CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #52 *ARREST*

[MassGuy]

I agree that she deserves to do some real time for her heinous crimes. However, IMHO, the State will be getting some extremely powerful testimony in exchange for her reduced sentence - ETA and felony charge.

Oh, I think the deal is absolutely necessary.

I’m just comparing the punishments.

 

[SandyQLS]

So the FBI expert got it wrong, the investigators who saw this information got it wrong, the defense missed it at the probable cause hearing, the expert consulted by the media got it wrong, and you have it right.

Got it.

This is one specific period of time over two days. If there is an error there, big deal.

There’s a mountain of digital data that shows that Kelsey and PF’s phones were together over that two day period.

The ghost of Kelsey was not hovering around with her cell phone, in close proximity to PF’s phone.

To believe that this is some sort of coincidence, is inherently illogical.

PF lied about when he last saw Kelsey.

When he left that house, her phone immediately began doing all sorts of bizarre things, things that continued over the next two days.

Their phones left her house at the same time.

Dead people don’t send texts.

Dead people don’t make phone calls.

Her phone should have been no where near his, and certainly not interacting with the same tower.

It was though. Because PF bashed Kelsey’s face in, and tried to fool everyone.

I’m not fooled.

<modsnip >
iirc the Defense only received 3300 pages of discovery the morning of the Prelim so I doubt they had time to analyze the information. My post is not some secret and anyone who can use Google maps can come to their own conclusion. <modsnip>

As for the FBI and investigators on the case, they never mentioned rate of travel for that specific graphic and text or anywhere else regarding cell tower information 11/22-11/24. I am quite certain that the FBI, CBI et al are very aware of their included content as well as their omitted content in the SWs, and would learn nothing new from me. For various data sets in the SWs, time of RTT hit(s), distance to tower for RTT hits(s), and even whole cell towers are omitted as @Dave F. pointed out above. For example, the SW's include graphic(s) with arc band(s) that relate to the South Mountain Tower, yet that tower is not shown in the graphic(s), and not mentioned in the text, nor is a distance to tower provided. Everyone who has actually looked at the graphics and read the SWs knows this and knows exactly which arc band(s) are involved in that glaring omission. <modsnip - rude>

You claim that "there’s a mountain of digital data that shows that Kelsey and PF’s phones were together over that two day period" and I disagree entirely.
<modsnip - rude to another poster>
IMO what was produced in the SWs for 11/22-11/24 to support the DA's contention that PF and KB phones were together is a complete backfire that shows the phones were most likely not together, in all instances shown.

Just MOO

 

[MassGuy]

<modsnip>iirc the Defense only received 3300 pages of discovery the morning of the Prelim so I doubt they had time to analyze the information. My post is not some secret and anyone who can use Google maps can come to their own conclusion. I see you continue to have no actual input on that 90mph rate of travel.

As for the FBI and investigators on the case, they never mentioned rate of travel for that specific graphic and text or anywhere else regarding cell tower information 11/22-11/24. I am quite certain that the FBI, CBI et al are very aware of their included content as well as their omitted content in the SWs, and would learn nothing new from me. For various data sets in the SWs, time of RTT hit(s), distance to tower for RTT hits(s), and even whole cell towers are omitted as @Dave F. pointed out above. For example, the SW's include graphic(s) with arc band(s) that relate to the South Mountain Tower, yet that tower is not shown in the graphic(s), and not mentioned in the text, nor is a distance to tower provided. Everyone who has actually looked at the graphics and read the SWs knows this and knows exactly which arc band(s) are involved in that glaring omission. <modsnip>

You claim that "there’s a mountain of digital data that shows that Kelsey and PF’s phones were together over that two day period" and I disagree entirely. <modsnip> IMO what was produced in the SWs for 11/22-11/24 to support the DA's contention that PF and KB phones were together is a complete backfire that shows the phones were most likely not together, in all instances shown.

Just MOO

That’s right! I forgot how many pages there were.

One might call that... dare I say, “a mountain?”

I’m going to go out in a limb, and say that those aren’t blank pages.

Repeated documented lies aren’t meaningless.

Text messages and phone calls with a dead woman, are not meaningless.

Material witness statements, corroborated by physical evidence, are not meaningless.

Blood in Kelsey’s house, is not meaningless.

Kelsey’s phone traveling from her house at the same time as PF’s, is not meaningless.

Come up with a plausible explanation to refute any one of those things, you still have to deal with the rest.

Hell, the greatest lawyer of all time, Vinny Gambini couldn’t win this one.

He did defend two innocent men though, so there’s that.

It was also a movie, so there’s that as well.

But still.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Sandy, Dave and MassGuy,
Admittedly I know nothing about cell phone pings and ranges and such. I’m open to all discussion.

But here’s the thing. Aside from what the prosecution or defense can theorize at trial, who is the one person in all this that ties all the players together? PF.

Yes, KK gave a statement that she was in on the murder from the beginning and got a sweetheart deal. Yes PF was supposedly a lover to KB and KK. Yes both are well known and connected financially to the CO communities of Florissant and CO Springs and Denver.

You can look at what RS said and did. You can listen to the Cline interview. You can theorize about the phones and whether KB was shot or beat and burned. Fact is, she is dead.

And one person connects the events and people together. How does the defense get around that?

Just open for ideas. Cause if not PF, then who helped KK?

 

[Love Never Fails]

RSBMFF

Synchronization, internal device programming and applications have absolutely nothing to do with the material presented in the SW. Either you know and understand this, which makes your post far worse than disingenuous, or you don't understand what you're posting. Seriously, it's difficult to be polite in the face of such obvious falsehood. Verizon provided both the timestamps and the distances to tower, and yes it IS that simple, and these are facts presented to the Court.

Sandy, I love hearing your ideas. But to say it’s difficult to be polite....
I mean, come on. No one is trying to give false statements. I know nothing about phone pings but I am learning. So be nice. Help me here.

 

[Love Never Fails]

That’s right! I forgot how many pages there were.

One might call that... dare I say, “a mountain?”

I’m going to go out in a limb, and say that those aren’t blank pages.

Repeated documented lies aren’t meaningless.

Text messages and phone calls with a dead woman, are not meaningless.

Material witness statements, corroborated by physical evidence, are not meaningless.

Blood in Kelsey’s house, is not meaningless.

Kelsey’s phone traveling from her house at the same time as PF’s, is not meaningless.

Come up with a plausible explanation to refute any one of those things, you still have to deal with the rest.

Hell, the greatest lawyer of all time, Vinny Gambini couldn’t win this one.

He did defend two innocent men though, so there’s that.

It was also a movie, so there’s that as well.

But still.

It’s that blood evidence that police missed, dare I say twice, that puzzles me and then you have KKs statement. Which could be all lies. But you have to ask why? Apparently blood was eventually found. Did someone return and put it there? Why would KK throw PF under the bus or vice versa? So many questions. And I just wish you could hash it all out at trial. I fear a lot of evidence will be inadmissible because of friends in high places. Color me jaded.

 

[GordianKnot]

JMHO, and y'all feel free to respectfully disagree with me, but I would not consider having a very serious felony charge on my record for the rest of my life a "sweetie beauty deal". But that's me. MOO

Well, obviously, since I'm the one who first characterized it as being a
"sweetie beauty of a deal," I'm going to very respectfully disagree.

Given what we know so far with regard to both KK's actions and inactions related to KB's murder, she's certainly deserving of much, much harsher punishment than simply the inability to pass a background check, which is all a felony record will mean in practical terms.

Let's review just a few of KK's actions:

• KK failed to report to either LE or to KB PF's multiple attempts to solicit her to kill KB.
• KK rolled up her sleeves, applied elbow grease, and cleaned up the bloody crime scene.
• KK stood warming herself in front of the bonfire during the burning of KB's body.
• KK destroyed and/or disposed of multiple pieces of evidence, including KB's phone, purse, keys, etc.
• KK initially lied to LE when they first interviewed her.

KK got a deal from the DA primarily for 2 reasons:
1) She had valuable info LE didn't know r/t the murder and helped lead them to evidence.
2) The prosecution needs her witness testimony in court to help secure a conviction.

DA May made the calculation that he needed both KK's intimate knowledge of the crime and her testimony to help build the case against PF, so he was willing to play, "Let's Make A Deal" with KK's attorney.

All that matters at this point is that PF goes away forever. That's the necessary outcome.
If KK proves to be instrumental in that happening, I'd argue the deal was worth it.

But I'm not going to pretend this deal has any real teeth in it from the DA's end.
Walking away with nothing more than a felony conviction and maybe some crummy probation in light of what KK knew, and what she did, is far less than a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.

It's a wrist massage.

A real sweetie beauty of a wrist massage, in fact.

JMO.

 

[Dave F.]

For the first time in weeks, there has been vigorous, but healthy dialogue being posted on this thread. The cdiscussion has been heated, but has not had the nasty tone that was prevalent in previous weeks........that's good! The thread hasn't been shut down for cleanup yet.......that's great!
Now, it is my understanding that the Verizon system, in general, sends out a blanket signal periodically, which could be compared to broadcasting "I'm here, if anybody needs me." Let's say that the person in possession of KB's phone wants to know what time it is, and doesn't wear a watch because they can always check the time on their phone. So they swipe KB's phone to see the time. The phone wakes up, and broadcasts a message similar to " This is KB's phone. I just woke up and have no idea where I am. Is there a tower available for me to hook up with?" Then a tower answers, with a message something like "Welcome KB's phone, I hear you, and am locking you in on my northeast facing antenna. It's going to take me exactly sixty seconds to do the busy work, during which time you will get those mysterious dropped calls and dead air that are so fristrating, then you're good to go for the next six hours. If I lose you before then, or you wander on over into the field of my other antennae, I'll ping you again, and there will be that darn one minute period again before you can continue." In reading through LE's data, you can pretty well identify the pings that are of this "sign on" type.
Again, it is only my understanding, but the Verizon system will also go through this process when the phone attempts to make a call from a spot that has very weak reception. For example, if you walk in a WalMart super store, they have a small circle of jammed cellular waves centered on the cell phone sales desk back in electronics. Only the vendor that pays to set up a kiosk near that sales desk can co nnect to anything. I can't remember who that is, but it's not Verizon. When a person starts circling the checkstand area trying to decide whether to wait for a real checker or risk the self-check, the phone may appear to the Verizon tower to be just entering it's space, and initiate a ping. If the phone user actually tries to make a call, the ping will be initiated and the call will not go through during that sixty seconds of ping terror.
With that explained, the best way to describe a Verizon ping is........"It's a ping, they don't get fancy on Verizon. Take it for what it is."
So.....in examing the data a few things are true, that were not explained well by LE:

First, the pings can be measured in distance from the tower up to the hundred of a mile, or 52.6 feet. A car motoring along at 60 mph has a rate of travel of a mile a minute, or 88 feet per second. so if two phones are traveling along in a shoebox, and one tries to call the other, we would most likely see the calling phone ping the tower, and then the called phone pinging. at 60 mph, every minute of time lapse between the first ping and the second would represent a mile of travel in the shoebox. When the distance is given in hundreths of a mile, and the time is stated in seconds, the position and rate of travel can be calculated to a very fine margin of error.
2. Second, if you examine the final diagram, on Page 19 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, you will see that there are a whole lot more ping rings than the other ten diagrams have. There are at least 28, but could be 33. If you have looked up the drive from KB's house to the Walmart parking lot in Jerome, and on to the Malad Canyon overlook, it's a whole lot of not much. In my opinion, that countryside resembles BFE just as much, if not more, than the drive from Woodland Park to Nash ranch barn. Those minimum 28 pings were logged in just 3 hours and 17 minutes on November 25, 2018. There are pings from five separate towers, 3 of which are Verizon, and one each of other providers. The data a phenomenally accurate. LE admits they do not have that kind of normal data for the six diagrams that are provided to show the two phones traveling together. In fact, when they show three pings, the data is only 3/28ths, or 11% of what data is commonly produced.
3. Tower to phone distances are not directional. which is why they are represented on the map as arcs. What that arc represents is literally that distance from the tower antenna drawn as a complete circle and then trimmed back to the edges of a directional coverage. It is an absolute fact that the phone has to be located somewhere along that arc at the time stated. The second phone, pinging at the later time, is the second arc. If two phones are traveling together in shoebox and both are swiped awake at the same time, the chart could very well end up having only one arc, because they would both be in the same distance from the same tower. In reality, that would be extremely rare. The odds are than being in a moving vehicle and minor difference between two cell phones and hitting two slightly diffferent spots on the smae antenna, or even a bird flying through the line of distance of one and not the other, would throw that slightly off and the phone's would be a minite, or two minutes, apart. TGhere would be two concentric rings, trimmed to two parallel arcs on the diagram. LE's statement that two arcs intersecting on one towers vicinity is where the two phones were when they pinged is a false assumption. It is possible that it COULD BE CORRECT when one phone is poinging off one tower, and the other is pinging off a second tower; but that isn''t a conclusion. The point at which two arcs intersect, would only be one of hundreds of possibile locations along either arc.
4. LE's premise, in all diagrams, is that the phones are moving in a vehicle, which travel on roads, which are very definite lines on a map. Where a road that the phone might reasonably have been expected to travel on, and a ping arc intersect, id the lost likely, of the hundreds of possible spots along the arc, where that phone was. In Sandy's calculation, there is only one road that instersects the arcs, which is Highway 24. the point at which eaxch phone arc crosses Hwy 24 is where that phone was at that moment.
If the same phone rings twice, then the distance between the two places where the arcs cross Hwy 24 represent where phone was, and where the phone was again, later. The difference in time can be used to calculate the rate of travel, and the direction of trhe direction of travel can be affirmed by simply following the path down Hwy 24 from A to B.
LE did that, and determined that PF's phone was traveling from the direction of Woodland Park, IN THE DIRECTION of his ranchette. It is impossible to say that for KB's phone, because they only have one ping arc to intersect Highway 24 with. Calculating the speed and distance in which it does nothing is impossible. Calculating anything for KB's phone is impossible, except that the ping proves the phone was on Highway 24 at the place where the arc crosses at the time stated.

LE states that the two phones had to be moving in the same direction, but have no proof at all to back it up. So, what happens if you just look at the ativity of PF's phone? It shows him leaving Woodland Park and driving about the speed limit for the entire trip, and stopping at his front gate while he attempted to call KKL and it was dropped. Why was tghe call dropped? It couldn't have been for poor coverage, because that's where the lawmen searching his place staged all of their calls from. KKL must have had her phone turned off, wherever she was.

Back to KB's phone, SandyQLS said PF would have had to have been traveling 90 mph, which is impossible on that stretch of road. I said I agreed, and further stated that KB's phone could just have likely been moving in the opposite direction, back towards Woodland Park. That's just simple logic. It had to be coming or going. There's only two lanes on the highway. It was 50-50 odds, until SandyQLS showed us that one was impossible.
So, I admit I was a bit vague in stating my opinion, which is that that KB's phone was moving in the opposite direction of PF's.
IMO
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...erest/2018CR330/002/18-118 Search Warrant.pdf

 

[Tippy Lynn]

For the first time in weeks, there has been vigorous, but healthy dialogue being posted on this thread. The cdiscussion has been heated, but has not had the nasty tone that was prevalent in previous weeks........that's good! The thread hasn't been shut down for cleanup yet.......that's great!
Now, it is my understanding that the Verizon system, in general, sends out a blanket signal periodically, which could be compared to broadcasting "I'm here, if anybody needs me." Let's say that the person in possession of KB's phone wants to know what time it is, and doesn't wear a watch because they can always check the time on their phone. So they swipe KB's phone to see the time. The phone wakes up, and broadcasts a message similar to " This is KB's phone. I just woke up and have no idea where I am. Is there a tower available for me to hook up with?" Then a tower answers, with a message something like "Welcome KB's phone, I hear you, and am locking you in on my northeast facing antenna. It's going to take me exactly sixty seconds to do the busy work, during which time you will get those mysterious dropped calls and dead air that are so fristrating, then you're good to go for the next six hours. If I lose you before then, or you wander on over into the field of my other antennae, I'll ping you again, and there will be that darn one minute period again before you can continue." In reading through LE's data, you can pretty well identify the pings that are of this "sign on" type.
Again, it is only my understanding, but the Verizon system will also go through this process when the phone attempts to make a call from a spot that has very weak reception. For example, if you walk in a WalMart super store, they have a small circle of jammed cellular waves centered on the cell phone sales desk back in electronics. Only the vendor that pays to set up a kiosk near that sales desk can co nnect to anything. I can't remember who that is, but it's not Verizon. When a person starts circling the checkstand area trying to decide whether to wait for a real checker or risk the self-check, the phone may appear to the Verizon tower to be just entering it's space, and initiate a ping. If the phone user actually tries to make a call, the ping will be initiated and the call will not go through during that sixty seconds of ping terror.
With that explained, the best way to describe a Verizon ping is........"It's a ping, they don't get fancy on Verizon. Take it for what it is."
So.....in examing the data a few things are true, that were not explained well by LE:

First, the pings can be measured in distance from the tower up to the hundred of a mile, or 52.6 feet. A car motoring along at 60 mph has a rate of travel of a mile a minute, or 88 feet per second. so if two phones are traveling along in a shoebox, and one tries to call the other, we would most likely see the calling phone ping the tower, and then the called phone pinging. at 60 mph, every minute of time lapse between the first ping and the second would represent a mile of travel in the shoebox. When the distance is given in hundreths of a mile, and the time is stated in seconds, the position and rate of travel can be calculated to a very fine margin of error.
2. Second, if you examine the final diagram, on Page 19 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, you will see that there are a whole lot more ping rings than the other ten diagrams have. There are at least 28, but could be 33. If you have looked up the drive from KB's house to the Walmart parking lot in Jerome, and on to the Malad Canyon overlook, it's a whole lot of not much. In my opinion, that countryside resembles BFE just as much, if not more, than the drive from Woodland Park to Nash ranch barn. Those minimum 28 pings were logged in just 3 hours and 17 minutes on November 25, 2018. There are pings from five separate towers, 3 of which are Verizon, and one each of other providers. The data a phenomenally accurate. LE admits they do not have that kind of normal data for the six diagrams that are provided to show the two phones traveling together. In fact, when they show three pings, the data is only 3/28ths, or 11% of what data is commonly produced.
3. Tower to phone distances are not directional. which is why they are represented on the map as arcs. What that arc represents is literally that distance from the tower antenna drawn as a complete circle and then trimmed back to the edges of a directional coverage. It is an absolute fact that the phone has to be located somewhere along that arc at the time stated. The second phone, pinging at the later time, is the second arc. If two phones are traveling together in shoebox and both are swiped awake at the same time, the chart could very well end up having only one arc, because they would both be in the same distance from the same tower. In reality, that would be extremely rare. The odds are than being in a moving vehicle and minor difference between two cell phones and hitting two slightly diffferent spots on the smae antenna, or even a bird flying through the line of distance of one and not the other, would throw that slightly off and the phone's would be a minite, or two minutes, apart. TGhere would be two concentric rings, trimmed to two parallel arcs on the diagram. LE's statement that two arcs intersecting on one towers vicinity is where the two phones were when they pinged is a false assumption. It is possible that it COULD BE CORRECT when one phone is poinging off one tower, and the other is pinging off a second tower; but that isn''t a conclusion. The point at which two arcs intersect, would only be one of hundreds of possibile locations along either arc.
4. LE's premise, in all diagrams, is that the phones are moving in a vehicle, which travel on roads, which are very definite lines on a map. Where a road that the phone might reasonably have been expected to travel on, and a ping arc intersect, id the lost likely, of the hundreds of possible spots along the arc, where that phone was. In Sandy's calculation, there is only one road that instersects the arcs, which is Highway 24. the point at which eaxch phone arc crosses Hwy 24 is where that phone was at that moment.
If the same phone rings twice, then the distance between the two places where the arcs cross Hwy 24 represent where phone was, and where the phone was again, later. The difference in time can be used to calculate the rate of travel, and the direction of trhe direction of travel can be affirmed by simply following the path down Hwy 24 from A to B.
LE did that, and determined that PF's phone was traveling from the direction of Woodland Park, IN THE DIRECTION of his ranchette. It is impossible to say that for KB's phone, because they only have one ping arc to intersect Highway 24 with. Calculating the speed and distance in which it does nothing is impossible. Calculating anything for KB's phone is impossible, except that the ping proves the phone was on Highway 24 at the place where the arc crosses at the time stated.

LE states that the two phones had to be moving in the same direction, but have no proof at all to back it up. So, what happens if you just look at the ativity of PF's phone? It shows him leaving Woodland Park and driving about the speed limit for the entire trip, and stopping at his front gate while he attempted to call KKL and it was dropped. Why was tghe call dropped? It couldn't have been for poor coverage, because that's where the lawmen searching his place staged all of their calls from. KKL must have had her phone turned off, wherever she was.

Back to KB's phone, SandyQLS said PF would have had to have been traveling 90 mph, which is impossible on that stretch of road. I said I agreed, and further stated that KB's phone could just have likely been moving in the opposite direction, back towards Woodland Park. That's just simple logic. It had to be coming or going. There's only two lanes on the highway. It was 50-50 odds, until SandyQLS showed us that one was impossible.
So, I admit I was a bit vague in stating my opinion, which is that that KB's phone was moving in the opposite direction of PF's.
IMO
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2018CR330/002/18-118 Search Warrant.pdf

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this so well. It really helps to understand when you include the actual case details.
Great post.

ETA - If this is true and someone else had KB’s phone. Do you know if another cell phone was in the area or who had possession of KB’s phone during this time?

 

[Irmese]

The cell phone data by itself doesn't prove everything, but it was the key to tracking down KK and showing that PF was lying. IMO, it ties the case together. I think there are still things about the case and the cell phone data that we don't know. I'm not worried about discrepancies in the cell phone record at this point because I think it will be explained. That might mean one of PF's buddies carried her phone. It might mean the data doesn't accurately show exactly where both phones were. Here are some things we know: KB is dead, so she wasn't driving around with her phone, PF lied to LE and CB about his relationship with KB after KB was killed, PF lied to his friends about KB for months before KB was killed, PF tried to mislead LE and CB into believing KB had left or killed herself. Then there are bits of video, KB's convos with her mom, KK's story, and finally, CB and CB2 finding blood evidence. All of this is pretty circumstantial, but there is some forensic evidence to prove KB is dead, and she didn't dispose of her own body. Neither the circumstantial evidence nor the forensic evidence alone would be enough, but when they support each other and then you have their cell phones close to each other after she's dead, it certainly looks like her phone shouldn't have been within 1.2 miles of his. Most convicted murderers aren't seen committing the crime, but the evidence leads to their conviction.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

The cell phone data by itself doesn't prove everything, but it was the key to tracking down KK and showing that PF was lying. IMO, it ties the case together. I think there are still things about the case and the cell phone data that we don't know. I'm not worried about discrepancies in the cell phone record at this point because I think it will be explained. That might mean one of PF's buddies carried her phone. It might mean the data doesn't accurately show exactly where both phones were. Here are some things we know: KB is dead, so she wasn't driving around with her phone, PF lied to LE and CB about his relationship with KB after KB was killed, PF lied to his friends about KB for months before KB was killed, PF tried to mislead LE and CB into believing KB had left or killed herself. Then there are bits of video, KB's convos with her mom, KK's story, and finally, CB and CB2 finding blood evidence. All of this is pretty circumstantial, but there is some forensic evidence to prove KB is dead, and she didn't dispose of her own body. Neither the circumstantial evidence nor the forensic evidence alone would be enough, but when they support each other and then you have their cell phones close to each other after she's dead, it certainly looks like her phone shouldn't have been within 1.2 miles of his.

Even if PF didn’t have KB’s phone at this time it doesn’t mean he didn’t kill her. However, the cell phone data is still extremely important. IF (and that’s a huge if) someone else actually killed KB or if someone else was involved they need to be held responsible.
jmo

 

[Dave F.]

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this so well. It really helps to understand when you include the actual case details.
Great post.

ETA - If this is true and someone else had KB’s phone. Do you know if another cell phone was in the area or who had possession of KB’s phone during this time?

No, I do not know if another cell phone was in the area. In the court documents, it shows that LE did not request any information about KKL's phone until after PF was arrested, nearly a month beyond Nov. 22nd. By then,that information might not even have been available.
My own personal suspicion is that the person who had KB's phone on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th was staying in Lake George, probably at commercial lodging. The community of Lake George is entirely covered by a single COMNET/Four Corners tower that LE never got any data for. That tower also provides duplicate 5G LTE coverage for the entire Florissant area. I think data from that tower would have at least confirmed the direction of KB's phone travel.
IMO

 

[Tippy Lynn]

No, I do not know if another cell phone was in the area. In the court documents, it shows that LE did not request any information about KKL's phone until after PF was arrested, nearly a month beyond Nov. 22nd. By then,m that information might not even have been available.
My own personal suspicion is that the person who had KB's phone on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th was staying in Lake George, probably at commercial lodging. The community of Lake Georhe is ebtirely covered by a single COMNET/Four Corners tower that LE never got any data for. That tower also provides duplicate 5G LTE coverage for the entire Florissant area. I think data from that tower would have at least confirmed the direction of KB's phone travel.
IMO

If I remember correctly, cell phone towers only keep historical records for a day before it’s re-written.

I wish LE had that info.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Dave, thanks so much for the good information. I need to spend some time reading it more so I follow it. I am a visual thinker and this is helping me understand. Possible KK had the phone and was looking for PF but why going another direction? And why was her phone turned off? It didn’t ping so I guess it was. So many more questions. We KNOW she was greatly involved. I am wondering how she and PF completed this murder and if she lied to LE. We believe LE always does their due diligence but if she was at Lake George and they didn’t request those records, that is not good. If they didn’t check the records from Lake George, both phone and lodging, maybe they will do so now.

 

[Seattle1]

RSBMFF

There is more to the calculation than meets the eye. The 90 mph result might be valid if the pings of the two phones were synchronized. But they’re not, they’re based on algorithms within the phone.

So, for a general example, if the phone is active on the network, at the very minimum the ping is timer-based, pinging every hour (let’s say) to determine the tower with the strongest signal at that moment. But pings will also occur due to app activity — a call or text inbound or outbound or an app refresh in the foreground or background. The phones could be traveling together in a shoebox and still show a time/space differential depending on what’s happening with the phone’s internals.

In this day and age there is no such thing as “proof-positive” short of multiple eye-witness accounts...maybe. Even video could, in theory, be faked, no matter how unlikely that is. What matters is, is there is enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

While it can’t be proven, it’s not unreasonable to presume the phones were together based on the information available. And that alone would not be enough to convict, I’m sure. But it IS another brick in the wall.

Which reminds me, the fact that defense wanted to wait to view all test results, etc., indicates to me that there is at least a non-zero chance the PF could choose to try to negotiate his own plea deal based on the results. I don’t think it would make sense for them to try to shift blame to KK or anyone else if he weren’t willing to take the stand as a part of that strategy. And that would be a very bad idea IMO.

As always, everything above is MOO...

Thanks for responding, and providing more intelligence on cell phone analytics.

As the owner of a forensics firm told King 5, records prove some inconsistencies in PF story, and further analysis presented at trial will show the story he gave LE is not accurate.

And no matter how much I wish my deceased Father could use his cell phone and call and/or text me, it's not reasonable to expect it will ever happen.

MOO

 

[gitana1]

Well, obviously, since I'm the one who first characterized it as being a
"sweetie beauty of a deal," I'm going to very respectfully disagree.

Given what we know so far with regard to both KK's actions and inactions related to KB's murder, she's certainly deserving of much, much harsher punishment than simply the inability to pass a background check, which is all a felony record will mean in practical terms.

Let's review just a few of KK's actions:

• KK failed to report to either LE or to KB PF's multiple attempts to solicit her to kill KB.
• KK rolled up her sleeves, applied elbow grease, and cleaned up the bloody crime scene.
• KK stood warming herself in front of the bonfire during the burning of KB's body.
• KK destroyed and/or disposed of multiple pieces of evidence, including KB's phone, purse, keys, etc.
• KK initially lied to LE when they first interviewed her.

KK got a deal from the DA primarily for 2 reasons:
1) She had valuable info LE didn't know r/t the murder and helped lead them to evidence.
2) The prosecution needs her witness testimony in court to help secure a conviction.

DA May made the calculation that he needed both KK's intimate knowledge of the crime and her testimony to help build the case against PF, so he was willing to play, "Let's Make A Deal" with KK's attorney.

All that matters at this point is that PF goes away forever. That's the necessary outcome.
If KK proves to be instrumental in that happening, I'd argue the deal was worth it.

But I'm not going to pretend this deal has any real teeth in it from the DA's end.
Walking away with nothing more than a felony conviction and maybe some crummy probation in light of what KK knew, and what she did, is far less than a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.

It's a wrist massage.

A real sweetie beauty of a wrist massage, in fact.

JMO.

I get your point but that is absolutely not all it will mean in practical terms. In practical terms it means she will lose her career. She will not be hired anywhere as a nurse.

It also means her reputation will be forever stained.

It could mean loss of her kids to her ex.

That's significant when you are a faded ex rodeo queen without what's necessary to find someone with money willing to take care of you financially for life.

Is it enough? No. But if it leads to the conviction of the actual murderer, it's the best justice that we are able to obtain for Kelsey.

 

[Irmese]

.dbm

 

[Dave F.]

Thanks for responding, and providing more intelligence on cell phone analytics.

As the owner of a forensics firm told King 5, records prove some inconsistencies in PF story, and further analysis presented at trial will show the story he gave LE is not accurate.

And no matter how much I wish my deceased Father could use his cell phone and call and/or text me, it's not reasonable to expect it will ever happen.

MOO

The cell phone expert you are describing is who the WPPD employed for advice, not only on the cell data but on the terminology to use in the data search warrants. He's right there on top of the case, at their side every step of the way. IMO

 

[Seattle1]

The cell phone expert you are describing is who the WPPD employed for advice, not only on the cell data but on the terminology to use in the data search warrants. He's right there on top of the case, at their side every step of the way. IMO

I didn't read any of that in King 5 news I referenced.

Please provide the link for this. Thanks!

 

[Dave F.]

I didn't read any of that in King 5 news I referenced.

Please provide the link for this. Thanks!

Mark Pfoff, Rocky Mountain Cumputer Forensics
Rocky Mountain Computer Forensics - Rocky Mountain Computer Forensics