Q. Look at page 52, the second full paragraph, last sentence, "The officer said she was told by a
police intern on duty not to be concerned because 'the detectives already know who did it.'" Have I
read that correctly?

A. You have.

Q. Who was the police intern?

A. I don't know.

Q. Who was the officer, Chromiak?

A. As it says.

Q. Who were the detectives?

A. I don't know because this was prior to my involvement in the case, I believe.

Q. Did you ever see any lab forensic test forms filled out as early as December 30, 1996, that under
the form area for suspects had John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey's name there and no one else's?

A. No, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Q. As early as December 30, 1996, that would not surprise you, would it, sir?

A. No, with this ambiguous label of suspect, no.

Q. With that ambiguous label of suspect it would seem to me there would be a lot of other people
that would be on there such as Fleet White as of December 30th, right?

A. Right what, Mr. Wood?

Q. You can't -- I mean, you're trying to tell me as I understand it, well, you know, it wouldn't surprise
me for John and Patsy Ramsey's name to appear on the form as early as December 30th as a suspect
because of the ambiguous use of the term suspect. Well, you're going to apply the ambiguous terms
equally to all, aren't you? Shouldn't we see Fleet White? Shouldn't we see John Fernie? Shouldn't we
see Mr. Barnhill? Shouldn't we see Bill McReynolds? Shouldn't we see all of those people as of
December 30th, sir, under that as you now call it ambiguous term suspect?

A. I did not see the report. In fact, if you see my reports, I think I refer to them as subjects.

Q. When did you move them from subjects to suspects?

A. I don't know that I in my reports listed them as suspects.

Q. How about in your mind's eye, when did you make the determination that they were suspects?

A. Well, everybody was a potential suspect from early on, Mr. Wood.

Q. Everybody?

A. Excuse my use of everybody. There were a number of people who could be potential suspects in
this case from very early on.

Q. Bill McReynolds was?

MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry, could you -- could I have that reread?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Bill McReynolds was, right?

MR. DIAMOND: Thank you.

A. Was a suspect as early as December 30th, 1996?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah.

A. Or shortly thereafter he became an early suspect.

Q. At what point in time did you say I think Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter?

A. I think the evidence led me to those conclusions and further strengthened my belief in the early
months of 1997.

Q. When in 1997, the early months, what does that mean? Tell me what that means with some
specificity, please, sir.

A. There was not a defining moment in which the bell rang and I noted the date and time. Early in
1997 it became more and more apparent to me that that's where the abundance of evidence was
leading.

Q. And you were heavily influenced in that determination by the conclusion of John Foster, weren't
you, sir?

A. Don Foster?

Q. Don Foster, yeah.

A. No, he did not come on board for I think almost another year.

Q. Right. So you had decided in your mind's eye that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter many
months before Don Foster made the appearance as a consultant in the case, right?

A. Again, Mr. Wood, as I said, I felt there was an abundance of evidence pointing in that direction.
And that became -- and others viewed it the same way, incidentally. And, yes, in those early months of
'97, she looked pretty good for that.

Q. Yes, sir. Thank you. But that doesn't answer my question. You had decided in your mind's eye
that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter many months before Don Foster made his appearance as a
consultant in the case, true?

A. I felt that she was the best suspect, yes, many months prior to Don's... Foster's involvement.

Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 is Mr. Foster's letter to my client, Patsy Ramsey. Have you seen
that letter before?

A. I haven't looked at it yet.

(continued on Foster thread)