A. You say you do. You're asking me if I know the difference --

Q. I'm asking --

A. -- between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt?

Q. Listen to my question. Do you understand the difference between probable cause to arrest an
individual and sufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution of that individual to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; do you know the difference?

A. I believe I do.

Q. Can we agree that police officers who are investigating a crime may form a belief that there is
probable cause to arrest but the question of who makes the decision of whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify a criminal prosecution is within the domain and province of a prosecutor, isn't that
the way it works, sir?

A. Typically, yes, sir.

Q. And there's a third category because you know the difference between probable cause to arrest
and sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the
difference between a finding of guilt, you know that difference, too, don't you, sir?

A. I believe I do, yes, sir.

Q. You know the difference between saying somebody is arrested for a crime and somebody has
been found guilty of a crime? You know that difference, don't you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. It's a big difference, isn't it?

A. Sometimes is and sometimes isn't.

Q. You don't think there is a big difference between someone being arrested for a crime and
someone being found guilty of a crime?

MR. DIAMOND: Are you talking about the quantum of proof, sir?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Answer my question.

MR. DIAMOND: Otherwise your question is gibberish.

MR. WOOD: If that's a statement --

MR. DIAMOND: Yeah, I object on the grounds that --

MR. WOOD: -- it's an asinine statement.

MR. DIAMOND: I object --

MR. WOOD: It's not gibberish it is very clear.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you know the difference, sir, between someone being arrested for a
crime and someone being found guilty of a crime; do you understand that?

A. I've often arrested people who were guilty of a crime and were subsequently convicted of a
crime.

Q. And you've probably arrested a lot of people who were not found guilty of a crime, didn't you?

A. I doubt it.

Q. You don't think that happens on a frequent basis?

A. That police officers, or are you talking about me, Mr. Wood?

Q. Police officers in general. I won't go back into your background at the moment on that?

A. That innocent people are sometimes arrested?

Q. That people are arrested for a crime and ultimately not found guilty of that crime?

A. I don't -- I don't have those statistics in front of me; I don't know.

Q. But you don't fight the idea that that happens, sir, do you?

A. I think --

Q. Surely you don't think anybody that is arrested is actually found guilty, I hope?

MR. DIAMOND: I think his first question is withdrawn. Can we hear the second question again?

MR. WOOD: Yeah. Listen carefully. It may be gibberish again to you.

MR. DIAMOND: Maybe.

MR. WOOD: It's not gibberish in Atlanta. Maybe it is out in LA on the left side.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You don't fight the general concept, sir, an idea that people are arrested for
crimes that ultimately they are found not guilty of committing?

A. There is a difference between being found not guilty at trial and being innocent, Mr. Wood.

Q. It's the difference between being not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even where there
may be probable cause to arrest, there is a difference, isn't there, sir?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. You don't understand, then, the difference between there being probable cause to arrest
compared to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

A. Yes, I have already answered that.

Q. You do understand it?

A. For the third time.

Q. Is the answer yes for the third time?

A. Yes, for the fourth time.

Q. Thank you. Four times is a rule of thumb. I like to get it at least three, four is even better.
Thank you.

An interesting view of the change in Thomas's linguistic patterns throughout the deposition as well. I wonder what an 'expert' in detecting lies and deceit would say. Adding in the body language from a video would have been even more interesting.

When he made the switch to homicide, it is clear he never understood what was evidence and what was not.

edited to change "homocide" to "homicide". I don't think ST ever worked in "homocide".

He also never understood the use of "honey" vs "vinegar" tactic to open the lines of communication. His mentor, after all, seemed to be Eller.

Let's just say that the cops had arrested Wolf for this - - they could say they had probable cause - he was in the area, his alibi was nonexistant, his girlfriend was ready to testify against him, linking him to SBTC, being angry at AG's business practices, Hi-Tec boots and the cord. He had been beligerant when asked about the case and his handwriting looked similar.

Let's say he had been arrested and then the DNA didn't match, the handwriting was similar but not a match.... same with the cord and boots... let's say that the investigation ended up clearing him.

In the future, if there was ever another arrest, that first FALSE arrest would be used by the defense.

Yes,Thomas may have believed there was probable cause - - but in Colorado, the DA is not supposed to allow that to go to court if he doesn't believe there is enough to actually get a conviction.

Alex Hunter did the right thing - - - the exculpatory evidence was there, he knew it and he made the right decision - - despite pressure from people like Steve Thomas to put the Ramseys in jail and shut the door HARD.

(I archive threads regularly - - but hope you will all look at the older active threads - - if you have a comment - make it before the threads are archived.)