Q. You've been in the business long enough to know that the grand jury can, as they say, indict a
ham sandwich, right? It doesn't take much evidence to indict or arrest, does it, sir?

A. My understanding of probable cause is facts and evidence and circumstances that are within the
knowledge of a police officer that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that, A, a crime was
committed and B, that a particular individual was involved. Sometimes, depending on the case, that can
sometimes be a great threshold.

Q. And sometimes it can be a very small threshold, true?

A. A lesser threshold.

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to see the
garrote and to see the firsthand original of the ransom note is because both items were getting ready to
be tested in a fashion that would be destructive and that from a strategical standpoint somewhere down
the road it might be advantageous for the defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul by saying that
they didn't have a chance to observe these pieces of evidence before they were destroyed? Did you
ever hear that explanation given as to why the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to look at those two
items?

A. No. But then again it was difficult to get much by way of explanation as to why Mr. Hofstrom
was making a number of deals with the Ramsey attorneys.

Q. Doesn't that make good sense though, just listening to it?

A. Well, I am familiar as a police officer that in Colorado if destructive testing is employed, the
defense has a right to be present.