Farries trial: Detective says he was 'kicked off' investigation

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report include details from trial testimony that may be disturbing to some readers.

A detective was “kicked off” the Detra Farries investigation after questioning if enough was done to probe the death of a tow-truck driver who was dragged behind her fleeing SUV, he told a jury Tuesday.

Called as the final defense witness, Colorado Springs police detective Phil Tollefson became the second police investigator to challenge the methods and conclusions that led to the charges against Farries.

Her trial — which officially began Jan. 30 with jury selection — appears on pace to conclude Thursday, when closing arguments are expected.

Farries faces 11 counts, including leaving the scene of a deadly accident, manslaughter and vehicular homicide. Prosecutors are seeking to double her sentence, meaning she could face up to 24 years on the highest count.

After telling superiors that a re-creation would be necessary to check Farries’ claims she didn’t know a man was being dragged behind her, Tollefson said he and two colleagues in the police major accidents unit were “ordered not to.”

They voiced their concerns “up to the moment we were no longer required to assist in this case,” he said. The unit is normally assigned to investigate hit-and-run crashes.

Asked if they were “kicked off” the case, Tollefson replied: “That, too, is a matter of opinion. But yes.”

The detective’s testimony brought the defense’s case to a close on Tuesday — and again put the prosecution in the unusual position of having to undercut a detective’s testimony by questioning his experience and qualifications. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors aggressively questioned similar statements by detective Daniel Smoker, who told the jury that drag marks suggest Farries slowed at two intersections where some witnesses have testified she was driving recklessly.

After the men’s testimony, prosecutors pointed out that others disagreed about the potential value of the testing, and said lead detective Wayne Bichel was responsible for such decisions, not Tollefson or Smoker.

Bichel told the jury there were a “multitude” of reasons not to do the test, including liability concerns if something went wrong and worries over asking the community to relive the trauma of Rose’s death.

Tollefson and Smoker said safety concerns could be easily addressed and both suggested finding similar vehicles if necessary — in what Tollefson characterized as an established practice for the unit.

Earlier Tuesday, the defense played a lengthy video of Farries being interrogated by homicide detective Shawn Peterson, with Tollefson sitting in.

In the footage, Farries repeatedly denies knowing that a cable was attached to her vehicle and bursts into tears upon being informed that Rose had died. She told the detectives she last saw Rose, 35, after he chased her to the Hill Park Apartments exit and was waving his arms as if to tell her to stop.

“Last time I saw this man here, he had his arms up,” she said through sobs. “That’s the last time I seen him.”

Farries, who was by turns distraught and defiant, told police she had her eye on a small green car following her — and didn’t see Rose being dragged or hear his screams behind her. “For you to know what I’m talking about, you need to be in my car.”

Farries’ 1994 GMC Suburban was modified for off-road use by a previous owner and had a lifted suspension, oversize tires, partially broken side mirrors and a rearview mirror that was blocked by her family’s possessions.

Prosecutors questioned whether her emotional response was genuine, asking police witnesses if she might have overheard information about Rose’s death broadcast over police radios.

They have also emphasized testimony by Officer Paul Vandel, who said he questioned Farries immediately after arresting her about whether something was being dragged behind her.

Vandel said he posed the question at Tollefson’s request. Tollefson testified he didn’t remember the exchange. Another officer, Dale Lucky, said he heard Vandel say Farries was stopped because of “what happened” at Hill Park rather than telling her that something was being dragged.

Re-creating the dragging would have shed light on Farries’ field-of-vision in a moving car and on how road noise, wind and a loud engine would affect her hearing, Tollefson said.

“Me and my partners were ordered not to,” he told jurors.

Rose, 35, hooked a cable onto Farries’ SUV as she pulled out of a parking spot at Hill Park and chased her to the complex’s exit, where he was snagged by the flailing cable, according to two eyewitnesses.

Tollefson told jurors he believes the evidence shows Rose’s death was a “tragic accident,” not a criminal homicide. His unit was responsible for using surveillance footage, drag marks and mapping tools to determine her speed of travel and how she negotiated turns.

Although the defense rested Tuesday, prosecutors will put on a rebuttal case Wednesday afternoon.