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?

55

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

20 hair.

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?

56

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

5 understanding.

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

11 body?

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

57

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

15 hair.

16 MR. MILLER: Can we take a break?

17 MR. WOOD: Sure, any time.

18 MR. MILLER: We've been going about an

19 hour.

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

25 a.m.)

58

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

59

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?

60

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

16 conclusion?

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?

61

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

11 easily?

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?

62

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

13 less?

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

20 a.m.)

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.)

63

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

24 suspects.

25 Q Both of them?

64

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

65

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

16 Ramsey.

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

66

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,

67

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

17 time.

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.

68

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

5 boyfriend?

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

14 investigation?

15 A One of the other detectives that may be

16 familiar to them, I'm not sure.