CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #56 *ARREST*

[Warwick7]

Yes. That part was left out of that reporter’s Tweet. Another reporter had it though:

Slater said Cheryl got a text from Berreth's phone later that day (11/22/18) saying she was glad to have her gun back from Frazee, that she felt safe. Cheryl told CBI Frazee previously took Berreth's gun after the couple argued about finances, and Kelsey put a gun to her head.

Jennifer Meckles on Twitter

Thanks for locating this.
Is there a time stamp on any document dump that we have gotten?

 

[Warwick7]

^^sbm

Given the case facts and evidence provided, I cannot fathom PF testifying in this trial.

Unlike a witness, a criminal defendant that takes the stand cannot selectively choose which questions to answer /or not answer. Once he invokes his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate or be a witness against himself, it blankets his entire testimony. It's all or nothing.

I agree.
PF's personality is one that REFUSEF to be at the press conference foe KB.
He will refuse to take the stand.

 

[Warwick7]

Well, now that I think about it I think I remember two different things being reported. One was that Kelsey's mom spoke to her and she said she got the gun back and she felt safe now and the other was that there was a text stating that PF had returned the gun and they were going shooting that night.
Could there have been a call and a text, or was there just one that was reported inaccurately at first?

Now THAT is interesting. If that is correct that. "they were going to go shooting that night."
What a convient shooting "accident".
That text or call is new to me.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I am not expecting PF to testify in his own defense, I’m expecting him to sit there with his bright red guilty face looking down , saying nothing and emotionless. Possibly a tear or 2 but that will only be for himself and the mess he’s caused. MOO

I’m hoping that KK incriminates herself further when she testifies because there is no way she only knew all these little details after hearing them from PF.
I’m hoping the jury look at her and see an accomplice who’s got herself ‘found out’ and is desperately trying to help get herself the least sentence possible.
If they believe her story she’s an accessory after the fact, if they don’t then she’s likely going to be the next one on trial. Either way, she’s a liar.
JMO

 

[Seattle1]

About a week ago I read some documents and one was from KK's lawyer covering discovery and it was thorough. It went all the way down to things like they could not call some things work notes so as not to provide them, etc. I don't have the legalese for it but it was explicit covering ensuring every single thing was provided or that it should be provided per law.

^^S/BBM

Yes, it's true that lawyers work product (work notes, legal research, correspondence, memoranda, etc.), and Informants identity are NOT discoverable.

Also, KK is not on trial with PF, and this makes perfect sense to me of KK's lawyer's discovery request for both the prosecutor's case against KK-- where she's the defendant, but also the applicable discovery request put forth by PF's defense team on KK (as the prosecutor's witness).

From my earlier link above, take note of the following that defense can request about KK:

Discovery involving prosecution witnesses is often limited to their observations and their oral and written statements. An experienced Colorado criminal defense lawyer will seek much more than that – among those items sought is evidence related to the following:

• Prior inconsistent statements (possibly including inconsistent attorney proffers,
• Statements or reports reflecting witness statement variations,
• Benefits provided to witnesses including:
  • Dropped or reduced charges,
  • Immunity for their testimony,
  • Expectations of downward departures or motions for reduction of sentence,
  • Assistance in a state or local criminal proceeding,
  • Considerations regarding forfeiture of assets,
  • Stays of deportation or other immigration status considerations,
  • S-Visas,
  • Monetary benefits,
  • Non-prosecution agreements,
  • Letters to other law enforcement officials (e.g. state prosecutors, parole boards) setting forth the extent of a witness’s assistance or making substantive recommendations on the witness’s behalf,
  • Relocation assistance,
  • Consideration or benefits to culpable or at risk third-parties,
• Other known conditions that could affect the witness’s bias such as:
  • Animosity toward defendant,
  • Animosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated,
  • Relationship with victim,
  • Known but uncharged criminal conduct (that may provide an incentive to curry favor with a prosecutor),
• Prior acts under Rule 608
• Prior convictions under Rule 609
• Known substance abuse or mental health issues or other issues that could affect the witness’s ability to perceive and recall events

 

[susiQ]

I am not expecting PF to testify in his own defense, I’m expecting him to sit there with his bright red guilty face looking down , saying nothing and emotionless. Possibly a tear or 2 but that will only be for himself and the mess he’s caused. MOO

I’m hoping that KK incriminates herself further when she testifies because there is no way she only knew all these little details after hearing them from PF.
I’m hoping the jury look at her and see an accomplice who’s got herself ‘found out’ and is desperately trying to help get herself the least sentence possible.
If they believe her story she’s an accessory after the fact, if they don’t then she’s likely going to be the next one on trial. Either way, she’s a liar.
JMO

Tears from PF?? When pigs fly and Hell freezes over!! Maybe a river of crocodile tears from KK with her waterproof mascara. JMHO

 

[ilovechili]

^^S/BBM

Yes, it's true that lawyers work product (work notes, legal research, correspondence, memoranda, etc.), and Informants identity are NOT discoverable.

Also, KK is not on trial with PF, and this makes perfect sense to me of KK's lawyer's discovery request for both the prosecutor's case against KK-- where she's the defendant, but also the applicable discovery put forth by PF's defense team on KK (as the prosecutor's witness).

From my earlier link above, take note of the following that defense can request about KK:

Discovery involving prosecution witnesses is often limited to their observations and their oral and written statements. An experienced Colorado criminal defense lawyer will seek much more than that – among those items sought is evidence related to the following:

• Prior inconsistent statements (possibly including inconsistent attorney proffers,
• Statements or reports reflecting witness statement variations,
• Benefits provided to witnesses including:
  • Dropped or reduced charges,
  • Immunity for their testimony,
  • Expectations of downward departures or motions for reduction of sentence,
  • Assistance in a state or local criminal proceeding,
  • Considerations regarding forfeiture of assets,
  • Stays of deportation or other immigration status considerations,
  • S-Visas,
  • Monetary benefits,
  • Non-prosecution agreements,
  • Letters to other law enforcement officials (e.g. state prosecutors, parole boards) setting forth the extent of a witness’s assistance or making substantive recommendations on the witness’s behalf,
  • Relocation assistance,
  • Consideration or benefits to culpable or at risk third-parties,
• Other known conditions that could affect the witness’s bias such as:
  • Animosity toward defendant,
  • Animosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated,
  • Relationship with victim,
  • Known but uncharged criminal conduct (that may provide an incentive to curry favor with a prosecutor),
• Prior acts under Rule 608
• Prior convictions under Rule 609
• Known substance abuse or mental health issues or other issues that could affect the witness’s ability to perceive and recall events

Yep, not discoverable but they also cannot try to hide discoverable things as work product, etc. the way I understand it as a layperson.

If I understand KK's docs correctly from her attorney, it only relates to her case or things that can relate to or affect her case.

As I said, I find such things a bit dry but important. I did not spend a lot of time on it but read it and understood the gist of most of it.

The basics though both sides should have by now and have reviewed. DNA, the tooth if done, other forensic testing, recordings/interviews, etc.

Nowadays I think the only big surprises, if any, are how each side will interpret the evidence, what questions they will ask, etc. Maybe courtroom behavior like trying to slip things in not allowed so even if the jury is told to ignore, they hear them anyhow; objecting to every question to throw off the rhythm of the other side; and such things.

It is always about the victims first for me but I have to say this is the number one trial I would ever ask be televised. And I watched OJ, Scott Peterson, Justin Barber and many live ones. I know I am whining to no avail over that but I still don't like it.

Jmo.

 

[Seattle1]

I am not expecting PF to testify in his own defense, I’m expecting him to sit there with his bright red guilty face looking down , saying nothing and emotionless. Possibly a tear or 2 but that will only be for himself and the mess he’s caused. MOO

I’m hoping that KK incriminates herself further when she testifies because there is no way she only knew all these little details after hearing them from PF.
I’m hoping the jury look at her and see an accomplice who’s got herself ‘found out’ and is desperately trying to help get herself the least sentence possible.
If they believe her story she’s an accessory after the fact, if they don’t then she’s likely going to be the next one on trial. Either way, she’s a liar.
JMO

KK is a proven liar, and from a legal standpoint, most likely an accomplice in the murder of KB, -- that got a deal from the State to only be charged with felony witness tampering, in exchange for her testimony against PF.

I'm certainly not looking or wishing for KK to do anything that will create reasonable doubt about PF's guilt, allowing him to walk!

I just posted some of the discoverable information PF's defense can seek from the prosecutor about KK.

The prosecutor and KK's own team will be acutely aware of this information provided to the defense, and will have KK well prepared.

MOO

 

[Steelslady]

^^SBM

Makes me wonder if the custody paperwork was PF's back-up plan that he was going to immediately file in the event KB "escaped" her death as planned.

Other than the document(s) located during December 2018 warrant search of his residence, I don't recall if the paperwork was dated.

Agree. I think, though, that he had TWO back up plans, both that blew up literally in his face.

He had these papers, just in case Kelsey "disappeared" on her own, so to speak.

He wanted Krystal to do the dirty deed and be the suspect. Think about it- it wouldn't be hard, if she had committed the murder instead of him, to believe another woman wanted to get rid of the woman preventing them from being together.

When Krystal refused two or three times to kill Kelsey (sorry, but I do think that coffee was poisoned and agree with @ilovechili that that is a woman's way of murdering someone-less messy), he had no choice but to do it himself. He thought he was so smart, making her clean up the mess, helping him burn and dispose of Kelsey and evidence. He thought he was free and clear, and eventually, had he gotten away with it, I think he would have told Krystal to take a hike. I think the custody papers were the back up plan to file, once Kelsey "disappeared". Patrick even mentioned some co-worker of hers, a male, tried to insinuate something was going on between them, to question him.

Patrick thought this out carefully, in terms of how's, when, back up plans. He didn't think out the evidence trail- though he thought he did, having him and Kelsey text back and forth after he killed her, and then Krystal bringing Kelsey's phone back with her, making it appear that she either went to visit her ailing grandmother (I wonder if that was a lie, too, or was Kelsey's grandmother ill and he took advantage of that to create a false story?).

 

[ilovechili]

Tears from PF?? When pigs fly and Hell freezes over!! Maybe a river of crocodile tears from KK with her waterproof mascara. JMHO

Real tears over her lost love maybe being in the courtroom and all of her dashed dreams...? It just dawned on me she will likely never find another quite like PF... I wonder how she will deal with that... [Gag]

I probably could not be in the courtroom, I think I would hiss at her and him or something if sitting behind them or near enough or laugh out loud at some ludicrous testimony. I would probably cause a mistrial or have to be removed.

We have yet to see one thing that looks like a human emotion on PF's face. The only thing that even comes close is that same look where I believe he is trying to look concerned but it does not fly--it does not even manage take-off...

Imo.

 

[Steelslady]

That was so heartbreaking. Keeping that baby from her was just downright cruel. MOO

Tells you what his character is made of. Sadistic and cruel are just too kind of adjectives for this fool.

 

[MsBetsy]

Now THAT is interesting. If that is correct that. "they were going to go shooting that night."
What a convient shooting "accident".
That text or call is new to me.

Well, I'm relying on my memory, so it may have just said she could now go to the shooting range and practice or something.
But it is a bit of a coincidence that the text was sent on the same day they went out to check on the cattle, and likely after she had been murdered.

He planned to murder her that day, and may have considered using the gun to kill her when they were out that night.

Imo

 

[Steelslady]

^^sbm

Given the case facts and evidence provided, I cannot fathom PF testifying in this trial.

Unlike a witness, a criminal defendant that takes the stand cannot selectively choose which questions to answer /or not answer. Once he invokes his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate or be a witness against himself, it blankets his entire testimony. It's all or nothing.

We can dream, though, haha. I'd love nothing more.

 

[Seattle1]

Yep, not discoverable but they also cannot try to hide discoverable things as work product, etc. the way I understand it as a layperson.

^^SBM

KK's represented by an experienced, and well respected legal team.

Given that "work product" is well, and long defined by Rule 16 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, previously linked, I think you can rest assured nobody's going to try to hide discoverable evidence as their "work product!"

In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of such a charges against a lawyer!

 

[ilovechili]

^^SBM

KK's represented by an experienced, and well respected legal team.

Given that "work product" is well, and long defined by Rule 16 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, previously linked, I think you can rest assured nobody's going to try to hide discoverable evidence as their "work product!"

In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of such a charges against a lawyer!

I did not say I thought anyone did any such thing. In fact, the high powered attorney's document looked like probably one they use in every case to cover all possibilities.

The only thing I said that I started with is that both sides should have all discovery and there are few surprises these days because of it or Perry Mason moments.

At no time did I say I thought anyone hid work product. I am talking about the standard language in a request for all discovery and what I thought it meant, what was discoverable and what was not.

In fact I was talking pretty generally in the beginning and not about specific Colorado law.

I hope that clarifies things

 

[MsBetsy]

Agree. I think, though, that he had TWO back up plans, both that blew up literally in his face.

He had these papers, just in case Kelsey "disappeared" on her own, so to speak.

He wanted Krystal to do the dirty deed and be the suspect. Think about it- it wouldn't be hard, if she had committed the murder instead of him, to believe another woman wanted to get rid of the woman preventing them from being together.

When Krystal refused two or three times to kill Kelsey (sorry, but I do think that coffee was poisoned and agree with @ilovechili that that is a woman's way of murdering someone-less messy), he had no choice but to do it himself. He thought he was so smart, making her clean up the mess, helping him burn and dispose of Kelsey and evidence. He thought he was free and clear, and eventually, had he gotten away with it, I think he would have told Krystal to take a hike. I think the custody papers were the back up plan to file, once Kelsey "disappeared". Patrick even mentioned some co-worker of hers, a male, tried to insinuate something was going on between them, to question him.

Patrick thought this out carefully, in terms of how's, when, back up plans. He didn't think out the evidence trail- though he thought he did, having him and Kelsey text back and forth after he killed her, and then Krystal bringing Kelsey's phone back with her, making it appear that she either went to visit her ailing grandmother (I wonder if that was a lie, too, or was Kelsey's grandmother ill and he took advantage of that to create a false story?).

I don't doubt that the coffee was poisoned either. Kelsey probably dumped it down the sink.
I imagine she told PF that some crazy woman came to her door thanking her for helping to find the neighbors lost dog or whatever story it was.
PF was probably furious.

I'm sure he planned to use the documents and his friends and family as witnesses to support his story of Kelsey running off. I think he had been bad mouthing her for a long time.
But I also think it's possible that he really did want to fight for custody first. He probably thought he had a good chance considering all the "evidence" he created.

After all, it was not until he actually confronted Kelsey with his plans to take her to court for custody that he went through with the murder.
But I do think he considered it for a long time, and in the end decided it was the only way. He knew she would fight him for custody and did not want to risk her standing in the way.

I also don't think he cared about KK in the same way she felt about him. Maybe years ago when she was a rodeo queen he did, but I believe she was the one who was obsessed with him, so she was the perfect person to carry out the crime. He probably convinced her they could only be together with Kelsey out of the way. He cared so much for her that he made sure she did much of the dirty work and would be connected to the murder.

Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

Real tears over her lost love maybe being in the courtroom and all of her dashed dreams...? It just dawned on me she will likely never find another quite like PF... I wonder how she will deal with that... [Gag]

I probably could not be in the courtroom, I think I would hiss at her and him or something if sitting behind them or near enough or laugh out loud at some ludicrous testimony. I would probably cause a mistrial or have to be removed.

We have yet to see one thing that looks like a human emotion on PF's face. The only thing that even comes close is that same look where I believe he is trying to look concerned but it does not fly--it does not even manage take-off...

Imo.

I think that look of concern is just Frazee trying to understand what is being said in the courtroom.
More like concentration rather than concern. Imo

 

[ilovechili]

I think that look of concern is just Frazee trying to understand what is being said in the courtroom.
More like concentration rather than concern. Imo

Could be lol. I was going to say concern and showing interest in the proceedings... Concentration on trying to comprehend may be more like it...

 

[Seattle1]

I did not say I thought anyone did any such thing.

Yep, not discoverable but they also cannot try to hide discoverable things as work product, etc. the way I understand it as a layperson.

^^BBM

Respectfully, you did say such a thing.

I responded directly to your quote "they also cannot try to hide discoverable things as work product" unquote. bbm

I responded that I don't think they would try to do this, and why I didn't think so.

I don't think there's another interpretation as posted, although you may have intended to post otherwise.

MOO

 

[ilovechili]

^^BBM

Respectfully, you did say such a thing.

I responded directly to your quote "they also cannot try to hide discoverable things as work product" unquote. bbm

I responded that I don't think they would try to do this, and why I didn't think so.

I don't think there's another interpretation as posted, although you may have intended to post otherwise.

Yes, and the below is what I was referring to--a discovery demand by KK's attorney and standard language talking about circumventing the rules of discovery. BBM. There are also other parts, it is a multiple page document. It is specifically pointed out in her motion.

"1. The handwritten and/or typewritten notes of investigators and victim witness advocates must be preserved and disclosed to the defense if they contain the substance of recitals of oral statements made by witnesses. See People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375, 381 (Colo. 1982); People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760, 767 (Colo. 1981). Although the work product of a prosecuting attorney is not discoverable, see Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1), non-discoverable material may be excised and the remainder provided to the accused. People v. District Court, 780 P.2d 332, 336 (Colo. 1990). 2. Because the witnesses' versions of events are all told differently to each party involved, anything that is stated regarding the alleged incident is potential impeachment. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150(1972); People v. District Court, City and County of Denver, 808 P.2d 831(Colo. 1991); People v. District Court for the 17th Judicial District, 793 P.2d 163 (Colo. 1990); People v. Doss, 782 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989). 3. It is improper for the prosecution to attempt to circumvent its obligations by deliberately avoiding taking notes or reducing statements to writing. People v. Anderson, 837 P.2d 293 (Colo. App. 1992); US v. Van Nuys, 707 F.Supp. 465 (D. Colo. 1989). 4. In fact, the defense moves for the Court to order that any and all future discussions or interviews with witnesses in this case, about the events of the case, be tape-recorded by law enforcement or by the agent of the prosecution. The defense will purchase a hand-held tape-recorder for the prosecution to make certain that resources are not an issue, and that all interviews are taped for future accuracy and verification."

Full 7 page document which has much more: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/D-02 Discovery Demand.pdf

She takes no chances anything could be misconstrued--it is far more in depth than some I have seen.

I did not say I knew of any lawyer who had done this or that anyone in Teller County would do any such thing, any more than I think this attorney of KK's is directing this as doubt towards Teller County by detailing this.

ETA quotation marks--fix typos--clarify.