Part 1 Steve’s Media I know she works with Dr. Laura as a producer with that radio show. Did you have any flurry of phone calls from the media Do you have a website? have you ever been sued in any other matters? Part 2 Steve’s Investigation Notes what happened to your JonBenet Ramsey working papers Where are those documents? Sir, if you will be polite, we will be polite, also. So you were involved as a detective in other homicide investigations? And that's the only one, the only internal affairs investigation? Part 3 Chris Wolf Investigation That certainly was not consistent with innocence, was it? That's Ms. Dilson? Well, I'm asking you about the Boulder Police Department? I did not have sufficient facts and circumstances to put in a warrant affidavit. Chris Wolf's handwriting There was a huge controversy about the DNA Part 4 Elimination by Way of Evidence He may very well have fallen into that “majority of no evidence” Wickman came back from CBI and told that to John Eller And was he cleared with respect to the Susannah Chase murder? He eliminated everybody, Don Foster did, didn't he? it's impossible that anyone else wrote it according to Don Foster, right? Part 5 Collection & Storage of Documents between you and Jeff Shapiro when you were in Quantico, Did Mr. -- actually Commander Beckner tell you that personally? Did Chief Koby ever express an opinion "Alex Hunter said he thought Patsy Ramsey was involved." Did they offer any insight or any analysis of the ransom note? Part 6  Master Affidavit could you please describe what a master affidavit is? sort of analysis was actually done in the report of the handwriting? five separate handwriting samples on five separate occasions? she began the 'Mr. and Mrs. I,' then also abandoned that false start. Part 7 Burke heard on the Tape What the FBI had to say about the 911 tape? You knew the state of the evidence as it existed in the case as of March 2001, between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt? other experts that reviewed Patsy Ramsey's handwriting As I said, I don't have a problem with calling Chris Wolf a suspect. Part 8 something at the end of the conversation that was unintelligible. who did you consider to be the most experienced homicide detective could have been eaten the day before? NOAA indicated they would not have expected snow there; is that right? Part 9 War and Peace of Ransom Notes the Ramseys made several inconsistent statements -- When was Steven Pitt hired? Do you have any experience, formal training, Whose idea was it to go down to the basement first You don't know the answer to whether they were wet or not? Part 10 Wet Bed Sheets Possibly unless he had other reasons to discount Mr. Wolf. Do you consider Fleet and Priscilla White personal friends of yours? I don't know that I've ever met Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, no. put forth the bed-wetting, toileting, and rage scenarios. Do you think John and Patsy Ramsey had tough moments Part 11 John and Patsy as Suspects I think Mr. Thomas knows that is absolutely the case, don't you? Detective Trujillo would know that. I don't. You can't answer that question today, is that what you're telling me? Nor would it disqualify Bill McReynolds in and of itself, true? How many conversations did you have with Mr. Shapiro? admit that I spoke with Ann Bardach. Part 12  Why Did You Misrepresent the Truth In Your Book? How about the two friends of Fleet White that were there, transcript from a tape recording of the first interview of Jackie Dilson, We never found the roll of duct tape The same pen wrote the practice note that wrote the ransom note. I may be confused about which one was with the CBI or taught Mr. Ubowski? Mr. Ubowski was retracting any statements Part 13 FBI Involvement concluded there was no stun gun involved at all, distance part of the two set matched pairs? prosecutors privy to that evidence are bound by grand jury secrecy Mr. Hofstrom was making a number of deals with the Ramsey attorneys. aware that there has been accusations against you 50-plus point probable cause board. Part 14 Fingerprints, Pineapple not familiar with any -- phone company here having any capability to do that. I mean, there is a level of animosity between the two of you Ms. America was the least she could have been." Am I reading that correctly? Patsy's handwriting was the only one that set off alarm bells, If the Ramseys had been some poor Mexican couple, should not allow any police officer to become an emperor

Part 1 Steve’s Media

The attorneys will identify themselves beginning with the attorney on the left and the deponent's right.

MR. WOOD: My name is Lin Wood. I represent John and Patsy Ramsey.

MR. RAWLS: I'm Jim Rawls. I'm co-counsel with Lin Wood representing John and Patsy Ramsey.

MR. GRAY: My name is Ollie Gray. I'm an investigator in this case.

MR. DIAMOND: I am Chuck Diamond of O'Melveny & Myers representing the witness,

Steve Thomas.

MR. SMITH: I'm Sean Smith, and I also represent Steve Thomas.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Also, on the phone.

MR. WOOD: Your turn, Darnay.

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm Darnay Hoffman, and I represent the Plaintiff, Robert Christian Wolf.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The reporter will now swear in the witness.

MR. WOOD: You ready for us?

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Yes, we're ready to swear in the witness.

MR. WOOD: Would you swear the witness, please.

STEVEN THOMAS, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY-MR.WOOD:

This will be the deposition of Steve Thomas. The deposition is taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition is taken pursuant to subpoena duly served and notice duly filed and also pursuant to the order and rulings of Judge Jewell Carnes in denying Mr. Thomas' motion to quash the subpoena. And I would also note for the record that within the ruling of Judge Carnes' counsel for Mr. Thomas and for the parties have agreed as to the date and the location of the deposition. I understand that Mr. Thomas will read and sign the deposition. We would agree that can be undertaken before an authorized notary public. Everybody set?

MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) All right. Mr. Thomas, you've been sworn. Let me ask you for the record, please, to state your full name.

A. My full name is William Steven Walton Thomas.

Q. You go by Steve?

A. I do.

Q. Do you have any preference? I'll probably call you Mr. Thomas but if you would rather I call you Steve or something you just let me know?

A. Steve, Mr. Thomas.

Q. All right. I may bounce back and forth. What is your –

MR. DIAMOND: Let's stay on a last-name basis. It is a sworn testimony.

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Well, let me ask you this if you would, Mr. Thomas, would you give me your present residence address?

REDACTED

A. MR. DIAMOND: That's what I think he wanted.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you have any present plans to move from that residence?

A. Ultimately I will leave Colorado, but, no, for the moment, that's where I'm residing.

Q. Do you have any plans even though they may be tentative in terms of when you would hope to leave Colorado?

A. Certainly not before this matter is resolved.

Q. This matter being the Chris Wolf case or this matter being the lawsuit filed by John and Patsy Ramsey against you?

A. Both.

Q. Okay. So, we would be safe to say you're here in Colorado at least through the duration of those two matters; is that true?

A. Yes.

REDACTED

MR. WOOD: take it. If you have an instruction to the witness to make, make it and we'll move onto the next question.

MR. DIAMOND: We'll designate that confidential. We can talk about that at the conclusion of the deposition.

MR. WOOD: Sure. We're going to have at some point a protective order to present you with that you all will have the opportunity to sign onto.

MR. DIAMOND: Yeah, I've seen that.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, and that would protect that information if he wants to give it to me. If you all want to then designate it within the time period allowed by law so subject to that designation I assume you will let him answer.

MR. DIAMOND: I will. REDACTED

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) MR. DIAMOND: Do you know? If you don't know, you don't know.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) That's something you could get copies of down the road if we need it I'm sure, true?

A. I'm sure we have those somewhere.

Q. Okay. Do you have any other -- do you engage in any other present activities for compensation in terms of trying to earn money, other than your business as a carpenter?

A. Occasionally I'm asked to speak.

Q. Speak in what capacity?

A. Occasionally I'm asked to speak to different groups, law enforcement primarily.

Q. Do you solicit invitations to speak from organizations?

A. Recently we have in conjunction with some defense fund raising.

Q. When you say "we have" who is we?

A. People who are helping me with that legal defense fund raising.

Q. Who is "we" then, please, by name?

A. Sherill Whisenand.

Q. Anyone else?

A. No.

Q. And what is Sherill Wisinhunt?

MR. DIAMOND: Whisenand.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Whisenand. When did you first meet her?

A. I probably first spoke with her in 1999.

Q. And who is she employed with?

A. Currently I believe she's self-employed.

Q. What is the name of her company, do you know?

A. I also think she -- I do think she also has other employment but the name of her company is Wise Connections.

Q. Is she a public relations person?

A. I don't know how she bills herself.

Q. What do you see her as?

A. A friend.

Q. You don't know what her business is?

A.

I know she works with Dr. Laura as a producer with that radio show.

Q. You don't know what type of business she does in connection with her work Wise Connections?

A. Yes, she helps me with speaking.

Q. Did she form that company Wise Connections just to help you?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know whether it existed before she met you?

A. I don't know.

Q. How did you come to meet her?

A. Through a mutual friend.

Q. Who is that?

A. Anthony Robbins.

Q. Tony Robbins, the fellow we see on TV?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did you -- I'm sorry. You first spoke with her, is that when you met her in 1999?

A. No, I did not meet her in person until some point after that. I spoke with her for a period of time on the telephone.

Q. And I assume that that was in connection with, what, raising funds did you tell me?

A. At what point are you talking about --

Q. When you met --

A. -- when I first met her?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, I wasn't raising funds in 1999. When I first met her was simply we struck up a friendship when I was calling Tony Robbins' office.

Q. When did you get into, in effect, a business relationship with her, when did that start?

A. I think at some point I was tired of taking media calls and the calls for speaking and she volunteered to take those for me.

Q. When did that happen?

A. Probably late '99, 2000, sometime during the calendar year of 2000.

Q. Or late the calendar year of 1999?

A. Possibly. I don't recall.

Q. Well, your answer was when I said when did that happen you said probably late '99, 2000, sometime during the calendar year 2000; is that correct?

A. I'm trying to give you a sense for when that occurred.

MR. DIAMOND: What's your best recollection? I'm sorry, I lost the thread. The time period –

MR. WOOD: I'm trying to find out -- yeah, hold on one second, I'll tell you exactly. I asked him the date of when he entered into, in effect, a business relationship with her, the date.

A. I think it would have been the calendar year sometime during 2000 because that's when the calls and the requests came.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me see if this will help you. Was it prior to the publication of your book?

A. I don't recall, but as I mentioned I think when I had her take over these calls and requests was after the flurry, after the book was released.

Q. Does that lead you to believe that in probability you did not engage in a business relationship with Sherill Whisenand until after the April 2000 publication of your book "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"?

A. Well, there's not a bright line in my head because I still consider her a friend and when that transitioned at some point to some business work the friendship certainly didn't cease and that doesn't stand out in my head.

Q.

Did you have any flurry of phone calls from the media

prior to the publication of your book?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you handle all of those or do you recall Sherill Whisenand handling some of them?

A. She may have handled some of those.

Q. So that tells me it may be that you were involved in a business relationship with her prior to the publication of your book possibly?

A. Well, when you say business relationship --

Q. When she's handling media calls for you?

A. The fact that she took calls for me she certainly did that as a friend as well because she volunteered to do that. (Exhibit-1 was marked.)

MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, I expect you're going to tie this into a line of questioning that has to do with the work that he did as a police investigator in connection with the Ramsey case?

MR. WOOD: Stay tuned. I'm going to let you look at it and I'm going to ask him questions about it.

MR. DIAMOND: Well, I'm going to limit you to that because that's what this deposition is about.

MR. WOOD: If you have an instruction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to make, Mr. Diamond, feel free to make it. I've asked you to take a look at this exhibit. I'm going to ask Mr. Thomas to take a look at it. It's been marked for purposes of identification as Exhibit 1.

MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You're familiar with the website set up with respect to your lecture for hire, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is, I take it you would agree, a true and correct copy of that website page?

A. That's not from my website, that's from another website, but I'm familiar with that page, yes.

Q. Okay. And this obviously advertises your willingness to lecture on the JonBenet Ramsey case for compensation, true?

MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, the only reason I can see you asking these questions is concerning the jurisdictional debate that we currently have pending –

MR. WOOD: I'm asking what he does for a living.

MR. DIAMOND: You can ask him what he does for a living. He's told you what he does for a living. He's a carpenter and he does public speaking –

MR. WOOD: I'm asking him about that solicitation.

MR. DIAMOND: I'm not going to let you inquire about that.

MR. WOOD: If you have, Mr. Diamond, if you have a -- we're not here to argue with each other and I don't –

MR. DIAMOND: Well –

THE REPORTER: One at a time.

MR. WOOD: Let me finish, then you'll have time.

MR. DIAMOND: Certainly.

MR. WOOD: I simply asked him about this for purposes of establishing what he does for a living in whole or in part. If you have an instruction to make under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, just make it. I don't need to debate it.

MR. DIAMOND: I will.

MR. WOOD: If you instruct him not to answer the question, state the privilege, as I understand that's what you're limited to. State the privilege and make your instruction and we can address it at a later time.

MR. DIAMOND: I'm fully prepared to do that.

MR. WOOD: All right.

MR. DIAMOND: And I intend to do that. I want to give you an opportunity to tell me how this relates to the subject matter of the deposition –

MR. WOOD: I did.

MR. DIAMOND: -- within the framework that Judge Carnes said you were allowed to inquire. And, you know, if you're prepared to tender a good cause showing, I'm happy to let him answer. Obviously, on its face this is going nowhere but to the jurisdictional dispute that my client and your client are currently engaged in unless there is some other reason. He's already told you what he does for a living. I'll have the pending question read, and then I'll decide whether to instruct him or not.

MR. WOOD: I don't think there is a pending question. I think he told me that it was a -- he was familiar with this website and has his own website.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What is your website address?

A. It's not necessarily my website. It's a website that was created by a supporter of mine, and the address is www.forstevethomas.com.

MR. DIAMOND: He wanted to know your website.

Do you have a website?

THE DEPONENT: I thought that was the one he was talking about.

MR. DIAMOND: No. Do you have a website?

THE DEPONENT: No.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) So did you misspeak a minute ago when you said something about your website because you said that's not from my website, that's from another website but I'm familiar with that page. Did you misspeak when you said the words "my website"?

A. There is a website owned by a third party who is a supporter of mine.

Q. Who is that?

A. A woman I know as B.J.

Q. You don't know her full name?

A. Barbara, I don't know her last name.

Q. Do you know where she lives?

A. Ohio.

Q. Where in Ohio?

A. I don't know.

Q. So other than the lecture-for-profit business and the carpentry business, do you have any other employment at the present time?

A. No.

Q. Did you authorize Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 to be posted to solicit speaking engagements?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been deposed before?

A. In a civil proceeding?

Q. Let's start there, in a civil proceeding?

A. No. No.

Q. That makes me believe that you have been deposed in a criminal proceeding; is that true?

A. Well, certainly I'm not familiar with the civil aspect of this as much as I am the criminal half of things. I have given testimony certainly in criminal cases, but I have never been deposed in a setting like this.

Q. The testimony you have given in criminal cases has been, I assume, either in hearings or trials in a courtroom?

A. In front of grand jurors, yeah.

Q. Right. You've never sat in a deposition where no judge is present, no grand jury is present, just the lawyers where we take what is called a deposition; is that your testimony?

A. I was present in a deposition many, many years ago in the 1980s in a police case but I don't recall that I ever had to give testimony.

Q. Was that some sort of a civil lawsuit?

A. Exactly.

Q. Were you a defendant in that matter?

A. The city and myself and other officers, yes.

Q. And where was that?

A. The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado.

Q. Were you sued for a violation of civil rights?

A. No, I don't think that was the basis of the suit.

Q. What was the basis?

A. We stopped a car we believed to be stolen. It turned out not to be and the people felt wronged by that.

Q. So you were sued as a defendant along with others and the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know how that case was resolved?

A. I think it settled.

Q. Moneys paid to the plaintiff?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. On your behalf as well as the city's behalf?

A. I don't know.

Q. But that was -- was that filed in the Wheat Ridge or the County of Wheat Ridge?

A. I don't know.

Q. But in Colorado?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you deposed?

A. That's what I just said, no. I don't -- I don't know that I had to give any testimony in that.

Q. I thought you said you were present for deposition; I may have misunderstood. I don't know if you were there watching someone in attendance or whether you were actually deposed and you're not sure of which; is that right?

A. I recall being in a setting similar to this where the other parties were on the other side of the table and there was some Q and A, but I think it was the other side.

Q. Other than that lawsuit,

have you ever been sued in any other matters?

Obviously we know about the John and Patsy Ramsey lawsuit against you. Other than those two cases, have you ever been sued in a civil case?

A. I don't recall any other, no, civil suit in my capacity as a police officer or as a citizen.

Q. MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, what is that relevant to?

MR. WOOD: Well, it may very well be relevant to jury –

MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry.

MR. WOOD: It may very well be relevant to jury issues.

MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry, to jury issues?

MR. WOOD: Yes, sir. When you select a jury, I may want to know his former wife's residence or name or employment in the jury selection process. Now, let me say this to you, Mr. Diamond, I'm not going to debate relevance. My question is simple. If you have an instruction to make to the witness, make it. But we can't waste time going back and forth discussing relevance. I ask that question of every witness in a deposition. It's done for jury purposes. It's a legitimate question. May we please get an answer and move on?

MR. DIAMOND: You may answer whether or not she lives in the State of Georgia.

Q. Tell me if you would, Mr. Thomas, about what your deposition preparation was in this case. What did you do to prepare for the deposition?

A. I met with my attorneys and they explained to me how –

MR. DIAMOND: You don't need to get into the context.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah, I don't want to know what, unless your attorneys want me to know, I suspect they don't. I don't need to know what you and your attorneys discussed. I would like to know the fact of the meeting, when it took place and how long it lasted.

A. I met on Wednesday, September 19th, with Mr. Sean Smith for several hours and then yesterday, September 20th of 2001, I met again several hours with Mr. Smith and with Chuck Diamond.

Q. Tell me how many hours, your best estimate as to how many hours several hours is on the 19th, let's start there, with Mr. Smith.

A. A full day. We took a long lunch, but I think we began our day at 9:30 a.m. and ended around 5 p.m.

Q. And then yesterday, how long?

A. Similar.

Q. 9:30 to 5 with a lunch break?

A. Yeah, we may have gone past 5 o'clock last evening, maybe 6 or 7 p.m.

Q. And was Mr. Diamond here yesterday during the day?

A. Yes.

Q. At the beginning of your meeting at 9 a.m. or 9:30 a.m.?

A. I certainly believe so.

Q. I only asked because I was under the impression he was not available to be here yesterday but that's all right, that's not an issue for you to worry about. Did you review any written materials in preparation for your deposition?

A. I reviewed my book.

Q. That book being, identified earlier "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." You have a copy of the hard back with you I see?

A. It's a hard back I looked at, yes.

Q. Okay. Did you review any other written materials?

A. No.

Q. Do you have notes that you utilized in writing your book?

A. No, let me interrupt you. I did stuck in -- stuck in this book was a two-page report from the Chris Wolf matter that I did review.

Q. Do you have a copy of that?

A. No.

Q. Is that something we could see?

MR. DIAMOND: What's that?

MR. WOOD: The two-page report on the Chris Wolf matter that he reviewed in preparation, is that something we could take a look at?

MR. DIAMOND: We don't have it, it's not with him today.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Was this something prepared by your attorneys?

A. No.

Q. Who was it prepared by?

A. This was, I found stuck in a book this summer a two-page report that I had written as a police detective on the Jackie Dilson, Chris Wolf matter.

Q. And you have that where presently located?

A. That's probably in a folder sitting at home.

Q. And you will maintain possession of that at my request in the event we decide we would like to ask for that formally, subject to your attorney's agreement that we would be entitled to it down the road?

A. Certainly.

MR. DIAMOND: Happy to hold on to it.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I assume that what you're telling me, Mr. Thomas, is you've got

two pages of notes that you've made yourself

on Chris Wolf relating to the investigation of Chris Wolf?

A. No.

Q. Tell me what exactly, maybe I didn't understand you, what those two pages are.

A. It's not notes. It's a two-page typewritten report that I had prepared.

Q. For the Boulder Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the date of that report?

A. January 1998.

Q. January of '98?

A. I'm sorry, January of 1997.

Q. Okay. Did you prepare any other written reports for the Boulder Police Department about Chris Wolf, other than the two-page report you've referred to that is dated January of 1997?

A. Certainly.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to review them in preparation for your deposition?

A. No.

Q. Do you -- did you have notes from which you relied on in whole or in part in writing your book "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"?

MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, I'm going to instruct him not to answer.

MR. WOOD: On what privilege?

MR. DIAMOND: Not on privilege, the limitation that was imposed by Judge Carnes or the condition in which he allowed this deposition to go forward.

MR. WOOD: Excuse me, I don't know –

MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, you let me finish and I'll let you finish.

MR. WOOD: I apologize for interrupting, but let me say this to you –

MR. DIAMOND: Well, then don't interrupt me. I will finish what I'm saying.

MR. WOOD: Mr. Diamond –

MR. DIAMOND: Maybe –

THE REPORTER: Please, one at a time.

MR. WOOD: Excuse me. We're going to take a break off the record. I'm not going to let you yell at me. Calm down. We'll come back and we'll start again in five minutes. We'll go off the record and not waste deposition time.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is now 9:34. We're going off the record. (Recess taken from 9:35 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.)

 

Part 2 Steve’s Investigation Notes

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 9:45. We're back on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm going to try to make sure I can avoid any problems that Mr. Diamond might have with my question. Let me go back and withdraw the last question and restate it. What I would like to know, Mr. Thomas, is do you have notes pertaining to your involvement in, or the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. The Boulder Police Department has those notes. I don't know that I have any notes.

Q. You left the Department by resignation of August the 6th, right?

A. Yes.

Q. 1998?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you turn over all of your notes to the Boulder Police Department?

A. Shortly thereafter.

Q. Who did you turn them over to?

A. I returned my briefcases and those contents, along with all my police equipment, which was inventoried, to Commander Dave Hayes and Sergeant Michael Ready.

Q. Did you turn over your case notebooks?

A. Everything.

Q. How many case notebooks did you turn over?

A. What do you mean by case notebooks?

Q. Don't you know what the case notebook was used in this case, sir, filled out by all of the detectives on a daily basis?

MR. DIAMOND: He may ask you for an explanation, what you're referring to. You're not going to help him out?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you know, sir, what the case notebooks were in this case in terms of the notebooks prepared by the detectives, I believe on a daily basis?

A. A case notebook that was prepared --

Q. Did you have --

A. -- on a daily basis?

Q. Yes. Did you have a notebook that you kept, maintained with respect to your investigation?

A. I had folders and my working papers which I maintained with respect to my parts of the investigation.

MR. DIAMOND: He's asking about a notebook.

THE DEPONENT: Yeah, I know.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You didn't have them in any notebook form?

A. No.

Q. Now, those working papers, all of that was turned back into the Boulder Police Department shortly after you resigned in August of 1998?

A. Yes.

Q. You maintained no notebooks; is that right?     

A. I maintained copies of those.

Q. So you have copies of your reports?

A. No, I didn't say that. I don't know that I have those copies anymore.

Q. Well, you said you maintained copies. Copies of what?

A. I maintained copies of what was in my working file briefcase which I returned to the Boulder Police Department.

Q. How many pages of documents are we talking about?

A. A couple hundred maybe.

Q. Do you have those presently in your possession, custody or control?

A. No.

A. I don't know.

Q. They just mysteriously disappeared?

A. No, I have moved twice in the interim. We have some things in storage. We, my wife moved overseas. If I still had a cardboard box full of those documents or materials. I'm unaware of their present location.

Q. When do you last recall looking at them or reviewing them? (Discussion off the record between the deponent and Mr. Diamond.)

A. I last looked at those in –

MR. DIAMOND: He has mentioned the first full report that he -- MR. WOOD: Yeah, well, let him answer that.

MR. DIAMOND: Are you excluding that?

MR. WOOD: No, I'm not excluding anything. I want to learn everything.

A. Early 2000.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) How early 2000?

A. Probably February or March.

Q. That was the last time you saw them?

A. Right.

Q. And when did you move?

A. I moved -- I sold my house this summer, summer of 2001.

Q. And did you pack up your possessions?

A. Yes.

Q. So you don't have any explanation to offer as to

what happened to your JonBenet Ramsey working papers

since you last claimed to have seen them sometime in February or March of 19' -- of 2000?

A. Yeah, after I last looked at them, this was a cardboard box full of these documents. And to your question, yeah, I don't know where they are currently.

Q. You did not destroy them intentionally, did you?

A. No.

Q. You didn't intentionally lose them, did you?

A. No.

Q. You didn't think they were valuable to keep?

A. No, not necessarily.

Q. When did you -- in terms of that, you did know at some point that the Ramseys indicated they were going to file a lawsuit against you if you published a book, didn't you?

A. Repeat the question, please.

Q. You knew early on when your book was published that the Ramseys had stated that they were going to file a lawsuit against you?

A. I had heard through the media that they had made those threats.

Q. You didn't think it might be wise to keep up with your notes to have those in the event there was a lawsuit?

A. Those are all available in the Boulder Police Department.

Q. So everything that you had, the 200 pages is available from the Boulder Police Department; is that right?

A. Yes, as I said, I turned everything back to the Boulder Police Department.

Q. In fact, there's quotes in your book, for example, of interview testimony from different individuals. For example, there are quotes alleged to have been made by Burke Ramsey in June of 1998, by John Ramsey in June of 1998, by Patsy Ramsey in June of 1998, by John Ramsey in April of 1997, by Patsy Ramsey in April of 1997 during police or district attorney interviews.

MR. DIAMOND: You'll represent that is the case?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah, well, that is the case, isn't it; you know that to be true, don't you?

A. That the book contained --

Q. Quotes from the interviews of April 1997 and June of 1998 of John and Patsy Ramsey and from Burke of June of 1998?

A. Yeah, I would agree with that.

Q. I'm just trying to find out, for example, your notes, would they -- would the notes have those quotes in them?

A. What notes are you referring to?

Q. The notes that you can't find now. How would you have quotes –

MR. DIAMOND: I'm going to object.

MR. WOOD: Let me.

MR. DIAMOND: He didn't say he couldn't find them. He said he doesn't know where they are. You haven't asked him whether he's been looking for them recently, have you?

MR. WOOD: Well, I mean, I will ask him that in a minute. Again, Chuck, we'll move quicker if you limit yourself to instructions on privilege.

MR. DIAMOND: Mischaracterizes his testimony in your -- MR. WOOD: That's not an objection on privilege, nonetheless.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, I'm trying to figure out whether you had notes that would have had these precise quotes in them and that's how you were able to use them to come up with the quotes in your book. Or did you come up with those quotes from their various interviews from your mind's eye, your own recollection only? Do you follow me?

A. Yes.

Q. Which was the case?

A. They were either in notes which I had or in documents I subsequently received.

Q. And what documents did you subsequently receive about the investigation?

A. After I left the police department, over a period of time I received through the mail various documents concerning the investigation.

Q. From whom?

A. Anonymously through the mail.

Q. Postmarked from where?

A. Boulder or Denver.

Q. And were these documents police files or reports on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they documents from the district attorney's office on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?

A. What do you mean from the district attorney's office?

Q. Well, for example, a report prepared by Michael Kane, as opposed to a report prepared by Mark Beckner. One works for the Boulder PD and one works for the district attorney or did. You know the difference.

A. No, these were Boulder Police Department documents.

Q. And how many pages of documents did you receive subsequent to the time that you left the Boulder Police Department that concerned the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation?

A. Several hundred.

Q.

Where are those documents?

A. Unknown. They would be in the same box if I still have it.

Q. So how many -- let me see if I've got all the sources of written materials that you had after you left the Boulder Police Department on August the 6th, 1998. You had some couple hundred pages of your work papers that you had copied, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You didn't make copies of police reports?

A. In what context are you talking about?

Q. In this 200 some odd pages of your working papers, were there also copies of police files, police reports on the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?

A. Yes, these were my working papers, yes.

Q. Well, for example, would it only be reports prepared by you or did you have copies of reports prepared by other officers?

A. As I was the affiant on the master affidavit in this case I certainly was in possession of reports from others to include in any search or arrest warrant in this case.

Q. So the answer is yes?

A. To what question?

Q. The one I asked you. Did you have copies of other officers' reports on the JonBenet Ramsey case in your working papers?

A. Yes.

Q. You make reference to being the affiant on the master affidavit. Did your working papers then include copies of all of the documents that you had and had in any way relied on in preparing the master affidavit in the JonBenet Ramsey case?

A. If I understand you correctly, no.

Q. Were you authorized to keep those copies by the Boulder Police Department?

A. When I resigned abruptly, I returned all those papers to the Boulder Police Department and there was no further communication between us.

Q. But did you tell them you had kept copies of the papers?

A. No.

Q. Am I correct that everything you had in your physical possession in terms of case files, case reports, notes, at the time that you resigned, whatever you turned over to the Boulder Police Department at the time of your resignation, you made copies of and kept yourself; is that right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And that was only a couple hundred pages?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And did you keep, for example, a transcript of the April 30, 1997 interview that you conducted with Patsy Ramsey?

A. I don't know.

Q. So subsequent to leaving, from what period of time until what period of time were you receiving anonymous police file information on the JonBenet Ramsey case that you say totaled several hundred pages? When did it start and when did you last get something?

A. Initially after I had made my intentions known that I was going to tell my story through a book. And that was probably early, maybe January of 1999 and throughout that calendar year of 1999.

Q. Any materials in the year 2000?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Did you make any efforts to solicit information from any member of the Boulder Police Department about the investigation after you left?

MR. DIAMOND: May I ask a clarifying question? Solicit written materials or just talking to somebody?

MR. WOOD: Information, case information about the case.

A. Can you repeat the question please?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Sure, did you make any efforts to solicit information about the JonBenet murder investigation from any member of the Boulder Police Department after you left the department in August of 1998?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any idea who sent you any of these alleged anonymous documents?

A. These are smart people. No.

Q. How do you know they were accurate if you don't know who sent them to you?

A. Because I had previously seen all of them.

Q. So this was information that was contained in the case file that you didn't copy when you left the force, but it predated your leaving the force; is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever receive any information about grand jury testimony or evidence in the case?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever receive any information about the investigation in terms of efforts and information subsequent to the investigation August 1998? Let me withdraw that and make it a little bit cleaner. I want to know, you tell me the information you got predated your resignation date. Did you ever get any new information, that is to say information that was generated about the case after August of 1998?

A. Without reviewing this box, I would have to say as we sit here now that it was all pre-August '98. I don't recall sitting here that any of it was post-August '98.

Q. So that the documents that you have and the information that you had about the case, your best recollection is that would have been limited to information generated prior to August of 1998, true?

A. Yes.

MR. DIAMOND: Counsel, I see no relevance to this line other than to find out what he knew at the time he wrote the book. I instruct him not to answer. If you want to take this up with the judge, I am happy to do so. If you want to make a record as to why this is relevant to the Wolf case, I'm happy to listen to you. Otherwise, he's instructed not to answer. Move on.

MR. WOOD: Is there a privilege being asserted?

MR. DIAMOND: You heard me, move on.

MR. WOOD:

Sir, if you will be polite, we will be polite, also.

MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead. I am happy to be polite.

MR. WOOD: Yes, sir, please do.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) My question is, I'm trying to find out about your knowledge concerning the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. And it seems from what I am hearing that your knowledge is limited to information about the case from the date of the murder in 1996 through August of 1998. Is that right?

MR. DIAMOND: From police sources is what you have asked him about?

MR. WOOD: My question is on the table, now, sir. We can call Judge Carnes and correct the problem that we're experiencing with you if we need to. I hope we don't need to.

MR. DIAMOND: We may well have to.

MR. WOOD: We certainly may have to if you keep interrupting inappropriately under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, procedure for depositions.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Could you answer my question, please, Mr. Thomas?

A. Could you repeat it for me, please?

Q. Sure. I'm going to read it right back to you. I'm trying to find out about your knowledge concerning the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. And it seems from what I'm hearing that your knowledge is limited to information about the case from the date of the murder in 1996 through August of 1998; is that right?

A. No, after August of 1998, I certainly followed media accounts and what was released publicly and followed the case with some interest.

Q. Fair enough. Let me add that in. Can I then say in terms of drawing a circle around your knowledge of the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, that your knowledge consists of knowledge about the police information and to some extent district attorney information from the date of the murder until the time you left in August of 1998 and subsequent to 1998 has been supplemented by what you have learned either through media accounts or through official statements from the Boulder Police Department or the district attorney's office; is that right?

A. Very confusing question. Can you break that up for me? I don't understand what you --

Q. I just want to find out what you've got. You've got your personal knowledge. You've got the police file information that you described for me, the copies of the documents you copied, the documents that have been sent to you subsequent. And that all dealt, you believe, pre-August 1998, right?

A. I'm not following you, Mr. Wood.

Q. Well, stick with me. I'll try and make it simple for you.

A. Please.

Q. More simple. You've told me about the documents. I've covered all the documents, haven't I? You've got the documents you copied and you've got the documents that were anonymously sent to you, right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Do you have any other documents about this investigation, other than those documents? Do you?

A. Oh, I'm sorry. If I understand the question correctly, no, as I said, not that I recall because post-August '98 began the grand jury. And certainly I don't have any information from the grand jury room.

Q. So we've got your personal knowledge about your involvement in the case, right?

A. Yes.

Q. We've got your knowledge from the written documents that you've just described for me?

A. Yes.

Q. And then subsequent to August of 1998, your knowledge about the case and its status would be limited to what you have either seen or heard in the media or what may have been officially stated by law enforcement authorities, right?

A. As far as I recall, I don't recall anything, as I have said, post August of 1998 coming my way, but I'm not limiting myself to that, if that answers your question.

Q. As we sit here today, can you think of anything other than that? Is that your best recollection as you sit here today, sir?

A. Yes, as I sit here right now, if I understand this correctly, that's my answer.

Q. And I'm sure that you came to this deposition in an effort to prepare for it and to refresh yourself about the investigation, you knew you were going to be asked about it, didn't you?

A. The question being I know I was going to be asked about the investigation?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes.

Q. JonBenet Ramsey, that was the first murder investigation that you were involved in; is that right?

A. As a detective, yes.

Q. You were involved in a murder investigation in some other capacity?

A. I had been on homicide scenes as a uniformed officer.

Q. But as a detective actively investigating the murder, was JonBenet Ramsey the first murder investigation in that capacity for you?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we also say that it was the only one?

A. No.

Q.

So you were involved as a detective in other homicide investigations?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about those. How many?

A. One other.

Q. When was that?

A. In 1997, I believe.

Q. Is that the one where the police officer was present when someone shot someone else in a domestic dispute?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the person came down and admitted that he had shot or she had shot their spouse?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was kind of the end all of that case, wasn't it? Pretty open and shut, wouldn't you agree?

A. When you say end all, yes, that concluded rather quickly.

Q. Yeah, I mean as I understand that case, there was a domestic dispute call, the police officer was there and one of the spouses shot the other one and killed them, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then came down to the police headquarters, and I believe you may have even been the person talking to the perpetrator, and that person admitted to shooting his -- was it his spouse or her spouse?

A. Her spouse.

Q. Her spouse. Anything other than that one case prior to the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, did you have any other case where you were involved in a homicide investigation as a detective?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So it was the only other one; JonBenet Ramsey was your last one I'm sure, right?

A. No, the last one was this Jakob-Chien homicide we're describing.

Q. That was the last one, I thought that was in -- oh, I'm sorry, that was in 1997 but your involvement ended in '97. The last one you've been involved in went through '98 and that was JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Right.

Q. From the time you were assigned to the JonBenet Ramsey case up until the time that you left, were you assigned to any other homicide case?

A. Other than the one we noted, no.

Q. And I take it the JonBenet Ramsey case, other than the case that you noted, pretty much was your full-time job; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever had any training, formal training, in handwriting analysis?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any formal training in criminal profiling?

A. No.

Q. Other than the 1997 case where you obtained the confession from the spouse who shot her husband while the police officer was present on the premises, and other than the Ramsey case, have you ever conducted any other interrogations of murder suspects or potential suspects?

A. On reported homicides, no, not that I'm aware of.

Q. Would you be willing to authorize us, subject to your counsel's recommendation or right to object if he asked, would you be willing to authorize us to obtain a copy of your Boulder Police Department personnel file?

MR. DIAMOND: You don't have to answer that. If you want to make a request to me, I will respond.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) How many internal affairs investigations have you been the subject of?

A. I believe just one.

Q. When was that?

A. In the early to mid part of 19 -- of the 1990s.

Q. Was that Wheat Ridge or Boulder?

A. That was with the Boulder Police Department.

Q. Did that stem out of a shooting?

A. No.

Q. Or did it -- just give me a general idea of what it involved.

A. An unauthorized vehicular pursuit.

Q.

And that's the only one, the only internal affairs investigation?

A. That's right. The incidents that you refer to -- there was no further -- to be an internal affairs complaint there has to be a complainant and you mentioned the shooting incident, there was no complaint.

Q. Is there any reason why the two-page report on Chris Wolf was in your book, why, for example, that was separated out from the other box of materials?

A. No, I didn't say in my book. I said in a book. And this summer when I knew the Wolf case was pending, I was pleased to find that folded in half and stuck in a book.

Q. What book was it stuck in?

A. A book on my desk, on my library shelf.

Q. Why were you pleased to find it?

A. Because I knew I would be giving testimony in this case and it might help me recollect some of what I did four or five years ago.

Q. You could also refresh yourself with some of the statements you made in your book about Mr. Wolf, couldn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You recall Chris Wolf, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Am I correct that the Boulder Police Department conducted a thorough investigation of Chris Wolf?

A. I'm aware and was a participant in the Boulder Police Department investigating Mr. Wolf, yes.

Q. My question was though, sir, do you agree that the Boulder Police Department conducted a thorough investigation of Chris Wolf?

A. I know what I did with my involvement with Mr. Wolf, but I don't have personal knowledge of what the detectives who subsequently closed him out as a suspect did to satisfy themselves.

Q. Well, take a look, if you would, at page 273 of your book.

MR. DIAMOND: For the record, do we have the hard cover?

MR. WOOD: Yeah, this is a hard cover.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) 273 and this is just in context apparently on an incident you're describing that occurred on February the 25th of 1998, with Mayor Bob Greenlee. Do you know Mayor Greenlee?

MR. DIAMOND: Can you point to where you are, at the top of the page?

MR. WOOD: Just hang on a second, pay attention, you'll get there.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) In context do you recall the February incident with Mayor Greenlee about Chris Wolf?

A. I don't recall the date being a specific date in February but I certainly recall meeting with Mr. Greenlee, yes, about Chris Wolf.

Q. Look at the top of page 273. If you would follow with me, quote, We need to check this out, the mayor snorted. We need a thorough investigation into this. End quote. "I guess he wanted me to cower in his presence. Greenlee trapped himself, not me." Quote, We are thoroughly investigating him, end quote, "I replied. Even as we spoke, Chris Wolf was in an interview room voluntarily giving handwriting, hair and DNA samples and a statement." Have you followed me?

A. I have followed you.

Q. Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. So it was your understanding that the Boulder Police Department was thoroughly investigating Chris Wolf, true?

A. Yes, even contemporaneous with my exchange with the mayor on that particular day.

Q. And the investigation of Mr. Wolf had started back in January of 1997; is that right?

A. Yes.

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.

 

Part 3 Chris Wolf Investigation

Q. Now, if I am hearing you, you gave me kind of a general overview of the Chris Wolf matter as pertains to Jackie Dilson that apparently she came to you as a citizen informant, the Boulder Police Department, 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.

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. 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.

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 sufficient 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.

Q. Thank you. Back when you all had the June 1998 presentation that is referred to -- is that referred to as the VIP presentation?

A. We can refer to it as that.

Q. Did you ever hear it referred to as that when you had the VIPs there?

A. I think so.

Q. Let's refer to it as the June 1998 VIP presentation so we know what we're talking about. Did, in fact, the detectives during that presentation present a long list of suspects who had been considered and dropped, including Randy Simons, Kevin Rayburn, Bud Henderson, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, Joe Barnhill and Chris Wolf?

A. I would certainly have to review any notes and reports from the police files on that, but that's not inconsistent with my recollection.

Q. You recall then the presentation including a statement that Chris Wolf was a suspect who had been eliminated?

A. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is I don't recall that -- there was a lot of information exchanged over two days at this VIP presentation. It very well may have been said but you asked me right now, I don't have that specific recollection about that particular individual.

Q. Do you know whether Chris Wolf's DNA was ever tested?

A. I have no personal knowledge of that.

Q. Was Chris Wolf one of the 73 individuals, that number that you referenced with respect to your comments about 73 suspects having their handwriting analyzed, is he one of the 73?

A. I don't know.

Q. Well, how did you come up with the number 73?

A. From Detective Trujillo's briefing to other detectives about CBI's examinations.

Q. Do you know whether -- do you know as a fact firsthand or from what you've heard whether Chris Wolf's handwriting was ever analyzed by the Boulder Police Department?

A. As I said previously, I don't know the details of Detective Weinheimer's subsequent investigation of Chris Wolf.

Q. Is the answer no, you don't know?

A. The answer to what?

Q. To my question.

A. What is the question, sir?

Q. Listen carefully. From -- my question was, do you know as a fact, firsthand or from what you heard, whether

Chris Wolf's handwriting

was ever analyzed by the Boulder Police Department, yes or no?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Do you know?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether Mr. Wolf, I guess you can tell me this is pretty easy, maybe you'll understand this one. Clearly you don't know whether he was -- his handwriting eliminated him as the author of the note, do you?

A. As I have said, I don't know the details of Detective Weinheimer's investigation but took Detective Weinheimer's statement that Chris Wolf was cleared at face value.

Q. Knowing what you know about how the Boulder Police Department, what would one use to clear someone, what could possibly clear an individual here? One would be a solid alibi, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Verified, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What else?

A. Handwriting, certainly.

Q. Handwriting. That eliminated John Ramsey as the author of the ransom note?

A. Is that a question?

Q. Yes.

A. What is your question?

Q. You said handwriting and I said handwriting, that eliminated John Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, true?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. All right. What else besides alibi and handwriting?

A. I don't know what was being done with it on the back end, but certainly a polygraph examination.

Q. So you would eliminate based solely on a polygraph?

A. No.

Q. All right. You would take it into consideration?

MR. DIAMOND: You have to answer audibly.

A. We would take our polygraph examinations into consideration, yes, sir.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) All of your polygraph examinations were done by the FBI, weren't they?

A. I believe so.

Q. You didn't have anybody on the Boulder Police Department that was trained in polygraph examinations, did you?

A. I don't know if anybody received polygraph training but we did not have an in-house polygrapher.

Q. Okay. So we've got alibi, handwriting, polygraph, what else?

MR. DIAMOND: Polygraph coupled with other things he said.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Well, yeah, polygraph alone would not be sufficient to clear someone, would it?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Right. So now what else could be utilized, as you understood this investigation, to clear a suspect?

A. Witnesses.

Q. Witnesses as to alibi?

A. Yes, certainly that.

Q. Witnesses as to what else?

A. Well, I think you're hitting the highlights. Beyond that, I don't know how specifically those determinations beyond that, the obvious, people were being cleared.

Q. You're familiar with the use of the term forensics, aren't you?

A. I am.

Q. What would be forensic evidence that could clear someone in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation?

A. Handwriting.

Q. Anything else?

MR. DIAMOND: You're saying standing by itself?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Standing by itself, if I were going to say, well, John Doe has been eliminated as a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation based on forensic evidence, what is the only forensic evidence that you were aware of that could have itself eliminated someone from being involved?

A. Besides the handwriting?

Q. I want the answer. If it's handwriting, if there was anything else, let me know that.

A. Well, I know the big controversy -- thank you very much -- was whether or not DNA was clearing people in this case.

Q. And ultimately it was not, was it?

A. I don't know. I certainly don't hold myself out as a DNA expert.

Q. No, but I mean, you knew the approach the investigation was taking from the time of your involvement through August of '98 and the DNA either quite simply either eliminated everybody or it eliminated nobody if it wasn't a match, true?

A.

There was a huge controversy about the DNA

Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?

A. Correct.

Q. Other than handwriting, what else was the basis for a forensic evidence that would eliminate someone as a suspect in the Ramsey case?

A. May I have just a moment?

Q. Sure. (Discussion off the record between the deponent and Mr. Diamond.)

 

Part 4 Elimination by Way of Evidence

A. Mr. Wood, unless I'm missing something entirely obvious, no, the handwriting, the ransom note, et cetera, was the sort of cornerstone piece of evidence in this case and I think that's how most people were being cleared.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Well, when you say most people were being cleared, had the Boulder Police Department concluded that the murderer and the author of the note were one and the same, that is to say, had the Boulder Police Department concluded that there could not have been involvement by more than one person?

A. I think there was some division on that point.

Q. Because actually the handwriting, only if eliminated under analysis, only really eliminates an individual as the author of the note but does not in and of itself eliminate the person from involvement in the crime, true?

A. I think the collective consensus was that certainly it wasn't a leap the author of the note was involved in the crime.

Q. I don't think that would be a leap. But the question is elimination as the author of the note did not in and of itself eliminate one from involvement in the crime, true?

A. By way of a conspiracy that you're suggesting that --

Q. I'm just suggesting straight up, sir, handwriting analysis that eliminates you as the author of the note does not in and of itself eliminate you from involvement in the crime, true?

A. One could argue that, yes, sir.

Q. Fiber evidence was not a forensic test that was used to eliminate in and of itself, was it?

A. As far as elimination of suspects, I don't have firsthand knowledge of the fiber evidence testing and that wasn't an assignment I had in this case. But no, I don't believe that fiber evidence in and of itself was any sort of eliminator.

Q. Do you know whether any fiber tests were ever conducted on non-testimonial evidence voluntarily provided by Chris Wolf, any fibers ever tested to your knowledge?

A. I got the impression that it was.

Q. Where did you get that impression?

A. From Jackie Dilson after she turned over to Investigator Ainsworth and/or Smit in June of '97 what she told me were, I think, bed linens, a leather jacket, a diary, maybe underwear, and she told me that she had been told they were going to submit that for testing.

Q. Do you know whether it was tested?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you -- you certainly have no idea of what any of the results would have been if tested, true?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know how many handwriting exemplars Mr. Wolf gave?

A. No, as I said before I don't know the breadth or depth or extent of Mr. -- Detective Weinheimer's investigation into Mr. Wolf.

Q. What was the standard practice in terms of when you were obtaining handwriting exemplars from suspects for analysis, how many exemplars were standardly obtained?

A. It's my recollection that initially, and I can only speak to what myself and Gosage were doing routinely, we were asking for the voluntary completion of what is known as a London letter, as well as a second sheet including words or phrases from the ransom note and that initial screen was what I'm assuming after booked into evidence was eventually going to CBI for analysis to see if there was any reason to further investigate an individual.

Q. Your understanding is there were 73 suspects whose handwriting was analyzed?

A. At the time of the VIP presentation, at the time I left, yes -- 1

Q. June of 1998?

A. -- that was the number.

Q. And of those 73, how many of those individuals were eliminated as the author of the note based on the handwriting analysis itself?

A. And I'm not a handwriting expert, but under entire elimination, I don't know.

Q. I don't want to know about entire elimination unless you're using that in a phrase, maybe you are. I want to -- you've got 73 people whose handwriting was tested, and you've either got a result from CBI that says we've got a match, right, or you've got a result from CBI that says basically inconclusive or you've got a result from CBI that says elimination, right?

A. No, I don't think it's that simple.

Q. Well, I'm not trying to make it more complicated than that. But maybe you know more about it and if you do, then, that would be helpful for me to learn. I want to know, though, from the bottom line that we can agree that it is simple when it comes to 2 the question of elimination, that's simple because that's one of the categories, elimination --

A. Right.

Q. -- right?

A. Right.

Q. And how many of the 73 were eliminated as the author of the note based on the handwriting examples or exemplars?

A. I don't know.

Q. Not many, true?

A. I know that the majority fell into the no evidence to indicate category.

Q. But they couldn't go to elimination, could they?

A. Again, I don't know.

Q. Didn't you talk with the handwriting expert, sir?

A. Are we talking about the CBI expert?

Q. Any of them. There were four with respect to Patsy Ramsey, weren't there?

A. Yes.

Q. How many other of the 73 had four different examiners look at their handwriting?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know of any? Can you name one?

A. I'm trying to recall with those three additional examiners if other suspects' historical writings or exemplars were provided to them. As I sit here today, I don't know. But if any, the number would be few.

Q. Do you know whether the Boulder Police Department obtained historical writings with respect to Chris Wolf's handwriting?

A. I don't know. I didn't get very far with Mr. Wolf, Mr. White -- or Mr. Wood, I'm sorry.

Q. That's okay. Fleet White's handwriting was tested?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Was he eliminated?

A. He fell into a category that he was no longer a suspect, if my understanding is correct, and this wasn't my assignment, but by way of detective briefings, Mr. White was not in the running, if you will, by way of a handwriting exemplar.

Q. My question is not in the running. My question is was he eliminated as the author of the note based on a handwriting analysis conducted by the Boulder Police Department or the CBI?

A. I don't know what the CBI expert concluded as far as a categorical elimination of Mr. White.

Q. John Ramsey was categorically eliminated, wasn't he?

A. Again I would liken it to Mr. White. I simply learned that Mr. Ramsey was not a candidate based on his handwriting.

Q. You don't know whether John Ramsey was eliminated by the examiner at CBI as an author of the note based on that and his -- the analysis of his exemplars, you don't know that as we sit here today?

A.

He may very well have fallen into that “majority of no evidence”

to indicate but if you're telling me that he fell into the elimination category, I won't dispute that because we never had any concerns after some of these results that he was the author of the note.

Q. Well, the question is not what I'm suggesting to you. Do you know? Do you have any idea whether his report from CBI came back and said John Ramsey has been eliminated based on the CBI analysis as the author of the ransom note? Do you know one way or the other, sir?

A. As to what category he fell into?

Q. Whether he was eliminated by the CBI analysis is my question, please, sir?

A. As to the category he fell into, including a category of elimination, I don't have personal knowledge.

Q. Do you have any knowledge, secondary or otherwise?

A. As I told you a minute ago, Mr. Wood, it was my understanding from our briefings that he was not a candidate as the author of the note. I don't know what else I can -- how many ways I can answer that question for you.

Q. I just want to know if you know the results of the CBI analysis of John Ramsey's handwriting?

MR. DIAMOND: Any more clearly than he just told you?

MR. WOOD: That's my question. Do you want to answer for him? Because if so --

MR. DIAMOND: I think you --

MR. WOOD: -- I would love to swear you in and examine you under oath, but I think it would be a waste of our time.

MR. DIAMOND: I think you're not listening to the answers. We're not --

MR. WOOD: Why don't you worry about your side of the table and let me worry about mine. If I'm not understanding him, that's my fault. I mean, it's my walk away without the information, right? I think I'm understanding. I'm just not sure I'm getting a straight answer. It seems to me that this gentleman should know, as he claims to be one of the lead detectives on the case, whether John Ramsey's CBI handwriting analysis came back elimination.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) And you don't know, do you?

A. As I have told you, Mr. Wood, I stand on my answer, yeah, I know that he was not -- that he was eliminated by way of handwriting. But if you're asking me if the CBI examiner reached a conclusion of elimination, I'm sitting here again telling you I don't have personal knowledge of that.

Q. Let me go that route because I think I understand you. Do you know how many of the 73 individuals were eliminated by way of handwriting?

A. By way of falling into the category of elimination.

Q. That were eliminated by way of handwriting, your words.

MR. DIAMOND: I think he means by the Boulder Police Department.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I mean that were eliminated by way of handwriting, certainly by the Boulder Police Department. You're the one that says 73?

A. Out of those 73?

Q. Out of those 73, I want to know how many were eliminated by way of handwriting?

A. If you're asking me how many of those 73 fell into the elimination category based on question document examiner conclusions, is that what you're asking me?

Q. I think so.

A. Yeah.

Q. What is the answer?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't have any idea?

A. No. As I have previously said on the record that number is probably very few. The majority of those, as I have said, fell into the no evidence to indicate category.

Q. Did a lot of them have similarities?

A. Did a lot of who?

Q. A lot of the 73 people, did their -- did their analysis show similarities?

A. I don't know, I'm not a handwriting expert.

Q. Did you review the reports on any of the 73?

A. Have you seen the -- if you've seen the CBI reports, that's not how they're stated in a narrative form like that. No, I never saw anything like that.

Q. Nor does the CBI do handwriting analysis and reach a conclusion, for example, that 24 of 26 letters of the alphabet are similar, they don't do that, do they, sir?

A. Well, according to Detective Sergeant Wickman, he came back and told us that.

Q. But you know that Mr. Ubowski has in fact denied that as being accurate?

A. No, I don't know that.

Q. You didn't see his statement with respect to the fact that he had never concluded anything about Patsy Ramsey in terms of 24 of 26 letters of the alphabet being similar?

A. Well, you can ask --

Q. I'm asking you this question, please.

A. I know and I'm trying to answer it for you.

Q. Please do.

A.

Wickman came back from CBI and told that to John Eller

and he told that to me and that was Trujillo's account and other detectives were told that.

Q. You didn't hear it from Ubowski?

A. No, I didn't deal with Ubowski.

Q. You didn't see it in writing from Ubowski?

A. No.

Q. After your book came out you weren't aware that Ubowski publicly stated that he had never concluded that Patsy Ramsey was the author of the note and that he had never concluded that 24 of the 26 letters of the alphabet from her writing were similar?

A. Well, you had two questions.

Q. Are you familiar with my question?

MR. DIAMOND: Will you let him answer the question, please?

MR. WOOD: I will. I think I've let him answer every question so far.

MR. DIAMOND: You didn't. You didn't.

MR. WOOD: Well, I'm certainly going to because I want to get his answer to every question. Let's let him do it. I'll restate it.

MR. DIAMOND: I would like the reporter to reread it.

MR. WOOD: I'll withdraw it and restate it.

MR. DIAMOND: All right.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book came out, sir, were you aware that

Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of concluding Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note?

A. No. You're telling me this for the first time.

Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski stated that he had never reached the conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with the ransom note?

A. No, I have not heard that.

Q. And you stated to the contrary in your book, didn't you?

A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by my detective sergeant.

Q. And you weren't even, I guess, aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they don't even make that kind of analysis with respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet, you don't know anything about that --

A. No. 2

Q. -- in terms of the public statement by the CBI after your book was published?

A. The CBI made a public statement?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. As an organization, I haven't seen that.

MR. WOOD: I'll show it to you when we come back a little bit later on. Let's take five minutes.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 11:06. We're going off the record. This is the end of tape one. (Recess taken from 11:06

A.m. to 11:15 a.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 11:15. We're back on the record. This is the beginning of tape two.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I think you told me this, but I want to make sure so we don't leave here with any confusion on this point. Do you know whether the DNA of Chris Wolf was ever tested by law enforcement authorities?

A. Once again, no, I don't have 3 personal knowledge of that.

Q. Thank you. Do you have any knowledge, and I'm including not personal but secondhand, but did you ever hear anything about whether his DNA was tested from anyone, doesn't have to be personal knowledge to you, did you ever get it hearsay or otherwise that his DNA had been tested?

A. No, as I sit here right now, Mr. Wood, yeah, I don't have any recollection of any of -- conversation about Mr. Wolf's DNA testing.

Q. And I take it from what you've told me, you would have no idea why Tom Wickman might have contacted Chris Wolf in 1999 asking him at the time that Wolf lived in New Orleans, asking him to come by the Boulder Police Department on his next visit to Boulder; you would have no knowledge about that, would you?

A. What was the time period?

Q. 1999.

A. No. No, of course not.

Q. Was in fact Chris Wolf investigated in any fashion by the Boulder 4 Police Department in connection with the murder of Susannah Chase?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Was he a suspect in this case?

A. Courtesy of Jackie Dilson, I believe so.

Q.

And was he cleared with respect to the Susannah Chase murder?

A. Again, I believe so.

Q. Do you know why or on what basis he was cleared?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever get any hearsay from any of the detectives about what basis they relied on in clearing Chris Wolf in either the Susannah Chase murder or the JonBenet Ramsey murder?

A. For some reason, and I don't know why this stands out, that Yamaguchi, the detective who led the Chase murder, I believe, I think they had DNA evidence in that case.

Q. How about with the JonBenet Ramsey case, any hearsay as to what he -- the basis upon which he was allegedly cleared?

A. No. If I'm answering the same question, yeah.

Q. Just trying to make sure I've got your answer down. You don't -- you didn't hear from a hearsay standpoint, you didn't get anything from any of the detectives about the basis upon which he was allegedly cleared by the department, right?

A. No, other than relying on Weinheimer's clearance of him.

Q. The statement that he is cleared?

A. Right.

Q. But you don't know why --

A. Right.

Q. -- or any basis, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Secondhand or otherwise, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you do know that after the Boulder Police Department had investigated Mr. Wolf, that the district attorney's office was still actively investigating an intruder theory and that Fleet White, Bill McReynolds and Chris Wolf were on the top of their suspect list. You do know that to be true, don't you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And that would have been in 1998?

A. As to when the DA's office was conducting this investigation?

Q. Yes.

A. They were doing a lot of things we were entirely unaware of. But if you're telling me they were doing that in 1998, I won't contest it.

Q. Well, what you do know is that the Boulder Police Department investigated Chris Wolf as a suspect and you know that even after the Boulder Police Department had investigated him that the Boulder district attorney's office was still investigating Chris Wolf as a suspect and that he was, along with Fleet White and Bill McReynolds, on the top of the DA's list?

MR. DIAMOND: Just for clarification, after the Boulder Police Department cleared him?

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

Q  No, I don't know that time line. Certainly the DA investigators would but there was a period in here where there -- this was not a hand-in- glove fit and there was not a lot of communication being shared.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Timing aside, we can get clear agreement that Chris Wolf was from your knowledge not only a suspect for the Boulder Police Department, but at the top of the list, along with McReynolds and Fleet White, of the suspect list of the Boulder district attorney's office in its investigation, true?

A. Certainly seemed to be.

Q. And that was your understanding and knowledge, right?

A. That they were still interested in those parties, yes.

Q. That Mr. Wolf was on the top of their suspect list, along with McReynolds and Fleet White?

A. That was my impression.

Q. And knowledge, I mean not just impression, you knew that as being a fact, didn't you?

A. Yeah, they were still investigating those three individuals.

Q. Now, what was Don Foster's -- did he give a written report to you on Chris Wolf's handwriting?

A. He may have. That would be in the Boulder Police Department.

Q. Did you -- do you recall ever reviewing it?

A. I may or may not have. I know that we took him handwriting of several potential suspects. But no, as I sit here today, I don't recollect Mr. Foster or Dr. Foster's written report on Chris Wolf.

Q. Did Don Foster examine hundreds of writing examples from people ranging from family members to Internet addicts, from neighbors to Chris Wolf to the McReynolds family and a library of books, films and videotapes?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what he concluded with respect to each of the individuals that he analyzed?

A. Yeah, that they were not the author of the ransom note.

Q.

He eliminated everybody, Don Foster did, didn't he?

A. But one, yes.

Q. Right. In fact Don Foster told you that of all of the hundreds of people of the samples that he had looked at that he had conclusively eliminated everybody and that it was impossible for anyone to have written that note other than Patsy Ramsey; that's what Don Foster told you, right?

A. Those are your words, not his, but I --

Q. Excuse me.

A. If I could finish.

Q. Yeah, you sure can.

A. He stated unequivocally that she was the author of the ransom note.

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 1 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.

Q. I want to go back. I told you I would do it, let's do it now. Look at page 281 of your book, please, the hardback copy. The top of the page, the first actually it starts with "Don Foster from Vassar." Do you see it?

A. Yes.

Q. The first paragraph there under that starts "'In my opinion, it is not possible that any individual except Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.'" Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Earlier we were talking about whose words. Don Foster stated that it was impossible for anyone else to have written the note except Patsy Ramsey, true?

A. This is his statement, yes, sir.

Q. It was not -- and so I was accurate earlier, that he said to you it's impossible that anyone else wrote it?

A. Well, when I asked about your earlier quotation, I don't think you said this verbatim. But --

Q. Fine. But he did tell you it was impossible, didn't he, it was not possible, which is saying to you as a detective,

it's impossible that anyone else wrote it according to Don Foster, right?

A. Yes, that was the conclusion that he shared with me, Mr. Wood.

Q. But when you worked with him, and you worked with him a lot, didn't you? You all spent a considerable amount of time discussing this case, didn't you, you and Don Foster?

A. When you say considerable amount of time, you know, no, I didn't spend weeks or days with Don Foster, but he was an outside expert that we used in this case, yes.

Q. At any time did Don Foster, himself, ever disclose to you that he had written a letter to Patsy Ramsey?

A. Yeah, I became aware of that at some point.

Q. After the district attorney's office presented you with the information about Jameson, true?

A. I believe that's correct.

Q. Did Don Foster when you were working with him for whatever period of time you spent with him, when he was giving you his conclusions about the JonBenet Ramsey case and the impossibility that anybody else wrote that note except Patsy Ramsey, did he ever look at you and say, you know, you probably ought to know, though, that I did write a letter to Patsy Ramsey where I told her that I was convinced that she was innocent? He never told you that, did he?

A. We had that conversation at some point.

Q. After he had already been outed by the Boulder DA, true?

A. Possibly.

Q. Do you think you had it before then and didn't disclose it to your police department in the presentation?

A. No, that sounds reasonable.

Q. You would have if you would have known it, you would have told the police department about that in the June presentation, wouldn't you, sir?

A. Right.

Q.

Well, actually the presentation with Foster was in March, wasn't it?

A. If we're talking about 1998.

Q. We are.

A. It was the spring of 1998.

 

Part 5 Collection & Storage of Documents

Q. Right. Now, your materials, just so that I have got this down, how many boxes were these police records and file copies of reports and things, both the ones you copied and the ones anonymously sent to you from, you believe, from someone in the Boulder Police Department, right?

A. Logic would conclude that.

Q. Yeah, and that was your conclusion?

A. Yes.

Q. And, you know, how many boxes did you store those materials in?

A. One cardboard box.

Q. Size?

A. A file-size cardboard box, a banker's box.

Q. How was it marked?

A. Unmarked.

Q. What color was it?

A. White.

Q. Did you have a concern? I mean, you've been in law enforcement for a number of years. You've got an ongoing investigation.

Did you take

any particular precautions to maintain the integrity of those documents?

A. No.

Q. Did you give them to Don Davis?

A. Don Davis doesn't have -- no, he doesn't have that box or any of those records.

Q. Did he look at them?

A. Are you talking about the preparation of the book?

Q. I'm talking about the reports. Did Don Davis ever see the reports --

A. He may have.

Q. -- and the copies of the file that you made?

A. He may have.

Q. Have you ever made any effort to find them?

A. No.

Q. When did you learn that they were lost?

MR. DIAMOND: He didn't say ever they were lost.

MR. WOOD: I'm sorry?

MR. DIAMOND: He never testified that they were lost.

MR. WOOD: Misplaced or lost. Can we agree one of the two things occurred? I always kind of figured lost means misplaced, too. When you've lost something, you've lost it. It doesn't imply intentionally. Although, one might draw their own conclusion.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) The point is when did you -- if you -- you've made no effort to look for them. When did you first learn that the file box was either lost or misplaced and couldn't be found?

A. The last time I recall looking in that box was at some point in the weeks prior to the book coming out.

Q. I'm not asking you the last time you looked at it. I'm asking you when you first learned that you couldn't find it. You came here today under oath and told me --

A. I haven't been looking for it, Mr. Wood.

Q.

Because you've told me under oath, sir, that you can't find it, haven't you?

MR. DIAMOND: I don't think he has. I don't think he's ever testified to that. Why don't you ask him that.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Didn't you tell me where -- do you know where it is?

A. No.

Q. Have you made any effort to look for it in recent months?

A. No.

Q. You didn't think that, you know, Lin Wood is going to examine me on the Ramsey investigation, I ought to try to read over some of my reports and remember some things so I'm up to speed; you didn't ever have that thought as you came into this deposition?

A. No, I'm here to answer your questions today.

Q. But why would you not want to refresh your recollection about the investigation when you know I'm going to be asking you about it and you knew that?

A. I did. As I told you earlier, I reread my book.

Q. But your -- all these reports and all these copies of police reports, there is a lot more information there than what is in your book, isn't there, sir?

A. There may be, yeah. The book is not a police report, it's a narrative.

Q. No, then it's not complete. It certainly is not as complete as the hundreds of pages of police files, reports and copies of reports that you have had at least at some point in time in your possession, is it?

A. It's not a reproduction of the 30,000 plus page case file, no. That's ridiculous. No.

Q. It's not a reproduction of the hundreds of pages that you had in your possession, is my question, is it, sir?

A. No.

Q. I mean, if we want to find out what information you know about this investigation from the police reports, we can't get an answer to that from reading the book. We would have to look at all the files and the reports that you had, wouldn't we?

A. I'm here to answer your questions today.

Q. Answer that one for me. If I want to try to find out what information you had known or what you knew about this investigation from all these hundreds of police reports that you copied or that were sent to you, I can't get that answer from your book. I can only get that answer if I can look at those files and reports, true?

A. Okay.

Q. Is that true?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you know Jeff Shapiro?

A. I did, so I guess in present tense I do if I knew him at one time.

Q.

Do you know of Mr. Shapiro's documentation of telephone conversations by taping them?

A. In a particular context I do.

Q. Do you have any knowledge, recollection of telephone conversations

between you and Jeff Shapiro when you were in Quantico,

Virginia preparing to meet with the FBI? Did you talk with Mr. Shapiro during that time period?

A. I did.

Q. Do you have any notes about those conversations?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any recollection of the substance of those conversations?

A. Vaguely.

Q. You did, in fact, provide information to Ann Bardach at Vanity Fair about the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, didn't you, sir?

A. I did.

Q. You also provided information about the JonBenet Ramsey investigation to Carol McKinley, didn't you, sir?

A. We discussed the politics of the investigation. I consider Carol a friend now.

Q. While you were still on the force active in the investigation, you provided information about it to Ann Bardach at Vanity Fair, you discussed it with Carol McKinley and you also provided it to the supermarket tabloid The Globe through Jeff Shapiro, true?

A. No, I disagree with your characterization of whatever you're trying to say about Shapiro. I wasn't supplying him with information about --

Q. You didn't --

A. -- the case.

Q. You didn't tell Jeff Shapiro to come get in a tree at the Ramsey house because you were all going over there and sleep there one night?

A. I think the tree was his own doing but I did mention to him that we were going to be at the Ramsey house, yes.

Q. Well, we'll go into Mr. Shapiro and that a little bit later.

MR. WOOD: Darnay?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.

MR. WOOD: Give me two seconds.

MR. HOFFMAN: Should I start?

MR. DIAMOND: In two seconds.

MR. WOOD: Darnay?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.

MR. WOOD: I'm going to turn it over to you and you have at it.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Wood.

MR. WOOD: Where are we on time so that I know what I did? I might have gone over five minutes longer than I meant to.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Total?

MR. WOOD: Total time of testimony.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Two hours and ten minutes.

MR. WOOD: Two hours and ten minutes. Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY-MR.HOFFMAN:

Q. Hello, Mr. Thomas.

A. Hello, Mr. Hoffman. How are you? 4

Q. Fine. How are you?

A. Fine. Thank you.

Q. Can you hear me all right?

A. I can.

Q. All right. Mr. Thomas, you have a copy of your hardcover book with you, don't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Could you just turn to page 14 of your book?

A. Okay.

Q. Yes, do you see the first full paragraph on page 14 that begins "The district attorney"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you just read the first sentence out loud, please?

A. Certainly. "The district attorney and his top prosecutor, two police chiefs and a large number of cops, although so at odds on some points that they almost came to blows, all agreed on one thing - that probable cause existed to arrest Patsy Ramsey in connection with the death of her daughter."

Q. Is that an accurate statement?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, I would like to ask you some questions with respect to that statement. To begin with, if you wouldn't mind, regarding one of the two police chiefs, could you turn to page 299 of your book?

A. Okay.

Q. Yes. The second paragraph on 299 begins "Even after DeMuth's recital of our shortcomings," could you just read those two sentences?

A. "Even after DeMuth's recital of our shortcomings I felt we held a decent hand. Commander Beckner told me later that he thought we had gone far beyond showing probable cause."

Q. Would you read the next sentence?

A. Certainly. "'I think she (Patty Ramsey) did it,' he said. 'We should just charge them both with felony murder and aiding and abetting'".

Q. Is that an accurate statement of what you heard?

A. Yes, it is.

Q.

Did Mr. -- actually Commander Beckner tell you that personally?

A. On more than one occasion.

Q. Could you please explain or elaborate a little further on each occasion how that statement came about?

A. Certainly. Inside the police department situation room that housed this Ramsey investigation, there were probably a handful of occasions on which or in which Mark Beckner made statements like that or similar to that indicating that we had sufficient facts and circumstances rising to a level of probable cause for an arrest of Patsy Ramsey.

Q. Do you know approximately how many times -- on how many occasions he made that statement?

MR. WOOD: Wait, let me ask you a question if I could, Darnay, for clarification. Are you asking him for -- I'm sorry, I have to get my mike on. Are you asking him for the statement that Patsy Ramsey was a killer or for the statement that there was probable cause for an arrest, which is --

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm asking for the statement that is actually in the book which is that there is probable cause for an arrest.

MR. WOOD: Okay. All right. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

A. Mr. Hoffman, could you repeat your question to me?

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) I'm sorry, can you tell me approximately how many, the number, how many times or how many occasions he made that statement?

A. As I may have mentioned, a handful that I overheard. There was no disputing that among the detective team. He may have said that outside of my presence. In fact, I think he -- I think he did in relation to what we're talking about.

Q. But within your own presence, how many times do you think approximately he said that?

MR. WOOD: Again, talking about there is probable cause for an arrest?

MR. HOFFMAN: Probable cause for an arrest, that statement.

MR. WOOD: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) The gist of that statement that there was probable cause for an arrest?

A. A half a dozen times.

Q. Half a dozen times. Did on any of those occasions, did he explain why he felt there was probable cause for an arrest?

A. Mr. Hoffman, at that time I think he was sufficiently familiar with the facts of the investigation to make that conclusion on his own as did, as you previously mentioned, the other detectives in the case.

Q. All right. Do you know if the prior commander, Commander John Eller, ever commented on who he thought may have in fact either written the ransom note or committed the crime of murdering JonBenet Ramsey? MR. WOOD: Do you want him to answer two questions? Why don't you ask him one at a time.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Okay. Was there ever an occasion when John Eller expressed an opinion as to whether or not there was probable cause to arrest someone for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Yeah. And, Mr. Hoffman, if you can direct me back to the first page you asked about. MR. DIAMOND: Fourteen.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Page 14.

A. Yeah. Eller was one of those commanders that I think I -- I'm sorry, I didn't define it as a commander but Eller was certainly one of the large number of cops, as noted on page 14.

Q. You said there are two police chiefs. Now, I believe that Commander Beckner replaced Commander Koby; is that correct?

A. Commander Beckner did indeed replace Chief Koby.

Q. All right. Now, was Chief Koby one of the police chiefs you're referring to?

A. Yes.

Q.

Did Chief Koby ever express an opinion

as to whether or not probable cause existed for someone to be arrested for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. He did; he's one of the two police chiefs I'm referring to in this paragraph.

Q. Do you know the substance of his statement; did he ever make a statement like that in your presence?

A. He may have but it was certainly relayed down through the chain of command through Wickman to the rest of us that Koby concurred and Koby may have very well told me that himself as well.

Q. But you presently don't have any memory of him saying it to you personally; is that correct?

A. Koby?

Q. Yes.

A. Koby was present in briefings when probable cause was discussed and Koby was in total agreement. So, yeah, I do have a recollection of Koby being present and agreeing with that concept.

Q. Did commander or Chief Koby ever indicate who it was that he believed there was sufficient probable cause to arrest for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Yes, the discussion was concerning Patricia Ramsey.

Q. And did he express a belief that Patricia Ramsey should be arrested for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. I don't know if Koby ever went so far as allowing for an arrest to be made but certainly concurring on probable cause.

Q. Actually what I'm trying to determine is whether or not he ever actually expressed the belief that Patsy Ramsey should be arrested based on probable cause for the murder of her daughter?

A. My distinction would be not should be but could be. Koby was not entirely an over-aggressive individual that was willing to take that next step.

Q. But Commander Koby, based on the evidence that you believe existed in the case, felt that there was sufficient basis by which Patsy Ramsey could be arrested for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Correct.

Q. Thank you. All right. Now, you also -- I also asked about John Eller, who I know is technically not a police chief, he was in charge of the investigation. Did John Eller ever express a belief or an opinion that probable cause existed for the arrest of someone for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me who that person was that he thought should or could be arrested -- actually I am going to rephrase that. Withdraw the question. Did he ever name an individual that he thought could be arrested for probable cause in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Patricia Ramsey.

Q. Did he ever express that to you personally?

A. Yes.

Q. On more than one occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he ever discuss why he thought probable cause existed for the arrest of Patricia Ramsey for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. My belief that he, too, was 3 sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances that were sufficient to meet a threshold of probable cause and said that on occasion in the detective briefings that spring of '97.

Q. Now, with respect to the district attorney, again I'm referring you back to page 14, you begin by saying "The district attorney and his top prosecutor." Who was the top prosecutor you were referring to?

A. Pete Hofstrom.

Q. Is it your testimony that Pete Hofstrom believed that probable cause existed for an arrest?

A. Yeah, absolutely. He conceded that there was probable cause but there were some sticking points beyond that. But as to the issue of probable cause, yeah, that was his express conversation with me that we had met that burden.

Q. So you actually had a conversation with Pete Hofstrom with respect to the issue of whether probable cause existed?

A. Several times.

Q. And did he identify the person who he thought could be arrested for probable cause for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. We were talking about it in connection with Patricia Ramsey. So I'm assuming he was -- it was just a two-person conversation at times. So yes.

Q. Do you know whether or not the district attorney, Alex Hunter, ever expressed an opinion as to whether or not probable cause existed for the arrest of someone in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. I'm told he did.

Q. So you, in fact, never heard Alex Hunter express an opinion with respect to that?

A. Only through, for example, Mark Beckner and Tom Wickman.

Q. Exactly what did Mark Beckner say with respect to his understanding of what Alex Hunter said regarding the issue of probable cause?

A. Very simply relaying to the detective team that Hunter was aware and knew and conceded that fact.

Q. Conceded what fact?

A. The fact that probable cause existed for an arrest in this case.

Q. Did -- do you know if Alex Hunter ever identified the person as being the person for which sufficient probable cause existed for an arrest in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. In the context of which it was being presented that's what we were talking about was the possible arrest of Patsy Ramsey.

Q. I would like you to look at page 327 of your book, if you don't mind, please. And I refer you, when you found that page, to the very last paragraph at the end of the page, beginning "Alex Hunter." If you would just read that sentence, that one sentence.

A.

"Alex Hunter said he thought Patsy Ramsey was involved."

Q. Okay. Did he actually -- did you actually hear him say that? MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay?

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm sorry, yes?

MR. WOOD: Can I ask you to put that sentence in context by having him complete the reading of the next couple sentences.

MR. HOFFMAN: Sure, I'm sorry.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Yes, would you, please, just –

MR. HOFFMAN: How many more sentences do you want him to read, Lin?

MR. WOOD: Just the next one. The next two.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. Read the next one, please, Mr. Thomas.

MR. WOOD: Start from "Alex Hunter" and read down, if you would, through "demeanor."

A. "Alex Hunter said that he thought Patsy Ramsey was involved. That was more than offset by comments from his staff."

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. Were you present when Alex Hunter said that?

A. Yes.

Q. You were.

occasion to hear Alex Hunter express belief Patsy Ramsey involvement in the case?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when that event was, when this statement was made?

A. May I look at the book for a moment and maybe it will --

Q. I have no problem with that.

A. Okay.

MR. HOFFMAN: I would just like the record to reflect that Mr. Thomas is, in fact, refreshing his memory with respect to my question by looking at the book.

MR. WOOD: If I can help, it looks to me in context that would have been on one of the evenings in June of 1998 following the interrogations. I don't know if Mr. Thomas agrees with that or not.

MR. DIAMOND: Who is testifying here?

MR. WOOD: I was trying to move it along. I would be glad to testify if you want to examine me on another occasion, Mr. Diamond.

MR. DIAMOND: All right.

A. Mr. Hoffman, this was June of 1998.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) June of 1998. So you were actually present and heard him make a statement to that effect; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you have any knowledge as to whether or not the FBI ever had an opinion with respect to whether probable cause existed for the arrest of someone for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. It was my impression and they were very professional in our dealings with them, but I don't think they ever countered or challenged the fact that the police department had this sufficient probable cause.

Q. Do you know whether or not the FBI actually saw the evidence that the police had with respect to whether or not there was probable cause to charge someone for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Well, certainly a lot of the facts and the evidence, the factual evidence, from this case was shared with members of the FBI.

Q. Did you ever have occasion to

speak with any of the members of the FBI that were looking at the evidence?

A. Yeah, on several occasions. And again, I think they always tempered comments and were most professional. But, again, I, Mr. Hoffman, don't have that specific recollection of an exchange but it was always my impression that they supported us fully on that.

Q. Do you know whether or not the FBI had occasion to examine the ransom note and handwriting exemplars of either John or Patsy Ramsey?

A. I don't know whether or not the FBI conducted any examinations of handwriting exemplars, but they certainly reviewed and studied and discussed with us the ransom note itself.

Q.

Did they offer any insight or any analysis of the ransom note?

A. They did.

Q. Do you remember what that analysis consisted of?

A. We had a meeting in Quantico, Virginia and I'm trying to recollect the date. It doesn't come to me right now. But nonetheless, the ransom note was dissected and profiled and so forth. And certainly I would suggest that you ask any of them. But it's my recollection of that meeting, of which reports were written and, you know, there is a lot of information about what went on in those meetings, but how patently bogus and crafted and stilted and just non authentic this ransom note was.

Q. I would like you to turn, if you will, please, to page 312 of your book.

A. Okay.

Q. And I would like you to look at what looks like to be the third sentence. It begins "'What's going on in that DA's office.'" If you would read that paragraph -- to the end of that paragraph and then read the next paragraph.

A. Okay. "'What's going on in that DA's office is a disgrace' one of the FBI agents observed during our last supper. This case has become an embarrassment to law enforcement. We were all in agreement. 'It is terribly discouraging how the DA is handling this,' said one Dream Team attorney, 'Hunter is going to outsmart himself on this one.'"

Q. Did you actually hear that statement made.

A. Which statement is that?

Q. The quote from the FBI agent, what's going on is a disgrace?

A. Yes.

Q. Just everything that you read there you have in quotations --

A. Yes.

Q. -- were you actually present at that?

A. I was.

Q. Yes. And is that an accurate recollection of what was said?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what they were referring to when they said that what was going on in the DA's office is a disgrace?

A. They were certainly familiar with a lot of the history and the animosity and, you know, the ugly politics involved in this thing and I don't know to what disgrace they're specifically referring to but I think it can cover a number of things.

Q. Do you know what they were referring to when they say, quote, Hunter is going to outsmart himself on this one, unquote?

MR. DIAMOND: That was a Dream Team attorney, not the FBI.

MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay, why --

MR. HOFFMAN: You're right, that's correct, okay, I'm sorry.

MR. WOOD: Darnay, would it be --

MR. HOFFMAN: I admit that and I'm just going to double back a little bit. Lin, what were you going to say?

MR. WOOD: I was going to say maybe it would be helpful to figure out which is which if we -- if you want to ask him who the FBI agent was and who the Dream Team attorney was.

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, Lin, I was about to get to that.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) In fact why don't I just do that, ask you who the FBI agent was, if you remember?

A. There were at least three agents at that dinner and it may have been Mike Morrow.

Q. Do you know what, is it Mike Morrow?

A. Um-hum.

Q. What his function was with the FBI? I mean what exactly was his involvement in the case?

A. He was or is a special agent with the Federal Bureau based out of, I think they're based out of Quantico or that Virginia-DC area and he was assigned to that child abduction and serial killer unit.

Q. Did he ever express an opinion as to who he thought committed this crime?

A. Again, I think they were very diplomatic in their response, but I don't recall that specific conversation with Mr. Morrow. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me for him to say he was consistent with everyone else.

Q. Okay. So but you have no personal knowledge of that?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, to the second paragraph and, please, excuse me, I'm sorry 4 for having you read that in a way that could confuse people. That second paragraph says "'It is terribly discouraging how the D A is handling this,' said one Dream Team attorney. Hunter is going to outsmart himself on this one.'" Who was the Dream Team attorney who made that statement, if you remember?

A. I believe that was Bob Miller.

Q. Was Bob Miller at this meeting where the prior statement by the FBI agent was made which we have just referred to?

A. There were several people in this restaurant this particular evening. So I don't know whether or not he heard, overheard that conversation.

Q. Right. So his statement then may not have been in reaction to the FBI statement; is that correct?

A. Right.

 

Part 6  Master Affidavit

Q. And do you know what he meant when he said that Hunter is going to outsmart himself on this one?

A. No. I think there are a number of ways to interpret it but it sort of stands alone in my mind. 5

Q. Mr. Thomas, would you mind, please, turning to page 302 of your book.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you have it in front of you?

A. Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

Q. Fine. Would you look at the third paragraph from the top, which begins "Two days before we were to go onstage." And would you read that whole paragraph, please.

A. Certainly. "Two days before we were to go onstage, we got some surprising big news when the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab told us that the acrylic fibers found on the duct tape that covered JonBenet's mouth were a quote, likely match, for Patsy's blazer. We were ready."

Q. You've been asked earlier with respect to the forensic, you know, not importance, but the forensic views that the ransom note was being made for. Did this become an important piece of forensic evidence in the case? MR. WOOD: You're talking about the ransom note now or the likely match of 6 four fibers? MR. HOFFMAN: I'm sorry, thank you, Lin.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did the fibers that were found on the duct tape that were covering JonBenet's mouth that were, quote, a likely match for Patsy's blazer, did that become an important piece of forensic evidence in the investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know when or at what point in the case the CBI made that report?

A. I think it was sometime before we were told -- I think that information may have been held by Wickman and Trujillo and Beckner possibly.

Q. Do you know whether or not that information was actually part of anyone's presentation before the district attorney that was made prior to the convening of a grand jury when you turned the case over to the district attorney?

A. Mr. Hoffman, are you asking me -- I'm sorry, that's not clear to me.

Q. All right. That CBI report, did you receive it before you made your formal presentation to the district attorney's office? That's a presentation that was made prior to the convening of the grand jury. I believe it was in May or June of 1998 when you formally turned over the case to the district attorney. I may have that date wrong. MR. WOOD: Hey, Darnay, I'm just a little unclear if you don't mind.

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah.

MR. WOOD: There were two presentations, one was made by Trip DeMuth I believe in May and then there was what we call a VIP presentation that was made of a lot of people other than the DA's office in June. Those are the two presentations. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

MR. HOFFMAN: Well, thank you. It is confusing, there is no question about it.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) The presentation that most people, and myself included, think of is that large presentation where you stood up and you gave evidence yourself. That's 8 the one where you refer to Alex Hunter is talking on a cell phone and it sort of -- it seems at the end of that you decided that you had had enough of the case and you were going to move on. That's the presentation I'm talking about.

MR. HOFFMAN: I'm assuming -- is that the VIP presentation, Lin?

MR. WOOD: I don't know. I mean, Steve Thomas would have to figure out whether that's an accurate statement about whether he heard, saw, or thought or felt. I'm not sure.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Well, you know what, I'm just confusing the issue. I'm going to drop that line of questioning and just ask you, did you have occasion to actually see the CBI report that indicated that there was a likely match for Patsy's blazer with the acrylic fiber found on the duct tape?

A. Not that I recall. Detective Trujillo, who was in charge of all the evidence and forensic testing in this case, he and Wickman verbally offered that to the 9 rest of the detective team.

Q. All right. So you never personally saw a report with that result or that conclusion?

A. I'm relying on a fellow officer.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not there was ever any evidence that you saw or you heard about in the course of the investigation while you were still with the Boulder police force showing whether or not any fibers from either Patsy's clothing or from her boots or from any part of her was found in JonBenet's panties? MR. WOOD: That's about three or four questions, Darnay.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Do you know whether or not there was ever any evidence, forensic evidence, showing that any article of clothing could be matched to a substance found in JonBenet's diaper or panties?

MR. WOOD: I have to just comment that I don't believe there was any evidence that JonBenet was wearing a diaper.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. To her panties?

A. If I understand the question correctly, and now just rephrase it so I'm answering the right question or --

Q. Yeah, when JonBenet Ramsey was found she was wearing I don't know what other word there is for it but panties and there was a question as to whether or not there were substances found in that panty are

A. What I'm asking you is do you know if there was ever any forensic evidence indicating that any article of clothing that Patsy wore was found as a particle in that panty area of JonBenet?

A. No, I am unaware of any forensic or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

Q. Do you know if there was any forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing at all besides the duct tape area on JonBenet?

A. As we sit here now, no, I don't recollect any other fiber evidence, other than what we have discussed linking the mother to JonBenet.

Q. With respect to what you have 1 referred to as a master affidavit,

could you please describe what a master affidavit is?

A. Certainly. At some point in, I believe it was 1997, the police department asked me to be the affiant on a master affidavit and basically the case was reaching a proportion that it needed to be condensed into affidavit form in the event a search and/or arrest warrant were necessary to carry out on this case. And given that assignment I tried then over the course of the next several, many months to keep that affidavit current.

Q. When you say keep the affidavit current, how was the affidavit prepared or being prepared?

A. It was being prepared as new information became available that was relevant to include inside this affidavit, that information would be shared with me and I would include that in the narrative.

Q. Now, when you say include that in the narrative, were you preparing an ongoing written narrative at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did you keep a copy of this ongoing written narrative?

A. Either in my briefcase or in my desk inside the Boulder Police Department situation room were typically the only two places that the -- that the affidavit would be left.

Q. Could you describe what form it was being kept in? By example, was it kept in a notebook? Was it kept on separate sheets of paper? How was it kept physically?

A. Eight and a half by 11 white, unbound paper, typically stapled with a heavy-duty stapler in the upper left-hand corner.

Q. And where were those pages being kept physically, in a file folder? In a book? What?

A. In my briefcase or my desk. But if you're saying how were those stored? Yeah, inside a manila-type folder.

Q. Was the folder labeled master affidavit?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Was there any marking on the folder as to what it was that was being contained there?

A. No, but it's very apparent what it is if you go looking for it.

Q. Do you know how long you kept that master affidavit before it was discontinued?

A. If memory serves, in the spring of 1998 when Beckner said that we weren't going to make a physical custodial arrest and that the case was headed for the DA's office and possibly a grand jury, that was ceased.

Q. Did Mark Beckner or anyone else tell you what you should do with the master affidavit that you had in your possession?

A. Not that I recall. That would have been -- no, not that I recall; I don't recall any instruction like that. It would have and likely and probably did just simply wind up in the at the time 80-plus case file notebooks in that room.

Q. So you turned the affidavit over at some point to the police --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- to the other people in the police department?

A. Right, that's in -- that's inside the police department.

Q. Okay. Do you know if you made a copy of that for your own use?

A. I don't know that I did.

Q. Okay. Do you know how many pages the master affidavit was when you were told to discontinue making it?

A. Well, it was continually being updated and drafted and pencil marked and everything else but I would put it at the time that I last saw it I don't know if anybody ever continued it after I left the police department, but 50, 60, 70, 80-plus pages maybe.

Q. Do you know who made the decision as to what to include in the master affidavit?

A. Well, I did partly, as did Tom Wickman, Mark Beckner. On occasion, you know, we would run ideas and thoughts by the in-house legal advisor, Bob Keatley. Kim Stewart had it for a period of time and I think she did some updating or amending or suggesting to it. It was sort of a continuing work in progress. And when a detective in the room had information that was relevant to the affidavit, it would typically be included.

Q. Were you the only person that physically included the information or did other people have access to it?

A. Well, two questions. Did other people have access to it. Yes. And was I the only one that physically made inclusions to it? Mr. Hoffman, do you mean by way of typewriting?

Q. Yes, by way of actual handwritten notations or typewritten?

A. Yes, that's my recollection.

Q. All right. So nobody that you remember made any physical notations or changes in the master affidavit beside yourself?

A. No. I'm saying others did in the room make physical changes to it, line throughs, additions, deletions, et cetera, as information, you know, became available or got stale or whatever the case might be.

Q. Mr. Thomas, directing your attention now to the handwriting reports from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, did you ever have occasion to see any of the handwriting reports that were done at all in the case by CBI?

A. Yeah. What they called a report typically was more of a lab finding. It wasn't in a narrative form, as I recall, but those were in the possession of Trujillo, the forensic evidence detective, but I did have at least one occasion to look at those.

Q. Can you describe what one typically looked like? Like how many pages was one of these reports?

A. Fairly short, if I recall. The one that I have in mind probably ran less than four pages. On the front page was like a CBI logo or letterhead, whatever they typically manufacture their printed report on and just simply black typewritten or computer-generated ink on white paper.

Q. Do you know what

sort of analysis was actually done in the report of the handwriting?

A. Yeah, they -- I remember the language concerning Patsy Ramsey, which was included in that report. And then many other people's or people whose handwriting had been looked at were also reported in this document.

Q. Now, you say this document. Weren't there more than -- did they do separate reports for each individual's handwriting that they examined, to the best of your knowledge?

A. Not that I saw.

Q. So basically what was it that you saw, a single report?

A. Well, as I described this report probably less than four pages in length that was very compacted with a lot of information and not typically what you think of as a -- or what I think of as a police report with a narrative, but more exhibit number such and such corresponding to this, et cetera

A. Not -- it wasn't free-flowing narrative of any sort.

Q. The report that you actually were able to physically examine, do you know how 8 many subjects or persons were actually being discussed in that report?

A. Yeah, many. Many, many, many, you know, 20, 30, 40 maybe.

Q. Do you know whether or not the report drew any conclusions with respect to the authorship of the ransom note?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what you remember the conclusion to be?

A. As I sit here today without that document in front of me, I recall language in that document that along the lines, and I'm certainly paraphrasing, that there was evidence to suggest that Patsy Ramsey was the author of the ransom note.

Q. Is that the language that you remember "evidence to suggest"?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with respect to your book, you make a statement in your book, I'm trying to find the page, but I'll just ask you generally, yeah, it's on page 282, in the next to the last paragraph on page 282, the paragraph that begins "Not only did certain 9 letters change." Do you have that?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you read that paragraph out loud, please?

A. Certainly. "Not only did certain letters change, but her entire writing style seemed to have been transformed after the homicide. There were new ways of indenting, spelling, and writing out long numbers that contrasted with her earlier examples, and she was the only suspect who altered her usual preferences when supplying writing samples to the police."

Q. Now, the she in this paragraph, who is the she?

A. This is referring to Patsy Ramsey.

Q. All right. Now, may I ask you how you acquired the knowledge that you have in this paragraph? How do you know that in fact is what was going on in her handwriting?

MR. WOOD: Let me say something I don't think that he stated that he knows that as a fact I think he's describing what Don Foster said, but I may be wrong.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. I'm just asking him how he acquired that information.

MR. WOOD: Okay.

A. Mr. Hoffman, surrounding or preceding this paragraph it's in relation to Mr. Foster's presentation in Boulder, if I'm not mistaken and his presentation overheads, examples, et cetera

A.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. Do you know if anyone other than Don Foster shared that belief who was involved in the investigation?

A. What belief?

Q. The belief that there was an attempt by Patsy Ramsey to alter her handwriting when asked for exemplars?

MR. DIAMOND: Do you mean among the expert community?

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Among anybody that was investigating the case that you know of?

A. I don't know if Don Foster shared any of his findings or investigation with any of the FBI people that he sometimes works with, but as far as those people in the room that day for this presentation in trying to 1 recall what Foster presented and said and demonstrated, that was certainly where I came away with this impression.

Q. Mr. Thomas, are you aware of the fact that Patsy Ramsey was asked to give what is known as request samplers to the police on more than one occasion during the investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know how many times she was –

on how many different occasions she was asked to give request samples

of her handwriting to the police?

A. If my understanding is correct, I think it was five.

Q. Do you know why she was asked to give

five separate handwriting samples on five separate occasions?

A. That was not my assignment, but given what I knew through the briefings and the detectives who were handling that assignment I could speculate as to why it became known to me.

Q. Did anybody through hearsay or any other way communicate with you why they were 2 asking Patsy Ramsey to appear on more than one occasion to give exemplars?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me why?

A. Yes. Because apparently the CBI examiner, analyst, expert, had questions or concerns about her handwriting and similarities with the note.

Q. Did anybody ever express the belief that she was attempting to alter her handwriting?

A. Yes, Don Foster.

Q. Any other person in the investigation?

A. And, again, as I sit here, from memory and without the QD examiner's reports in front of me, Mr. Hoffman, let me think for a moment. No, not that I can recall.

MR. HOFFMAN: Since I'm drawing near, how is my time doing, does anybody know?

MR. RAWLS: You've got 17 more minutes.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Mr. Thomas, I would just like to direct you to page 286 of your book.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. Now, this is a rather lengthy series of paragraphs and it runs to 289 and it's basically from what I can understand your theory of how this crime was committed, who was involved in it; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you had a chance to review pages 286, 87, 88 and 89 since the book was written?

A. Yes.

Q. Are these statements still accurate?

A. Well, I don't know the current state of the evidence of what may or may not have changed or come to be known by Mike Kane and the cops. But at the time I left, this was certainly a hypothesis that I felt was consistent with the evidence that I felt was certainly reasonable.

Q. Have you had any occasion to change your mind with respect to your analysis and the conclusions that you draw in 4 these pages?

A. Well, will you give me just a moment to reread quickly these three pages? MR. HOFFMAN: In fact, would anyone object if he read this out loud into the record?

MR. WOOD: If you want to spend your time having him do that, Darnay, I have no objection whatsoever.

MR. HOFFMAN: Well, yes, would you mind? Let's do it this way. Why don't you silently read this to yourself and then I'll ask you that question again.

MR. WOOD: He might as well read it out loud because it's on the clock.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Okay. Then why don't you read it out loud. Begin with "There was no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note."

A. "'I believe she committed the murder' I told Smit and proceeded to lay out what I thought had happened ... "In my hypothesis, and approaching fortieth birthday, the busy holiday season, an exhausting Christmas Day, and an argument with JonBenet had left Patsy frazzled. Her beautiful daughter, whom she frequently dressed almost as a twin, had rebelled against wearing the same outfit as her mother. "When they came home, John Ramsey helped Burke put together a Christmas toy. JonBenet, who had not eaten much at the Whites' party, was hungry. Her mother let her have some pineapple, and then the kids were put to bed. John Ramsey read to his little girl. Then he went to bed. Patsy stayed up to prepare for the trip to Michigan the next morning, a trip she admittedly did not particularly want to make.

"Later JonBenet awakened after wetting her bed, as indicated by the plastic sheets, the urine stains, the pull-up diaper package hanging halfway out of a cabinet, and the balled-up turtleneck found in the bathroom. I concluded that the little girl had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother originally said, and that it was stripped off when it got wet. "As I told Smit, I never believed the child was sexually abused for the gratification of the offender but that the vaginal trauma was some sort of corporal punishment. The dark fibers found in her pubic region could have come from

the violent wiping of a wet child. Patsy probably yanked out the diaper package in cleaning up JonBenet.

"Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation.”

 One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing a parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime prior to one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach.

 

I believed JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of a tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her. "It was the critical moment in which she either had to call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation.

 

She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the 'accident' and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her. "John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenet down to the basement and hid her in the little room. "As I pictured the scene, her dilemma was that the police would assume the obvious if a six- year old child was found dead in a private home without any satisfactory explanation. Patsy needed a diversion and planned the way she thought a kidnapping should look. "She returned upstairs to the 8 kitchen and grabbed her tablet and a felt-tipped pen," and flipping "to the middle of the tablet, and started a ransom note, drafting one that ended on page 25. For some reason she discarded that one and ripped pages 17-25 from the tablet. Police never found those pages."

On page 26,

she began the 'Mr. and Mrs. I,' then also abandoned that false start.

At some point she drafted the long ransom note. By doing so, she created the government's best piece of evidence. "She then faced the major problem of what to do with the body. Leaving the house carried the risk of John or Burke awakening at the sounds and possibly being seen by a passerby or a neighbor. Leaving the body in the distant, almost inaccessible, basement room was the best option. "As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen--perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement--that although completely unconscious, JonBenet was not dead. Others 9 might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive.

In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in ... desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paint brush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord." She then -- "then she looped the cord around the girl's neck. "In my scenario, she choked JonBenet from behind, with a grip on her broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenet, still unconscious, would never have felt it. There are only four ways to die: suicide, natural, accidental, or homicide. This accident, in my opinion, had just become a murder.

 

"Then the staging continued to make it look like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's wrists in front, not in" the "back, for otherwise the arms would not have been in" the "overhead position. But with a fifteen-inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was a symbolic act to make it appear the child had been bound. "Patsy took considerable time with her daughter, wrapping her carefully in the blanket and leaving her with a favorite pink nightgown."

 

As "the FBI had told us ... a stranger would not have taken such care. "As I told Lou, I thought that throughout the coming hours, Patsy worked on her staging, such as placing the ransom note where she would be sure to 'find' it the next morning. She placed the tablet on the countertop right beside the stairs and" put "the pen in the cup. "While going through the drawers" and "under the countertop" -- "While going through the drawers under the countertop where the tablet had been, she found rolls of tape. She placed a strip from a roll of duct tape across JonBenet's mouth. There was bloody mucous under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. "I theorized that Patsy, trying to cover her tracks, took the remaining cord, 1 tape, and the first ransom note out of the house that night, perhaps dropping them into a nearby storm sewer or among the Christmas debris in wrappings in a neighbor's trash can.

 

"She was running out of time. The household was scheduled to wake up early to fly to Michigan, and in her haste, Patsy Ramsey did not change clothes, a vital mistake. With the clock ticking, and hearing her husband moving around upstairs, she stepped over the edge. "The way I envisioned it, Patsy screamed, and John Ramsey, coming out of the shower, responded, totally unaware of what had occurred. Burke, awakened by the noise shortly before six o'clock in the morning, came down to find out what had happened and was sent back to bed as his mother talked to the 911 emergency dispatcher.

 

"Patsy Ramsey opened the door to Officer Rick French at about 5:55a.m. on the morning of December 26, 1996, wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants, the same things she had worn to a party the night before. Her hair was done, and her makeup was on. In my opinion, she had never been to bed. "The diversion worked for seven hours as the Boulder police thought they were dealing with a kidnapping.

 

"John Ramsey, in my hypothetical scenario, probably first grew suspicious while reading the ransom note that morning, which was why he was unusually quiet. He must have seen his wife's writing mannerisms all over it, everything but her signature. But where was his daughter? "He said in his police interview that he went down to the basement when Detective Arndt noticed him missing. I suggested that Ramsey found JonBenet at that time and was faced with the dilemma of his life. During the next few hours, his behavior changed markedly as he desperately considered his few options--submit to the authorities or try to control the situation. He had already lost one child, Beth, and now JonBenet was gone too. Now Patsy was possibly in jeopardy.

 

"The stress increased steadily during the morning, for Patsy, in my theory, knew that no kidnapper was going to call by ten o'clock, and after John found the body, he knew that too. So when Detective Linda Arndt told him to search the house, he used the opportunity and made a beeline for the basement. "Then tormented as he might be, he chose to protect his wife. Within a few hours, the first of his many lawyers was in motion, the private investigators a day later. "That's the way I see it, I said to Lou Smit." That's how evidence -- "That's how the evidence fits to me. She made mistakes, and that's how we solve crimes, right? I reminded him of his own favorite saying: 'Murders are usually what they seem.'".

Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Now, I want to ask you, do you still agree with this analysis of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

MR. WOOD: Are you asking him as to the state of the evidence in August of 4 1998?

MR. HOFFMAN: No, I'm asking him whether now he still agrees based on his own personal knowledge of the case whether or not he still stands by these statements.

MR. WOOD: I want to make sure that we understand, Darnay, because he, as I understood it, testified that short of media reports and public statements he doesn't know anything about the state of the evidence from August of 1998 through September of 2001. And I think in fairness, we ought to make sure that we are asking him what he is standing by.

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Do you regard the statements that you make on page 286, 287, 288, 289 as being true to the best of your knowledge? MR. WOOD: We've got a conference again.

THE DEPONENT: Just a second, Darnay.

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, um-hum. (Discussion off the record between 5 the deponent and Mr. Diamond.)

A. I'm sorry, Mr. Hoffman. Yeah, as I said, given what I knew when I resigned in the summer of '98, I don't know the status of the evidence now but this was a hypothetical scenario that I purported that I felt was consistent with the evidence at the time. And unless something is changed drastically or markedly, that I'm unaware of, yeah, it's still my belief that something -- or let me state it this way: It's still my belief -- or I still stand behind this hypothetical scenario in that regard.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. That's really all I need to know. Now, I want to ask you about the 911 tape which was -- became controversial because of alleged background noise and voice, possible voice identifications. Did you ever have occasion to listen to the 911 tape analysis that was done by a lab in Los Angeles or somewhere in California purportedly to show that Burke's voice was on the back of that tape?

A. Yes.

MR. WOOD: He listened to the analysis?

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did you ever have occasion to hear the tape and actually hear what the people were reporting as being Burke's voice in the background?

A. Not on the aerospace engineering equipment but on lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police Department, yes.

Q. So it was actually audible on that equipment at the Boulder Police Department?

A. No, Mr. Hoffman, let me make sure I understand you. What are you -- what was audible?

Q. Burke's or the voice of someone who could have been Burke Ramsey talking in the background at the very end of Patsy Ramsey's, you know, conversation with 911.

A. Well, you're cutting right to the punch line. There is a long story behind it but, yes, myself and others listened to that tape and heard this third voice.

Q. So do you -- were you able to identify that third voice, you personally?

A. Well, I don't have any training in 7 voice identification, but certainly it sounded to me to be a young male voice. MR. WOOD: Are you asking him, Darnay --

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Were you able to draw based on your own personal experience of hearing this tape that there was a voice of somebody who sounded like a young boy?

A. Yes, that was my personal observation coming away from that.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that that voice could have been the voice of Burke Ramsey?

A. That's what I believe.

Q. Is it based on ever having heard Burke Ramsey speak?

MR. WOOD: You're talking about just listening to the child speak, whether or not he has done a -- that's a sufficient voice exemplar for testing purposes?

MR. HOFFMAN: No, no. I just want to know in the same way that you can look at handwriting for, you know, purposes of article 9 -- article 900 in the Rules of Evidence, that whether or not based on his own personal experience if he's ever heard Burke Ramsey and whether or not he thought that was Burke Ramsey based on his own knowledge of what Burke Ramsey sounded like.

MR. WOOD: I understand. I'm not -- he can answer. But I'm certainly not acceding to your interpretation of rule, whatever you're talking about, article 900.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, I'm not asking you to accede. Actually, Lin, you don't really even have to be involved in this, so quite frankly it's my question --

MR. WOOD: I will because I represent --

MR. HOFFMAN: And I don't know if it's appropriate for you to always to be trying to clarify it and put your spin on it. I'm asking Mr. Thomas whether or not --

MR. WOOD: Why don't you ask him a question --

MR. HOFFMAN: -- he could identify the voice as being that --

MR. WOOD: -- that makes some sense and I might not have to try to clarify it.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- of Burke Ramsey.

MR. WOOD: Why don't you just ask him a straight-up question. I want to make sure and I have a right to make sure that the record is understandable. You may not like that and I'm not trying to spin it. I'm trying to make sure we understand because candidly and respectfully some of your questions are difficult to follow which apparently --

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, you know, you have that problem yourself, Lin. So and I've --

MR. WOOD: I agree.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- heard Mr. Diamond have to go in and ask for clarification; lawyers sometimes have that problem --

MR. WOOD: I agree.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- not personal to you or to me.

MR. WOOD: I don't disagree with you.

MR. HOFFMAN: The fact is --

THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.

MR. HOFFMAN: I would like to be able to ask Steve Thomas this question without your helping with the clarification of it.

MR. WOOD: Well, just as long as the record -- go ahead and ask him the question. I just want to make sure that I have the right to understand what you're asking, too. But go ahead and ask him and let's get an answer.

Part 7 Burke heard on the Tape

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that the voice was Burke Ramsey that you heard on the tape?

A. Yes, that's my belief and, absent there being other parties of whom or which I'm unaware in the house that morning, this third party to me is believed to have been Burke Ramsey.

Q. What do you base that belief on --

MR. WOOD: I think your time is up, Darnay.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) -- that that voice is Burke Ramsey?

MR. WOOD: Darnay, I think your time is up. Is it up?

MR. RAWLS: Yes.

MR. WOOD: Go ahead and ask your last question. I didn't mean to cut you off.

MR. HOFFMAN: Given the fact, Lin, that you've interjected and eaten a little of my time up, I think you should allow me that. Thank you.

MR. WOOD: As long as it doesn't cut into my time of what I know today to be 3 hours and 50 minutes.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Mr. Thomas, can you answer that?

MR. DIAMOND: It cuts into my time, Darnay.

MR. WOOD: I don't think you have time today.

MR. DIAMOND: I've got time to go home. Go ahead, ask your question.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Yes. Mr. Thomas, is there any -- what is the basis for your concluding that the voice that you heard on the 911 tape was the voice of Burke Ramsey?

A. The basis of that and very -- having to synopsize this for you, Mr. Hoffman --

Q. Um-hum.

A. -- was Detective Hickman's travel to the Aerospace Corp. in Southern California, their enhancement of that garbled noise at the end of that 911 call, those engineers preparing a report and making findings I think identical to the detective who was there with the tape, her returning to the Boulder Police Department with this information and then each of the detectives listening on admittedly lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police Department to these findings, I concurred with others that

there was a third voice on that tape that I believed to be Burke.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.

THE DEPONENT: Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

MR. WOOD: If we can go for about five or a few minutes I want to just kind of touch on a few things that you brought up, Darnay, and then we will break for lunch. Is that okay guys?

MR. DIAMOND: That's fine.

MR. HOFFMAN: Fine.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY-MR.WOOD:

Q. The FBI analyzed the 911 tape and they did not find any such language, true?

A. I don't know what the FBI and Secret Service did because it was my understanding there may have been equipment that was incompatible to conduct this testing or for whatever reason but bottom line is the Secret Service and --

Q. The FBI?

A. Federal Bureau -- yeah, were unable to --

Q. They didn't hear the voice that Aerospace heard, right?

A. I don't know what they did or didn't hear or what they did or didn't test. I don't -- I think one of those agencies didn't even have equipment to test the tape.

Q. So you think the FBI didn't reach a conclusion with respect to the 911 tape; is that your testimony?

A. I don't know what the FBI or Secret Service concluded, I know what Aerospace did.

Q. And you also know that the tape was taken to a fourth group and they came up with different words from the tape than what Aerospace had come up with, true?

A. I know that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to his brother-in-law for enhancement.

Q. Are you suggesting that his brother-in-law somehow falsified a report?

A. Did I say anything like that?

Q. No, sir, I'm just asking you're not suggesting that, are you?

A. No, you mentioned a fourth testing facility and I simply replied that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to his brother-in-law.

Q. So for whatever reason the FBI doesn't hear the third party, the Secret Service doesn't hear the third party, Aerospace claims to hear it and then the fourth group hears something different; is that a fair generalization of the 911 tape?

A. I'm not sure that the first two agencies ever heard anything because I'm not sure they ever listened to the tape. I'm just --

Q. Did you not bother to ask the FBI, I mean, you -- please, Mr. Thomas?

MR. DIAMOND: Two questions.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you ever bother to call the FBI and say, gentlemen, what did you find about the 911 tape?

A. I'm sure Detective Wickman, whose assignment this was, may have done that.

Q. Well, what, did you ask Wickman what did the FBI say? You know, we've spent a lot of time with the FBI, Tom, what did they say? Did you ask him?

MR. DIAMOND: Did he ask him what?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD)

What the FBI had to say about the 911 tape?

A. Again, as I've said it's my understanding, Mr. Wood, that I don't know whether or not the FBI or Secret Service even tested the tape. The first testing that was done on it, to my knowledge, was through the Aerospace Corporation.

Q. And did you -- have you ever tried at any time as you sit here today to make any efforts to find out about whether the FBI or the Secret Service even tested the tape and if so, what their results were?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Have you made any efforts is my question?

A. No.

Q. As we sit here today, you've never made any effort to find that out --

A. No.

Q. -- right? Am I right? Sometimes the no comes out differently. The question is you've never made any such efforts to find out about the FBI or the Secret Service testing of the tape?

A. I have not made calls or efforts trying to determine that to the FBI or Secret Service.

Q. As we sit here today you have not done that?

A. That's right.

Q. You slipped once, maybe inadvertently, in referring to Darnay by Darnay as opposed to Mr. Hoffman. When did Darnay Hoffman first contact you about his offer to represent you for free and to absorb your legal cost in connection with the civil litigation filed against you by the Ramseys?

MR. DIAMOND: Can we just get a predicate that that fact occurred?

MR. WOOD: Yeah. I've got the New York lawyer, you know what I'm talking about, don't you, Darnay?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah.

MR. WOOD: For the record, you stated that several months prior months of April of 2001, you offered to represent Steve Thomas pro bono, for free and absorb all of his legal costs, right?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, at one point I did, yes.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Right. Tell me about that. When did he contact you?

A. I don't know. What's the date on the document you're looking at?

Q. Maybe Darnay can tell us that if you don't know.

MR. HOFFMAN: I don't remember that either.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) But you know he called you? I don't know that --

MR. HOFFMAN: No, I did not call him. MR. WOOD: How did you contact him?

MR. HOFFMAN: I sent him an e-mail. I don't have a phone number for --

THE REPORTER: Wait. One at a time.

MR. WOOD: E -mail, whatever. I'm not trying to -- I mean, you e-mailed him.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you get the e-mail, Mr. Thomas?

A. This today is the first time that I have ever spoken, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hoffman, that I have ever spoken personally to Mr. Darnay Hoffman.

Q. Thank you.

A. And yes, I do recall not only did he send me this e-mail but that on occasion I would be on an e-mailing list that would receive e-mails from Mr. Hoffman.

Q. So it is true that Mr. Hoffman sent you, Steve Thomas, an e-mail in which he offered his legal services to represent you for free, pro bono, and to absorb all of your legal costs in connection with any litigation brought against you by the Ramsey family; is that true?

A. Very generously so, yes, he did.

Q. Why did you not accept it?

MR. DIAMOND: He had a better offer.

MR. HOFFMAN: Better lawyer, Lin. He got a better lawyer, trust me.

MR. WOOD: Why don't you all let Mr. Thomas figure out what to say about this, without being disrespectful.

MR. DIAMOND: Where is your sense of humor, Mr. Wood?

A. In addition to that e-mail --

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Why don't you answer my question, Mr. Thomas?

A. I'm trying to, Mr. Wood.

Q. My question is why did you not accept it?

MR. DIAMOND: And you can continue.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah, but please, just answer my question and we can move on to something else.

A. In another e-mail, Mr. Wood also e-mailed me the name and business address and telephone number of a Mr. Daniel Petrocelli in Los Angeles who he also suggested as a fine attorney.

Q. Let me make sure we get that right. Mr. Wood didn't e-mail you Mr. Petrocelli's name. Are you saying that Mr. Hoffman did?

A. Yes, my mistake, yes, that's what --

Q. But Mr. -- and was that close in time to his offer with respect to his offer to represent you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you think it was a few days, a few weeks, a few months apart?

A. I don't recall the timing on either of these e-mails. Maybe Mr. Hoffman can help me out.

MR. WOOD: All I know, Darnay, is I've got your e-mail that you posted on April 1, 2001, where you stated you made the offer to him several months before.

MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, I don't remember exactly at what point after that I also suggested Daniel Petrocelli who is, quite frankly, a better lawyer than I am in these areas, so.

MR. WOOD: Well, now we know how Dan Petrocelli gets some of his business. Let's go on to something else.

MR. HOFFMAN: Through referrals, Lin, just like most lawyers.

MR. WOOD: Let's go on to something else.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I want to make sure you very clearly have stated to Mr. Hoffman you don't know the state of the evidence as of the present date with respect to this investigation, true?

MR. DIAMOND: State of the evidence? What do you mean by that?

MR. WOOD: That's his term, state of the evidence.

MR. DIAMOND: That's his term?

MR. WOOD: Yeah, it's why I'm asking.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You said very clearly to Mr. Hoffman you do not know the state of the evidence with respect to the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, as you sit here today, the state of the evidence as of September 2001, true?

A. After leaving the police department, yes, that concluded my official participation. I have followed the case through the media, but as far as being privy to anything that occurred in the grand jury or continued evidence testing, I'm unaware of that.

Q.

You knew the state of the evidence as it existed in the case as of March 2001,

true?

A. That was during the period which -- no, the grand jury had concluded -- no, I -- no, I wasn't inside the police department reviewing evidence at that time either.

Q. But what you did know and you had actual knowledge of was that a grand jury had 3 met for some 13 months and had not issued an indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey, right?

A. I don't know that. Do you know that?

Q. Sir, was an indictment issued? Do you have information there was an indictment of my clients that nobody has bothered telling them or me about?

MR. HOFFMAN: Actually, Lin, Patrick Burke has information that he should have told you about which he announced to the media that according to him the grand jury actually took a straw poll. Why don't you ask Patrick Burke.

MR. WOOD: Let me tell you, Darnay, that won't count against my time.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

MR. WOOD: But,

you're right, it was a straw poll; it was a vote not to indict.

Thank you for bringing something to my attention that I already knew.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you answer my question, sir? It's pretty simple. You 4 know that no indictment was issued by the grand jury, true?

A. I don't know what the grand jury did.

Q. I'm not asking you what they did in terms of whether they voted or not, sir.

MR. DIAMOND: I think he's asking you --

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you whether they issued an indictment to indict John and/or Patsy Ramsey?

MR. DIAMOND: -- are you aware of any public report of such an indictment.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You also know that after the grand jury was dismissed that Alex Hunter stated publicly that all seven of the prosecutors in the case unanimously agreed that this was not a case where they felt that evidence was sufficient to justify at that time a prosecution. You know that, too, don't you, sir?

A. That Hunter --

Q. Made that statement publicly?

A. Made the statement that his advisors supported that decision?

Q. Seven prosecutors, not his advisors, seven prosecutors, you know that, don't you, sir?

A. I know that statement was made.

Q. Do you have any knowledge to contradict the accuracy of that statement, that is to say that some of those seven did not so agree as Mr. Hunter stated? Do you have anything to contradict that factually?

A. You would have to poll them, Mr. Wood.

Q. I'm polling you.

Do you have any information to contradict that, Mr. Thomas?

A. No.

Q. Now, you understand, I trust, the difference between probable cause to arrest someone and sufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you know the difference?

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 a 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. Have you ever had an opportunity to review any of Darnay Hoffman's handwriting experts' reports, that would be a report from David Liedman, Cina Wong and another individual named Tom Miller?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether they were ever tendered to the prosecution or to the police department and rejected as not credible?

A. It's my understanding and this may have been even after I left the police department, that Mr. Hoffman made his experts available to the prosecution.

Q. And they declined saying that they were not credible or do you know?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know that. You do know that there were

other experts that reviewed Patsy Ramsey's handwriting

and did not find evidence of authorship, true?

A. Who were those?

Q. Do you think there were not three other people that looked at this and did not find that there was evidence to find that she wrote the note?

A. I don't know who you're referring to.

Q. Well, there was a Secret Service examiner, Mr. Dusak?

A. Right.

Q. Speckin Laboratories?

A. Mr. Speckin, yes.

Q. Right. And there is one other, help me. I can pull it if you want me to?

A. Alfred, Alford, Edwin Alford.

Q. Did you look at their conclusions and remember them?

A. I did.

Q. What was Mr. Dusak's conclusion?

A. Mr. Dusak, I believe, his official conclusion on his report for courtroom purposes was no evidence to indicate.

Q. No evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note, was that Mr. Dusak's conclusion?

A. Among other things.

Q. And he was a document analyst for the United States Secret Service, right?

A. Right.

Q. Then we have Mr. Edwin F. Alford, Jr., police expert, examination of the questioned handwriting, comparison of the handwriting specimen submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter. Is that his conclusion?

A. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help --

Q. This is Mr. Alford.

A. I know. I remember Mr. Dusak. If you have a document that would help me refresh my memory on Mr. Alford, I don't recall --

Q. Not beyond what I have just told you, but if that helps you refresh you one way or the other what I've just told you is I believe Mr. Alford concluded?

A. Will you repeat his --

Q. Sure.

A. -- what he concluded.

Q. The examination of the questioned handwriting comparison with the handwriting specimen submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter?

A. If that's what the report says. I certainly don't disagree with --

MR. DIAMOND: He's asking you whether that refreshes your recollection.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you recall Mr. Alford coming to that conclusion?

A. To a -- yeah, I think that's the conclusion.

Q. And then Leonard

A. Speckin, he said that he found no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars. Did you -- were you aware of that conclusion by Mr. Speckin, a police expert?

A. Among other conclusions, yes.

Q. You understood enough about the handwriting analysis that a legitimate handwriting questioned document examiner analyzes not just similarities, but also has to analyze and account for dissimilarities, right?

A. If you say so, Mr. Wood, I'm not --

Q. I'm asking you, sir.

A. No, I'm not a handwriting expert and don't purport to be.

Q. So you can't --

A. If you're asking me about my layman's knowledge about handwriting science I would be happy to answer your question.

Q. I'm asking you about your understanding of the science when you were the, quote, one of the lead detectives. Did you not listen to what the experts were saying and what their bases were and did you not grasp the fundamental idea when you were listening that they were saying we've got to analyze both similarities and dissimilarities?

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Compound. You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you understand that to be the case or not?

A. That was among many things that I understood them to look at.

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.

Q. Did you make a copy, I know you said something about you weren't sure if you had copied it. Do you know whether you actually made a copy of your master affidavit when you were copying these police files after you left?

A. I don't know. My answer is I don't know.

Q. Would it help to ask you whether you know whether you relied on it in writing your book?

A. No, I don't think so.

MR. WOOD: Darnay, are you there, Darnay? Hello?

MR. DIAMOND: Probably a good time to break.

MR. WOOD: I guess we're going to take a break. Could we do this. I'm going to ask him when we come back -- since we've lost Darnay I'm going to ask him about five questions or so that address some areas, two or three of which were marked as confidential in the Wolf deposition. And what I believe the protective order says is that, before doing that, I need to let him see it and you all will agree that he will abide by it in effect, sign on, and keep that information confidential. Can we agree that you all can do that while we're at lunch?

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Did you want this on the record? MR. WOOD: Is that okay?

MR. DIAMOND: I'll talk to him at lunch. He may not want to be subject to the confidentiality order.

MR. WOOD: Only subject as to Wolf's testimony.

MR. DIAMOND: We will talk over lunch.

MR. WOOD: That he has designated confidential.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 12:58. We're going off the record. This is the end of tape two. (Recess taken from 12:58 p.m. to 1:54 p.m.) (Exhibit-2 was marked.) (Videographer Intern present after recess.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 2:04. We're back on the record. This is the beginning of tape three.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) REDACTED

Q. MR. DIAMOND: He's doing well by some standards.

MR. WOOD: He's doing well by my standards. You don't need to put that on the record in case my wife, present wife, and last wife number four sees it.

 

Part 8

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, I'm going to go back and make sure I'm very clear. The copies that you made of the police file information before you turned it back into the Boulder police, you knew you were not authorized to copy that material and keep it, didn't you?

A. Not necessarily. This was my work and briefcase.

Q. So if it was the Boulder Police Department report and your briefcase, you thought you had a right to copy it and keep it after you left the department; is that your testimony?

A. If I later had to testify or if there was a question about what I returned to the department, that would satisfy that.

Q. Did you check with anyone within the department to make sure that was the department's policy and rules?

A. No, there was little conversation with the administration after I left.

Q. As I understand it, you remember 1 last seeing these documents and the box that had these documents in it, the ones that you had been sent from the Boulder Police Department people after they learned that you were writing the book –

MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry, after?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I thought that he told me he started getting them in early 1999 after he announced he was writing the book; isn't that true?

MR. DIAMOND: Okay. I misheard you.

A. That's right.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) The anonymous ones from whom you clearly believe were Boulder police officers?

A. That's right.

Q. I was confused and hopefully it won't happen too often but it may not be the last time, but as I understand your testimony, you haven't looked for that box, you just recall that you saw it sometime last perhaps this March of 2000, right?

A. Yes, I had that box March of 2000. 2

Q. So you don't know because you haven't looked today whether that box is still in your possession, custody or control? You don't know one way or the other because you haven't looked for it, right?

A. Right.

Q. I'll give you a subpoena

A. I'll get you to acknowledge as I hand it to you, sir, would ask you to go now and look for those documents that at some point are consistent with the exhibit attached to the subpoena

A. Do you acknowledge that I handed you that subpoena?

MR. DIAMOND: I will. So stipulated.

MR. WOOD: Thank you.

MR. DIAMOND: You asked us to consider a request during the lunch hour with respect to confidentiality.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, but I realized you had already agreed to do the confidentiality deal because of the social security number.

MR. DIAMOND: But I've agreed that I might designate portions of this deposition subject to a confidentiality order. In terms of subjecting my client to the terms of an order that he is otherwise not subjected to, we have decided we don't want to do that. And so I would ask you simply just ask him questions and don't -- refrain from disclosing --

MR. WOOD: I'll ask him whatever I feel is appropriate.

MR. DIAMOND: Sure.

MR. WOOD: You can decide or Darnay can decide what you and he want to do about it but, as I understand it, you don't agree to be part of the protective order that is available that Sean has reviewed prior to the deposition today?

MR. DIAMOND: With respect to third-party materials, that's correct.

MR. WOOD: Would you sign on in any potential?

MR. DIAMOND: What's that?

MR. WOOD: You either accept the order for Mr. Thomas or you go get a new order that says that Mr. Thomas' deposition in some part is confidential.

MR. DIAMOND: Mr. Thomas isn't accepting the confidentiality order.

MR. WOOD: Fine.

MR. DIAMOND: I may well designate portions of his deposition confidential.

MR. WOOD: Then when you do that, you will have signed on to the protective order.

MR. DIAMOND: I disagree, but that's a matter for the --

MR. WOOD: Well, you will get a new protective order.

MR. HOFFMAN: That is a matter for the judge to decide.

MR. WOOD: Right, it is. We won't count that part against my time, I hope?

MR. DIAMOND: We'll count from 2:05 against your time.

MR. WOOD: That won't be part of it.

MR. DIAMOND: Sir --

MR. WOOD: Let's go.

MR. DIAMOND: -- you're wasting your time.

MR. WOOD: No, you're wasting my time. Let's go forward.

MR. WOOD: Did I give you a copy, too, Sean? I think I gave you --

MR. SMITH: I think so. I may have the original.

MR. WOOD: -- two copies and the original that I handed to the detective, former detective, excuse me.

MR. SMITH: I may have the original.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I didn't give you all my copies.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas -- yeah, I've got it -- the 911 tape. Did you ever hear any explanation as to why that tape was garbled in part?

A. At some point during the investigation I recall the tape coming to Detective Sergeant Wickman's attention initially because the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been

something at the end of the conversation that was unintelligible.

Q. I appreciate that information. 6 But I would like to get to my question because my time is limited today at least and whether we finish or not is another issue. But my question is, did you ever, sir, hear any explanation as to why a portion of the 911 tape was garbled?

A. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me why --

Q. Yeah, was anybody trying to figure out why -- the 911 tape is a tape in real time, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And one would think that you would hear in real time voices that are on the tape. You say there is something garbled. Was there ever any attempt to find out why this portion of the tape might be garbled and not discernible to the human ear without some scientific analysis? That's my question.

A. I don't think that it was garbled in the sense that there was a defect in the tape or something, that's certainly not my understanding. I think the description of garbled was meant to include the fact that as this phone was apparently being attempted placed back into the cradle, there was some conversation that was not as clear as Patsy Ramsey speaking directly into the phone, to the 911 operator.

Q. You knew the phone from your investigation was a wall phone, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you hear any effort on the tape to try to hang the phone up, a banging or a tapping or anything of that nature?

A. The call obviously concludes with the line disconnecting but, no, not that I recall today without listening to the tape of the phone banging.

Q. Do you know whether the 911 tapes that were being utilized at the time were recycled in the sense that they might be taped over after a period of time?

A. I don't know.

Q. Was any effort made by the Boulder Police Department, to your knowledge, to try to ascertain that information?

A. I would certainly think they did.

Q. But do you know the answer?

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

Q. Secondhand or otherwise?

A. No.

Q. Take a look at your book, if you will, for me, page 15. Are you with me?

A. Yes.

Q. "In preliminary examinations, detectives thought they could hear some more words being spoken between the time Patsy Ramsey said 'Hurry, hurry, hurry' and when the call was terminated." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the truth, is that accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. "However, the FBI and the United States Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the truth?

A.  As we discussed earlier, yes.

Q. I thought you said you didn't know what efforts, if any, they had made earlier?

A. I said in one case at least I don't know that they had the proper or necessary compatible equipment to try to enhance this tape, nor did I know of them ever submitting a report.

Q. All I would like to know is did the FBI to your knowledge or the Secret Service to your knowledge ever send the tape back and say we don't have the proper equipment to see if we can lift anything from the background noise on this tape?

A. Again, we have discussed that and that's my testimony, that not being my assignment, it was my understanding that the tape came back from the FBI and the Secret Service without anything definitive, but I recall there being an issue that somebody didn't have proper equipment to do the testing.

Q. Well, you don't say anything like that here. This is definitive. The FBI and the United States Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape. Is that a true statement or not?

A. Whether, because they didn't have the correct machine or because they didn't lift anything if they did do some testing, yes, that's a true statement.

Q. Why wouldn't you -- I mean with all due respect I don't think you were trying to do the Ramseys any favors in this book. Why wouldn't you have said here that they couldn't lift anything from the background noise on the tape but that may have been the result of inappropriate equipment. You didn't say that or discuss that in your book, did you?

A. If we're talking about the production of the book, it was certainly limited. I couldn't put everything in this case into the content of the book.

Q. The bottom line is we're confident that someone in the Boulder Police Department can answer the question about the findings by the United States Secret Service and the FBI about this 911 tape. That's in the case file, isn't it?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. Good. And I don't believe I asked you this; I wanted to. Are you aware 1 of any attempts to take a voice exemplar from Burke Ramsey and have it analyzed against the voice you think your human ear tells you or because it's a third-party voice that it's Burke Ramsey, any efforts to do a scientific analysis by way of a voice exemplar between Burke Ramsey's voice and the voice you think might have been his on the 911 tape?

A. I certainly never received an assignment like that, nor do I recall hearing or knowing of anyone else who did.

Q. In December of 1996,

who did you consider to be the most experienced homicide detective

in the Boulder Police Department?

A. In the entire department?

Q. I think I'm pretty clear, sir, in the Boulder Police Department, the detective department of the Boulder police.

A. As I asked, that the detective -- there is a detective department and then there is a uniform department where --

Q. I think my question said in the detective department.

A. In the detective department I think the most experienced homicide investigator was likely Detective Sergeant Tom Wickman.

Q. As I understand it initially Tom Trujillo and Linda Ardnt were the two designated co-lead detectives on the case, JonBenet Ramsey case, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Arndt was removed, did Tom Wickman take that place, did he become the lead detective?

A. Tom Wickman or Tom Trujillo?

Q. You tell me whether it was Wickman or Trujillo.

A. No, because there was no real designation at that point.

Q. Were you ever designated by the department as the lead detective or co-lead detective on the case?

A. There were four or five detectives who were designated as primary detectives who worked this case full time with no other assignments.

Q. My question was were you ever designated by the Boulder Police Department as the lead detective or a co-lead detective on 3 the JonBenet Ramsey case?

A. No, after Ardnt left -- actually, prior to Arndt leaving, that designation was not being used in the manner you describe it.

Q. The two shootings that you were involved in while you were with the Boulder Police Department, do you know whether the department itself investigated those two shootings?

A. I don't know the inception of a unit called the Boulder County Shoot Team, when that came into being but it was either investigated by the Boulder County Shoot Team or the Boulder Police Department.

Q. Are you aware of any information relating to Patsy Ramsey, Mr. Thomas, that you consider to be incriminating with respect to the death of her daughter that is not included in your hardback or paperback book?

A. In a circumstantial case such as this there are arguments that could be made that there is a lot of other information contained within the files of the Boulder Police Department that didn't fit into -- in this book.

Q. Thank you. But I want to know as you sit here today whether you are prepared to give me the benefit of any information related to Patsy Ramsey that you, Steve Thomas, consider to be incriminating with respect to the death of her daughter that is not included in either your hardback or paperback book?

MR. DIAMOND: Can you do that without reviewing --

A. Yeah, without reviewing --

MR. WOOD: Excuse me. Can I get him to answer without you suggesting the answer which would be totally inappropriate and I don't think appreciated under the Federal Rules or by the judge. Please answer the question for me without being coached by Mr. Diamond.

MR. DIAMOND: Mr. Thomas doesn't need to be coached by me, sir.

MR. WOOD: Well, apparently then you need to understand that, don't coach him. Coach him during lunch, do it in the last two days you had him.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Answer my question, sir. Is there any other information that as you sit here today know that you consider incriminating about Patsy Ramsey in terms of her being involved in the death of her daughter that you didn't include in your book?

A. To answer that big question, I would have to review my reports and the case file to determine definitively if there are items that were learned during the course of the investigation that I didn't put in the book.

Q. So you would be able to do that if you can come up with this box of materials when you go to look for it and you find it, right?

A. Or if you can allow me inside the Boulder Police Department, I'll do that for you.

Q. I think -- while I might have a better chance of getting the key to the department than you might, I don't think either one of us is going to get that short of a court order but I'll certainly try and if you would like to try maybe we can both together do it; is that a deal?

A. Deal, Mr. Wood.

Q. Okay. We'll go in combined and ask Beckner to open the door. I would love to see it and I know you would, too. I'm going to try and go through and ask you if you would to take a look at your book -- well, before I do that, let me ask you a couple of other things. Who is Dr. Michael Graham?

A. The name Dr. Michael Graham doesn't ring a bell with me right now.

Q. He was not a consultant hired by the Boulder Police Department?

A. He may have been but I'm not familiar with that person.

Q. You don't recall Dr. Michael Graham taking the position that the pineapple found in JonBenet's digestive system

could have been eaten the day before?

Does that refresh you in terms of Michael Graham's involvement?

A. No, since you mentioned pineapple --

Q. I didn't ask you -- I asked you about Dr. Michael Graham.

A. I'm trying to answer the question.

Q. Well, my question is, does that refresh you about Dr. Graham?

A. In that limited way, no.

Q. There was clearly an indication from a member of the Boulder Police Department that they found at least seven doors and windows unlocked at the Ramsey home on the morning of December 26, 1996. You remember that, don't you?

A. I've heard that referred to. I don't know -- what detective are you referring to?

Q. Have you heard that, sir? Has that not been part of a presentation made to you?

A. By Lou Smit or Mr. DeMuth?

Q. Either one.

A. What presentation are you talking about?

Q. There were two presentations, one in May and one in June. You attended both, true?

A. I did.

Q. You took notes, didn't you?

A. I may have.

Q. You paid careful attention to what was being said, didn't you?

A. I believe so.

Q. Have you ever heard that there were seven windows and doors found unlocked in the Ramsey home on the morning of December 26, 1996?

A. I don't know who the source of that is right now but I --

Q. I didn't ask you the source. I asked you have you ever heard it, sir?

A. Yeah.

MR. DIAMOND: Have you heard that from any source?

A. Yeah.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) From someone connected with the investigation, either in the district attorney's office or the Boulder Police Department?

A. Or courtesy of you and the media, yeah, I believe I've heard that.

Q. Trust me, I wasn't there the morning of the 26th and I didn't find the status of the doors. I'm asking you whether --

A. Nor was I, no.

Q. And I don't think I was around in May or June when the presentations were made. You heard that a Boulder police officer had found as many as seven doors and windows unlocked in that house on the morning of December 26, 1996, hadn't you, sir?

A. You're sourcing that to a -- now to a Boulder police officer detective and that's not my recollection; DeMuth may have said that.

Q. Do you think Trip DeMuth made it up out of a whole cloth?

A. I don't know where Trip DeMuth uncovered a lot of things in his investigation.

Q. So you think that there was -- you feel like you can competently say that's not true, that there were no doors found unlocked or windows found unlocked that morning?

A. I wasn't there that morning.

Q. Well, sir, you were not but you 0 have to rely, as you say earlier in your testimony, on your fellow officers, right?

A. That's right.

Q. All right. Well, did you go back and ever look to see if there were ever any reports that would have indicated that there were as many as seven windows and doors found unlocked in that house that morning?

A. I'm not familiar with the detective or the report you're speaking about.

Q. How about Officer Reichenbach, how do you pronounce his name?

A. Reichenbach.

Q. Do you ever recall hearing about what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee in terms of whether there was snow on the sidewalk of the house when he arrived that morning?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

A. He said, and he also said this to me, that although there was due to what I think was an 11 degree temperature outside, there was a fresh frost and maybe a light dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas, 1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the house, as he put in his report, as I may have put in one of my reports, as we presented to the VIP conference, that you could not tell whether or not somebody may have walked on those walkways in question.

Q. Or the wood chips?

A. I don't recall specifically him talking about the wood chips.

Q. Did you also get some information from NOAA about whether or not there might have been snow expected to be found on the north and west sidewalks of the Ramsey home on the morning of December 26th?

A. I think one detective may have gotten that assignment.

Q. And that

NOAA indicated they would not have expected snow there; is that right?

A. I don't know the results of that NOAA report.

Q. You would have had the ability to look at them when you were there and investigating the case, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, I don't -- as I said, I don't recall seeing that NOAA report.

Q. What did the FBI tell you, the Boulder Police Department, about the credibility of Dr. Werner Spitz?

A. Dr. Spitz I believe was the assignment of Detectives Trujillo, Wickman and possibly Weinheimer.

Q. They didn't tell you that, did they?

A. No, but I'm trying to answer the question.

Q. I know but we have a limited amount of time today but if we don't finish, we can come back and finish another day. It would be helpful I think if you try to focus and stay on task with my question. I don't mean to cut you off. You have the right to explain the answer but we can move quicker if we go directly to answering my question. My question is, sir, did the FBI to your knowledge make any statement to the Boulder police about the credibility of Dr. Werner Spitz?

A. No, to the contrary. I'm not aware of any such statement. And to the contrary, the detectives assigned to Dr. Spitz 3 thought the world of him and thought he was entirely professional and credible and I never heard anything attacking the credibility of Spitz.

Q. At either presentation, it wasn't said?

A. No, DeMuth's presentation, other than attacking virtually everything, the VIP presentation, I took that Spitz was an esteemed forensic pathologist.

Q. Relying on your fellow officers again, right?

A. Yes.

Q. There was a Barbie nightgown found in the wine cellar where JonBenet Ramsey's body was found, right?

A. Right.

Q. Was there any evidence obtained from that nightgown?

A. Not that I'm aware of prior to departing August of '98.

Q. There was no fiber evidence that you're aware of that was found on that nightgown?

A. Not that Detective Trujillo shared 4 with me.

Q. Was there any blood evidence found on that nightgown?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Any hair evidence found on that nightgown, to your knowledge, firsthand or secondhand?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Was there any decision made or conclusion drawn, perhaps is the better way to say it, that you're aware of, from any source, as to whether the panties that JonBenet Ramsey was found in had been worn and washed in the past or were new, in effect, fresh out of the package?

A. I believe that was after my departure that that underwear investigation took place.

Q. So, again, the state of the evidence with respect to that issue, you do not know, true?

A. Right.

Q. Do you know whether there were any autopsy photos that showed JonBenet from the standpoint of being able to look at it to see whether or not the panties, not the other articles of clothing, but the panties, fit her or whether they were obviously not a correct fit?

A. It's my belief from detective briefings that they were referred to as oversized floral panties.

Q. Thank you. Were there any autopsy photos is my question?

A. Without the long-john over pants covering the underwear, I don't recall seeing any autopsy photos of just the child in her underpants.

Q. Was there any other fibers found on the duct tape, other than the fibers that Mr. Hoffman had referred you to with respect to Patsy Ramsey's sweater or jacket?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And it's also true that those fibers were not capable or there was no identification made, no source found in the investigation, true?

A. When I left, I don't believe those other fibers had been sourced.

Q. And, you know, without going and I 6 guess we could do it if we need to, maybe we'll do it later but let's just for a moment see if we can't generally agree, that there were a considerable number of fibers found on JonBenet Ramsey's body and articles of clothing that were not in fact sourced by the investigation, true?

A. Whether artifact or evidence, yeah, there were a number of hair and fiber pieces in this case that I know they, Trujillo and CBI, were trying to source.

Q. And as of August of '98 had not been able to do so, true?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. And CBI had at one point come up with a conclusion that there was a consistency between fibers found on a blanket in the suitcase that matched fibers on JonBenet's body or were consistent with, is that the right term?

A. I heard Mr. Smit and Mr. DeMuth refer to that but I didn't hear Trujillo ever offer a report or an explanation concerning that.

Q. But the FBI disagreed with the 7 CBI, didn't they?

A. On what point?

Q. On the question of whether there were fibers inside materials found in the suitcase found under the window in the basement consistent with fibers found on JonBenet?

A. No, I'm aware of Smit and DeMuth's position or stating this consistency of these fibers, but I'm not aware of a disagreement between the FBI and that finding.

Q. In your entire law enforcement career, Mr. Thomas, how many cases have you been involved in where the law enforcement authorities concluded that there was staging with respect to a murder?

A. How many cases am I aware of?

Q. Let me ask you and if you would please help us move along. Again, if we don't finish today --

MR. DIAMOND: Your questions are not easy. If he asks for you to repeat it that is his right.

MR. WOOD: Judge Carnes can -- if I'm not being clear let me read it back.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) In your entire law enforcement career, Mr. Thomas, how many cases have you been involved in where law enforcement authorities concluded that there was staging with respect to a murder?

A. None that I can think of.

 

Part 9 War and Peace of Ransom Notes

Q. And is it your term that the ransom note found in the Ramsey home, have you been one to describe it as the War and Peace of all ransom notes?

A. I did not originate that term, but I've heard that and used it, yes.

Q. This would be the War and Peace of all staging with respect to JonBenet Ramsey, wouldn't it, sir, if it's a staged crime scene?

A. Well, I'm relying on the FBI experts who analyze these cases every day for a living and it was their conclusion that there was staging in this crime scene.

Q. They just -- strike that. The FBI that you rely on also, though, told you that they have not any reported incident of a parent garroting a child to death; that's what the FBI told you 9 about the garrote, true?

A. With a ransom note present and an apparent botched kidnapping where the body was found in the victim's home, that is correct.

Q. Is it your testimony, then, that there are cases that the FBI has in their files where a parent has garroted a child, has strangled to death a child by use of a garrote; is that your testimony?

A. No, my testimony is I don't know what the FBI has in their files concerning their investigation or review of child homicides.

Q. Did you ever ask about whether there was any prior case that you could study where a parent had used a garrote to strangle a child; did you ever ask the FBI that?

A. I don't recall personally asking them that.

Q. Do you know whether anybody in the Boulder Police Department investigation ever made that inquiry to the FBI?

A. There were several trips and inquiries and phone calls and meetings with the FBI. And I don't know, but it would 0 sound reasonable that one would ask that.

Q. If one asked, no one ever gave you the answer and you didn't find out about it, right?

A. They did explain that they have seen cases in which parents have feloniously slain their own children in any number of ways. If garroting was one of those, I'm unaware of that.

Q. Wouldn't that be something you would want to know since you have a garrote involved in this case?

A. Let me answer it simply. Again, I don't know of the FBI, have any knowledge firsthand or secondhand, denying or confirming the use of a garrote in a previous child homicide.

Q. I think I understand you. The red fibers, we're talking about the red fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?

A. Yes.

Q. That were consistent or a likely match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?

A. Yes. 1

Q. That was the red and black and gray jacket that she was wearing?

A. I've always heard it referred to as a red and black jacket, yes.

Q. It's the one in the photograph, though, that was produced where they went back a year afterwards and tried to find what they were wearing, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you aware of the fact that Priscilla White owned an identical jacket, that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket because she liked Priscilla White's so much?

A. Until you told me that right now, no.

Q. So I assume that no request, that you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites to give articles of clothing with respect to this investigation?

A. They may have been asked to give clothing; I'm unaware of that.

Q. There were no black fibers that were found on the duct tape that were said to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

A. It's my understanding that the four fibers were red in color.

Q. Did you find Melody Stanton to be a credible witness in terms of hearing a scream of a child sometime around midnight?

A. I wish I could have talked to her. I never talked to Melody Stanton.

Q. Did the Boulder Police Department consider her to be credible?

A. This collective Boulder Police Department, I don't know what their opinion was of her, but certainly Detective Hartkopp interviewed her and whether or not he found her to be credible, you would have to ask him. But apparently so, he never said anything to the contrary.

Q. In your scenario that Mr. Hoffman had you read into the record, your description of the death of JonBenet Ramsey, do you include in that description as accurate that there was a scream as described by Melody Stanton?

A.

According to an ear witness, Melody Stanton.

Q. So the answer is yes?

A. If the question is, was there a scream and do I believe there was a scream that this witness heard, yes.

Q. All right. In your description of how JonBenet Ramsey died, you have made it clear both in your book and in your national television appearances that John Ramsey was not involved, right?

A. It's my belief that John Ramsey was not involved in this crime, you're right.

Q. Right. And that it was sometime, as I understand your description of the events, the next morning when he was studying the ransom note that he became suspicious and perhaps concluded, you say, that his wife was involved, right?

A. That's what I purport in my hypothesis.

Q. What did John Ramsey tell you about who went to bed first on the evening of December 25, 1996?

A. It's a big transcript. I would have to review it.

Q. You don't know that?

A. Who went to bed first?

Q. Yeah.

A. In the Ramsey family?

Q. Yeah, between John and Patsy.

A. I would have to review my report or I would have to review the transcript of that Q and A.

Q. How about do you know as you sit here today who got up first that morning?

MR. DIAMOND: According to John Ramsey?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What the Boulder Police Department concluded. In your -- let me tell you in your description of how JonBenet Ramsey was killed, what was your position about whether Patsy Ramsey was in bed or out of bed that morning when John Ramsey got up?

A. Well, without reviewing multiple transcripts and reports, I don't recall the –

the Ramseys made several inconsistent statements --

Q. About who got up first?

A. If I could finish my answer.

Q. Well, if you could stay on track, it would be helpful. 5

MR. DIAMOND: Finish your answer.

MR. WOOD: Please make it responsive to my question about the issue about who got out of bed first that morning.

MR. DIAMOND: If you find his answer to be non responsive, your remedy, I believe, under the Federal Rules is to move to strike it and I believe that --

MR. WOOD: I appreciate you informing me of the Federal Rules. Now I know that you do know that some of things you're doing is not in accordance with the Federal Rules in terms of your statements on the record.

MR. DIAMOND: I'm only trying to do you a favor. MR. WOOD: Thank you. I don't need your favors, but I appreciate them anyway.

MR. DIAMOND: Is the question withdrawn or can he finish his answer?

MR. WOOD: I want to go back and make sure we're on task by restating it. So I'll withdraw it and restate it.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I'm asking you, Mr. Thomas, what was your position in your description of this child's murder as to whether Patsy Ramsey was in bed or out of bed when John Ramsey woke the morning of December 26, 1996?

A. From John Ramsey's account?

Q. I'm asking you, sir, what was your position in your description of this child's murder as to whether Patsy Ramsey was in bed or out of bed when John Ramsey woke the morning of December 26th?

A. I believe I write in my hypothesis that she was out of bed.

Q. She would have to be, wouldn't she? If you believe that John Ramsey, as you say you do, is not in any way involved, you would have to believe a couple of things, that she had not gone to bed when John went to bed, and that when John woke up, she was already -- she was not in bed. And you would have to believe one other thing, wouldn't you, detective, former detective, that John Ramsey didn't hear the scream at midnight, right?

A. You have a series of five phrases and questions --

Q. Let me break them down one at a time. Listen carefully to me. Under your position of the description of this child's murder, John Ramsey did not hear the screams described by Melody Stanton, right?

A. He never indicated, as far as I know, that he heard the scream of a child.

Q. If he was as you say he was, totally uninvolved in the murder of his daughter, he didn't hear the scream, did he, because if he had heard the scream, you would have expected that he would have reacted to it or been certainly willing to tell you about it?

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Argumentative. You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) If he's innocent as you say he is?

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Argumentative. You may answer.

A. One could speculate that he would have heard a scream from within the house.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You will concede that in fact Melody Stanton may be right that 8 the scream occurred and that John Ramsey did not hear it, you would concede that as a possibility supported by your description of the events, right?

A. It is a possibility, yes.

Q. And it is more consistent with your statements about John Ramsey's uninvolvement than it would be consistent with the idea that he was involved; can we agree on that?

A. I don't understand your question.

MR. DIAMOND: I don't either.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you understand it, just so we make sure?

MR. RAWLS: Got it, I'm on it.

MR. WOOD: Thank you. I kind of figured that nobody on that side of the table would understand it but everybody on this side would.

MR. DIAMOND: Can we ask Sean?

MR. SMITH: I think Sean has already taken his position that he doesn't understand any of my questions. I've dealt with him too long. He's never going to acknowledge that any of them are understandable.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD)

When was Steven Pitt hired?

A. I don't know if Pitt came to the investigation through the district attorney's office or through Sergeant Wickman but I recall Mr. -- or Dr. Pitt being on scene or being in Boulder, being involved with the investigation was it summer of 1997 maybe. I don't know for sure.

Q. Was there any plan or strategy on the part of Boulder Police Department or any other law enforcement agencies to try to put pressure on the Ramseys through the public?

A. I think so.

Q. And wasn't that part of what Steven Pitt was there to do?

A. I don't know what his employment agreement or what his motivations were for being there, but he certainly offered advice.

Q. On that issue?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't it true that Lou Smit's approach to build a bridge with the Ramseys really was in conflict with the Boulder Police Department's strategy of putting public pressure on them?

A. Yes.

Q. And the FBI was involved, Bill Hagmaier, who I happened to know from Richard Jewell's case?

A. Great guy.

Q. Yeah, wrong on Richard Jewell, wrong on Ramsey, that's consistent. Mr. Hagmaier was involved in the formulation of this plan of public pressure on the Ramseys, wasn't he?

A. I believe there were discussions with the FBI, yes, about how to exert some public pressure on people who are not cooperating, yes.

Q. Part of that was to try to portray them clearly to the public as being uncooperative and therefor appearing to be possibly involved in the death of their daughter, right?

A. I think it was two different things. I don't think they were necessarily trying to further paint them as uncooperative. I think they were using the media to get them back in to help us with the case.

Q. Were they also thinking that they might use the media to apply pressure so that there might be a possibility that one of the parents might confess involvement in the crime? Was that ever discussed?

A. That may have been -- that may have been some motivations.

Q. Do you believe from your recollections that that was discussed?

A. I wouldn't disagree with it. I don't have any concise, clear recollection of a conversation like that.

Q. Did you ever review reports of the officers that were with John and Patsy Ramsey on a 24-seven basis from the time of the discovery of JonBenet's murder up until the time they left to go to Atlanta for her burial? Did those officers provide the department with reports?

A. At least some did, yes.

Q. Did those reports contain discussions of the Ramseys' actions, conduct, and just conversations?

A. Yes.

Q. Those officers were there not only to possibly protect the Ramseys; they were there clearly also to have the Ramseys under 24-seven surveillance to ascertain what they might say that might be incriminatory, right?

A. Some of that; most of it was prior to my involvement in the case so I don't know what their instruction was.

Q. What do you believe from your review of the records in terms of the reports that these officers compiled?

A. Certainly 24-seven security but these officers weren't going to ignore any statements or comments by anyone that may be incriminating.

Q. These officers weren't sitting outside the door guarding the house. They were literally, as you know from the reports, they were right there in the room with the Ramseys, right next to them 24-seven, weren't they?

A. I believe so.

Q. Which points a little bit more towards surveillance than guarding them, doesn't it, sir?

A. In your mind maybe; I don't know, I wasn't there.

Q. What about in your mind when you reviewed the reports particularly since you had the benefit of the substance of what these officers were saying?

A. As I said, it's my belief that they were there 24-seven as security but also they certainly weren't going to ignore any statements. You might ask John Eller about that.

Q. Well, if I have the opportunity he and a lot of others I would ask. You don't know who ordered the guards 24-seven, do you, or the surveillance 24-seven, whichever the case may be, or some combination of it?

A. I think John Eller.

Q. And from your review of the reports, do you have a recollection of seeing anything unusual about the family's comments or conduct from these 24-seven police officers who were filing reports about them?

A. Yes, I remember they included in their narrative verbatim quotes made by the Ramseys and others.

Q. Do you recall any of those quotes?

A. I remember, I think it was in Chromiak's report about Patsy and her sisters praying, in another report Patsy making a comment that she didn't want to live anymore, didn't have a reason to live anymore. The comings and goings of the Ramseys, just a general recollection along those lines.

Q. Nothing in that that I'm hearing that sounds incriminatory, wouldn't you agree?

A. Again, without reviewing the reports, that's what comes to me off the top of my mind.

Q. Let me ask you about that. How many cases have you been involved in where you were analyzing the demeanor and conduct of parents who had a child found murdered in their home; what was your experience in that type of a case?

A. None.

Q.

Do you have any experience, formal training,

in how psychologically or otherwise one expects a parent to grieve when a child has been murdered?

A. No.

Q. You met many times with Fleet White, didn't you?

A. I did.

Q. And it was your responsibility and I'm sure you carried it out in terms of reporting because I think you get the record so far at least as of August of 1998 you had filed more reports than anybody on this case, did you know that?

A. I believe so.

Q. And every time you met with Fleet White either because he was and he was a suspect himself, was he not?

A. Again, that ambiguous suspect label, yes.

Q. And either because he was a suspect as that term is used by the Boulder Police Department or because he was a witness, each and every time you met with him and had discussions with him it was your duty and responsibility to prepare a report about it, true?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Why not?

A. Well, initially he wasn't my assignment.

I think Linda Ardnt shouldered a lot of that. And then after she was removed from the case, Detective Jane Harmer --

Q. I'm not asking about Harmer. I'm asking about you, Mr. Thomas. I don't need to know about Harmer and Arndt. They can answer themselves. I want to know if you made reports on each of your meetings with Mr. White. That's my question. Maybe you didn't understand that one.

MR. WOOD: Despite that interruption, you may continue with your answer.

THE DEPONENT: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah, answer about your contacts with Mr. White and whether you made reports on each of those or not?

MR. DIAMOND: You asked him why. He was explain' -- answering the why question.

MR. WOOD: I asked him why -- you're right. I asked him why he did not make a report, why he did not make a report.

MR. DIAMOND: Thank you. And he's about to tell you that if you just let him finish.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I assume what you're telling me is because of Arndt and Harmer somehow what they did, that's why you didn't do reports?

MR. DIAMOND: Why don't you listen to the answer, then you won't have to assume.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Why don't you answer my question about why you didn't prepare reports when you had contacts with Mr. White and then we can move to another question.

MR. DIAMOND: You can now finish your answer, if you haven't completed it.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Maybe now you can answer.

A. Detective Harmer inherited I think the Fleet and Priscilla White assignment, if you will, and was friends with them, compassionate to them trying to do her job as a police detective. When she introduced me then at some later date to the Whites, I completed and prepared reports on contacts, meetings, interviews that I felt were relevant at the time certainly and did so concerning 8 the Whites. But every time I either spoke or met with these people, no, I did not complete a written report.

Q. Give me your best recollection percentage-wise of how many times percentage-wise you think you may have prepared reports with meetings with Fleet White or Priscilla White, half the time, 75 percent of the time, 90 percent of the time, what is your best estimate?

A. I don't know how many reports I completed and I don't know how many times I met with them, but completed several reports I'm sure concerning the Whites and met with them a number of more times in which I didn't. So half, a quarter, I don't know.

Q. So there may be as many as half to 75 percent or 25 to 50 percent of the times you met with them where we couldn't find a report and find out what you all discussed or what they said to you?

A. As I said, I don't know. I'm trying to answer your question as far as a percentage goes.

Q. I take it if they gave you any 9 significant information as it would apply to the investigation of JonBenet's murder you would have prepared a report, true?

A. And I did at times.

Q. So we can at least know that any meeting you had with Priscilla White or Fleet White by phone, in person or otherwise, if there was any significant information about the case, you would have prepared a report, true?

A. Most likely, yes.

Q. Why would you not, if they had given you significant information about the case, why would you not prepare a report?

A. Well, again at the time and standing in those shoes, you know, three, four years ago, if it was significant at the time and I brought it back to the police department and it was significant, yes, absolutely I think I would prepare a report.

Q. Fleet White tell you that when he was downstairs in the basement with John Ramsey that John Ramsey went into the wine cellar room and turned on what he called a neon light and then cried out, my baby; did 0 Fleet White tell you that?

A. As to the matter of flipping on the light --

Q. Yes, sir.

A. -- yeah, I don't recall that.

Q. Do you have any knowledge as you sit here today to deny it?

A. I would look at my report before I gave you a definitive answer.

Q.

Whose idea was it to go down to the basement first

after Linda Arndt suggested to Fleet White that she ought to keep John busy and they could go search the house. And as I recall, Fleet White didn't really want to go tell John that himself and asked Linda Arndt to suggest it to him. Does that scenario sound familiar to you and accurate?

A. No.

Q. Not at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. How is it inaccurate?

A. Detective Arndt's description of that was that she gathered Fleet White to occupy a distracted John Ramsey to keep his mind busy and instructed him to search the house in her words from top to bottom. Upon which time Arndt's recollection to me was that it was Ramsey who led the two men downstairs.

Q. What was Fleet White's recollection to you about who made the decision to start down in the basement?

A. I don't know that -- again, without reviewing my reports and my interview with Fleet, but that's not today, consistent -- no, Fleet White hasn't indicated to me that he was the leader going downstairs.

Q. Are you telling me if Linda Arndt says, listen, I want you two guys to go over here and I want you to search this house from top to bottom, you think that was -- is to be interpreted as saying I want you to start at the top and go to the bottom or does that really say I want you to search this entire place? What do you think is the more reasonable way to interpret that statement search the house top to bottom?

A. You would have to ask Linda Arndt --

Q. You said you did?

A. -- but her -- I did and her comment to me was, quote, From top to bottom and the indication I took away from it was that her instruction was to search the house from top to bottom.

THE DEPONENT: Chuck, can we take a break?

MR. DIAMOND: When you get to a convenient stopping point.

MR. WOOD: If he wants it take a break I'm fine. We will take it right now.

THE DEPONENT: Thank you.

MR. WOOD: Any time you want to do that, Mr. Thomas, don't hesitate to ask.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 2:57. We're going off the record. (Recess taken from 2:57 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 3:05. We're back on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, were the sheets on JonBenet's bed collected on the 26th of December for forensic testing?

A. I was told they were.

Q. And what tests were performed on them?

A. I don't know. Detective Trujillo had that assignment.

Q. Was there any test that you're aware of that indicated the presence of urine on those sheets?

A. Detective Trujillo imparted to me that he had learned or believed that there was not a presumptive test for urine according to the CBI.

Q. Were they wet?

A. When?

Q. That morning. Did you ask? Did you ask any of the officers there, hey, by the way,

were the sheets on JonBenet's bed wet?

Did you ask that question of anybody?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you know if anybody else did?

A. I don't know.

Q.

You don't know the answer to whether they were wet or not?

A. I have been told that they were urine stained.

Q. Who told you they were urine stained?

A. Detective Trujillo, Detective Wickman.

Q. Have you seen the photographs of the sheets?

A. It depends on which photographs you're talking about.

Q. Of her sheets, of the bed.

MR. DIAMOND: Have you seen any.

A. Crime scene photographs, yes.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did they say they could smell urine?

A. I have been told that CBI says, yes, those sheets which are still in evidence smell urine stained.

Q. And did they stain because -- well, you don't have kids, but I don't know if you've ever had a bed-wetting accident but when you have children one day you'll probably know this to be true, urine stained sheets, were these stained, have you seen them?

A. I have not seen the sheets.

Q. I mean, you write -- you have written in your book that JonBenet wet the bed. What I want to know is what evidence supports that statement that you are aware of and that you found out about?

A. Urine stained sheets, the plastic bed fitting and the diapers halfway out of the cabinet.

Q. The diapers had urine on them?

A. That's not what I said.

Q. Well, I'm -- diaper halfway out of the cabinet shows that the sheets were wet or that she wet the bed?

A. No, I think you asked me what led me to believe that she may have wet the bed.

Q. Well, I mean it seems to me that the answer is pretty simple. Did you ever go look at the sheets? They were there for your viewing if you wanted to, weren't they?

A. No, they were at CBI.

Q. You could have picked up the phone and asked somebody at CBI about the test on them, couldn't you?

A. No, Detective Trujillo told us.

Q. Did you ever see the written report on that finding by CBI?

A. I don't know that CBI did a report on whether or not the sheets were urine stained.

Q. Surely you're not telling me that the CBI's forensic testers performed, the only test was to smell and look at the sheets?

A. As I said, I have been told that there is not a presumptive test for urine.

Q. How about for the substances that make up or are found in urine?

A. I have no training or knowledge of that.

Q.

How big was the area of the sheets where they were urine stained or wet?

A. I don't know.

Q. Isn't there something that describes that, a report?

A. Urine stained sheets according to Trujillo.

Q. Take a look at page 146 of your book, please. Down at the paragraph that starts "John Meyer." Do you follow me?

A. Yes.

Q. "John Meyer, the Boulder County coroner, had barely begun his autopsy findings 7 before Lee questioned the urine stains found on the crotch of the long-john pants and the panties beneath them." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. To put this into context, this would have been during the VIP explanation or conference, right?

A. No, I don't believe so.

Q. I'm sorry, when do you believe this event took place where Meyer was going through the autopsy findings where Henry Lee was present?

A. I believe this was in 1997 at the Boulder Police Department.

Q. Do you know when in 1997?

A. My best guess would be maybe March, February.

 

Part 10 Wet Bed Sheets

Q. Reading on. "Were there corresponding stains on the bed sheets? We didn't know, although when the crime became a murder instead of a kidnapping, those sheets should have been promptly collected for testing." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, you didn't know in February, are you telling me that you found out subsequent in time that the sheets were wet? When did you find out, Mr. Thomas --

MR. DIAMOND: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me -- why don't you just tell me, when did you first find out that the sheets were wet?

A. I do not think the sheets were collected promptly. I think it was after the fact. And one of the questions of this investigation was that no one had checked the bed on the morning of the 26th prior to a wet bed possibly drying whether or not the bed was wet. But the sheets nonetheless were collected and described to me as being urine stained and just recently saw something corroborating that when Mr. Smit appeared on the Today Show and there was a comment from the CBI about that.

Q. Traces of creatinine were found; is that what you're talking about?

A. I don't think that is what they said on the NBC show.

Q. What did they say?

A. I think it said a CBI source said the sheets were or appeared to be urine stained.

Q. Let's go back and find out not so much what NBC was talking about. Let's find out what the police knew. Were the sheets collected on December 26th, 1996 or not?

A. They were -- I don't know. I wasn't there.

Q. What did you find out about it?

A. That at some point during the ten days subsequent to December 26, 1996, when the house was a crime scene, those sheets were collected.

Q. At such time as they would have, if wet, been dry; is that what you're telling me?

A. Possibly.

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 4 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.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you interview Linda Arndt at any time subsequent to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Successfully and at times unsuccessfully, yes.

Q. In the successful interviews, did you prepare reports?

A. No.

Q. Would that be because there was nothing significant said to you during those interviews by her?

A. Typically police don't prepare, at least it's been my experience, prepare reports when simply speaking to or asking for a clarification from a fellow officer.

Q. I was talking about an interview more than a clarification.

A. No, did I ever sit down with her for a formal interview? No.

Q. Did you ever try to?

A. No, when I had questions, it was fairly routine just to go to the detective in question and make your inquiry.

Q. Has Fleet White ever made any statement to you about his opinion on who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

A. Mr. White has always been very careful with his language around me, as is his wife and I don't know that I could sit here and say today that he has come out and made a declaration as to who he believes killed JonBenet Ramsey. But the tone and inferences of some of these conversations made it fairly clear to me.

Q. You think you understood from the tone and inferences what he was trying to say but not saying directly; is that your testimony?

A. I think I believe that I know who Fleet has in mind as the offender in this case.

Q. Why don't you just ask him?

A. I did not, that I recall, ask him outright who he thought did it.

Q. I mean, you've talked to him since you left the Boulder Police Department, haven't you?

A. Yes.

Q. When is the last time you talked with Fleet White?

A. I think I last saw them in probably July or August of 2000 and then again had a pleasant hallway conversation in Jefferson County, Colorado, outside a courtroom in the last couple months.

Q. What was the nature of your seeing him in July of 2000?

A. A personal visit.

Q. Personal, but tell me, please, if you would, the nature of the visit?

A. I think I had finished a carpentry job up on -- in that part of the world and in the late afternoon or early evening, drove by their house to say hello and they invited me to stay for dinner.

Q. Drinks?

A. I don't really drink.

Q. Whether you really drink or not -- most people either drink or they don't drink. I don't know about I don't really drink. That sounds like you might occasionally take a glass of wine or drink, I don't know. Do you?

A. I won't drink three beers in a year's time.

Q. Did you have a glass of wine with the Whites that night you had dinner?

A. No.

Q. Did they?

A. I don't know whether or not they had alcohol.

Q. How many times do you think you've seen them on a social basis since you left the department in August of 1998?

A. Two or three maybe.

Q. And one was the dinner in July of 2000. What were the other two occasions?

A. Post resignation in August of '98, maybe a time or two in 1999, I'm not sure.

Q. What were the occasions? You had dinner one time. What were the other social occasions; do you recall what they were?

A. That was the only time I ever ate with the people.

Q. What were the other social occasions, sir, what did you do with them?

A. Probably just stopped by their house and said hello. I didn't meet them at other locations.

Q.

Do you consider Fleet and Priscilla White personal friends of yours?

A. I don't know how I would characterize these people who I have a lot of compassion for.

Q. Do you know what you consider someone -- do you know what it is to consider someone a personal friend of yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Do they fall in that category or not?

A. It's an unusual characterization. I have never had a relationship with somebody that I met wearing one hat and continued that in this context. So if you're asking me am I friendly and would I consider myself friends with these people, yes.

Q. Look at page 25 of your book for me if you would, please, Mr. Thomas. Right here (indicating) kind of give you a visual.

MR. DIAMOND: Do you see that, Darnay?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "In the sun room Patsy Ramsey examined a second-generation photocopy of the ransom note, a smeary version that showed little more than the dark printed words. Rather than commenting on the words and contents, she told one of her friends that the note was written on the same kind of paper she had in her kitchen." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the friend that she told that to?

A. This was from Barb Fernie.

Q. And then "Police would wonder how she could tell since they saw no similarities." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. You're talking about police saw no similarities between the second-generation photocopy and the actual ransom note itself?

A. No, trying to source a Xerox copy back to a particular note pad in the kitchen.

Q. The police couldn't tell the -- couldn't see the similarity of the Xerox copy and the note pad, right?

A. Right.

Q. They would wonder how Patsy could tell there was a similarity, right?

A. How one would make that suggestion, how a Xerox photocopy of a rather bland, generic piece of paper on which the ransom note was written may have had its genesis from a tablet in the kitchen.

Q. Not that it had its genesis, but that it was similar, right? It was written on the same kind of paper?

A. The Xerox copy did not leave me with that impression, that it did not strike me that way.

Q. Did that seem suspicious to you of Patsy Ramsey?

A. A bit.

Q. Did you ever stop and consider that she might have made the comment about the similarity because she, sir, had seen the original of the ransom note prior in time?

A. But I think in this context she was looking at a photocopy.

Q. So you're telling me that she was trying to say that from the photocopy she thought that it was similar. You don't think that she might have had the benefit of knowing what the actual note looked like in terms of the paper? Would you concede that maybe that might be an inaccurate assumption on your part, sir, you know, what you thought was suspicious wasn't suspicious at all?

A. No, I'm simply stating what struck the detectives in wonder is we thought that Barb Fernie's statement was unusual, given this context.

Q. On pages 26 and 27 of your book, starting with Detective Arndt -- well, actually it starts at page 25 "Time was passing swiftly." For the next couple of pages, and the content is not so much what I'm focusing on. I just want to know, you talk a lot about Arndt and observations that she made. Was the basis for those comments that you made about her reports?

A. Primarily, because at one point she discontinued talking to some of us.

Q. She actually did more than that. She told you that she didn't have any recollection anymore about what she saw that day, didn't she?

A. She made that statement or something very close to that.

Q. Page 35, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, do you know who -- did you ever interview Linda Hoffmann-Pugh?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never had the opportunity to judge her credibility yourself to see whether she might, in your opinion, like Jackie Dilson might be somewhat unstable or not credible?

A.

I don't know that I've ever met Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, no.

Q. Do you know how many days a week Linda Hoffmann-Pugh worked for the Ramsey family?

A. Without reviewing reports, no, I don't.

Q. Do you know what time of the morning she would get there and how long she would stay?

A. Again, without reviewing reports concerning Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh, I do not.

Q. Do you think you had some of those reports about Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh in your materials that you copied and after you left the department or received from the Boulder Police Department after you left the department?

A. I don't know.

Q. We can only tell when we find them, right, that would tell us more information about what you know about Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, true?

A. Or again if we can work our way into the police department.

Q.

Did you ever interview Shirley Brady,

who had been a housekeeper for the Ramseys for almost four years?

A. The name sounds familiar and if it's the person I'm thinking of who resided in Georgia I think Harmer or Gosage conducted that interview.

Q. They would have prepared a report?

A. I would think so.

Q. Shirley Brady tells me that she got a phone call and about a five-minute interview and when she said she made it pretty clear that the Ramseys weren't in any way the type of people that could be involved in this, that the interview ended and she never heard from anybody again. Does that sound like a thorough investigation if that's true?

A. It depends on what the detectives were doing. I don't know what they were doing.

Q. Well, you know if you have got to -- if you're spending a lot of time with Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who had worked for them less than two years and only worked part time and you want to know all about this family's background, a thorough investigation, wouldn't you believe, sir, from your experience as a police officer that you're going to spend more than five minutes on the phone with someone who was a housekeeper for three years?

A. For some reason in my mind, and I may be wrong, I don't think Mrs. Brady was ever in Colorado with the family. There was apparently nothing that the detective who interviewed her felt was worth more than their five minutes. You would have to ask them.

Q. So you had to be in Colorado with the family in order to be a significant witness as to their background?

A. No, not to their background.

Q. That doesn't make any sense, does it?

A. No.

Q. I didn't think it did. I mean, you know you all were looking to see if there was any pathology in this family on either John Ramsey's part or Patsy Ramsey's part, right?

A. We did.

Q. And you didn't find any, did you?

A. What do you mean by pathology, Mr. Wood?

Q. Mr. Thomas, please, you know what pathology means.

MR. DIAMOND: Don't give him that tone of voice or I'm going to pick him up and walk him out of here.

MR. WOOD: If you want to pick him up and walk him out of here, if you think you're justified, do so.

MR. DIAMOND: Cut out the sarcasm. If you have a problem with his answer, move on to another question.

MR. WOOD: All right. May I ask my question without your interruption, please?

MR. DIAMOND: You may.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, please, do you, sir, not know what I mean when I asked you whether there was any pathology on the part of John or Patsy Ramsey from a criminal investigation standpoint?

A. I simply asked you to explain to me what you mean by pathology.

Q. As used by the people that discuss that very term in your investigation. You knew what they meant, didn't you?

A. I don't think, to answer your question, that there was anything remarkable or outstanding as far as what you're inquiring about. Although, Pitt and others would describe to us their concerns about the beauty pageant world and child beauty pageants, et cetera, if that's what we're talking about as far as family history.

Q. Drug use, illegal drug use would be pathology,

child abuse would be pathology, domestic violence would be pathology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't find anything about that with respect to this family, did you, sir, John and Patsy Ramsey?

A. Drug use, child abuse, or spousal abuse, not that I'm aware of.

Q. Anything along the lines of pathology that you believe you heard the investigation found, other than Pitt and others you say commenting about beauty pageants?

A. No, there wasn't any sort of untoward history or certainly no criminal history that I was made aware of.

Q. When you were in these presentations, either one or both, wasn't it discussed that the experts hired by the Boulder Police Department did not believe that there was pathology?

A. I don't know to which experts you're referring.

Q. Well, Dr. Krugman, do you remember him?

A. Yeah, certainly. Dr. Krugman was the one who

put forth the bed-wetting, toileting, and rage scenarios.

Q. Ken Lanning of the FBI?

A. I remember Mr. Lanning from Quantico.

Q. What did Mr. Lanning say with respect to his expectation in a case like this in terms of whether you would expect to find serious pathology or not?

A. I don't recall. I'll refresh myself at some point I hope with that report.

Q. When you, sir, with all due respect when you're sitting down to write a book to state your, as you call it, hypothesis that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter, I'm just operating under the assumption that you would have thoroughly familiarized yourself with the investigation before committing that type of a statement to word for profit. Is my assumption wrong?

MR. DIAMOND: This deposition is not about the authorship of his book.

MR. WOOD: No, it's about his knowledge of the investigation, sir.

MR. DIAMOND: You can ask him questions about that.

MR. WOOD: I just did.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Is my assumption wrong?

MR. DIAMOND: I direct you not to answer the pending question. The next question.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you or did you not prior to April of 2000 familiarize yourself fully with the significant findings of the investigation of John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey in connection with the death of JonBenet, yes or no?

A. I tried to.

Q. Did you feel confident that you had in fact that familiarity?

A. Was I familiar with the case? Yes, absolutely.

Q. Well, did all the experts agree that JonBenet Ramsey was alive at the time of the injury to her vagina?

A. Again, I don't know what experts you're referring to but we had --

Q. The ones that you listened to.

A. Let me finish, Mr. Wood.

Q. The ones that your department hired?

A. At times there was, among experts, as was to be expected, there was conflict of opinion. But regarding the prior vaginal trauma if that's what you're asking about, this blue ribbon panel of pediatric medical experts they brought in seemed to me to be in agreement on some other conclusions.

Q. I'm talking about the

acute vaginal trauma she suffered at the time of her murder.

The agreement was unanimous that she was alive at the time that that vaginal trauma was inflicted, true?

A. Yes, I believe that's correct.

Q. Now, tell me who the members were of what you call the blue ribbon panel of pediatric experts, give me their names, please.

A. I think the FBI recommended --

Q. Just their names, not the recommendation?

A. -- and tried to -- and he participated, was a doctor from California, Dr. John McCann, from Miami was Dr., I believe it's, Valerie Rau and the third gentleman from St. Louis, I think he was the Dean of the Children's Hospital or the pediatrics at Glenn Cannon and I don't recall his name offhand.

Q. Anybody else on this panel?

A. On and off, we saw one of Hunter's advisors, which was Krugman.

Q. Was he on the blue ribbon panel that you keep referring to?

A. Krugman?

Q. Yeah, the blue ribbon panel of pediatric experts that I asked you about. Was Krugman on that panel?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. I think that panel consisted of those three individuals.

Q. Take a look, if you would, at page 45 of your book. Second -- actually, first full paragraph. "An acquaintance said that JonBenet was rebelling against appearing in the child beauty contests. She was being pushed into the pageants by her mother and grandmother, said the witness." Who is that individual?

A. I believe that was Judith Phillips.

Q. Did you find Judith Phillips to be credible?

A. At times.

Q. At times she was not credible?

A. No, I think Judith Phillips, like many others in Boulder, were devastated by this crime and she had tough moments, I'm sure.

Q.

Do you think John and Patsy Ramsey had tough moments

because they would have been devastated by the death of their daughter?

A. They certainly may have.

Q. Page 48, the first full paragraph. "John was overheard to ask someone quietly, 'Did you get my golf bag?'" Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Who overheard him ask that question?

A. I believe that was either John or Barbara Fernie.

Q. Who did they overhear him ask that question to? Who was the someone?

A. They could not identify that party.

Q. And when did that statement, was it allegedly made?

A. The did you get my golf bag statement?

Q. Yeah.

A. I think in the days following the murder.

Q. Do you know how many days after the murder?

A. No.

Q. And was there ever any concern in the Boulder Police Department about a relationship that developed between Barbara Fernie and Linda Arndt?

A. I think there were concerns about Arndt that ultimately led to her removal from this investigation.

Q. My question was, sir, and let me repeat it for you if it was not clear. Are you aware of any concerns in the Boulder Police Department about a relationship that developed between Barbara Fernie and Linda Arndt?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me what the nature of those concerns were. 5

A. As I recall, I think that there was some feeling that Linda Arndt had gone outside her police hat, so to speak, and was involving herself emotionally with Barbara Fernie.

Q. And potentially romantically or sexually?

A. Never have I heard anything like that.

Q. Look at page 52, the second full paragraph, last sentence, "The officer said she was told by a police intern on duty not to be concerned because 'the detectives already know who did it.'" Have I read that correctly?

A. You have.

Q. Who was the police intern?

A. I don't know.

Q. Who was the officer, Chromiak?

A. As it says.

Q. Who were the detectives?

A. I don't know because this was prior to my involvement in the case, I believe.

Q. Did you ever see any lab forensic test forms filled out as early as December 30, 1996, that under the form area for suspects had John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey's name there and no one else's?

A. No, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Q. As early as December 30, 1996, that would not surprise you, would it, sir?

A. No, with this ambiguous label of suspect, no.

Q. With that ambiguous label of suspect it would seem to me there would be a lot of other people that would be on there such as Fleet White as of December 30th, right?

A. Right what, Mr. Wood?

Q. You can't -- I mean, you're trying to tell me as I understand it, well, you know, it wouldn't surprise me for John and Patsy Ramsey's name to appear on the form as early as December 30th as a suspect because of the ambiguous use of the term suspect. Well, you're going to apply the ambiguous terms equally to all, aren't you? Shouldn't we see Fleet White? Shouldn't we see John Fernie? Shouldn't we see Mr. Barnhill? Shouldn't we see Bill McReynolds? Shouldn't we see all of those people as of December 30th, sir, under that as you now call it ambiguous term suspect?

A. I did not see the report. In fact, if you see my reports, I think I refer to them as subjects.

 

Part 11 John and Patsy as Suspects

Q. When did you move them from subjects to suspects?

A. I don't know that I in my reports listed them as suspects.

Q. How about in your mind's eye, when did you make the determination that they were suspects?

A. Well, everybody was a potential suspect from early on, Mr. Wood.

Q. Everybody?

A. Excuse my use of everybody. There were a number of people who could be potential suspects in this case from very early on.

Q. Bill McReynolds was?

MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry, could you -- could I have that reread?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Bill McReynolds 8 was, right?

MR. DIAMOND: Thank you.

A. Was a suspect as early as December 30th, 1996?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yeah.

A. Or shortly thereafter he became an early suspect.

Q. At what point in time did you say I think Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter?

A. I think the evidence led me to those conclusions and further strengthened my belief in the early months of 1997.

Q. When in 1997, the early months, what does that mean? Tell me what that means with some specificity, please, sir.

A. There was not a defining moment in which the bell rang and I noted the date and time. Early in 1997 it became more and more apparent to me that that's where the abundance of evidence was leading.

Q. And you were heavily influenced in that determination by the conclusion of John Foster, weren't you, sir?

A.  Don Foster?

Q. Don Foster, yeah.

A. No, he did not come on board for I think almost another year.

Q. Right. So you had decided in your mind's eye that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter many months before Don Foster made the appearance as a consultant in the case, right?

A. Again, Mr. Wood, as I said, I felt there was an abundance of evidence pointing in that direction. And that became -- and others viewed it the same way, incidentally. And, yes, in those early months of '97, she looked pretty good for that.

Q. Yes, sir. Thank you. But that doesn't answer my question. You had decided in your mind's eye that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter many months before Don Foster made his appearance as a consultant in the case, true?

A. I felt that she was the best suspect, yes, many months prior to Don's Foster's involvement.

Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 is Mr. Foster's letter to my client, Patsy Ramsey. Have you seen that letter before?

A. I haven't looked at it yet.

Q. Do you think there was more than one?

MR. DIAMOND: Can you hold on a second?

MR. WOOD: Did I call that Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, it's Defendants' Exhibit 2, excuse me.

MR. SMITH: I don't have any --

MR. WOOD: I can't hear you. I can assume the general gist of what you're saying. (Pause.)

MR. WOOD: Do you want to go off the record to save tape?

MR. DIAMOND: No, I will be done in a second. How are you doing?

THE DEPONENT: Yeah, I'm keeping up with you on it.

MR. DIAMOND: Do you want to give him a moment to look at it?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) If you want to look at it, we can take a break instead of wasting tape because I don't want it to count against my time?

MR. DIAMOND: If you show him a document he has a right to read it. If you only come with one we've got to read it one at a time. This is your time use it the way you want.

MR. WOOD: Every road goes in two directions, Mr. --

MR. DIAMOND: Diamond. MR. WOOD: Diamond, is that your name? I'm sorry, I forgot it just momentarily. Why don't we take a five-minute break and let him read that. I need to go to the restroom anyway.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 3:48. We're going off the record. (Recess taken from 3:48 p.m. to 3:53 p.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 3:53. We're back on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Defendants' Exhibit Number 2, you've had an opportunity to review it during the break?

A. Yes.

Q. That is what you recall being as 2 being a true and correct copy of a letter that was subsequently brought to your attention at some point in the investigation that Mr. Foster, Don Foster, had written to Patsy Ramsey in June of 1997?

A. I had only seen the first page of that.

Q. Does the first page appear to be a true and correct copy of that page that you saw?

A. Yes.

MR. DIAMOND: Did you get an audible response?

MR. WOOD: I thought he said yes. Did you get a yes?

THE REPORTER: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Page 67 of your book, bottom paragraph "Later a friend who had come out from Boulder for the services recalled that she was asked by Patsy to retrieve the black jeans Patsy had worn ... the morning of December 26th." Who was that friend?

A. I believe that was Priscilla White.

Q. Did you ever consider that perhaps Patsy Ramsey wanted those jeans because she wanted some casual clothes and did not at that time feel like going out and shopping?

A. No, it struck me as unusual, as I said, to transport a pair of jeans 1500 miles to Atlanta from Boulder.

Q. You think that was incriminatory?

A. It struck me as odd, Mr. Wood.

Q. Did it strike you as odd that the Boulder Police Department never made a request to the Ramsey family to obtain the articles of clothing that they wore on the 25th of December for almost a year?

MR. DIAMOND: Are you representing that is the case?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD)

I think Mr. Thomas knows that is absolutely the case, don't you?

A. Which question?

Q. That the one that I -- well, the Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996 until almost a year later, true?

A. For a long time, that was a mistake, yes.

Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?

A. That the police did that?

Q. You and the police, you were part of the case?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you do it?

A. Why did I do what?

Q. Why didn't you ask the Ramseys to give you the articles of clothing they wore?

A. In hindsight, that was important.

Q. You had already concluded that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime before you even asked for the clothes that she had worn, true?

A. Those should have been collected the first day and they weren't.

Q. You had already concluded that Patsy Ramsey had committed the crime before you even asked the Ramseys for the clothes they had worn that night, true?

A. It was my belief that that evidence that I'm talking about led to Patsy Ramsey. So yes, she was the best suspect before we wound up collecting their clothes.

Q. I'm not asking you about who is the best. I'm talking about you, Steve Thomas, a lead detective had concluded that Patsy Ramsey had killed her daughter, JonBenet, months before you or the Boulder Police Department even asked for the clothes that she and her husband were wearing that night; is that true?

MR. DIAMOND: Asked and answered. You can answer.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Can I get an answer and then we can move on. Am I correct, sir?

A. That's my belief that she was involved.

Q. And the timing is correct, right?

A. Prior to the retrieval of the clothing, yes.

Q. All right. Thank you. It seems like it was a pretty simple question.

MR. DIAMOND: You wanted to put your words in his mouth and he didn't want to swallow them, which is his right.

MR. WOOD: Well, the truth then one can surmise why one has difficulty swallowing the truth.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Sir, let me ask you --

MR. DIAMOND: That's a hot-headed remark.

MR. WOOD: What?

MR. DIAMOND: That's a hot-headed remark.

MR. WOOD: Well, I don't think it's any more hot headed than your comment made about swallowing the truth and making -- and taking my words?

MR. DIAMOND: Try swallowing the truth. MR. WOOD: Your comment, sir, you're the one that got into the swallowing. So, you know, if you stay away from there, I don't need to go there.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What happened to pages 17 through 25 of the pad, do you know, from where CBI concluded that the ransom note was written?

A. Are we talking about Patsy's tablets?

Q. Seventeen through 25 of the tablet that was given to the police that morning by John Ramsey because it contained handwriting by Patsy.

A. Seventeen through 25 I believe remained unaccounted for.

Q.

Was there a note from Bill McReynolds found torn up in JonBenet's trash can in her room?

A. I have heard that.

Q. Did you ever check to see if that were true?

A. I think I was told that it was some sort of card.

Q. From Bill McReynolds?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it ever fingerprinted, do you know?

A.

Detective Trujillo would know that. I don't.

Q. Did you ever try to find out?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever try to find out what the card said?

A. I recall at one time. I don't now.

Q. What was the object that struck the blow that fractured JonBenet Ramsey's skull?

A. I don't know. A blunt object. I don't believe, at least during the time I was involved in the investigation, it was identified.

Q. Were there any forensic tests conducted to determine the force one would have to exert on her head to create a fracture of the magnitude found on autopsy?

A. Are we talking like torque and foot pound pressure, that sort of thing?

Q. You're the expert it sounds like, yeah, sure.

A. I'm not. But I'm not familiar with any tests like that.

Q. There apparently could have been some I take it?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Did you all get any experts involved, consultants involved in the Boulder Police Department to look into that issue?

A. Dr. Spitz in Michigan did some testing.

Q. Anyone besides Dr. Spitz?

A. Not that I'm aware of. But Dr. Spitz' testing was trying to determine potential blunt object instruments that may have caused that injury.

Q. Not the force or torque or foot pound pressure?

A. Correct.

Q. Are you aware from your investigation of any statements by John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey that they thought that Fleet White or Priscilla White or both killed their daughter JonBenet?

A. Yes, if those transcripts serve memory correctly, yeah, they cast suspicion on the Whites, yes.

Q. Well, then, I mean, please, with all due respect, casting suspicion by saying that you suspect someone is different than saying that you believe that they killed your daughter, can we not agree on that, sir?

A. I believe the Ramseys only sat down a couple times with --

Q. I didn't ask you that, sir.

A. -- the government and -- please.

MR. DIAMOND: You may finish.

MR. WOOD: You may but I mean at some point I'm going to have to maybe get the judge to direct him to answer the question. She certainly would if in fact he were in front of her. I didn't ask him about how many times the Ramseys sat down with the government. I asked him, please, with all due respect, casting suspicion by saying you suspect someone is different than saying that you believe -- strike that. Let me go back. Please, with all due respect, casting suspicion by saying that you suspect someone is different than saying that you believe that that person killed your daughter; can we agree on that, sir.

MR. DIAMOND: And he was answering that question.

MR. WOOD: Would you answer that question, Mr. Thomas,  and if you do not want to answer that question then I'm going to consider upon recess whether I'm going to adjourn this deposition and get some guidance today on another occasion to have this witness quit wasting time by being non responsive to the question. Why don't you counsel him on a break here and let's take two minutes and let me talk to Mr. Rawls because I'm kind of reaching the end of my rope with you and him.

MR. DIAMOND: We're not -- we're going to stay on the record.

MR. WOOD: Let him answer the question then.

MR. DIAMOND: He may in any way he sees fit. Do you want the question reread?

THE DEPONENT: Yeah, please.

MR. DIAMOND: Madam reporter?

MR. WOOD: Ready. Do you want to read it back to him maybe he'll understand it. He didn't seem to have this problem with Mr. Hoffman's questions.

MR. DIAMOND: Could be a reflection on Mr. Hoffman.

MR. WOOD: Could be a reflection on woodshedding by the lawyers more appropriately. I don't think anybody skilled in litigation is going to have any questions about what this witness and his lawyers have 2 done and told him to do. It's pretty obvious. Thank goodness we have the record both video and stenographically. (Page 279, line 23 through page 280, line 2 read.)

A. I think the Ramseys were very careful in how they cast that suspicion and I would have to review those transcripts as to their verbatim language to refresh myself because as I sit here today, four years later, I don't recall that.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD)

You can't answer that question today, is that what you're telling me?

A. I don't recall their language, no.

Q. And hence you're telling me today as you sit here you cannot answer my question, is that your testimony?

A. And hence, I think I just tried to answer your question.

Q. Do you use the term and hence often?

A. No, you just used it.

Q. Do you use it often?

A. Never.

Q. Would you be willing to give me a handwriting exemplar today before we leave? MR. DIAMOND: You can make a request of his counsel. MR. WOOD: I would like to. I would just like to see what maybe some of these examiners would say about it not necessarily casting aspersions on Mr. Thomas, but maybe testing the waters on how reliable a handwriting analysis is. So if you would consider that we will come back to that at the very end.

MR. DIAMOND: It is under consideration.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Let me ask you to look at page 87. "Dog and pony shows."

MR. DIAMOND: Where are you looking?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) The first paragraph next to the last sentence "The only danger to" John -- "Patsy and John Ramsey when they put on their dog and pony shows did not come from the interviewers but from themselves." What are you referring to when you -- that you're describing as their dog and pony shows?

A. My opinion some of these appearances.

Q. What appearances?

A. For example, May 1 of 1997.

Q. What other appearances?

A. I don't know; I would have to review their appearances, Mr. Wood.

Q. You said arranging an interview with the news organization was a tactic they would use repeatedly in coming years. How many times did they from your understanding use that what you call a tactic before the publication of their book?

A. I don't think I make that distinction, do I, before or after the publication of their book?

Q. So you were out doing the same thing I guess when you were giving your round of media interviews in connection with the publication of your book; was that a dog and pony show by you?

A. They have certainly said worse about me than a dog and pony show.

Q. Would you agree you were in the dog and pony show business, too, then since that's the way you describe their interviews?

A. No. I don't describe mine as dog and pony shows but I have an opinion about what I talk about here.

Q. Page 113. Next to the last paragraph "Additional information he shared with us at the interview, which we were later able to confirm, further eliminated him." What are you referring to in terms of the additional information?

MR. DIAMOND: Can I, give me a second, please, to get the context?

MR. WOOD: Bill McReynolds.

THE DEPONENT: Chuck, I need to prior to this answer just 60 seconds to ask you a question.

MR. WOOD: Go off the record.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 4:07. We're going off the record. This is the end of tape three. (Recess taken from 4:07 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 4:10. We're on the record.

Q. Yeah, he did. Did you ever see the letter that he had sent to Patsy before his surgery where he talked about how much he enjoyed JonBenet giving him a tour of the house and giving him a special present in the basement of the house a year before, Christmas of 1995; did you ever see that letter?

A. I'm not sure I ever saw a letter like that.

Q. Do you deny seeing a letter like that?

A. I'm telling you if the Ramseys had wished to share that with us, I certainly would have looked at it but, as I sit --

Q. Are you saying they didn't?

A. -- as I sit here right now I don't recall that letter.

Q. Analysis proved that Santa Bill didn't write the ransom note. Was he in the elimination category from CBI?

A. Again, if you want to go back to that, he was not under consideration. Whether that was elimination or no evidence to indicate, it was my understanding from Trujillo that McReynolds was not a candidate as the ransom note author.

Q. How many different examiners looked at his handwriting?

A. I think it was just Chet Ubowski at CBI.

Q. How about Jessie McReynolds, did he fall under the category as John Ramsey did of elimination as the author?

A. Same in the interest of your time, same answer as for Bill McReynolds.

Q. Again, I guess in the interest of my time, thank you for your concern. When we use the term elimination, you claim not to understand what that means from the CBI and other handwriting experts; is that what you're telling me? Because I'm trying to find out if you've got a report where a CBI person, in this instance Mr. Ubowski I assume, said based on his review of exemplars in the ransom note he was able to eliminate Bill McReynolds as an author of the note. That's what I want to know whether that was done in this case or not. Was it done or not is my question?

A. And I'm not real sure of your question, but as far as elimination or no evidence to indicate, I believe Santa Bill and his son fell into that category.

Q. But there were examiners that said there was no evidence to indicate that Patsy was the author of the note, true?

A. The same examiner who also said that didn't disqualify her as possibly being the author of the note.

Q.

Nor would it disqualify Bill McReynolds in and of itself, true?

A. I think it was different examiners and I don't know the standards of their professional examination.

Q. You have seen the -- I'm sure you watched some of the appearances by Alex Hunter when he went out on the media, didn't you?

A. I did.

Q. You've heard Alex Hunter say that the handwriting experts in this case in fact put Patsy Ramsey somewhere around a 4.5 on a one to five scale, five being elimination. You heard district attorney Hunter make that statement, didn't you?

A. Not only did I not hear him make that statement, District Attorney Hunter I never know what to believe when he speaks.

Q. You don't like Alex Hunter, do you?

A. No, sir.

Q. I mean, that's a pretty damning statement to make about a man to say that you never know what to believe when he speaks because that's a way of saying that he's a liar, not to be trusted, wouldn't you agree?

A. I always take at face value what comes out of Mr. Hunter's mouth.

Q. Jeff Shapiro was your confidential informant, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So you had during your investigation of JonBenet Ramsey's murder a confidential informant who was a tabloid, supermarket tabloid, reporter for Globe, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were trying to get Mr. Shapiro to get you information about Mr. Hunter, right?

A. He came to us with information. Eye and -- ear and eyewitness information about some of the activities going on in Mr. Hunter's office, yes.

Q. Did you give the ransom note to Ann Bardach?

A. We discussed it. I never gave her a copy of the note or the note.

Q. Did you tell her what it said?

A. We had conversations which I would describe as almost wholly concerning the politics of the investigation but given some of what was going on, yes, I did discuss content of the ransom note with her.

Q. Did you ever meet her in a parking lot?

A. I met her at a restaurant.

Q. Did you ever meet her in a parking lot, sir?

A. I don't know what you're referring to.

Q. A parking lot. You asked Jeff Shapiro, for example, one time to meet you in a parking lot, didn't you?

A. Maybe I met her in the restaurant parking lot.

Q. That's what I was asking. The first time you met her, you didn't want to be seen in a restaurant in Boulder, Colorado with Ann Bardach, did you?

A. Went into the restaurant and had a meal.

Q. How many times did you meet with Ann Bardach?

A. I don't know, maybe four or five times.

Q. You were scared to death when you were up in Quantico, Mr. Thomas, that you were going to be outted as a source for her Vanity Fair article, weren't you?

A. I was concerned because Mr. Shapiro made me aware or at least claimed that what became a big internal affairs witch hunt in fact transpired.

Q. You were afraid it was going to come out on CNN that Steve Thomas had given police information to the Vanity Fair writer and embarrass you when you were up there with these FBI people that you were relying on, isn't that true, sir?

A. As I said, Mr. Wood, I was concerned about that being made public.

Q. You were ready to throw down your badge over it, weren't you? Talked to your wife and said I'm going to walk away from this, I can't take it anymore, that was when 4 you were up in Quantico, true?

A. I don't know what Mr. Shapiro has obviously told you but I was upset about this, yes.

Q. Well, did you take -- did you say that?

A. Did I say what?

Q. That you were prepared to walk away, you had talked to your wife, you weren't going to take it anymore when you were up there in Quantico and you were afraid that it was going to come out that you had provided this information?

A. I had some frustrations throughout this case which eventually led me to do just that and resign.

Q. I'm talking about, sir, when you were up there in Quantico and had these conversations with Mr. Shapiro which would have been around September of 1997, a year before you resigned. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q.

How many conversations did you have with Mr. Shapiro?

A. I'm not sure but I'm confident he was tape recording most likely those conversations and that would bear out that conversation.

Q. Why are you confident that he was tape recording them?

A. It was my impression that he was tape recording a lot of people.

Q. Did you ever make a statement to him on the phone, Jeff, do you know what they call the people that chased down Princess Diana, papparazzi, and do you know what they call someone who strangles and kills their child, Poppa Ramsey?

A. Never.

Q. Never made that statement?

A. Never.

Q. You deny that under oath?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever read "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town"?

A. I did.

Q. Any phone conversations involving you that you read and thought were grossly inaccurate?

A. Yes.

Q. Which ones were those?

A. One in which Jeff Shapiro, according to Schiller, alleges that I told Shapiro who I thought killed the victim in this case.

Q. The one where you said John and Patsy?

A. I don't know if you would care to turn to the quote, that's the one I'm recalling.

Q. Is that the one?

A. I don't know. Let me look at the quote.

Q. We'll come back to it later if we need to. Anything else, other than that one?

A. There were, I think, a number of factual errors in the book. And if you would like to sit down and go through the book, we can certainly do that.

Q. If you're willing at some point and your attorneys will let you do that with me, I assure you that I very much would like to sit down and do that with you. I am very interested in those facts for inaccuracies. Anybody besides Carol McKinley, Jeff Shapiro and Ms. Bardach that you discussed this case with while you were still actively involved in this investigation in terms of media individuals?

A. That phone would sometimes ring in the situation room 100 times a day. I would pick up the phone but, no, didn't carry on any dialogue or conversation with others.

Q. Did you ask Jeff Shapiro to find out who was telling people in Boulder that you were the source for the Vanity Fair article?

A. If we had a conversation in which I asked him to do that, I certainly wouldn't deny it.

Q. And he told you -- do you recall him telling you it was Bill Wise, Alex Hunter's assistant?

A. He may have.

Q. And you responded, Those fuckers, he said, almost as if he were catatonic. Then he got louder. Those fuckers, he repeated. Those fuckers, he shouted. Jesus Christ, Jeff, do you know what the fuck will happen to me if it comes out on national television that I had anything to do with this fucking article while I'm up here, he asked. I'm up here with the FBI, man. Do you have any idea how fucking embarrassing it's going to be if we're all sitting in a room together with CNN on and that comes over it? Fuck, it's going to make that whole department look like shit. Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ. Did you ever say anything like that to Jeff Shapiro, sir, in a telephone conversation when you were in Quantico?

MR. DIAMOND: Are you reading from something you would like to share?

MR. WOOD: My notes.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you have a conversation with words to that effect when you talked to Mr. Shapiro about who was saying that you were the source for the Vanity Fair article?

A. Again, Mr. Wood, it leads me to believe that he was in fact probably taping these telephone conversations. Yeah, I spoke with him at a period that I was very upset. 9

Q. You don't deny making those statements, do you, sir? I'm sorry for the language for the court reporter's sake but it's business and I think everyone understands that. You don't deny making those statements at all, do you, because you --

MR. DIAMOND: In those words?

MR. WOOD: Oh, yeah. These are quotes pretty much that I was reading.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You don't deny it under oath, do you, sir?

A. I don't know if those are quotes or not but I probably had a conversation similar to that.

Q. That wasn't the only one like that, was it?

A. Like what, Mr. Wood?

Q. Where you were so upset about being outted as a source. You got real upset when you thought they were going to ask you to take a polygraph, didn't you?

A. I was prepared to come back and when asked

admit that I spoke with Ann Bardach.

Q. Why don't you just come back and admit the truth, sir? Here you are in, at least at the time, what was one of the most, if not the most, high profile murder investigations in the country; an article has come out about that investigation when it's only into its first few months that has an impact on the investigation because it does contain previously undisclosed confidential police information. Did you not think it was the correct and honorable and professional thing to do to simply come back and tell the truth that you had met with her these several times and that you had provided her with information?

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Argumentative. You may answer.

A. Did I think it was the honorable thing to come back to Boulder and tell the truth about it?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yes, sir.

A. I had the same question of your clients, yes.

Q. I'm not -- let me tell you something, sir, we're not talking about my clients right now we're talking about Steve Thomas. You've been doing a lot of talking and a lot of writing about my clients, but now we're talking about you. You were not prepared to come face the truth of what you had done and out yourself as the source and you were scared to death they were going to make you take a polygraph test and everyone was going to know that Steve Thomas had done it and you were going to be fired and you were probably going to be prosecuted. That was your fear, wasn't it, sir, pure and simple one word, disgraced?

A. No.

Q. You didn't have concerns about being prosecuted by Alex Hunter?

A. I was concerned when Shapiro mentioned the conversations he was having with Mr. Hunter according to Shapiro included criminally prosecuting whoever spoke or had spoken with Ann Bardach and I was prepared to come back when asked, as I said, and admit my role. Prior to that happening, they dropped the whole witch hunt inside the police department.

Q. Did you tell your friends at the FBI that which you were meeting with that, you know, it might impact your professional feelings about my credibility if you learned this information about me but I feel compelled to let you know I've been discussing this case with a tabloid reporter, a FOX news reporter and I have given information to a Vanity Fair reporter? Did you think that might impact your credibility, sir, if people knew that you were doing that?

A. I don't know what other people would have thought, Mr. Wood, but I was talking to Mr. Shapiro, The Globe reporter as in an informant capacity. I wasn't sharing information about the case with Carol McKinley. I described that as the politics of the investigation. And regarding Ann Bardach, no, I have not publicly disclosed that.

Q. You didn't find yourself the source for a Globe story about the demand by the police to arrest the Ramseys and got upset with Jeff Shapiro because he had given that information to his editors that made up that story; you were concerned that you were going to be found to be the source of that story, too?

A. I don't know what you're talking about.

Q. Did you ever give information to the National Enquirer or Shelly Ross, a former employee of the National Enquirer about the 911 tape in terms of the allegations that Burke Ramsey appeared on it?

A. I don't know that I did.

Q. Do you deny doing it?

A. I like Shelly Ross; I don't know that I discussed with her evidence in the case.

Q. Did you discuss it with the National Enquirer?

A. No, the only conversations that I believe that I have had with the National Enquirer is when they after I resigned tried to buy a story from me.

Q. So after you resigned, you went on in September of 1997 20/20, Shelly Ross as the executive producer, right?

A. I believe that's right.

Q. A couple weeks before that there had been an article in the National Enquirer disclosing the enhanced 911 tape enhancement about Burke Ramsey, right?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Did you tell Shelly Ross about that before you made the appearance on her show, the 911 tape enhancement?

A. No, as I said, I don't admit any such thing of sharing that information with Shelly Ross.

Q. Do you deny it?

A. Yeah, again I didn't share that as I sit here today or have any recollection of sharing that with Shelly Ross. Yeah, as a matter of fact, upon reflection, Mr. Wood, I categorically deny that because I remember at the time the suggestion that I may have been the source of that, and I absolutely was not.

Q. And you would take a polygraph on that, wouldn't you?

MR. DIAMOND: I'm not going to let him answer that question.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Would you take a polygraph examination conducted by an independent and impartial examiner on your role as a source for some of these stories while you were actively investigating the JonBenet Ramsey case?

MR. DIAMOND: I'm not going to let him answer that question. It's improper. Move forward.

MR. WOOD: So on advice of counsel --

MR. DIAMOND: Yes. If you have a discovery request, make it of me.

MR. WOOD: I'm just asking him if he would be willing to take one.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you ever send a letter formally requesting a polygraph examination of Patsy Ramsey after the April 30, 1997 interview?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did you ever make any formal request for a polygraph examination of Patsy Ramsey after the April 30, 1997 interview?

A. Certainly we hounded Pete Hofstrom about it.

Q. I didn't ask you about Pete Hofstrom. I want to know whether you asked Patsy Ramsey or her lawyers formally will you submit to a polygraph examination after April 30, 1997?

A. There was a chain of command. I didn't deal directly with Patsy Ramsey or her attorneys but I did not personally draft such a letter.

Q. Are you aware of any formal demand made by the Boulder authorities on Patsy Ramsey after April 30, 1997, before you left in August 1998, to submit to a polygraph examination after April 30?

A. It was very clear that the police department leaned on the DA's office

to do exactly that. And the fact that the DA's office chose not to was to the chagrin of the Boulder Police Department.

Q. So the answer is you're not aware of any request being made?

A. The answer is just what I answered, Mr. Wood.

Q. Even after Patsy Ramsey said she would take ten of them when you asked her the question hypothetically on April the 30th, 1997, right?

A. Right what? Was a formal request made?

Q. Yeah, when she said -- you asked her hypothetically, if I ask you to take one and she said, I'll take ten of them, do whatever you want, and you're telling me for whatever reasons, politically I guess is your explanation, but whatever the explanation is there was never a demand made on Patsy Ramsey to take a polygraph examination after April 30th, 1997, prior to when you left in August of 1998, true?

A. I don't know that she was ever sent an engraved invitation to take a polygraph but I think it was pretty clear, Mr. Wood, of the police department's position and through the district attorney's office that the Boulder Police Department wanted John and Patsy Ramsey to submit to law enforcement sponsored polygraph examinations.

Q. And do you all usually do those on engraved invitations?

A. No.

 

Part 12  Why Did You Misrepresent the Truth In Your Book?

Q. Why did you misrepresent the truth then in your book when you said that the book was going to be the inside story answering a wide range of important questions, including why were the Ramseys handled with kid gloves and never asked by law enforcement to take lie detector tests?

MR. DIAMOND: I'm going to object --

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Were they asked or not asked by law enforcement to take a lie detector test? I'm trying to find out the truth of the investigation.

MR. DIAMOND: Do you want to withdraw the first question and have him answer the second question?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you understand the question? Here is your book jacket. You saw it before it hit the stands, didn't you?

MR. DIAMOND: Which are we answering?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) This one right here. Did you see this --

A. Book jacket, yeah.

Q. -- book jacket before it hit the stands?

A. Yes, sir, that would be my book jacket --

Q. There it is.

A. -- before the book went into the --

Q. Right.

A. Retail store.

Q. Let's just try to make this clear. I just want to know what the truth is. Were the Ramseys asked by law enforcement to take lie detector tests or not?

A. Yes, and I believe you know that because read the transcript of my interview with your clients from April 30, 1997, and I think even Alex Hunter has said a monkey could understand that polygraph examinations were being requested.

Q. Now we believe Alex Hunter on that point; is that what you're telling me?

A. As I said, Alex Hunter says a lot of things but I happen to agree with his assessment that is borne out by the transcript of that interview.

Q. Did you ever seek to interview the Richardson twins who lived with Melody Stanton?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because I was unaware of these people.

Q. Did anybody in the Boulder Police Department make an attempt, to your knowledge, to interview the two 30-year old twins, the Richardson twins, that lived with Melody Stanton?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q.

How about the two friends of Fleet White that were there,

did you all ever get any non-testimonial evidence from those two individuals?

A. Which two friends are you referring to?

Q. The ones that were with him on Christmas and were at the Ramseys on I believe the party of the 23rd; do you know who I'm talking about?

A. Mr. Fleet White's house guests at the time?

Q. Yes. His friends that were house guests, did you all ever get any non-testimonial evidence, hair, DNA, handwriting from Mr. Cox or Mr. Gaston?

A. I believe Detective Harmer received that assignment and made attempts to conduct that investigation. And I'm not sure whether or not she was successful in those attempts.

Q. On page 270 of your book. Chief Beckner started talking about a successful Title-3 electronic surveillance down in Florida where the police had recorded the mother saying 'The baby is dead and buried ... because you did it' and the father replied 'I wish I hadn't harmed her -- it was the cocaine', end quote. "I considered the irony of Beckner discussing a Title-3 that worked damned well in Florida when he had been a part of the scandal-frightened leadership that wouldn't let us try the same tactic." Have I read that correctly?

A. I believe so.

Q. That was the Aisenberg case, wasn't it, Mr. Thomas?

A. That is the case that is being referred to here, yes.

Q. Right. You understand that charge was dismissed against the family because the transcripts of the tapes were not consistent with the representations made as to the content by the police?

A. I'm not familiar with that.

Q. You hadn't tried to study what happened to the Aisenberg case at all?

A. No, as we sit here today I don't know the conclusion of the Aisenberg case.

Q. I would suggest it would be interesting for you to look into it in your spare time. Clearly you're going to tell me that the Boulder Police Department thoroughly investigated, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, right?

A. Is that a question?

Q. Yes. Clearly you're going to tell me that they thoroughly investigated, the Boulder Police Department thoroughly investigated John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey?

MR. DIAMOND: How do you know what he is going to tell you unless you ask him?

MR. WOOD: I just did.

MR. DIAMOND: No.

MR. WOOD: If he wants to disagree with me he can.

MR. DIAMOND: You asked him whether --

MR. WOOD: I'm not asking you.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Will you answer my question? Did you understand? I will be glad to make it clear.

MR. DIAMOND: Why don't you ask him non-argumentative questions.

MR. WOOD: Why don't you ask him questions --

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. MR. WOOD: -- when you want to.

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Are you going to answer my question?

MR. DIAMOND: If you can answer that question.

A. It was phrased as a statement but I think I understand the question.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Thank you.

A. Given the God almighty obstacles that we were up against, we tried to investigate them as thoroughly as we could as paper tigers.

Q. When you were under threat of lawsuit, the first thing you did was hired a PR person, Sherill Wisinhunt (sic) and you hired lawyers, right?

A. No, I didn't hire Sherill Whisenand.

Q. Whisenand, I'm sorry.

A. She was a friend of mine long before this who agreed to take these calls for me and, having been charged with something and as a defendant in a case, I thought it was necessarily prudent to retain an attorney.

Q. Page 284 -- let me ask you before I go there, during Mr. Foster's presentation, did he talk to you all about the Dirty Harry movie and the references in the ransom note to it by talking about the fact that the Ramseys' favorite movie was Animal House and there was a scene in Animal House where somebody drove a car through the campus and hit a fire hydrant and there was a similar scene in Dirty Harry like that. Do you recall that?

A. I recall something vaguely similar to that where he was discussing events out of motion pictures.

Q. Didn't you think that was borderline on the absurd, sir, to tie Dirty Harry to the Ramseys because they liked the movie Animal House and it had a scene in it where somebody ran into a fire hydrant? Didn't you think that was literally absurd or did you think that was good forensic testing?

A. Taken out of context as you represent it today it --

Q. Put it into context, if you would, please.

MR. DIAMOND: Let him finish his answer, please. Go ahead.

A. Taken out of context as you represented today, that may seem odd. But at the time, it was a part of his presentation. And I don't recall my observation being how you described it as fantastic or incredible or whatever term you used.

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.

Q. Page 286, you make reference to a red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet when it got wet from I guess her bed wetting. MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph down "I concluded the little girl had worn the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother originally said, and that it was stripped off when it got wet." Are you talking about wet from urine?

A. In this hypothesis we're talking about, yes.

Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder Police Department to your knowledge ever have the red turtleneck found in the bathroom tested forensically to determine if it had any type of trace evidence or other evidence on it?

A. Again, it sounds like you know otherwise but I was under the impression from Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test for urine.

Q. Did anybody tell you that they found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?

A. No, this is what I am surmising in the hypothesis.

Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into evidence?

A. I certainly believe it was.

Q. Did it have any type of urine stain on it?

A. Not that I'm aware of. I never have looked at it personally.

Q. Where did you get the statement that it got wet; did you just manufacture that out of whole cloth?

A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a reasonable explanation for the final resting place of this red turtleneck of which she may have indeed worn home.

Q. But you had no evidence to support that statement about the turtleneck being wet, true?

A. No, I don't know that it was urine stained.

Q. Or wet?

A. Or wet.

Q. Was there any test done on the duct tape that would establish the imprint of JonBenet's lip prints on that tape?

A. Was there any test that would establish that?

Q. Did you all to your knowledge, did the Boulder Police Department conduct any test that would establish that the duct tape that was pulled off of her mouth by John Ramsey that was then picked up by Fleet White was found somehow to contain a perfect set of JonBenet's lip prints, was any test performed that made that finding?

A. There was an examination apparently done at some point which was reported back to a detective briefing at which I was present and I believe that was Wickman or Trujillo that shared that information.

Q. Who conducted that examination?

A. I don't know.

Q. Was it an expert of some type?

A. I don't know that there is such a thing as an expert examination and there is no testing that I'm aware of. I think that's more common sense observation.

Q. Did you ever find the roll of duct tape because the duct tape was torn on both ends, wasn't it?

A.

We never found the roll of duct tape

to source to the duct tape that was covering the victim's mouth.

Q. And you didn't find any prior application of this type of duct tape in the house, did you?

A. Similar, but I don't know that we ever found a match.

Q. Actually what you said was similar was just one piece that was found on a painting, right, and it was found not to be in fact from the same --

A. Roll, that's right.

Q. -- from the roll; is that right?

A. Right.

Q. Yeah. And did you ever find cord in the house? One end of the cord was, as I understand it, was cut. The other end was sealed for the garrote; is that right?

A. You know, I'm not going to say that as I sit here today. I would have to review --

Q. Forget that, don't worry about that. Did you ever find any cord in the house from which the garrote or the rope that tied her hands together was from? Did you ever find that?

A. No. As far as I know, the cord used on the victim was never sourced to anything in the house.

MR. DIAMOND: If this is a good point, before you change subjects?

MR. WOOD: Let me see how much time I've got. Let me see.

MR. RAWLS: You have something about one ten left.

MR. WOOD: Give me about two minutes, let me just run through a couple other things real quick.

MR. DIAMOND: You have an hour.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) There was some paint --

MR. DIAMOND: There's one hour left.

MR. WOOD: I do hope you'll give me some consideration on a little extension if we can finish up and I don't have to take it up with the court.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) The garrote was made out of a paint brush that was believed to be a paint brush in a paint tray down in the basement, right?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. And there was the tip end with the brush found in the paint tray, right?

A. No, it's my understanding the brush end --

Q. The brush end was found, the tip end was broken off and never found, right?

A. Yeah, it's my understanding that the handled shaft was fashioned into the garrote handle. And Lou Smit told me that there was a missing piece that has been unaccounted for.

Q. Did you ever find any evidence to dispute what Mr. Smit told you in that regard?

A. No.

Q. You've already told me there were the missing pages from the pad, right?

A. If we're talking about pages 17 through 25, if memory serves, yes, those were unaccounted for.

Q. And there was some bleed-through on what has been referred to as the practice ransom note, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Was there any bleed through on what -- on the ransom note itself?

A. Well, 17 through 25 missing, 26 with bleed-through on it presumably from 25. And if memory serves, 27 started the ransom note so you had some, I think, bleed-through from the practice note.`

Q. The practice note consisted of Mr. -- why don't you tell me what was on the ransom note, the practice ransom note, as has been described?

A. I believe that said Mr. And Mrs., the what looked like the down stroke of an R which could have been mistaken for an I.

Q. Did any of the examiners compare that handwriting to the ransom note or was that simply not sufficient to draw any conclusions about the commonality of authorship?

A. I believe that the ink was matched.

Q. The what, the ink?

A. The ink from the practice note to the ransom note was matched.

Q. In what way?

A.

The same pen wrote the practice note that wrote the ransom note.

Q. There were three pens. Did they determine which of the pens wrote the practice note and the ransom note?

A. The same pen.

Q. And that was a consistent or was that a finding by forensically of an absolute match between pen and ink?

A. It's my understanding that the Secret Service matched the ink from practice note to the ransom note.

Q. Pens were in plain view?

A. You're talking pens plural. I'm talking about the pen that wrote --

Q. The pen, that was in a -- it was in plain view?

A. In a cup in the kitchen is my understanding.

Q. Pad was in plain view, given voluntarily by John Ramsey to the police?

A. I don't know about plain view, I wasn't there. But it's my understanding that he produced that from a countertop area on the first floor.

MR. WOOD: Why don't we take that break now.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 4:47. We're going off the record. (Recess taken from 4:47 p.m. to 4:57 p.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 5 4:57. We're back on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, if you would look at page 152 of your book. Next to the last paragraph, it ends "'I believe she wrote it.'. Ubowski had recently told one detective "'I believe she wrote it.'" Who was --

A. Yeah, may I read the paragraph?

Q. Yeah, I want to find out who that detective is.

A. I believe that's Trujillo and Wickman who made that statement, specifically Wickman, which John Eller certainly also heard.

Q. Anybody else?

A. I think this was Tom Koby. This was that meeting I described in a vehicle at the parking lot of the shopping mall, Koby, Eller, Wickman, Trujillo, and I don't know whether or not that's on tape.

Q. But isn't the bottom line that Chet Ubowski made it very clear that, whatever his beliefs were, he was not in a position from his standpoint to state under oath that Patsy Ramsey was the author within any degree of certainty; isn't that what he told you, sir?

A. No, the conduit was Wickman who said something very similar to that that he couldn't get on the stand and testify to it.

Q. And that never changed while you were there, did it, that Ubowski would not get on the stand and testify to it, right?

A. Yeah, as far as I know Ubowski never took the stand and testified to it.

Q. And it was always your understanding that he said that he was not in a position to do so from an opinion standpoint; isn't that true?

A. To take the stand?

Q. He would not go under oath and testify that Patsy Ramsey within reasonable certainty was the author of the note?

A. Well, the reasonable certainty I recall I think it was Mr. Ubowski speaking at the VIP presentation and I would like to see a transcript of that because I thought --

Q. I thought maybe --

A. -- his answer or his remarks were fairly strong there. But no, he was obviously not in a position to take the stand and make that identification in court.

Q. Am I right, maybe I went over this and I apologize, did Mr. Ubowski in his report say

"There is evidence which indicates that the ransom note may have been written by Patsy Ramsey but the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion." That's Mr. Ubowski's opinion, right?

A. That's his formal report opinion.

Q. Did you ever know that opinion to change before August of 1998 when you left?

A. To get stronger or weaker?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Mr. Speckin we've been over, although do you recall Mr. Speckin stating that, When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those presented in the --

A. Mr. Wood, bring me to where you are. I'm lost, sir.

Q. I'm sorry, I'm in my notes. I'm not in the book.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Speckin finding -- we talked about he found no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handwriting exemplars. I didn't want to go over this part and I wanted to. Mr. Speckin stated, When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those contained in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note. When this agreement is weighed against the number type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author. Does that sound correct in terms of what Mr. Speckin's formal report was?

A. If that's what you're reading from, that's consistent with my recollection. He did have other comments and information as well.

Q. Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Ryle were obviously employed by the Ramsey family, true?

A. That was my belief.

Q. You knew that Lloyd Cunningham had in fact been the CBI examiner that had certified Chet Ubowski?

A. No, but I do recall him saying he had done some training or had some capacity in that effect with Mr. Ubowski.

Q. How about Howard Ryle, did you know him to be formerly with the CBI?

A. I didn't know he was previously with the CBI.

Q. Did?

A. Did not.

Q. I'm just trying –

I may be confused about which one was with the CBI or taught Mr. Ubowski?

A. One was with, I think, previously the San Francisco PD and you may be correct; the other one may have been with CBI.

Q. Did you all conclude that there were references in the ransom note from Dirty Harry, Speed, the movie Ransom, the movie Nick of Time and Ruthless People?

A. That wasn't my conclusion. I think it was Lou Smit that brought that to the attention of several, and I don't know that those were verbatim quotes that matched the ransom note.

Q. Were you familiar -- well, was that investigated by the Boulder Police Department in terms of trying to find out from movie rental records whether the Ramseys had ever seen those movies?

A. Unfortunately, one of the obstacles we ran into with movie rental records was after the Thomas Hill, Anita, I can't remember her last name, hearings. Movie records are very, very restricted and without warrants or subpoenas or something above and beyond, we couldn't just go to the video store and check rental history.

Q. Didn't the Ramseys give you almost 100 releases to get information?

A. I believe after I left.

Q. But nonetheless, you believe they did that?

A. I have heard, I think even you say that after -- or at a point in time after which I left the investigation, I was of the impression that after Kane came on board, they gave a number of consent releases.

Q. They also provided a considerable amount of historical writings from Patsy Ramsey,

didn't they, in addition to the five exemplars?

A. I don't know if those were -- if those were seized by crime scene search warrant or if those were surrendered.

Q. I think we went over Mr. Dusak, bear with me again, the Secret Service document examiner found a lack of indications and said that a study and comparison of the questioned and specimened writings submitted has resulted in the conclusion that there is no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the ransom note. Is that consistent with your recollection of Mr. Dusak's conclusion?

A. If you're reading verbatim, I won't --

Q. I'm asking you if it's consistent with your recollection. I'm not representing anything other than my notes here on it.

A. Yes, but he said many other things, too.

Q. But that portion is certainly consistent with your recollection, true?

A. As I sit here today, yes.

Q. Howard Ryle put his opinion, another Ramsey expert who was, I believe, the former CBI document examiner, but regardless of whether I'm right about that or not, Mr. Ryle put his opinion at between probably not and elimination of Patsy Ramsey as author of the ransom note, further stating that he believes that the writer could be identified if historical writing was found. Is that consistent with your recollection of Mr. Ryle's opinions?

A. You know what, I don't know that the Ramsey, attorneys or the Ramseys -- or at least I never saw Mr. Ryle's report.

Q. You weren't part of the presentation that Mr. Ryle and Mr. Cunningham made for Michael Kane and the DAs?

A. I was present at a presentation they made. Michael Kane was not yet on the case and I think this was in May of '97.

Q. May of '97 was the presentation that Ryle and Cunningham made, you did --

A. I did observe that.

Q. What I have read to you does that seem, though, clearly to be consistent with your recollection about what Mr. Ryle and Mr. Cunningham concluded?

A. One or the other sounds accurate.

Q. I want to show you and get the benefit of my elaborate markings. MR. WOOD: Why don't we mark this as Defendants' 3. (Exhibit-3 was marked.)

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I don't have copies, I apologize. I'll give you a clean copy of that, too, if you don't mind instead of putting my stuff on it? MR. DIAMOND: Do you have a clean copy? MR. WOOD: No, that's the only one I've got. I told Sean I didn't want to 4 check bags so I didn't bring a bunch of copies. (Pause.)

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Had you seen that article from KCNC from April 10, 2000, before I just showed it to you today?

A. No, as I've said, I wasn't aware that

Mr. Ubowski was retracting any statements

prior to you're making me aware of that today.

Q. If this is correct Mr. Ubowski is in fact stating on April 10, 2000 that he denies saying that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note and that he, the claim that 24 of the alphabet's 26 letters looked like -- looked as if they had been written by Patsy is denied as the lab does not quantify like that? You have never heard those statements made by the CBI before I showed you this KCNC report today?

A. No, as I have said, no.

Q. I forgot to ask you how many lectures have you given consistent with this web page?

A. Very few, maybe three or four.

Q. Do you have any lined up in the future?

A. I do.

Q. Could you try and tell me where the three or four were, just the names of the cities?

A. Indianapolis, New Orleans, Snowmass, Colorado.

Q. And what is coming up?

A. Ohio. And I think there is one after the first of the year. Ohio might be after the first of the year. Minnesota later this year.

Q. Dr. Wecht says, Steve Thomas knows so much about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey he doesn't mince words. Do you believe that's an accurate description of you?

A. That's Dr. Wecht's description of me.

Q. I'm asking you if you think it's accurate, that you don't mince words?

A. It depends on the context.

Q. Didn't it bother you a little bit about putting Don Foster's name on this in light of the letter that we looked at today that you've never even seen the second and third pages of --

A. No.

Q. -- Mr. Thomas?

A. No.

Q. Do you still think he's the best linguistic expert in the country?

A. He still does work for law enforcement and seems to be highly regarded and I certainly respect Dr. Foster.

Q. Did you all send that letter to the FBI and let them know about what Mr. Foster had said to Patsy Ramsey?

A. What letter is that?

Q. The letter that I just showed you today that you had only seen the first page of?

A. I did not.

Q. Page 75 of your book. The second paragraph "The FBI would tell us that the disposal of the body of JonBenet had the classic elements of a staged crime, complete with a Hollywoodized ransom note." Was there any specific member of the FBI that you attribute that statement to?

A. The meeting in I believe it was August or September of 1997.

Q. Quantico?

A. In Quantico at a big, many, many people in the room.

Q. If I hear you throughout this testimony and it seems to me and from your book, the FBI was heavily involved in this investigation from early on; wouldn't you agree?

A. They were very supportive of us and involved, yes.

Q. Yeah, I mean, they were heavily involved for a case that really was not a federal jurisdiction case, a murder?

A. Arguably.

Q. I mean when I was out there saying, you know, I didn't think the FBI is objective because they've been involved in this case to a significant amount, whether you agree or not with my objectivity conclusion, I was right about the fact that the FBI had been significantly involved in the case, wasn't I?

A. For the record I don't agree with the objectivity conclusion but, yeah, they were significantly involved in the case.

 

Part 13 FBI Involvement

Q. It seems like from what you're telling me that they were of the mind that you were, that Patsy Ramsey they thought was involved in the death of her daughter?

A. That certainly seemed to be my impression.

Q. So whether that was an objective decision by then I certainly was right to have some concerns about whether or not they had formed such a conclusion before I submitted John or Patsy to the FBI examination, wasn't I?

A. Well, twofold. One, I don't think they would have -- I don't think there was anything inappropriate with their polygraph unit or that they would have conspired in any way with their polygraphers.

Q. I also comment to you the ruse interview that was attempted on Richard Jewell by the FBI might be enlightening about FBI tactics, legal and illegal. Do you agree that you all investigated the hell out of Bill McReynolds?

A. Bill McReynolds was, yes, very scrutinized in this investigation, not just by us but I believe by the DA's people as well.

Q. On page 115. Right about here down the second paragraph, there was somebody that was filing late reports. Was that Trujillo?

A. Let me look real quick.

Q. A full year had passed before he completed his report of the initial Atlanta trip?

A. Yeah, help me out with the question.

Q. The question is coming up. "Trujillo and Arndt still were not speaking, and the sergeant who reported the undisturbed snow now filed an amended report." Who was that sergeant?

A. That was Sergeant Reichenbach.

Q. And "The first officer was having difficulty in recollecting certain events." What officer was that?

A. That was officer French.

Q. And "Then Arndt began amending her reports, too"; is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the initial Atlanta trip?

A. I believe that was January 1st through 5th of 1997.

Q. Page 160, the last paragraph. "Then the defense attorneys were allowed inside the Boulder Police Department to examine the actual ligature and garrote that killed JonBenet." Have I read that correctly?

MR. DIAMOND: Can I just -- I just want to get the context.

MR. WOOD: Last paragraph.

MR. DIAMOND: I see where it is. I just want to --

A. I missed it; we're on 160 on the bottom of the page?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Bottom paragraph, "Then the defense attorneys were allowed inside the Boulder Police Department to examine the actual ligature and garrote that killed JonBenet." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. "I watched sick inside, and Sergent Wickman bellowed in protest 'You're giving the fucking murder weapon to the suspects.'" Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Are those statements true and accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. 154, right here, second blocked out, second paragraph, "Experts engaged by the police

concluded there was no stun gun involved at all,

but the DA's team never relinquished their claim that such weapon an exotic weapon was used to subdue JonBenet." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were the experts engaged by the police that you're referring; would you identify those for me?

A. I know at least one was Dr. Werner Spitz, and Detective Trujillo would be able to identify additional.

Q. Did any of those -- any police department consultants discuss at either of the presentations in terms of what they thought about stun guns whether there was consistency. For example, Dr. Doberson?

A. I'm sorry, run it back by me, Mr. Wood.

Q. Was Dr. Deters -- the Larimer County coroner involved in the investigation by the Boulder Police Department?

A. No, I'm not familiar with that name.

Q. How about Sue Kitchens of the CBI?

A. I am familiar with her name, but I do not know what extent she may have been involved in the investigation.

Q. How about Dr. Doberson?

A. I believe Trujillo and Wickman initially visited Dobersen on behalf of the police. But that was later followed up by investigators Smit and Ainsworth.

Q. Dr. Doberson who I think you have a great deal of respect for?

A. I don't know Dr. Doberson.

Q. Do you recognize him, though, to be respected in the law enforcement community in Colorado?

A. I have no opinion.

I don't know anything about Dr. Doberson.

Q. Do you know that he has stated within reasonable medical certainty that the marks on JonBenet's face and back were caused by a stun gun. Are you aware of that?

A. Well, if you're telling me that's true --

Q. I'm just asking if you're aware of it. You said --

A. I saw that on --

Q. -- you watched some of the stuff. I'm just asking if that's what he said there?

A. Right.

Q. Did you watch the Tracy Mills documentary, two?

A. The second one, two?

Q. Yeah.

A. Two, as in the number two?

Q. Yeah, the second, there was one back a couple years ago, it's one that came out in the last several months, haven't seen --

A. No, I haven't seen that.

Q. So you don't know what Dr. Doberson said in that, do you?

A. No.

Q. But he wasn't employed by the Boulder Police Department, among other things, to look at the stun gun issue, true?

A. I don't know that he was employed but they went to him. Trujillo and Wickman I know did.

Q. What did the Boulder Police Department conclude caused these marks found on JonBenet Ramsey's back?

MR. DIAMOND: Do you want to identify what you're putting in front of him just for --

MR. WOOD: I'm going to mark it and I'll do it by copy. I don't want to mark on this color copy but this will be Defendants' 4.

MR. DIAMOND: Will you identify what it is for the record?

MR. WOOD: It's an autopsy photograph of JonBenet Ramsey.

MR. DIAMOND: Does it have a number on it or something?

MR. WOOD: I just put a number on it, a 4 just so I can copy it and mark it 5 later. If you'll just hang on to it. I don't want you to be flipping through there. There is one picture I am going to ask him about in a moment.

MR. DIAMOND: Yeah. (Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5 marked.)

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What did the Boulder Police Department determine caused those marks on JonBenet Ramsey's back as shown on Defendants' Exhibit 4?

A. I don't know that the Boulder Police Department as an entity formed a consensus opinion, but relying on the experts in this case, and Detective Trujillo specifically who was assigned to the stun gun investigation told us and I remember seeing it that Werner Spitz concluded, I believe, what was believed to be stun gun marks may have been a patterned object, if I recall correctly, or I think another explanation was on her back lying on some sort of object.

Q. That was Dr. Spitz only?

A. Well, Dr. Spitz completed a report on that. I think Dr. Lee had some opinion on it. Certainly Trujillo filed information about that.

Q. I'm going to show you defense Exhibit Number 5, which two photos, one is obviously Number 4 and then 5 is a picture of JonBenet's side of her face. There were two marks on her face. The marks on her face and the marks on her back were the same distance apart, right?

A. I don't know that those were identical. I have heard --

Q. Do you deny that?

A. I have heard Mr. Smit say that they were identical. I have heard Trujillo say they're not.

Q. That the marks were not -- shouldn't one just measure this, sir?

A. Unfortunately you would have to, I think, triangulate it off of a photo because they weren't measured, my understanding, at autopsy.

Q. Do you choose to believe Dr. -- Mr. Smit or Mr. Trujillo in terms of that issue or do you just not have a position one way or the other in terms of the

distance part of the two set matched pairs?

A. I don't believe necessarily either of them. But I have heard Mr. Smit and Mr. Trujillo had conflicting measurements on that picture.

Q. But one thing for sure, you believe, I think you would say and have said before, that if a stun gun was used on JonBenet that that is significant evidence that would point away from a family member or parent, right?

A. I don't know where I have said that.

Q. You have never said that?

A. I don't know where I have said that, Mr. Wood.

Q. Do you deny that?

A. Refresh my memory. Where do you think I have said that?

Q. Do you deny that or is that accurate?

A. I think, and for the record let me just say, one other expert that I know the Boulder Police Department consulted were I think stun gun reps, manufacturers or people in the stun gun industry.

Q. Do you know their names?

A. I don't. I think somebody from Air Tazer.

Q. Were there reports filed?

A. There certainly should be. As far as do I deny -- well, let me put my answer this way. I would agree to an extent that it may be or would be less likely that a parent would be involved in the stun gunning of a child. Maybe I'm naive in that thinking, as the FBI agents told us they have seen children murdered in the most horrendous of ways, but I won't dispute you on that point today.

Q. You would tell me, too, that if JonBenet Ramsey was alive when she was strangled and alive when she was molested and that there is evidence of a struggle in her neck area, that if you assume those facts to be true, that that would be inconsistent with staging of a crime, correct?

A. I don't agree with the premise. I agree with the expert Dr. Spitz' conclusion on that.

Q. I'm asking you, though, sir. You're talking about staging the crime. If JonBenet were struggling to try to get the garrote loose, that certainly would be inconsistent with the parent staging a crime thinking her child was dead, true?

A. Mr. Smit did present to the police department that theory.

Q. But I'm not asking about Mr. Smit with all due respect.

A. I'm trying to answer the question.

Q. I'm asking you about the concept itself. If the child is found to be struggling to get at the garrote, that would be totally inconsistent with the idea of staging by a parent who thought the child was dead. I mean, that's just one and one equals two, doesn't it, sir?

A. Two different concepts. I disagree. I think that, as I've have said, I think parents have killed their children in a variety of ways.

Q. I'm talking about staging where you think your child is dead or your child is dead and you're trying to stage a crime scene. After the fact that's staging, right, to make it look like something that it's not, true?

A. Staging, my understanding is just that, recreating or messing with a crime scene to divert attention, making it appear something that it's not.

Q. Then if you've got a child that is trying to pull at the garrote, that would not be consistent at all with the parent placing a garrote and tightening it around the child's neck to make it appear that the child was strangled as part of staging a crime, would it, sir, can't you --

A. No.

Q. -- acknowledge that --

A. I'm not going to go along with that and agree to it.

Q. Why not?

A. I just don't agree with it.

Q. So Patsy Ramsey theoretically had JonBenet Ramsey there pulling at this garrote around her neck, scratching at it and you still believe that the garrote would have been placed there by Patsy Ramsey to stage the crime; is that what your testimony is?

A. If that's what you're telling me, I won't dispute that's what happened.

Q. Do you believe that is what happened?

A. No. I've offered a hypothesis that I believe was consistent with the evidence as I knew it, that possibly what happened.

Q. Let me ask you something about the use of the word hypothesis. Where did you come up with that word? You use it in almost every interview.

A. I don't know, in school somewhere.

Q. As it applies to your book?

A. No, you asked me where I learned the word hypothesis.

Q. Are you prepared to state as a fact, sir, that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter?

A. No, I'm prepared --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- to say, as I have in the past, that that's my belief.

Q. Do you know of any prosecutor who is familiar with the evidence that has concluded that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey is guilty of the homicide of her daughter?

A. No, because the

prosecutors privy to that evidence are bound by grand jury secrecy

and none have violated that with me.

Q. Did you ever take this case to a prosecutor? I know you all had the Dream Team that was helping the police department. I want to know whether you ever had a prosecutor outside of the seven that were involved in this case that at least Mr. Hunter tells us did not believe that sufficient evidence existed to charge and prosecute Patsy Ramsey. Did you ever take it to a prosecutor and present it to ask someone else outside of Boulder whether that prosecutor believed that this case had evidence justifying prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; did you ever do that?

A. Did we ever pack up our or my case file and take it and do a presentation for an outside prosecutor to see if he thought or would prosecute this case? No, not that I'm aware of.

Q. Did you ever do it at any time as you sit here today?

A. Take it to a prosecutor?

Q. Did you take your information, what you knew in all those hundred of pages, that hopefully you'll be able to find now that you'll go look for them in response to that subpoena, and take that to an experienced prosecutor and say, give me your opinion on whether this justifies a prosecution in terms of whether this is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Did you ever do that? That's my question.

A. No, I have friends that are prosecutors but I never went and did a case presentation of any sort to try to elicit their support in moving forward with the prosecution.

Q. All right. Or to give you an opinion on what the evidence pro and con would say to an experienced prosecutor?

A. I don't know what you're referring to, Mr. Wood.

Q. You would have to give them your evidence and you would have to give them the intruder evidence and you would have to say, please, weigh this and tell me because I don't like Alex Hunter and I don't believe that Alex Hunter is doing the right thing in not filing charges or getting an indictment and tell me if you think as an experienced prosecutor the case is here to bring charges; did you ever do that?

A. No, I never had some sort of case presentation like that, no.

Q. Why did you not, when you had old Barry Scheck, a nice guy, Henry Lee, all these VIPs there, why did you not include the intruder evidence in the presentation to objectively give those individuals both sides of the case?

A. Because the Boulder Police Department's position was, as I understood it and understand it, the VIP presentation was to show that there was

sufficient probable cause to arrest Patsy Ramsey

and for the DA's office to move it forward through the use of a grand jury with that end in mind.

Q. Of an indictment which is a finding by a grand jury of probable cause to charge or arrest, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You've been in the business long enough to know that the grand jury can, as they say, indict a ham sandwich, right? It doesn't take much evidence to indict or arrest, does it, sir?

A. My understanding of probable cause is facts and evidence and circumstances that are within the knowledge of a police officer that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that, A, a crime was committed and B, that a particular individual was involved. Sometimes, depending on the case, that can sometimes be a great threshold.

Q. And sometimes it can be a very small threshold, true?

A. A lesser threshold.

Q. Were you ever told by anyone that the reason the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to see the garrote and to see the firsthand original of the ransom note is because both items were getting ready to be tested in a fashion that would be destructive and that from a strategical standpoint somewhere down the road it might be advantageous for the defense lawyers not to be able to claim foul by saying that they didn't have a chance to observe these pieces of evidence before they were destroyed? Did you ever hear that explanation given as to why the Ramsey lawyers were allowed to look at those two items?

A. No. But then again it was difficult to get much by way of explanation as to why

Mr. Hofstrom was making a number of deals with the Ramsey attorneys.

Q. Doesn't that make good sense though, just listening to it?

A. Well, I am familiar as a police officer that in Colorado if destructive testing is employed, the defense has a right to be present.

Q. You indicated at page 297 of your book consistent with the Boulder police, I will tell you a press release in June of '98 that you all had collected 1,058 items of evidence. Does that sound about right?

A. You know, this was a Beckner --

Q. It's at page 297 in your book.

A. I know.

Q. You adopted it as true, didn't you?

A. If I can answer the question.

Q. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to move along.

A. Beckner put together this as, I think you're right, as some sort of a press release, but I don't disagree with these numbers.

Q. How many of those 1,058 pieces of evidence were shared with the Ramseys or the Ramsey lawyers?

A. I don't know.

Q. You consulted 500 -- you interviewed 590 people. How many of those interviews were given to the Ramseys or the Ramseys' lawyers?

A. I don't know.

Q. Consulted 64 outside experts. How many of those experts' reports were given to the Ramseys' lawyers or the Ramseys --

A. Mr. Wood, you would know much better than I how much --

Q. I've got to tell you, Mr. Thomas, I do know and I've got about 14 pages and I could be off by one or two and yet everybody keeps describing this incredible amount of evidence given to the Ramseys and their lawyers. I'm just trying to go figure out where it is because that's not what I've got and that's not what their lawyer has got. I mean, I understand they got to see the garrote and I understand they got to see the first generation ransom note and I didn't get that. But I got the few pages, incomplete pages of police reports that were bargained off with respect to the April '97 interview, right?

A. (Deponent nods head.)

Q. And I don't have any more reports. I don't know of any others that were given to John and Patsy Ramsey according to their lawyers and I'm just trying to figure out what you were talking about when you say you were describing on page 56 the incredible amount of evidence given to the Ramseys and 9 their lawyers?

A. Courtesy of Pete Hofstrom and I believe others in the DA's office who did this verbally so much was shared by Pete Hofstrom's own admission. If you're just talking about hard copy documents, I don't know what they do or you do or don't have.

Q. Take a look at page 58 for me. I don't think I have asked you this. "Some friends" -- the very bottom of 58 on to 59.

"Some friends of Patsy's were concerned about how JonBenet was being groomed for pageants with the heavy makeup, the elaborate costumes and recent addition of platinum-dyed hair. It was creating a 'mega-JonBenet thing,' and some friends had planned to have a talk about it with Patsy after Christmas." Who were the friends that were concerned about how JonBenet was being groomed, identify those for me?

A. On the record this was per Barb Fernie and I think it included her, Priscilla White and a third party.

Q. Who was the third party?

A. I don't know.

Q. Were they the same people that had planned to have a talk about it with Patsy after Christmas?

A. That was my understanding and, again, that's on the record with Barb Fernie.

Q. And quote, end quote, mega-JonBenet thing, whose phrase was that?

A. Barb Fernie.

Q. On page 180 of your book you describe some kind of chilling experiences that you had about a cat being killed, mutilated and thrown on to your lawn and garden hose sliced and your wife's flower garden shredded, sergeant Whitson having shots fired into his bedroom, Linda Arndt having blood on her front door. My question is you're not in any way implying or intending to imply that John or Patsy Ramsey had the slightest to do with any of those events, are you?

A. No, not now nor did I do it in the book.

Q. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't think you were certainly. Who put the screen saver on at the Boulder Police Department that said, quote, The Ramseys are the killers?

A. I don't know who applied that to the computer screen.

Q. Did you think that was professional?

A. Oh, sometimes police humor can be less than professional behind closed doors.

Q. Well, did you suggest it might be better to take that off since you were in the process of investigation, there were a number of suspects beyond the Ramseys?

A. I did not make that suggestion.

Q. How long did it stay on the computer?

A. I don't know. I recall seeing it a few times over the course of a week or two.

Q. Was it up in 1997?

A. That's when we were over at the DA's war room.

Q. When was that, when was the war room?

A. Summer of 1997.

Q. So that's when it was up, summer of '97, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who was the policeman or detective who had a picture of Susan Smith tacked to the wall in the war room?

A. I don't know who tacked that up or who claimed ownership of that.

Q. You have been accused of trying to go out and shop experts to support the conclusion that you had already come up with in May of 1997 that Patsy was the killer. Can you see why someone would make that suggestion, Mr. Thomas --

MR. DIAMOND: May I have that read back, please.

MR. WOOD: I can read it.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You know you have, I think -- maybe I shouldn't make that assumption. Are you

aware that there has been accusations against you

that you had early on made up your mind before the investigation was complete and that you went out and shopped experts to try to find somebody on handwriting, somebody on sexual, chronic sexual abuse, to try to support the 3 conclusion that you had already drawn? Are you aware of accusations made against you in that light?

A. I know that those accusations were made against the police team and they flew back and forth with the DA's team.

Q. From the timing standpoint, it appears that one could certainly make that as a plausible argument because you're out here, a lead detective, within the first few months having decided that Patsy is the killer. A lot of the experts have not been hired at that point, true?

A. Again, those are your words. I think I have characterized it as trying to follow what I have called an abundance of evidence leading in a particular direction.

Q. But at some point you concluded, and the record will speak very clearly about what you said, you say you followed that evidence. But early in 1997, within the first few months, you had drawn your conclusion, right?

A. That it appeared based on the evidence that she was not only a good suspect, but appeared to be the offender.

Q. And there were a number of experts that at that point had not even been hired to review evidence; isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. There was a lot of evidence that has never even been collected or even requested, true?

A. Such as the clothing?

Q. The clothes, that's a key piece of evidence, isn't it, sir?

A. Correct. As I have said, that was a mistake.

Q. Yeah, and it was one of many mistakes, wasn't it?

A. I'm not here today defending the police department.

Q. I'm not asking you to defend the police department.

A. Yeah, there were many mistakes.

Q.

Was Jeff Shapiro your confidential informant

on any areas other than information from Alex Hunter's office?

A. He was -- this kid was all over the board and he --

Q. I meant for you, though, please.

A. I'm sorry?

Q. I'm just asking, you described him as my confidential informant and I just want to see any areas other than to give you information about Hunter in his office that he was a confidential informant on for you?

A. Were other detectives using him?

Q. No. Were you using him for anything other than to find out about what was going on with Alex Hunter?

A. Yeah. As I started to say this kid was all over the board and would bring into the police department everything from A to Z. And most of it was nothing but occasionally and I can't think of anything right now, he may bring something in of interest. But in particular, yes, it was -- I was most interested in him for the information he was providing about Hunter and the DA's office.

Q. At page 232 of your book -- I apologize, I apparently have gotten the wrong cite in my record. Oh, 236, I'm sorry, 236 where you say first paragraph under the line 6 right here "With our Dream Team, we tallied the points supporting probable cause and found more than 50 items."

A. Yes, I'm with you.

Q. When was that tally made? Date that for me.

A. Mr. Wood, I can't date it specifically but they assisted us in our preparation for the VIP presentation and just a quick reading of this was maybe spring or late spring of '98. But no, it was before that because later in the paragraph it talks about the Title-3, which was way back before Christmas '97. So this was, I would guess, late '97, early to spring of '98.

Q. Can I -- I don't have the time today, at least, to ask you to go through and list those 50 items. But can I be reasonably confident that if I set about myself in your book that I could find reference to those 50 items in this book, that you have included those somewhere in here?

A. No, I can't commit to that because of what was, I remember there was an easel that was used in which everybody in the room put out evidence, information, that sort of thing that went on to this

50-plus point probable cause board.

Q. So it may have been all of your points, you may have --

A. It certainly wasn't.

Q. You may not agree with all of them?

A. Right.

Q. The 245, 246, you talk about your

headlights sweeping across JonBenet's grave and you see the marble headstone

"JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, August 6th, 1990-December 25, 1996. It was a clue from nowhere." And as I understand it, the clue was that the dates on the grave was a statement by the parents that JonBenet had died before midnight, right?

A. This is gravesite surveillance number two that we're talking about, right?

Q. I'm talking about -- I'm talking about right here on page 245 and then at the top of 246 "It was a clue from nowhere." "For some reason the parents were stating that JonBenet had died before midnight"?

A. Right.

MR. DIAMOND: Take as much time as you need to put that in context.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) If the parents had placed the date of December 26, 1996 on the tombstone of their daughter, would you have concluded that it was a clue from nowhere because for some reason the parents were stating that JonBenet had died after midnight?

A. It was a clue I think in either event given the information immediately subsequent to, it was a clue from nowhere, I think -- no, it doesn't. But given the questionable time of death and how we were trying to tie that at times to the digestion of this pineapple certainly made this a clue.

Q. But it would have been a clue of the 26th if they had chosen the 26th, right, if they were saying it was a clue to you as a detective in a homicide case that they're stating she died after midnight because they put December 26th, that's the way you would have interpreted it, right?

A. I don't know because knowing what I knew then is different than what I know, but standing in my shoes in that cemetery on this particular night this was something unknown to us at the time because the Ramseys, to my knowledge, had never indicated a date of death and this thus became a clue from nowhere.

Q. Have you ever seen a tombstone where it has alternative dates of death, sir?

A. Never.

Q. Don't you think John and Patsy Ramsey had to make a choice,

and they chose December 25th, that potentially had nothing to do with their trying to make a statement about when she died; did you ever consider that?

A. Actually, I heard them make just such a statement -- or make such a statement saying -- he was trying to make a statement putting down December 25.

Q. To remind people of what happened in effect at Christmas to his child?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. But not to state that she died before midnight. As I understand it, the only way under your clue analysis as a homicide detective that the Ramseys could have avoided being accused one way or the other would have been had they put on there December 25 or December 26, 1996; is my logic right?

A. No, it's not right. As I just explained knowing what I knew then standing there looking at it, it appeared to me that here was a clue that she died on December 25.

MR. WOOD: Why don't we take a break. I think I'm down to about 15 minutes, and I would like to kind of look and see where I am and what we might do to wrap this thing up.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 5:45. We're going off the record. (Recess taken from 5:45 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.)

MR. WOOD: I will represent if you give me 25 minutes, I will be done in terms of my discovery deposition of Mr. Thomas in the Wolf versus Ramsey case. I can't speak to Darnay, obviously, because there was the issue, as you recall, about the testimonial deposition that is still in the process, indicated by Judge Carnes to follow, but I'm done. In other words, I'm not going to go bang on Carnes and say, I need 15, 20, 30 more minutes. (Discussion off the record between deponent and Mr. Diamond.)

MR. WOOD: You wouldn't be coming back on my deposition. You would be coming back on Mr. Hoffman's.

MR. DIAMOND: My understanding of the conference, and I think the record transcript will bear this out, is that the hour that Mr. Hoffman asked for was his direct testimony for use at trial.

MR. WOOD: No, I disagree with you. I think Judge Carnes was clear I would have a discovery deposition to be able to cross-examine on a testimonial deposition if Mr. Hoffman chooses to present him by deposition at a trial or live at trial. Pretty clear. But be that as it may whether I'm right or wrong --

MR. DIAMOND: I'm just speaking to whether Mr. Hoffman is now complete. And my view --

MR. WOOD: I don't know whether he intends to take a testimonial deposition or not, but there is nothing that you and I can agree to that would prohibit him from doing so, nor do I think that I can sit here and agree that I wouldn't come back and take a testimonial deposition. I'm trying to finish the discovery deposition. I'm asking for, in effect, 15, 10 minutes or 18 minutes more than what I think I'm entitled to.

MR. DIAMOND: Are you planning on taking a testimonial deposition?

MR. WOOD: I have no way to say that to you right now. I don't think Darnay could say that to you right now. We're so far away from even knowing whether we'll ever have a testimony. This case could come up on summary judgment, for gosh sakes, that could make us a year or two away from even deciding that point, Chuck; isn't that fair?

MR. RAWLS: That's fair.

MR. DIAMOND: Let me consult for a moment. (Discussion off the record between Mr. Diamond and the deponent.) MR. DIAMOND: Start. MR. WOOD: Let's go back on. Thank you. I'll get it right here on the money. I'll mark it. You've got 25 minutes of tape left?

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: I have 35 minutes of tape left.

MR. DIAMOND: You get that on the record?

MR. WOOD: We know we've used it up. Nobody can try to sneak more than that extra ten in.

MR. DIAMOND: Just so the record is clear, we're agreeing to your proposal.

MR. WOOD: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. If the opportunity should ever present itself, I would certainly consider like accommodation and consider more if necessary.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 5:58. We're back on the video depo.

 

 

Part 14 Fingerprints, Pineapple

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Was the garrote handle ever tested for fingerprints?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Do you know what the findings were?

A. I believe that Detective Trujillo told us that it required the unwrapping of the ligature cord and the -- and it was negative for any latent prints.

Q. Was there any partial palm print found on the ransom note?

A. Mr. Wood, I talk about in the book the prints that were found on the tablet and the note, but beyond that, I don't have any real evidence beyond that. Early there was believed to have been a partial or bladed palm which I believed turned out to be nothing.

Q. Do you know whether there was any effort to take that what was believed to be a partial palm and compare it to the palm print found on the wine cellar door?

A. What I'm saying is I don't know that what was initially believed to be a partial print was even a print.

Q. It's not uncommon to handle a piece of paper and not leave fingerprints,

is it, sir?

A. I don't know that.

Q. You don't want me to go there. The -- as I understand it, there was a beaver hair, what was identified as a beaver hair, found on the duct tape?

A. FBI lab identified a hair or fiber from the adhesive side of the duct tape as a beaver hair.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Ainsworth, Detective Ainsworth, went through the Ramseys' closets in June of 1997 and taped all the closets for hairs and that no beaver hair was found?

A. Yes, but that's not surprising.

Q. Were there also brown and black animal hairs found on JonBenet Ramsey's hand that had never been sourced?

A. Brown and black animal hairs on her hand that had never been sourced? This is the first I've heard of that.

Q. How about brown cotton fibers that were found on the duct tape, the cord and her body that were consistent but no source found? Is that accurate?

A. That were consistent with what?

Q. They were consistent with each other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers that were consistent with fibers found on duct tape, cords and her body?

A. That's beyond the scope of what I know and just to educate you, if you allow me.

Q. Sure.

A. Anything hair and fiber related, Trujillo knows.

Q. I think we've already talked about it was a large number of fibers that were never sourced, right, while you were there?

A. In the house, yes.

Q. There was a pubic hair, or what was believed to be a pubic hair, that may have turned out to be an ancillary hair, but that hair has never been sourced, as you know it?

A. As far as I know.

Q. The pineapple, we know the autopsy statement about the findings. Were there any tests performed beyond the autopsy on those contents?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. What I know about that is Detective Weinheimer received that assignment during the course of the investigation, employed the help of I think a biological -- or a botanist or somebody of some expertise at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The name Dr. Bach jumps out at me, as well as others, and he completed a series of reports concerning the pineapple and I think to save time one of those conclusions I think I put in the book.

Q. About the rinds being identical?

A. That it was a fresh pineapple consistent -- fresh pineapple with a rind.

Q. Rind being consistent -- oh, with a rind but consistent with pineapple found in the house or in the bowl?

A. Yeah, and let me clarify that,

pineapple consistent down to the rind with pineapple found in the bowl

in the kitchen.

Q. Consistent down to the rind. It seems to me pineapple with rind is pineapple with rind. Was there something unique about this particular rind?

A. I think they were able to determine -- well, in fact, I know that fellow Officer Weinheimer disclosed to us that they were able to characterize it as a fresh pineapple rather than a canned pineapple.

Q. Okay.

A. I think the investigation lent itself as far as, and Detective Weinheimer is a capable investigator, as far as contacting Dole Pineapple in Hawaii, et ceter

A.

Q. Do you know whether there were any other reports on the pineapple, other than the autopsy reports and Dr. Bach's reports?

A. Yeah, there was a series of reports on Weinheimer's investigation.

Q. Do you know anybody else by name that was involved in that, other than the Dr. Bach? I mean, Dole didn't give you any report, did they?

A. No, not that I'm aware of. Sorry, the names escape me but there are other reports with other planters, I guess, pineapple, for lack of a better term, experts.

Q. Any of those reports, anybody come up with something that was inconclusive in terms of findings?

A. I'm sorry, I don't recall the content of the reports.

Q. At Quantico, was there one FBI agent that said at the end of discussion that the Boulder police should keep an open mind on the case because it could be a sex offender?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that agent?

A. I believe that was Ken Lanning.

Q. Did you all ever have a dump placed on the Ramsey phone?

A. Like a trap and trace or a wire tap?

Q. An LUD or an Amadump, where you actually go in and get the outgoing calls and the incoming calls?

A. What that sounds, in the jargon I'm familiar with, Mr. Wood, is in Colorado we would call that like a trap and trace. But I think it's different because you have to be up on the trap and trace to record incoming/outgoing, also known as a pen register. But a dump, whereas anything prior -- I'm not explaining this well.

Q. Let me see if I can help. Was there a mechanism in Boulder that would allow you to go to the phone company and say I want you to go back and tell me today on the 26th of December all outgoing and ingoing calls to the Ramsey number for, say, the last two or three days?

A. No.

Q. You had to do it forward, not backward?

A. Right, I'm

not familiar with any -- phone company here having any capability to do that.

Q. Do you know for a fact that they could not?

A. With the exception, and I don't know how detailed you want to get into this, but certainly toll calls, toll calls you can certainly go back and retrieve.

Q. Long-distance toll calls? 1

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you all do that with the Ramsey records?

A. I think so.

Q. There has been a lot of debate about whether or not John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey or some of the Ramsey family before the murder of JonBenet owned the book Mind Hunter by John Douglas. Have you ever seen a photograph of that from a crime scene photo in their house?

A. No, but Tom Wickman swears up and down it was in the parents' bedroom.

Q. Does anyone else, besides Tom Wickman, swear that up and down?

A. No, but Tom Wickman has told that to several people.

Q. Where in the bedroom?

A. I was always under the impression as we recollect it now on one of the two night stands.

Q. By John's bed or by Patsy's?

A. I'm sorry, it's one or the other, I thought. Maybe I -- no, maybe I referenced it in the book, maybe I didn't. All I can tell you right now is on one of the night stands.

Q. Did you keep a -- but Wickman is the only person that says that, right?

A. As far as crime scene people that were in the house.

Q. Or anybody.

A. Yeah, Wickman is the source of Mind Hunter by Douglas.

Q. Anyone else, besides Wickman, is all I'm trying to find out?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Did you keep a Frank Coffman article called -- from the column Clues Abound folded up in your badge wallet at any point in time?

A. If we're talking about Frank Coffman -- no, I don't I recall the article if we're talking about the same article, which I had cut out, which I had at my desk at the Boulder Police Department.

Q. Did you meet with Frank Coffman and Jeff Shapiro one day and reach into your badge wallet and unfold the article and show it to Frank and Jeff and say basically, guys, you're right about where I'm coming from, words to that effect?

A. No. Again, I was very careful with Shapiro and didn't know Coffman, but I do acknowledge of being in possession of that article. If I had it in my wallet, I don't know.

Q. You have told me about what you have described and we'll leave it to your description on the record, your feelings about Alex Hunter. You're aware of, I think, Alex Hunter's feelings of you and descriptions of you as somebody out for blood money, a rogue detective, we'll leave it at that, and maybe others. You're aware of those things being said publicly by Mr. Hunter about you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did the –

I mean, there is a level of animosity between the two of you

and that's probably politely stated; wouldn't you agree?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did that start? Did it exist before the Ramsey case?

A. I didn't know Hunter before the Ramsey case.

Q. When in the scale of things do you think you can say to yourself that you formulated opinions that you hold about Alex Hunter? And you don't have to answer for him I'll ask him at the appropriate time. I want to know when you felt like you were sitting there thinking I can't believe a word this man speaks?

A. Mr. Wood, that was a -- certainly there was a culture inside the police department that existed years or a couple of decades before I even arrived there in which the DA's office and the police department had a terrible working relationship. But not knowing Mr. Hunter until our involvement on this case together, that was very incremental in fashion or incremental in stages, but by the time I left the police department, it was certainly at its height. I was very dismayed and disappointed and had no love for Hunter after some of these revelations by Shapiro.

Q. You state in your book there were 27 reasons for a grand jury and it's at page 309. But my question is, were those 27 reasons for a grand jury correlate to the 27 remaining tasks that were referred to in that June '98 press release by the Boulder Police Department?

A. Let me look at 309 real quickly. 308, 309?

Q. It's on 309 and I've got a copy of that press release where he says there were 27 tasks remaining. I'm just wondering if that's the correlation.

A. Oh, if I understand you correctly, did these 27 reasons correspond with the 27 tasks left on the to-do list?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. You do acknowledge having said that the idea of Patsy Ramsey going downstairs and putting a garrote around JonBenet's neck is a hard leap to make, your words on --

A. Yes, a lot of people, as I said, myself included, but maybe in a naive way but after learning what the FBI taught us about child homicide, as I said, they've seen children destroyed and killed in the most grotesque and worst manners imaginable.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Careful, your mike is --

MR. WOOD: I'm making noises.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Burden of Proof 4/17/2000, Greta Van Sustren said to Alex Hunter, In the Ramsey book Patsy and John Ramsey write that John has been excluded from being the author of the note and that Patsy on a one to five scale, five meaning excluded, hit 4.5. Do you endorse those two findings?

A. Do you ever remember hearing -- I had mentioned this to you earlier and I found the transcript. Do you recall hearing that Alex Hunter had basically agreed with the 4.5 finding?

A. As I said earlier, no, I didn't see that or read that transcript.

Q. There has been some reference to an FBI statistic that 50 percent of child homicides are committed by family members. Do you recall that statistic?

A. I don't.

Q. Or it's 54 percent, I think?

A. I think the statistics that we had at Quantico at that big FBI meeting, they gave us some statistics. I may have them in the book, but you would have to lead me to them.

Q. Who is the pediatric expert that thought that there may have been some corporal punishment inflicted on JonBenet for repeated bed wetting?

A. Dr. Krugman.

Q. Steve Thomas: What was interesting is that we found no history or pathology or evidence to indicate that John Ramsey had any untoward relationship or discipline with his children. Is that true?

A. I've never thought that.

Q. I found Patsy Ramsey to be a complex person on many levels but there had been

no reported history of any abuse in the house; is that true?

A. What are you reading from, Mr. Wood?

Q. A CNN chat transcript, CNN April 14th, 2000, Author Steve Thomas tells his story.

A. Can you reread for me the Patsy Ramsey section?

Q. Be glad to. I found Patsy Ramsey to be a complex person on many levels but there had been no reported history of any abuse in the house. Is that true?

A. Yeah, we had no reported incidents of any abuse in the house.

Q. 331, the second full paragraph, it starts with "Fleet and Priscilla White were being hauled over the coals because they wanted to see their previous statements, pointing out that they were being denied the same privilege given to the Ramseys"?

A. Yes.

Q. "Chief Mark Beckman declared to the Whites, who had supported another candidate for his new job, were 'morally empty' and again suggested putting Fleet White in jail." When did that occur?

A. That was late spring, I believe, of '98, certainly in 1998. But I recall this.

Q. Do you recall Mark Beckner ever asking you if you thought that Fleet White could possibly be the murderer?

A. Mr. Wood, I think maybe even in this same passage.

Q. I think that's where it is, here it is, I'm sorry. "'For what?' I had asked Beckner incredulously. Beckner later asked me if Fleet could possibly be the murderer." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. That would have been a comment made in 1998 by Chief Beckner?

A. That's correct.

Q. You talk about in your book that JonBenet was an incredible little kid, right?

A. Are we on the last page?

Q. I think it's -- it's page 353 of your hardback?

A. Right.

Q. You talk about something that sounds a little bit like something I read in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town about the sun and the rhythm of the earth beneath her feet. "She was an incredible little girl who loved to be tickled.

Ms. America was the least she could have been." Am I reading that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you give her parents any credit for that in terms of bringing her up for those six years?

A. Certainly.

Q. Did you know a Dr. Monteleone, M-o-n-t-e-l-e-o-n-e?

A. As a matter of fact, I think that's the name I could not recall that was the pediatric expert from St. Louis.

Q. Did he ever indicate that he did not believe that parents would engage in the type of staging that was being argued existed in the Ramsey case in the absence of pathology?

A. Well, that certainly I think would contradict what he put in a report on letterhead to the Boulder Police Department.

Q. So you recall that report. Was that one of the documents you copied?

A. I don't know --

Q. Or received?

A. -- if that is, but I do recall that report and in that report I think the outstanding mention was that he was of the opinion that she had sustained prior vaginal trauma prior to December 26 or 25.

Q. There was a pocket knife found on the basement counter?

A. Which I learned later, right.

Q. And was that ever sourced, to your knowledge?

A. No. My recollection of that is terribly vague because I don't know when we talked about those thousand-plus pieces of evidence collected, those were potential pieces of evidence, I think that the pocket knife may have been collected, but I don't know. There was the suggestion that I overheard that that belonged to Burke.

Q. Was that ever sourced to Burke?

A. Not prior to me leaving.

Q. In the Ann Bardach article, I'm 2 sorry, now I can't find it. Here we go. It came out of the October '97 Vanity Fair. There is a reference to the number 74 in terms of individuals who had had their handwriting analyzed. Again I apologize, I'll lean over a minute. Right here, Out of the 74 names submitted for testing

Patsy's handwriting was the only one that set off alarm bells,

end quote. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Was that your statement to her?

A. That may have been. I know that she talked to other police officers.

Q. Does that mean were those the 74 that maybe now is referenced 73?

A. Possibly.

Q. So that the 73 handwriting analyses that you refer to in your book were by virtue of the date of this completed sometime by September of 1997?

A. Are those one and the same?

Q. Yeah.

A. They may be.

Q. Do you believe there have been 74 handwriting analyses done before you have made that statement to Ann Bardach?

A. Well, I'm not acknowledging that it was me necessarily, but if that was me that would -- certainly I would have said it holding that belief.

Q. The most sensitive and critical police and detective reports as well as reproductions of both the ransom note and the practice note found the same day had been given to the Ramseys, the Ramseys' best defense attorneys are right and sat in Hunter's office, he mumbled bitterly. Is that something you believe you said?

A. I don't know if that was Arndt or me or who that was. I don't disagree with the sentiment.

Q. One day in early July I was contacted by a source with firsthand knowledge of the investigation. I arranged to meet with him in a parking lot outside Boulder Edgy, and fearfully he said he was speaking to me only as a last resort. He said that a flow of privileged confidential information critical to a case against the Ramseys had been leaked from the DA's office to the Ramseys' lawyers with the efficiency of a seed. Is that you?

A. It could be.

Q.

If the Ramseys had been some poor Mexican couple,

they would have been in their face for a week, got a confession out of them and filed first degree murder charges against them within days, quote unquote. Does that sound like something you may have told her?

A. I don't know if I made that statement. A statement that sounds similar to what I have said in the past is had this been an indigent or minority couple I think we would have handled this case entirely different.

Q. She said -- she prefaced that by saying, It's cold outside and I suggest that we find a late night coffee shop in the car. I can see the depth of this man's agitation. Quote, I have never seen politics and preferential treatment play such a major role in a case. He says that had the Ramseys been some poor Mexican couple. That's you, isn't it?

A. Typically -- I met her in the summer of '97 and typically it's not cold outside in the summer in Colorado.

Q. It had to be with somebody because that's when she was here?

A. Right, it's the summertime. It could be.

Q. I'm down to two minutes. And if I can take a one-minute break to make sure that Mr. Rawls wants me to spend my last two minutes covering any last one or two questions, I would appreciate it.

MR. DIAMOND: Okay.

MR. WOOD: I also need to go to the restroom. I held back on the --

MR. DIAMOND: I need to be downstairs at 6:30.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 6:22. We're off the record. (Recess taken from 6:22 p.m. to 6:23 p.m.)

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 6:23. We're going on the record.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, in terms of the search of the Ramseys' hard drive and their computer, was anything found that was viewed as suspicious or incriminating in August?

A. There were, I think reams of documents that came off that recovered hard drive, but I think as far as, I don't know if the search included pornography, I think it did, nothing like that, but there was other documents that were later used for Foster. But I --

Q. For handwriting analysis, I'm talking about beyond use for analysis of handwriting, anything --

A. You mean suspicious?

Q. Or incriminating?

A. I would have to flip back through it.

Q. Anything that jumps out at you as we sit here today?

A. No.

Q. And certainly there is never any finding despite a fairly extensive search that in any way linked the Ramseys to any type of 7 pornography; am I right about that?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. There is a reference to I would lose it with my two minutes ticking. Let me ask you, while I'm doing this to look at page 408, and that's probably going to be the paperback. I'll let you take a look at my copy of that. If I can point you to it, Mr. Thomas, right here, I've got it written down page 408, It should be a lesson to communities across America --

MR. DIAMOND: Can you give us just a second?

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

MR. DIAMOND: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "It should be a lesson to communities across America not to allow any politician to become an emperor and merely interpret the law as he or she sees fit." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you also agree that communities across America should not allow any police officer to become an emperor and merely interpret the law as he or she sees fit?

MR. DIAMOND: Objection. Argumentative. You may answer.

A. In the context, again, please, Mr. Wood.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yes, just as a statement of principle that communities across America

should not allow any police officer to become an emperor

and merely interpret the law as he or she sees fit, it would apply to politicians and police officers, wouldn't it?

A. Non committal on that.

Q. You don't have a position on the difference between a politician and police officer in terms of interpreting the law?

A. I'll give it some thought.

Q. Okay. Last question, page 181, the last two questions and then I'm done. Are you with me?

A. 181.

Q. 181, you make reference to three FBI agents, intruder theory?

A. Help me. Where on the page?

Q. I'm looking myself. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the paperback. 161, I apologize. Do you see where it starts "Three FBI agents"?

A. Yes.

Q. What I want to know is if you can date that for me? "'The case is not being handled well,' said the CASKU agents."

A. Shortly before I believe the Ramseys' April 30, 1997 interview.

Q. Can you identify the three agents for me?

A. Supervisory special agent Bill Hagmaier, special agent Mike Morrow, and their partner and the third special agent, his name just escapes me at the moment.

Q. And those three agents prior to April 30, 1997 said that the intruder theory was absurd, Hofstrom needs to act like a prosecutor not a public defender. Don't do tomorrow's interview and get a grand jury as soon as possible, right?

A. Yes.

Q. The final question, page 204.

MR. DIAMOND: And this is the final question?

MR. WOOD: Yes, I appreciate it because I think I'm probably 30 seconds over.

MR. DIAMOND: That's all right.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "To unlock that damned S.B.T.C. acronym at the bottom of the ransom note, I called the U. S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. I talked to Linda Percy. 'I've been waiting for this call for six months.'" Can you date that call for me, please, sir?

A. I believe, and I can't definitively, but I believe that was in the summer of 1997.

Q. June, July or August of '97, you believe?

A. As we sit here right now, yeah, I recall that as being the summer of 1997.

MR. WOOD: Thank you for the accommodation on the additional time, both to Mr. Thomas, thank you. Mr. Diamond, thank you. Mr. Smith, thank you. My portion of the examination in the Wolf versus Ramsey case from a discovery standpoint is complete.

MR. RAWLS: As is mine.

MR. DIAMOND: Before we leave, I believe it's automatic under your confidentiality order for a period of ten days after the --

MR. WOOD: After the transcript.

MR. DIAMOND: That there's an automatic in position of confidentiality. To the extent I am wrong, we are designating this as confidential subject --

MR. WOOD: It is.

MR. DIAMOND: -- look, review it.

MR. WOOD: Any deposition is deemed confidential if you sign on to a protective order. That's why I thought you all were –

MR. DIAMOND: I don't know that we have to sign on to a protective order to do that, I --

MR. WOOD: I didn't go into any confidential information as it turned out. I tried to phrase it in a way that avoided that problem.

MR. DIAMOND: I appreciate that.

MR. WOOD: I will treat clearly the statement about his Social Security number as confidential.

MR. DIAMOND: I think you should treat the entire contents of this deposition as confidential.

MR. RAWLS: I think it does say that for ten days they have a right to designate --

MR. DIAMOND: Ten days after receipt.

MR. RAWLS: Receipt of the transcript.

MR. WOOD: If they sign on to the provision of the protective order. Whatever the order says, we're going to do justice by the order because the last person I want to see is Julie Carnes telling me I violated her order. Life is too short.

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: The time is 6:30. We're going off the record. (WHEREUPON, the deposition recessed at 6:30 p.m.) . . .

INDEX TO EXHIBITS Exhibit Description 9/20/01 policetraining.net the calendar for law enforcement training 6/18/97 fax cover sheet from Don Foster to Gordon Cooper, w/attachments 3 9/18/01 CBS.com New Ramsey Book to Hit Stands Photocopy of autopsy photo of JonBenet Ramsey Photocopy of autopsy photo of JonBenet Ramsey (Original exhibits retained by Attorney Lin Wood.) . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO: COUNTY OF DENVER: I, Kelly A. Mackereth, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within the state of Colorado, do hereby certify that previous to the commencement of the examination, the deponent was duly sworn by me to testify to the truth. I further certify that this deposition was taken in shorthand by me at the time and place herein set forth and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the result of the within action.

My commission expires 4/21/03. _____________________________ Kelly A. Mackereth

CAPTION The Deposition of Steven Thomas, taken in the matter, on the date, and at the time and place set out on the title page hereof. It was requested that the deposition be taken by the reporter and that same be reduced to typewritten form. It was agreed by and between counsel and the parties that the Deponent will read and sign the transcript of said deposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CERTIFICATE STATE OF ________ COUNTY/CITY OF _______ : Before me, this day, personally appeared, Steven Thomas, who, being duly sworn, states that the foregoing transcript of his/her Deposition, taken in the matter, on the date, and at the time and place set out on the title page hereof, constitutes a true and accurate transcript of said deposition. Steven Thomas . SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of _________, 2001 in the jurisdiction aforesaid.

My Commission Expires Notary Public . . . . . . DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET . RE: Alexander Gallo & Associates File No. 1637 Case Caption: Robert Christian Wolf vs. John Bennet Ramsey, et al Deponent: Steven Thomas Deposition Date: September 21, 2001 . To the Reporter: I have read the entire transcript of my Deposition taken in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me. I request that the following changes be entered upon the record for the reasons indicated. I have signed my name to the Errata Sheet and the appropriate Certificate and authorize you to attach both to the original transcript.