CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #50 *ARREST*

[susiQ]

I'm intensively hoping for the Berreth family and also for the searchers, which would be satisfied, if they hadn't done their very difficult and uncomfortable job for nothing.
A nice thought would be, if a suspect in a murder would have to stay for 8h/80 days in the middle of the landfill, sight and odor of the area all the time present, puke bucket not available ....

Me too. I was just thinking this morning about the land fill search again I wonder, and I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility, if LE reconstructed a "burn" under similar conditions: black plastic tote with silver handles, old clothes, a wooden baseball bat and perhaps a poor little calf or goat that died of natural causes. Add five gallons of gasoline, wood and throw it into a round trough and let it go for a few hours and see what the result looks like. This would give searchers a very definitive picture of what they are looking for. Well, at least that's what I would have done to achieve the best possible outcome, finding Kelsey's remains. This providing KK was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
ed:gr

 

[katydid23]

I know it’s a long ways away, but dang I hope they allow cameras in the courtroom for this trial.

I hope they are not Law and Crime cameras though. They have ineptly dropped the ball, big time, in the McStay trial.

 

[ajaylee]

My understanding is the DA wanted to question her about the time of PF's arrival for dinner and knowledge of when and how long KK was at the ranchette on the 24th. Maybe more. But is it even necessary for SF to attest to that given they have the cell tower ping info on PF's phone? Or, did he shut it off for a short period of time before he started texting to KB's phone? Sorry, I can't remember. Regrettably, I haven't had the opportunity to read all the SWs. Did they have cell phone pings for KK at the ranchette the evening of the 24th?

I assumed they wanted her testimony to back up the pings and KK's testimony. As I noted elsewhere, right now we have actual evidence that there was a fire - but we don't have hard evidence proving when that fire took place - only KK's word.

The mystery is why SF would plead the 5th. She should have nothing personally to fear, right? She's done nothing illegal. She doesn't have the right to plead the 5th to avoid testifying about PF.

In short: what is it that SF knows that she thinks would hurt PF?

 

[susiQ]

I assumed they wanted her testimony to back up the pings and KK's testimony. As I noted elsewhere, right now we have actual evidence that there was a fire - but we don't have hard evidence proving when that fire took place - only KK's word.

The mystery is why SF would plead the 5th. She should have nothing personally to fear, right? She's done nothing illegal. She doesn't have the right to plead the 5th to avoid testifying about PF.

In short: what is it that SF knows that she thinks would hurt PF?

But isn't pleading the 5th to prevent her from implicating/incriminating herself of something? How is she able to plead the 5th to protect PF?

 

[katydid23]

I assumed they wanted her testimony to back up the pings and KK's testimony. As I noted elsewhere, right now we have actual evidence that there was a fire - but we don't have hard evidence proving when that fire took place - only KK's word.

The mystery is why SF would plead the 5th. She should have nothing personally to fear, right? She's done nothing illegal. She doesn't have the right to plead the 5th to avoid testifying about PF.

In short: what is it that SF knows that she thinks would hurt PF?

I wonder if she knows when and if KK was around at the ranchette. When did she arrive, when did she leave? Does it match up with what KK has already testified to?

 

[PommyMommy]

Landfill expert weighs in on search for Woodland Park woman Kelsey Berreth

[...]

Retired after 34 years in law enforcement in Texas, Reed assesses landfills for NecroSearch International. The organization is currently looking for the body of Kelsey Berreth, who is believed to have been murdered in her Woodland Park townhome by her fiancé, Patrick Frazee.

Reed developed the technique for searching landfills. “We have a methodical and calculated way to help identify where law enforcement is looking in the cell of the landfill,” he said.

[...]

Landfill searches are complicated. “Most people don’t realize that when you talk about a cell that is 20 feet deep, 100 feet wide and 100 feet long — when you start unpacking that you’re taking down about an 80-story building, straight up,” he said.

Reed does the initial assessment of landfill searches. “We come in and say where we project it is in the cell, and say ‘Here’s how much trash you’re going to have to remove to get to it,’” he said. “’And here’s how long it’s going to take, and here’s your cost factor, and here’s the equipment you’re going to need.’”

[...]

Reed has a track record. “This one is my 51st search and I’ve been successful on 40,” he said. “I’ve done thousands of assessments and if the probability of finding anything is zero, I say it’s not worth the expense.”

The variables for success include lack of log sheets or if a transfer station is not up-to-date.

[...]

Founded in 1988, NecroSearch International is a 501 (3)(9) nonprofit organization. “We’re a combination of scientists and law enforcement,” he said. “The ground tells us where the grave could be — not necessarily how the body decomposed ... .”

While Reed’s expertise is landfills, the 55-member organization includes botanists, archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, geophysicists, hydrologists, entomologists, in addition to law enforcement. “We have search experience and a drone expert who is also a photographer for National Geographic,” he said.

[...]

 

[ajaylee]

But isn't pleading the 5th to prevent her from implicating/incriminating herself of something? How is she able to plead the 5th to protect PF?

That's my question!

My understanding of the 5th is that it means she thinks if she testifies she will incriminate herself. As far as I know (and we don't know everything LE has), she has done nothing legally wrong, so there's no reason to plead the 5th on her own behalf.

This has to have come up in trials before. I'm curious how it was handled.

That said, I'm hoping they'll at least put her on the stand and let her reply "I plead the 5th" to all questions. I can't see that working well with the jury.

It may have something to do with the timing of events. IIRC, LE did something unprecedented - they weren't going to let PF see the arrest affidavit (?). IIRC, the judge let PF and his attorney see the documents, but I think it was under the condition that PF could only read them in his attorney's presence and the attorney could have copies to work on defense strategies.

It may be that at that time, LE hadn't released enough information for SF to be sure she could testify without jeopardizing PF. For instance, PF's original story had him picking up Baby K and going back to the ranchette. Cellphone and camera data exposed this lie. SF could also have exposed this lie, because she knew when he was at the ranchette and when he brought Baby K, but I don't think at the time of the first hearing that all of that information was out yet.

 

[ab01]

I believe if SF is called to testify she won’t be able to just simply plead the fifth to all questions. Say if the prosecution asks her when PF arrived at certain times etc, the judge can force her to answer certain questions unless it would incriminate herself. Moo

Generally the prosecution plays to that, and sometimes what the witness doesn’t say can be as damming as what they do say. For example I don’t recall etc.

 

[GordianKnot]

Landfill expert weighs in on search for Woodland Park woman Kelsey Berreth

[...]

Retired after 34 years in law enforcement in Texas, Reed assesses landfills for NecroSearch International. The organization is currently looking for the body of Kelsey Berreth, who is believed to have been murdered in her Woodland Park townhome by her fiancé, Patrick Frazee.

Reed developed the technique for searching landfills. “We have a methodical and calculated way to help identify where law enforcement is looking in the cell of the landfill,” he said.

[...]

Landfill searches are complicated. “Most people don’t realize that when you talk about a cell that is 20 feet deep, 100 feet wide and 100 feet long — when you start unpacking that you’re taking down about an 80-story building, straight up,” he said.

Reed does the initial assessment of landfill searches. “We come in and say where we project it is in the cell, and say ‘Here’s how much trash you’re going to have to remove to get to it,’” he said. “’And here’s how long it’s going to take, and here’s your cost factor, and here’s the equipment you’re going to need.’”

[...]

Reed has a track record. “This one is my 51st search and I’ve been successful on 40,” he said. “I’ve done thousands of assessments and if the probability of finding anything is zero, I say it’s not worth the expense.”

The variables for success include lack of log sheets or if a transfer station is not up-to-date.

[...]

Founded in 1988, NecroSearch International is a 501 (3)(9) nonprofit organization. “We’re a combination of scientists and law enforcement,” he said. “The ground tells us where the grave could be — not necessarily how the body decomposed ... .”

While Reed’s expertise is landfills, the 55-member organization includes botanists, archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, geophysicists, hydrologists, entomologists, in addition to law enforcement. “We have search experience and a drone expert who is also a photographer for National Geographic,” he said.

[...]

BBM:

Excellent article chock full of useful, fascinating information.
As always and ever, thank you for providing it, PommyMommy!!

NecroSearch is certainly a remarkably impressive group of professionals.
I've always been confident that KB's remains will be found at that landfill.
I'm now more convinced than ever.
40/51 success rate is stunning.

Thanks again for sharing what can only be described as an encouraging word!

 

[MsBetsy]

That's my question!

My understanding of the 5th is that it means she thinks if she testifies she will incriminate herself. As far as I know (and we don't know everything LE has), she has done nothing legally wrong, so there's no reason to plead the 5th on her own behalf.

This has to have come up in trials before. I'm curious how it was handled.

That said, I'm hoping they'll at least put her on the stand and let her reply "I plead the 5th" to all questions. I can't see that working well with the jury.

I have read about a couple of cases where a witness pleaded the fifth because it linked him to the crime in some way, but he wasn't necessarily guilty.
In other words, he was present when a crime occurred, and therefore may have incriminated himself, based on an assumption that he was involved, when he actually wasn't. If that makes any sense.
So his testimony would have "linked" him to the crime.
In one case the witness was a politician and the other involved the mob.
Maybe the lawyer had her plead the fifth because if SF says she witnessed the burning of the body it will be assumed that she knew what was going on. That's probably enough to incriminate her. Imo

 

[katydid23]

That's my question!

My understanding of the 5th is that it means she thinks if she testifies she will incriminate herself. As far as I know (and we don't know everything LE has), she has done nothing legally wrong, so there's no reason to plead the 5th on her own behalf.

This has to have come up in trials before. I'm curious how it was handled.

That said, I'm hoping they'll at least put her on the stand and let her reply "I plead the 5th" to all questions. I can't see that working well with the jury.

It may have something to do with the timing of events. IIRC, LE did something unprecedented - they weren't going to let PF see the arrest affidavit (?). IIRC, the judge let PF and his attorney see the documents, but I think it was under the condition that PF could only read them in his attorney's presence and the attorney could have copies to work on defense strategies.

It may be that at that time, LE hadn't released enough information for SF to be sure she could testify without jeopardizing PF. For instance, PF's original story had him picking up Baby K and going back to the ranchette. Cellphone and camera data exposed this lie. SF could also have exposed this lie, because she knew when he was at the ranchette and when he brought Baby K, but I don't think at the time of the first hearing that all of that information was out yet.

I can think of a few things that she might need to take the 5th on, to protect herself legally.

If I try to look at this situation from a grandma's point of view, I can see possible issues for her.

Let's say that SF knew the grand baby was supposed to spend the day at her mother's condo. But then her son brought the baby home, and he was with another woman, from Idaho, and they were being sketchy, and they ended up building a bonfire in the yard, for some unknown reason.

And then later she hears that the baby's mother is missing?

She might want to plead the 5th after all that?

 

[ab01]

Also just to keep in mind, I believe the judge said in the preliminary hearing that he felt like the prosecution could prove their point with other witnesses. I believe he said that there may be a time when it would be necessary for SF to testify and that the preliminary hearing was not that time.IIRC

So I’m not sure she going to be able to not answer at least some relevant questions at trial.....moo

 

[MsBetsy]

I can think of a few things that she might need to take the 5th on, to protect herself legally.

If I try to look at this situation from a grandma's point of view, I can see possible issues for her.

Let's say that FB knew the grand baby was supposed to spend the day at her mother's condo. But then her son brought the baby home, and he was with another woman, from Idaho, and they were being sketchy, and they ended up building a bonfire in the yard, for some unknown reason.

And then later she hears that the baby's mother is missing?

She might want to plead the 5th after all that?

Yeah, I think that would be a pretty good reason!

 

[Mom24]

I have read about a couple of cases where a witness pleaded the fifth because it linked him to the crime in some way, but he wasn't necessarily guilty.
In other words, he was present when a crime occurred, and therefore may have incriminated himself, based on an assumption that he was involved, when he actually wasn't. If that makes any sense.
So his testimony would have "linked" him to the crime.
In one case the witness was a politician and the other involved the mob.
Maybe the lawyer had her plead the fifth because if SF says she witnessed the burning of the body it will be assumed that she knew what was going on. That's probably enough to incriminate her. Imo

But they already know about the burning of the body. I think this is a question about something else.

 

[MsBetsy]

Also just to keep in mind, I believe the judge said in the preliminary hearing that he felt like the prosecution could prove their point with other witnesses. I believe he said that there may be a time when it would be necessary for SF to testify and that the preliminary hearing was not that time.IIRC

So I’m not sure she going to be able to not answer at least some relevant questions at trial.....moo

Yes, I'm sure that will be the case. We may have to wait 2 years before we hear what she has to say. By then she will probably say, "I can't remember."

 

[ab01]

I believe SF will be forced to answer some questions regarding PF whereabouts and actions. I think if the prosecutor asked her if she knew of a body being burned obviously she can plead the fifth. But I’m not sure if she will be allowed to plead the fifth if the prosecution asks her simply, to your knowledge did pf have any kind of fire on such and such a date at such and such a time. I think the judge would say answer the question Mrs F ...moo

 

[MsBetsy]

But they already know about the burning of the body. I think this is a question about something else.

I'm sure they will question her about a lot of things but I can't imagine them not asking what she witnessed that night. The only other person who was there was KK and I imagine her credibility will be questioned. Imo

 

[ab01]

Like I said the prosecution is generally very clever about how they ask specific questions to get around certain road blocks....moo

 

[ajaylee]

But they already know about the burning of the body. I think this is a question about something else.

But do we?

Putting on my defense hat, I would point out that we have evidence that there was a fire at the ranchette, but no evidence as to exactly when - or what. There are traces of black plastic and accelerant.

That leaves us with three people who potentially can confirm when that fire took place: KK, PF, and SF.

KK said there was a fire, but you hate to hang your hopes on nothing more than the eyewitness testimony of a known liar. If PF denies there was a fire that night and claims the residue is from an (illegal) trash fire a week earlier, then what? Will SF perjure herself to back up PF? Claim she can't remember?

As MsBetsy noted upthread, by trial time, SF will likely be able to get away with saying she's old and her memory is failing so she can't remember. Because she refuses to talk now, they won't even have her on record, so they can say: "Let me read this back to you. Two years ago you said there was a fire two days after Thanksgiving. Does that help refresh your memory?"

 

[ab01]

But do we?

Putting on my defense hat, I would point out that we have evidence that there was a fire at the ranchette, but no evidence as to exactly when - or what. There are traces of black plastic and accelerant.

That leaves us with three people who potentially can confirm when that fire took place: KK, PF, and SF.

KK said there was a fire, but you hate to hang your hopes on nothing more than the eyewitness testimony of a known liar. If PF denies there was a fire that night and claims the residue is from an (illegal) trash fire a week earlier, then what? Will SF perjure herself to back up PF? Claim she can't remember?

As MsBetsy noted upthread, by trial time, SF will likely be able to get away with saying she's old and her memory is failing so she can't remember. Because she refuses to talk now, they won't even have her on record, so they can say: "Let me read this back to you. Two years ago you said there was a fire two days after Thanksgiving. Does that help refresh your memory?"

I agree with much of what you said. Unfortunately LE can’t simply force someone to talk during an investigation.

I will say that I think there are many things found at the burn site that are still being tested for traces of human dna. I can only speculate that the accelerant and black balls of plastic were easier and quicker to identify. Moo

I’m sure they are still receiving testing results back on various pieces of evidence. Moo