Discussion in 'Missing Persons Discussion' started by GuyfromCanada, Dec 3, 2018.
Who wants him at the ranch every night?
I think that it's very possible that he adores his daughter and is a good dad. I can think of one particular person in my social circle who is a great dad but a horrible husband. People have many facets.
Well, my observations of law enforcement activity so far is: They have the Police Chief, not just front-and-center, but alone. While there are other agencies, notably the CBI and the FBI none of them have a visible presence with the exception of the CBI woman who is facilitating media. This could mean that Woodland Park Police have a very good handle on this case. The Police Chief is seemingly projecting confidence.
However, all of the actions directly aimed at PF, the first press conference, getting the media to hound all over him, trotting out the DA to speak a few words at the second press conference, talking about trying to find ways to take his child away, even making sure the media gets to see an excavator being brought in are all aimed at trying to get PF to talk to investigators without his attorney. When the Police Chief said he wanted PF to come and talk with the investigators he meant exactly that - not PF and his attorney. If they need PF to make their case then law enforcement doesn't have enough to solve this. If law enforcement has the evidence I suspect then this is a situation where they need PF to give up where Kelsey is.
We will see if the search where PF lives turns up anything at all. If it doesn't, to me it means that it was all about posturing and trying to provoke some reaction. Maybe they expected he might try to run or something else, as I am sure he is being watched. I can imagine if law enforcement can find a way to get a judge to entertain allowing a court case to proceed in trying to take PF's daughter away it's sole purpose would be to force PF to choose between his daughter or speaking to investigators without his attorney - and not have a single thing to do with the safety and well-being of K.
If making a case depends on PF confessing then this case may never get resolved. If they need PF in order to find Kelsey they may have to cut a huge deal to do so (say, 15 years for Manslaughter) rather than be able to get anything near the maximum in order to do so. It could very well be the case that he holds all the aces in the deck, whether anyone likes it or not.
The biggest problem is taking anything to trial if they don't find Kelsey. Probably a good to very good chance of getting a conviction but not so much on learning where Kelsey is. The next biggest problem is if Kelsey is found in Idaho (or even in Washington) and law enforcement doesn't have evidence of PF and/or a co-conspirator being there as well.
PF is in the jackpot seat. Anyone who follows cases knows this. There is no mystery. It should surprise no one at all if he is arrested.
My best guess is that law enforcement does have evidence - perhaps phone location records or video - it will show that PF had been to Kelsey's house more than once on Thanksgiving rather than the one time he told them about or cadaver dogs indicated within her house.
One critical fact I would like to know is whether PF actually had a key to Kelsey's house or there was a hidden key outside somewhere. Kelsey's brother was able to get in, so either he had a key, knew where a key was in order to get in, or a locksmith was brought in to open it - I doubt law enforcement forced a door.
What holds me back from 100 percent certainty is that there is some sort of elephant in the room concerning what the true status of the relationship between PF and Kelsey was. Every indication, to me, is that this was a completely busted relationship, that this isn't a recent development in the relationship, and from all appearances none of Kelsey's family knew this (best case) or are not being truthful about this (worst case).
We haven't heard anything like "When Kelsey, PF and K all came up to Idaho for a visit this past summer ..." or "Last Memorial Day weekend we were all together ..." or "It was only 6 months ago when my husband and I (Kelsey's parents) had come down to see all of them and ...". Nothing of the sort. I find that strange. There was one comment - perhaps spoken in an interview, not sure - where it was mentioned that if Kelsey was going to go see family she would have brought K. So, it seems likely that has happened before where at Kelsey and K had gone visiting Kelsey's family. But not one word if that ever included PF. This is what concerns me. Either they didn't know or Kelsey wasn't truthful but even more so Kelsey's family had no interest in knowing the father of their grandchild and alleged future son-in-law.
Getting rid of the elephant in the room would clear this up for me tremendously. If the relationship wasn't completely broken or recently broken then 100 percent PF. If it was completely broken and that PF and Kelsey even had been dating other people then all bets are off.
Why this can't be cleared up and why when asked a question that gets at the state of the relationship - asked in the last press conference about this in context of the "exchange of the child" - the Police Chief said this was part of the investigation gives me pause. Quite frankly I don't understand it, except that if this were a broken relationship and they were dating others or at least could be dating others then it would raise questions toward law enforcement of why the focus on the ex and if they are considering other suspects - especially if the relationship has been broken for a long time. Certainly, whatever the relationship status was will all come out in court, as part of any defense, should this case get to trial.
It is possible this elephant exists as part of some effort to get custody of K voluntarily from PF but I don't see how that would work given both the unmistakable distance between Kelsey's family and PF and the Police Chief saying it is part of the investigation.
I hope this can all be wrapped up quickly and Kelsey's parents can have their daughter back.
Apologies for being long winded.
Yeah he adores his daughter so much that when her mother turns up missing he hires a lawyer and won't speak with the police. Dad of the year!
You are correct. That is what I was referring to when I said that we, at some point, begin to hear about who these people really are, the side that nobody knew about. Scott Peterson was supposedly seeing another woman while married. It was reported that he called the woman while attending a vigil for his wife. Not normal behavior. We have learned about Chris Watts supposed preference for male escort services and all his other insane behavior. The truth usually comes to the surface fairly quickly. With the amount of time that has passed in this case, I just think that something might have come out about this guy's other side. PF is still seen as a fit parent, capable of unsupervised custody of a 15 month old. LE obviously feels he is ok there, which is still baffling to me. So many things are just very off about this entire thing to me. That's all.
Property taxes were very low because it is designated agricultural per a link someone provided here. There are also many federal tax advantages to being a ranch. ITA with you that PF is likely more of a cattle broker or investor.
Well I agree with that sentiment, IF they have nothing to do with making their child's mother go missing. Then they would kind of lose great dad status.
Chris Watts already won that award.
Not good company to be in though.
IP address and "ping" in the context of the internet is an entirely different thing than a phone ping. Phone location isn't determined by where an IP address (technically called a Host) is located.
I like how you think. Good post. We'll see how it unfolds.
It’s not so much that they feel the child is ok with him, it’s that there simply isn’t enough to take her away.
They’ve contacted CPS, but without evidence that the child is in danger, she will remain with her father.
Believing that she is not safe, is simply not enough.
Really? I is deemed agricultural because he keeps a few horses and steers on it? That would be hobby farm to me and my tax department.
Playing cowboys is not a lucrative enterprise. I bet he owns a big hat too.
I don’t want to dispute his parenting but based on his behavior and some of the recent visitors to our forum, I think there’s a desire to portray him as the parent who does the “work” caring for their daughter while implying KB does not, or that it would be easy for her to take off without her child. Maybe I’m just being sensitive, but it’s how I see it. I don’t like it as it feels a bit like a soft way to victim bash. Jmo.
I agree and although we see him carting that baby around, trying to look like the one with the moral high ground, I bet that her mother was buying her food, clothes and baby equipment.
Jethro4WS - lovely post, the long one.
Your post made me think: What did PF's lawyer say about other persons to check out besides PF? He may have been alluding to both of them have been dating others for some time per his client, but KB didn't want her mom to know?
If this is true, then I doubt they found a body.
I do understand what you are saying. I get it. It's just another piece to this that adds to the confusion and lack of sense. I can't help but wonder how evidence and information that secured a sealed search warrant, using heavy digging equipment on his property, is not evidence and information that would allow someone to have the child placed in the custody of someone whos ranch isn't subject to a search with heavy digging equipment. It just seems like the logical thing to do. Unless of course the extreme nature of the search was simply to see how PF would react.
Investigators complete search of Kelsey Barreth's fiance's property in Florissant
Wow, that’s a good point. If they had enough to secure a search warrant, you’d think they’d have enough to remove the child from his custody.
I didn’t think about that.
It's a credible, MSM source. If they had found a body, they would have brought in the coroner. I don't think the media would have missed that.