1 Q -- it doesn't surprise you that a
2 professional investigator before critical evidence
3 has been examined and tested would reach that kind of
4 conclusion; that doesn't surprise you?
5 A Well, if they said it -- if you're telling
6 me they said it in a manner of this is fact and there
7 is no other possibility, then that would surprise me
8 that they would say it as an absolute conclusionary
9 statement; yes, that would surprise me.
10 Q Was the F -- did the FBI ever provide any
11 assistance to the Boulder Police Department in
12 connection with its investigation of Chris Wolf?
13 A You know, I'm not sure. I was not in --
14 most of the team meetings that occurred, occurred
15 before I arrived and so I'm not sure what all was
16 discussed in those meetings.
17 Q When you say the team meetings, you're
18 talking about meetings between -- with the Boulder
19 Police Department and members of the FBI?
20 A Yes.
21 Q The September 1997 meeting in Quantico,
22 you were not involved in the case at that time?
23 A No, I wasn't.
24 Q Has it ever been brought to your attention
25 that an agent, I believe by the name of Ken Lansing,
1 of the FBI cautioned the Boulder Police Department
2 that this -- they should keep an open mind that this
3 could be a sexually related killing?
4 A Lots of people have cautioned us in that,
5 so --
6 Q Has the FBI agents in fact cautioned you
7 in that?
8 A I'm not sure what you mean by cautioned.
9 Q Just stated --
10 A Certainly in our discussions --
11 Q -- keep an open mind?
12 A -- sure, that's been part of our
14 Q With the FBI?
15 A Sure.
16 Q Were you involved in the investigation
17 from an internal affairs standpoint of Detective
19 MR. WOOD: I'll link this up for you in a
20 minute, Bob.
21 Q (BY MR. WOOD) As I remember, Mason was
22 investigated and I know there was a lawsuit and I
23 want to go -- Mason was investigated by internal
24 affairs because it was believed, at least that there
25 was some basis to believe, that he may have leaked
1 confidential police information to the media, right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Was it then and does it remain the policy
4 of the Boulder Police Department to appropriately
5 investigate any officer who is thought to have leaked
6 confidential police file information to the media
7 and, if found to have done so, to institute some form
8 of punishment or penalty?
9 A Are you saying is it now the policy?
10 Q Was it then and is it now?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Am I correct that if the Boulder Police
13 Department had learned, say, in September of 1997
14 that one of the officers on the Ramsey case had
15 provided confidential police file information about
16 the case to a journalist, that at a minimum, if
17 proven to be true or admitted to by the individual
18 officer, you would have expected at a minimum that
19 the officer would have been immediately removed from
20 that particular case?
21 A If it was proven?
22 Q Yes.
23 A Yes.
24 Q With the potential to even be discharged
25 from employment?
1 A Potentially.
2 Q Has it ever been brought to your attention
3 that Steve Thomas has admitted that he in fact met
4 with Ann Bardach on four or five occasions and was
5 her police source for the Vanity Fair article that
6 was published in this case, including an admission
7 that he provided her with the content of the ransom
8 note, although he says he did not give a copy of it
9 to her? If I tell you that as fact, would that be
10 news to you?
11 A Some of it. I didn't know it was four to
12 five times. That would be new to me.
13 Q Did he discuss the contents of the ransom
14 note with her?
15 A You know, I don't recall hearing that
16 specifically, that specific.
17 Q But if Steve Thomas had admitted to that
18 information in September of 1997, he would have,
19 having admitted to it, would have either -- he would
20 have clearly been removed from the Ramsey case and
21 may very well have been fired?
22 A May have been, yes.
23 Q But clearly without a doubt removed from
24 the Ramsey case?
25 A You're asking me to answer for Chief Koby.
1 At this time I was not chief of police.
2 Q Well, under your understanding of the
3 setup as it existed then?
4 A I believe that would have happened, yes.
5 Q Because I think after Mason everybody
6 understood that they were subject to internal affairs
7 and potentially dismissal but absolutely removal from
8 the case?
9 A I believe that would have happened, yes.
10 Q There -- former Detective Thomas, and I
11 ask this because he is identified by Darnay Hoffman
12 as the Boulder police detective who will be the
13 primary witness on this case from the authorities
14 standpoint in the Wolf case, Detective Thomas said
15 that he had a working briefcase at the time that he
16 resigned in which he kept his working file papers
17 that included his own reports and notes and then
18 other reports and notes. I don't know if it included
19 the master affidavit he refers to.
20 And he said he turned that briefcase in.
21 But he said he made copies of the materials. That
22 would have been absolutely against department policy
23 for him to keep copies of the materials, wouldn't it?
24 A Not necessarily. Many officers will keep
25 second copies of reports as working copies --
1 Q In the event --
2 A -- and then put the original in the file
3 and then work off of their working copies and
4 maintain those.
5 Q But would that be true if they're leaving
6 the force?
7 A No, that should not occur if you're
8 leaving and taking those with you.
9 Q That's my point. When he resigned and he
10 turned in his working papers and before he did it he
11 said he made copies and kept them, that would be
12 inappropriate then under the department guidelines?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And he would know that, your officers know
15 that, don't they?
16 A Yes.
17 Q He then said that starting in January of
18 1999 after it was learned that he was going to
19 publish a book, that he started receiving anonymous
20 packets of police reports on the JonBent Ramsey case
21 from postmarks in Boulder and postmarks in Denver.
22 And that over the course of time, he accumulated
23 several hundred pages of Ramsey police reports from
24 these anonymous sources. Have you ever heard
25 anything about that before?
1 A No. This is the first I've heard of that.
2 MR. MILLER: Is this from his deposition?
3 MR. WOOD: It is, it is.
4 Q (BY MR. WOOD) And the question I have is
5 whether the universe -- there would be a fairly
6 definable universe of individuals that could have
7 done such a thing if it happened, I mean, I'm not
8 asking you to believe Thomas and I'm not suggesting
9 that I necessarily believe him. I would lean more
10 candidly to thinking that he copied everything,
11 thousands of pages, and nobody sent him anything but
12 I don't know that. He has testified to the contrary.
13 But the universe of people that could conceivably get
14 their hands on Ramsey police reports in January and a
15 few months thereafter in 1999 and copy them would be
16 fairly limited but clearly definable, wouldn't it,
18 A Not necessarily. If somebody really
19 wanted to go to that extent, they probably could have
20 obtained copies.
21 Q But out of what universe?
22 A Probably detectives would be the most
23 likely universe.
24 Q So again, fairly definable and I think if
25 one might look at leak investigations, limited in
1 number, fairly limited?
2 A Well, yeah, it's still -- you're still
3 looking at 16, 18 people. That's still a pretty
4 broad net.
5 Q Would you agree that the investigation of
6 Chris Wolf was primarily -- by the Boulder Police
7 Department was instigated and conducted primarily, if
8 not almost exclusively,, based upon the initial
9 information provided to you by Jackie Dilson? Is
10 that the driving --
11 MR. MILLER: Could you restate the
12 question, it sounded compound?
13 Q (BY MR. WOOD) The driving force behind
14 why Chris Wolf was investigated clearly was Jackie
15 Dilson and the information she initially provided; is
16 that true?
17 A Well, certainly initially, yes.
18 Q And then a lot of it could have been the
19 result of Chris Wolf's own decision for whatever
20 reason not to cooperate in January of 1997?
21 A Sure.
22 Q He could have gotten himself out from
23 under the umbrella potentially earlier had he decided
24 to do differently than what he did in January,
1 A Conceivably.
2 Q You indicated the Ramsey investigators had
3 provided you with some information about Wolf. Do
4 you believe that the Ramsey investigators were a
5 motivating driving factor for the Boulder Police
6 Department's investigation of Chris Wolf?
7 A Are you including me in that question?
8 Q I guess I would have to. You're part of
9 the investigation?
10 A I would say yes then.
11 Q Explain that to me.
12 A Well, when I came on, part of the job I
13 had to do was review the case up to that point. And
14 part of that was learning what had been done, what
15 hadn't been done, what needed to be done. You know,
16 we developed a whole task list of items to do and
17 certainly taking, you know, a better look at Chris
18 Wolf and getting some of the non-testimony evidence
19 from him was one of those things that we needed to do
20 and was put on that list.
21 Q But the need to get non-testimonial
22 evidence from Chris Wolf was not a need developed
23 because of information that the Ramsey investigators
24 had given you, that was just a review of the umbrella
25 list, so to speak, by you in a decision about what
1 had not been done that you thought should have been
3 A Well, and I can't tell you that, you know,
4 what pieces of evidence at that point or information
5 came from what sources. I was getting it in a
6 composite, not in a Jackie Dilson said this, so and
7 so said this, Ollie Gray said this. It was a
8 composite that I was receiving at that time so I
9 couldn't tell you what was --
10 Q So you don't know whether the Ramsey --
11 any information provided by the Ramsey investigators
12 had anything to do with your decision on Chris Wolf
13 or the Boulder Police Department's decision with
14 Chris Wolf?
15 MR. MILLER: I object to the
16 characterization of the answer. I don't think that
17 is what the witness testified to.
18 MR. WOOD: Well, he said I can't tell you
19 what pieces of evidence at that point or information
20 came from what sources. I was getting it in a
21 composite, not a Jackie Dilson said this and said
22 this, Ollie Gray said this, it was a composite.
23 Q (BY MR. WOOD) So as we sit here today,
24 you can't tell me that you have knowledge of specific
25 information provided by the Ramsey investigators back
1 in 1997 or 1998 about Chris Wolf that became a
2 driving factor in why the police department
3 investigated him; is that fair?
4 A No, that's not fair. Certainly the
5 information they provided that they had was a driving
6 factor in continuing that, to investigate Chris Wolf.
7 Q What information?
8 A The composite information that we had
9 about Chris Wolf.
10 Q What information --
11 A I don't have --
12 Q -- from the Ramsey -- how do you know the
13 Ramseys gave you any information that was of any
14 assistance to you?
15 A I'm not saying they did or didn't.
16 Q Maybe you're not understanding my
18 A Yeah, that could be.
19 Q In terms of being a significant factor,
20 maybe that's a good term, in why the Boulder Police
21 Department was investigating Chris Wolf in 1997 and
22 1998 --
23 A Okay.
24 Q -- you don't know whether information
25 provided by Ramsey investigators to the Boulder
1 Police Department during that time period was a
2 significant factor or not, do you?
3 A No, I don't.
4 Q Okay. What you know is that you had a
5 composite of information from a variety of sources, a
6 composite being such that when you came on board in
7 October of 1997, you felt like Chris Wolf was a
8 viable individual to be under the umbrella of
9 suspicion somewhere in that six or seven category we
10 talked about on my level of one to ten, ten being at
11 the top. And you wanted a number of things done in
12 terms of non-testimonial evidence and follow-up
13 investigation about him that had not been done up to
14 that point in time --
15 A Correct.
16 Q -- is that fair?
17 A That's fair.
18 MR. WOOD: Let me have -- hang on. Don't
19 go off yet because I do want to cover one quick area
20 with him.
21 Q (BY MR. WOOD) I've got a March 14, 2000
22 article in the Denver Rocky Mountain News by John
23 Ensslin, E-n-s-s-l-i-n. Do you know him?
24 A No. I know the name.
25 Q This is in connection with Lou Smit's
1 giving some information to the public about the case.
2 Again, the date is March 14, 2000. I think that
3 coincides roughly with the release of the Ramseys'
4 book. I'm going to read this and if you need to see
5 this I'll be glad to let you see it.
6 Beckner said he was disturbed that Smit
7 decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case.
8 Quote, He's willing to go out and talk about his
9 theory but, in so doing, he ignores a lot of other
10 evidence, end quote, Beckner said.
11 Does that sound like something you would
12 have said?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Is that an accurate quote?
15 A Yes.
16 Q You were saying that with respect to Lou
18 A Yes.
19 Q Would you also tell me that that is
20 absolutely true with respect to Steve Thomas?
21 A Yes.
22 Q That he also is willing to go out and talk
23 about his theory but in so doing, he ignores a lot of
24 other evidence?
25 A I don't know if I would say a lot of other
1 evidence, but I think he does ignore some other
2 things in the case.
3 Q And it's not just some other things in the
4 case because Steve Thomas has said that his book as
5 such was based on the police file information as it
6 existed up to the end of August of 1998 in
7 combination with any public information that was
8 released. And I think you have said on the record
9 that there has been significant developments and
10 changes and new information developed since August of
11 1998 --
12 A Yes.
13 Q -- during the course of the grand jury and
14 after the grand jury. Before Steve Thomas's book was
15 published in August -- in April of 2000?
16 A Yes.
17 Q True?
18 A True.
19 Q We had the back and forth by letter about
20 Katy Couric's comments that Chris Wolf was no longer
21 under suspicion and I wrote this mean-spirited letter
22 asking you to investigate and find out who in the
23 world said that, that was in 2001. I had failed to
24 do my job and realized that in 2000 you had actually
25 said that publicly when you gave the quote about
1 McReynolds and Wolf and Hoffmann-Pugh and Merrill
2 that they were no longer actively under -- no longer
3 active suspects.
4 I then asked you in another letter whether
5 you had been the source for some information about
6 urine on the bed sheets and I never did hear back
7 from you, on an NBC broadcast.
8 A So what is your question?
9 Q Were you the source for that information?
10 A No.
11 Q I think you have told me that you have
12 never provided any information to a member of the
13 media about the investigation under the condition of
15 A That's correct.
16 Q And you have not yourself ever provided
17 any confidential information about the law
18 enforcement investigation to any member of the
19 media --
20 A That's correct.
21 Q -- off the record?
22 A That's correct.
23 MR. MILLER: Well, wait a minute. Just so
24 the question is off the record, right, I mean
25 obviously he made press releases.
1 MR. WOOD: Yes, that's why I added off the
3 MR. MILLER: Okay.
4 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You do know Bill Hagamaier?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And Bill Hagamaier has been involved in
7 the case pretty much the entire time the FBI has
9 A Yes.
10 Q You made a statement in June of 1998 in a
11 press release that said the question was, Do you know
12 who did it?
13 And you said, answer: I have an idea who
14 did it. What was the purpose in saying that?
15 A Well, I think part of the purpose is
16 reassuring the public that we're not clueless about
17 this case. And it's so you want to try to be
18 truthful but at the same time you don't want to give
19 out more information than you have to. And it's a
20 fine line to walk.
21 Q And would it be fair to say that when you
22 made the statement I have an idea who did it you
23 weren't trying to focus on John and/or Patsy Ramsey,
24 were you?
25 A I wasn't intending that to be necessarily
1 the interpretation of that, but I wanted the public
2 to know, yeah, we had an idea.
3 Q Because in June of 1998, the next day in
4 an interview, you indicated that you all investigated
5 I think this article says 68 possible suspects. And
6 then you said. Quote, There are certainly less
7 people under the umbrella of suspicion now than there
8 were in October, Beckner said, quote, The umbrella is
9 not quite so big, end quote. There were still a
10 number of people under the umbrella of suspicion in
11 June of 1998, weren't there, Chief?
12 A Yes. Yes.
13 Q And it was more than just John and Patsy,
14 wasn't it?
15 A Yes.
16 Q You would concur with the statement that
17 you believe that sharing information about the
18 evidence in the case that is otherwise confidential
19 from a police officer's standpoint is unethical and
20 potentially disastrous to the police department's
21 ability to find justice?
22 A I would agree with that.
23 Q In the letter that you said that in in
24 effect, I paraphrased it, it was a letter to the
25 Daily Camera editorial, a letter to the editor,
1 3/28/2000. Do you remember that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q You actually said "Unlike Mr. Smit and
4 others who have left the investigation I believe that
5 sharing information about the evidence is unethical
6 and potentially disastrous to our ability to find
8 You didn't name him but I think you would
9 certainly say that absolutely applied to Steve