CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - *Arrest* #64

[gitana1]

Unless you’re a juror from Pinellas County!

However, I think these jurors will get it right and vote GUILTY!

They just wanted to go home.

 

[gitana1]

Not quite. Short of video and eyewitness, there is DNA, murder weapon or the body itself.

DNA, the weapon and the body are ALL circumstantial evidence.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Although there wasn't much physical evidence. An educated juror only needs to trace the evidence that is known. The last time KB was seen was at her own door at 1:23pm. Her apartment is left as she had it on Nov 22 with bread dip recipe ingredients still there. Her blood is in her apartment, her cellphone was the only item of hers that showed activity, and that cellphone was traveling and communicating with PF for several days even though she wasn't seen with PF at his residence during that time. Her child was with PF since Thanksgiving Day. A woman's fractured tooth was found in a burn pit on his property. "No body -no crime".

I think, for me, the most convincing is the cellphone information.

I believe his motive was completely financial. He probably thought she had more money, but turned out she needed his support. He knew eventually she would need to get child support, so he just wanted her gone before it got to that point. I am just glad the baby was placed with the maternal grandparents.

Of course, all speculation on my part.

Completely financial...I agree. This psychopath and mamas boy didn’t know how to be a man. He used everyone he knew.

 

[Love Never Fails]

DNA, the weapon and the body are ALL circumstantial evidence.

They are? I don’t understand. You get a murder weapon with his prints and her blood and that is circumstantial? You get her body that tells the coroner how she died and that is circumstantial?
News to me. But then I don’t have a law degree.

 

[MsBetsy]

Not quite. Short of video and eyewitness, there is DNA, murder weapon or the body itself.

True, but that is still circumstantial evidence, (or indirect evidence) as opposed to direct evidence.

Imo

 

[Leader6518]

Creative ways to get clicks.

ETA:
Any reasonable reporter could see that there is a plethora of solid evidence in this case.

Taking an alternative view to the facts can be an attention-getter but doesn't instill much faith in her reporting ability.

Was she the one that got testimony wrong? Maybe I’m thinking of the Fox 23 reporter.

 

[gitana1]

Now back to #KelseyBerreth trial. Today we heard from the previous owner of the condo where Kelsey lived. This woman testified that she lived there for 26 years, moved out spring 2018. (Prosecution appeared to be explaining why someone else’s DNA might be found there)
#9News

Dr. Diane France, an expert in the field of forensic anthropology, took the stand this afternoon. One area of her expertise (shes written books on this topic) is looking at bones and determining whether they are human or animal

Dr. France said she was asked to help review what investigators found when they searched the Midway Landfill for #KelseyBerreth’s remains. (Ultimately, they did not find remains there)

Dr. France was also asked to review possible tooth fragments found near the alleged burn sight on Patrick Frazee’s property. “They are both tooth fragments, that’s pretty clear” she said, referencing photos shown in court. She testified its consistent w/ a *human tooth

Prosecutor points out there could be other animals on Patrick’s property – dogs, horses, cow, etc. Prosecutors asks Dr. France (again, expert in human vs. non-human identification of bones) if the tooth could belong to any of those animals – France says no. “I think its human.”

Next we hear from serology and DNA expert Cailtlin Rogers, who works for CBI. She handled majority of DNA testing in Kelsey Berreth case.

This is super complex science, but best I can explain it is this: she collected DNA belonging to Kelsey, Patrick, their daughter, Kelseys mom & brother, previous condo owner/resident, and Krystal Lee. Then she used those DNA profiles as references as she tested items of evidence.

So in simplest terms, Rogers testimony explains how she matched Kelsey’s DNA profile to samples collected from Kelsey’s bathroom and toilet, possible blood on Kelsey’s fireplace, a baby gate, pieces of hardwood living room floor, and furniture

Lot of DNA samples collected from pieces of the hardwood floor, a few of those wood pieces were shown in court. Remember previous testimony that investigators ripped up that floor after Krystal told them about blood there

Many of those samples had other DNA in the mix, too. Lots of DNA from the bathroom and several floor samples also matched the previous condo owner (who testified that she had hardwood floors installed about 2 decades ago).

Some of the DNA samples from floorboard also had potential matches to Patrick Frazee, Kelsey's mom Cheryl and her brother. Some of those results said DNA match were more likely/accurate others.

Rogers also tested a sample of hay from the barn at Nash Ranch, where Frazee allegedly stored Kelseys body in a tote. Rogers said that sample, when tested, did not indicate presence of human DNA

Rogers also tested the tooth fragment found on Frazee’s property. She testified that she could detect 2 things: there was human DNA, and it wasn’t male. However, Rogers says there wasn’t enough DNA in the sample to get a profile (meaning WHO it belonged to)

Rogers says the tooth went to FBI for more testing, still not enough DNA to develop a profile. We’ve previously heard about “consumptive testing” in this case, its a testing process that “consumes” the item. The tooth is, essentially, gone now due to the testing it went through

After a full afternoon of testimony, Rogers ends by saying bleach can destroy DNA to the point where it cant be detected or analyzed. Remember Krystal said she cleaned Kelsey's home with bleach

And with that, day 8 of testimony is finished. Court resumes tomorrow morning at 8:30. And if we continue moving at this rate, the judge says we could hear closing arguments by the end of the week.
Jennifer Meckles on Twitter

I always worry that with every new case the next murderer is learning things.

 

[gitana1]

The Casey Anthony jury just wanted to go home.

Jinx!

 

[MsBetsy]

They are? I don’t understand. You get a murder weapon with his prints and her blood and that is circumstantial? You get her body that tells the coroner how she died and that is circumstantial?
News to me. But then I don’t have a law degree.

Well, yes. The gun could have been used by the person at another time. The suspect would still need to be tied to the murder somehow.

Cause of death is also circumstantioal because it does not prove who the murderer is.

Someone who witnesses the person killing the victim with the gun would be Direct evidence.

Imo

 

[gitana1]

This is big for the defense. On the hay stack...no human dna and no blood.

No it’s not.

 

[Aydrianna523]

I think the jury will follow the dots. I expect they will.
(Let's say someone wiped off all fingerprints from said crime scene. The destruction of fingerprints would be evidence of a crime).
In this case, Clorox was used to destroy a lot of blood evidence. Though a lot of blood evidence was destroyed, the Clorox and the streaks is still evidence of the crime (thx to kk).
The dog hit on the hay and the discolored spot is evidence. We're talking 15 ft high!
The burn fire is evidence. The perp used it to destroy evidence, but I also see the burn fire as evidence.
Just because a perp thinks that there's no evidence (no body /no crime), that's wrong, because the destruction of evidence is evidence in itself.
These days too much emphasis is on DNA. Perps know that. The jurors' job is to be smarter than the perp.

 

[gitana1]

You did a fantastic job on the timeline! It was really helpful. Thank you for doing it!!

Agreed. That’s a lot of work.

 

[gitana1]

I agree with you completely but I worry about this jury hanging only because the evidence is circumstantial. I can’t imagine the defense closing statement. But that jury? I don’t feel confident. I wish we could have seen the testimony and the faces of everyone. I do believe he is guilty.

Evidence in murder trials of this nature are pretty always entirely circumstantial. The only murder cases that aren’t are those that the question of whodunit is not at issue but whether there was self defense involved or insanity.

 

[gitana1]

That's ok, the dog still detected the smell of a decomposing body on the hay stack, both below and above. I wouldn't expect blood to be there since the body was inside the tote.

The jury now knows that it was Kelsey's blood all over the condo, so I'm not sure how the defense will convince the jury that she was killed somewhere else.

Imo

This case has an overwhelming amount of evidence. It’s a massive pile. Scott Peterson trial had less than this.

 

[makayla]

As we await Sam Kraemer’s FB live tonight, let me say a big thank you to all who work so tirelessly to report, create timelines, post tweets, and generally fill in for those of us who aren’t as involved. You all are amazing, and the sleuthing here is the absolute best!!!! Thanks also to the poor Mods who have to constantly stay on top of any shenanigans ... what would we do without them? Big round of applause to WS, and many prayers to the Berreth family as this trial winds down.

Additional thanks to all the people and reporters who tweet and keep us filled in as we anxiously await every detail from the courtroom.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Well, yes. The gun could have been used by the person at another time. The suspect would still need to be tied to the murder somehow.

Cause of death is also circumstantioal because it does not prove who the murderer is.

Someone who witnesses the person killing the victim with the gun would be Direct evidence.

Imo

Ok. Thank you. Lots of people get convicted on circumstantial evidence then. Because few have an eyewitness.

 

[Love Never Fails]

This case has an overwhelming amount of evidence. It’s a massive pile. Scott Peterson trial had less than this.

Scott had a guilty demeanor from the start. Finding his wife and son exactly where he said he went fishing did him in.

For me, and JMO, Patrick Frazee is a horrible human being. I would vote guilty.

 

[MemPat]

The amount people in his circle who carry on about wanting proof PF did it, but they had Zero proof of lies said about Kelsey,and those who knew of his plans, and helped him disgust me to no end. Caw Caw.

The world could learn a lesson from Kelsey's story: Don't pay attention when someone tries to ruin the reputation of another human being when there is no evidence to support it.

Malignant Narcissists abound and they only fill up the empty holes in their hearts by tearing down others.

Learn to recognize the ones in your life.
They're alive and wreaking havoc and they may not kill you or someone you love but they can make life Hell.

I hope some serious therapy is undertaken in Frazee's community but my faith is slim.

 

[MemPat]

Scott had a guilty demeanor from the start. Finding his wife and son exactly where he said he went fishing did him in.

Yep, that and the good old Amber Frey audiotapes!

 

[gitana1]

They are? I don’t understand. You get a murder weapon with his prints and her blood and that is circumstantial? You get her body that tells the coroner how she died and that is circumstantial?
News to me. But then I don’t have a law degree.

Yes. Most people are confused about what it means so don’t worry.

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that needs an explanation or another bit of evidence to explain how it supports a conclusion.

Direct evidence doesn’t.

A witness statement - “I heard Bob yell at Larry, ‘I’ve been waiting for weeks for this moment! I hate you and I’m going to kill you!’ I then saw Bob point his gun at Larry and fire. Larry dropped to the ground. I checked Larry’s pulse. It wasn’t there.” Thats direct evidence. No inference or additional evidence is really needed to determine Bob murdered Larry.

A dead body needs an inference. Or additional testimony/evidence. The dead body isn’t direct evidence that the person it belonged to was murdered nor by who.

Same with DNA. You need an expert to explain what it means. And then you need an inference to determine how it connects to proving someone killed someone.