Deceased/Not Found CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #55 *ARREST*

[ilovechili]

Yes, sufficient evidence from the ranchette and the townhome. So much that the defense had to delay a hearing, IIRC. A mountain! MOO

The defense delayed because they were behind the 8 ball on seeing the paperwork/court documents and discovery where of course the prosecution was up on what they had.

As far as warrants, I invite an attorney in because I am not one, but what is taken is not always relevant at all to trial. For instance, they could take your computer and find nothing about how long it takes to burn a body and how hot the fire has to be and then perhaps taking your computer was a waste of their time but of course they are going to check.

<modsnip: removed unnecessary comment>

ETA: Meaning what were the results of anything and everything taken at the Franch? Or KB's? Or the tooth? Are we out of the loop of inside leaks I gather because I don't know.

 

[Dave F.]

Not hardly, and not to mention that PF was arrested and detained on a no bond sealed affidavit. No Judge would agree to that either without 'substantial' compelling evidence of guilt.

Just my humble opinion, IANAL

The judge did not have a choice in the matter of bond. The linked article entitled "Colorado Criminal Procedure in First Degree Murder cases" explains Colorado procedure quite thoroughly. It says:
"First degree murder charges prevent the setting of a bond unless after a hearing, the prosecution fails to prove that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed first degree murder, a burden of proof greater than probable cause but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
My simple summary is:
First degree murder = No Bond
IMO, IANAL
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/colorado-criminal-procedure-in-first-degree-murder-cases

 

[ilovechili]

Does anyone believe a political office like the DA would bring murder charges against someone in a difficult to win no body case, solely on the say so of a possible culprit, without corroboration that the possible culprit could not have been the murderer?

Of course not but neither do most count on what they have until it is seen, I just think that is wise.

Not sure how that works for opinion of others. To each their own.

I hope they surprise the heck out of us and there is a twist in KK's deal!

For me, I call that great hope and counting on LE and the DA, etc.

I have seen some very good ones and a lot of them local and small as well imo.

And jmo.

 

[gitana1]

It is my understanding, and you can clear this up for me since I am not an attorney, that a DA brings a case because of evidence collected. No? There have been some questions about collection of evidence by WPPD.

I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence collected is examined and an analysis of that evidence is what they base charging decisions on. As well as the strength of the evidence, the difficulty of the case and the likelihood of success.

Here's the question another way:

Does anyone believe a political office like the DA would bring murder charges against someone in a difficult to win no body case, solely on the say so of a possible culprit, without corroboration via solid evidence that was properly collected and analyzed, and which clearly demonstrates that that other possible culprit could not have been the murderer?

 

[ilovechili]

Kelsey was planning on making a sweet potato casserole for PF on the day she was murdered.
Maybe that's where it's coming from.

Aha. Well I guess that makes sense. Kind of like scrambled eggs, brunch, Mimosas and cinnamon rolls.

I want to know if PF ever got the pecans...

Jmo.

 

[gitana1]

The judge did not have a choice in the matter of bond. The linked article entitled "Colorado Criminal Procedure in First Degree Murder cases" explains Colorado procedure quite thoroughly. It says:
"First degree murder charges prevent the setting of a bond unless after a hearing, the prosecution fails to prove that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed first degree murder, a burden of proof greater than probable cause but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
My simple summary is:
First degree murder = No Bond
IMO, IANAL
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/colorado-criminal-procedure-in-first-degree-murder-cases

What is key about what you cited here is that the court found more than probable cause to hold him over for trial without bond. "Proof evident or presumption great" that he murdered Kelsey.

That's super important.

 

[ilovechili]

Of course not but neither do most count on what they have until it is seen, I just think that is wise.

Not sure how that works for opinion of others. To each their own.

I hope they surprise the heck out of us and there is a twist in KK's deal!

For me, I call that great hope and counting on LE and the DA, etc.

I have seen some very good ones and a lot of them local and small as well imo.

And jmo.

Just adding that I have been absolutely flabbergasted at what the prosecution has in some cases that the public has no idea about.

It is what I hope for here.

So I fail to understand how others seem to already know beyond what we have all seen.

However, no expert but tutelage is welcome.

Jmo.

 

[gitana1]

Of course not but neither do most count on what they have until it is seen, I just think that is wise.

Not sure how that works for opinion of others. To each their own.

I hope they surprise the heck out of us and there is a twist in KK's deal!

For me, I call that great hope and counting on LE and the DA, etc.

I have seen some very good ones and a lot of them local and small as well imo.

And jmo.

That's fair. But I think many do count on the evidence unseen to be super strong and indicative of culpability or the lack thereof, based on the logic of the situation.

Again, no body cases are super hard to win. No way is a DA going to risk taking one to trial and losing the faith of his constituents when there is a viable alternative suspect out there.

That would be very irresponsible and bad for his career and I don't see the tiniest indiciation that this DA is an idiot or doesn't know what he's doing.

Further, it is clear that @MassGuy was indeed correct- they did not name an alternate suspect. They left the door open to say someone else could've been there, done that, but they didn't actually name KK.

So I go back to my original analysis- if they had any evidence that pointed to her being here, based on her knowledge of the crime, her statements, they would've named her as an alternative suspect, IMO. Because that is really his only viable defense.

So for me, logic, deductive reasoning, eliminate the viability of the theory that KK was actually there.

Too many factors point away from that for me.

That's not to say trial won't be interesting. And based on my belief that emotion sometimes supercedes logic, I don't think we can say this will be a slam dunk.

 

[Dave F.]

What is key about what you cited here is that the court found more than probable cause to hold him over or trial without bond. "Proof evident or presumption great" that e murdered Kelsey.

That's super important.

I'll have to accept that. You are the lawyer, not me. I'm confident that you have considered "Shanks v District Court of Jefferson County (1953). IANAL
Shanks v. District Court

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence collected is examined and an analysis of that evidence is what they base charging decisions on. As well as the strength of the evidence, the difficulty of the case and the likelihood of success.

Here's the question another way:

Does anyone believe a political office like the DA would bring murder charges against someone in a difficult to win no body case, solely on the say so of a possible culprit, without corroboration via solid evidence that was properly collected and analyzed, and which clearly demonstrates that that other possible culprit could not have been the murderer?

Thanks Gitana and I dont know the answer. I would assume no.
But there was a lot of evidence not yet collected like the tooth or anything from the ranch. I thought all they had at that time was blood from the condo, not yet tested, and KK’s statement. But I didn’t think any of us knew that for sure. It seemed, iirc, they relied heavily on information from KK.

I believe then and do now that WPPD jumped in high gear after the Berreths called saying there was blood in the bathroom. And at some point they found that KK existed and tried to interview her. She turned them down until she was lawyered up. Not saying anything is wrong with that. But it appears when they talked to her that they jumped on having PF charged with first degree murder.

Now, just my opinion, but I would have thought the DA would have brought charges against her immediately and instead he met with her attorney and gave her a deal.

I realize you are an attorney and see deals made with the Devil all the time, but there are still a lot of us who believe if the evidence against PF was so good immediately, as some claim, then the DA should have brought stiffer charges against KK. It is done now and there is nothing we can do about it, except to bring it up every time we can. Because we too have a voice.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Just adding that I have been absolutely flabbergasted at what the prosecution has in some cases that the public has no idea about.

It is what I hope for here.

So I fail to understand how others seem to already know beyond what we have all seen.

However, no expert but tutelage is welcome.

Jmo.

BBM.
The answer may actually be in the first sentence of your post. We have seen cases where prosecution has far more than the public knows. The information released thus far is quite damning to PF. We may not 'know' as fact, but we definitely have reason to believe there is much more to be presented at trial. So maybe it's more accurate to say it as you said - 'It is what I hope for here'. I think we all do. On that we can agree!

 

[MassGuy]

BBM.
The answer may actually be in the first sentence of your post. We have seen cases where prosecution has far more than the public knows. The information released thus far is quite damning to PF. We may not 'know' as fact, but we definitely have reason to believe there is much more to be presented at trial. So maybe it's more accurate to say it as you said - 'It is what I hope for here'. I think we all do. On that we can agree!

Exactly. All we have seen thus far, is SOME of the search warrants, the arrest affidavit, and information revealed in the preliminary hearing.

As far as the arrest affidavit goes, there is typically only enough information to justify the charges. The prosecution doesn’t reveal their hand, or provide more evidence than they have to.

There is always more evidence.

 

[gitana1]

I'll have to accept that. You are the lawyer, not me. I'm confident that you have considered "Shanks v District Court of Jefferson County (1953). IANAL
Shanks v. District Court

Interesting phrasing on your part. No. I had not considered one specific case in CO regarding the right to bail. There are thousands upon thousands of cases in the nation and unless it is relevant to something I need to know in my own state or directly pointed out to me or which I happen to come across in research in regards to cases on here, there would be no reason for me to know about it.

However, you cited it. I read it. What do you believe it stands for? Your post seems to indicate it somehow makes my point less strong.

Nothing I read of the case indicates that's true. What do you think it indicates?

 

[gitana1]

Thanks Gitana and I dont know the answer. I would assume no.
But there was a lot of evidence not yet collected like the tooth or anything from the ranch. I thought all they had at that time was blood from the condo, not yet tested, and KK’s statement. But I didn’t think any of us knew that for sure. It seemed, iirc, they relied heavily on information from KK.

I believe then and do now that WPPD jumped in high gear after the Berreths called saying there was blood in the bathroom. And at some point they found that KK existed and tried to interview her. She turned them down until she was lawyered up. Not saying anything is wrong with that. But it appears when they talked to her that they jumped on having PF charged with first degree murder.

Now, just my opinion, but I would have thought the DA would have brought charges against her immediately and instead he met with her attorney and gave her a deal.

I realize you are an attorney and see deals made with the Devil all the time, but there are still a lot of us who believe if the evidence against PF was so good immediately, as some claim, then the DA should have brought stiffer charges against KK. It is done now and there is nothing we can do about it, except to bring it up every time we can. Because we too have a voice.

You said you wouldn't assume so but everything in your post directly refutes your statement and indeed indicates you feel that the DA and LE jumped the gun, rushed to make a decision and relied on statments with little real corroboration and insufficient evidence.

Respectfully, I believe that stance is unreasonable and illogical given the circumstances I have outlined.

But my job isn't to make anyone believe me. However, I just don't see debate productive without some factual or logical basis for one's position.

 

[MassGuy]

Interesting phrasing on your part. No. I had not considered one specific case in CO regarding the right to bail. There are thousands upon thousands of cases in the nation and unless it is relevant to something I need to know in my own state or directly pointed out to me or which I happen to come across in research in regards to cases on here, there would be no reason for me to know about it.

However, you cited it. I read it. What do you believe it stands for? Your post seems to indicate it somehow makes my point less strong.

Nothing I read of the case indicates that's true. What do you think it indicates?

Hold it. Are you telling me you haven’t read every single court ruling in the state of Colorado since 1953?

 

[Love Never Fails]

Exactly. All we have seen thus far, is SOME of the search warrants, the arrest affidavit, and information revealed in the preliminary hearing.

As far as the arrest affidavit goes, there is typically only enough information to justify the charges. The prosecution doesn’t reveal their hand, or provide more evidence than they have to.

There is always more evidence.

It is interesting to note and remember that the prosecution usually has more evidence than we know about till trial. That could also be said of KKL, that they have found more evidence against her. Now that they have a deal, can they use it against her or would they want to?

And it is probable that the defense investigators have more information that we don’t know about that may be used at trial. I am not sure of the law and how the court could restrict that information though.

That is my reason for saying so many times that I am anxious to hear ALL the evidence at trial.

There is so much we simply don’t know yet.

 

[Love Never Fails]

You said you wouldn't assume so but everything in your post directly refutes your statement and indeed indicates you feel that the DA and LE jumped the gun, rushed to make a decision and relied on statments with little real corroboration and insufficient evidence.

Respectfully, I believe that stance is unreasonable and illogical given the circumstances I have outlined.

But my job isn't to make anyone believe me. However, I just don't see debate productive without some factual or logical basis for one's position.

Well, you have misunderstood me, big time. I don’t want to debate. And it isn’t that I disbelieve anyone. It may be that my memory fails me. I just remember them arresting PF immediately after getting KK’s statement and with all she was involved in, I would have thought the DA would have arrested her also as a conspirator or something much stronger. Instead they used her as a witness. I’m not sure how strong a witness she will be until trial.

<modsnip>

 

[MassGuy]

It is interesting to note and remember that the prosecution usually has more evidence than we know about till trial. That could also be said of KKL, that they have found more evidence against her. Now that they have a deal, can they use it against her or would they want to?

And it is probable that the defense investigators have more information that we don’t know about that may be used at trial. I am not sure of the law and how the court could restrict that information though.

That is my reason for saying so many times that I am anxious to hear ALL the evidence at trial.

There is so much we simply don’t know yet.

We all want to hear everything; there is so much we don’t know.

The prosecution wouldn’t let her testify if they knew she was lying, or if it hurt their case to a point that calling her would be counterproductive.

That arrest affidavit contained a lot of evidence that she provided, and it would undermine their case if they knew her statements were false or unsupported.

They want her to do well, and wouldn’t go after her on the stand. You can’t cut a deal with someone with the intention of blowing it up at trial.

The defense will be privy to discovery, which they will use to find a way to go after KK. We already knew she lied to the FBI, which was even included in the arrest affidavit.

So they’ll use that, and whatever their investigators have uncovered.

 

[gitana1]

Hold it. Are you telling me you haven’t read every single court ruling in the state of Colorado since 1953?

Ha ha! Nope.

But if anyone wants me to know about a case or other law they feel could be relevant please feel free to say: "Hey I found this case and I think it means...does that impact your reasoning or assessment?"

I'm happy to take a look.

 

[MassGuy]

For some reason though, I seem to keep being put elsewhere in my beliefs despite repeated, and I mean repeated, and repeated statements by myself that they are both guilty and disgust me.

<snipped for focus>

This is where things become unclear. When you say “...that they are both guilty,” that can be viewed as both of them being guilty of murderer.

Guilty of what (I don’t mean morally or ethically)?

Let’s end this once and for all. Do you believe they are both LEGALLY, guilty of murder.