CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - *Arrest* #58

[MyBelle]

Yes, that is what we have seen in other trials. Make them take the stand and make them pick and choose which questions they can answer and which ones they refuse to answer by taking the 5th.

That way it becomes obvious to the jury when they keep saying "i dont remember" to all the other questions, it can imply they are lying for the defendent. And the jury picks up on that.

I don't believe PF's mother was involved in any way with the murder. I think the question everyone wants answered pertains to the alleged fire on her property and whether KK was there. In fact, the DA may give her immunity in exchange for her testimony because LE DID find remnants of a fire. If there was no burn permit, as property owner, she could be facing legal consequences. I think Colorado takes open burning pretty seriously.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

"I think that some vindication and validation for who Kelsey was, and that none of this was her fault, is deserved," Garretson said.

BBM. That part of the statement really bothers me. Is “this” that she is referring to Kelsey’s murder? I realize the statement was said by KB’s relative, but still, how would anyone think “this” was in any way Kelsey’s fault?

I think this may go back to the stories that were circulated early on that KB wasn't a good mother and had sought treatment for alcohol abuse. iirc, the defense brought it up at a hearing and LE said the treatment center wasn't for alcohol.

JMO

 

[Hatfield]

I don't believe PF's mother was involved in any way with the murder. I think the question everyone wants answered pertains to the alleged fire on her property and whether KK was there. In fact, the DA may give her immunity in exchange for her testimony because LE DID find remnants of a fire. If there was no burn permit, as property owner, she could be facing legal consequences. I think Colorado takes open burning pretty seriously.

JMO

Right. And some other important questions she should be able to answer that should not incriminate her in any way unless she was involved.

*Who was present during the Thanksgiving dinner you had (which was day of alleged murder)?
*What time exactly did PF arrive for said dinner?
*What time exactly did PF leave that dinner?
*What time exactly did he get back after he first left?
*When he got back, did he come back with someone else and if so, who was that person?

These types of questions can help establish whether PF had the time slots available for certain alleged activities that the Prosecution will most likely allege.

 

[Ccging]

Right. And some other important questions she should be able to answer that should not incriminate her in any way unless she was involved.

*Who was present during the Thanksgiving dinner you had (which was day of alleged murder)?
*What time exactly did PF arrive for said dinner?
*What time exactly did PF leave that dinner?
*What time exactly did he get back after he first left?
*When he got back, did he come back with someone else and if so, who was that person?

These types of questions can help establish whether PF had the time slots available for certain alleged activities that the Prosecution will most likely allege.

Sadly IMO if they ask her about specific times her response may very well be “ I can’t recall”.

 

[Hatfield]

Sadly IMO if they ask her about specific times her response may very well be “ I can’t recall”.

Yes, I actually expect her to answer "I dont remember" to a lot of the questions if the prosecution is successful in getting her on the stand. Like was mentioned before, that can sometimes convince a jury the witness is lying when every answer they give is they dont remember.

Its all still valuable testimony IMO even when that happens.

 

[MyBelle]

Right. And some other important questions she should be able to answer that should not incriminate her in any way unless she was involved.

*Who was present during the Thanksgiving dinner you had (which was day of alleged murder)?
*What time exactly did PF arrive for said dinner?
*What time exactly did PF leave that dinner?
*What time exactly did he get back after he first left?
*When he got back, did he come back with someone else and if so, who was that person?

These types of questions can help establish whether PF had the time slots available for certain alleged activities that the Prosecution will most likely allege.

I agree but I think exact times will be difficult to establish. I don't remember exact times of my family's arrival and departure last Thanksgiving because several of us were busy in the kitchen.

JMO

 

[Hatfield]

I agree but I think exact times will be difficult to establish. I don't remember exact times of my family's arrival and departure last Thanksgiving because several of us were busy in the kitchen.

JMO

Maybe the questions can be rephrased to ask "about what time" or "to the best of your recollection, what time..."

I agree the exact time is a little too much to ask of anyone.

 

[Seattle1]

@Niner said: ↑
I believe - and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but once you take the 5th - you have to take it for ALL questions asked. You can't pick & choose which ones you are going answer. At least that is my understanding!

No updates from the court room yet? TIA!

I dont think that is correct. From link below:

Can Any Witness Plead the Fifth?

"At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance.


But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena)."


Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination - FindLaw

Actually -- @Niner is correct. Defendant and Witness are treated differently.

While witness may be selective when to use the 5th Amendment when testifying, the defendant may not. Once defendant answers question, they waived their right to invoke 5th Amendment. It's all or nothing for defendant.

From my earlier post threads ago:

Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.
[...]
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.

 

[MyBelle]

Maybe the questions can be rephrased to ask "about what time" or "to the best of your recollection, what time..."

I agree the exact time is a little too much to ask of anyone.

I think they'll ask the same questions of PF's brother and anyone else who may have been there. I'm not at all familiar with PF's extended family.

JMO

 

[Hatfield]

@Niner said: ↑
I believe - and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but once you take the 5th - you have to take it for ALL questions asked. You can't pick & choose which ones you are going answer. At least that is my understanding!

No updates from the court room yet? TIA!



Actually -- @Niner is correct. Defendant and Witness are treated differently. While witness may be selective when to use the 5th Amendment when testifying, the defendant may not. Once defendant answers question, they waived their right to assert 5th Amendment. It's all or nothing for defendant.

From my earlier post threads ago:

Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.
[...]
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.

We were discussing about "witnesses" taking the stand.

 

[Seattle1]

I believe - and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but once you take the 5th - you have to take it for ALL questions asked. You can't pick & choose which ones you are going answer. At least that is my understanding!

No updates from the court room yet? TIA!

You are correct here @Niner when speaking about defendants.

Once a defendant speaks, they've waived their right to invoke 5th for entire trial.

This does not apply to witnesses though. Witness may selectively invoke the 5th Amendment in their testimony.

 

[BUF]

Jennifer Meckles on lunch break

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sweetsbeach]

I don't believe PF's mother was involved in any way with the murder. I think the question everyone wants answered pertains to the alleged fire on her property and whether KK was there. In fact, the DA may give her immunity in exchange for her testimony because LE DID find remnants of a fire. If there was no burn permit, as property owner, she could be facing legal consequences. I think Colorado takes open burning pretty seriously.

JMO

I don't think SF seeking immunity has anything to do with having a bonfire without a permit...

Lets say that for some reason, that's truly why she wants to gain immunity for her testimony. She can still be charged for not having a permit. The immunity would mean her testimony couldn't be used as evidence against her. However, like you said there was evidence of a fire and KK saw it, so SF could still be charged without using her testimony.

But right now, permits are just about as important as expired plates...

IMO, SF pleading the 5th or seeking immunity is in relation to what she witnessed in relation to KB's murder.

 

[MassGuy]

I don't think SF seeking immunity has anything to do with having a bonfire without a permit...

Lets say that for some reason, that's truly why she wants to gain immunity for her testimony. She can still be charged for not having a permit. The immunity would mean her testimony couldn't be used as evidence against her. However, like you said there was evidence of a fire and KK saw it, so SF could still be charged without using her testimony.

But right now, permits are just about as important as expired plates...

IMO, SF pleading the 5th or seeking immunity is in relation to what she witnessed in relation to KB's murder.

Exactly. The idea that she planned to plead the Fifth to protect herself from the possibility of a fine, is absurd.

She was supposed to be called for additional reasons (Thanksgiving for instance), and could have refused to answer questions if she so desired.

I also doubt that she had her own council, simply for that reason. Her exposure has to be far more serious.

This is a murder case. Besides that, in the words of Billy Joel “Sheila didn’t start the fire...”

 

[Hatfield]

Jennifer Meckles on lunch break

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another great summary from Jennifer.

When they get to 91 I wonder how long it will take the lawyers to reduce that down to the 16 they need.
16 = 12 plus 4 alternates

btw
The alternates are so important because if anything happens to one of the jurors for any reason, then one of the alternates can step right in to take their place.

Sometimes one of the 12 jurors gets a health condition or something that prevents them from continuing or they get thrown off the case because of something they said or did that is against the rules for the jury. It doesnt happen too often, but when it does, its important to have an adequate number of alternates.

I always feel sorry for the alternates. They have to listen and pay attention like the other jurors in case they are needed.

 

[Sweetsbeach]

Exactly. The idea that she planned to plead the Fifth to protect herself from the possibility of a fine, is absurd.

This is a murder case. Besides that, in the words of Billy Joel “Sheila didn’t start the fire...”

Lol! Don't make me hate such a great song MG!

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think SF seeking immunity has anything to do with having a bonfire without a permit...

Lets say that for some reason, that's truly why she wants to gain immunity for her testimony. She can still be charged for not having a permit. The immunity would mean her testimony couldn't be used as evidence against her. However, like you said there was evidence of a fire and KK saw it, so SF could still be charged without using her testimony.

But right now, permits are just about as important as expired plates...

IMO, SF pleading the 5th or seeking immunity is in relation to what she witnessed in relation to KB's murder.

BBM. I said there was evidence of a fire but I don't know whether KK saw it. That is why her testimony is so critical.

I think if there was evidence SF had anything at all to do with the murder, she would have been charged. All KK has accused her of is coming out on the porch during the fire.

JMO

 

[BUF]

Another great summary from Jennifer.

When they get to 91 I wonder how long it will take the lawyers to reduce that down to the 16 they need.
16 = 12 plus 4 alternates

btw
The alternates are so important because if anything happens to one of the jurors for any reason, then one of the alternates can step right in to take their place.

Sometimes one of the 12 jurors gets a health condition or something that prevents them from continuing or they get thrown off the case because of something they said or did that is against the rules for the jury. It doesnt happen too often, but when it does, its important to have an adequate number of alternates.

I always feel sorry for the alternates. They have to listen and pay attention like the other jurors in case they are needed.

I would imagine getting from 91 to 16 would take a while...that's when they fight it out using their peremptory strikes (anyone know how many they are allowed there?). Maybe they will have their 91 by end of today or tomorrow morning if yesterday was any indication of how many they are getting. I have also felt so bad for the alternates too!

Jennifer has been saying we are here 'this week' covering jury selection. Glad to just hear her say they would be there next week...hope they stay for the whole trial. I have a feeling they may.

 

[GordianKnot]

This is a murder case. Besides that, in the words of Billy Joel “Sheila didn’t start the fire...”

SABBM:
Funny you referencing song lyrics in your post, the fact that those aren't the actual song lyrics, notwithstanding.

Just today, I was thinking about the case, and the franch inhabitants in particular, when I, too, had a song suddenly and quite inexplicably pop into my mind:

It's a song by the band Ugly Kid Joe entitled, "I Hate Everything About You."

Really catchy tune. Highly recommend watching the vid on YT for anyone who hasn't heard it.

Interestingly, despite the band's name, turns out Ugly Kid Joe is a lot better looking than Billy Joel. So there's that, too.

Anyway, on to the point: the fact that there was an illegal open burn at the franch is not the moral affront in this case.

The fact that there was a murdered woman's corpse consigned to those flames is what has Ma F in legal peril here.

I sincerely doubt that the residents of Colorado are more incensed about the possibility of open burns having taken place than they are about a young mother having been brutally murdered.

JMO.

 

[susiQ]

I think they'll ask the same questions of PF's brother and anyone else who may have been there. I'm not at all familiar with PF's extended family.

JMO

And hopefully SF2 has good recollection as he was unlikely to have been busy in the kitchen