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: 9
#9, RE: Mark Beckner's deposition
Posted by jameson on Apr-10-03 at 05:02 PM
In response to message #8
12 MR. MILLER: Yeah, my understanding,

13 however, Lin, was in our phone conversation you said

14 you were going to show him various press releases,

15 ask him if it was true or not and that was the end of

16 it.

17 MR. WOOD: On matters that might not

18 relate to Chris Wolf.

19 MR. MILLER: Right.

20 MR. WOOD: And this is a matter that

21 relates to Chris Wolf, because I believe that I'm

22 entitled to go into not only what was done by the

23 police department investigating Chris Wolf, but what

24 was not done and why it was not done particularly

25 when I can show that it was available to be used


1 against other individuals such as John or Patsy or

2 other people. I think the question of why is a

3 legitimate question in terms of the issue in this

4 case as to whether Chris Wolf and ultimately other

5 individuals were thoroughly investigated by the

6 police department.

7 MR. MILLER: I have made my objection and

8 I stand by the objection. I stand by the assertion

9 of the privilege and if you want to pose the last

10 question I guess before I objected, that's fine. And

11 see what --

12 Q (BY MR. WOOD) The question was do you

13 have any factual basis as we sit here today to

14 dispute any representation made by the family as of

15 the 29th of December that they were either physically

16 and/or emotionally not in a condition to be

17 interviewed?

18 A No.

19 Q Do you have a time frame in your mind's

20 eye, Chief, as to when you would have received the

21 first handwriting report from Chet Ubowski on either

22 John or Patsy Ramsey's first exemplar?

23 A No, I don't.

24 Q Do you think it was in January or would it

25 have been subsequent in time?


1 MR. MILLER: Of what year?

2 MR. WOOD: 1997.

3 A I'm not sure.

4 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Was Ubowski -- there were a

5 series of exemplars given by Patsy, I think the last

6 one maybe as late as May of '97?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Does that sound right?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Was it your understanding that Ubowski

11 reached his final report, analysis, after all of

12 those exemplars had been submitted?

13 A That was my understanding.

14 Q The reason I ask that is that would

15 indicate that Ubowski's report on Patsy would have

16 been post May or in or after May of 1997?

17 A You know, I would have to go back and look

18 at the file and see if there is prior reports to

19 that, I don't know.

20 Q Was the Boulder Police Department actively

21 obtaining handwriting exemplars from people under

22 suspicion during the year 1997 and the year 1998?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Do you have any explanation to offer as to

25 why there was no effort made to obtain a handwriting


1 exemplar from Chris Wolf until the early part of

2 1998?

3 A No, I can't speak for the time prior to my

4 involvement.

5 Q Do you view the use of the media to

6 pressure an individual under suspicion into

7 cooperating with authorities to be a legitimate

8 investigative tool --

9 MR. MILLER: Objection. It's the same

10 area.

11 MR. WOOD: I think if he says yes then I'm

12 entitled to ask why it wasn't used with Chris Wolf,

13 who we know was uncooperative.

14 MR. MILLER: You've already asked him as

15 to Chris Wolf.

16 MR. WOOD: I'm trying to do it in a way

17 that doesn't step on the toes of John and Patsy.

18 MR. MILLER: But I don't think you are. I

19 think you're trying to do it in a way that doesn't

20 really apply to this case and that's the objection

21 because it is an ongoing investigation. And,

22 frankly, it's a bit awkward since you represent them

23 as well.

24 MR. WOOD: Represent who as well?

25 MR. MILLER: John and Patsy Ramsey.


1 MR. WOOD: As well as who?

2 MR. MILLER: As well as whoever else

3 you're -- you have told me you're representing some

4 media outfit in this case as well.

5 MR. WOOD: No. No, we represent Media

6 Professional Insurance Company who is the insurance

7 company for Thomas Nelson.

8 MR. MILLER: Yes. Well --

9 MR. WOOD: Who is providing counsel for

10 John and Patsy but they're not a media group.

11 MR. MILLER: They're a different entity.

12 MR. WOOD: Well, they're an insurance

13 company.

14 MR. MILLER: Yeah, that's what you told

15 me, you represented them both, on the phone.

16 MR. WOOD: I told you -- well, no, what I

17 told you was that Media Professional is defending

18 this case and that I am co-counsel.

19 MR. MILLER: Right.

20 MR. WOOD: And that we were trying, as I

21 would represent to you now, to make sure that we

22 don't cross the line of going into areas that are not

23 relevant to this case. And if we can limit the

24 amount of time, that's to the benefit of Media

25 Professional. Ultimately Media Professional if this


1 case is not dismissed on motion is going to be

2 defending this case through the trial of the murder

3 charge. So I was simply trying to accommodate your

4 request and hopefully Media Professional's interest

5 in holding down expenses. If we are able to

6 successfully defeat the case on summary judgment.

7 There is no conflict in the two and they

8 are consistent with my questions to the chief, that

9 is to say, as to Chris Wolf if he viewed that as a

10 legitimate investigative tool, then I would like to

11 know as he has told me, and you can acknowledge, why

12 it was not used on Chris Wolf in 1997 to try to get

13 him to cooperate and come in and give exemplars and

14 to give an interview. I think it's a legitimate

15 question and, you know, if we got an answer then --

16 MR. MILLER: I thought you asked --

17 MR. WOOD: We could move on to another

18 subject matter.

19 MR. MILLER: I thought you asked him about

20 Chris Wolf and the media.

21 MR. WOOD: He told me that he did not --

22 was not aware of any strategy or plan applied to

23 Chris Wolf to bring public pressure on him through

24 the media to cooperate in 1997.

25 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Am I right, Chief?


1 A Yes.

2 Q My question now is, despite the fact that

3 you say it was not used on Wolf, do you view it as a

4 legitimate investigative tool, that is, using the

5 media to bring public pressure on an individual under

6 suspicion to try to get him to either cooperate or

7 confess?

8 MR. MILLER: I have the same objection.

9 I've made it before. I make it again. And if you

10 don't agree with it, Lin, we'll just have to have it

11 litigated.

12 MR. WOOD: But it seems to me, Bob, that

13 if he says yes I think it's legitimate. Then my

14 question would be can you explain why it was not used

15 on a person such as Chris Wolf. If he says no, I

16 don't view it as legitimate, then we move on.

17 I mean, it relates directly to facts that

18 have been proven about Chris Wolf's lack of

19 cooperation, lack of giving an interview, lack of

20 giving non-testimonial evidence.

21 MR. MILLER: But he did all of those

22 things, Lin.

23 MR. WOOD: Not in 1997.

24 MR. MILLER: Well, he did; he ultimately

25 did them.


1 MR. WOOD: So did John and Patsy.

2 MR. MILLER: Ultimately as well.

3 MR. WOOD: Right, before he did.

4 MR. MILLER: But this should not be

5 whether we're comparing John and Patsy Ramsey to

6 Chris Wolf.

7 MR. WOOD: We're not.

8 MR. MILLER: That's what you're trying to

9 make it and that's my objection.

10 MR. WOOD: We're really not. The reason

11 it sounds like that is you've got to remember

12 ultimately I've got to answer the question in this

13 case in defending it, one of the issues will be could

14 Chris Wolf still be a viable person to be

15 investigated, could others. And part of that, part

16 of that defense if we get there will be to show that

17 this police department did not thoroughly investigate

18 other individuals.

19 And I'm trying today to stay away from the

20 other individuals like Bill McReynolds, Mervin Pugh

21 and Fleet White and a host of others that may have

22 been either under suspicion or should have been under

23 suspicion, one could argue. I'm trying to simply

24 show as it pertains to Chris Wolf information that I

25 think would indicate that he was not thoroughly


1 investigated. And it just so happens that part of

2 showing that is to show that there were tools being

3 utilized by this department against John and Patsy

4 Ramsey that were available that weren't used against

5 Chris Wolf.

6 Now I think that's legitimate.

7 MR. MILLER: Well, I don't and I'm

8 sticking by my objection I made.

9 MR. WOOD: Okay. And the objection is so

10 that it's clear?

11 MR. MILLER: The ongoing criminal

12 investigation law enforcement privilege.

13 MR. WOOD: Any question that I ask about

14 that strategy of public pressure through the media to

15 coerce either cooperation or a confession you're

16 going to take that privilege?

17 MR. MILLER: I am.

18 MR. WOOD: Okay.

19 MR. MILLER: Insofar as it's not related

20 specifically to Chris Wolf, which he has already

21 answered.

22 MR. WOOD: Okay. Well, we'll just agree

23 to disagree on that one.