jameson's Links  Terms of Service  News  Chat  Forum Archives  Cord Photos  Email  

jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "Thomas deposition 3 - Jackie and Wolf" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences old depo and interview threads Topic #51
Reading Topic #51
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-16-03, 01:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"Thomas deposition 3 - Jackie and Wolf"
 
   Q. How did -- how did Chris Wolf first become a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder
investigation, Mr. Thomas?

A. Through a citizen informant.

Q. And who was that citizen informant?

A. Jackie Dilson.

Q. Tell me your recollection of what Jackie Dilson did that resulted in Mr. Wolf becoming a suspect
in the Ramsey murder investigation.

A. I participated in a meeting with Jackie Dilson in which she offered an account with some dubious
issues on the front end. She offered a piece of physical evidence that was exculpatory to Mr. Wolf.
There were questions surrounding her stability and mental condition. Nonetheless, we investigated Mr.
Wolf over a period of approximately 12 to 15 months, during which time Ms. Wolf's --

MR. DIAMOND: Ms. Wolf?

A. I'm sorry, Ms. Dilson's accounts grew increasingly suspicious by way of making admissions and
information known to us in a less than timely fashion. And then continuing to supply information that
became increasingly void of credibility, including linking Access Graphics and Lockheed Martin in some
conspiracy involving arms sales to "Third World countries and Chris Wolf planting by way of this
conspiracy somehow a stun gun video inside the Ramsey home. Additionally, she tried to implicate Mr.
Wolf in other crimes, including another homicide, and another individual or team of detectives were
assigned to attempt a different tact with Mr. Wolf and were successful in gaining his compliance and
cooperation, and I was made aware that they subsequently internally cleared him from involvement in
the Ramsey matter.

MR. DIAMOND: Before you ask him the next question, may I have a minute with the witness?

MR. WOOD: If we note on the record the time and it's not charged against us.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 10:17. We're going off the record.

MR. WOOD: We don't have to go off the record.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Oh, never mind. We're still on the record.

MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Had you completed your answer?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, if I am hearing you, yougave me kind of a general overview of theChris Wolf matter as
pertains to JackieDilson that apparently she came to you as acitizen informant, the Boulder
PoliceDepartment, provided information and then as that information was investigated, apparently you,
perhaps others, felt that it was not necessarily credible and had suspicions about it as it pertains to
Jackie Dilson, am I right?

A. If you're asking me were there questions about Jackie Dilson's credibility, yes.

Q. But you didn't know that the first day you met her, I mean you accepted on face value the
information and you followed up on it to investigate Mr. Wolf, true?

A. No, no, other detectives and myself who were present at that immediately had serious questions
about her stability and credibility.

Q. But not so much so that you did not follow up on it, true?

A. We followed up on dozens of such suspects who came to us by way of citizen information.

Q. We know it is true that Chris Wolf was a Boulder Police Department suspect in the JonBenet
Ramsey investigation, right?

A. You used the word suspect. That was always an issue inside the police department who would
and wouldn't be on this proverbial suspect list. But as we sit here today, certainly he, among many
others, I considered a suspect in the case.

Q. And you later learned that the district attorney's office viewed Mr. Wolf as a suspect, true?

A. True in that, after the fact, I came to learn that they were conducting some investigation that I
had been previously unaware of.

Q. It is clear from your involvement that Mr. Wolf became a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey
murder investigation as a result of Jackie Dilson, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Several months later, it was several months after January of 1997 before any information was
provided by the Ramsey -- John and Patsy Ramsey's investigators to law enforcement about Mr. Wolf;
is that true?

A. I'm sorry, give me that time line again, Mr. Wood.

Q. Yeah, several -- if this helps any at all as I understand it, and you may tell me you don't know or
you may agree with me, Steve Ainsworth started looking into Chris Wolf in August of 1997. Does that
coincide with your recollection?

A. No.

Q. When do you think Steve Ainsworth began to look at him?

A. June of 1997.

Q. Okay. Subsequent to that, the Ramseys' investigators began to provide some information to the
district attorney's office about Mr. Wolf; is that your understanding?

A. I have no personal knowledge of what the Ramsey investigators were or weren't doing.

Q. They didn't provide you with any information about Mr. Wolf, did they?

A. Me personally, no, not that I'm aware of.

Q. Are you aware of any information that the Ramsey investigators provided to the Boulder Police
Department about Mr. Wolf?

A. I can't speak for others, but certainly none came to me directly.

Q. You were operating from the standpoint that you were following up on Ms. Dilson's information
and developing and investigating that information and any leads or other areas that your investigation
might take you with respect to Chris Wolf, true?

A. Mr. Wolf, if I understand it correctly, if you're asking me if I was following up on information that
Dilson was --

Q. Mr. Wood. That's okay.

A. I'm sorry, Mr. Wood, that Ms. Dilson was providing regarding Chris Wolf, yes, I was doing that.

Q. You said when she first came to you she provided you with a piece of exculpatory evidence.
What was that?

A. From a pillow case, Ms. Dilson produced a length of rope that was immediately visually
inconsistent to the persons present with the murder ligature in the homicide case.

Q. Well, now how is that exculpatory. You're saying it wouldn't be incriminating but how does it as
a piece of evidence prove to be exculpatory of Mr. Wolf?

A. It may be a choice of words on my behalf but she did not produce us -- or produce any physical
evidence that incriminated him. There was nothing that she produced that evening by way of physical
evidence that included him in the running, so to speak.

Q. That would be a better way of phrasing it than to say it was exculpatory, wouldn't you agree?

A. I won't quibble with you on that, Mr. Wood.

Q. I don't want you to quibble with me. I want you to tell me whether it's a more accurate statement
that the evidence that she presented to you with respect to the rope did not incriminate Mr. Wolf, but
nor did it prove to be itself exculpatory of Mr. Wolf, is that accurate?

A. Okay. True, sure.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

 
Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-16-03, 01:36 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "What the Hello????"
In response to message #0
 
   Q. Okay. Tell me about the first time you had a chance to meet Mr. Wolf, what you recall about
that.

A. On a particular date in January of 1997, shortly after Dilson's information, we had Mr. Wolf
brought into the police department in which we had a rather unpleasant exchange and little or no
information was obtained from him at that time.

Q. Was his conduct at that time what you would characterize as suspicious?

A. Everything depends on context but he was not, certainly not cooperative.

Q. Well, didn't you ask him to write certain words that were from the ransom note found in the
Ramsey house?

A. Yes.

Q. And didn't he refuse to do so?

A. Yes.

Q. That certainly was not consistent with innocence, was it?

A. Sometimes I've found that a lack of cooperation like that may not be any more indicative of guilt
than a cooperative person who turns out to be guilty.

Q. So someone's refusal to cooperate with you by either agreeing to an interview or submitting to a
handwriting exemplar is not viewed by you necessarily as being indicative of guilt, true?

A. It's not evidence.

Q. Well, you said, I believe, that you have found that a lack of cooperation like that may not be any
more indicative of guilt than a cooperative person who turns out to be guilty; is that right?

A. Yeah, in response to your question.

Q. So let me put it in the terms that you put it. It is not evidence of guilt by simply refusing to
cooperate with the police by either agreeing to an interview or submitting to a handwriting exemplar,
true?

A. Are you reading back to me my statement or your question?

Q. I'm asking you a question. Don't worry about what I'm reading; I'm asking you a question.

A. Repeat the question for me, please.

Q. It is not evidence of guilt on the part of someone who simply refuses to cooperate with the police
by either agreeing to an interview or submitting to a handwriting exemplar, true?

MR. DIAMOND: If that's what he said that doesn't make sense.

A. I have lost you one more time, Mr. Wood.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You don't understand the question?

A. No.

Q. An individual who is not cooperative and does not agree to a police interview or agree to a police
request to provide a handwriting exemplar, that refusal to cooperate is not evidence of that individual's
guilt, true?

A. I would agree with that.

Q. Thank you.

A. In that context.

Q. In what context?

A. We're talking about Mr. Wolf here.

Q. Well, I was talking about any individual.

A. Then repeat the question to me, please.

Q. An individual who is not cooperative and does not agree to a police interview or agree to a police
request to provide a handwriting exemplar, that individual's refusal to cooperate is not itself evidence of
that individual's guilt, true?

A. That is not evidence you can take to a judge in an affidavit, certainly not.

Q. Not evidence of guilt?

A. Not evidence in a courtroom, as I understand it.

Q. Okay.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-16-03, 01:49 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "he doesn't know why Wolf was cleared???"
In response to message #1
 
   Q. Okay. The -- there is the use of the word hobbled, do you know what that means?

A. In the context of police work?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does that mean to hobble somebody?

A. When you have a violent or a physically resistive or combative individual or suspect who you
cannot otherwise control, the hobbling procedure, as I understand it, beyond handcuffs behind the back
include restraining the ankles and legs through the use of what is called a hobble.

Q. When you first met Chris Wolf and had this incident you have generally described for us, did you
have to hobble him?

A. I think I was involved in that personally. He was hobbled before he was transported to jail.

Q. Who helped you hobble him?

A. There were other officers present and I don't know that -- I can't speak for Gosage but if I
participated, and I may very well have, there were other people present, including I think a Detective
Whiten, a traffic sergeant, Detective Chromiak, maybe some uniform people.

Q. Why did you all have to hobble him?

A. Because he was physically uncooperative and resistive.

Q. How did you hobble him? In other words, you said it is always putting handcuffs behind the back
and restraining the ankles and legs. Is that the standard technique?

A. Yes, that's my --

Q. One way to do it?

A. -- that's my recollection of how he was hobbled that day.

Q. Would he let you take a picture of him?

A. No.

Q. Did you get any information from him in terms of being able to get answers to any questions?

A. As was the case with most of the interviews, I'm sure there's a transcription that will bear it out,
but I don't recall, as we sit here today, what information we may have gotten from him in that interview
room that particular day.

Q. Do you know if you got any?

A. As I sit here now, I don't know that we got any information from him that day, maybe beyond the
name, rank, serial number type of personal information.

Q. Do you know how it came to be that he was stopped by the Boulder Police Department and
brought to the office?

A. I do.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. The confidential informant in this case --

Q. That's Ms. Dilson?

A. Ms. Dilson.

Q. Okay.

A. Wanted to remain confidential as she had some concerns. And in attempting to maintain her CI
status, we used a ruse with some information that she had provided us about Mr. Wolf's driving record
and had him stopped and picked up legally on that basis.

Q. Why did you want him to provide you with a handwriting exemplar from the Ramsey ransom
note?

A. Because when information came into the Boulder Police Department suggesting as in this case as
detailed as Jackie Dilson made it appear, someone's possible involvement in this homicide, we had to
have some sort of initial screening process that was done on scores of people where you try to obtain
non-testimonial physical evidence to see if there was anything linking a particular individual to the
ransom note or the crime, as well as a preliminary interview and/or alibi confirmation.

Q. You didn't on -- in January you did not get a preliminary interview with Chris Wolf, right, tried but
failed?

A. That's right.

Q. Didn't get a handwriting exemplar, right?

A. That's right.

Q. Didn't get any non testimony -- testimonial physical evidence from him, did you?

A. No, sir.

Q. He really, short of not cooperating and becoming violent sufficiently that he had to be hobbled,
you really weren't able to conduct any type of an initial screening process on Chris Wolf in January of
1997, true?

A. True.

Q. And then it was 1998, February of 1998, when you were finally able to get him to provide
non-testimonial evidence?

A. As I said earlier, I'm not real sure of the date or it being February but I'll --

Q. Take a look at your book; it may be helpful in that. 271, the bottom of the page. "On February
25th the mayor chewed me out." Does that help you?

A. Sure.

Q. Okay.

A. I --

Q. So in February of 1998, that's when the Boulder Police Department first obtained non-testimonial
evidence from Chris Wolf, hair sample, DNA sample, and handwriting exemplar, right?

A. To my knowledge, yes.

Q. What was his alibi?

A. Well, as I mentioned earlier very briefly, after this difficult encounter with Mr. Wolf by Detective
Gosage and myself, it was determined at some level to attempt a different tact at gaining his
cooperation. And so they put Detective Weinheimer, possibly others, on to that lead and they took it
from there. And I don't know, I don't have any personal knowledge of how they wound up coming to
the determination that he was cleared other than letting the others in the investigative team know that
he had been sufficiently cleared.

Q. You don't know on what basis?

A. I don't.

Q. You don't know what Chris Wolf's alibi was?

A. I do not


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-16-03, 04:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "discrediting Jackie?"
In response to message #2
 
  

Q. Chris Wolf has indicated to us that he was never asked to take a polygraph exam. Do you have
any factual information to dispute that?

A. I don't have any knowledge of that.

Q. If Jackie Dilson said Chris Wolf lived with her and that I believe she woke on the morning of the
26th of December and he was coming out of the shower and that his clothes were dirty, do you recall
that being information provided by Ms. Dilson?

A. Yes.

Q. If that were his only alibi, that is to say, well, I was at home with Jackie Dilson who I lived with at
the time and Jackie Dilson who he lived with at the time came to the police with suspicions that he
might have been involved in the murder, wouldn't you ask Mr. Wolf to, as you say, sit down on the box,
get on the box and take a polygraph exam to see how he did on that alibi?

A. Certainly. There are many people in this case I would have liked to have steered toward the box.

Q. I'm asking you about Mr. Wolf. Wouldn't that be standard procedure with an alibi that is related
only to being with the person who thinks that you may have been involved in the murder that you would
say, well, Mr. Wolf, if that's your alibi that you weren't out that night let's put it -- put you on a
polygraph exam and see what you say; wouldn't that be standard procedure?

A. Certainly in some departments but it had been my experience that the Boulder Police Department
had never embraced and had no policy, that I'm aware of, in place regarding polygraphy.

Q. So there was no standard practice in the Boulder Police Department about when to seek a
polygraph examination from a suspect?

A. For example, in other departments who have in-house polygraphers.

Q. Well, I'm asking you about the Boulder Police Department?

A. I'm trying to get to that.

Q. Let's get to that for me, if you would, please.

MR. DIAMOND: Let him finish.

A. Regarding the Boulder Police Department, there was no in-house polygrapher and it didn't appear
to me that there was any sort of a policy in place, although I personally favored the use of polygraphs in
some cases. In which to -- and how it was necessarily applied, we certainly were able to polygraph
some other potential suspects in this case but I don't know that Mr. Wolf ever was.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You don't have any basis to dispute his statement that he was never asked to
take a polygraph, do you?

A. No.

Q. And do you -- are you aware of any efforts by the Boulder Police Department to ever obtain Mr.
Wolf's computer and the hard drive from his computer to have it analyzed as part of its thorough
investigation?

A. If I recall correctly, Jackie Dilson early in this investigation of Mr. Wolf had volunteered to me
that she would supply me with items belonging to Mr. Wolf, bed sheets, underwear, writings, et cetera,
and I explained to her that she could not act as an agent on behalf of law enforcement. And she may
have volunteered the computer equipment you mentioned.

Q. But you didn't accept her offer?

A. I couldn't.

Q. Because you thought it would raise questions of chain of custody and admissibility?

A. Not because I thought so. Because that, if my understanding is correct and I think the legal
advisor and even Hofstrom, you can't have a private citizen act as an agent on your behalf to
circumvent a search warrant.

Q. Well, you couldn't -- you could test the material and gain potentially valuable information even if
that information might not be admissible in court, couldn't you, sir?

A. I wasn't trained that way in the least. And I know from dope work, you can't use a citizen to act
as your agent.

Q. So if Jackie Dilson walks in and says here is a piece of evidence, here is a rope --

A. Sir.

Q. -- did you tell her, did you say wait a minute, I can't take that rope from you, Ms. Dilson?

A. Very different.

Q. How is that different --

A. Here we --

Q. -- her offering to bring you articles of clothing or his computer?

A. It's my understanding, and here is the difference, is she volunteered evidence on the front end
without any prior knowledge on our behalf, which is acceptable, according to our in-house legal
advisor. But when an individual makes it known to you as a detective that they would go out and seek
to gather evidence on your behalf and bring that to you for testing, that's entirely inappropriate.

Q. Did you have after Mr. -- based on Ms. Dilson's statements to you and Mr. Wolf's actions when
you had him brought in under the ruse, did you have probable cause at that time in your view to obtain a
search warrant of Ms. Dilson's property to obtain items of evidence to be analyzed?

A. As a matter of fact, I went to Mr. Hofstrom, at the time the chief trial deputy in the DA's office,
and this was just one of scores of examples in which we needed the power of the DA's office either
through warrant or preferably grand jury subpoena to secure evidence. And during the course of, it's
been my experience, during the course of '97 and '98 received certainly no grand jury, but very little
support from Mr. Hofstrom in the DA's office and in this case made my Detective Sergeant Wickman
aware of our inability based mostly on the DA's office reluctance to move forward further investigating
Wolf at that time.

Q. Thank you. My question was, did you have in your mind probable cause sufficient to obtain a
search warrant of Ms. Dilson's residence to obtain items of evidence based on the information she had
provided to you and the conduct of Mr. Wolf when you had him in the office under the ruse?

MR. DIAMOND: Did he conclude then or are you asking him to look now in hindsight?

MR. WOOD: I think my question is extremely clear.

MR. DIAMOND: Reread it, please.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I would be glad to do it. My question was, did you have in your mind
probable cause sufficent to obtain a search warrant of Ms. Dilson's residence to obtain items of
evidence based on the information she had provided to the department and the conduct of Mr. Wolf
when you had him in the police department under the ruse. Did you think as a police officer that you
had probable cause to get a warrant to get these items and property?

A. I understand the question, Mr. Wood.

Q. Okay. Thank you. What is the answer?

A. The answer is one of the items that I or anyone else would have relied on to put within the four
corners of a warrant affidavit did not include any physical evidence and would have been based almost
solely on the information provided by an unreliable, mentally unstable informant. And I would have had
-- I don't know that I would have put forth my name on a search warrant affidavit and taken it to a
judge based solely on Jackie Dilson's information.

Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you based on Jackie Dilson's information and Mr. Wolf's conduct
when you had him in the department under the ruse?

A. Well, I'm not making my answer clear obviously to you.

Q. I don't think you are but maybe I'm not understanding it.

A. No. I'm saying I did not have sufficient facts and circumstances to put in a warrant affidavit.

Q. When did you conclude that Jackie Dilson was unreliable and mentally unstable? Did you
conclude that on the first meeting with her?

A. Yes, Mr. Wood. And I suggest you read that transcript and the comments of the other detectives
walking out of the office that night. It was -- she had, God bless her, mental health problems. She's on
medication. She's an alcoholic and just was not deemed terribly reliable. But nonetheless, we chose to
move forward with that information and look at Mr. Wolf.

Q. Let me make sure I understand how the Boulder Police Department was working now. You
were involved at this time specifically with Chris Wolf, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So if I understand you --

MR. DIAMOND: Can he answer the question?

A. At what time?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said yes, at this time in January of 1997 so here is what I understand.
You, Mr. Thomas, as a detective of the Boulder Police Department took an individual that you decided
in one meeting was on medication, was an alcoholic, was not reliable, had mental problems, was
mentally unstable, and you set up a ruse to have a man brought into the Boulder Police Department to
try to get him to give you a handwriting exemplar of the Ramsey note, to try to get his photograph, and
then you hobbled this man based on an informant that you tell me today was an alcoholic, mentally
unstable and unreliable; is that the way you did business with Mr. Wolf?

A. She provided sufficient details that warranted looking further at Mr. Wolf.

Q. So, I mean, you felt like you then did have a legitimate basis to investigate Mr. Wolf as a suspect
in the case, even though you had some concerns about Ms. Dilson's reliability and mental status; is that
a fair statement?

A. As I just said, there -- she provided some sufficient details to look further at Mr. Wolf in this
case.

Q. So you felt like, then, that you did have a legitimate basis to investigate Mr. Wolf as a suspect in
the case even though you had some concerns about Ms. Dilson's reliability and mental status; is that a
fair statement?

A. Yes.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-16-03, 05:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "discounting Thomas' evaluation?"
In response to message #3
 
   Q. Do you, again, I'm sorry if I didn't hear you or understand you earlier, you don't know whether
any search warrant was ever issued with respect to Chris Wolf, do you, firsthand knowledge or you
have none and hearsay otherwise you have not heard of any search warrant?

A. I know Steve Ainsworth was out there, I believe. And there was some discussion regarding that,
but I don't know if he was out there by way of a search warrant or not, I would doubt it.

Q. Do you know what was done with the pillow case that Jackie Dilson brought to the Boulder
Police Department when you first met with her?

A. Actually, she didn't come to the Boulder Police Department. We met her at a third-party
location.

Q. Where was that?

A. The office of her attorney.

Q. Did you all ever ask her to submit to any type of mental health examination?

A. Jackie Dilson?

Q. Yes.

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. What was your basis for concluding that she was mentally instable -- unstable?

A. Ten or 11 years of police work in dealing with thousands of people, but beyond that I think the
transcript of that exchange and some of what I have earlier mentioned about Third World conspiracies
led me to that conclusion.

Q. Do you have any formal training in psychology?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any formal training in psychiatry?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any license to conduct mental health examinations?

A. No.

Q. You told me that you all met at a third party's office but you didn't tell me what I wanted to know
and, that is, do you know what was done with the pillow case that Jackie Dilson presented to the
Boulder police when you first met with her?

A. If my recollection is accurate, I believe Detective Gosage took custody and maintained that chain
on that piece of aforementioned rope. But I do not know whether or not he took the pillow case.

Q. And you don't know firsthand or secondhand, hearsay or otherwise if any testing was ever done
on the pillow case, forensic testing; is that right?

A. When you mentioned hearsay or third hand, again, it was my understanding that she delivered to
the Boulder County district attorney's office and their investigators a number of items subsequent to our
meeting.


(jameson comment - - I am going to try to divide these things up and put the bits on threads that are related so the deposition will not be "in order" here. When I post the whole thing in one place it will be in order.)


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-17-03, 01:01 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "more from depo"
In response to message #4
 
   Q. Thank you. Do you know the names? You gave me a couple but for the record I would like to
make sure I've got them. I would like to get the names of the Boulder police officers who took over in
effect the Chris Wolf case. You gave me a couple; let's make sure we've got them all. Could you give
them to me now on the record?

A. I think Commander Beckner assigned Detective Carey Weinheimer to complete the Chris Wolf
investigation in early to spring of '98.

Q. Anyone else?

A. I don't know if he was working with a partner or not.

Q. That's the only name you know?

A. Right.

Q. And I take it you don't know firsthand or secondhand what caused the Boulder Police
Department to go back and choose to investigate Wolf and get his non-testimonial evidence in
February of 1998?

A. What prompted that?

Q. Yeah.

A. That he was still outstanding, if you will.

Q. A suspect?

A. It's whatever you want to call him.

Q. What did you call him?

A. There were several people who were suspicious in this case to me and I'm not going to quibble if
we want to attach suspect to Chris Wolf.

Q. It's the word you used in your book you referred to him as a suspect, didn't you?

A. As I said, I don't have a problem with calling Chris Wolf a suspect.

Q. Any -- did Darnay Hoffman or Chris Wolf ever make any demands on you to retract the
statement that he was a suspect in your book or threaten to sue you for publishing a book calling him a
suspect?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Just a couple more, then we'll break. Are you aware of Mr. Wolf's prior employment history?

A. My encounter with Mr. Wolf, as you said, yielded little information. Other than what Jackie
Dilson may have provided, I don't know.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-17-03, 04:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "mid-depo"
In response to message #5
 
   Q. What was your understanding as to Chris Wolf's employment at the time you first began to
investigate him in January of 1997?

A. Again, as I said, just what Jackie Dilson had supplied verbally.

Q. What was that?

A. And that was, I think she described him as either a current or a one-time exotic dancer.

Q. What did she say that meant? Did you say what does an exotic dancer do, Ms. Dilson; did you
ask her that?

A. No; I assumed it was a stripper.

Q. Did you ever to your knowledge with the Boulder Police Department while thoroughly
investigating Mr. Wolf ever obtain any indication that he might have been involved in illegal sexual acts
for money?

A. Again, he wasn't cooperative with me and Gosage in our attempt, so I don't know that.

Q. But you stayed on him for a year according to your book?

A. He remained on this list, if you will, for approximately a year.

Q. And you stayed on him because you put up with Jackie Dilson for a year you said in your book,
didn't you?

A. Two parts, yes, I put up with Jackie Dilson for a year, but Chris Wolf was -- that assignment was
reassigned.

Q. Well, but again relying on your other police officers, did you ever learn anything about any
information compiled by the thorough investigation efforts on Chris Wolf that would in any way indicate
that Mr. Wolf might have performed such acts as, let's say, go into an all-male strip party and allowing
members at the party, men, to perform oral sex on him?

A. No, if you're suggesting if I was aware that there were allegations that Mr. Wolf was engaged in
male prostitution or hustling, I was unaware of that until now.

Q. I'm not making an allegation. I'm asking you what your investigation found. I am asking you if
there was any indication of any such conduct by Mr. Wolf. Any indication that Mr. Wolf ever worked
at a photography company where he took pictures of children, team sports ages as young as four to 15,
14, 15 years of age; did you get any information about that?

A. Again, I was not successful with my attempts at interviewing Mr. Wolf, so, no, I did not know
that.

Q. Did you ever ask -- in the thorough investigation, though, that your officers that you rely on
conducted, did you ever find out whether there was any indication that Mr. Wolf might be a user of
illegal drugs at the time frame of '94, '95, '96?

A. Again, I have told you, I don't know the breadth or depth of Weinheimer's investigation prior to
clearing him.

Q. But relying on Weinheimer in this case and others as you did, right --

A. (Deponent nods head.)

Q. -- you would have fully expected Detective Weinheimer in a thorough investigation to get those
kinds of information, or at least to get details about Mr. Wolf's lifestyle and prior employment and
questions about whether he used drugs. Those would be part of a thorough investigation into this man's
background, wouldn't they, sir?

A. He may have.

Q. Isn't that what you expected him to do?

A. Possibly unless he had other reasons to discount Mr. Wolf.

Q. Well, sir, if you had been in charge of Mr. Wolf's investigation that you say you were not, if he
had been assigned to you, you would have gone back and done that type of a thorough background
investigation, wouldn't you?

A. Not necessarily, Mr. Wood. If, for example, in the first day, a detective was able to corroborate
an alibi for Mr. Wolf, then you likely would not have gone to all this extra trouble.

Q. Except here you know that would be impossible since the only alibi he could have offered would
be to have been in the house with a woman who thought he was involved in the murder?

A. No. Because Ms. Dilson made that allegation. I did not have his side of the story. He may very
well have put himself at a different location with an independent witness.

Q. Apparently that hadn't happened here because you know that into 1998 Mr. Wolf was still being
investigated by the Boulder Police Department as a suspect in this case giving non-testimonial evidence,
hair, fiber, handwriting, right?

A. Correct.

Q. That would indicate the alibi didn't get him off the hook in terms of investigation for over a year,
wouldn't it, sir?

A. Correct.

MR. DIAMOND: You're assuming there was an alibi. I don't know if there is any mention of that --

MR. WOOD: Yeah, I'm just following up on the question of whether he speculated there might be an
alibi. Listen, we don't need to waste time, you know. You've got somewhere to be at 6:30 in terms of
some friends picking you up. Let's go ahead.

MR. DIAMOND: Thank you.

MR. WOOD: I'm trying to make that time frame.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-17-03, 05:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: mid-depo"
In response to message #6
 
   Was he actually working as a DETECTIVE???

Hell, a few posters passed him before he quit the case - and kept on learning after - - - -

this man is no Ramsey expert - -

He can't remember which Ramsey - John or Patsy - went to bed first on Christmas night - - or who got out of bed first?

He doesn't know where his Ramsey files are - - hasn't seen them in months and has brain fade without an opportunity to review those files.

And here he didn't know much about a suspect - - but I guess to him it wasn't important - he knew Patsy did it.

So using Foster as his handwriting expert was OK - - as long as the charlatan was telling him what he wanted to hear.

And not knowing the facts about the sheets - - the traces of creatinine became smells and stains...

Where was the man's curiosity? Where were the questions and attempts to get answers? NOWHERE!

This former detective, IMO, is as much a charlatan as Foster.

This deposition is causing me to feel a lot less .... I like Thomas less than before. What was he doing playing detective?????


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
May-18-03, 02:06 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: mid-depo"
In response to message #7
 
   Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Was there a transcript from a tape recording of the first interview of Jackie
Dilson, because you made reference that I should look at the transcript, that tells me that maybe it was
recorded and it was transcribed?

A. I would -- it was Detective Gosage and my policy and practice in this case to try and record
witness interviews when feasible and we may very well have taken a tape recorder -- as a matter of
fact, I would have to answer, yes, I believe we did record and have transcribed that interview.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic