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

[dixiegirl1035]

I have gone back through all of thread 39 of the KB set, which are the Tweets from the February 19, 2019 cause hearing, picking out the items of evidence that reporters cited as being introduced as evidence. Some of the sequential evidence item numbers are quoted in the tweets, which made it easier to compile a complete list, which is below. There are four major items missing, which do not seem to me to have been introduced. They were mentioned, but not introduced as evidence.
Those four items are:
1. all four photos of PF and KB’s trucks passing Williams Log Cabin Furniture on 11/22/2018
2. the picture of the man in the white shirt standing at KB’s condo door at 3:30 pm on 11/22/2018
3. the picture of KKL at Sonic on 11/24/2018
4. the picture of PF and KKL together at the Conoco in Florissant on 11/24/2018 (some tweeters reported the testimony as it being a photo of MG’s black car)
Any help you have is welcomed. Thank you!

Exhibits introduced Feb 19, 2019:
1. Still photo of KB entering Safeway with KF at 12;05 pm on 11/22/2018 , from store surveillance camera.
2. DVD of PF’s phone interview with Officer Beth Huber on 12/3/2018.
3. Still photo of KB, PF, KF and a poinsettia at condo door at 1:34 pm on 11/22/2018, from neighbors surveillance camera.
4. Still photo from surveillance camera of PF at Conoco in Florissant at 4:30 pm on 11/24/2018, from gas station surveillance camera, filling his truck tank and then a five gallon can.
5. Still photo from surveillance video at Ent FCU Drive-up, showing PF sitting in truck at Drive-up ATM at12:44 to 12:50 pm on 11/22/2018.
6. Still photo from surveillance video at Ent FCU Drive-up, showing black tote in back of truck at 12:44 to 12:50 pm on 11/22/2018. Ed.Note: Judge Sells said he could only see black in the back of the truck, and could not see the black tote that was described.
7. Still photo of lower front of toilet bowl in the condo (not dated).
8. Still photo of refrigerator in condo that appears to have white marks (not dated).
9. Still photo of doorknob in condo that appears to have blood stain on it (not dated).
10. Still photo of two red barns at Nash Ranch taken 12/21/2018
11. Still photo of a discolored bale of hay at Nash Ranch taken 12/21/2018
12.Still photo of a tractor at Nash Ranch used to hoist the black tote, taken of 12/21/2018
13 thru 30. Still photos taken inside KB’s condo 12/15/2018

Deceased/Not Found - CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #39 *ARREST*

I have in my notes that it was at 3:36 in the afternoon. Do you have a link for your time?
"2. the picture of the man in the white shirt standing at KB’s condo door at 3:30 pm on 11/22/2018"

I have in my notes that all three of them were seeing at the door at 1:24 in the afternoon. Do you have a link for your time?
"3. Still photo of KB, PF, KF and a poinsettia at condo door at 1:34 pm on 11/22/2018, from neighbors surveillance camera."

 

[Dave F.]

Those two times are both approximations by LE, and I'm not going to try to guess how they arrived at them. The time I cited was from the courtroom tweets, which again I'm not going to mess with.
I will say this: The time stamp on the Safeway video, and the time on the Safeway receipt (12:23 pm), are correct. It took KB exactly four minutes to enter the parking lot, park, and enter the store, passing the video camera. If you add four minutes to her checkout time stamp, she pulled onto Highway 24 from the Safeway parking lot at
12:27 pm. Google Maps Directions states the driving time from The exit of WalMart parking lot to the parking spots in front of KB's condo is 4 minutes. The furniture store video time stamp said 12:37 pm when KB's truck passed, meaning it was slightly more than six minutes fast. Not too many minutes later, PF as at the Ent FCU. Those times are accurate, and agree with Safeway's clocks. Using those times, and driving times and distances from Google Eath Maps Directions, you can calculate out the whole afternoon accurately. IMO
Here is a link to Google Maps. Directions is reached by clicking the blue icon with the white arrow:
Google Maps

 

[Dave F.]

This set of diagrams applies the first LE cellular diagram, which appears on Page 11 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, to Google Earth shots of Woodland Park. In the first picture, I’ve dropped two red pins to the left of center. The lower one represents the crossing of Highway 24 and Trout Creek Road, the theoretical dividing point between the east and west facing antennae of the Woodland Park Verizon tower. The upper one represents the Verizon tower.
If you look closely at the second picture, you will see the shadows of three large towers at the same location. Only one of those belongs to Verizon, and it has two main sector antennae, and three secondary ones. I have not yet researched who owns the other two towers (because obviously LE didn’t research them), but this shot clearly shows that the community of Woodland Park has excellent cell coverage. Looking still at that picture, there are two red lines, which are the coverage lines on the LE diagram. I don’t know what they represent, because they don’t match any Verizon coverage that I can see, but with all of that 5G LTE service from the same location, they surely represent something. There are three lavender lines, which represent the boundaries of Verizon’s main east and west facing antennae. The one leading from the tower to the bottom of the picture is actually two lines overlapped, where the coverage of the two sectors is joint. The other two are the northern edges of each sector, one going east, and the other west. One the eastern side of the photo, there are two pale blue lines, that represent the boundaries of the secondary antenna that serves KB’s condo. It was never mentioned by LE, and again, I don’t know why not. The white lines are road lines inserted by Google Earth.
Please go back to the first diagram for a moment. The length of the red lines is plotted from the LE diagram. Once again, I have no idea what the significance is, or isn’t. In the top part of the picture, you can clearly see that Pale Blue lined sector that I described as the one serving KB’s condo. I have dropped another red pin in the exact condo location. For reference, I have dropped yellow pins at Williams Brothers Log Cabin Furniture, the Ent FCU drive up ATM, and the Walmart Parking lot. It’s a big lot, as you can imagine, so I picked a non-handicapped spot fairly close to the main entry/exit doors, trying to think like a man with a child in a carrier. The strong yellow line is US Highway 24, and running north-south directly through the “k” in Woodland Park is Baldwin Avenue, which is the route PF drove when he did not pass the security camera at Williams Bros. Furniture. The east facing main antenna, which would correspond to LE’s “northeast facing sector” is outlined in pale lavender. As you can see, the line starts at the tower and goes northeast to just about the rear wall of Williams Brothers building, then veers nearly straight east to just past Baldwin Street, then heads southeasterly toward the community of Green Mountain Falls. On it’s other edge, the line starts at the tower and runs south to a spot on Road 67, where it also veers southeast down Ute Pass to Green Mountain Falls. The west facing sector has one edge heading southwesterly and the other going west toward Divide, but on the north side of Highway 24. This area corresponds to LE’s “west facing sector”. As you can observe, none the contiguous town of Woodland Park is within that sector. Not shown on the map is the service area of the Divide tower, which overlaps this sector, kind of like two flashlights shining on the same spot 180 degrees apart. Where inside that overlap an individual cell phone might choose to switch to the next tower is a guess I can’t make.
The third diagram is printed from cellmapper.com and shows the antenna sectors that I have laid onto Google Earth. Verizon recommends this site for people who have an advanced degree. I don’t find it THAT intimidating but it does require some navigational patience. The link should open on a map of the United States, but you may not realize it at first because it might be zoomed in on a cornfield in Kansas somewhere. Play with the zoom a little until you get high enough to see the big cluster that is Denver, mouse on over to it and head southwest. If you see Breckenridge going by, you’ve gone to far and are a little too far north. Woodland Park should already have that bubble that you see on my print waiting for you. If you zoom in closer, then click on the bubble, a bunch of technical stuff will appear in a box on the left. Ignore it and zoom in a little more. All of the cell antenna sectors and sub-antenna sectors should appear. When you zoom down really close, it’s a Google Map. You can see street names and points of interest.
Verizon (United States of America) Cell Tower Map

 

[NWLady]

This set of diagrams applies the first LE cellular diagram, which appears on Page 11 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, to Google Earth shots of Woodland Park. In the first picture, I’ve dropped two red pins to the left of center. The lower one represents the crossing of Highway 24 and Trout Creek Road, the theoretical dividing point between the east and west facing antennae of the Woodland Park Verizon tower. The upper one represents the Verizon tower.
If you look closely at the second picture, you will see the shadows of three large towers at the same location. Only one of those belongs to Verizon, and it has two main sector antennae, and three secondary ones. I have not yet researched who owns the other two towers (because obviously LE didn’t research them), but this shot clearly shows that the community of Woodland Park has excellent cell coverage. Looking still at that picture, there are two red lines, which are the coverage lines on the LE diagram. I don’t know what they represent, because they don’t match any Verizon coverage that I can see, but with all of that 5G LTE service from the same location, they surely represent something. There are three lavender lines, which represent the boundaries of Verizon’s main east and west facing antennae. The one leading from the tower to the bottom of the picture is actually two lines overlapped, where the coverage of the two sectors is joint. The other two are the northern edges of each sector, one going east, and the other west. One the eastern side of the photo, there are two pale blue lines, that represent the boundaries of the secondary antenna that serves KB’s condo. It was never mentioned by LE, and again, I don’t know why not. The white lines are road lines inserted by Google Earth.
Please go back to the first diagram for a moment. The length of the red lines is plotted from the LE diagram. Once again, I have no idea what the significance is, or isn’t. In the top part of the picture, you can clearly see that Pale Blue lined sector that I described as the one serving KB’s condo. I have dropped another red pin in the exact condo location. For reference, I have dropped yellow pins at Williams Brothers Log Cabin Furniture, the Ent FCU drive up ATM, and the Walmart Parking lot. It’s a big lot, as you can imagine, so I picked a non-handicapped spot fairly close to the main entry/exit doors, trying to think like a man with a child in a carrier. The strong yellow line is US Highway 24, and running north-south directly through the “k” in Woodland Park is Baldwin Avenue, which is the route PF drove when he did not pass the security camera at Williams Bros. Furniture. The east facing main antenna, which would correspond to LE’s “northeast facing sector” is outlined in pale lavender. As you can see, the line starts at the tower and goes northeast to just about the rear wall of Williams Brothers building, then veers nearly straight east to just past Baldwin Street, then heads southeasterly toward the community of Green Mountain Falls. On it’s other edge, the line starts at the tower and runs south to a spot on Road 67, where it also veers southeast down Ute Pass to Green Mountain Falls. The west facing sector has one edge heading southwesterly and the other going west toward Divide, but on the north side of Highway 24. This area corresponds to LE’s “west facing sector”. As you can observe, none the contiguous town of Woodland Park is within that sector. Not shown on the map is the service area of the Divide tower, which overlaps this sector, kind of like two flashlights shining on the same spot 180 degrees apart. Where inside that overlap an individual cell phone might choose to switch to the next tower is a guess I can’t make.
The third diagram is printed from cellmapper.com and shows the antenna sectors that I have laid onto Google Earth. Verizon recommends this site for people who have an advanced degree. I don’t find it THAT intimidating but it does require some navigational patience. The link should open on a map of the United States, but you may not realize it at first because it might be zoomed in on a cornfield in Kansas somewhere. Play with the zoom a little until you get high enough to see the big cluster that is Denver, mouse on over to it and head southwest. If you see Breckenridge going by, you’ve gone to far and are a little too far north. Woodland Park should already have that bubble that you see on my print waiting for you. If you zoom in closer, then click on the bubble, a bunch of technical stuff will appear in a box on the left. Ignore it and zoom in a little more. All of the cell antenna sectors and sub-antenna sectors should appear. When you zoom down really close, it’s a Google Map. You can see street names and points of interest.
Verizon (United States of America) Cell Tower Map

Dave F - isn't it possible that LE/investigators/prosecutors have a lot more cell phone information that we aren't privvy to yet? I'm just curious as in another case I followed, the cell phone expert had said in the arrest warrant or search warrant (I can't remember which one) something to the effect of (verbatim) that he was aware of much more information that was obtained from cell phone data, etc. BUT he was only showing enough for "probable cause." I'm just curious as there seems to be a lot of time and effort put into this cell phone data, pings, etc and one has to wonder (or at least I do) if there isn't more information that we just aren't privvy to yet.

 

[ab01]

Dave F - isn't it possible that LE/investigators/prosecutors have a lot more cell phone information that we aren't privvy to yet? I'm just curious as in another case I followed, the cell phone expert had said in the arrest warrant or search warrant (I can't remember which one) something to the effect of (verbatim) that he was aware of much more information that was obtained from cell phone data, etc. BUT he was only showing enough for "probable cause." I'm just curious as there seems to be a lot of time and effort put into this cell phone data, pings, etc and one has to wonder (or at least I do) if there isn't more information that we just aren't privvy to yet.

I'm not Dave but i'd like to weigh in

I believe all that can be proved to this point is that we don't have enough information to make an informed decision on the prosecutions cell data.

You can make the claim that the prosecution didn't prove their cell data beyond a reasonable doubt at the probable cause hearing.

And I tend to agree

The thing is that was not their intent! Its a probable cause hearing and many times things are painted with a very broad brush

There is a crazy amount of discovery in this case and I think it reasonable to expect that there is much, much more cell data that we have not seen.

What that information will actually prove is nothing but a mere guess at this point since we only have a tiny bit of the picture

But to say that the prosecution can't and or won't be able to prove their cell phone evidence in court is disingenuous at best

Honestly I think this case is going to end up having a ridiculous amount of evidence when everything is said and done

PF is an utter moron

 

[Dave F.]

Dave F - isn't it possible that LE/investigators/prosecutors have a lot more cell phone information that we aren't privvy to yet? I'm just curious as in another case I followed, the cell phone expert had said in the arrest warrant or search warrant (I can't remember which one) something to the effect of (verbatim) that he was aware of much more information that was obtained from cell phone data, etc. BUT he was only showing enough for "probable cause." I'm just curious as there seems to be a lot of time and effort put into this cell phone data, pings, etc and one has to wonder (or at least I do) if there isn't more information that we just aren't privvy to yet.

I don't really have a clue what LE is doing. Color me confused.
I would certainly say that LE is required to have some more complete information, before trial opens. What they showed in this diagram just won't cut it. IMO

 

[Dave F.]

I also want to share that I'm somewhat fascinated in general by LE's application of new tools to solve crime. Cell phone data is at the forefront of the new tools, and new ground is being broken every day. I'm pretty good at searching, and the ONLY case I can find in which the data of two or more phones being together was evidence in a Murder One trial. Aaron Hernandez and a car full of his associates went to a isolated dump located in masssive cell tower and mini-tower coverage in the greater Boston area. Each man had their own cell phone on their person, and each was connected at the dump. There wasn't anything else close by taht they might have visited. When they left the dump, the victim's phone stayed, while all of the others traveled to Hernandez' house, which was not far away. His own security camera showed all of the others walk in the front door, cross the foyer and enter a door to a stairway to a basement "man cave" area, then Hernandez entered, walked through the foyer carrying a pistol in one hand, and followed down the stairs. Hernandez was convicted<modsnipped off topic and outdated information>
The cell phone tracking of all of Hernandez companions was brilliant investigation, in my opinion, but was only a small part of the body of evidence. It did, however, graphically display that LE found the elusive "smoking gun".
I cannot compare the Hernandez case to this one. The cell data was precise, and positively placed all of the suspects together at the scene of the crime, at the time the crime occured. This crime......not so much. IMO

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I also want to share that I'm somewhat fascinated in general by LE's application of new tools to solve crime. Cell phone data is at the forefront of the new tools, and new ground is being broken every day. I'm pretty good at searching, and the ONLY case I can find in which the data of two or more phones being together was evidence in a Murder One trial. Aaron Hernandez and a car full of his associates went to a isolated dump located in masssive cell tower and mini-tower coverage in the greater Boston area. Each man had their own cell phone on their person, and each was connected at the dump. There wasn't anything else close by taht they might have visited. When they left the dump, the victim's phone stayed, while all of the others traveled to Hernandez' house, which was not far away. His own security camera showed all of the others walk in the front door, cross the foyer and enter a door to a stairway to a basement "man cave" area, then Hernandez entered, walked through the foyer carrying a pistol in one hand, and followed down the stairs. Hernandez was convicted, but his case was under appeal when he commited suicide in prison. Under U.S. legal cjustom, the judgment has been vacated.
The cell phone tracking of all of Hernandez companions was brilliant investigation, in my opinion, but was only a small part of the body of evidence. It did, however, graphically display that LE found the elusive "smoking gun".
I cannot compare the Hernandez case to this one. The cell data was precise, and positively placed all of the suspects together at the scene of the crime, at the time the crime occured. This crime......not so much. IMO

IMO mobile forensics is one the best advancements in that past few years to be used in criminal investigations.

 

[24Brix]

I'm not Dave but i'd like to weigh in

I believe all that can be proved to this point is that we don't have enough information to make an informed decision on the prosecutions cell data.

You can make the claim that the prosecution didn't prove their cell data beyond a reasonable doubt at the probable cause hearing.

And I tend to agree

The thing is that was not their intent! Its a probable cause hearing and many times things are painted with a very broad brush

There is a crazy amount of discovery in this case and I think it reasonable to expect that there is much, much more cell data that we have not seen.

What that information will actually prove is nothing but a mere guess at this point since we only have a tiny bit of the picture

But to say that the prosecution can't and or won't be able to prove their cell phone evidence in court is disingenuous at best

Honestly I think this case is going to end up having a ridiculous amount of evidence when everything is said and done

PF is an utter moron

ITA. In my opinion, LE will typically keep as many cards as possible close to their vest. If they don’t believe they must reveal something to advance the case, they won’t. The same with the DA. Although they must share their discovery with the defense most is shielded from the public.

The search warrants were written to persuade an audience of one — the judge — to sign them. They did this successfully, even if the info therein may have been lacking or incomplete or over-simplified in some regards.

The probable cause hearing evidence was tailored to persuade an audience of one — the judge — that there is enough probable cause to warrant a trial. They did this successfully too, and without the testimony of SF, I might add. (IMO, her decision to plead the 5th may have tipped the scale heavily in the judge’s mind.)

To date, LE and the DA have been successful in every regard. But that’s all we know. I do believe we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg so far. I can’t imagine they would choose to move forward without a body unless they felt the evidence was strong enough to make a body unnecessary.

I’m sure both sides know the weaknesses in the case and are working to exploit or shore up those weaknesses as best they can. All things considered, we are lucky to have one of the best CJ system’s you’d could hope for in spite of its occasional shortcomings and failures. I’m confident justice will be done.

MOO.

 

[Leader6518]

<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

In my years of reading and listening to cell service owner info, I have learned that a phone can shake hands with more than one cell tower while remaining in one position. It depends on the activity on a tower as well as other factors. Your info would present a problem if both phones were shaking hands at the same time and had to be close to a tower to shake hands. But from what I have read and heard in testimony in other cases that is not accurate. A phone can reach out and shake hands with a tower further away than the nearest tower. It depends on cell traffic, weather, and possible obstacles such as terrain. So, one would have to factor in those conditions into your equation. I’m sure experts do factor that in when presenting their cell phone matrixes. IMOO.

 

[Leader6518]

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.

It was not a murder investigation at that point. She was just missing and was an adult. They initially went to check out the condo to see if she had left for good or left any indication of where she could be. They weren’t doing a forensic investigation at that time. They didn’t have a warrant or any indication of foul play. It was after interviewing PF and her mom living in the house and finding what could be blood splatter in the bathroom that they put what they had learned together with what her mom told them and did a thorough forensic investigation. I don’t think it is much of an issue. What would be worse is if they jumped on foul play immediately. The defense would have a field day with insinuating LE jumped to conclusions without evidence to back it up. IMO

 

[Dave F.]

In my years of reading and listening to cell service owner info, I have learned that a phone can shake hands with more than one cell tower while remaining in one position. It depends on the activity on a tower as well as other factors. Your info would present a problem if both phones were shaking hands at the same time and had to be close to a tower to shake hands. But from what I have read and heard in testimony in other cases that is not accurate. A phone can reach out and shake hands with a tower further away than the nearest tower. It depends on cell traffic, weather, and possible obstacles such as terrain. So, one would have to factor in those conditions into your equation. I’m sure experts do factor that in when presenting their cell phone matrixes. IMOO.

I think that @SandyQLS is temporarily unavailable, so I will take the liberty of making a comment. She can certainly answer herself when she becomes available:
Her point was that the pings do not happen on a flat white sheet of paper. and that a lapse of time is by no means limited to defining a theoretical movement in a straight line away from the tower. There are many other mathematical/geometric probabilities. However, the overall premise is that the two phones were moving in vehicles on roads. @SandyQLS suggests that the intersection of a road that either phone was likely to be travelling on at the time, with the arc line of the distance that the tower measured for that phone, is the probable location of that phone. The other phone can only be assumed to be in close proximity if the time measured between the two pings of the separate phones is equal to the reasonable distance between them on that road. She is not questioning how cell phones and towers interact to create pings.
My later post takes a sequential, but almost identical diagram to the one cited by @SandyQLS and plots those probable intersections of ping and road. There are multiple choices, and no two meet the standard of being reasonable time and distance apart, to indicate they could be traveling together in the same vehicle. She disputes LE's conclusion that the intersection of the pings, from two separate towers, indicates where the two phones were together. My diagram shows that intersection to be in rugged roadless country innaccessible by motor vehicle. Again, it's not disputing electronics/signalling. It's saying the cell phone data cannot be applied to a map, using sound mathematics/geometry, to reach the conclusion that LE stated.
Further, The crime area from Woodland Park to Florissant or Lake George, and to Nash ranch represents a geometric "T". All events in this case are in close proximity to that distinct area. The entire "T" is washed by cell tower coverage, not all of which is Verizon. It is mountain country, so there are small dead spots. LE provided a simple, incomplete chart, and explained away any preliminary challenges by stating the phones dropped out of coverage and then reappeared. @SandyQLS suspects that it will be challenged vigorously by the defense, at the appropriate time; and I agree. IMO
IMO

 

[Dave F.]

It was not a murder investigation at that point. She was just missing and was an adult. They initially went to check out the condo to see if she had left for good or left any indication of where she could be. They weren’t doing a forensic investigation at that time. They didn’t have a warrant or any indication of foul play. It was after interviewing PF and her mom living in the house and finding what could be blood splatter in the bathroom that they put what they had learned together with what her mom told them and did a thorough forensic investigation. I don’t think it is much of an issue. What would be worse is if they jumped on foul play immediately. The defense would have a field day with insinuating LE jumped to conclusions without evidence to back it up. IMO

SW 18-107 was written specifically to respond to the B's report of blood being found on December 6, 2018. Part Two of the execution of SW 18-107 was an emergency warrant to ALL available cell providers to seize any and all data from, to, or pinging PF's phone and report it immediately.

It is not true to say that LE had positively concluded that KB was deceased, but it is true to say that LE had focused on PF, with probable cause to believe that KB's life was in imminent danger. I would appreciate lawyers chiming in here, as I think that the emergency cell data seizure can only be invoked in that circumstance.
SW 18-108 for PF's complete Verizon phone data was written December 7, 2018, and executed on December 7, 2018. IMO
Colorado Judicial Branch - Teller - Cases of Interest - The People of the State of Colorado v. Patrick Frazee

 

[ilovechili]

It was not a murder investigation at that point. She was just missing and was an adult. They initially went to check out the condo to see if she had left for good or left any indication of where she could be. They weren’t doing a forensic investigation at that time. They didn’t have a warrant or any indication of foul play. It was after interviewing PF and her mom living in the house and finding what could be blood splatter in the bathroom that they put what they had learned together with what her mom told them and did a thorough forensic investigation. I don’t think it is much of an issue. What would be worse is if they jumped on foul play immediately. The defense would have a field day with insinuating LE jumped to conclusions without evidence to back it up. IMO

This is not meant to argue and someone can correct me if I am wrong as I am going on memory of the facts (so I could be) but CBI was in the house before the Berreths found blood. I am just going on a layperson's opinion but I somehow doubt CBI was just doing a cursory look on an initial missing person report?

 

[ilovechili]

I think that @SandyQLS is temporarily unavailable, so I will take the liberty of making a comment. She can certainly answer herself when she becomes available:
Her point was that the pings do not happen on a flat white sheet of paper. and that a lapse of time is by no means limited to defining a theoretical movement in a straight line away from the tower. There are many other mathematical/geometric probabilities. However, the overall premise is that the two phones were moving in vehicles on roads. @SandyQLS suggests that the intersection of a road that either phone was likely to be travelling on at the time, with the arc line of the distance that the tower measured for that phone, is the probable location of that phone. The other phone can only be assumed to be in close proximity if the time measured between the two pings of the separate phones is equal to the reasonable distance between them on that road. She is not questioning how cell phones and towers interact to create pings.
My later post takes a sequential, but almost identical diagram to the one cited by @SandyQLS and plots those probable intersections of ping and road. There are multiple choices, and no two meet the standard of being reasonable time and distance apart, to indicate they could be traveling together in the same vehicle. She disputes LE's conclusion that the intersection of the pings, from two separate towers, indicates where the two phones were together. My diagram shows that intersection to be in rugged roadless country innaccessible by motor vehicle. Again, it's not disputing electronics/signalling. It's saying the cell phone data cannot be applied to a map, using sound mathematics/geometry, to reach the conclusion that LE stated.
Further, The crime area from Woodland Park to Florissant or Lake George, and to Nash ranch represents a geometric "T". All events in this case are in close proximity to that distinct area. The entire "T" is washed by cell tower coverage, not all of which is Verizon. It is mountain country, so there are small dead spots. LE provided a simple, incomplete chart, and explained away any preliminary challenges by stating the phones dropped out of coverage and then reappeared. @SandyQLS suspects that it will be challenged vigorously by the defense, at the appropriate time; and I agree. IMO
IMO

I for one appreciate the expertise of both you and Sandy with the cell phone data provided thus far. I could never determine these facts on the cell phone pings, towers, travel, rate of speed but I can understand exactly and with total clarity what you are both saying when you describe your findings based on the details of what has been released to date.

I for one find it very thought provoking.

Thank you as well for separating the mess of search warrants and detailing them in better order according to topic.

 

[Dave F.]

This is not meant to argue and someone can correct me if I am wrong as I am going on memory of the facts (so I could be) but CBI was in the house before the Berreths found blood. I am just going on a layperson's opinion but I somehow doubt CBI was just doing a cursory look on an initial missing person report?

Also not trying to argue here, but the accounts of who entered the condo when are muddled. I don't believe this is a problem, but a certain time frame is stated:
Page 1, Attachment A of SW 18-118 clearly states Cpl Currin of the WPPD was in the condo, with CB and DB, on December 2, 2018. She made the only call to PF from the condo, which is the reason that her body camera was inadvertantly turned on to record him without first advising himthat he was being recorded. The following morning, December 3, 2018 MPO Beth Huber contacted CB by phone, at which time CB filed s missing persons report.
Investigator Greg Slater of the CBI entered the case on December 3, 2018. Text on Page 4 of the document indicate that the entire investigative day of the 3rd was spent investigating PF and the information that he gave in his phone interview. It does not specifically state what Slater's role was in that effort. Information on Page 5 indicates Slater had an extensive interview with CB on December 4, 2018 which could have been at the condo. The location is not stated. Then, on Page 6 of the same document, it describes CB's texting to Slater her concerns about finding what appeared to be blood in the bathroom. CB2 had joined her staying in the condo, and forwarded the picture of the toilet bowl to Slater from his phone. SW 18-106 was written, signed at 11:55 am, and executed on the same day, December 6, 2018. On Page 7 of the same document, it states that "Crime scene analysts from CBI arrived and immediately began processing the residence." It mentions only one CBI officer by name, "Crime scene analyst Tanya Atkinson". This officer appears to be employed in the Denver office of CBI, which is a two hour drive to Woodland Park, one way.
I have no idea how long it takes to process evidence at the scene, but it's a small bathroom. I can't imagaine there being an army of CSI's in there. The list of items that were processed it in Attachment B of the Execution document of SW 18-106.
Colorado Judicial Branch - Teller - Cases of Interest - The People of the State of Colorado v. Patrick Frazee

 

[ilovechili]

Also not trying to argue here, but the accounts of who entered the condo when are muddled. I don't believe this is a problem, but a certain time frame is stated:
Page 1, Attachment A of SW 18-118 clearly states Cpl Currin of the WPPD was in the condo, with CB and DB, on December 2, 2018. She made the only call to PF from the condo, which is the reason that her body camera was inadvertantly turned on to record him without first advising himthat he was being recorded. The following morning, December 3, 2018 MPO Beth Huber contacted CB by phone, at which time CB filed s missing persons report.
Investigator Greg Slater of the CBI entered the case on December 3, 2018. Text on Page 4 of the document indicate that the entire investigative day of the 3rd was spent investigating PF and the information that he gave in his phone interview. It does not specifically state what Slater's role was in that effort. Information on Page 5 indicates Slater had an extensive interview with CB on December 4, 2018 which could have been at the condo. The location is not stated. Then, on Page 6 of the same document, it describes CB's texting to Slater her concerns about finding what appeared to be blood in the bathroom. CB2 had joined her staying in the condo, and forwarded the picture of the toilet bowl to Slater from his phone. SW 18-106 was written, signed at 11:55 am, and executed on the same day, December 6, 2018. On Page 7 of the same document, it states that "Crime scene analysts from CBI arrived and immediately began processing the residence." It mentions only one CBI officer by name, "Crime scene analyst Tanya Atkinson". This officer appears to be employed in the Denver office of CBI, which is a two hour drive to Woodland Park, one way.
I have no idea how long it takes to process evidence at the scene, but it's a small bathroom. I can't imagaine there being an army of CSI's in there. The list of items that were processed it in Attachment B of the Execution document of SW 18-106.
Colorado Judicial Branch - Teller - Cases of Interest - The People of the State of Colorado v. Patrick Frazee

There is much that is muddled Dates and times of various things as well as a few other things... imo. It will be clear one day far in the future probably...

 

[Seattle1]

This set of diagrams applies the first LE cellular diagram, which appears on Page 11 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, to Google Earth shots of Woodland Park. In the first picture, I’ve dropped two red pins to the left of center. The lower one represents the crossing of Highway 24 and Trout Creek Road, the theoretical dividing point between the east and west facing antennae of the Woodland Park Verizon tower. The upper one represents the Verizon tower.
If you look closely at the second picture, you will see the shadows of three large towers at the same location. Only one of those belongs to Verizon, and it has two main sector antennae, and three secondary ones. I have not yet researched who owns the other two towers (because obviously LE didn’t research them), but this shot clearly shows that the community of Woodland Park has excellent cell coverage. Looking still at that picture, there are two red lines, which are the coverage lines on the LE diagram. I don’t know what they represent, because they don’t match any Verizon coverage that I can see, but with all of that 5G LTE service from the same location, they surely represent something. There are three lavender lines, which represent the boundaries of Verizon’s main east and west facing antennae. The one leading from the tower to the bottom of the picture is actually two lines overlapped, where the coverage of the two sectors is joint. The other two are the northern edges of each sector, one going east, and the other west. One the eastern side of the photo, there are two pale blue lines, that represent the boundaries of the secondary antenna that serves KB’s condo. It was never mentioned by LE, and again, I don’t know why not. The white lines are road lines inserted by Google Earth.
Please go back to the first diagram for a moment. The length of the red lines is plotted from the LE diagram. Once again, I have no idea what the significance is, or isn’t. In the top part of the picture, you can clearly see that Pale Blue lined sector that I described as the one serving KB’s condo. I have dropped another red pin in the exact condo location. For reference, I have dropped yellow pins at Williams Brothers Log Cabin Furniture, the Ent FCU drive up ATM, and the Walmart Parking lot. It’s a big lot, as you can imagine, so I picked a non-handicapped spot fairly close to the main entry/exit doors, trying to think like a man with a child in a carrier. The strong yellow line is US Highway 24, and running north-south directly through the “k” in Woodland Park is Baldwin Avenue, which is the route PF drove when he did not pass the security camera at Williams Bros. Furniture. The east facing main antenna, which would correspond to LE’s “northeast facing sector” is outlined in pale lavender. As you can see, the line starts at the tower and goes northeast to just about the rear wall of Williams Brothers building, then veers nearly straight east to just past Baldwin Street, then heads southeasterly toward the community of Green Mountain Falls. On it’s other edge, the line starts at the tower and runs south to a spot on Road 67, where it also veers southeast down Ute Pass to Green Mountain Falls. The west facing sector has one edge heading southwesterly and the other going west toward Divide, but on the north side of Highway 24. This area corresponds to LE’s “west facing sector”. As you can observe, none the contiguous town of Woodland Park is within that sector. Not shown on the map is the service area of the Divide tower, which overlaps this sector, kind of like two flashlights shining on the same spot 180 degrees apart. Where inside that overlap an individual cell phone might choose to switch to the next tower is a guess I can’t make.
The third diagram is printed from cellmapper.com and shows the antenna sectors that I have laid onto Google Earth. Verizon recommends this site for people who have an advanced degree. I don’t find it THAT intimidating but it does require some navigational patience. The link should open on a map of the United States, but you may not realize it at first because it might be zoomed in on a cornfield in Kansas somewhere. Play with the zoom a little until you get high enough to see the big cluster that is Denver, mouse on over to it and head southwest. If you see Breckenridge going by, you’ve gone to far and are a little too far north. Woodland Park should already have that bubble that you see on my print waiting for you. If you zoom in closer, then click on the bubble, a bunch of technical stuff will appear in a box on the left. Ignore it and zoom in a little more. All of the cell antenna sectors and sub-antenna sectors should appear. When you zoom down really close, it’s a Google Map. You can see street names and points of interest.
Verizon (United States of America) Cell Tower Map

Promoting a Verizon Cell Tower Map for this discussion is misleading. It's well established that carriers typically don't own cell towers but instead lease them, and the use of the towers depicted on any map including Woodland Park are subject to a lease agreement with the tower owner.

Anyone that's ever experienced an unexplained outage with their cell phone carrier is most often the result of the the tower owner exercising his ability to interdict coverage for that carrier. All it takes is the stroke of a couple keys.

Even as Verizon and AT&T have partnered to build and share towers, these towers will be leased from the builder/owner.
AT&T and Verizon team up to build hundreds of new cell towers

 

[Love Never Fails]

Just want to say I appreciated and agree with Dave’s post a few pages back that the thread was really getting interesting. I like to read others viewpoints and contributions to the thread. I am not talking about way out there scenarios, but real questions to ponder, just in case LE hasn’t completed their investigation. I believe we will learn some interesting facts at trial from both sides. That is not to say I do not think PF is guilty. I believe he is. I also believe KKL had a greater hand in all this than we could imagine. I do wish we didn’t beat each other up so much. JMO.....
We all want justice for KB.

 

[Dave F.]

Here is the diagram on Page 15 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, transferred onto Google Earth with the Verizon cells added. This is where LE says PF’s and KB’s phone first pinged together during the morning of November 23, 2018. I think I need to state here that my Google Earth renderings simply restate the LE information provided, and at the same time restate Verizon’s own information about their cell capabilities, which that company provides to cellmapper.net. On Verizon’s website, they recommend that their customers use this data to determine their cell ceverage. I am NOT performing sophisticated signal analysis here. My only input is to scan it carefully, after I’ve transferred the data, looking for where ping arcs cross roads, and dropping pins.

The first Google Earth shot is a large area view, which shows the towers and cell coverages in the LE diagram. First, note that the ping of KB’s phone on the South Twin Mountain tower is within a very narrow cell of reception coverage. That is Cell 1 of the South Twin Mountain tower, defined by the two lavender lines extending between the South Twin Mountain tower and the town of Cripple Creek, which is just below the Cripple Creek Verizon tower. Note that the only place the arc of KB’s phone crosses that reception Band is in the town of Cripple Creek, near the open pit gold mine. I dropped a yellow pin on the highway close to where that band is crossed by the red arc of PF’s phone, but labeled it as an alternate ping location because it’s very probability opens up a whole other field of speculation about the movements of the crime that I’m not prepared to ponder. I simply haven’t seen any information to indicate that LE’s massive amount has any data even hinting that KB’s phone might have been in Cripple Creek town. I should also note that the red arc for PF’s phone is only real relative to the coverage of Cell 12, Cell 1, and Cell 32 of the Cripple Creek Tower, The portions of the red arc west of the Cripple Creek Tower are meaningless. Google Earth draws a whole circle, and I can’t erase the portion that doesn’t apply. One last note is you will see that the area with a mile and a half of the intersection of Highways 11 of 112, where it is most likely that both KB and PF’s phones disappeared from Verizon coverage, is well within the reception area of Cell 32 of the Cripple Creek tower. When the actual area is examined, that area is an inverted “T” of very narrow valleys (almost canyons). My personal presumption is that it’s a legitimate dead spot created by terrain. Likewise, up in the top left of this page, note that the ranch of RS is totally out of coverage, but not by as much as might be assumed. I found customer service tests online that rate good reception at spots on Old Kathleen Road, the approach to the ranch, but ANY assumption about Verizon reception in that area is beyond the scope of my simple diagrams. LE says the phones disappeared at around certain times, and I believe they are stating fact.

If you move over to the second Google Eart shot, PF’s phone ping at 10:1 2 am is a yellow pin drop at the top, just to the right of center. This is at almost the same spot as the ping the night before, and the likely explanation is that PF’s phone had left the coverage of Florissant tower Cell 1 and was entering that of Cripple Creek tower Cell 1. The most likely place for KB’s ping within the LE chart is almost straight below it, marked by a yellow pin drop. It is south of the red pin marking the intersection of Hwys 11 and 112 by about two and a half road miles. It was way out of the coverage zone of Cell 1 of the South Twin Mountain tower, but it’s possible. I’ve also dropped a yellow pin to mark and alternate location farther south, where a road from Cripple Creek to Canon City crosses near where the coverage of the south Twin Mountain cell that KB’s phone pinged on crosses the arc line of PF’s phone. It’s highly unlikely, but possible, so I dropped a pin.

If you look very closely at the red pin drop for the Cripple Creek Verizon tower, you will see the very short red marks, which replicate the coverage lines on LE’s diagram. There are actually four lines, but the view is not close enough to see that one flows the lavender lines of coverage of Cripple Creek tower Cell 1. I have no clue what the other two red lines mean. My guess is “sort of eastward” and “almost straight south”. That might correspond to some mapped spill-back coverage of Cell 12 of the Cripple Creek tower, a powerful antenna that covers all the way north to the Verizon tower at Conifer.

That possible but unlikely ping that I mentioned of KB’s phone in Cripple Creek town could have also been within the coverage of that spill-back of Cell 12. Perhaps LE originally looked at some activity of PF’s phone on Cell 12 and it was dropped when the chart didn’t show a proximity to KB’s phone. I don’t know, and we will probably never be privy to what theories LE formed that didn't work out for them.

I’m not going to go on with a lot of math to show a single truck transporting two phones couldn’t have pinged one of them on Cripple Creek Cell 1 the other on the South Twin Mountain tower a minute later. We’ve been through the drill. What I will say is that the pings clearly show KB’s phone heading on down toward Nash ranch red barn again, for the second time in 14 hours. It doesn’t show PF’s headed that way, and LE says they think he went to RS’s. It seems very likely that the defense is going to ask RS for his version, in court.
The third picture is the cellmapper.net page of the coverage diagram for Cripple Creek tower, on which I’ve scribbled the cell names.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...erest/2018CR330/002/18-118 Search Warrant.pdf
Verizon (United States of America) Cell Tower Map