15 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Let me tell you, then, that
16 Chris Wolf has stated that he did give hair samples.
17 A But I don't know that.
18 Q Well, let's assume, if you would, that
19 Chris Wolf is right about that at least. If he gave
20 hair samples, would the police department as a matter
21 of its investigative procedures compare his hair
22 sample to hair samples found at the crime scene?
23 A I would expect that.
24 Q There wouldn't be any real reason not to,
25 would there?
1 A No.
2 Q Would there be any other type -- what type
3 of comparison -- what is the test you do? Is it
4 simply looking under a microscope or does it involve
5 any type of forensic testing of the hair itself?
6 A It's primarily, if it's just hair, it's
7 primarily a comparison under the microscope. If
8 you've got a root attached then you've got some DNA
9 that can be tested through normal DNA process down --
10 CBI can do that.
11 If you want to get DNA off of just a hair
12 without a root sample, that has to be mitochondria
13 and the only place we're aware of that does that is
14 the FBI. And so it's something that -- it's not --
15 you just don't do it every day. You've got to have a
16 pretty good reason to do it and then you're on a
17 pretty long waiting list to get that done. It's not
18 something, where like you can with CBI, where you can
19 do hundreds of DNA samples; you can't do that with
21 Q So if you have the saliva swab from
22 Mr. Wolf and a hair sample and, again, I'm going to
23 ask you to assume, you would not have submitted the
24 hair for DNA testing because you had the DNA you
25 needed through the saliva, correct?
1 A You know, I don't know whether CBI would
2 do that or not. My understanding would be that the
3 saliva would suffice for the DNA test and there would
4 be no reason to do a DNA on the hair, that's my
6 Q But you would have expected, assuming
7 again that Mr. Wolf did give the hair sample, you
8 would have expected that it would have been examined
9 under a microscope in terms of the comparison of hair
10 fibers found at the crime scene or on the victim's
12 MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and
13 answered. You can answer.
14 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You can answer.
15 A I would expect that.
16 Q Where again, if Mr. Wolf were correct,
17 where would this hair sample have been taken from or
18 was it the procedure to take more than one from
19 different parts of the individual's body?
20 A Again, it depends on your crime scene. As
21 far as when you say procedure or policy, it's all
22 dependent on your crime scene.
23 Q Well, understanding you have the knowledge
24 of the crime scene here. Chris Wolf is asked to give
25 hair samples. Where would you have taken the samples
1 from in terms of his body?
2 A Well, there are a number of locations you
3 could take. You could take pubic hairs, you could
4 take head hairs.
5 Q Yeah, I understand. I understand that
6 there are a number of locations. But I'm asking in
7 terms of your investigation of this murder, with the
8 knowledge you have of this crime scene --
9 A Um-hum.
10 Q -- if you want hair samples from Chris
11 Wolf, where would they have been taken from? Would
12 they have been taken from his head? His chest? His
13 underarm? His pubic area? Or all of those?
14 A I would think probably pubic area and head
16 MR. MILLER: Can we take a break?
17 MR. WOOD: Sure, any time.
18 MR. MILLER: We've been going about an
20 MR. WOOD: Do you think the real deal
21 might be on now?
22 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're off the record at
23 approximately 10:04 a.m.
24 (Recess taken from 10:04 a.m. to 10:20
1 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're on the record at
2 approximately 10:20 a.m.
3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You indicated, Chief
4 Beckner, that in 1997 with respect to -- late 1997,
5 you submitted some handwriting and possibly some
6 fingerprints to CBI with respect to Chris Wolf.
7 We've covered the handwriting, haven't we, that we
8 talked about earlier that Chet Ubowski gave reports
9 on a couple of occasions?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, what about -- you say possibly some
12 fingerprints. Did you in fact obtain fingerprints
13 from Chris Wolf?
14 A Again, I just want to clarify I'm going by
15 memory from almost four years ago. But yes, I recall
16 that we had fingerprints from Chris Wolf.
17 Q And were they submitted to CBI?
18 A Yes.
19 Q For comparisons to what?
20 A To evidence taken at the scene. Any
21 fingerprints that we had, any prints whatsoever that
22 we had at the scene.
23 Q Okay. And did you ever -- well, you go on
24 to say you obtained some handwriting exemplars in
25 1998. That would have been different from the
1 initial handwriting?
2 A I believe so. I'm, you know --
3 Q And some palm prints --
4 A -- the best of my recollection.
5 Q Okay. Do you remember what the results
6 were that came back on the fingerprints from CBI with
7 respect to Mr. Wolf?
8 A No match.
9 Q Would I be safe then to say that across
10 the board that would be true?
11 A Yes.
12 Q If you had a match from someone you
13 wouldn't have expected to be in the house, we would
14 probably all know about it.
15 The palm print, again, you took a palm
16 print left and right from Mr. Wolf, submitted those
17 to CBI?
18 A I know we took palm prints.
19 Q Were they submitted to CBI?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Again, for comparison to what you believe
22 were palm prints taken from the crime scene?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did you take both the left and the right
25 hand palm print from Mr. Wolf?
1 A I don't know for sure.
2 Q Do you know what you would have expected
3 to be done in that regard?
4 A Both, I would have expected.
5 Q Both. And then you submitted known
6 writings to Dr. Foster; is that Don Foster?
7 A Yes.
8 Q For linguistic analysis?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Did Mr. -- Dr. Foster issue a report on
11 his analysis?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what was his conclusion?
14 A That Mr. Wolf did not write the note.
15 Q And did he explain how he arrived at that
17 A Primarily that there were --
18 MR. MILLER: Yes or no.
19 A Oh, yes.
20 Q (BY MR. WOOD) What was his explanation?
21 A Primarily that there were not enough
22 similarities between the two writing samples.
23 Q Were there any similarities?
24 A I can't recall what the specifics were.
25 Q You would have to look at the report?
1 A (Deponent nods head.)
2 Q In terms of the documents and I'm not
3 asking you to agree that you would give them to us at
4 this point, but I'm just trying to find out in terms
5 of the accessibility and the organization, if I were
6 to ask for you to produce by subpoena the documents
7 such as the report Don Foster compiled on Chris Wolf,
8 the linguistic analysis, is the case file in the
9 Boulder Police Department organized in such a fashion
10 that that's something that you could get fairly
12 A The Don Foster report, yes.
13 Q Okay. How about CBI forensic reports?
14 A I don't know if I would say easy, but
15 they're obtainable.
16 Q Now, the forms that you send up to CBI,
17 are those Boulder Police Department forms?
18 A We have forms and they also have forms.
19 Q Do any of those forms make reference to
20 the phrase suspects?
21 A I would have to look at them.
22 Q For example, if you were to send up a
23 blood test on someone that came back from CBI, would
24 it have up at the top suspects, someone's name or
25 unknown or anything like that?
1 A No, I don't believe so. No.
2 Q What were people called, to your
3 knowledge, that were under investigation or under
4 suspicion before you coined the phrase the umbrella
5 of suspicion? How were they referred to by the
6 Boulder Police Department?
7 A We really didn't refer to them in any
8 specific way, quite frankly.
9 Q The umbrella of suspicion as a
10 classification still exists today?
11 A More or less.
12 Q What do you mean when you say more or
14 A Can I confer with my attorney?
15 Q Sure.
16 THE DEPONENT: Let's go off.
17 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Are we off the record?
18 We're off the record at approximately 10:25 a.m.
19 (Recess taken from 10:25 a.m. to 10:28
21 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: We're on the record at
22 approximately 10:28 a.m.
23 MR. MILLER: Could you please read back
24 the last question?
25 (Page 62, lines 12 through 13 read.)
1 A Yes. I mean yes.
2 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay. From your -- from
3 the time period that you have been involved in the
4 Ramsey case, October of 1997 to date, you have never
5 publicly referred to any individual as a suspect; am
6 I right?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q You have always carefully indicated that
9 individuals, whoever may come up, were either not or
10 were under the umbrella of suspicion?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Or used the phrase under suspicion?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Which you have told me means the same
15 thing as being under the umbrella of suspicion?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So from start to today, you have not
18 classified any individual as a suspect?
19 A Publicly, correct.
20 Q Or otherwise?
21 A That's not accurate.
22 Q How is it inaccurate?
23 A Internally John and Patsy are considered
25 Q Both of them?
1 A Yes.
2 Q Are considered to have probably been
3 involved in the death of their daughter?
4 A Probability, yes.
5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status
6 of probably involved?
7 A No.
8 Q How does one get out -- who makes the
9 determination -- let me go back.
10 How do you, at what point in time did they
11 move from under the umbrella to being suspects?
12 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to this.
13 I don't know how this has got anything to do with
14 Chris Wolf.
15 MR. WOOD: I'm trying to figure out the
16 use of the term because it's an issue in this lawsuit
17 with respect to Chris Wolf.
18 MR. MILLER: He's told you.
19 MR. WOOD: I have Boulder Police
20 Department detectives, at least one, referring to
21 Chris Wolf as a suspect. And one of the issues in
22 the case is was he a suspect. And the second issue,
23 among many others, is how did he become one, and the
24 third issue is going to be, you know, what was done
25 and whether he was thoroughly investigated into
1 whether or not he should or should not still remain
2 as a suspect.
3 MR. MILLER: We don't have any objection
4 into going into those things as to Chris Wolf but as
5 to John and Patsy Ramsey and when they were a suspect
6 and when they weren't and how they became one is
7 totally irrelevant and that's what we chose to try to
8 avoid during this deposition.
9 MR. WOOD: Right. But with all due
10 respect, knowing when they attained the status of
11 probable is going to relate, in my view, clearly to
12 the thoroughness of investigations of other
13 individuals who were simply possible.
14 MR. MILLER: I don't see how and I don't
15 think he should answer the question on John and Patsy
17 MR. WOOD: Well, let me see if I can take
18 their names out of it. I don't know if that matters.
19 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Was anyone internally
20 considered a suspect while others were still viewed
21 as being under the umbrella of suspicion?
22 THE DEPONENT: Answer that?
23 MR. MILLER: Yeah, I think so.
24 A Can you repeat it again?
25 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Yes. Were any individuals
1 considered by the Boulder Police Department
2 internally to be suspects at the same time that other
3 individuals who were being investigated were being
4 classified as being under the umbrella of suspicion?
5 A I believe so.
6 Q How did you differentiate in terms of
7 investigative efforts between people who were viewed
8 as probably involved versus people that were viewed
9 as possibly involved, since you were apparently
10 investigating both at the same time?
11 A Well, you have to run it down until you
12 can be reasonably satisfied that a lead isn't
13 developing into something more.
14 Q What does it have to develop into when you
15 say something more?
16 A To a probability that they were involved
17 in the crime.
18 Q If Chris --
19 A Or some evidence that they weren't
20 involved. Something, you know, to give you something
21 that you can make some judgment on.
22 Q What was the judgment made on Chris Wolf?
23 What was the basis for taking Chris Wolf out from
24 under the umbrella of suspicion?
25 A A combination of factors combined,
1 everything combined that we had learned about Chris
2 Wolf and the evidence that was submitted.
3 Q What evidence did you have about Chris
4 Wolf that indicated he was not involved?
5 A Well, we had no match on fingerprints or
6 palm prints. We had no match on handwriting or
7 linguistics. We had no match on DNA.
8 Q Did you have a confirmed alibi?
9 A No.
10 Q Did you have a polygraph test?
11 A No. And then further discussions with his
12 girlfriend as well led investigators to pretty much
13 disregard what she had to say.
14 Q Why?
15 A She kept changing her story, some of the
16 facts she was telling us would vary from time to
18 Q Did you go behind what she was telling you
19 to try to talk with other individuals that she was
20 referring you to that might have been witnesses?
21 A You know, I don't recall the details of
22 all that, all that investigation.
23 Q Did the Boulder Police Department
24 interview Jackie Dilson's daughter Mirah?
25 A I don't know.
1 Q Should they have?
2 A I don't know.
3 Q Did the Boulder Police Department
4 interview Ricky Easley, Mirah Dilson's live-in
6 A I don't know.
7 Q Should they have?
8 A I don't know.
9 Q Who would know that?
10 A Well, I'm not sure because I don't know
11 what these names have to do with the case.
12 Q Who would I speak to that should know
13 that, the relevant names to the Chris Wolf
15 A One of the other detectives that may be
16 familiar to them, I'm not sure.