CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #43 *ARREST*

[kkdj]

I'm thinking she knew PF was a big giant putz, but out of that relationship came her daughter.
IMHO

I'm not sure.....after all, she made a huge move to be near him. I think (at first) he made her feel very loved and wanted.
I'm wondering if the re-meeting of KKL and the apparent strong chemistry is what made him change his mind about wanting KB. But....she had his child. Between the two of them, PF and KKL.....KB needed to go..... then PF and KKL would raise his child together. imo

 

[MassGuy]

Plea deals are voluntary. Nobody is forced to take them. The DA is under no obligation to carry out "their end of the deal" because it doesn't exist. I assume this is why KK's attorney asked for all discovery.

Numerous defendants have taken a plea deal and have been exonerated years later by DNA evidence. They weren't exonerated because it was an "unethical plea deal"

https://www.americanbar.org/content...mjust_cjmag_23_3_yaroshefsky.authcheckdam.pdf

I promise you, the plea deal exists.

KK has already plead guilty, and is awaiting sentencing.

If you read @Tippy Lynn ‘s notes, you will see that an agreement has already been made.

 

[ab01]

KK acquired an attorney very very early. There is little chance she won’t receive the deal her lawyer made and both sides accepted!!!

 

[GordianKnot]

Plea deals are voluntary. Nobody is forced to take them. The DA is under no obligation to carry out "their end of the deal" because it doesn't exist. I assume this is why KK's attorney asked for all discovery.

Numerous defendants have taken a plea deal and have been exonerated years later by DNA evidence. They weren't exonerated because it was an "unethical plea deal"

https://www.americanbar.org/content...mjust_cjmag_23_3_yaroshefsky.authcheckdam.pdf

BBMFF:

To the bolded point above, I'm confused. That doesn't make sense to me.

Are you saying that the DA is not a party to the plea deal?

I don't see why KK would enter into a one-sided deal, and give up all the damning information about PF's as well as her actions, if there was nothing in it for her from the DA's end in return.

That's like saying, "Never mind the Carrot, just go ahead and bash me w/ the Big Stick!"

I must be missing something. Probably the something I'm missing is the point...it wouldn't be the first time. Sometimes, I'm a little slow on the uptake. Apologies for not understanding!

 

[MyBelle]

If it means that PF will get off scott free then I think it will be travesty. I look at it as part of her sentence, She has to get up on that stand and tell the whole world every thing she was involved in. And she needs to make certain that PF never sees the light of day....JMO

PF is not getting off scott free. There is plenty of evidence including his own words to LE and CB and cell phone data which will convict him.

It was rumored KK would testify at the prelim and that didn't happen. I don't see the DA needing her testimony going forward.

JMO

 

[ab01]

The deal is made!
Nothing short of KK standing up in court and yelling out I made the whole thing up is going to change that! No matter how much we may want her to be charged with more serious charges it ain’t gonna happen folks! No way no how.

 

[gitana1]

Is it your opinion that the deal will be "called off" or have I missed something in the past few hours?

@gitana1 what ARE the odds of them reneging on a deal that they made her?

Nah.

 

[Seattle1]

PF is not getting off scott free. There is plenty of evidence including his own words to LE and CB and cell phone data which will convict him.

It was rumored KK would testify at the prelim and that didn't happen. I don't see the DA needing her testimony going forward.

JMO

Wow... so are you really promoting throwing out PF's constitutional right to cross examine his accuser?

KK will be there.

Face to face.

This is America.

This is justice for Kelsey.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia

 

[gitana1]

Bringing this forward from the end of the previous thread:

@gitana1 wrote:

"I'm talking about common sense. For her to be the killer, or present at the murder, the following must be true:

1. Her friend MG lied to the FBI/CBI about when KK borrowed the car and went to CO.

2. Her friend MG lied to the FBI/CBI about the reason for the text message KK sent to MG stating she was spending the night at MG's on the 24th.

3. Although MG lied about KK's whereabouts on 11-22-18, MG inexplicably gave the FBI/CBI other, highly incriminating information bout KK such as she took her car to CO the day after the murder, she swapped vehicles back on 11-25 at a certain location (which matched KB's last phone ping) and that a round was missing from her gun after KK had possession of it. ???

4. The FBI and CBI were fooled by MG's lies, thus despite being pros who make their living talking to witnesses, perps and gauging human behavior, they were incapable of determining that she was lying.

5. All of her family lied to the authorities about her whereabouts OR the FBI/CBI inexplicably are stupid idiots and failed to confirm where she was with family, on the day of the actual murder.

6. The FBI and CBI were fooled by her family's lies, thus despite being pros who make their living talking to witnesses, perps and gauging human behavior, they were incapable of determining that they were lying, OR, they ineptly failed to contact them at all or otherwise confirm KK's whereabouts on the day of the murder.

7. KK had reason to send a fake text to MG pretending she was going to spend the night at MG's on the 24th, so her husband wouldn't find out she was going to CO, but had no reason to send a similar text for the night of the 21st or 22nd, when she would've had to have been away from the home in order to be in CO for the murder.

8. Her ex husband lied to the FBI/CBI about her whereabouts on 11-22-18, covering for her murder of the mother of her boyfriend's child.

9. Although CL lied about her whereabouts on 11-22-18, her ex husband inexplicably gave the FBI/CBI other, incriminating information about KK such as she was actually romantically linked to PF, despite telling the FBI she was not, giving the FBI information about her google email account, that she bought on a new cell phone on 12-4, and was "nervous" after the FBI contacted her.

10. The FBI and CBI were fooled by CL's lies, thus despite being pros who make their living talking to witnesses, perps and gauging human behavior, they were incapable of determining that he was lying.

11. The FBI/CBI are both inept and failed to locate her phone pings on 11-22-18 and/or ignored pings indicating she was in CO at that time.

12. The state is stupid (while websleuthers cracked the case) and elicited testimony that KB was not in CO until 11-24, in error.

13. The defense is stupid and did not refute KK's whereabouts nor even attempt to put statements by witnesses as to her whereabouts on 11-22, in question, at the prelim.

14. Surveillance caught KB and PF at KB's home on 11-22-18, but somehow missed KK.

15. The state is willing to present a faulty case to the court, in an extremely high-profile no body case, thereby risking their careers and reputation."

And what I didn't add to that is the fact that there's tons of evidence that PF was with KB the last time she was ever seen alive and was there at her house after that for a few hours, he was seen on camera with a black tote that day and his phone pinged with KB's the entire day of the 22nd including at KB's home for several hours.

He also called KK on that date around 4:30 near KB's home.

So how do we explain that KK was the murderer and not PF?

 

[gitana1]

PF is not getting off scott free. There is plenty of evidence including his own words to LE and CB and cell phone data which will convict him.

It was rumored KK would testify at the prelim and that didn't happen. I don't see the DA needing her testimony going forward.

JMO

There was vastly more evidence against CW when you insisted there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed his kids. So I'm confused.

Without KK's testimony there's not even probable cause.

 

[ab01]

And what I didn't add to that is the fact that there's tons of evidence that PF was with KB the last time she was ever seen alive and was a true her house after that for a few hours, he was seen on camera with a black tote that day and his phone pinged with KB's the entire day of the 22nd including at KB's home for several hours.

He also called KK on that date around 4:30 near KB's home.

So how do we explain that KK was the murderer and not PF?

There is no logical way no explain it. Moo

 

[gitana1]

What concerns me about the deal that the DA gave her is the SPEED at which it was offered. It apparently was mid Dec, only weeks after the crime and only really a week or two into the investigation. Usually a deal like this only comes a long way down the road, when no other options are available. Why didn't May wait to see what else LE turned up? Why not have more confidence in his office's ability to prosecute PF without this deal? There shouldn't have been any rush to judgment here. I know many here think they might have been worried about the baby's well being but I don't think she was ever in any danger and I don't think LE though so either.

This is a no body case. Heck, it's hard to convict even WITH a body, as you know. There was no ability that was going to magically appear, IMO, to prosecute PF without the deal. But given that those cases are so hard to prosecute, I don;t think they would've dared move forward without solid evidence.

It was almost a month after the crime that the deal was reached. Not a super long time but by that time they had all the phone pings and records and a ton of info. I do not believe they would enter such a deal on a no body case, with such an unsympathetic criminal as KK, without dotting their i's and crossing their t's and ensuring KK wasn't there.

Because the DA is an elected position I just don't think they'd dare rush to judgment. CBI and FBI are consummate professionals and I don't think they rushed to judgment either.

I think the evidence simply backs the basic facts of her story.

 

[Seattle1]

I thought Divide was just a few miles away from where PF and his mother lived. That would probably explain the significance of the location...

ETA: Sorry @Seattle1 I see you responded first.

Thanks @mtnlites -- seems this bears repeating.

 

[katydid23]

PF is not getting off scott free. There is plenty of evidence including his own words to LE and CB and cell phone data which will convict him.

It was rumored KK would testify at the prelim and that didn't happen. I don't see the DA needing her testimony going forward.

JMO

I totally disagree with the bolded portion. They absolutely need her testimony going forward. The DA already said that they wouldn't have known where or how she was killed if it wasn't for their witness, KK.

They need to her testify about KB's phone, and PF asking her to take it to ID and send those phony texts. They need that testimony. Without that testimony, the defense can say that KB is missing and she sent those texts herself when she ran off.

How can we say that they don't need or want her testimony, when we see what a sweet deal they gave her. Do you think they would have given her such meager charges if she wasn't doing something big for them in return?

 

[MyBelle]

KK acquired an attorney very very early. There is little chance she won’t receive the deal her lawyer made and both sides accepted!!!

If KK lied, the deal is off. That's been widely publicized.

 

[gitana1]

I totally disagree with the bolded portion. They absolutely need her testimony going forward. The DA already said that they wouldn't have known where or how she was killed if it wasn't for their witness, KK.

They need to her testify about KB's phone, and PF asking her to take it to ID and send those phony texts. They need that testimony. Without that testimony, the defense can say that KB is missing and she sent those texts herself when she ran off.

How can we say that they don't need or want her testimony, when we see what a sweet deal they gave her. Do you think they would have given her such meager charges if she wasn't doing something big for them in return?

Yes. Limited hearsay evidence may be allowed at a prelim but actual witness testimony will be necessary at trial.

KK is going to have to testify.

 

[v0x]

This is a no body case. Heck, it's hard to convict even WITH a body, as you know. There was no ability that was going to magically appear, IMO, to prosecute PF without the deal. But given that those cases are so hard to prosecute, I don;t think they would've dared move forward without solid evidence.

It was almost a month after the crime that the deal was reached. Not a super long time but by that time they had all the phone pings and records and a ton of info. I do not believe they would enter such a deal on a no body case, with such an unsympathetic criminal as KK, without dotting their i's and crossing their t's and ensuring KK wasn't there.

Because the DA is an elected position I just don't think they'd dare rush to judgment. CBI and FBI are consummate professionals and I don't think they rushed to judgment either.

I think the evidence simply backs the basic facts of her story.

Really hoping the search at the landfill turns up evidence that changes this.

 

[MyBelle]

I totally disagree with the bolded portion. They absolutely need her testimony going forward. The DA already said that they wouldn't have known where or how she was killed if it wasn't for their witness, KK.

They need to her testify about KB's phone, and PF asking her to take it to ID and send those phony texts. They need that testimony. Without that testimony, the defense can say that KB is missing and she sent those texts herself when she ran off.

How can we say that they don't need or want her testimony, when we see what a sweet deal they gave her. Do you think they would have given her such meager charges if she wasn't doing something big for them in return?

KK was given a sweet deal so PF would be locked up, without bail. Mission accomplished.

It's unfortunate if the DA needs KK's testimony at trial because KK is such a poor witness. I don't believe her testimony is needed. Nobody is going to believe PF forced KK to do anything at all.

LE has KB's and PF's phone records. They have PF's words to CB. Nobody is NOT going to believe CB.

 

[GordianKnot]

Really hoping the search at the landfill turns up evidence that changes this.

Despite the overwhelming odds against it, I have the quiet conviction that what remains of KB's remains will be found.

Miracles do happen.

 

[katydid23]

PrairieWind said:

What concerns me about the deal that the DA gave her is the SPEED at which it was offered. It apparently was mid Dec, only weeks after the crime and only really a week or two into the investigation. Usually a deal like this only comes a long way down the road, when no other options are available. Why didn't May wait to see what else LE turned up? Why not have more confidence in his office's ability to prosecute PF without this deal? There shouldn't have been any rush to judgment here. I know many here think they might have been worried about the baby's well being but I don't think she was ever in any danger and I don't think LE though so either.

I am not sure I agree with the bolded portion above. Very early in the investigation, they would have no idea if the baby was in danger or not, imo. If they suspected that he killed his ex-girlfriend, mother of the child, they'd have to assume he would be capable of killing again. They couldn't take the chance that there wasn't a financial motive of some kind, some insurance or inheritance etc. They really wouldn't know what was going on at the beginning and why take the chance? JMO


I applaud them for the speed with which they moved on this ugly crime. JMO