The Savannah Berrey Trial: Justice or Not?
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?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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, 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.
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
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?