The Savannah Berrey case is over. The public has been presented with the evidence. The jury convicted her in a short time. Would you have convicted her based on the evidence presented?
A whisper was heard that firefighters were pretty sure the fire was not started by the marijuana pipe, but that they were not asked about their conclusions at the trial. The whisper pointed out that Dane Watkins’ evidence consisted mostly of Savannah Berrey’s own statements after the fire, which obviously were very self-incriminating.
However, what if she woke up, was still plenty high, and instantly thought “Oh my god I was smoking pot I must have started the fire”, even if she was so doped out she could not remember what she did with the marijuana pipe. Just because she could not remember what she did with the pipe does not mean she did not properly take care of her marijuana pipe when she finished toking.
If the fire was not really started by the marijuana pipe, then Savannah Berrey may not have actually started the fire.
If Savannah Berrey did not actually start the fire, then let us not punish her for the separate offense of smoking pot around her kids.
It would be nice to hear comments from local firefighters who responded to that fire, or know someone who responded to it, and what they think about how the fire started.
What do you think?
Popularity: 20%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 168 comments… read them below or add one }
I find this second guessing very interesting:
“A whisper was heard that firefighters were pretty sure the fire was not started by the marijuana pipe, but that they were not asked about their conclusions at the trial. The whisper pointed out that Dane Watkins’ evidence consisted mostly of Savannah Berrey’s own statements after the fire, which obviously were very self-incriminating.”
It would be nice to know which firefighters said this….it would also be nice to know who whisper is…is ‘whisper’ associated with the defendant?
This strikes me more as a hit piece on the prosecution’s case. It would have been nice to see a balanced view of what evidence the prosecutor did present to the jury to gain a conviction. Instead, we are treated to “whispers” in shadows imposing doubt without substance. The defense didn’t have to present anything. The prosecutor did. What we are presented with here is alot of nothing to back up the byline: Justice or not?
Incidentally, if you are out camping and fail to put out your campfire and it burns the forest(s) and property, plus people, you are on the hook criminally, right?
If you do the same thing with a joint there is not much difference, right?
How about if you are smoking a joint or even drunk and you pass out and are unable to care for the kids and they get harmed or killed, you are on the hook, right? (Even if that was not your intent)
It’s called taking responsibility for your actions. Now, that seems to be a foreign concept to some. However, it appears that the jury saw what it needed to in finding her guilty. If Berry had ineffective counsel she can appeal her sentence on the that fact alone. Perhaps that would make for a story with more meat to it than quibbling over evidence that is not presented here.
I don’t care if it was pot or alcohol. She got highly impaired and passed out and while she was passed out a fire started. I don’t care if it was started by the pipe she stuck in the cushion of the couch or by her son playing with a lighter. Either way she was grossly negligient by getting so impaired that she couldn’t care for her children.
I’m not going to say justice was served yet until a judge sends her to prison for a long time. I’m afraid she’ll get off with time served.
I also figured she was guilty enough because of the impairment issue. However, if she did not start the fire, let her be charged with impairment while caring for her kids, the correct crime.
Note the prosecutor relied on a big graphic in his closing remarks, reportedly the graphic just contained several things Savannah said after the fire.
I was not there, so I am going off of published media reports.
What other evidence did Dane Watkins present besides Savannah’s remarks?
Disturbing Thoughts,
I was just wondering, if she had taken a nap after smoking a Pall Mall instead of marijuana would you still want a long prison sentence for this lady? The woman lost her young son and will be living with that the rest of her life. Why are you so willing to “pile on” and further her grief over this tragic accident?
If a parent took a nap, unimpaired by anything, while letting her four year old play unsupervised I’d be pushing for the same charge. Savannah’s case is just so much worse because she high and passed out from that.
If a parent was driving drunk with children in the car and then crashed and killed all the children would you pushing for leniency because the poor drunk parent has already suffered by losing kids?
I’ve been around drinkers and pot smokers all my life. I never saw anyone pass out from smoking pot. I have seen many folks pass out from imbibing too much booze though. Was there any evidence to suggest she had been drinking?
This appears to be nothing more than a tragic accident. I don’t understand why people like yourself are so intent on adding to this woman’s grief.
The prosecution had two well experienced fire investigators, one who actually investigated the fire (Ken Andersen), and the other who was asked to look at the evidence and come up with his own conclusion (Richard Hahn, state fire marshall’s office, over 1000 fires investigated). Both said that the fire started on the bed. The room had no electrical problems, no gas leak issues, and candles and such were all still intact. So, with th pipe found on the arm on the charred couch, they looked at burn patterns and such to come up with their conclusion. That was some of what the prosecution presented.
“If a parent took a nap, unimpaired by anything, while letting her four year old play unsupervised I’d be pushing for the same charge. ”
Ever have kids? Parents take naps all the time on the couch while their kids play.
So the fire started on the bed, but the pipe was found on the couch arm?
Neil,
You say the pipe was found on the couch arm and that fire investigators concluded that the fire started in her bed. That doesn’t lead one to conclude that it was an ember from her pipe that started this fire. Was this woman also a cigarette smoker?
Neil, actually three (3) Fire Investigators testified. The third investigator was from the Lewiston (ID) Fire Department. If I’m not mistaken he testified that after review the incident/investigation report and evidence he could not determine the cause with any certainty. Dick Hahn is a very capable investigator, he was a very good Fire Chief, as is Ken Anderson but in my opinion I don’t think either could determine with any certainty, beyond a doubt, what the ignition source was.
Was any physical evidence ie: ash/debris sent to a crime lab to check for trace evidence of marijuanna?. I don’t doubt the testimony of the IFFD Captain and Paramedic as to Berrery’s statements as I don’t doubt Anderson and Hahn’s testimony but from what I’ve seen of all this tragedy there was no physical evidence that marijuanna was involved other than Berrey’s own statement.
A little boy died, something his mother will have to live with the rest of her life, and other will have to live with this as well. I think numerous human factors were involved from the start to the final verdict.
Mike…it seems to me that the Prosecutor based most of his case on Berrey’s own statements after the fire. I also think some high powered lawyer could shoot holes in the Prosecution’s case, and thats not a “hit” on the Prosecutor, just an observation of his abilities and past perfomances.
All that being said I DO NOT condone illegal use of drugs around kids, wether drugs were involved here or not.
The Lewiston fire inspector (Mr. Minnis), who has been retired for 3 years, was paid by the defense. The three had obviously rehearsed prior to the trial, and said there was nothing that could be ruled out even though all the evidence pointed to the bed (burn patterns, beveling, intensity). The prosecutor asked if they could rule out a “martian ray gun”. His testimony is easily discounted.
Dick Hahn referenced a case in which an impounded car, on the way to the impound ignited as a result of dumped out marijuana embers.
So, a fire started on the bed, embers were on the bed as per savannah’s testimony, and embers can start a fire.
A pipe can be on the arm, and the embers can be on the bed.
Aren’t most expert witnesses paid? Don’t most witnesses rehearse before testimony? Let’s not impugn his testimony because he followed widespread practices.
Did Savannah testify that she dumped the marijuana embers out on her bed? Why would someone do that?
“Ever have kids? Parents take naps all the time on the couch while their kids play.
So the fire started on the bed, but the pipe was found on the couch arm?”
Yes I have kids. Responsible parents don’t take naps if they have children age 4 like Eric was unless Eric is also napping. Savannah went to another room, passed out from being high, and left Eric alone. Had she put Eric down for a nap that would be different because she wouldn’t have been delibaretely negligient. But she put in a movie for him and left the room and then passed out. Thats not much different than going shopping while the 4 year old is playing at home.
The defense tried to admit him as an expert witness, which the judge wouldn’t allow. So, he wasn’t an expert witness.
No, Savannah didn’t say she dumped the embers out on the bed. She said she dumped them in her hand, and put the pipe under a pillow on the couch or on the arm of the couch. She later admits that when she put the pipe down that “it wasn’t ‘out’ out”. So there was still burning embers in the pipe when she carelessly placed it under the pillow/on the couch arm.
Sheesh what a black-and-white world you must live in. Napping on a couch in the same space as your kid is not at all like leaving the kid home alone.
Most parents childproof their homes so it is generally safe to let them wander. I’ve catnapped before with my kids playing and/or watching TV. I guess I’m irresponsible also.
I guess I’m not seeing the connection or disconnection with the pipe on the couch and the ignition on the bed. Doesn’t this indicate the pipe did not start the fire? What indicates the pipe started the fire?
Sorry for being dense but I’m guessing there was other testimony not mentioned yet?
I still don’t understand the comment about the pipe being found on the arm of the couch, but the burn patterns indicating that the fire started on the bed. Those seem contradictory to me. Unless of course, she was smoking pot in bed dropped some embers in bed and then either placed or threw the pipe onto the couch (thereby landing on the couch arm). Does anybody know…was the couch arm located within reach of the bed?
Dick Hahn was admitted as an expert witness, and his testimony was that he believed the fire started on the bed. And maybe I should clarify that the bed and the couch are the same thing. It was a hide-a-bed.
Regardless of whether the fire started as a result of the embers, or if Eric started the fire with the lighter that she left by the pipe (to light the marijuana), she is still guilty of involuntary manslaughter as she presented circumstances which led to the death of her son by doing something illegal.
Re-Reading Neil’s post #8, is it possible she was smoking pot in bed, fell asleep, woke up and placed the pipe on the arm of the couch while fleeing the property?
What exactly did she state happened?
Disturbing Thoughts, you are not adding anything of substance to the discussion with your obvious bias. Statements in Post #14 like “passed out from being high” show how just how biased (and ignorant) you are. Just because she got high earlier, and then took a nap, you are taking a big leap to say she “passed out from being high.” It sounds like the statement of someone who doesn’t really know what they are talking about. By your logic, if a person gets out of bed in the morning and is hit by a car later that day, their accident was a result of getting out of bed, right?
It is apparent that Disturbing Thoughts still equates getting high to getting inebriated (as with alcohol), many people mistakenly do just that. You don’t pass out from smoking pot, but you may pass out from too much alcohol. I suppose with that logic, you could say I passed out after eating that turkey sandwich. Or is using the term “passed out” meant to make her look more sinister in the eyes of the world than just saying she took a nap.
Whether she passes out or not, she was still asleep during a raging fire just inside the next room. She says the flames were huge when she walked in, enough so to make a mother not want to enter the room to retrieve a child. The investigators said the fire was near the “flashover” point where everything in the room would be burnt. That is a pretty big fire.
Savannah’s bed in the room was a couch. It had a fold out bed. So, when I say that the fire started on the bed because the pipe was on the arm of the couch, the couch and the bed are the same piece of furniture. The bed was folded out for Savannah and her fiance.
Wow….What a sick, sad world we live in. Marijuana is no more dangerous for someone than Prozac, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, or any of that garbage. Have you looked at the list of side effects for those drugs? And about the side effects of Marijuana…Hmm….Dry mouth, and an insane urge to eat…wow…sounds like the makings of an unfit parent to me. And as far as napping while your kids are home? I don’t know a parent who hasn’t. And yeah, interesting fact, for anyone who HASN’T smoked pot…its a struggle at times to get that stuff to burn WITH A FLAME HELD TO IT, let alone to have the embers stay ignited long enough for her to get up, move to another room, and fall into a deep enough sleep to not notice her house on fire. Another interesting question…if the fire started on the bed….and the pipe was on the couch….but the fire started in the bed she was sleeping in….how is she still alive? Am I not understanding the course of events? Please, someone, more knowledgable than myself, help me out here, cause I’m really confused as to how a fire could start in the same bed someone is sleeping in and kill their child who is in the other room….Am I lost?
I don’t know what to think of this anymore.
I doubt few people running from a burning home and trying to save a couple kids is going to take the trouble to place a pipe on a couch arm, it’s not like you can just throw it there, you kind of have to stop and place it.
Most of us have seen pot burning, and especially with only one person hitting it we know the embers to not burn hardly any seconds past when the person stops inhaling.
If Savannah is as big an addict as she’s made out to be, she wouldn’t be throwing a half-smoked bowl away, that stuff costs money which obviously she does not have.
Mike pointed out the 28 criminal records Savannah had. She may have been a bad person, but this trial was not about if she was a bad person.
Really it came down to if she started the fire or not?
Suppose she said none of the self-incriminating statements, try to discount those entirely.
What evidence is left then that she started the fire?
But she did make the incriminating statements. Those are in the record and confirmed by witnesses. We can’t retry the case leaving out evidence that doesn’t fit our bias of how this was merely an accident or that “…Marijuana is no more dangerous for someone than Prozac, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, or any of that garbage.”
This is the portion of Idaho Code that defines involuntary manslaughter that Berry was charged with:
18-4006. MANSLAUGHTER DEFINED. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a
human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, without
malice. It is of three (3) kinds:
1. Voluntary — upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
2. Involuntary — in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any
unlawful act, other than arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or
mayhem; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an
unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection; or in the
operation of any firearm or deadly weapon in a reckless, careless or negligent
manner which produces death.
Berry was engaged in an unlawful act, namely possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Perhaps this answers some persons questions if she was only smoking Pall Malls would she have been charged? I suspect that either way they could have charged her. Looks like they could have got her with the “without due caution and circumspection”…due to sleeping and nodding off and leaving the child to fend for himself. However, I wonder if she had not had such a lengthy criminal record if she might have avoided criminal charges?
I am wondering something else too that Joe said in the post above “I doubt few people running from a burning home and trying to save a couple kids is going to take the trouble to place a pipe on a couch arm, it’s not like you can just throw it there, you kind of have to stop and place it.”: Did the fire start in the mothers bed or the child’s? Did she leave Eric in the dwelling or did she get him out? This may have also impacted whether to charge her…did she just concern herself with saving herself and worrying about Eric after the fact?
Her criminal record was relevant here because I am certain that the prosecutors looked at this background to get an idea about her character, past behaviors and ethics. Her criminal record will obviously take on more importance as she prepares for sentencing.
Sounds to me like Neil knows what he is talking about. The fire started on the bed that Savannah sleeps in, which is the same bed that she says she was smoking marijuana on, which is also the couch. For those of you who may not know what a hide-a-bed is, it is a couch with a fold out bed.
Also, the pictures in the trial confirm the location of the pipe on the arm of the couch/bed/Savannah’s sleepytime place. So she did leave it there. And evidence shows that there was couch upholstery melted onto it, so it was there during the fire.
She didn’t place the pipe on the couch while running from a fire. She put it there to hide it from the kids that were coming in her room while she was getting high on “her last bowl” when she was supposed to be looking after her own kids, who were in the next room. She put on a movie for Thom, and went to “pass out” not knowing really what Eric was doing. Now I’m not saying she really passed out, but she was asleep during a pretty intense fire in the next room, which also contained her 4 year old son.
Whether the pipe started the fire or her son got a hold of the lighter she claimed to have left by the pipe and started the fire, he is still dead today because of her neglegence while performing an illegal act.
Excellent information Ben. Thanks. That makes sense with it being a hide a bed/couch all contained in one piece of furniture.
Does anyone know if Berry made any attempt to save Eric? Or did she just leave him to burn in the home?
She did claim to go back to try and save Eric. She took Thom outside and a neighbor took him, but when the neighbor saw that she was going to go back in, she gave Thom back so Savannah wouldn’t go back in, and she didn’t. She initially looked into the bedroom when she was on the way out, but stated that the flames were huge. If by then the flames were huge, I wonder how somebody in the next room would be able to sleep through the heat, smoke and noise that a large fire emits.
I dunno Ben.
Maybe you should ask Guest_BR549, sickofit or meso if they know whether marijuana would further impair someones senses to the degree that they might not be able to sense, feel, smell, or hear any warning signs of the fire.
However, in case they can’t or don’t want to answer you, goto this link at the National Institute of Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html) and get some facts like:
1) “A marijuana user may experience pleasant sensations, colors and sounds may seem more intense, and time appears to pass very slowly. The user’s mouth feels dry, and he or she may suddenly become very hungry and thirsty. His or her hands may tremble and grow cold. The euphoria passes after awhile, and then the user may feel sleepy or depressed. Occasionally, marijuana use produces anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.”
2)”In a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a moderate dose of marijuana alone was shown to impair driving performance; however, the effects of even a low dose of marijuana combined with alcohol were markedly greater than for either drug alone. Driving indices measured included reaction time, visual search frequency (driver checking side streets), and the ability to perceive and/or respond to changes in the relative velocity of other vehicles.”
Plain and simple, marijuana use effects your cognitive abilities and motor skills.
I don’t disagree at all that Savannah was perpetrating an unlawful act, I’m completely on board there. I’m also all for her taking responsibility. In the article previous to this one, I plainly said I thought she was guilty and got what was due to her.
It’s only because someone was questioning the case evidence I even published this.
It appears the differences in this discussion are along two lines:
1- Some are trying to say smoking marijuana is not bad and so she should not be held responsible. I really think that’s another discussion about larger issues, and is not going to gather much sympathy in this context where a young boy died.
2-Whether she actually caused the fire or not.
Dane Watkins’ case and others here are saying:
A (she was high)
+B (there was a fire)
=C (she must have started it)
Some of us are just saying A+B does not necessarily equal C in this case.
We would rather see actual evidence of:
A (she didn’t take care of pipe)
+B (evidence fire started at pipe)
=C (she started the fire)
So the be division here is whether evidence exists the fire started at the pipe.
We are hearing lots of things, that evidence was or was not presented conclusively saying the pipe started the fire.
Where might transcripts be found of the trial?
They would probably charge you and arm and a leg for them unless you get them from the defense. Having transcripts to read, much like what KPVI did on the publicizing the Mason interviews was very enlightening and useful to get a grasp of what was going on. Too bad the county can’t publish these types of high profile cases on their website. I think it would help not only hold the court and attorneys accountable, but it would put more faith in the system to see the results arrived at.
I agree. It’s strange we cannot access them as they should now be public record, available for viewing at the courthouse or a copy for a small fee.
Lots of interesting comments about this since Joe published it. I’ve learned some additional background since I posted my comments. Steve Minnis, the Investigator that testified for the defense has not retired rather he was promoted to Division Chief with the Lewiston Fire Department (One of the few ISO Class 2 Fire Departments in the state). One of the above posts states that Berrey’s criminal record is I believe some would call “extensive” and that brings to mind another thought here. With numerous previous charges I wonder why she had custody of her children in the first place?. Did Berrey slip through the cracks when Health & Welfare was doing such a fabulous job looking out for Teagan Reese?. If Berrey was using marijuana with the kids in the house at the time then she should suffer the consequences but I also believe that law Enforcement should have attained more evidence that she was, they had no problems using her statements during the fire. I know Law Enforcement Investigator can identify persons under the influence of drugs/alcohol just by visual and verbal observation. So did anyone testify as to Berrey’s imparirment during or shortly after the fire, other that her being obviously upset over the loss of her child?.
Neil…Dick Hahn is a very Professional and Qualified Investigator, he has to be or he would be a Deputy State Fire Marshal. He was an excellent Firefighter, Paramedic, Captain and Fire Chief (1989-1996).
I’m a Registered Nurse, I have the fortune to see the best in people and unfortunately I see the worst in some at times. This whole story, begining before the fire that day to the final verdict is a huge tragedy. A young prescious life has been lost and other lives have been shattered for a lifetime but in the end I believe we all have to answer to a higher authority for our actions.
Did Berry slip through the cracks? Yeah, she did, she was given drug treatment and slipped through the cracks of her own volition.
Now, there is blame to pass around on Health & Welfare for alot of things. However, raising this specter is like another poster diverting attention from Kimball Mason.
If you want Health & Welfare and the Courts to be more stringent on taking kids away from parents you will have to change the laws in place at this time. Don’t blame the government for carrying out laws imposed by the legislature and don’t blame the government for Berry’s misdeeds. She had plenty of opportunities to reform herself and shape up. She refused and we see the results.
Don’t even get me started on what a joke illegal marijuana is. Answer me one question though, PLEASE. They say the fire started on the bed….that Savannah was sleeping on…thats their whole reason for throwing her in jail – ‘You got high, passed out, your pipe started a fire on your bed’….so again….how did she not get consumed by the fire but her child in the next room did? This is such a blatant farce it makes me physically sick to my stomach. And regardless of her criminal record, she deserves a fair trial. If she were Paris Hilton, it would become socially acceptable to commit manslaughter. Heck, she’d probably make a reality TV show about it. Again, I state: what a sick, sad world we live in.
Read the end of Post 28. That is an interesting question though….I agree, it still seems muddy on how or where the fire started.
sickofit,
I don’t think you read carefully enough. She wasn’t sleeping on the bed. The pipe was on the bed, and she was in the next room. She was smoking and left the pipe when she escorted her kids out of the room.
The fire started on the bed according to two well respected and experienced fire investigators. The was no wiring, gas, or other problems. There was ash/embers on the bed. Nothing else could have started the fire except for her 4 year old with the lighter that she said she used to light the pipe. But, the pictures of the post-fire room showed that the door was open during the fire. If her son lit the fire, wouldn’t he run out of the room instead of hide on the bed?
Does anyone know if the lighter was found or was it burnt beyond recognition. Finding that lighter might help prove whether or not her son might have been playing with it.
The problem with Savannah is, she should have kept quiet and not answered any questions without a lawyer present. She pretty much convicted herself by talking to investigators. That’s a lesson everyone should learn….we DO have a right to remain silent…but all to often, it isn’t used. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be held responsible for her actions, but don’t go and convict yourself either. For the rest of her life, she’s going to have to deal with the fact that she was responible for her childs death and that alone is a sentence in itself.
Do we know how much time she was sentenced to, or have they even sentenced her yet?
“The problem with Savannah is, she should have kept quiet and not answered any questions without a lawyer present. She pretty much convicted herself by talking to investigators. That’s a lesson everyone should learn….we DO have a right to remain silent…but all to often, it isn’t used. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be held responsible for her actions, but don’t go and convict yourself either.”
CR67, you sound like Perry Mason. Her statements were obtained legally. Nice save toward the end though…saying she should be punished. I am not really understanding why you wrote the stuff in the middle of your post above other than going off on not convicting yourself. How about this? DON’T ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MAKING AN INCRIMINATING STATEMENT TO AUTHORITIES. Now, wouldn’t that be more refreshing advice beyond trying to avoid the consequences of your actions?
I’m not saying they weren’t obtained legally. I’m just saying she convicted herself by freely giving out that information without her attorney being present. She’d be in much better shape if she had waited for her attorney.
And I’m sure the investigators didn’t mind talking to a heartbroken mother who just lost her child. I’m sure she was in no state to give a clear and proper statement after just finding out she lost her child.
The point is, no matter what she did in her past, she still has rights. And theres no need for others to judge her again here.
doesnt matter what she said after, she could thought she caused it
it matters what did start the fire
statements immediately after an accident can be error if someone thinks they were at fault but were not
everyones saying different things about the evidence presented wher ethe fire started who was where what evidence was found at the point of ignition wher ethe pipe was found
time for truth not just what a
Ok, so no one has addressed the biggest farce here….how the pipe started the fire….You can seriously hit a pipe full of almost any grade of marijuana and chances are its gonna be extinguished by the time the smoke leaves your lungs. Explain it, please. And if you don’t believe me, ask a stoner.
ahhh but recall the end of you baggie when its all shake
thst stuff keeps burning once started
LOL…specialcode called you on that one sickofit. Tis true…i know from my college days. And being a single mother with not much money, I’m sure she wasn’t getting the finest grade MJ as it was. So it is quite possible for the bowl to start a fire, especially if she stuck it between the cushions. That’s just idiotic there!
or, being loose shakey weed, some burning embers could get spilled or dropped and keep burning
only tight buds extinguish themselves quickly
Post 42: At least we waited to comment AFTER she was judged! What do you mean there is no need for others to judge her here? I think that is kinda the purpose of this site to throw out opinions and discuss things going on in our community. Everybody has an opinion for or against, etc…all I am saying is that the confessions were legal and they corroborated other pieces of evidence found at the fire that speak for themselves. Even if she had not made any statements to the police it is likely she would have been convicted. She was the only adult in the house with the kids. Who else could it have been? Funny thing about the conscience….it speaks for itself alot of the time….with or without a lawyer present!
Mike, you come across with a “holier than thou” attitude on many of your posts. I guess you’ve never made a mistake in your life huh Mr Perfect?
LOL!
Right on…
holding someone responsible for their mistake is considered holier than thou?
he didnt say anywhere he never made a mistkae or indicated hes tried to avoid punishment for his mistakes
she did try to avoid punishment suggesting at trial her 4yo may have played with the lighter contradictng herself on the news a day after the fire herself saying her kid couldnt light the lighter
if enforcing personal responsibility is holier than thou then that prob shows your own personal sense of irresponsibility
I’ve got a 3 y/o daughter that can light a lighter. I’m sure a 4y/o boy could just as easily.
so now it’s Mikes job to enforce personal responisility? Thats funny! And I might add you seem a little condesending yourself.
disagreement NEQ condescension
That’s another neat trick of some on here. I have not attacked anyone personally on this site unlike the Peach. I have strong opinions, just like you probably do. So what?
Whenever people don’t like the writing on the wall they attack the person not the argument.
I don’t get paid to enforce personal responsibilty anymore than you do. This is simply my opinion about the topic on this thread. Please tell me how my strongly held convictions are a problem for you? Let’s hear your convictions about this issue instead of taking cheap shots- how about a discussion of what you think about the choices Ms. Berry made and how it cost a life here. Or should we just talk about how your three year old knows how to lighter (hmmm…am I being too holier than thou saying that is amazing that you let a 3 year old play with a lighter?) Or should we blame Eric for lighting himself on fire? Seriously, you can call me holierthanthou all you want….but I am not the issue here…..Ms. Berry’s responsibility in this situation is. Talk about that and kindly leave me out of your rants.
easier for some to attack motives rathr thn admit mite be wrong. nobodys perfect if you cant think of reasns to counterargue then admit it you cant think of a reason but it still doesnt seem right to you. youll seem more intelligent that way than switching to attacking motives
is this georgy bush chatting here? those are his MO
Nope, never attacked anyone personally….except for noting that I was “an apologist for sick and evil behavior that (I) support or engage in (myself)” – Post #46 on the sex offender thread.
Nope. Nothing personal there.
Hey Anonymous, you should get yourself a catchy name so we know you better. It would be a shame to confuse you with someone else who was anonymous. I vote we call you the Anonimizer. Come on….you know you want to do it?!
NOW who’s dodging the point and not being accountable?
I am sorry to say this but you have issues and can’t even take a joke man. In my view, you take yourself way too seriously and see everything as a slap in the face to yourself. I was trying to be more inclusive of you….yes, really…and you fly off the handle again. Good riddance.
When the four-year-old operating the lighter defense rose, KIDK 3 did a feature where they tested two four year olds if they could overcome the child-proof lighter.
The kids could not, however it was also the first time they’d seen the lighter. Savannah Berrey’s kid must have seen his mom light the lighter thousands of times.
A joke to you is libel?
Good riddance? I’m not going anywhere.
BTW, I have taken a joke, repeatedly; you’re on here everyday.
…
If you’re referring to comment 57, I don’t see libel.
Please refer specifically to any comment numbers if you feel they personally attack, name-call, put-down or bait you, your race, your religion or your gender. I will evaluate them against the 7 comment rules.
you are just to sensitive. Mello man
Uhhh…I thought I DID refer to a specific comment, Joe….#46 on the sex-offender notification thread…one of many on that thread that attacked me, slandered me, my integrity, my intellect, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Then, I purportedly refer to unnamed poster(s) as “stupid” and THAT’s what gets edited….hmmmmmmmmm….
Overly sensitive? To hypocrisy, stupidity, and cronyism…you bet I am.
Thanks for being specific.
This is what you’re referring to, right:
http://idahofallz.com/2006/03/21/find-sex-offenders-in-your-neighborhood/#comment-12955
I cut the “or engage in yourself.” but that’s the only close thing I see. That is a borderline thing in my view, but I’ll cut it since it is close. I think he was kind of asking a question more than accusing, but I can see it interpreted both ways.
Your edited bits though, were more blatant.
Can we get back to the subject?
Where could I go request the trial transcripts? Does anyone know who Berrey’s lawyer was that would probably give me a copy?
You probably have to do some kind of written records request under Idaho Public Records Law. My guess is to call the Bannock County Courthouse and ask for the appropriate office. Unless you mean her Bonneville case, same process though. Either way you might get charged for copying fees.
I’d be surprised if a lawyer gave you a copy for free unless they routinely do that for press/similar types. Free and lawyer don’t seem to blend well in the same sentence. Good luck!
I didn’t see anything wrong with #46 on the sex offender topic. Nobody attacked you, slandered you, your integrity or your intellect on that post. All Mike did was ask you to show where you got your information from and “as always”, you can never provide any. I can appreciate everyone having their own opinion on a topic, but when you come out and constantly bash other posters opinions and tell everyone how wrong they are on pretty much every topic, without showing any hard evidence to the contrary, that’s whats so puzzeling.
And then you wonder why people don’t take you seriously.
But thats just MY opinion. fwiw
The information of which I speak is readily available to anyone who knows how to type. I’m not aware of any requirement to provide bibliographies to anyone who requests them on this particular type of forum. If you truly wanted to learn about an issue, or successfully rebut my opinion, you could. That you didn’t, means you don’t or can’t.
BTW, it certainly seems as though you’re taking me seriously, slimbud……..
Savannah’s Ex is on KBEAR’s website. Well his leg is at least. I guess they had a contest where they picked a person to have a tatoo removed or covered up that they didn’t like. (there sure are a ton of people that no longer want their tats!) Anyways, he has her name tatoo’d on the back of this calf and wants it removed. Pretty funny. Looks like they both weren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer!
Joe, Jordan Crane at the Bonneville Public Defender’s Office represented her. He may be ordering up a transcript for an appeal. He might charge you copying fees per page or something. That might be a good way to nail down some information on this case if you wanted to. Don’t call Bannock County. They have nothing to do with the case other than it was tried there. All the records are here in IF.
BTW…//FLAG// reference Post #61: “….BTW, I have taken a joke, repeatedly; you’re on here everyday.
… This thread is about sexual offender registration requirements, purposes and the general pro/con.
Seriously, don’t edit out his comments though. They speak loud and clear. Just wanted it known that I didn’t “libel” him or attack him as he infers. Thanks.
Edited and edited. Back to the issues please.
I made a note and will try to contact that person for a transcript.
I guess I’m a little late entering this fray but it’s interesting to see where it’s headed. So how do we explain those non-inebriated, non-high parents who awaken to find their homes going up in a blaze? How did the fire get beyond a spark without their knowledge? Are they also criminally negligent because they didn’t awaken fast enough? Most stories I’ve read on this tell the tale of a member of the family awakening to find the home in blazes throughout and no one was under the influence of anything but sleep.
And having 28 criminal charges would have sent Savannah up for life years ago as a repeat offender. Could some of those “criminal” charges have been traffic citations or something equally as insidious? I don’t see those charges being spelled out. Can anyone elaborate? If they are more serious, like on the felony level, maybe we should be on someone else’s case for allowing a career criminal to be raising a child in the first place.
Felons can and do raise kids too. It’s not like we should or even could take children away from felonious parents (unless there is sex abuse or child abuse). The point is there are always going to be accidents. Some accidents are caused by electrical problems, or clothes being left over a heat source…..these types of incidents can have human error attached, or sometimes just a mechanical error that could not have been prevented by human action(s). In Berry’s case, she is the root cause of the accident by smoking pot and leaving the pipe/embers to start the fire. Her actions are what open her up to the Involuntary Manslaughter charge that she is to be sentenced for in the coming months. As we have pointed out, her illegal activity that was shown to be the proximate cause of the fire-which resulted in death-opens her up to criminal prosecution.
As for your question about her criminal record, her convictions have all been misdemeanors. She was arrested for a few felonies for Aggravated Assault, etc….she was not convicted on those counts and they were dismissed. However, she has been using drugs for many years. I have no idea if Health & Welfare was actively monitoring her children prior to the fire. I don’t recall this being brought up in any news coverage though.
Thanks for the info Mike. The introduction of the “28 criminal charges” into this thread left me a little suspicious and irritated. Someone of this age would be hard-pressed to have 28 felony convictions and still be walking the streets. 28 traffic citations might make it difficult to have a driver’s license but it doesn’t necessarily lead automatically to being a bad parent unless they’re reckless driving with a child in the vehicle. 28 charges, as opposed to 28 convictions of any sort, wouldn’t be a surprise if she has lived in Bonneville County for any length of time. I guess that’s why the introduction of previous bad acts into a trial is prohibited under most circumstances as it’s rarely relevant to the matter at hand.
Of course felons can and do raise kids. Sometimes better than non-felons. One example, they can bring a little “don’t do what I did” to the table.
This whole situation is a terrible tragedy for all involved.
So she got 1 1/2 yrs.
Sad to see thats all the judge thought her son’s life was worth. I would have like to have seen her get the max allowed.
No….actually she got 7 1/2 years, but is eligible for parole after 1 1/2 years.
She definately got too harsh of a sentence. I feel bad for her. It’s bad enough she’s got to live with her childs death for the rest of her life. that’s a life sentence in itself.
Oh well….whaddaya do?
What do you do?? How about be responsible when you have children and not get high when you are watching them?? If you ask me she should not get out after 18 months.
So, if she had been smoking a Marlboro and drinking a Bud…she would have been just another mother of a child who, unfortunately, had been killed in an ACCIDENT. Let’s throw the book at her because her drug of choice didn’t match up with the legal ones. Idaho is still #5 in the nation for per capita incarceration. Let’s strive for #1…let’s get more Savannah Berreys behind bars where they belong.
If Savannah had passed out drunk and a fire started due to a cigarette she was smoking I’d throw the book at her just at much. Its about negligience and incapacitating yourself to the point you can’t be a fit parent which is what Savannah did. The means of her incapacitation is irrelevant.
Just FYI, here in Oregon, a mom was sentenced to just 40 days in jail for rolling over onto her infant daughter and killing her….while she (mom) was stoned!!
Wow….what a difference a state makes, eh???
Readers,
I thought I would provide some information for those that have commented on this site. I am the investigator that testified for the Defense.
The information about my employment status was true on both accounts. I retired from the Boise Fire Department in 2003 as the chief fire investigator and the City’s Fire Marshal after a 25 year career. During my career I investigated well over 1,200 fire scenes where I provided instruction, direction, or direct input in determining the cause of each fire.
In 2006 I was recruited to go back to work as a Division Chief for the Lewiston Fire Department where I am presently employed.
While it is true that I was paid by the Public Defender’s Office to analyze the case and provide testimony, my availability for this type of work has been very limited. I accepted this case because I believe that investigators rushed to judgement in their early determination and were too inexperienced and arrogant to take a step back and consider other evidence. Investigators relied solely on Ms. Berrey’s statements while they ignored multiple pieces of physical evidence that were in conflict.
Although the Idaho Falls investigator had several years experience in the fire service at the time of the Berrey fire, he had only participated in a few dozen fire investigations. The Idaho Falls Fire Marshal Mike Sheets who has since passed away, was a long time dear friend of mine. Had he not been ill, he would have been on the case himself and would have likely called me to collaborate with. If that would have happened the entire subject would be moot.
Although Mr. Hahn may well have been a good Fire Chief the job of Fire Chief in a department the size of Idaho Falls does not expose one to fire investigations. Mr. Hahn skirted the edge of the truth when he testified on his experience. He claimed to have investigated over 1,000 fire scenes in his career citing that his photography hobby exposed him to each fire scene as an investigator. This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and will perhaps be one of the issues that will provide a basis for an appeal. Mr. Hahn’s experience as a State investigator is well documented. If anyone is interested you can go to the State Fire Marshal web site and count the fires investigated by that office statewide. Mr. Hahn participates in roughly 1/3 of the total.
Rather than attempt to convince anyone about the truth of the matter it is suffice to say that after my testimony the Prosecutor changed his entire case presentation to achieve his conviction.
In two separate trials the prosecution maintained that the fire was caused by smoldering marajana ash that burned for 4 hours. There was no evidence of marajana at the residence and Ms. Berrey was not reported to be impaired nor was she tested for drugs. Mutiple pieces of other evidence were ignored and other more likely fire causes were dismissed without proper consideration.
When the Prosecution could not defend their original assertion about the marajana causing the fire, the closing remarks offered by the prosecution said it all: “This is not about a fire” “This is about taking responsibility for what happened”
Of course it was about the FIRE. The fire caused the death of the child so you have to determine who or what is responsible for causing the fire. Since the evidence did not support a smoldering marajana ash fire the prosecution took the path of least resistance. The entire case morphed into a social issue so that certain individuals could save face on a poorly prepared case.
Although the prosecution alleged that Ms. Berrey’s marajana use made her impaired and therefore unable to care for her child, no one bothered to present evidence to support that claim.
One glaring fact still remains; the fire was not a 4 hour fire which the prosecution eventually conceeded, it was in fact a fire that burned for approximately 10 minutes before it was detected. The child died from thermal injury and not from smoke inhalation which means he was alive as the fire was in a flaming state. Each year thousands of children across the country between 3 and 10 years of age start fires with matches and lighters. Many times the children themselves die tragically as they try to hide rather than get into trouble. Eric only needed 10 to 15 minutes away from his mother to cause this type of fire.
Whether you drink alcohol, take drugs, or live a life free from mind altering substances, can we say that our constant attention to our kids would preclude this from happening? If this fire had occurred at night when it is “ok” to sleep, ironically the outcome would have likely been more tragic but there wouldn’t be a mother in prison.
There is a multiple tragedy in this case. Not only has a young life been lost and a mother left to grieve but the investigative community for which I’ve been a member since 1983 has been embarrased and severely damaged.
It sounds to me like Mr. Hahn should be held in contempt of court. Isn’t that perjury?
I agree with your comments that children do at times play with lighters, matches and so forth. Good luck watching them 24/7 (although there are certainly parents who need to pay better attention to their young). I saw Savannah a couple of months after this happened. I don’t know her personally but did speak to her briefly. The impression I got was that this gal was going through her own personal hell. Nobody, particularly not the system, needs to judge her any more than she is, and probably will for the rest of her life, judging herself. She lost what any parent (hopefully) would consider the greatest gift of all. When a parent loses a child, the parent usually does blame themselves in some way, shape or form. Her reaction was not abnormal nor should she be convicted on the basis of it. We question what we could have, should have done differently to prevent the tragedy. The guilt is enormous for the simple reason that you could not save them. It’s part of being human. Savannah did not deliberatly kill her little boy. I believe that needs to be taken into consideration regardless of any testimony. I further believe that she is and will suffer enough. I further think that there are people on this site who are about as judgemental and mean as one can be. Perhaps they have never done anything wrong in their lives (but I doubt it) that could have resulted in harm to another human being. Perhaps you run with such a righteous crowd and have such a righteous family, that nobody could do harm, without intent, to another. Wow, what Gods you must all be!
Savannah Berrey and her kid are the obvious victims here. Bonneville County taxpayers are the secondary victims of a bad prosecutor. Shame on Dane Watkins. Remember this when Dane Watkins comes up for re-election.
Give me a break! How can you bleeding hearts truly know what remorse Ms. Berry is having? If she truly was sorry for the loss should we just let her escape jail? If I break into your home, get caught stealing or assaulting you and say I am sorry will you let me off too?
Her child died in a fire that she was the contributing factor in starting. If she hadn’t been smoking weed and carelessly left the burning pipe laying around then Eric would be alive today.
The investigator who got on-line here was a paid mouthpiece for the defense. When he lost it made him look bad to the professional community so of course he is going to spin it in his favor. Too bad for him all 12 jury members didn’t buy his story or her’s.
And the good Lord certainly seems to have you as the speaker for her emotions Mike. Give US a break! So tell us Mike, when exactly did you become the expert on Savannah’s emotions?
According to post # 81 we don’t know that Mike. Perhaps there are a few of us who believe that some people do stupid things and pay a lifetime for it without people like you adding to the fire. It doesn’t mean a person is not truly sorry. Anon states that he got the “impression”. Post 81 also states that the person testifying was not being factual. The jury goes off testimony. If they are given false testimony, then obviously they may make a false judgement.
I’m with Mike on this one; he is not attempting to interject anyone’s feelings here or to speak for the defendant; in fact, he is pointing out that NO ONE really knows what is going on in the defendant’s head and, moreover, even if she is “sorry” that doesn’t change her liability. We are all sorry after we’ve done something bad. It doesn’t changed that it happened.
Mike is correctly pointing out two facts:
1. the opinion above, #81, is just that: OPINION of a paid defense expert. His self-serving statement: “Rather than attempt to convince anyone about the truth of the matter it is suffice to say that after my testimony the Prosecutor changed his entire case presentation to achieve his conviction” says it all.
Please. Ah, yes, the Evil Prosecutor, who would lie, steal and cheat to win at all costs! Let’s remember, the prosectution WON this case, so it doesn’t sound like any such tricks were needed.
2. Her child did die in a fire, to which she was a “contributing factor”. That point can’t be argued or opined away. It is very sad, yes, but she does bear the responsibility for her actions. Just like we all do.
Actually I think Steve pointed out discrepancies that need to be looked at. How often have you heard of someone going to prison because key information was withheld? We’re hearing that a lot these days. Just watch national news. Then after however long 10,20,30 years someone is let go. It would be a real shame to add to the pain she’s already feeling if that’s the case.
However, there are (as Mike says) “bleeding hearts” and those with no heart on this thread. I’d prefer to be the bleeding heart all the way.
so, wait, abby, if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the prosecutor “withheld” evidence in this particular case? what, exactly, was that evidence?
it seems like the more likely protest people would raise is “hey, Mom made a mistake. . . does that really warrant jail time?” that is, of course, a completely separate argument, more driven of emotion than anything else.
but you are stating, as a fact, that key “evidence” was withheld in this case….can you tell us what that evidence was?
ps I would be very suspicious of any “expert” who mis-spells “marijuana” several times in the course of his opinion. we all make typos (I am the worst!) but he consistently spelled “marijuana” incorrectly……how much faith should we put in his opinion if he is so unfamiliar with his topic???
I guess that’s not what I read babs. Abby clearly said Discrepancies. She refers to cases where evidence is withheld but did not cite that case directly.
here’s what abby said:
“If they are given false testimony, then obviously they may make a false judgement.”
So, okay, I will refer to her reference to post 81 and to “discrepancies” and ask, to what discrepancies is she alluding? in this case?
chill babs, I was referring to Steve’s posts. I recognize you don’t want to hear that Savannah may have had some problems in the case and that she should have the harshest sentence available. But some of us aren’t so sure. Get over it.
actually, I am pretty chilly. just still waiting for you to tell me what discrepancies, in your words, “need to be looked at.”
you certainly are! Read Steve’s post. That is what I was referring to. Do you want me to tell you again or will this 2nd time work for you?
chill out folks What is ms. Berreys status what was final sentence?
I’d like to know myself. It always surprises me how babs likes to grill me, but won’t grill the person actually stating what I reply to, particularly if it’s a man. It’s interesting but old.
?”always”??
this is the first time I have ever interacted with you, Abby, moreover, I don’t know if you are a man or a woman or whether Steve is boy or girl, so please don’t start accusing me of sexism for goodness sake!
moreover, I think I already stated that Steve is a paid expert. He cited no “facts” that would point to some prosecution “conspiracy.” I just thought maybe you had some other insight into the case, as you noted “discrepancies” which “need to be looked at.”
If you are just reiterating Steve’s paid, defense-expert opinion (i.e., hired gun opinion), that is a different matter entirely.
oooh ok babs Goodnight babs.
tee hee…great “non answer”.
Good night Abby!
I can’t figure out where babs got what she did unless she took everything that abby said out of context. I think Steve made good points as did the original article here. The case deserves a review.
No, anonymous, I am actually honestly trying to find out what “discrepancies” were evident at trial. I wasn’t around for the trial and I can’t figure out what “Steve” is talking about. Abby’s comments about “wittheld evidence” made me think there is more to the story.
But I still haven’t heard anything except Steve’s innuendo that there were “discrepancies” and that the prosecutor actually changed course mid-trial.
Does anyone have info about that???
Let’s be an equal-opportunity blog: if we are going to cry foul against the prosecutor and/or jury, I think the facts that support those allegations should be brought out.
That’s all.
Are you opposed to a review of this case? If yes, why? You seem very defensive about it.
A review of the case can be done at the appellate level. A review of the case here is useless and certainly would be biased in favor of the prosecutor or defense depending on your position in the matter.
I didn’t see an appeal in the works though. Does this mean that Ms. Berry finally accepted responsibility for the crime, or that she simply knew she couldn’t win because the evidence was credible and compelling that led to a unanimous verdict?
I am not opposed to anything; several people have alluded to “discrepancies” surrounding this case.
I just would like to know what the discrepancies are, and, to date, no one has listed any.
babs said
April 30, 2008
1:16 pm
Comment # 102
But I still haven’t heard anything except Steve’s innuendo that there were “discrepancies” and that the prosecutor actually changed course mid-trial.
______________________________
Steve said
April 28, 2008
1:21 am
Comment # 81
1> Although Mr. Hahn may well have been a good Fire Chief the job of Fire Chief in a department the size of Idaho Falls does not expose one to fire investigations. Mr. Hahn skirted the edge of the truth when he testified on his experience. He claimed to have investigated over 1,000 fire scenes in his career citing that his photography hobby exposed him to each fire scene as an investigator.
2> In two separate trials the prosecution maintained that the fire was caused by smoldering marajana ash that burned for 4 hours. There was no evidence of marajana at the residence and Ms. Berrey was not reported to be impaired nor was she tested for drugs. Mutiple pieces of other evidence were ignored and other more likely fire causes were dismissed without proper consideration.
3> Although the prosecution alleged that Ms. Berrey’s marajana use made her impaired and therefore unable to care for her child, no one bothered to present evidence to support that claim.
4> One glaring fact still remains; the fire was not a 4 hour fire which the prosecution eventually conceeded, it was in fact a fire that burned for approximately 10 minutes before it was detected.
______________________________________
So basically it’s an innuendo if it doesn’t suit your purpose Babs? Do you have to officially label it a descrepancy before it becomes one? I don’t think you even read the full context of the posts. And I think you jump to your belief based on the part of the story you want to hear. Several descrepancies were listed in Steve’s post (which I see you finally conceded were in fact his posts and not mine, post 102… bravo.)
I think bab’s just wants to twist comments until she makes herself right. I won’t be reading any more of that garbage.
Whatever the outcome of the Berry case, I hope she finds peace with this horrible tragedy.
um, abby, you labelled them discrepancies, not me. I don’t think there were any. Still don’t.
Still see Steve’s opinion but no facts. For example, is Hahn lying about the number of fires? Where is that “fact” in Steve’s post?? He just sorta insinuates that Hahn lied but provides no proof.
Abby, I have no quarrel with you. Suggesting that the prosecutor had ulterior motives (as you did) is pretty strong; have yet to see you back up what you alleged.
I can see how defensive you are becoming but maybe you should be careful about throwing out allegations/implications of misconduct without any facts to support them.
ps I think the reason you are misunderstanding me is that Steve’s PAID “expert opinion” does not constitute FACTS. There is a huge difference…………moreover, he provides no facts as a basis for his PAID opinion.
Look, folks, this is an emotional issue. Everyone feels bad that a kid died. Whatever way you think the mom shoul’ve been punished or not, it is still sad.
But that doens’t mean there was anything “wrong” with the trial or that ms. berry didn’t get her fair trial. It just means it is a heartbreaker al lthe way around and we shouldn’t fight about it unless there is reason to think she got the shaft somehow.
oh now i have ulterior motives huh bab? Talk about not having facts prior to making accusations! Wow babs, you’re pretty amazing. I can’t argue with someone who can’t reason and twists words around to suit their own agenda. Goodnight.
You two stop :]what is status of girl or is she doing prison time ?
KIFI – [quote]
he mother convicted of starting the fire which killed her four year old son Eric, is sentenced to prison.
Savannah Berrey will have to spend one and a half years in prison. After that period of time, she will be eligible for parole and the parole board will determine if she will spend the remaining six years of her sentence in prison or out on parole.
Berrey was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in May by a Bannock County jury.
She is said to have been smoking marijuana sparking a fire that killed her four year old son, Eric. [end quote]
thank you I still wonder if she was ? is in prison? sometimes work or psych programs,imo hard prison would ruin her .
grandson said marijuans goes out to quick to start house fire 4hrs l8r.
I agree, rehab. And no, I don’t know for sure if she still is but my guess is yes. It stated she would be eligible for parole after 1 and 1/2 years.
thanks
oh, for goodness sake, Abby, I referred to the alleged “ulterior motives” of the prosecutor, not you. You suggested that.
Please read more carefully and you won’t get your feelings hurt!
you aren’t capable of hurting my feelings babs so don’t flatter yourself.
Anon, your welcome.
Abby and Anonymous thanks for trying to direct this back on track.
If Steve’s posts are accurate, I hope that Savannah fights for a re-trial. I would think rehab would be more appropriate too. Prison isn’t going to help her.
I hope she does too Anon. She didn’t deserve prison time imho. This was merely a tragic accident. If it was “alcohol related” there wouldn’t be nearly as much “judging” going on and she would have never seen the inside of a prison cell. But because it was pot she’s been deemed an “unfit mother” and had her life ruined because of the flawed legal system we have in this country. And the thing that gets me about all those people that are chastising her, have never smoked weed a day in their lives and have no clue of it’s effects on a person. I believe her own testimony hurt her, because she didn’t listen to her lawyers advice or was given bad advice and she was scared to death and wasn’t thinking clearly. (which could happen to anyone right after losing a child) The reality is, Mothers, Fathers, parents, gaurdians from all walks of life have come home from a long day and have wanted to just relax with a beer or a few cocktails and nobody blames them for being a “bad parent”. The fact that it was never conclusive that it was the pipe that was the actual “spark” that started the fire, but Ms Berry’s own testimony that hurt her in this case. Like I said, this was a terrible accident, nothing more. What about the woman that backed over and killed her child in the family SUV a few weeks ago? Should she be put in prison for being an “unfit Mother”, for not paying attention, for not knowing where her child was? No….because it was an ACCIDENT! Should parents be charged and sent to prison when numerous children drown each and every year in the family pool? Where THEY unfit parents as well? NO….these were ACCIDENTS! I’m so sick of the “holier than thou” attitude from so many posters on this site. You have no right to continue judging this woman when none of us know the full facts of the case. We know what came out in court that’s all. ANd Babs of all people should know that more often that not, many of the facts are withheld during court proceedings. I personally don’t believe she got a fair trial and I certainly don’t believe she belongs in prison because of a terrible “accident”. This woman is and will be paying for this for the rest of her life when she has to start her day each morning without her child. A pain many of us haven’t and probably never will experience. (at least a child at such a young age)
As for the “discrepancy issue” I’m sure their were some. Again babs of all people should know this as their are discrepancies in pretty much every court case, testimony, etc. And this case is certainly not as “cut & dry” as many want to believe it is.
So Babs I ask you, why are you trying to “bait Abby” with this whole discrapancy issue when you know good and well there were more than likely numerous discrepacies.
Enough of the bickering already! Accidents happen and this poor girl got a raw deal imo.
Guest_house, You have excellent points and I think you are right. I appreciate your comments. It is nice to see those here who aren’t so full of that holier than thou attitude! And babs isn’t even worth any more of my time. If there were a mute button here, I’d push it. Thank you again.
Anonymous, I hope she does too but I suppose if I were in her shoes I simply would not want to go through the pain again. Or maybe I would blame myself so much already that I would convince myself I was a horrible person. I don’t know and pray to God I never find out nor that anyone I love and care about has to. And thank you again
Children are a very precious gift. I for one can’t even conceive the pain (nor do I ever want to) that Savannah must be feeling. She was not to my knowledge, an abusive parent, she didn’t beat her kids or let them go hungry. She made a horrible mistake. I can’t tell you how many mistakes (although not of that nature) that I made myself when my children were young. Thankfully, we all survived it. But any parent here who can state they haven’t is a liar plain and simple or, in a severe state of denial.
Users {ladies} be careful not to break rule #4 baiting, it is not worth being edited.
You’ve left us no choice….WIZARD! (shoom!) (music plays) Come and get your love…..
?
How is asking for facts to back up assertions of “discrepanceis” or wrongdoing of any kind “baiting?”
geez. if people are so sensitive when asked for facts to back up their statmenets, maybe they shouldn’t make the statements or think about them a littl first
btw, what is “back on track ” here? just a general, aww, the evil goverment had it in for Berry?” isn’t the tilte of this post about wehterh or not justice was done in this case?
so anyone who thinks that berry got a fair trial is “wrong” or gets screamed at by everyone? called “garbage”?
yowza. no wonder no one posts here any more . . .
lol anonymous! hagn all
You’re still posting here aren’t you “Dr Woo”? So obviously we’re doing something right huh?
Nothing wrong with a little healthy debate now and again. I think GuestHouse made a good point. As for Anonymous’ post 123….very funny!!
Quote #120:
“If it was “alcohol related” there wouldn’t be nearly as much “judging” going on and she would have never seen the inside of a prison cell.”
Excellent point Guest House. The reason why I say this is because both of these scenarios are just as evil in my mind. The only difference is the view of society which clearly shows in your statement. Marijuana is illegal by law, and is therefore considered a punishable offense. However, the only difference on why you’re right on this, is the sad fact that alcohol isn’t illegal.
Before anyone wants to start a whole new heartburn on there’s nothing wrong with alcohol, or Marijuana shouldn’t be illegal let me explain my point. I believe that whether it’s alcohol, Marijuana, or even prescription drugs, being under the influence of any substance, and trying to take care of your children at the same time is wrong. I want to be clear and to the point that I’m talking about being so “wasted” by alcohol, or so “high”, by Marijuana, or “incapacitated” by a prescription drug, that your judgment is impaired. I believe any responsible adult would not allow themselves to get to this point and put their children’s safety at risk. You would also hope for those adults who do like to get wasted or high would have another adult watch their children. I would hope that all of us would agree on this. Sadly I don’t think this is the case though.
………but where there problrems with this case or not? isntead of jummping all over people who raise a concern, can someone point out specifics?
seems like there is a tendency to jump all over people who suggest an opinion differening from you own, using terms like “garbage” etc.
yet even after all the nastiness, no one has spelled out any “problems” with the trial. Just sympathy for the defendant but that is not a fact.
anyone? any info to suggest that berry got railroaded, and if so, why her lawyer didn’t do anything about it??
“That’s another neat trick of some on here. I have not attacked anyone personally on this site unlike the Peach. I have strong opinions, just like you probably do. So what?
Whenever people don’t like the writing on the wall they attack the person not the argument. ”
Mike, you got that exactly right in #54.
Abby, stop stamping your foot and alleging “sexism”; just makes you look silly.
You never answered Babs’ question, BTW…….. no baiting, just curious about your support for your opinion.
Well actually I not only answered the questions directed at me, but I responded several times anonymous. It’s simply not the response she wanted (or you wanted). Whatever the case, what I won’t do is defend myself against someone elses’ post that I replied to. So you can stop now
I think it went way beyond ridiculous already. I have noticed that if someone doesn’t like an answer, they’re accused of such things as “stamping your foot”. Be real at least. 
–Enough said and do not expect me to go there again because I will merely overlook your posts. I hope that’s understood by all the baiters here.
Point of View, I agree with you that if you are truly mentally incapacitated in any way, you shouldn’t be watching small children. Alcohol has ruined many families via divorce, abuse, etc. But it’s deemed acceptable because it’s a legal drug. And prescription drug abuse is no better, just again, it’s a legal high.
In a nutshell (and I’m not sure how often I’m expected to repeat this either but I’ll shoot for one more time
, I think there are doubts as Steve brought up. And if I had to choose between the irreversible destruction of one life, or the reversible destruction of an additional life, I’ll err on the side of caution and suggest that anonymous’ opinion of a retrial is what needs to happen. And I certainly think that Guest_House is correct in stating rehab, not prison is what is needed one way or the other, for Savannah.
We should give Charles Manson a retrial too…he got the shaft and they won’t even give him parole.
(From the post above)…”…And if I had to choose between the irreversible destruction of one life, or the reversible destruction of an additional life, I’ll err on the side of caution and suggest that anonymous’ opinion of a retrial is what needs to happen. ”
We should also give Paul Ezra Rhoades a new trial too. He was railroaded into making a plea and his own statements (just like Savannah) were used against him as well. That is not really fair to use one’s own statements against themselves. Everyone should get new trials why we are at it. The system is against the oppressed dope smokers of the world.
Okay, sarcasm is over….I am not a lawyer but I really don’t see any legal, technical or otherwise, to merit a new trial. This entire thread has degraded into an emotional argument to save poor Savannah. If we use these types of emotional arguments in our legal system, no one will be held accountable for anything anymore.
If she not serving time it is mute.anyone know??
She was sentenced 8/2/07. Her case has an appeal filed as of 10/2/07. Transcripts were ordered up on 2/4/08. I can’t find her on the Idaho Dept. of Correction search site. I think she got married and her last name changed. Does anyone know her new name?
That was perhaps the most ludicrous so-called “comparison” I’ve seen yet. But I’m not surprised to hear it coming from you Mike.
Let’s take the Sean Bell case if you want to go there though. Savannah forgets to put her cigarrette out and gets prison. The cops shoot an unarmed man 50 times and zilch, zip, nada, they’re let go. Why do you suppose that is? They killed an innocent man didn’t they?
Compare all the apples to oranges Mike, but the reality is, there is no comparison. So back to earth okay?
Wow. I should bring my freakin’ laptop to Boise next week, because, how could I voluntarily miss out on all this drama?
Accidents happen. Even to parents with kids. But in this case, folks got hung up on the illegal drug/skanky mom stuff and it really appears she was vilified.
However, she was responsible for the untimely death of her child. She should be paying the penalty for that legally, and you’d expect she will also pay the penalty for that, emotionally.
I didn’t sit on the jury, I only saw the media circus, and I don’t know more than this.
I don’t ever recall prison/jail time as being a form of rehabilitation for an individual. It was my impression that prison/jail time was for punishment.
It’s known that the jails/prisons added programs to prison/jail facilities to help rehabilitate a person while they are serving their time. It would be interesting to see if Savannah gets herself help after coming out of prison. It would be quite commendable if she did.
Dr. Woo excellent point in post # 128.
I recall earlier that someone posted Savannah’s biggest flaw was testifying in her behalf. Of course we could blame the lawyers for allowing her to do that, but was Savannah diagnosed as incompetent? If not, why is it the lawyers fault for a mentally stable adult wanting to waive her fifth amendment right and testify? I just fail to see the logic in since her testimony hurt her it was the lawyers fault for allowing her to do that.
Babs,
You’re a lawyer. If a suspect wants to testify, and the lawyer does not stop that person from doing so, does this warrant a re-trial?
Hi Point of View,
That is an excellent question. The short answer is No. Legally, a true “new trial” (requested in a post-trial motion) can only occur if “newly discovered evidence” exists (for example, if someone else confesses or new technology is developed on some issue).
However, the appellate porcess kicks in, if the defendant decides to appeal his/her conviction, by alleging errors which occured at trial, and further alleging that the errors led to an unjust verdict and that the case should be “remanded” back to the trial court for a new trial. One of the errors can be (and often is) “ineffective assistance of counsel”. This is the allegation that says, basically, ‘my lawyer screwed up, so I was denied the “effective assistance of counsel” which is guaranteed to every criminal defendant through the US Constitution’. Lots of defendants argue this (as you can imagine, they usually have a different attorney on appeal ha ha).
So certainly, if a suspect testifies and it goes badly, that suspect/defendant can credibly argue that they received “ineffective assistance of counsel”. Remember that a defendant always has the right to testify so it may be hard for their lawyer to keep them off the stand. Most juries, moreover, want to see the defendant testify, even though they are instructed to not weigh whether or not the defendant does so.
Did this make any kind of sense? It is a compelling topic.
Mike,
Ditto to #131.
comment 106, Savannah Berry post:
Abby: ” I won’t be reading any more of that garbage.”
That is the reference, Abby. Babs just wanted to know WHAT facts consituted discrepancies…….she (he?) wasn’t baiting or stalking you and yet you accused Babs of being sexist and attacking you.
Yet now you cry foul because someone dares to disagree with your opinion?? Abby, at least play fair.
Woo, I can only suggest you read all the posts prior to commenting. But even if I said it once, (have you been searching the site for that?) you accused me of saying it several times.
As long as it’s back to Savannah, in reading these posts, apparently babs is a lawyer? And she agrees that Savannah Berry should be classified with Paul Rhoades and Charles Manson? Wow! That just left me shaking my head and feeling fortunate that none of the lawyers I know would ever put them in the same category. I’ll stick to the attorney friends I have. I had to read that twice!
Yes, I think this thread got way out of hand but I can also see why. 20/20 hindsight.
This topic is really old to me. So old, so very old. You all bring it up all you want. But I’ll steer clear of it.
???
no (I never said you used “garbage” more than once….)and no (babs, from my reading, never said berry was like manson. . . no one did!
in your haste to be upset with all of us, it appears you didn’t read closely or carefully.
I also already apologized for putting this in the wrong place.
yet you denied, earlier, that you ever said “garbage” at all. Now you say that I accused you of using it more than once (I didn’t!).
You need to relax a little Abby. No one is out to get you here….
Babs,
Yes, that did help. As a matter of fact now I can see why convicted suspects always play the, ” My lawyer did an inadequate job by representing me card.”
It would only make sense to blame the lawyer one way or the other. I mean if it gives you the chance to get a new trial I could see why many convicted suspects try it.
I guess from the lawyers point of view to give legal council on pleading the 5th is cliche to, “Dam* if you do and dam* if you don’t”
The main problem was: Savannah had a public defender as a lawyer and these folks are at “the bottom of the barrel” when it comes to lawyers. They’re usually the ones that graduated towards the bottom of their class, they make the least amount of money and they have to handle 20+ cases at a time. This lawyer did not have the time, the energy or the know-how to defend Savannah properly and it showed in the verdict. Any well repected lawyer who knows what he/she is doing would have had no problem getting Savannah Berrey a better verdict than she received, with no jail time.
IMO
POV and GH,
You both make good points, although my experience has been that the public defenders usually have worked extensively with the judges and prosecutors so they all know the ins and outs of each particular courtroom, which is helpful….
Yes, ineffective assistance was alleged in every criminal appeal I have ever seen
Anyone who is interested should take a look at the Jacklyn Dowaliby case in Illinois (just google her name)…her parents were alleged to have killed her and then thrown her body in a field; then called the police and said someone took her in the night…Dad was convicted of murder and sent to prison; after an appeal, the Appellate Court REVERSED his conviction outright (did not grant a new trial but simply reversed. . . very unusual) and set him free, stating (essentially) that the state had failed to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Very, very weak evidence, including some suspicious “eyewitness” testimony, etc.
The reason I bring it up? Both mom and dad declined to testify at trial, on advice of counsel. When the jury was questioned after the guilty verdict, they all stated that if only they had heard from Mom or Dad, they probably would’ve acquitted……..!!
So, yes, it is a lose-lose situation for defendants and for lawyers in a way, also.
Guest House,
I do see your point and wouldn’t argue the fact maybe some of these public defenders’ were the bottom of the barrel in their class.
That being said were you able to look up their grades in law school or are you assuming they are the bottom of the barrel because they’re not in private practice?
It would be interesting to know how many started out as public defenders (to get money to start their own practice) and then moved on to open their own business.
Good points though public defenders’ knowing the judges and system, and a good point to the case loads of public defenders’.
I think that would go for any of us on the quality of lawyer we get. That old saying, “You get what you paid for.”
Babs,
Interesting question if Savannah gets a new trial based upon bad representation, who is appointed her lawyer? Another public defender? Or does she get a private lawyer at the tax payers expense?
Good question: she would be represented by the State Appellate Defender at the appellate level; here is the link….basically, anyone who is indigent and convicted of a felony can get an appellate attorney through the state-funded SAD’s office. That acronym sucks.
Then if the Appellate Court reverses and remands for a new trial (big “if”, that: they have to find that the errors at trial denied the defendant a fair trial, in essence), she will be appointed new counsel either via the public defender, or the “bar counsel” (a rotating list of private attorneys who volunteer to defend cases, pro bono, in cases where there are conflicts: such as where you tell your trial lawyer they did a bad job ha ha).
Question for everyone, because I am curious: do you think allowing a client to testify on their own behalf can be “ineffective assistance”? I know that can and has been alleged as an error in appeals, but I am curious what people following this case think.
My post the other day was offered to provide more information for those that were interested. I was indeed paid for my work on the case. I believe that everyone including the prosecutor and the State investigators were paid as well.
I was a government investigator for 20 years before I retired from the Boise Fire Department. During that time I assisted ATF on investigations across the State of Idaho including those in Idaho Falls. When I retired in 2003 I was asked many times to take on private cases. I decided instead to assist local fire departments and ATF on government cases at no charge to the agency. I also taught fire investigation class for Idaho State Fire School. I have not made any effort to be the “hired gun” as some would think. In fact I don’t even have business cards or a business name. I was contacted by word of mouth and asked if I might be able to sort out the truth in this case. I have only taken two defense cases of several that have been available. In 2006 I went back to work full time as a Chief Officer for the Lewiston Fire Department.
The report that I submitted on this case was based upon scientific information that is available to all investigators in Idaho. I was not attempting to prove anything I was merely stating that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the fire was caused by smoldering marijuana ash. In fact it was pointed out in a previous post that my incorrect spelling of the word “marijuana” somehow indicated that I was not versed on the subject. The truth of the matter is that I am not. I have never used marijuana and there are no investigative tests or any other scientific data available that suggests that marijuana ash readily causes fires.
An origin and cause investigation is conducted by examining the fire scene and drawing conclusions based on the physical evidence. Witness statements should only be considered after the physical evidence is not only examined but thoroughly understood.
Ms. Berrey allegedly smoked a quantity of marijuana equivilent to the size of a jelly bean. She, by her own statement, dumped the ash on her hand and then rubbed it on her pant leg before leaving the bedroom. No evidence was collected to confirm the statement.
The following outlines the States case:
After Savannah Berrey left the bedroom the ash that she dumped on her hand and rubbed on her pant leg started smoldering on the bed. Savannah and her two kids went to the living room to watch TV. Sometime later Ms.Berrey falls asleep on the sofa. Four hours later there is a fire and the 4 year old dies laying in bed.
The reason the State initially said it was a 4 hour fire was because they had to link the cause of the fire with the illegal act of smoking dope. Since Ms. Berrey’s statement had her smoking dope 4 hours before the fire was detected the investigators worked the case backward to prove the 4 hour time frame. The investigators stated that the door to the bedroom was closed at the time of the fire to explain why the smoke did not leave the room and the smoke detector did not go off. There are five fire indictors that clearly show the door in the fully open position during the fire.
Investigators stated that the fire started on the bed because Ms. Berrey said she was sitting on the bed when she rubbed out the ash. Fire patterns in the room would have been the same if it had started elsewhere in the room. The candles that were in the bedroom were not considered a possible fire cause.
The 4 year old did not die of carbon monoxide poisoning as one would expect from a smoldering fire. The child died of thermal burns to the upper airway with very little CO in the blood. (report from the Pathologist for the State)
In other words the State would like you to believe that the 4 year old left the TV in the living room, went into a smoke filled room, jumped in bed, held his breath for an undisclosed time and then decided to breath in hot gases as the fire approached him from accross the room.
The more likely scenario would be that the young child like thousands accross the nation left the living room after Mom went to sleep. Since the national age for juvenile fire setting is between 4 and 10 years of age with some reports as young as 3, it is more likely that Eric tragically started the fire himself. The fire was not more than 10 minutes in duration when it was detected.
All the physical evidence supports a short duration fire which obviously takes marijuana out of the picture.
The prosecutor knew he could not get a conviction on the fire evidence so he focused the jury on the morality of smoking marijuana. Remember…there was no evidence that she smoked dope other than her statement and Eric only needed 10 minutes alone to start the fire….dope or no dope.
As far as the statement about “winning” there are no winners in this situation. If this case is overturned there will be a long list of individuals that will not consider themselves winners.
the prosecutor, etc., are not paid to provide specific opinions, as you are paid to do. Moreover, a prosecutor is ethically and legally obligated to seek justice. To allege, as you did, that the prosecutor “knew” that there really wasn’t a case and yet proceeded anyway, is libel.
You might want to be careful, unless you have some facts to support your statements.
No, isn’t a prosecutor paid bonuses based on convictions?
Thank you Steve, I for one appreciate the information you have provided. I knew there was no way an “ash” could smolder for 4 hours the way they said it did, and I also had a feeling that perhaps it was started by her son. (that was never looked into)
It’s obvious Ms.Berry was railroaded just so they could get a conviction.
Guest, very funny……at least, I hope you were being funny!! There is no “incentive” bonuses for convictions in the government. But I am sure Steve got a nice paycheck for his paid opinion.
Why was Berry “railroaded”, exactly? What did the Evil Government prosecutor gain from this “railroading”? And how, exactly, was she ‘railroaded’? A jury convicted her, not the prosecutor.
As others have stated above, this is a very emotional case and rightly so: her child is dead. But let’s not jump on the “the government MUST have acted wrongly! The prosecutor had evil intent!” bandwagon just because we all feel sorry for Ms. Berry regarding this tragedy.
Seems Anonymouse should go back and re-read Steve’s comments in # 147. It also “seems” that anonymouse may hold a position within the IFPD which is why he’s always trying to defend them, not only in this post but many others on this site. You seem to think there’s just NO way a judge and jury could be wrong, like people have never been wrongly accused in the past. That’s just too funny! You really are naive are you? I would urge you to do a little research and see just how often it happens. You would be shocked (just as I was) at how often it DOES happen. But then again it may not shock you and you may think this is just “SOP”. The IFPD, just like many police departments across the country, were merely trying to close up this case as soon as possible, not taking the time to truly gather ALL the information and/or interview all the suspects they can. All too often they fixate on the easiest suspect and run with it. They knew Ms Berry wasn’t very bright and they used that to their advantage and it just so happened to work to their advantage. (like it does in MANY other cases across the country on a daily basis). I’m not saying all government and all police departments are corrupt, but I would urge you to do a little “homework” on the matter and see just how rampant this problem is. It happens much more than people realize!
Our judicial system is broken and it’s broken big time. people like OJ get away with cold blooded murder and walk the streets free, while people like Ms.Berry get prison time for an “accident”, that was more than likely not her fault. (just because she tokes a little on occasion) everyone automatically considers her a bad parent so it must have been her fault. If she would have had a decent attorney she would have gotten off easily.
Than we’ve got these child predators who continue to get slaps on the wrists. Yeah….we’ve got a “perfect” system don’t we? NOT!
Again, this is just my opinion. My views are no way meant to persuade others from their own opinions nor to imply that I’m right and you’re wrong. All I suggest is that you dig a little deeper and do a little more homework. The rich get away with murder while the poor rot in jail.
“Anonymous” Please take the whole sentence when making a quote. I went back and re-read his post to put it in its accurate form. By making single word quotes and wrapping other text around it, changes the meaning and mis-leads others. It sounds like he has facts to support what he says.
Steve, thank you for shedding some light on this topic.
WHEN Jose Morales and Ruben Montalvo stood in court this week, it seemed clear to the judge and many other people that they had been wrongly convicted of a murder 13 years ago in the Bronx. But the prosecution would not rest. Being a prosecutor means never having to say you’re sorry.
One, Allen P. W. Karen, fought so hard to keep Mr. Morales in prison that the judge rebuked him for misstating parts of the case.
Prosecutors aren’t deterred by such financial considerations. As both lawyers and government employees, they belong to two groups that enjoy extraordinary legal immunity from their mistakes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a prosecutor requires absolute immunity from ”harassing litigation that would divert his time and attention from his official duties.”
”Prosecutors may not get paid per scalp they take, but they seem regularly to go overboard nonetheless,” Mr. Olson said. ”There seems to be no price exacted in loss of public support at election time or from political patrons. It’s hard to name any prosecutors that lose office for overzealousness in prosecution.” Prosecutors have the power to ruin other people’s lives, but their mistakes go unpunished.
”It is perhaps time to rethink the doctrines of immunity that allow prosecutors to carelessly indict citizens,” said Adele Bernhard, an associate professor of law at Pace Law School, who has analyzed the compensation of unjustly convicted persons. ”If prosecutors have acted negligently and haven’t taken the time to investigate information, there’s no reason not to hold them responsible. Everybody else in society has to bear responsibility for their decision making. Why should prosecutors be so very different?”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1DD153DF934A15754C0A9679C8B63
Post 154 is correct. Frequently if a prosecutor makes a mistake, there is no oversight to review the case at any level unless the defense files appeals through the court. Frequently if a defendant is wrongly convicted the process is so lengthy and costly that most people cannot afford to appeal. Recently there was a high profile case in Southeast Idaho involving the murder of a teenage girl. The co-prosecutor in the case had been secretly disciplined by the Bar for misconduct. Prior to the action by the Bar he also had been charged with Reckless Driving (Convicted) and Theft of Services. (These were not involved in the Bar Discipline) The problem that exists is the fact that the Bar Association who found that this person had committed violations of the rules of ethics does not openly admit that one of their attorneys did something wrong and if you were to check on this attorney you would not find any listed discipline. That is unless a second complaint that was recently filed is found to have substance. As a result this person is making decisions in high profile cases when the local prosecutors office probably should not have hired him due to this background. If this is the type of person you want to review your case, do not expect that he will provide the defense with all of the discovery that is required by Law, thus you only receive a portion of the information to properly defend you, should you be charged criminally in any type of case. Food for thought, we need to look that those who are elected to these positions and watch who they are hiring to represent the County.
there is no “secret bar discipline.”
Check the Idaho State Bar website and you will find a list of every attorney who has been disciplined for whatever reason in the state of Idaho.
Is she in jail currently?Was it a jury trial?If so they had power of legal system.
Recent Public Discipline Cases
“The rules for discipline of Idaho lawyers are established by the Idaho Supreme Court, through Section V of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules. IBCR 521 provides for two types of disciplinary sanctions: private discipline (for less-serious violations) and public discipline (for more serious violations). Only public discipline sanctions are announced publicly.
The following public discipline decisions have been published in the past 30 days. Questions about any public discipline case may be directed to the Bar Counsel’s Office at (208) 334-4500.”
Source; http://www2.state.id.us/isb/bc/public_discipline.htm (Idaho State Bar)
yes, private, not “secret” and still available to the public.
The site states the last 30 days and only if requested by name (they offer a form) and only if it is considered a serious violation. Did I go to the wrong link?
Wrongo. I tried to find discipline records from the Idaho State Bar on Idaho Falls Attorney Kent Whittington. I contacted them and they told me that there was nothing in the record they could or would release. Remember Whittington was found to have accepted nude pictures of a minor female that were taken by the mother to pay for Whittington to handle her case. He was never charged and the matter was swept under the rug.
Whittington has current battery charges pending for pulling the hair of a woman in Jefferson County while allegedly making sexual comments to her.
John Stosich was reprimanded for not handling cases well several years ago and was briefly suspended for failing to take some duty of his practice. You won’t find these on the Bar either…..so, I don’t believe that the Bar is as transparent as it claims to be. They do indeed protect their own.
Some posters will also recall the Idaho Board of Dentistry has a discipline listing as well. They had no discipline listed for Idaho Falls Dentist Lorin Dixon who was arrested for sexually propositioning an undercover male IF Police Officer during a sting at War Mother’s Park. He was convicted in Bonneville County Magistrate Court. So, this pervert (it’s not libel….it’s the truth) is working on patients who have no way to really know his true history even if they bothered to check. Transparency is definitely missing in many fields.
Hi Mike,
Remember that allegations of criminal conduct don’t automatically lead to bar action; the criminal court system and the bar are two separate animals. So you won’t find “disciplinary action” against a lawyer at the ISB simply because someone accused them of something in criminal or other court.
BTW, disciplinary actions against attorneys are itemized in detail in The Advocate, a monthly publication of the ISB, available online and at the library.
what is ms. berrey’s current status?free or jail?
Babs,
I understand from reading the posts that you’re an attorney. If so I thought I might get your opinion on an issue.
I’m sure you’re well aware that fire cases rarely reach the courtroom. In my years of experience I can only count a handful of cases that actually reached a jury. Most of the cases are not even filed with the prosecutor for a variety of reasons.
An origin and cause investigation is unlike many other types of investigations. The fire scene becomes the laboratory for the investigation.
The fire cause determiner is not only the “detective” but the forensic examiner as well. He or she must be able to understand the evidence thoroughly and then draw conclusions based on scientific principles. This is certainly a departure from the typical law enforcement investigation.
In a homicide investigation the detective doesn’t need to understand the physiology of death, he or she must gather and present evidence that a crime has been committed. Suspect/s are then developed and the case is present to the prosecutor.
Since the prosecutors and the detectives generally work many cases together, the common understanding between the two disciplines allows for effective screening of many cases.
In the courtroom detectives are held accountable for testimony because the rules of evidence, laws regarding search and seizure, Miranda, and other commonly encountered issues, are well known and understood by all. Everyone plays by the same rules or the judge steps in.
Since fire chemistry and behavior is a mystery to most individuals, the “evidence” submitted may not be evidence at all. If the fire investigator makes a mistake there generally is no system in place to hold him or her accountable. The police detective and the prosecutor may not have sufficient knowledge to challenge the fire investigators findings and the case moves forward.
Couple that with the notion that a conventional or more easily understood crime may have been committed during a fire and it typically follows that the fire “stuff” might get hooked into the case without a lot of scrutiny.
I never believed there was an “evil” prosecutor that went after Savannah. What I believed happened was an inexperience fire investigator got caught up in the frenzy of the moment.
A death scene involving a child is extremely stressful for even the most seasoned investigator. The fire investigator by his own testimony had only been on a couple dozen investigations before this fire. None of them involved a fatality. The tragic nature of the scene caused the fire investigator to lose focus and ignore critical pieces of evidence.
The police had already labled Savannah an unfit mother and they inadvertantly influenced the fire investigator to “prove” that the illegal act of smoking dope led to the death of the 4 year old.
The prosecutor trusted his investigators and the case went to court. When the physical evidence was challeged during the first trial, the prosecutor was already in the midst of a high profile crime during an election year.
I guess we can all debate whether elected officials always make prudent decisions during election year.
Your thoughts…
Excellent comments Steve
ditto 166
I’ll third