1 Q Well, I'm trying to figure out what was
2 done with Chris Wolf, and then obviously I'm trying
3 to find out if it's been matched with anyone since
4 that's the larger picture of the case in its
5 entirety. But I don't know what I'm getting if I
6 don't know what I'm asking about. You raised the
7 question, you've indicated there was DNA that was
8 found somewhere other than on her body or on her
10 I had initially asked you about the crime
11 scene, I thought. Pull that back up. I asked you
12 specifically, you did not match the DNA from the
13 scene? Answer --
14 "Question: Has anyone matched the DNA
15 from the scene?
16 "Answer: No."
17 And you seem to be telling me now that you
18 want to modify that answer, that there was DNA from
19 the scene foreign to JonBent. And I'm asking you
21 A What I'm saying is I am getting into
22 evidence that goes beyond Chris Wolf.
23 Q Well, was Chris Wolf's -- was Chris Wolf's
24 DNA tested against this other DNA that you say was
25 found at the scene that you don't want to tell me
2 A Well, that wouldn't be accurate. Compared
3 against would be the accurate question.
4 Q Well, was it compared against?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Why would it be compared against if it had
7 already been identified as known?
8 A Well, again --
9 MR. MILLER: I don't think he can answer
10 this question.
11 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Well, the DNA evidence from
12 Mr. Wolf was obtained in February or March of 1998,
14 A To the best of my recollection, yes.
15 Q Why would you have tested it, and maybe
16 you didn't, why would you have tested it against
17 foreign DNA that you had already had a match on from
18 someone else?
19 MR. MILLER: He didn't say he already had
20 a match on. That's why --
21 MR. WOOD: I may have been reading too
22 much in because he made reference to known DNA. And
23 I thought he was -- I was assuming that maybe they
24 had gotten a match and you knew the source.
25 A We have JonBent's DNA; that's known DNA.
1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Right. And then you have
2 foreign DNA?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And the question was has any of the
5 foreign DNA, foreign to JonBen t, you have indicated
6 to me has not been matched to Chris Wolf?
7 A Correct.
8 Q And I asked you had it been matched to
9 anyone and you initially said no; is that correct?
10 A The DNA on her body or clothing, the
11 answer is no; that's right.
12 Q What about the crime scene?
13 A That's what I can't answer.
14 Q But here is the dilemma. I want to know
15 if whatever this we'll call it DNAX, okay, was Chris
16 Wolf's DNA compared to DNAX?
17 MR. MILLER: He answered that yes.
18 A Yes.
19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay.
20 A I can tell you it does not match DNAX.
21 Q Right. At the time that Chris Wolf's DNA
22 was compared to DNAX, had it been compared to any
23 other DNA and found to be a match?
24 A Compared with other -- no, it's not
25 been -- his DNA has not been matched to anything at
1 the crime scene.
2 Q But the DNAX at the time that you compared
3 Chris Wolf's DNA to the DNAX, had you compared the
4 DNAX to other individual's DNA and found there to be
5 a match or been able to identify whose DNA it was?
6 A Well, you're time line is all way off
8 Q Well, my time line is limited to the
9 moment --
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- to the fact that you took the DNA from
12 Chris Wolf, you obtained it in February or March of
14 A And we did not have DNAX at that time.
15 Q So DNAX came along subsequent in time?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And when it came along, was Chris Wolf's
18 DNA which had been kept on file, right, you maintain
20 A Um-hum.
21 Q Was it compared to DNAX?
22 A The lab would have to answer that.
23 Q Well, would you have expected it to be?
24 A Not necessarily.
25 Q Why?
1 A Well, if -- hypothetically?
2 MR. MILLER: No, not hypothetically.
3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I would rather you --
4 A I don't know how to answer it without
5 giving away information.
6 MR. MILLER: Well, then don't answer it.
7 Then don't answer it.
8 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You know, part of the
9 process here is going to require you ultimately to
10 give away information.
11 MR. MILLER: He doesn't have to give away
12 information that is related to the ongoing
13 investigation and that's really the key here.
14 MR. WOOD: Well, unfortunately that's the
15 argument we will have.
16 MR. MILLER: That's the --
17 MR. WOOD: I'm defending clients on a
18 murder charge in a civil case.
19 MR. MILLER: Well, you're not really.
20 You've got a civil case --
21 MR. WOOD: Yes, I am.
22 MR. MILLER: You've got a civil case and--
23 MR. WOOD: Where the allegation is murder.
24 MR. MILLER: Well, you've got a -- you
25 could classify it that way. The legal claims are not
2 MR. WOOD: Let me just tell you that Judge
3 Julian Korns, a former United States attorney, as you
4 have been, has clearly characterized this as a
5 defense against a charge of murder. And I have the
6 transcript to show that to you.
7 MR. MILLER: Well --
8 MR. WOOD: And the point is, we don't need
9 to argue about it today. But I am being met with a
10 lawsuit that is in fact supported in part by Boulder
11 police detectives or former Boulder police detectives
12 as witnesses and information leaked and provided to
13 the public, the media from the Boulder Police
14 Department as part of the basis of Darnay Hoffman's
15 case against my client. It may be painful down the
16 road for information to come out but that's just the
17 way things may have to be.
18 Q (BY MR. WOOD) The point here is maybe
19 this will at least help us know if it's a total waste
20 of time. Was DNAX obtained before or after Chris
21 Wolf was cleared from under the umbrella of
23 A I would have to go back and look and see
24 what the time frames were.
25 Q Was the DNAX discovered prior to June of
1 1998 when the VIP presentations I have called it or
2 it's been referred to was made?
3 A No.
4 Q Do you know in relationship to the grand
5 jury whether it had been discovered prior to the
6 grand jury convening in September, I believe, of
8 A Prior to?
9 Q Yes.
10 A I don't believe so.
11 Q So does that help you relate to Chris Wolf
12 how it might time out?
13 A Yeah, it probably would have been
14 afterwards time-wise.
15 Q After he was cleared?
16 A You're using the word cleared. We've
17 never cleared Chris Wolf.
18 Q Well, maybe that's -- I meant to go over
19 that with you. To take someone out from under the
20 umbrella of suspicion, does in effect say, as you
21 said in the statement to Chris Anderson, that that
22 person is no longer an active suspect, right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Without trying to invent a new
25 classification, I think that what you're saying from
1 a practical standpoint is that the person is
2 basically until the crime is solved, would remain an
3 inactive suspect?
4 A Not necessarily. You could develop new
5 information all the time.
6 Q That's what I mean until the case is
7 solved they would remain an inactive suspect --
8 A Not necessarily --
9 Q But could they --
10 A -- solve it.
11 Q Well, wait a minute.
12 A Not necessarily solve it.
13 Q But perhaps get information that would put
14 that person back under the umbrella or maybe even
15 make that person a suspect?
16 A Absolutely.
17 Q That possibility still exists today as it
18 pertains to Chris Wolf, doesn't it?
19 A Absolutely.
20 Q I mean, you have not excluded Chris Wolf
21 as being involved in this murder?
22 A As far as clearing him, no, we have not.
23 Q And would I be safe without going into
24 specific names, would I be safe in saying that there
25 are, it's a considerable number of individuals who
1 have not been cleared, even though they may not at
2 this moment be under the umbrella of suspicion?
3 A I think that's true any time you have an
4 open case.
5 Q And it's true in this case?
6 A Yes.
7 MR. MILLER: It's about noon, Lin. How
8 long do you think we're going to go here?
9 MR. WOOD: Well, I would like to try to go
10 until 1. I think we'll be through by 1 with this
11 area that we've agreed to. That would get us lunch
12 and get us back to Weinheimer on time so give or
13 take a few minutes or depending on your all
14 preference we can grab a sandwich now.
15 MR. MILLER: No, I would rather -- let's
16 just take a break now. We've been going for awhile,
17 and then come back.
18 MR. WOOD: Why don't we at least take a
19 break for a while and then we can continue.
20 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're off the record at
21 approximately 11:57 a.m.
22 (Recess taken from 11:58 a.m. to 12:12
24 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We are on the record at
25 approximately 12:12 p.m.
1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Chief Beckner, the DNAX, I
2 want to make sure because I'm still not clear, were
3 any samples of Chris Wolf's DNA compared to DNAX?
4 A I don't know the answer to that question.
5 Q Would you have expected them to be?
6 A Not necessarily.
7 Q Why not?
8 A Well, again, I think we're going down the
9 road of talking about the evidence.
10 Q I mean, I have to talk about the evidence
11 because you've got DNA. You have DNA from Chris Wolf
12 and you've got an open investigation. Chris Wolf has
13 not been cleared and the question to me is very
14 logical. Why would you not have compared Chris
15 Wolf's DNA to this DNAX?
16 MR. MILLER: First of all, I don't know
17 that he said that he didn't. He doesn't know.
18 MR. WOOD: Yeah, but he said not
19 necessarily. I'm trying to find out why would they
20 not necessarily have done so.
21 MR. MILLER: I think what he said is that
22 because of the other factors going on in this
23 investigation that he knows and that shouldn't be
24 part of this case tends to make him believe that it
25 wasn't necessary. And therefore we're asserting the
1 privilege on that.
2 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Has a source for DNAX been
3 identified. I don't want to know who it is, but has
4 a source for DNAX been identified?
5 THE DEPONENT: Do I answer that?
6 MR. MILLER: I don't think so. I don't
7 think you should answer that.
8 MR. WOOD: You're taking the privilege?
9 MR. MILLER: Yes.
10 Q (BY MR. WOOD) If a source hasn't been
11 identified the question would be why would you not
12 compare the DNA that you have in your investigation
13 from people under the umbrella of suspicion to DNAX;
14 you would, wouldn't you?
15 A I'm not sure it hasn't been.
16 Q So do you -- DNAX stands out in your
17 mind's eye obviously? I mean it came back to you
18 today when we were talking about DNA from the scene
19 and do you have knowledge that DNAX, that a number of
20 individuals' DNA specimens have been compared to what
21 you call DNAX for analysis?
22 A I don't know how many people have been
23 compared to that.
24 Q But could you give me a ballpark estimate?
25 A No, I couldn't.
1 Q Why not?
2 A Because I didn't speak to the lab about
4 Q Do you think it was a considerable number?
5 I mean, you know --
6 MR. MILLER: I object.
7 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Did you go back, Chief --
8 MR. WOOD: Maybe it's just my own
9 inability to frame the question correctly, Bob.
10 But I've got Chris Wolf here who has been
11 taken out from under the umbrella of suspicion. It
12 appears at a subsequent time that there is another
13 sample of DNA found foreign to JonBent somewhere on
14 the crime scene other than on her body or her
15 clothing. I'm trying to find out whether Chris Wolf
16 who has not been cleared, whether his DNA would have
17 been expected to be compared to the DNAX. I just
18 think that's --
19 MR. MILLER: He's answered he doesn't
20 know, Lin. I mean that's the answer. It may not be
21 the one you want, it's still the answer.
22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Who would know? Who would
23 I talk to to get the answer to that question?
24 A Of whether his DNA was compared --
25 Q Yes.
1 A The FBI laboratory.
2 Q The FBI laboratory?
3 A (Deponent nods head.)
4 Q Is there any reason why FBI versus CBI? I
5 thought maybe the DNA testing had been done by FBI
6 all along. I don't know.
7 A Yes, there is a reason.
8 Q But wouldn't the specimens have been sent
9 from the Boulder Police Department, whoever the FBI
10 tested, wouldn't it have gone to the FBI from the
11 Boulder Police Department?
12 A Well some explanation is in order here.
13 Once you have the markers for DNA, you don't
14 necessarily have to have the DNA sample to compare
15 those markers to other DNA.
16 Q But the FBI didn't keep those markers on
17 file; the Boulder Police Department or CBI did I
18 would take it?
19 A CBI has those.
20 Q So somebody would have to send those
21 markers because there are reports that show the
22 markers, right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Somebody would have to send that to the
25 FBI from either CBI or the Boulder Police Department,
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you believe that samples -- clearly
4 there were some samples sent?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Possibly Chris Wolf's?
7 A Possibly.
8 Q Possibly a number of other individuals who
9 had been under the or were under the umbrella of
11 A Possibly.
12 Q Can you just give me your best estimate as
13 to when these materials would have been sent to the
15 A No, I really can't. Because the FBI is so
16 backed up, I know we waited a long time on some of
17 the lab tests to be done. And so it would be hard to
18 pin down when we sent it in without actually checking
19 the records.
20 Q Can you ballpark when you started getting
21 the results back?
22 A I'm not sure. I believe it was sometime
23 in 2000.
24 Q Can you back that up now to months or
25 several months to try to figure out when --
1 A I would sure hate to do that under oath
2 because I'm just not sure enough.
3 Q I don't want you to just purely speculate.
4 If you have a reasonable, you know, if you reasonably
5 can estimate then I would ask you to do that, but I
6 don't want you to just pull something out of the air.
7 A I wouldn't be comfortable right now doing
9 Q Okay. That's fair. Recognizing it was
10 2000 that you began to get results back, in your
11 mind's eye, Chief, can you ballpark the number of
12 results that you got back?
13 A Well, you have misinterpreted a little bit
14 of what I said.
15 Q Okay. Help me out.
16 A When you say start to get results back,
17 the FBI has been involved in this case from the
18 early, the early days.
19 Q From day one.
20 A So there has been -- there have been
21 different results coming back at different times
22 throughout the year so we didn't just start to get
23 results back in 2000.
24 Q Right. But I'm talking about DNAX.
25 A Well, the result starts and ends on one
1 day basically. I mean, you get the result back and
2 there it is.
3 Q But did it cover a number of individuals,
4 one report back, is that what we're talking about?
5 A I don't know that I have ever actually
6 seen the written report.
7 Q Well, based on what you know about it.
8 A I don't know. I really don't know whether
9 they included others on that report or not.
10 Q Well, I'm clearly speculating but I think,
11 with some degree of a reasonable basis, that John and
12 Patsy's DNA would have been sent to compare to DNAX.
13 So maybe the question ought to be just put to you,
14 were other individuals' DNA samples sent to the FBI
15 markers for comparison to DNAX, other than John or
16 Patsy Ramsey?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. Would it be fair from your
19 recollection to say that it was a number of
21 A Mr. Wood, I don't know that for a fact,
22 but that would be my guess.
23 Q Okay. And whether Chris Wolf is in there
24 or not is something we could ascertain by someone
25 researching the record?
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay.