CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #53 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just can't wrap my head around why and prosecutor would decide to proceed with a he said she said prosecution with no body and absolutely zero direct evidence?

If he did he won't be a prosecutor for very much longer IMO

I think its almost certain they have more evidence than has been shared with the public, As is the case in almost every murder trial that I have ever followed

JMO
Prosecutors don’t like to lose, which is why many murder cases don’t go to trial.

They know who did it, but don’t want to risk losing.

This is a no-body case, and an arrest usually takes a long time, if it ever happens.

The speed here speaks to the overwhelming evidence, and that preliminary hearing didn’t let us down.

I’m not the least bit worried. And I’m always worried.
 
What is the blood evidence? There is no evidence placing PF at the scene at the time the blood was being spattered because there is no time of death. There is no spatter to forensically analyze because KK cleaned it all up. Just because KK said PF used a bat doesn't prove it so because she disposed of the bat. 'Round and round it will go.

JMO
I’m guessing KB’s blood was on the swiffer and Clorox bottle at his house. Someone’s blood was, and I’m betting it was hers.
 
She lied to both LE and the FBI(!) and was put in a corner. Only then did she say anything and only then after lawyering up and many negotiations and some amount of time the way I recall it

Like it or not, this will not play well to a jury. I sure hope they have more than her and way and above all or most of the answers. Because PF never should be free. If she has to be free with a deal is one thing, I think what some miss is the worry that she will wreck the case against PF with her story.

My concern is that she won't just wreck the case against PF. My bigger concern is the looming child custody battle. Lying to the FBI is a federal crime. Sending those fraudulent text messages impersonating KB also a federal crime.
I’m guessing KB’s blood was on the swiffer and Clorox bottle at his house. Someone’s blood was, and I’m betting it was hers.
Even if it was KB's blood, where is the proof PF placed the blood there?
 
Prosecutors don’t like to lose, which is why many murder cases don’t go to trial.

They know who did it, but don’t want to risk losing.

This is a no-body case, and an arrest usually takes a long time, if it ever happens.

The speed here speaks to the overwhelming evidence, and that preliminary hearing didn’t let us down.

I’m not the least bit worried. And I’m always worried.

And the evidence that has been released so far is only a teeny tiny piece of the pie IMO

Ive never seen a murder trial where the Prosecution lays out all their evidence in a preliminary hearing

There is much, much more

JMO
 
Once you get past the fact that PF could have just poisoned KB's food on Thanksgiving instead of messily bashing her head with a bat in her home and leading people to believe she ran off and killed herself, you can't really expect that anything was well thought out by this pair.

You just have to accept that LE has established that parts of KK's story line up with the physical evidence enough to keep him in jail until trial.

They also had to have enough evidence independent of KK's words to convince her and her attorney to plead.

It's hard for me to understand anyone questioning how this is going to turn out.

KK's life is going to be terrible with no hope of

Oops! Left off the word...."redemption".

That’s ok. I think we are all good with just leaving KK with no hope.
Of anything. :)
 
And the evidence that has been released so far is only a teeny tiny piece of the pie IMO

Ive never seen a murder trial where the Prosecution lays out all their evidence in a preliminary hearing

There is much, much more

JMO
This can't be repeated enough. We have only seen a mountain of evidence. Not the mountain range. MOO
 
I’m guessing KB’s blood was on the swiffer and Clorox bottle at his house. Someone’s blood was, and I’m betting it was hers.

Someone's blood, or someone's bleach, was in that bottle. I kind of like the obvious first choice that there could be bleach in that bleach bottle, but I'm an obvious kind of guy and IMO.
We may find out in court, IF they introduce it the bleach bottle as evidence.
How Luminol Works
 
Someone's blood, or someone's bleach, was in that bottle. I kind of like the obvious first choice that there could be bleach in that bleach bottle, but I'm an obvious kind of guy and IMO.
We may find out in court, IF they introduce it the bleach bottle as evidence.
How Luminol Works
Huh? Who suspects there is anything other than bleach IN the bleach bottle? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this reply at all.
 
I’m not sure it’s very common for someone to admit involvement with the coverup of a murder during first contact. It’s pretty common for anyone to try to distance themselves at least at first.

Much of kk story to investigators has been backed up by them finding evidence and much of that evidence ties in to pf and his properties.

Answer to your next question what kind of person would do what kk did?

A very self absorbed one who only cares about her own self. And has no compassion for other human beings.

The jury doesn’t have to like kk to convict pf.

They just have to follow the evidence that points to pf

Jmo
BBM

No, the jury does not have to like KK. However, IMO, the jurors will decide whether they think she is a credible witness or not and whether they believe her testimony, etc. The following link provides some very helpful information regarding witnesses testifying.... Some areas of interest to me have been BBM.

What Makes Witnesses Trustworthy? How Can Reliability Be Called into Question? - Lawyers.com
It's up to juries to decide how much they believe witnesses who testify at trial. But lawyers may "impeach" witnesses by raising doubts about their credibility or motives.

Witness testimony can be one of the most compelling types of evidence in a trial, especially in criminal cases But some witnesses are more trustworthy or believable than others. And witnesses sometimes contradict each other. In jury trials, it’s up the jurors to decide whether and to what extent they believe any of the witnesses who testified at the trial. They’ll take into account the credibility of the witnesses when they’re deciding their verdict in the case.

Why Is a Witness’s Reliability Important?
Sometimes, a witness is the only source of a critical piece of information. Even when there’s also physical evidence, witnesses are the storytellers who can explain the evidence and create a coherent narrative that convinces the jury. And juries still place high value on eyewitness testimony, despite all the research on false recollection and cases where defendants were exonerated by DNA evidence after being fingered by eyewitnesses.

What Makes a Witness More or Less Believable?
Juries may consider many different factors when they’re deciding whether they believe witnesses’ testimony, including:

  • Do the witnesses have a personal or financial interest in the case? For instance, do they have a relationship with the crime victim or one of the parties (the defendant or prosecution)?
  • Did the government offer them leniency or immunity for their own possible crimes in return for their testimony?
  • Are the witnesses biased for or against either party?
  • Is the testimony clear, consistent, and convincing?
  • Does other evidence support or contradict what the witnesses said? This could include a witness’s own previous statements that contradict the testimony at the trial.
  • Do the witnesses have a reputation for being honest and trustworthy?
  • Was there anything that hindered the witnesses’ ability to see or hear the events they’re testifying about? Do they have visual or hearing impairments? Were they under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time?
  • Do the witnesses’ appearance and demeanor support or undermine their credibility? Do they appear uncertain or sure of their testimony? Juries might be less likely to believe witnesses whose age or mental condition suggests memory problems.
 
Huh? Who suspects there is anything other than bleach IN the bleach bottle? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this reply at all.

Me either I would assume that investigators were well aware what was in the bottle.

I think they were likely suspicious to what may have been on the outside of the bottle

Any experienced forensic investigator knows that bleach will show up similar to blood in a luminol test.

They also likely know that a key difference is that blood will turn fluorescent much quicker than bleach will when luminol is applied

While not 100 percent definitive, its usually a good indicator that its more likely to be blood than bleach

JMO
 
ADMIN NOTE:

There is way too much personalizing, snark, sarcasm, and back and forth sniping happening in this discussion. Many posts have been removed.

There are no verified experts in this thread, so everyone's opinion is just that .. an opinion. Websleuths has thousands of members and therefore thousands of different personalities contributing to various discussions. Nobody should be made to feel ganged up on or spoken to condescendingly for expressing their opinion. If you don't agree with an opinion, state your disagreement respectfully and move on without belabouring the point ... and without making anyone else feel their opinion is not important or is just blatantly wrong.

Thread is open again for courteous and respectful discussion.
 
Last edited:
BBM

No, the jury does not have to like KK. However, IMO, the jurors will decide whether they think she is a credible witness or not and whether they believe her testimony, etc. The following link provides some very helpful information regarding witnesses testifying.... Some areas of interest to me have been BBM.

What Makes Witnesses Trustworthy? How Can Reliability Be Called into Question? - Lawyers.com
It's up to juries to decide how much they believe witnesses who testify at trial. But lawyers may "impeach" witnesses by raising doubts about their credibility or motives.

Witness testimony can be one of the most compelling types of evidence in a trial, especially in criminal cases But some witnesses are more trustworthy or believable than others. And witnesses sometimes contradict each other. In jury trials, it’s up the jurors to decide whether and to what extent they believe any of the witnesses who testified at the trial. They’ll take into account the credibility of the witnesses when they’re deciding their verdict in the case.

Why Is a Witness’s Reliability Important?
Sometimes, a witness is the only source of a critical piece of information. Even when there’s also physical evidence, witnesses are the storytellers who can explain the evidence and create a coherent narrative that convinces the jury. And juries still place high value on eyewitness testimony, despite all the research on false recollection and cases where defendants were exonerated by DNA evidence after being fingered by eyewitnesses.

What Makes a Witness More or Less Believable?
Juries may consider many different factors when they’re deciding whether they believe witnesses’ testimony, including:

  • Do the witnesses have a personal or financial interest in the case? For instance, do they have a relationship with the crime victim or one of the parties (the defendant or prosecution)?
  • Did the government offer them leniency or immunity for their own possible crimes in return for their testimony?
  • Are the witnesses biased for or against either party?
  • Is the testimony clear, consistent, and convincing?
  • Does other evidence support or contradict what the witnesses said? This could include a witness’s own previous statements that contradict the testimony at the trial.
  • Do the witnesses have a reputation for being honest and trustworthy?
  • Was there anything that hindered the witnesses’ ability to see or hear the events they’re testifying about? Do they have visual or hearing impairments? Were they under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time?
  • Do the witnesses’ appearance and demeanor support or undermine their credibility? Do they appear uncertain or sure of their testimony? Juries might be less likely to believe witnesses whose age or mental condition suggests memory problems.

On the face of it, she clearly has credibility issues.

She lied to the FBI, she’s admitted to attempting to kill Kelsey on three occasions, and she’s in a relationship with the defendant.

She also admitted to cleaning a bloody crime scene, which is beyond grotesque.

And let’s not forget the fact that she knew Kelsey was going to be killed, and did nothing to prevent it.

The evidence appears to corroborate her account though, and that’s what matters.

Even if the jury discounts much of what she says, she still provides clarity to the rest of the evidence:

Where the crime happened. How it happened. How the deception went down. The solicitation attempts. The storage site. The burn site.

Countless trials have resulted in convictions, based almost entirely on the account of cooperating witnesses.

People who are criminals themselves.

This one has a hell of a lot more evidence, based on the deception that PF wanted to carry out.

Those cell phone records, that footage of him returning to Kelsey’s house; the lies to Doss, law enforcement, and CB.

Not to mention any physical evidence.

That’s why I’m not worried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
1,851
Total visitors
1,967

Forum statistics

Threads
590,001
Messages
17,928,872
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top