CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #34 *ARREST*

[Love Never Fails]

I am certain the Human Resources department of the hospital wanted to fire KKL from day one but had to wait for just cause. They have it and they did it. So glad.

 

[mickey2942]

Ha! Ok. I have never been a juror. I would hate it.

I doubt I would ever be picked up for jury duty. Probably a good thing. A defense attorney would strike me out in a heartbeat. Dismissal for cause.

 

[jaspermac]

IMO, if she were that involved, the news would be saying she's being "extradited" to Colorado, not "traveling."

Not if she is co-operating. She is being charged.

A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The Supreme Court has identified four issues which a state court may analyze when determining whether or not to extradite:

1. whether the extradition request documents are in order;
2. whether the person has been charged with a crime in the requesting state;
3. whether the person named in the extradition request is the person charged with the crime; and
4. whether the petitioner is, in fact, a fugitive from the requesting state.

Extradition - FindLaw

 

[jaspermac]

Pop the champagne!

As you predicted her life will never be the same regardless of what legal consequences she incurs.

 

[gitana1]

I agree with your overall premise about this plea deal with KL and why they’re doing it. As to your comments about the Watts case, I never saw those “many people” you reference. Pretty much everyone in my book thought it was more likely than not that he did it, prior to him confessing. But “more likely than not” is not the standard for a juror. If I’m looking at the “avalanche” of evidence through a juror’s lens, what do I see? An affair, sure. Financial problems, sure. Alienation of affection. But those things don’t make a murderer. If they did, Brandon Bevers would be in prison right now in another case.

Those things don’t rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a body, without anyone else helping and being willing to talk, without him soliciting or talking about murder in the past, there is nothing that rises to that level until either he confessed, or LE found the bodies on their own. Unless you remember pieces of evidence that I don’t?

Let's not derail the thread. But your recitation of the evidence in the case prior to the plea is not a small fraction of what there was that we knew of prior to the plea. Not even remotely close. At the beginning of each thread prior to the plea was a list by me of all the evidence. It was incredible and vast.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Now that we have all agreed she is pleading guilty to something, wonder exactly what she is pleading guilty to? The article stated she was traveling to CO for the hearing. It did not say she was in cuffs already.

Anyone think she could already be arrested and the article was worded wrong?

And does anyone think what she is pleading to is more serious than the disposing of the phone or sending the texts?

We don’t know but would anyone care to speculate? I for one believe she knows a lot of details and all the players.

 

[gitana1]

She better tell the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth. Not just throw PF under the bus, to get a sweetheart deal for herself.
I don't trust her, I don't believe her ( she's an innocent victimim, afraid of PF story).
I think she was jealous of KB,and was more than happy to get rid of Beautiful,Sweet Kelsey, so she could be with PF. It's just so easy for her to play victim, and blame it all on PF
MOO.

Do you think the DA is stupid? And would allow that?

 

[Love Never Fails]

Do you think the DA is stupid? And would allow that?

IMO, I think it is more that the DA is human and can make a mistake.

 

[MsBetsy]

If everyone agrees we don't know the extent of her involvement, why are people getting so worked up about it now. Just wait to find what her involvement was and then decide to get worked up or not.

Very good advice!
So what else can we talk about?

 

[Seattle1]

Sam Kraemer‏ @SamKraemerTV
A look ahead to upcoming court dates in the #KelseyBerreth case: - Feb. 7: #PatrickFrazee has a pre-trial conference in the custody case - Feb. 8: Krystal Lee appears in court - Feb. 19: Frazee's preliminary hearing, when he should enter plea & evidence should be released @KOAA

1:28 PM - 4 Feb 2019

 

[Madison418]

How long was it said (if it was said at all) she was in CO during Thanksgiving? Any idea of timeline as to when she arrived and left? The timing of the texts to employer and PF don't necessarily mean that is when she was arriving back in ID. Apologies if this has been discussed, I've been incredibly busy IRL

 

[Seattle1]

How long was it said (if it was said at all) she was in CO during Thanksgiving? Any idea of timeline as to when she arrived and left? The timing of the texts to employer and PF don't necessarily mean that is when she was arriving back in ID. Apologies if this has been discussed, I've been incredibly busy IRL

I don't believe it was confirmed. However, Thanksgiving, the alleged dod was 11/22/18, and pings/texts were detected in Idaho on 11/25/18 (i.e., if KK transported phone to ID).

 

[riolove77]

IMO, I think it is more that the DA is human and can make a mistake.

Why do you think a mistake is being made?

 

[WildcatRunner]

Not if she is co-operating. She is being charged.

A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The Supreme Court has identified four issues which a state court may analyze when determining whether or not to extradite:

1. whether the extradition request documents are in order;
2. whether the person has been charged with a crime in the requesting state;
3. whether the person named in the extradition request is the person charged with the crime; and
4. whether the petitioner is, in fact, a fugitive from the requesting state.

Extradition - FindLaw

If she had a very serious charge, like murder, Colorado would issue a warrant, and Twin Falls would pick her up on it, if they were aware she was in their jurisdiction.

 

[MassGuy]

IMO, I think it is more that the DA is human and can make a mistake.

They didn’t rush into this; they’ve been at this for nearly two months.

I have full confidence that they fully vetted her account, and did their due diligence.

The prosecution has had plenty of time to get this right.

 

[InvSmith]

YAY! Somebody has some sense. Er, uh, I mean great news.

She will not be a nurse either once she pleas and it works through the process.

 

[GordianKnot]

Ha! I always that that was the minimum price she would pay here.

No matter what happens, she ain’t gonna be a nurse no more.

I just hope she isn’t going to be a free woman for a long while.

BBM: Swell. Guess we can all sleep easy tonight.

If where we've arrived as a society is at a place where we're comfortable with considering a person complicit in a murder being told to hang up their scrubs as having received their just punishment, I'm going to find me a deserted island somewhere and pound coconuts.

 

[gitana1]

BBMFF:

Well, I'll try. It may be hard for me to articulate clearly, so bear with me, gitana. IANAL!

I think the attitude you're sensing probably reflexively springs from your bolded words above.

The DA is an elected position, which is simply another way of saying, "It is a political position." Anytime the specter of a political process rears its ugly head, I immediately view it through a jaundiced eye (which I fully admit clouds my vision).

I know I'm in the solid minority here on this subject, but I do have concerns that as a whole, the American justice system has become entirely too comfortable with taking short-cuts, i.e., playing "Let's Make A Deal" with the bad guys (and gals).

I do realize that from both a practical and political standpoint, latching onto the quickest, most expedient, cheapest way to reach a conviction makes perfect sense.
Enter Monty Hall.

I'm a purist. I'd make a terrible lawyer! I'd rather see our legal systems invest the time, manpower, resources and yes, even taxpayer expense, to try to see if they can get past the threshold of reasonable doubt before cutting any deals with (lesser) devils.
That should be the grudging step of last resort, not the first reach.

I don't have any specific criticism of this DA whatsoever.
Everything we've seen and heard so far seems to signal that they're doing a competent job. They may very well be Rock Star Hall Of Fame material! If so, I'm sure I'll be pleased at the end of the day with the bargain basement deal they struck with KK.

Again, the fact that you've voiced full-throated confidence in this particular DA does help to provide a feeling of reassurance!

All of the Above: ENTIRELY JMO.

I got ya'. I understand. It is indeed a political position. And my view is that because it is, there's no way they're going to make a bad, unjust deal. That's exactly why I assume they know what they're doing and that it's for a good reason.

I do not for one moment believe these professionals are "latching onto the quickest, most expedient, cheapest way to reach a conviction", or using a plea deal as the first reach. That view evinces a cynicism of the DA that i just don't find warranted in any way shape or form. This is a high profile case. Everyone is watching.

Also, the attitude that you'd rather the government "invest the time, manpower, resources and yes, even taxpayer expense, to try to see if they can get past the threshold of reasonable doubt before cutting any deals with (lesser) devils" is understandable, but with a lot of respect (because I admire your intelligence and desire for justice!!) I think it misunderstands the process.

First, I don't think there's any way that the evidence they have would allow for "reasonable" doubt. Because this is a no body case which is horribly difficult to win, generally, without a lot of good evidence. but they arrested him and charged him. So I believe they have solid evidence.

However, this is the post-Casey Anthony era. From what I've seen, the Watts family case being a prime example, some people don't understand what "reasonable" means. They think beyond a reasonable doubt means evidence that is beyond all possible doubt of any kind, at all, evidence that is so irrefutable that it gets past their own prejudices and emotions. Some people are incapable of using logic and they can be on a jury.

So of course the DA is going to try to make sure they have as much as possible.

Second, I don't think allowing a murderer to remain free, and risking a case against that stone cold murderer, because another person implicated in the crime who did far less, will be able to plea to something lesser, is justice. It's not how our system of justice should work, IMO and it would not keep the public safe.

We all want everyone who does something bad to pay for their crimes but what sentences are, what crimes are charged, or available, all of that varies so much from state to state and depends on the circumstances. It's unreasonable to require of our justice system that every wrongdoer be sentenced to the ultimate that they can possibly get for their criminal conduct. There are so many variables at play. And cooperation is a huge one. In fact, it's actually written into the law:

(4) For purposes of this section, mitigating factors shall be the following factors:

(a) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime;  or

(b) The defendant's capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution;  or

(c) The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution;  or

(d) The defendant was a principal in the offense which was committed by another, but the defendant's participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution;  or

(e) The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the defendant's conduct in the course of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person;  or

(f) The emotional state of the defendant at the time the crime was committed;  or

(g) The absence of any significant prior conviction;  or

(h) The extent of the defendant's cooperation with law enforcement officers or agencies and with the office of the prosecuting district attorney;  or

(i) The influence of drugs or alcohol;  or

(j) The good faith, although mistaken, belief by the defendant that circumstances existed which constituted a moral justification for the defendant's conduct;  or

(k) The defendant is not a continuing threat to society;  or

(l) Any other evidence which in the court's opinion bears on the question of mitigation.

BBM.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-1.4-102 | FindLaw

As long as those variables don't include race or religion or other factors that should not have bearing on what is charged and sentenced, I'm okay with many of those variables determining the outcome.

This is what justice looks like folks. IMO.

 

[SandyQLS]

I agree, there’s no way that her involvement was limited to transporting a phone.

She is up to her neck here.

I’m simply waiting to hear the evidence as to the nature of her involvement, before I express any outrage as to the deal she is making.

I also want to understand her contributions as far as building the case against PF goes.

If the latter is greater than the former, then I’ll be a lot happier.

This is a good question for the board lawyers. It seems to me that another reason for the plea deal and presumed guilty plea on Friday is that NO evidence will be presented against KKL or PF or anyone else. The agreed to charge would be read, without evidence, and KKL simply pleads guilty. So we will know her charge(s), and will discuss how reduced they are (like down from murder conspiracy to accessory), and what exactly did she do. So the details of the whole case remained sealed. Is this true, no evidence against KKL will be presented?

 

[Jessthinkin]

Clayton Sandell on Twitter
Nurse in missing-mom case to plead guilty
But on Monday, hospital spokeswoman Michelle Bartlome told ABC News that "an individual by that name no longer works at the hospital."

In January, hospital officials said Lee was on a leave of absence.

BBM -- I appreciate that the spokeswoman cannot bear to utter her name -- "she whose name shall not be spoken."