2,096)

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
2,096
Total visitors
2,344
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,624
Messages
18,097,545
Members
230,890
Latest member
1070
Back
Top