40
1 Q As a result of the information provided,
2 did Chris Wolf come under the umbrella of suspicion
3 in the JonBen t Ramsey case?
4 A That would probably be accurate.
5 Q What is the umbrella of suspicion?
6 A People who came to our attention and with
7 some inquiry into those individuals. Again, there is
8 some judgment involved here in looking at the
9 totality of the circumstances. But it would look
10 like, yeah, maybe there's a possibility that these
11 people may be involved or have some knowledge. Those
12 would be people that we would choose to investigate
13 further.
14 And you know, to what level of degree that
15 you would call them under suspicion I think is
16 difficult sometimes to evaluate because there were
17 obviously different levels.
18 As an example, we did a rundown of all
19 registered sex offenders, and for no other reason
20 than they were registered sex offenders.
21 Q Did they come under the umbrella of
22 suspicion?
23 A Well, I don't know if I would put them --
24 whether I would say that.
25 Q You would say it with respect to Chris
41
1 Wolf?
2 A Yeah, I think that's a fair
3 characterization.
4 Q I don't know who coined the phrase, for
5 some reason I think it was you?
6 A I believe it was.
7 Q Would I be correct in stating that an
8 individual status from your standpoint as being under
9 the umbrella of suspicion could be described by
10 someone else in the investigation, someone else at
11 the Boulder Police Department, as being an individual
12 who had the status of suspect?
13 A Well, certainly anybody could call
14 somebody anything they want. I'm not sure I
15 understand your question.
16 Q Well, I'm trying to look at the Boulder
17 Police Department's use of that term because there
18 are at least one book and one detective who was
19 involved in the investigation that has referred to
20 Chris Wolf as a suspect and that's Steve Thomas. And
21 I'm trying to find out what the Boulder Police
22 Department's use of that term means.
23 In other words, you might choose to use
24 the term umbrella of suspicion.
25 A Um-hum.
42
1 Q Was that term, in effect, mandatory in
2 describing individual status on all of the members of
3 the department or did you know that some other
4 members of the department might refer to the
5 individual under the umbrella of suspicion as being a
6 suspect?
7 A Well, I think what we tried to do was we
8 tried not to identify anybody as a suspect because
9 specifically we were trying, number one, to protect
10 people because, obviously, there were a lot of people
11 that came under investigation in this case. And
12 secondly, we wanted to be fair, try to be as fair as
13 we could to individuals as well.
14 And so from our perspective, to be
15 identified as a suspect, you would have to be
16 somebody that there was a real possibility that you
17 were involved in this crime versus, you know, someone
18 said they think you did this crime and so now we've
19 got to run down this lead, if that helps clarify it
20 at all.
21 Q Well, I mean, a real possibility versus a
22 possibility doesn't -- that's a pretty fine line for
23 me. But I'm not the person coming up with the
24 titles. What I want to find out is how does one move
25 from being under the umbrella of suspicion to the
43
1 status of suspect?
2 A Maybe probability is a better word than
3 possibility, because certainly possibility covers a
4 lot of different situations.
5 Q Were there members of the Boulder Police
6 Department, to your knowledge, who considered Chris
7 Wolf a viable suspect?
8 A Not from the point I took over the
9 investigation. I don't know if somebody considered
10 him viable prior to that time.
11 Q Then why would you bring Chris Wolf in in
12 March or February of 1998 and submit, take from him
13 non-testimonial evidence for forensic testing?
14 A Well, I think until you can prove who did
15 the case, you can't disregard other possibilities.
16 Simply because somebody doesn't look like a viable
17 suspect doesn't mean maybe the evidence won't lead
18 you to then believe that they are viable. I mean, if
19 evidence came back indicating that he had been
20 involved then certainly his status would have been
21 elevated.
22 Q But if he was brought to the attention of
23 the Boulder Police Department in January of 1997, why
24 did the Boulder Police Department wait until February
25 or March of 1998 to obtain non-testimonial evidence
44
1 from him?
2 A That I can't answer because I don't know.
3 I wasn't involved in the investigation prior to
4 October.
5 Q Do you know when Chris Wolf was moved out
6 from under the umbrella of suspicion?
7 A Not a -- I can't give you a specific date.
8 Probably a time frame would be as close as I could
9 narrow it down to.
10 Q What time frame could you narrow it down
11 to?
12 A Probably summer of 1998.
13 Q I'm looking at a -- and again, this is an
14 article written by Chris Anderson published in the
15 Daily Camera March 16th, 2000. And I'll let you take
16 a look at it.
17 A Okay.
18 Q But the part that I'm referring you to at
19 the moment is a quote attributed to you. It says,
20 Boulder police chief Mark Beckner said Wednesday,
21 several people listed in the Ramseys' book have been
22 investigated, including the McReynolds, the Ramseys'
23 former housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, former
24 Boulder journalist Chris Wolf and former Access
25 Graphics employee Jeff Merrick. Quote, They are not
45
1 currently active suspects, end quote, said Beckner,
2 who added there is nothing new in the Ramseys' claims
3 covered in the book.
4 A Okay.
5 Q Do you believe Mr. Anderson has quoted you
6 correctly in that article?
7 A The part that has quotations around it?
8 Q Yeah, that's the part I'm referring to.
9 A You know, I talked to so many reporters so
10 many times. Do I have specific memory of making this
11 statement? No.
12 Q When you look at it do you look at it and
13 go, no, I would not have said that I don't believe?
14 A No, that sounds like something that I
15 would probably say.
16 Q What did you mean by the use of the term
17 that they're not currently and I'm focusing on active
18 suspects?
19 A Um-hum. It means that we are not
20 currently investigating them for involvement in the
21 crime.
22 Q Had they been prior in time active
23 suspects?
24 A Well, again, how do you use the -- how do
25 you define suspect?
46
1 Q I would throw that ball --
2 A In terms of --
3 Q -- over to the law enforcement --
4 A -- how I define it, no. I would say, you
5 know, as we talked earlier, under suspicion would
6 characterize it accurately. Whether someone actually
7 goes to the level of suspect or not, that's a pretty
8 high level.
9 Q So when you use the term that someone is
10 under suspicion or remains under suspicion, you are
11 using that to be in effect interchangeable with
12 someone being under the umbrella of suspicion?
13 A Sure.
14 Q And you would specifically not use the
15 term suspect unless you felt that the individual had
16 moved from a possibility of being involved to a
17 probability of involvement?
18 A Yeah, they would certainly have to rise to
19 that level before you would want to identify somebody
20 as a suspect.
21 Q Was Bill McReynolds ever under the --
22 MR. MILLER: I object to that question.
23 MR. WOOD: If you let me answer it -- ask
24 it, I think maybe -- and then I'll tell you why it
25 has specific reference to Chris Wolf.
47
1 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Was Bill McReynolds ever
2 under the umbrella of suspicion?
3 MR. MILLER: I still object to it. What
4 has that got to do with Chris Wolf?
5 MR. WOOD: Because we have evidence that
6 Bill McReynolds was the academic advisor at the
7 University of Colorado to Chris Wolf.
8 MR. MILLER: I think you need to ask him
9 if he knows that. I don't know how that relates to
10 this investigation.
11 MR. WOOD: I think that it would have an
12 absolute relationship in terms of the police being
13 interested in the idea that one person under the
14 umbrella of suspicion had a relationship with another
15 individual under the umbrella of suspicion. Now,
16 that to me would at least from my common sense
17 standpoint, would be fairly significant at least to
18 look into. So that is the basis for the question
19 that relates directly to Chris Wolf.
20 MR. MILLER: I think it's objectionable
21 and I don't think it has got anything to do with the
22 Chris Wolf investigation.
23 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Were you aware of any
24 relationship between Bill McReynolds and Chris Wolf?
25 A Now that you bring it up, yes.
48
1 Q Am I correct that in fact the Boulder
2 Police Department was aware that Bill McReynolds had
3 served as an academic advisor at the University of
4 Colorado to Chris Wolf?
5 A What I can tell you is that sounds
6 familiar.
7 Q Was that relationship investigated by the
8 Boulder Police Department?
9 A I believe it was.
10 Q Do you know the name of the detective who
11 was in charge of investigating that relationship
12 between Chris Wolf and Bill McReynolds?
13 A I'm not sure.
14 Q Do you know what the results of that
15 investigation revealed in terms of the nature and
16 extent and duration or any other details of the
17 investigation --
18 A No, I don't recall.
19 Q -- of the relationship?
20 A I don't recall.
21 Q Would there be -- would you expect that
22 there would be some written reports that would
23 document what the investigators found in terms of any
24 details about the relationship between Chris Wolf and
25 Bill McReynolds?
49
1 A I would expect there to be.
2 Q Would it be significant from the
3 standpoint of the Boulder Police Department
4 investigation if there was a relationship between two
5 individuals who were both considered to be under the
6 umbrella of suspicion?
7 A Maybe, maybe not. That really depends on
8 a lot of factors.
9 Q We know that Chris Wolf was under the
10 umbrella of suspicion, correct?
11 A Correct.
12 Q Was Bill McReynolds ever under the
13 umbrella of suspicion?
14 MR. MILLER: I object. This has nothing
15 to do with Chris Wolf. You --
16 MR. WOOD: I think I just showed that it
17 did.
18 MR. MILLER: Well, the fact that other
19 people are under the umbrella of suspicion doesn't --
20 I mean a lot of people as he has testified were under
21 the umbrella of suspicion. That doesn't mean that
22 they have anything in common except being under the
23 umbrella of suspicion.
24 MR. WOOD: Well, with all due respect,
25 Bob, he said it may or may not be of significance.
50
1 And here where you have an individual, Bill
2 McReynolds, who has a direct physical presence and
3 relationship with the Ramsey family, an individual
4 who has been in their home who had a relationship
5 with JonBent, and then you come upon an individual
6 who did not have a tie to the Ramseys directly and
7 you learn that that person had a tie to Bill
8 McReynolds, it seems to me that is fairly
9 significant. But I don't know that; I need for the
10 chief to tell me that. That's why I think it's a
11 fair question related to Chris Wolf to know whether
12 or not Chris Wolf, who was under the umbrella of
13 suspicion -- in fact the department was also aware
14 that Bill McReynolds was under the umbrella of
15 suspicion.
16 MR. MILLER: I thought the article you
17 just asked him to read had McReynolds' name in it.
18 MR. WOOD: That's why I would think it
19 would have been a fairly --
20 MR. MILLER: And I thought he said, he
21 confirmed that they were all under the umbrella of
22 suspicion.
23 MR. WOOD: That's what I wanted him to
24 confirm but you really didn't let him answer that
25 question directly.
51
1 MR. MILLER: Is that right?
2 THE DEPONENT: Yes, McReynolds was.
3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Did he come out from under
4 the umbrella of suspicion the same time frame as
5 Chris Wolf?
6 A I have no idea.
7 Q You don't know whether there was any
8 relationship between the two investigations?
9 A I have no idea.
10 Q Tom Trujillo -- who would the best person
11 to answer that question?
12 A I'm not sure.
13 Q Give me if you would, Chief Beckner, your
14 best recollection or description of the investigation
15 of Chris Wolf. We've talked about the handwriting.
16 But just give me maybe your description of what the
17 department did regarding Wolf.
18 A Do you want a narrative?
19 Q To the best of your knowledge and ability
20 if you can give me that. We'll fill in some of the
21 details if we need to.
22 A Well, very generally I can tell you. I
23 can't give you the details. As I said, I believe it
24 was in late 1997 that we submitted, I believe it was,
25 some handwriting and possibly some fingerprints to
52
1 CBI for comparisons.
2 And then in 1998, we submitted, we
3 submitted, we obtained DNA. I believe we obtained
4 some handwriting exemplars and some palm prints from
5 Mr. Wolf and then we submitted those. We then
6 submitted his known writings to Dr. Foster for a
7 linguistic analysis as well and a comparison, that
8 was in 1998.
9 We certainly interviewed Jackie Dilson
10 several times, did some -- we even did some recording
11 of phone conversations between her and Mr. Wolf to
12 see if there would be any indication in those
13 conversations of his involvement.
14 That would be the primary steps we took.
15 Q Did you ever take any hair samples from
16 Mr. Wolf?
17 A We may have. I don't -- I can't tell you
18 for sure.
19 Q Mitochondria, are you familiar with that
20 word?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Were there any mitochondria tests
23 performed on hair samples obtained from Chris Wolf?
24 A My understanding of DNA you don't have to
25 do that. Once you have the DNA you have the DNA. A
53
1 person's DNA whether you get it from hair, saliva,
2 body fluids doesn't matter, it's the same. So one
3 DNA test is going to come back the same.
4 Q Does that mean the answer is no, you did
5 not do any mitochondria tests on hair samples taken?
6 A I don't believe we did.
7 Q Why would you bother to take hair samples
8 from anyone then if you have a DNA sample?
9 A You don't always have DNA samples. Some
10 hairs won't have DNA attached to them.
11 Q What was the type of fluid or material
12 that you took from Chris Wolf in order to check his
13 DNA?
14 A I believe they took saliva.
15 Q Okay. So if you have saliva from an
16 individual, why would you need a hair sample?
17 A For DNA, I don't believe you would need a
18 hair sample.
19 Q But what would you need the hair sample
20 for?
21 A You may want to do a comparison with other
22 hairs that you have at a crime scene.
23 Q Was any comparison done of the hair sample
24 or samples taken from Chris Wolf with any other hair
25 samples taken from the crime scene?
54
1 A I don't know.
2 Q Well, wouldn't you have expected there to
3 be?
4 A Not necessarily.
5 Q Why not?
6 A Well, there's -- this is getting into an
7 area that I don't think I can go into.
8 Q Well, I mean you took hair samples from
9 Chris Wolf. You come in and you state that Chris
10 Wolf was under the umbrella of suspicion?
11 A I --
12 MR. MILLER: He didn't say he took hair
13 samples of Chris Wolf.
14 A I said I didn't know.