Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: Ramsey evidence
Topic ID: 60
Message ID: 11
#11, RE: Mark Beckner's deposition
Posted by jameson on Apr-10-03 at 05:03 PM
In response to message #10


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

9 clothing.

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

20 where?

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


1 about?

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,

13 right?

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

7 base.

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

13 1998.

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

19 it?

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


1 murder.

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

22 suspicion?

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

7 1998?

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

23 p.m.)

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

3 that.

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,


1 right?

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

10 suspicion?

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

14 FBI?

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

8 that.

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

20 individuals?

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.