CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #57 *ARREST*

[Seattle1]

That was very interesting. I didn't get to the "mollycoddling," I got to the part where one party provides evidence that the one camera in the courtroom violated the rules of evidence by showing attorney work product to the public. That's not okay, said the judge.

It's true that it was the defense attorneys that complained and wanted something between them, their client, their "work product" and the public eye. Pretty capable lawyering, really.

I believe O/P was addressing the tent outside the courthouse provided for PF's entry. This is addressed on pg 4, item 27.



ETA: I think I also read somewhere that PF was not wearing his vest during the pre-trial hearing.

 

[susiQ]

So, here's my take on the witness list vis-a-vis the trial schedule:

DA May would probably be the first one to tell you that he has the best kind of problem:
He's suffering from an embarrassment of riches, on account of PF helpfully supplied the prosecution a veritable avalanche of evidence with which to bury him.

I'm not certain where the three-month trial reference came from, but it may simply be that DA May looked at the "plethora" ( to use his word) of evidence he had available to him, and thought to himself, "It would take us 3 months to cover all this material in the courtroom. We don't even need half this much stuff!"

I'm sure DA May is making strategic decisions r/t trimming all the excess fat off the case.
He'll want to focus on presenting the meat of the case to the jury.
The prosecution's case will be like a filet mignon:
Grade A Prime, served up to the jury on a silver platter.

PF's defense, conversely, will be like a stale, 2-day-old Sonic burger.
Flame-broiled over an open bonfire at the franch.

I am not at all worried that the prosecution will leave one, single critical witness off their list.
In fact, I think it will still be like a tsunami wave of evidence that comes crashing into court to drown PF.
The evidence against PF is going to be overwhelming.

We're all going to wonder why in the world he didn't take a plea deal (if he was even offered one).

Of course, we all need to remind ourselves: "This is PF we're talking about here."

JMO.

The visual in this post was SUPERB!! There’s nothing like a filet mignon

 

[10ofRods]

I believe O/P was addressing the tent outside the courthouse provided for PF's entry. This is addressed on pg 4, item 27.

View attachment 210545

ETA: I think I also read somewhere that PF was not wearing his vest during the pre-trial hearing.

Right. Because "the media" could hire lip readers (or use telephoto lenses to read unprotected documents that are last-minute discussed among counsel.

Or maybe they really do fear an attempt on PF's life, which is fascinating. I wonder if this is where we're going to go in cases like this. Kelsey's death seriously upsets me, so I can imagine how people much closer to the situation might go off the rails.

My point is that when a judge has failed to protect some essential right of the defense (to privacy, to safety) and the defense now warns and says "I told you so," then that judge is very likely to go ahead with a full sweep of whatever the defense is asking. Otherwise, they have to break it up into parts, each part gets argued (and if the judge is wrong and someone shoots PF, well then. That's not a good look for the Court). They quickly established that the Court was less than observant and had not acted swiftly enough.

What a world.

 

[10ofRods]

I found this clip on page 23 of one of the search warrants. It sounds like there IS an indication of PF’s DNA in the condo.
Or am I misinterpreting it?

View attachment 210534

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2018CR330/002/18-111 Search Warrant.pdf

Enough to convict right there, given all the other supporting evidence. I was very hopeful that since this is in Colorado, the jurors would definitely want DNA evidence of this type (over, say, PF's lame attempt to claim it was some other "hit man"). But now that I see how it's going down, there's just no telling. Who knows who might be on this jury.

 

[MemPat]

The visual in this post was SUPERB!! There’s nothing like a filet mignon

...except a plethora of filet mignon.

 

[GordianKnot]

...except a plethora of filet mignon.

I wish I could give this post a plethora of likes!

 

[Dave F.]

It says CBI Labs. Are they not lab techs? Who is KF?

Greg Slater is an Investigator for the CBI, who ran the tests with a field machine on December 12, 2018 and immediately emailed them to Commander Chris Adams of the WPPD. Those labs are located in Denver, which exactly where the samples went, for testing on the evening of December 13, 2018. The tipoff is the result number "14 times greater". Actual Lab DNA results are not cited that way, and run mathematical probabilities in the hundreds of thousands or millions:

Sam Kraemer’s tweets from cause hearing 2-19-2019:
“11:27 am -Slater said investigators collected swabs of Cheryl and Clint Berreth and they took a toothbrush, mouthguard and a bottle nipple from Kelsey’s bathroom. They said the blood returned with a high number, meaning investigators believe Kelsey Berreth’s blood was found in the bathroom.”

KRDO Local News December 19, 2019
“UPDATE:Investigators have confirmed they were searching the townhome of missing Woodland Park mother, Kelsey Berreth Wednesday afternoon and Thursday night.”
(Note: Wednesday December 12, 2019 and Thursday December 13, 2019)
Investigators search Kelsey Berreth's townhome in Woodland Park

The snippet you cited in your previous post:
“On 12-12-18, CBI Agent Slater emailed me the CBI Lab results. The results show a DNA profile was developed from Kelsey’s mouthpiece. The swab obtained from the suspected blood located on the toilet was a positive match to Kelsey’s DNA Profile. In Addition, the blood being a positive match to the DNA profile of Kelsey, a sample collected from: the wall behind the towel rack, side of the tub and bathroom outlet, had DNA from two contributors, a major one matching the DNA profile of Kelsey. The sample collected from the bathroom sink contained a mixture of three DNA profiles, of which one was from a male.
On 12-12-18, a DNA profile of Patrick Frazee was developed and compared to the sample from the bathroom sink and the results for that item are at least 14 times more likely if they originated from Patrick Frazee and two unknown, unrelated individuals than if they originated from three previously unknown, unrelated individuals."

 

[Dave F.]

CBS News 48 Hours,
The murder of Kelsey Berreth: What does Krystal Lee know about the Colorado mom's killing?
Text:

"Still, there are unanswered questions. Initial forensic tests at Kelsey's home revealed some of her blood was mixed with unknown female and male DNA.

Aya Gruber: The key is that male DNA did not belong to Patrick Frazee.

Nikki Battiste: Do we know whose female DNA that is yet?

Aya Gruber: We don't yet.

Nikki Battiste: And to this day there is no body and there is no murder weapon. What's that mean for the prosecution?

Aya Gruber: I think it makes it a much more difficult case … The cell phone evidence tells a story. And that's very helpful. But it can't tell a full story. … So, what this case lives and dies on is the testimony of Krystal Lee. … That is the connective thread for everything."
The murder of Kelsey Berreth: What does Krystal Lee know about the Colorado mom's killing?

 

[?mysterian?]

That was very interesting. I didn't get to the "mollycoddling," I got to the part where one party provides evidence that the one camera in the courtroom violated the rules of evidence by showing attorney work product to the public. That's not okay, said the judge.

It's true that it was the defense attorneys that complained and wanted something between them, their client, their "work product" and the public eye. Pretty capable lawyering, really.

I was referring to the tent outside the courtroom entrance.

From the link:

<snip>"27. Mr. Frazee requests the Court expand its current decorum order, and/or work with the Teller County Sheriffs Office, so that photography of Mr. Frazee while he enters and exits vans transporting him to and from the Court immediately outside the courthouse be prohibited. Mr. Frazee’s personal safety and life is placed in jeopardy by such coverage, as evidenced by the Teller County Sheriff’s Office insistence on dressing Mr. Frazee in a bulletproof vest for court appearances."<snip>

And I'll add this:

<snip>"29. Mr. Frazee requests the Court expand its current decorum order to prohibit live streaming, blogging, tweeting, texting, or any other form of electronic communication from happening “live” in the courtroom during proceedings. "<snip>

ETA: link

IMO PF is getting special treatment above and beyond what other people charged with crimes and appearing in court are getting, hence the mollycoddling.

 

[?mysterian?]

I believe O/P was addressing the tent outside the courthouse provided for PF's entry. This is addressed on pg 4, item 27.

View attachment 210545

ETA: I think I also read somewhere that PF was not wearing his vest during the pre-trial hearing.

Yes, I was referring to that tent. Thanks!

 

[katydid23]

Sorry you're baffled.

Defense stated at hearing that they received much evidence in the last two weeks, and more recently DNA analysis.

This is a no body case, and I don't think we're talking about standard test results with projected timeline for results.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are still waiting on forensic test results. It would serve no purpose for tests results to be intentionally delayed here.

MOO

Also, when the DA receives Discovery from the defense, they read through the material, and they see what the specific defense arguments are going to be. And where the defense is going to attack them.

So at that point, even though the trial is about to begin, the DA will often ask for further testing from the FBI, Forensics team or the Medical Examiner, etc , in order to combat the incoming evidence. Sometimes they do not foresee the need for certain tests or expert opinions until discovery is handed over.

And vice versa. So it goes both ways. The defense will be scrambling to get new tests and new experts weighing in as well.

 

[katydid23]

Ha! For sure.

Sneak Peak at the Defense Strategy:

"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"No body, no case."
"And KK is a big fat liar."

What else does poor Stiegerwald have to work with here?

There^^^, I added one more defense strategy. lol

 

[katydid23]

I believe the photo was described as them AT the door, not IN the doorway. JMO

Right, but you see him at the door, but you don't see him immediately walk back to the truck, right? He is at the door, and then we'd assume he went inside, since he wasn't seen dropping the baby off and leaving instantly.

 

[katydid23]

CBS News 48 Hours,
The murder of Kelsey Berreth: What does Krystal Lee know about the Colorado mom's killing?
Text:

"Still, there are unanswered questions. Initial forensic tests at Kelsey's home revealed some of her blood was mixed with unknown female and male DNA.

Aya Gruber: The key is that male DNA did not belong to Patrick Frazee.

Nikki Battiste: Do we know whose female DNA that is yet?

Aya Gruber: We don't yet.

Nikki Battiste: And to this day there is no body and there is no murder weapon. What's that mean for the prosecution?

Aya Gruber: I think it makes it a much more difficult case … The cell phone evidence tells a story. And that's very helpful. But it can't tell a full story. … So, what this case lives and dies on is the testimony of Krystal Lee. … That is the connective thread for everything."
The murder of Kelsey Berreth: What does Krystal Lee know about the Colorado mom's killing?

Aya Gruber: I think it makes it a much more difficult case … The cell phone evidence tells a story. And that's very helpful. But it can't tell a full story. … So, what this case lives and dies on is the testimony of Krystal Lee. … That is the connective thread for everything."


So Aya Gruber is your big expert on this case? Is she a brilliant legal mind we can depend upon?
I am not sure.

Aya Gruber is Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School. A former public defender, she is a frequent commentator on criminal justice issues. She has appeared on ABC, NBC, and PBS, and her work has been featured in the New York Times, Denver Post, and Associated Press.

 

[Dave F.]

Aya Gruber: I think it makes it a much more difficult case … The cell phone evidence tells a story. And that's very helpful. But it can't tell a full story. … So, what this case lives and dies on is the testimony of Krystal Lee. … That is the connective thread for everything."

So Aya Gruber is your big expert on this case? Is she a brilliant legal mind we can depend upon?
I am not sure.

Aya Gruber is Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School. A former public defender, she is a frequent commentator on criminal justice issues. She has appeared on ABC, NBC, and PBS, and her work has been featured in the New York Times, Denver Post, and Associated Press.

Ms. Gruber's Curriculum Vitae is quite impressive! I don't think there is any doubt that she is a leading expert in the legal field of in Colorado. Thanks for asking. IMO
Aya Gruber - Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

 

[Dave F.]

Right, but you see him at the door, but you don't see him immediately walk back to the truck, right? He is at the door, and then we'd assume he went inside, since he wasn't seen dropping the baby off and leaving instantly.

Sorry, the Arlo camera views movement from side to side across it's field a vision, and snaps a single image when the movement is in the proximity of the center is the field horizontally. One shot is all you get.
No going into the condo, no exiting the condo. On the porch, period. Since there is a wooden fence blocking the lower field of vision, it would be impossible to even tell which direction their feet were pointed. IMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Sorry, the Arlo camera views movement from side to side across it's field a vision, and snaps a single image when the movement is in the proximity of the center is the field horizontally. One shot is all you get.
No going into the condo, no exiting the condo. On the porch, period. Since there is a wooden fence blocking the lower field of vision, it would be impossible to even tell which direction their feet were pointed. IMO

Was there anyone else besides PF and KB seen on the surveillance video on Thanksgiving?

 

[Dave F.]

Was there anyone else besides PF and KB seen on the surveillance video on Thanksgiving?

Yes! A figure in a white shirt (or top) was seen by another neighbor's security camera. This "still" from an old fashioned video tape was mentioned in the search warrant affidavits, but was not introduced in the cause hearing on February 19, 2019. IMO

 

[?mysterian?]

Again, from this search warrant:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...lication and Affidavit for Arrest Warrant.pdf

<snip>"12. At approximately 1324 hours, also on November 22, 2018, an individual that matches the physical description of Frazee is captured on a neighbor's surveillance camera entering the front door of Berreth's residence. This photograph contradicts Frazee's timeline provided to investigators."<snip> (bbm and underlined by me)

 

[Dave F.]

Again, from this search warrant:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...lication and Affidavit for Arrest Warrant.pdf

<snip>"12. At approximately 1324 hours, also on November 22, 2018, an individual that matches the physical description of Frazee is captured on a neighbor's surveillance camera entering the front door of Berreth's residence. This photograph contradicts Frazee's timeline provided to investigators."<snip> (bbm and underlined by me)

Once again: "'entering" is just an opinion that was expressed by Cmdr Adams in the search warrant affidavits, which is allowable in that excercise. When introduced in as evidence though, it has to be backed up by supporting evidence, or can be denied by the absence of supporting evidence. The absence of any DNA sample attributed to PF in the condo would tend to "deny" the validity of Adams' assertion. IMO