Evidence of what? I think the defense destroyed KK's credibility on cross-examination. There has been no forensic evidence to support KK's claim the murder took place at the condo, that the murder weapon was a ball bat and that that the tooth was a human tooth and that it belonged to KB. That's the burden that the DA has to meet. I'm not even sure when the fire took place. The testimony from the ranch hands was vague about the specific date. For all I know, since they testified they placed the wood pallets in the rusted trough prior to Thanksgiving, PF may have started it the night of Thanksgiving or the day after.
That fire was in the works
prior to Thanksgiving and KB was still very much alive. Ritchie testified the rusted horse trough was moved and the wooden palates placed inside of it before Thanksgiving. To me, it doesn't prove the purpose was to burn a body that wasn't dead yet.
There has been testimony that the DA provided KK with "bullet points" prior to her testimony. She also has embellished details she hadn't shared with LE previously. This woman is obsessed, delusional and there is no evidence at all that she has told the truth about anything at all.
Stiegerwald had Kenney admit she lied to the FBI the first time and noted again that she claimed she wanted to be caught. She testified that when agents came to her house, she said she would cooperate but said she did not tell them about any of the clues.
He again noted that the first time she talked to law enforcement was after she received the plea agreement and a letter and bullet points outlining what she needed to talk about, which she confirmed.
Stiegerwald then began to question her about things she testified about Wednesday and Thursday which he claimed was the first time she had discussed such matters.
She said that the story about Frazee fantasizing about having a son around with her was the first time she had told that story. She also said that she first told the story about giving Frazee a stuffed animal for Kaylee in court Wednesday and said she never told either story to law enforcement.
Stiegerwald asked if when she said that Frazee “wasn’t as excited as she hoped” about their unborn child, if she meant that Frazee was implying she should have an abortion, to which she responded she did not.
Kenney said she has told the truth for the past year, to which Stiegerwald ended his cross-examination:“For the past 10 hours, you’re telling the truth. And it just so happens to be what you needed to say to stay out of prison."
JMO
Frazee trial: Defense asks why Kenney didn't alert authorities
But that's the standard way that plea agreements are negotiated, IMO. KKL's would tell her lawyer the information she had. He/she would validate that information - likely with a polygraph test. Then, the lawyer talks in hypotheticals with law enforcement without the client. If my client has information about Y, then X, etc. They draw up the list of what categories of information the witness needs to testify to to complete the agreement. Then, the statement (and likely another polygraph) is given by KKL to law enforcement AFTER the plea agreement has been reached. Clearly, the physical evidence and testimony from others corroborates what KKL said or she wouldn't be in compliance with the plea deal. This protects both sides. So, the "bullet points" or "7 agreements" are the same thing and was generated between law enforcement and KKL's lawyer, IMO. A lawyer here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like that's pretty standard plea agreement process.
It’s the equivalent of waking up one winter morning, looking out your window, and seeing several inches of snow.
Most people would see the snow on the ground, and conclude that it snowed overnight. This, despite not seeing snow falling down.
Apparently, that’s not enough for others, and they will conclude that not only is there no snow, but it must be beach weather.
Oh my goodness yes.
I'm not sure why the 'bullet points' issue is bothersome to you. Its not atypical when you are being asked to give extensive or complex testimony to organise the information in advance of trial.
KK had roughly 10 hrs of testimony over a wide range of topics so organising the information into bullet points makes sense IMO.
Atty's spend a lot of time with 'witness preparation' and its part of the process and I don't think there is anything nefarious about the process at all as it isn't as if some kind of 'script' was given to KK by the DA as you seem to imply in you OP. KK was a witness on the stand under oath.
MOO
There isn't anything nefarious about it. Unless you're trying to find something - then you can make something of anything. MOO, of course.
The trial itself just started in the last week. We have yet to hear from the CBI experts whether chemicals detected blood in the condo even though the DA moved quickly past the condo to the Nash ranch evidence. Why is that? It would be imperative for the jury to know what the chemical testing of the condo revealed considering the K-9 dogs came up with nothing.
It has been known for many months that 5 teeth were seized via search warrant. So far, no CBI analysis of any of the teeth has been submitted as testimony.
JMO
BBM. Because the prosecution has a specific flow of testimony that they've created for the jury. They're telling the story first - the personal testimonials of what happened and next will come the forensic evidence to back that up. They aren't going to bring up ANYTHING that they can't back up with forensics or personal testimony.
What drugs?
We haven't seen any evidence that KK ever had any drugs or stole them from the hospital.
How could she have incapacitated Kelsey with the drugs if she did not arrive until two days after the murder took place? There is plenty of evidence that the murder took place in the condo.
Kelsey had to be dead in the tote by the time PF took the body to the Nash Ranch that night since there were stains on the hay and the dogs alerted there so when would she have given her the drugs?
Or did she give the drugs to the third party and they gave them to her?
But what would even be the point of giving her the drugs in the first place? And why would KK be afraid that her drugs incapacitated her so she had to make it look like PF murdered her if there was no way to prove she got the drugs in the first place?
Sounds too complicated to me.
It doesn't make sense.
Imo
BBM. We do have testimony from KKL's hearing - not this trial - that states she did carry the drugs. I had thought the same thing as you but someone provided this
from KKL's hearing in Feb:
An arrest affidavit for Frazee reveal Kenney told investigators she carried drugs, at Frazee’s request, to poison Berreth’s coffee, but didn’t do it. She was asked by Frazee to beat Berreth with a pipe, but didn’t. She told authorities she cleaned Berreth’s condo after the murder and accompanied the body which was later burned.
So, where they came from (did she steal them? or did she get a MD friend to write her an RX? or did she already have an RX?) and what happened to those drugs we do not know. I don't think they had anything to do with the murder
it's kind of a stretch to say there is "not one shred of evidence" the murder took place in the condo. the last photo of her was at the condo with PF. KB was never seen again after that. there was blood evidence found, with some of it found in locations that one might not normally expect blood to be found. a dog hit on decomposition in the location that KK said she placed some bags after the clean up. PF certainly was around the condo for several hours that afternoon with no sight of KB after that last photo.
It is a massive, massive stretch. Pointed at no one in particular, some people really relish the appearance of having an open mind and maintaining the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. Typically, I feel like those people abandon reason to try to portray that mindset.
BBM.
I don’t think there has been any testimony about KK having drugs or the hospital saying that drugs went missing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Can you link a source that states KK has already lost her job?
As to her testimony omitting mention of her children, you do realize that she can only answer the questions that are asked, right? Can you cite a source stating that she was asked about her children?
There was testimony during KKL's plea hearing (linked above) about her having the drugs. There has been nothing to indicate she stole the medications, though.
I agree about the children. It doesn't appear she was asked about that so how could she testify about it?
Ok but it doesn’t state whether she was terminated or whether she quit.
No, it doesn't, but either way she lost her job. She either quit because of the publicity or she was terminated. Doesn't really matter because the end result is the same. I'd be curious if she were working anywhere right now. That's the real question, IMO.
Exactly..... as I read through posts, especially those where folks may believe PF is not guilty, and I read their reasoning behind it, I remind myself that we are all going through this trial with second hand tweets, FB live posts, etc, forming our own interpretation based on those.... and the reporters are doing an excellent job of it. I remind myself not to get caught up in the slight difference of a word/s a witness is "reported" to have said. It's the major and obvious testimony of facts that matters the most to me. Innocent until proven guilty... of course. But PF is the guy with the bulls eye on him.... and the more I read/hear, that bow & arrow keeps raising higher and higher.... aiming towards the bulls eye.
BBM. Exactly!
Stiegerwald had Kenney admit she lied to the FBI the first time and noted again that she claimed she wanted to be caught. She testified that when agents came to her house, she said she would cooperate but said she did not tell them about any of the clues.
He again noted that the first time she talked to law enforcement was after she received the plea agreement and a letter and
bullet points outlining what she needed to talk about, which she confirmed.
Frazee trial: Defense asks why Kenney didn't alert authorities
Yep, this would be SOP. The seven points that the DEFENSE pointed out that she needed to tell the truth about, which was listed above in the previous thread. I can't find the post that someone did, but I'm confident it was general and without specifics at all. At the time she was interviewed, they didn't know 90%+ of the evidence and folks to go to for witnesses that we now know.
MOO
The bullet points and list of 7 agreements are the same thing, IMO. Just different verbiage by different reporters.