CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - *Arrest* #63

[Seattle1]

We haven't been privy to every sentence at the trial, so it could be that the ranch hands saw PF's mom come out on the porch. As the trial goes on this information may come out.

^^sbm

When Investigators took KK to the franch to tour the location of the fire, one of the Investigators body cam recorded KK saying that she saw SF come out to the deck when the bonfire flames were towering.

KK also stated that she saw the ranch hands doing chores (moving the trough) at the franch the evening of the fire. Between SF2 and KK --they identified the ranch hands and LE interviewed them on 12/31/19.

(SF2 saw the ranch hands with PF when they went to scrap yard to dispose of the trough).

I don't recall any report or testimony that the ranch hands saw SF on the deck. MOO

 

[Warwick7]

^^sbm

When Investigators took KK to the franch to tour the location of the fire, one of the Investigators body cam recorded KK saying that she saw SF come out to the deck when the bonfire flames were towering.

KK also stated that she saw the ranch hands doing chores (moving the trough) at the franch the evening of the fire. Between SF2 and KK --they identified the ranch hands and LE interviewed them on 12/31/19.

(SF2 saw the ranch hands with PF when they went to scrap yard to dispose of the trough).

I don't recall any report or testimony that the ranch hands saw SF on the deck. MOO

I forgot about that.

"KK also stated that she saw the ranch hands doing chores (moving the trough) at the franch the evening of the fire. Between SF2 and KK --they identified the ranch hands and LE interviewed them on 12/31/19."

 

[Artis]

Yeah, that was before she heard he beat KB to death with a bat, right??

Yes. You never know how someone will think after hearing this stuff, though. CC and father figure #1 will probably rationalize it. There will be some who will also refuse to believe, as irrational as that is. Look at that dope, MS, insisting what a great person KK is when she knew what she'd done.

 

[Warwick7]

Yes. You never know how someone will think after hearing this stuff, though. CC and father figure #1 will probably rationalize it. There will be some who will also refuse to believe, as irrational as that is. Look at that dope, MS, insisting what a great person KK is when she knew what she'd done.

After all this testimony if RS gets up there and praises PF to high heaven or lies....
He will look like a fool.
And media will tear him apart!

 

[susiQ]

Yes. You never know how someone will think after hearing this stuff, though. CC and father figure #1 will probably rationalize it. There will be some who will also refuse to believe, as irrational as that is. Look at that dope, MS, insisting what a great person KK is when she knew what she'd done.

Absolutely. Is moronicity contagious, do you think??

 

[steeltowngirl]

After all this testimony if RS gets up there and praises PF to high heaven or lies....
He will look like a fool.
And media will tear him apart!

Ahhh RS. Wasn’t he the “father figure” that accompanied PF to the bank to talk to Mrs Key? The masterminds behind this brilliant plan:

During her conversation with him, Key said she could access the surveillance video from his trip to the bank on Thanksgiving.

“Mr. Frazee asked me if I could get those things for him and I said I could, he said he was needing to have a timeline for that time because he and his fiance had broken up the day before, he was getting together with her to see about custody for their child, and he needed to set a timeline for where he was the day before,” Key said on the witness stand, adding that Frazee told her his fiancee had gone missing.

“I said ‘if you don’t know when she went missing, how will this timeline help you?’” Key said. “He said ‘well, exactly.'”

 

[Warwick7]

Ahhh RS. Wasn’t he the “father figure” that accompanied PF to the bank to talk to Mrs Key? The masterminds behind this brilliant plan:

During her conversation with him, Key said she could access the surveillance video from his trip to the bank on Thanksgiving.

“Mr. Frazee asked me if I could get those things for him and I said I could, he said he was needing to have a timeline for that time because he and his fiance had broken up the day before, he was getting together with her to see about custody for their child, and he needed to set a timeline for where he was the day before,” Key said on the witness stand, adding that Frazee told her his fiancee had gone missing.

“I said ‘if you don’t know when she went missing, how will this timeline help you?’” Key said. “He said ‘well, exactly.'”

Yup Steeltowngirl that's the one!

 

[Seattle1]

He put metal on top of it, which KK testified to witnessing, and the ranch hands testified to removing.

This was done in an effort to quell the flames.

DA May didn’t discuss the tooth during his opening statement, just to turn around and say that lab results showed it wasn’t human.

He also wouldn’t have allowed an officer to destroy his case, by calling that item a “human tooth,” if it was not in fact one.

So basically the recovery of an entire human body from that burn site, is the only way you’d believe a body was burned?

What is so confusing about this?

Nope -- no such thing said by DA May about the tooth not being human. I think there was testimony only about a bone found at the franch that was not human. MOO

ETA: add link

Patrick Frazee trial: 'No body, no crime,' friend testifies accused killer told him

It included confirmation Friday afternoon that investigators discovered a partial human tooth at Frazee’s Florissant ranch where he’s accused of burning Berreth’s body.

Investigators said they almost didn’t find it.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Nope -- no such thing said by DA May about the tooth. I think there was testimony only about a bone found at the burn site that was not human. MOO

It was this man:

FBI Special Agent Donald Peterson testified Friday that an item believed to be a tooth was found when authorities excavated a burn site at Frazee's property.

Dogs take center stage at trial for man accused of killing fiancee

 

[Artis]

Absolutely. Is moronicity contagious, do you think??

I don't know. I can understand that when you've known someone for a very long time and thought you knew them that it would be a mind bender to come to terms with the reality. There's no doubt some terrible cognitive dissonance going on for some people who knew but they'll come around. However, I suspect that, maybe, the father figure who went to the bank with him may accept it and rationalize it, like KK instigated it or Kelsey had it coming or something along those lines. There may other people like that who think "Patrick shouldn't have done that but he's still a great guy". That's moral deficit, imo. It would be interesting to interview the community to see how people are reacting.

 

[susiQ]

After all this testimony if RS gets up there and praises PF to high heaven or lies....
He will look like a fool.
And media will tear him apart!

I have a strong feeling RS has "seen the light". He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and was probably easily manipulated by PF to help him when PF realized his plan wasn't as "fool" proof as he thought. Likely because he is a fool extraordinaire! He may have lied as much to RS as he did to CC. RS might seriously regret ever calling himself a "father figure" to that creature.

It is interesting that PF had no problem expressing his intentions to JM. Maybe RS's experience is similar and he's more than willing now (to protect himself and his interests) to reveal what he knows. Can't wait to hear what RS has to say. He is after all "well respected" in his community and he may want to keep it that way. The fact that he's testifying for the prosecution is telling.

 

[afitzy]

In the JD thread, the mistress pulled a "blanket" 5th Amendment during her deposition and the plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court make her answer. (The defense then filed their response to the motion).

I believe that's the route the court follows when a witness asserts the 5th under what's believed false pretense. I don't think the Judge challenges the witness' testimony when they're on the stand but perhaps they do.

@gitana please confirm. Thanks.

The JD case situation you reference happened in Civil Court and the situation as I understand it is that it is different from invoking the 5th in Criminal Court.

The Fifth Amendment does not provide a blanket right to refuse to answer questions [in civil court]. It is up to the judge to determine whether the privilege is properly invoked and that means that some investigative questioning must be allowed. So, what is going on now in the JD Main Civil Case is that the Judge has to intervene and determine whether “the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger of criminal liability,” and only then may the Fifth Amendment be invoked by the mistress as I understand it.

The mistress in the case invoked the 5th on all deposition questions (after previously agreeing to only invoke on a question by question basis) and it was this blanket invocation that I believe caused issues for the Plaintiff and why the Judge is now involved. The reason cited for the blanket invocation of the 5th by the Mistress was risk of incrimination in other criminal matters with no specifics given. So, now the Judge has to review all the deposition questions and make a determination as to which questions can be answered based on additional information from the Mistresses Atty and provided to the Judge (and not the Plaintiff to whom he submitted a [REDACTED] version of his document).

Perhaps @gitana1 can assist on how invoking the 5th in Criminal Court might play out here as I thought that once a witness invokes the 5th on the stand in a Criminal Court that there is to be no further questioning and I also think there is a difference between Civil and Criminal courts in terms of adverse inference of the witness (yes to adverse inference in Civil Court/Family Court and no to advise inference in Criminal Court)?

MOO

 

[Sweetsbeach]

Since it's the 11th EST...Happy Veterans Day @MassGuy and any other past or present military members on here. May God bless you for courageously putting your life on the line to protect our country and freedom. Thank you for your selflessness, your sacrifice, and your service. You define the word hero.

 

[skyedaze]

I have a strong feeling RS has "seen the light". He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and was probably easily manipulated by PF to help him when PF realized his plan wasn't as "fool" proof as he thought. Likely because he is a fool extraordinaire! He may have lied as much to RS as he did to CC. RS might seriously regret ever calling himself a "father figure" to that creature.

It is interesting that PF had no problem expressing his intentions to JM. Maybe RS's experience is similar and he's more than willing now (to protect himself and his interests) to reveal what he knows. Can't wait to hear what RS has to say. He is after all "well respected" in his community and he may want to keep it that way. The fact that he's testifying for the prosecution is telling.

Based on the crews PF and KK have, you are much more optimistic about RS than I am. I think he's an old sexist dude and he will somehow make an excuse for PF and still blame KB. Even JM who has "seen the light" still DID NOT CONTACT LE until WAY after KB was dead and even then not until HIS OWN BEHIND was at risk. KK has her idiot friends who go on and on about how sceeerrrrrred she was...please. She could have stayed 800 miles away. They just surround themselves with people who make excuses for them. PF does not have a choice with his brother, and we saw the brother's response.

 

[Seattle1]

The JD case situation you reference happened in Civil Court and the situation as I understand it is that it is different from invoking the 5th in Criminal Court.

The Fifth Amendment does not provide a blanket right to refuse to answer questions [in civil court]. It is up to the judge to determine whether the privilege is properly invoked and that means that some investigative questioning must be allowed. So, what is going on now in the JD Main Civil Case is that the Judge has to intervene and determine whether “the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger of criminal liability,” and only then may the Fifth Amendment be invoked by the mistress as I understand it.

The mistress in the case invoked the 5th on all deposition questions (after previously agreeing to only invoke on a question by question basis) and it was this blanket invocation that I believe caused issues for the Plaintiff and why the Judge is now involved. The reason cited for the blanket invocation of the 5th by the Mistress was risk of incrimination in other criminal matters with no specifics given. So, now the Judge has to review all the deposition questions and make a determination as to which questions can be answered based on additional information from the Mistresses Atty and provided to the Judge (and not the Plaintiff to whom he submitted a [REDACTED] version of his document).

Perhaps @gitana1 can assist on how invoking the 5th in Criminal Court might play out here as I thought that once a witness invokes the 5th on the stand in a Criminal Court that there is to be no further questioning and I also think there is a difference between Civil and Criminal courts in terms of adverse inference of the witness (yes to adverse inference in Civil Court/Family Court and no to advise inference in Criminal Court)?

MOO

Thanks @afitzy for all your work in JD's thread.

It's not unusual for a witness to be part of a parallel civil and criminal trial so that's what makes it more confusing. I found a little clarity at these links.

Your Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...appens-if-you-take-the-fifth-in-a-civil-case/

 

[Seattle1]

I thought that once a witness invokes the 5th on the stand in a Criminal Court that there is to be no further questioning

^^sbm

A witness that does not want to incriminate themselves in a criminal matter absolutely should not be questioned further as that is the meat of the 5th Amendment ("no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”).

But what if the same witness is invoking the 5th Amendment under false pretense? What if they are only doing so to help the defendant? How does the court correct that or compel the testimony from the false witness?

 

[MyBelle]

And I just want to add Ritchie said he started working at the ranch sometime in the summer of 2018 and Dygert began working there in August, mainly working on fences and vehicles, splitting wood, cleaning up, and other repairs. He also said in the few months he'd worked at the ranch he did not know of any other fires.

So there's this one fire, and a tooth is found in the dirt where the said fire took place.

Strong evidence.....

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

 

[afitzy]

Thanks @afitzy for all your work in JD's thread.

It's not unusual for a witness to be part of a parallel civil and criminal trial so that's what makes it more confusing. I found a little clarity at these links.

Your Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...appens-if-you-take-the-fifth-in-a-civil-case/

I had this NY Law Journal Article that discusses the Civil Court issues but nothing about Criminal Court.

https://www.maglaw.com/publications...d=Attachments/index=0/Mogul Spiro 6-20-17.pdf

 

[MyBelle]

BBM
Why do you think this?
Plane crash victims have been actually identified by partial tooth fragments.

I'm only going by the testimony as reported. Did it include any mention of plane crash victims? Not that I'm aware.

The link I posted had the agent saying she believed it to be a tooth and it turned out to be a partial tooth. Whether it was human or animal has not been entered into testimony that I am aware.

JMO

 

[Steelslady]

^^sbm

When Investigators took KK to the franch to tour the location of the fire, one of the Investigators body cam recorded KK saying that she saw SF come out to the deck when the bonfire flames were towering.

KK also stated that she saw the ranch hands doing chores (moving the trough) at the franch the evening of the fire. Between SF2 and KK --they identified the ranch hands and LE interviewed them on 12/31/19.

(SF2 saw the ranch hands with PF when they went to scrap yard to dispose of the trough).

I don't recall any report or testimony that the ranch hands saw SF on the deck. MOO

No, but one of the ranch hands did testify that you could see the patio from the fire- that's how they referred to it- a patio. They didn't say, however, if they saw SF on the patio or not.