0001 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 ATLANTA DIVISION 3 ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF, 4 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC) 5 vs. 6 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY, 7 Defendants. 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 10 GIDEON EPSTEIN 11 12 May 17, 2002 9:35 a.m. 13 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. 14 Atlanta, Georgia 15 16 Valerie N. Almand, RPR, CCR-B-531 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0002 1 APPEARANCES 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf: 3 EVAN M. ALTMAN, Esquire 4 Lake Forrest Place 5 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 300-B 6 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 7 (404) 845-0695 8 . 9 DARNAY HOFFMAN, Esquire (via telephonic means) 10 Law Offices of Darnay Hoffman 11 Suite 209 12 210 West 70th Street 13 New York, New York 10023 14 (212) 712-2766 15 . 16 On behalf of the Defendants, John Bennett Ramsey and 17 Patricia Paugh Ramsey: 18 JAMES RAWLS, Esquire 19 ERIC P. SCHROEDER, Esquire 20 Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, L.L.P. 21 Sixteenth Floor 22 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. 23 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 24 (404) 572-6600 25 // 0003 1 L. LIN WOOD, Esquire 2 L. Lin Wood, P.C. 3 2140 The Equitable Building 4 100 Peachtree Street 5 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 6 (404) 522-1713 7 . 8 Also Present: 9 John Ramsey 10 Matt Wood 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0004 1 Deposition of Gideon Epstein 2 May 17, 2002 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 4 record, and the time is 9:34 a.m. 5 MR. RAWLS: Very good. Let me make 6 a brief stipulation by way of beginning. 7 Darnay, can you hear me? 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. 9 MR. RAWLS: This is the deposition 10 of Mr. Gideon Epstein. The deposition is taken 11 of Mr. Epstein as an expert for the plaintiff, 12 Robert Christian Wolf, in this case. 13 The deposition is being taken at a 14 time and place determined by agreement of 15 counsel and formalized thereafter by a notice 16 issued by the defendants. 17 The deposition is taken for all 18 proper purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 20 Is that a suitable stipulation, Evan 21 and Darnay? 22 MR. ALTMAN: Yes, it is. 23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, it is. 24 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, one preliminary 25 thing. Did you also want to limit the 0005 1 objections, the usual objection sort of thing? 2 I don't know if you mentioned that. 3 MR. RAWLS: Yes, let's agree as I 4 believe the rules provide that all objections 5 except as to the form of the question and as 6 to the responsiveness of the answer will be 7 reserved until the time of the trial, hearing or 8 other use of the deposition testimony. 9 MR. ALTMAN: That is acceptable. 10 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, is that -- 11 MR. HOFFMAN: In fact, in New York 12 we usually, when we sit down we say usual 13 stips. That's fine, absolutely. 14 GIDEON EPSTEIN, having been first 15 duly sworn, was examined and deposed as 16 follows: 17 EXAMINATION 18 BY-MR.RAWLS: 19 Q. Mr. Epstein, tell us, please, your 20 full name. 21 A. Gideon Epstein, G-I-D-E-O-N, Epstein, 22 E-P-S-T-E-I-N. 23 Q. Do you have a middle name? 24 A. I do not. 25 Q. And have you ever had? 0006 1 A. Never had a middle name. Two was 2 always enough, thank you. 3 Q. Have you ever had a different name? 4 A. Never had a different name. 5 Q. Your date of birth, please? 6 A. July 6th, 1938. 7 Q. And place of birth? 8 A. Riga, Latvia, that's spelled R-I-G-A. 9 Q. At birth were you a U.S. citizen? 10 A. I was not. I'm a naturalized 11 citizen. I was naturalized in 1956. 12 Q. Mr. Epstein, where do you make your 13 home, sir? 14 A. In Rockville, Maryland. 15 Q. And how long have you lived there? 16 A. I've lived in Rockville since 1988. 17 Prior to that I lived in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 18 just a short distance from there. 19 Q. When did you first come to the U.S.? 20 A. I came to the United States in July 21 of 1946. 22 Q. At approximately the age of -- 23 A. Eight. 24 Q. -- eight. Shortly after your 8th 25 birthday. 0007 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. Would you describe for us, 3 Mr. Epstein, what you understand to be your 4 engagement in the case of Robert Christian Wolf 5 against John and Patsy Ramsey? 6 A. My engagement in the case, as I see 7 it, is to conduct forensic handwriting 8 examinations of the disputed ransom note, in 9 conjunction with the known handwriting that I 10 was provided of the Ramseys, and attempt to 11 establish, if possible, through that forensic 12 examination whether there was common authorship 13 between the known writing and the disputed 14 ransom note. 15 Q. When were you first retained in this 16 case? 17 A. I was first retained in this case 18 about a little less than two years ago, I 19 believe. 20 Q. Can you be more specific? 21 A. No, because originally I became 22 involved in this case in a sort of an 23 unofficial capacity as a result of reviewing the 24 documents that another document examiner who was 25 in the case was looking at, Larry Zieglar. 0008 1 At the time I was the chief document 2 examiner at the immigration laboratory and 3 Mr. Zieglar was a contractor for me, and so I 4 became aware of the documents and I saw the 5 documents prior to officially becoming involved, 6 but like I say, the best I can recall is that 7 it was about two years. 8 Q. When you were first retained did you 9 agree to assist for a fee? 10 A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior 11 to being officially retained and while still an 12 employee of the department of justice, I 13 contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration 14 and Naturalization Service and asked for 15 permission to become involved in the case on a 16 pro bono basis, and that permission was granted, 17 and it was at that time that I became involved 18 officially in the case, and there was -- I had, 19 from the beginning it was a pro bono basis 20 case. 21 Q. Has that ever changed? 22 A. Not -- actually, I did receive a fee 23 for the Article 26 report, but prior to that I 24 had put in more than 50 hours of examination 25 time in the case for which I did not bill 0009 1 anyone. 2 Q. What was your fee for the Rule 26 3 report? 4 A. Twelve hundred dollars. 5 Q. And was that paid? 6 A. It was. 7 Q. Do you now consider yourself a pro 8 bono expert or a for fee expert? 9 A. I consider myself a pro bono expert. 10 Q. And would you describe your reason, 11 please, for taking this matter on a pro bono 12 basis? 13 A. I've been involved in this profession 14 for 35 years, and have always considered that 15 the forensic sciences have a responsibility to 16 the criminal justice system, and I've felt very 17 strongly about that throughout my entire 18 professional career. 19 I feel that the questioned document 20 profession let the criminal justice system down 21 in this particular case, and I feel very 22 strongly that I would, if possible, like to set 23 that straight. 24 I don't believe that the forensic 25 reports that have been rendered in this case 0010 1 thus far by those document examiners who earlier 2 examined these documents were correct, and I 3 don't believe that justice has been served, and 4 that's my only reason for becoming involved in 5 the case. 6 Q. Mr. Epstein, given all that, why did 7 you charge twelve hundred dollars for the Rule 8 26 report? 9 A. Because I had expenses and we all 10 have bills, and there were cases that I had 11 turn down that were fee cases. 12 In this kind of a case, you have to 13 be prepared to devote a great deal of time to 14 a case like this, and it's not a case that you 15 can bill for. It's not a case where every 16 hour can be counted and charged up to someone. 17 So there are, however, instances 18 where you do have static things, for instance, 19 this deposition is an example. It's a certain 20 number of hours that we know we're going to 21 devote to it and we can predict what we can 22 charge in it, and so therefore I think that to 23 work for two years on a case and sacrifice 24 other cases in place of it that you have to, 25 if you can, make up some of that, and I feel 0011 1 that that's the reason I charged for the -- the 2 twelve hundred dollars for the Article 26 report 3 as well as for this deposition, is because these 4 are sort of static hours that we know we've put 5 in and it's something that can easily be billed, 6 whereas the amount of time that we actually 7 devote to the examination of a case like this 8 can't really be counted. 9 Q. How many hours did you spend working 10 on the Rule 26 report? 11 A. Approximately ten hours. 12 Q. So the twelve hundred dollars charge 13 was approximately -- 14 A. I charged for an eight-hour day. 15 Q. All right, sir. In fact, was it 16 suggested to you, Mr. Epstein, that you would 17 have trouble charging my clients for your time 18 today if you had not sent a bill for the Rule 19 26 report to Darnay Hoffman? 20 A. No, that was never mentioned to me 21 at all. 22 Q. That was never any part of your 23 thinking? 24 A. No, never part of my thinking. 25 Q. And if that was part of anyone 0012 1 else's thinking, that was never shared with you. 2 A. If it was someone else's thinking it 3 was never shared with me, no. In fact, if 4 there had been any indication that there would 5 be difficulty collecting a fee for today, I 6 would have been very happy to come here without 7 a fee. 8 Q. Mr. Epstein, in this case counsel 9 have been furnished by your side's attorneys, 10 Mr. Altman and Mr. Hoffman, a document that is 11 styled plaintiff's disclosure of expert 12 testimony. On Page 2 of that document there's 13 a paragraph, in fact could you take a look at 14 the second full paragraph on Page 2 -- 15 A. Mr. Epstein is being compensated 16 (inaudible). Yes. The twelve hundred dollars I 17 received for the Article 26 report, I have a 18 photographer who prepared all of my charts, he 19 received eight hundred dollars, that makes up 20 the two thousand dollars as far as the amount. 21 I didn't feel I could ask my photographer to 22 work pro bono. He has expenses, and so he was 23 paid eight hundred dollars for the preparation 24 of the charts. 25 Q. Mr. Epstein, would you look on with 0013 1 me and tell me if I am reading this paragraph 2 correctly? "Mr. Epstein is being compensated 3 for his report and testimony at the rate of two 4 hundred dollars per hour for his trial and 5 deposition testimony, and at the rate of one 6 hundred fifty dollars per hour for his 7 laboratory examination and discovery report. To 8 date Mr. Epstein has paid -- excuse me, has 9 been paid two thousand dollars." 10 Have I read that correctly. 11 A. You've read it correctly, but I'm 12 not exactly sure what is meant by that. I can 13 only tell you what I received and my 14 understanding. 15 I think that it was always 16 understood that the majority of my work and my 17 examination time would be on a pro bono basis. 18 The only fee that I've received has been the 19 twelve hundred dollars for the Article 26 20 report, which was invoiced at a hundred and 21 fifty dollars an hour for eight hours. 22 As far as any understanding, at the 23 time that the report was provided, I don't know 24 that there was any discussion about testimony 25 fees, so that's my understanding of it. 0014 1 Q. Mr. Epstein, did your familiarity 2 with Chris Wolf play any part in your decision 3 to do any work on this case pro bono? 4 A. I don't know Chris Wolf. 5 Q. Do you know anything about 6 Mr. Wolf's situation, his story, his career, his 7 background, his plight, if you will? 8 A. I know nothing about Mr. Wolf, and 9 that's intentional. 10 Q. May I say I don't blame you. 11 Are you familiar with Mr. Wolf's 12 career in the entertainment industry? 13 A. As I say, I don't know anything 14 about Mr. Wolf at all. 15 Q. And why was it intentional that you 16 learned nothing about Mr. Wolf? 17 A. Because it's always been my policy 18 as a document examiner not to involve myself 19 with those outside things in a case that have 20 nothing to do with the documents that I examine. 21 Q. Mr. Epstein, you testified earlier 22 that forensic reports by members of your 23 document examination profession thus far in 24 connection with the ransom note found at the 25 home of John and Patsy Ramsey have not been 0015 1 correct. 2 A. That's my feeling, yes. 3 Q. Which of those reports have you 4 read? 5 A. I've read the report by Howard Rile, 6 and I've read the report by Lloyd Cunningham. 7 I think those are the only written reports that 8 I recall seeing. I know that there were other 9 document examiners who came to a similar 10 conclusion, but I don't know if they ever put 11 those findings into a written report. 12 Q. So the only reports that you have 13 observed are those provided in this case by the 14 Ramseys' experts, Howard Rile and Lloyd 15 Cunningham; is that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. What, if anything, have those reports 18 had to do with the criminal justice system, sir? 19 A. They have had nothing to do with the 20 criminal justice system. 21 Q. You testified earlier that members of 22 your profession had, in your opinion, let the 23 criminal justice system down in this case; did 24 you not, sir? 25 A. I did, because I think that 0016 1 originally if the examinations had been conducted 2 in a different manner that the results would 3 have been such that it may have become a 4 criminal justice matter. 5 Q. But the fact is you don't know how 6 those original document examination reports were 7 done at all; do you, sir? 8 A. Well, I know what the findings were 9 of the people that did it. 10 Q. Do you know the names of the people 11 that made the examinations? 12 A. I know that the people from the 13 Colorado bureau conducted examinations that were 14 inconclusive. I don't recall now the person 15 that did it, an older gentleman, I can see his 16 face, I can't recall his name. But there were 17 certainly forensic examinations done at the time 18 that there was a criminal investigation into 19 this matter. 20 Obviously that was significant 21 evidence in this case, and so therefore that had 22 to have been done, and I know that those 23 conclusions were inconclusive. 24 Q. The fact is, you know nothing about 25 the manner in which any of the experts retained 0017 1 by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation rendered 2 their examinations, their analyses and their 3 conclusions; am I not correct? 4 A. Specifically, I don't know what they 5 concluded, but generally I know that the 6 conclusions were inconclusive. 7 Q. Mr. Epstein, I want to come back 8 later to the subject of the other reports and 9 analyses of handwriting that were done as part 10 of the criminal justice part of the 11 investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. 12 I'll come back to that later. I want to learn 13 a little bit more about you, if you don't 14 mind -- 15 A. Not at all. 16 Q. -- sharing some additional information 17 with us. 18 First I'd like to know how you 19 prepared for this deposition. 20 A. I prepared for the deposition by 21 going over the work that I had done in this 22 case and going over my report and the 23 illustrations that are attached to it. 24 Q. Did you confer with any of the 25 attorneys for Mr. Wolf before this deposition in 0018 1 preparation? 2 A. I did not. 3 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 4 1 was marked for identification). 5 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, with respect to 6 the last question, when you say conferred, I 7 mean, we had discussions regarding the case. I 8 guess my question is could you maybe be a 9 little bit more specific about what you want to 10 know regarding that? 11 MR. RAWLS: Thank you, Evan. 12 Q. Mr. Epstein, what I want to know is 13 did you consult Mr. Altman or Mr. Hoffman about 14 this deposition? 15 A. I did not. 16 Q. Were you told anything about the 17 testimony earlier this week of Ms. Cina Wong? 18 A. I learned of that testimony this 19 morning. 20 Q. From whom did you learn of that? 21 A. From Mr. Altman. 22 Q. Have you ever seen Ms. Wong's 23 report? 24 A. Yes, I did, almost two years ago. 25 I believe it was shown to me when I first 0019 1 became involved in this case. 2 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim. 3 MR. RAWLS: Yes. 4 MR. HOFFMAN: I'd just like to add 5 a note here, it can be on or off the record. 6 Mr. Epstein has never been shown the most recent 7 report by Cina Wong. 8 THE WITNESS: No, the most recent 9 one, the one I saw was several years old. 10 MR. RAWLS: I certainly take 11 Mr. Epstein at his word that if he saw a Cina 12 Wong report two years ago it could not have 13 been what Ms. Wong has later put together. 14 But Darnay, thank you for your 15 explanation. 16 BY MR. RAWLS: 17 Q. Mr. Epstein, may I show you a 18 document that has been marked Defendant's 19 Exhibit-1 to your deposition? What is this, 20 please, sir? 21 A. This is my fee schedule. 22 Q. Did you provide that to Mr. Hoffman 23 and Mr. Altman? 24 A. I think I did at one time, but I 25 never, I never really adhered to this fee 0020 1 schedule. 2 Q. And does anything on this fee 3 schedule indicate that you are serving in this 4 case pro bono? 5 A. It does not. 6 Q. And do you know that this was given 7 us as if it were your fee schedule in this 8 case by Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Altman? 9 A. I'm not aware of under what 10 conditions that was given to you, but I can 11 tell you that I think they both understand that 12 I'm working this case on a pro bono basis. 13 Q. I don't know what they understand, I 14 only know what they have given me to believe 15 before today, Mr. Epstein, and that was this 16 Defendant's Exhibit 1. 17 A. And that, I'm not aware of. 18 Q. You did not thorough Mr. Hoffman or 19 Mr. Altman to misrepresent to me your fee; did 20 you, sir? 21 MR. ALTMAN: Object as to the form. 22 A. No, I know nothing about this whole 23 matter of the fee. I think it was rather 24 clear from the very beginning that I was working 25 this case on a pro bono basis. It hasn't 0021 1 changed, and it will not change. 2 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim. 3 MR. RAWLS: Yes. 4 MR. HOFFMAN: Did I include with 5 that the letter of agreement that I had signed 6 with Mr. Epstein, I think it was in January or 7 late December, whereby I had agreed in a letter 8 agreement with him -- it was one page -- to, 9 you know, pay him for his time and whatever 10 else? I don't know if that was included there. 11 MR. RAWLS: I don't think so, 12 Darnay. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, because I have 14 it, and I don't know if I can find it like 15 during this deposition period, but I can fax 16 your office a copy of it. 17 MR. WOOD: Why don't you do that? 18 MR. RAWLS: That will be 19 appreciated. 20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I think 21 there's some confusion here. There was a period 22 late December, early January where I got an 23 e-mail from Mr. Epstein to the effect that 24 because there was so much time involved in the 25 case that he needed at the very least nominal 0022 1 compensation, and he faxed me a -- and, Gideon, 2 I don't know if you remember this or not -- 3 faxed me a letter of understanding, agreement, 4 whatever you want to call it, it was a couple 5 of paragraphs, which I signed, duly signed and 6 faxed back to him, and that's the basis by 7 which it was my understanding that he would be 8 appearing at least for parts of the deposition 9 as a paid consultant. 10 So there's been no attempt to try to 11 misrepresent Mr. Epstein's understanding or my 12 understanding. There may be a little confusion 13 here. And to clear that up, I will fax you a 14 copy of the agreement that Mr. Epstein had me 15 sign, I think it was in January or late 16 December. 17 MR. SCHROEDER: Darnay, Eric Shroeder 18 here. Would you mind faxing that to my 19 attention? 20 MR. HOFFMAN: To your attention, 21 Eric? 22 MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. 23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, fine. 24 BY MR. RAWLS: 25 Q. Mr. Epstein, would you agree with me 0023 1 that for justice to be served candor is 2 necessary? 3 A. Absolutely. 4 Q. Are you, Mr. Epstein, a trained 5 graphologist? 6 A. I am not. 7 Q. Do you need to be a trained 8 graphologist in order to be a qualified forensic 9 document examiner? 10 A. No, you don't. 11 Q. Does graphology add anything to your 12 ability to be a qualified document -- forensic 13 document examiner? 14 A. I don't believe it does, no. 15 Q. What is graphology, sir? 16 A. The study and examination of 17 handwriting with the purpose of establishing a 18 person's personality and character traits. 19 Q. Do you do that? 20 A. I do not. 21 Q. Have you ever aspired to do that? 22 A. I have never aspired to do that. 23 Q. Does that business of graphology 24 impress you as a science? 25 A. It does not. 0024 1 Q. Does it have credibility with you in 2 any manner? 3 A. It does not. 4 Q. Do you believe in it? 5 A. I do not. 6 Q. When did you leave government 7 service, Mr. Epstein? 8 A. I left government service in December 9 of the year 2000. 10 Q. And at that time your employer had 11 been the United States Immigration and 12 Naturalization Service; am I correct? 13 A. Forensic document laboratory, that's 14 correct. 15 Q. And you were in charge of that 16 laboratory, if I'm not mistaken. 17 A. I was in charge of the forensic unit 18 of that laboratory. There's also an 19 intelligence unit that's a part of that 20 laboratory that I was not in charge of. 21 Q. When you sought permission to assist 22 Mr. Wolf pro bono, whose permission did you 23 seek? 24 A. I first went to the laboratory 25 director and then I went to the ethics officer 0025 1 at headquarters, INS, and received permission 2 from both of them. 3 Q. And the name of the lab director? 4 A. Katherine Sheehan, S-H-E-E-H-A-N, and 5 she's still the laboratory director today. 6 Q. And who is the ethics officer in 7 Washington? 8 A. That I can't remember. I did 9 receive an e-mail back from him, and Ms. Sheehan 10 would certainly know who the ethics officer is, 11 but I -- at the moment it slipped my mind who 12 he is. 13 Q. Do you still possess a copy of that 14 e-mail? 15 A. I probably do, yes. 16 Q. We would like to see that if you 17 will agree to -- 18 A. Certainly. 19 Q. -- seek it, and if Mr. Hoffman and 20 Mr. Altman will agree to permit you to share it 21 with us. 22 MR. ALTMAN: We have no objection. 23 Darnay? No objection. 24 A. I will try to find that e-mail. I 25 know that I kept it because I felt that it was 0026 1 important in case I was ever asked why or how 2 or under what circumstances I became involved. 3 Q. If I have done my math right, you 4 are approximately 63 years old now, is that 5 correct? 6 A. Sixty-four, will be sixty-five in 7 July. 8 Q. And are you -- do you consider 9 yourself now to be semiretired, or a nonretired 10 businessman? 11 A. Well, I don't consider myself a 12 businessman. Actually I'm a pretty poor 13 businessman, I found. But I am, I would say, 14 semiretired although sometimes I feel that I'm 15 busier now than when I was working, so . . . 16 Q. How many hours in a typical week do 17 you practice your field of forensic document 18 examination? 19 A. I have a contract at the present 20 time with the immigration service forensic 21 document laboratory to train their new document 22 examiners, and I devote about five hours in the 23 morning, five days a week, to that. 24 And then in the afternoons I have a 25 private practice and I devote, depending on the 0027 1 cases, a good part of the afternoon to that. 2 So I would say that I devote probably pretty 3 close to eight hours a day to forensic document 4 examination. 5 Q. Well, that doesn't sound very retired 6 to me. 7 A. Sometimes it's not. 8 Q. Tell me what is involved in the 9 training program which -- or by which you train 10 immigration and naturalization service document 11 examiners, please. 12 A. Certainly. It's a 30-month program 13 at the laboratory where I was and where I'm 14 presently training people. The handwriting 15 portion of the training is approximately one 16 year in length, and it consists of a reading of 17 all of the recent and past literature, all of 18 the books on questioned document examination to 19 familiarize all of the trainees with the basic 20 principles of the profession. 21 It involves the reading of papers 22 and various research type projects that have 23 been conducted on the subject of handwriting. 24 It involves the study of handwriting systems, 25 and then a great portion of that training is an 0028 1 apprenticeship-type training where actual cases 2 are used, past cases where exhibits have been 3 photographed and retained and where the cases 4 are assigned, and then the trainees will work 5 them and the cases are critiqued, and they move 6 from that into actual life cases where original 7 documents are available, and this goes on for 8 about a year to build a base and a foundation 9 for knowing and understanding how the basic 10 principle for document examination apply to the 11 work. 12 Q. How many individuals are being 13 trained by you in the training program which you 14 are operating at present? 15 A. Right now there are three. 16 Q. And when did this 30-month program 17 begin which you are now in the midst of? 18 A. In June of last year. 19 Q. So the idea is that those three 20 students who have been in the program less than 21 one year now will complete 30 months of study. 22 A. Eventually. My contract has just 23 been extended for another year. We will be 24 finishing the handwriting block of the 25 instruction next month, and at that time they 0029 1 will move on to other areas of document 2 examination. 3 Q. And are those three students being 4 paid as employees of the INS while they are 5 taking your training course? 6 A. They are. They are actually 7 employees. They were brought into the 8 laboratory as permanent employees and the 9 positions are the positions of trainee, and then 10 after they've completed their training they will 11 go into permanent positions as forensic document 12 examiners. 13 Q. And what credentials did they need 14 to have before they could get admission into 15 your training program, if you know? 16 A. I do know. All three of them have 17 master's degrees in forensic science from the 18 George Washington University of Forensic 19 Sciences. 20 Q. Did you select these people? 21 A. These three, I did not. I've been 22 training people, though, for a number of years, 23 and previous trainees I have selected, but these 24 three were selected by my predecessor. 25 Q. At the end of the 30-month course 0030 1 that you have described what will these three 2 individuals be qualified to do, in your 3 judgment, at least as you hope? 4 A. Well, hopefully, and so far we've 5 been very successful, is that they will be able 6 to assume a caseload of their own. The first 7 year or so afterwards their work will all be 8 check and countersigned by a more senior 9 examiner, but they will be in a position to 10 take cases to court, should testimony be 11 necessary, and they will conduct independent 12 examinations of handwriting, handprinting matters, 13 altered and counterfeit document cases, various 14 miscellaneous problems having to do with 15 documents. 16 Q. In your 30-month program how much 17 time is devoted to the study of graphology? 18 A. None -- well, let me say that I 19 spend time only to identify what graphology is 20 and that it is not a part of forensic document 21 examination, and that it is not something that 22 we consider in our work. 23 Q. What are the major books in the 24 literature which your training program asks these 25 students to read? 0031 1 A. Well, there's only really a handful. 2 There's Suspect Documents by Harrison, Questioned 3 Documents by Osborn, Problem of Proof by Osborn, 4 Scientific Examination of Documents by Hilton, 5 Forensic Document Examination by Huber and 6 Hedrick, Conway's book on disputed documents. 7 That pretty much is the majority of the accepted 8 texts. 9 MR. RAWLS: May we take a brief 10 recess at this time? Is that convenient? 11 MR. ALTMAN: Sure. 12 MR. RAWLS: We're off the record 13 at -- 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:13 a.m. 15 (Recess). 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the 17 record at 10:26 a.m. 18 BY MR. RAWLS: 19 Q. Mr. Epstein, we have a book here 20 that I'll show you, let me put it in the way 21 of the camera for just a moment, and, for the 22 record, this book was spoken of by Ms. Cina 23 Wong earlier this week. 24 Do you understand that Ms. Wong is 25 your co-expert on handwriting in the case of 0032 1 Chris Wolf? Was that a smile captured just 2 then or an effort not to smile? 3 A. An effort not to smile. I don't 4 know what you mean by co- -- what was it you 5 said? 6 Q. My word was co-expert on handwriting 7 in the case of Chris Wolf. 8 A. I really don't know how to answer 9 that question, to tell you the truth, because I 10 was not aware until this morning on my way here 11 that she had, in fact, been deposed and that 12 she had, in fact, written another report. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, can I interject 14 here, because this is a thing that involves 15 counsel and you can put this on the record or 16 keep it off, whichever you like. 17 MR. RAWLS: Well, Darnay, first I'd 18 like for Mr. Epstein to finish his answer. I 19 didn't think he was finished, but he might have 20 been. 21 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm very sorry. 22 Q. Mr. Epstein. 23 A. I don't consider her as my co-expert 24 in this case. 25 Q. Why is that? 0033 1 A. Someone else may consider her as a 2 co-expert in this case, but I don't. 3 Q. Why? 4 A. Because I don't believe that she 5 meets what I and the profession consider to be 6 the necessary qualifications for forensic 7 document examination. 8 Q. Mr. Epstein, I don't either. 9 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, if this is when 10 you would like to make your remark, please feel 11 free to do so. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah. One of the 13 things that I was most concerned about with 14 respect to both Cina and Gideon was that there 15 would be no opportunity for either person to 16 really be able to comment on the work of the 17 other individual, on the theory that keeping the 18 handwriting experts from knowing about the work 19 of the other person could lead to truthful 20 answers that, in fact, they were not influenced 21 in any way by the work being done by the other 22 person. So that was really the reason. 23 MR. RAWLS: Thank you. Darnay, are 24 you finished? 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, Jim, thank you. 0034 1 MR. RAWLS: Good. And back -- I 2 think it's true that perhaps all of us 3 digressed, including me. 4 BY MR. RAWLS: 5 Q. The book I referenced earlier, 6 Mr. Epstein, is called Attorney's Guide to 7 Document Examination, it's written by Katherine, 8 with a K, Koppenhaver with a K, 9 K-O-P-P-E-N-H-A-V-E-R. Are you familiar with 10 this text, Mr. Epstein? 11 A. I am familiar with her. I'm not 12 familiar with her book. 13 Q. What can you tell us about your 14 familiarity with her? 15 A. I consider her another one of the 16 people practicing on the fringe of forensic 17 document examination who probably have a 18 background in graphology, who have opposed a 19 number of qualified document examiners in the 20 Washington area. 21 I believe she's in Baltimore; is 22 that correct? 23 Q. I'm not certain. 24 A. I think she's in Baltimore. But 25 I've seen some of her findings and I don't have 0035 1 any respect for her work, I guess is the 2 easiest way to say it. 3 Q. Do you agree that Ms. Koppenhaver is 4 not a qualified forensic document examiner? 5 A. As far as my profession is 6 concerned, yes. 7 Q. Is her book a book that has gained, 8 to your knowledge, credibility in the field of 9 forensic document examination? 10 A. I've never seen that book before, 11 and I've been in the field 35 years. 12 Q. Now, it is a relatively new book. 13 Is this one that's going to show up on your 14 reading list -- 15 A. No, it won't. 16 Q. Why is that? 17 A. As I said, I have absolutely no 18 respect for her or her work, so there's no 19 reason for me to read her book. 20 Q. She, we were told, is actually the 21 president of an organization -- or is immediate 22 past president of an organization called National 23 Association of Document Examiners. Is that a 24 bona fide group of forensic document examiners? 25 A. It is not. 0036 1 Q. What is that group, if you know? 2 A. It's a group that's composed 3 primarily of graphologists. 4 Q. Do you recognize board certifications 5 by the National Association of Document Examiners 6 of forensic document examiners? 7 A. The only recognized body for the 8 forensic profession in document examination in 9 North America is the American Board of Forensic 10 Document Examiners. They're the only recognized 11 board to certify document examiners. A lot of 12 these fringe organizations, and there are others 13 besides that one that certify their own members, 14 and that's so that the individual can go into 15 court and state that they're board-certified, and 16 the court doesn't know the difference between 17 one board and another. 18 Q. Unless, of course, an expert 19 qualified by the American Board of Forensic 20 Document Examiners is hired by another party in 21 the case. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Mr. Epstein, in the course in which 24 you train representatives of the Immigration and 25 Naturalization Service in document examination, 0037 1 do you give feedback on the work done by your 2 students? 3 A. Certainly. The entire program is 4 monitored in such a way as to evaluate any 5 weaknesses or any progress that the student 6 makes or any particular area of the program that 7 has to be -- where you have to devote more 8 time. 9 Different people learn at different 10 speeds and different levels and have come into 11 the program with different backgrounds, and so 12 to some degree you have to be monitoring this 13 kind of thing very closely. 14 Q. Do you give critiques on the work 15 done by the students? 16 A. Absolutely. 17 Q. Do you critique them on their work 18 on past cases that have been solved? 19 A. They're critiqued on the cases that 20 they work and whether they correctly recognized 21 the elements of that particular case that either 22 resulted in an elimination or an identification 23 or resulted in a qualified conclusion. 24 I think during the training program 25 it's important for the trainees to develop 0038 1 certain skills that will allow them in the 2 future to be able to recognize such things as 3 disguise, as individual highly unique 4 characteristics, as class characteristics, as 5 what is handwriting variation versus what is a 6 difference. 7 I mean, these are all important 8 elements of handwriting, and if you don't learn 9 these things at the beginning, they affect you 10 the rest of the time that you're in the 11 profession. 12 Q. Do you critique the work done by 13 these students on live cases? 14 A. I am doing that now. They now have 15 gotten to the point where they are assigned live 16 cases. 17 Q. Is 30 months enough to enable a good 18 student in your class to become a qualified 19 forensic document examiner? 20 A. It's enough time for them to reach a 21 point where they can start to do independent 22 work that is checked by a more senior examiner. 23 None of the work, even after the 30-month 24 program, will go out without a more senior 25 examiner looking at their work. 0039 1 Q. So what they need is 30 months plus 2 perhaps a year's apprenticeship in which their 3 work is checked out by an experienced INS 4 forensic document examiner? 5 A. Yes, and the length of time that 6 their work is reviewed will depend on the 7 individual and the progress that individual 8 makes. 9 When the senior examiner feels that 10 they have developed their skills to such a 11 degree that they can be relied upon to send a 12 report out on their own without it being 13 reviewed, then they will move into that phase of 14 their career. 15 Q. And that is thirty months at five 16 days per week and five hours per day; am I 17 correct? 18 A. It's five hours a day of my 19 instruction. They have assigned beyond that 20 five hours other things, reading assignments, 21 special projects, so they are training more than 22 five hours a day, but my actual involvement with 23 them is for about five hours a day. 24 Q. So it's five hours a day plus 25 homework five days a week for thirty months. 0040 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Did you ever train Cina Wong? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. Did you ever train David Leibman? 5 A. I did not. 6 Q. Do you know David Leibman? 7 A. I know that he rendered a report 8 early on in this case. I think I remember 9 seeing something a couple of years ago that he 10 wrote. 11 Q. Is he a qualified forensic document 12 examiner? 13 A. He is not, no. 14 Q. Why not? 15 A. Again, for the same reasons. I 16 don't believe that he ever went through any kind 17 of recognized or accepted training program. 18 The profession requires that for a 19 person to be qualified to do this work, they 20 must complete, at a minimum, a two-year resident 21 training program in a recognized laboratory or 22 by a recognized forensic document examiner. 23 Many of these people are self-taught. 24 This is not a profession that you can learn by 25 yourself. I mean, this is an apprenticeship 0041 1 type of profession. You have to learn from 2 others, people who have been doing this for 3 years. 4 Q. Do you have any information about 5 the International Society of Handwriting 6 Sciences? 7 A. I don't know that I've ever heard of 8 them. It sounds like one of the many 9 organizations that sound so much alike, but I 10 don't know about that one, I don't believe. 11 Q. What is involved, if you know, in 12 the forensic science Master's Degree program at 13 George Washington University? 14 A. Well, I taught that program for 15 seven years. I taught questioned document 16 examination at George Washington University until 17 about 1992, from 1985 to 1992, so I'm pretty 18 familiar with the program. 19 It's an overview of forensic science 20 is basically what the program involves. It has 21 classes in all of the various forensic areas, 22 firearms and tool marks, serology, 23 instrumentation, chemistry, criminal law, personal 24 identification, pathology, odontology, questioned 25 document examination, which I taught. 0042 1 In fact, one of my -- all of my 2 students are graduates of that program and one 3 of them is just graduating, actually graduating 4 tomorrow, I believe. 5 It's a good program. It's one of 6 the few programs in the country where you can 7 get a master's in forensic science. There 8 aren't a great many universities that allow you 9 to get that. 10 It's good in that it allows a person 11 to try to determine whether they're interested 12 in this profession or not, and so it's good for 13 that reason. But it doesn't in and of itself 14 qualify a person to go into questioned document 15 work upon completion of the master's program. 16 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 17 2 was marked for identification). 18 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, do you have a 19 copy for me, by any chance? 20 MR. RAWLS: Yes, I do. 21 Q. Mr. Epstein, let me show you a 22 document that's been marked Defendant's Exhibit-2 23 to your deposition. Do you recognize this, sir? 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 Q. Is this your resume? 0043 1 A. It's my CV, yes. 2 Q. Your CV. And, in fact, you yourself 3 received not only a bachelor's degree in 4 criminal justice, but also a Master's of 5 Forensic Science degree; did you not? 6 A. Yes, I did. 7 Q. And when did you receive your 8 Bachelor of Science degree from the University 9 of Nebraska? 10 A. I received that in, I believe -- 11 let's see, I was in Japan '79 to '82. I 12 believe it was in 1983, or was it -- let's 13 see, I was in Japan from 1979 to 1982, yes, I 14 believe it was -- no, I wasn't in Japan, from 15 1969 to -- okay. I was in Japan from 1969 to 16 1972, so I graduated from Nebraska in 1973, I 17 believe. 18 Q. And when did you receive your 19 Master's of Forensic Science? 20 A. 1982. 21 Q. And that was from Antioch School of 22 Law? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You've been with the INS, as I 25 understand it, from approximately 1980; is that 0044 1 correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Until about -- well, until December 4 2000, as you told us earlier. 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. When did you become active in 7 administration of the document examination 8 laboratory at the INS? 9 A. I first became involved in a limited 10 way because we had a small laboratory at that 11 time, around 1985, and became more involved as 12 we added additional staff and as the budget of 13 the laboratory grew over the years, but until my 14 retirement in the year 2000. 15 Q. You were chief forensic document 16 examiner beginning in what year? 17 A. I believe it was around 1985. 18 Q. How many document examiners reported 19 to you in about 1985, approximately? 20 A. I think at that time we probably had 21 only about three. 22 Q. And when you retired from the INS in 23 December 2000, approximately how many document 24 examiners reported to you? 25 A. About 14. 0045 1 Q. In the year 2000 were you handling, 2 yourself, individual cases, or were you 3 supervising the work of other document examiners 4 on individual cases? 5 A. I always remained a working 6 supervisor. Because of my desire to remain in 7 this work I always assign myself cases, and they 8 were primarily handwriting cases, because that's 9 my true love as far as this work is concerned. 10 Q. How many cases in a year did you 11 assign yourself in the year 2000, approximately? 12 A. Oh, I don't know. It would probably 13 be in the neighborhood of 30 or 40, perhaps a 14 little bit more than that. I can't really be 15 sure because I really don't have any figure like 16 that, but I would say it might -- it was 17 certainly a much smaller number than the work, 18 full-time working examiners. 19 Q. And approximately how many would they 20 be assigned in a year? 21 A. Total cases or just handwriting 22 cases? 23 Q. Total handwriting cases. 24 A. Well, that would -- that actually 25 fluctuated, because it depended upon what the 0046 1 primary concern of INS was at any particular 2 period in time. There were times when we were 3 involved with marriage fraud where there was a 4 lot of handwriting involved. 5 It's hard to say, but I would say 6 probably a couple of hundred cases a year in 7 handwriting would be probably an average. There 8 may have been times when it was more. INS 9 always has certain priorities that they have, 10 and you sort of work those kinds of cases that 11 are a priority at that time. 12 Q. What were -- and let's take the 13 decade of the 1990's ending in December 2000. 14 What were the principle INS priorities that 15 related to handwriting examination in that 16 decade? 17 A. Well, to give it a broad category, 18 of course, they were fraud cases. There's all 19 kinds of fraud. Handwriting becomes involved in 20 numerous ways. 21 As I mentioned, they could have been 22 marriage fraud cases, they could have been 23 counterfeit document cases with authorizing 24 signatures, they could have been student fraud 25 cases, they could have been outright criminal 0047 1 cases that involved the various task forces that 2 INS was involved in: drug enforcement task 3 forces, gang task forces where INS people were 4 assigned, when documents would come up they 5 would submit them to the laboratory. So it 6 really was a whole mixture of different types of 7 cases that came in. 8 There were handprinting cases, there 9 were support -- a lot of times the various 10 types of actions in INS require support 11 documents, in other words where a person is 12 claiming something on behalf of someone else, 13 and many times these types of documents are, in 14 fact, fraudulent. 15 You have cases where three or four 16 different people were supposed to have written 17 letters and you find that, in actuality, one 18 person wrote all of them. 19 There's just a whole different array 20 of cases. 21 Q. The INS does not have jurisdiction 22 over ransom cases; does it? 23 A. Ransom cases, per se? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. No. 0048 1 Q. How many ransom notes did you 2 yourself examine as an employee of the 3 Immigration and Naturalization Services? 4 A. I don't believe I examined any 5 ransom notes. 6 Q. In your career as a questioned 7 document examiner before you looked at the 8 ransom note that was found at the home of John 9 and Patsy Ramsey, how many ransom notes have you 10 looked at? 11 A. I don't know that I've looked at any 12 ransom notes, but a ransom note is nothing more 13 than handwriting, and I don't know that it is 14 any more unique than any other kind of 15 handwriting on a document. 16 MR. RAWLS: I object to the 17 responsiveness of the answer and move to strike 18 it after the words "I don't know that I've 19 looked at any ransom notes", and I would like 20 the record to reflect a period there. 21 BY MR. RAWLS: 22 Q. Mr. Epstein, to the best of your 23 knowledge you have looked at only one ransom 24 note in your life for the purpose of analyzing 25 it as a document examiner; am I correct? 0049 1 A. My recollection, I can't recall that 2 I've examined -- I may very well have when I 3 was a military examiner, I worked thousands of 4 cases over the years. I can't recall every 5 single case that I worked. 6 (Off-the-record discussion). 7 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibits 8 Numbers 3 and 4 were marked for identification). 9 Q. Mr. Epstein, let me show you 10 Defendant's Exhibit-3. This purports to be a 11 list of court testimony of yourself from 1997 to 12 present. Am I correct that that is a complete 13 list of your court testimony from 1997 to 14 present? 15 A. I believe it is, yes. 16 Q. And were -- as you look at those 17 cases, were any of those cases concerned with 18 the authorship of a ransom note? 19 A. They were not. 20 Q. And let me show you, please, 21 Defendant's Exhibit-4. This purports to be a 22 list of cases in which you have given court 23 testimony from January 1990 to present. Is it 24 a complete list? 25 A. To the best of my knowledge, it is, 0050 1 yes. 2 Q. And as you look at that list, and 3 please take a few moments if you need to to 4 refresh your recollection about each case, my 5 question is the same: Are any of those cases 6 cases in which you testified about authorship of 7 a ransom note? 8 A. They are not. 9 Q. As you look at those cases or that 10 list, Mr. Epstein, is there any case on the 11 list in which any of the judges or hearing 12 officers ruled that you would not be permitted 13 to give testimony? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Has any judge ever ruled that you do 16 not have sufficient expertise to be permitted to 17 give expert testimony on any given matter that 18 you recall? 19 A. No, I have not. 20 Q. Are you familiar with a Daubert 21 motion? 22 A. I am. 23 Q. For the benefit of the judge and 24 jury, would you describe your familiarity with 25 what a Daubert motion is, please? 0051 1 A. The Daubert motion challenges the 2 scientific -- well, the Daubert motion 3 challenges, I guess questioned document 4 examination, the scientific basis upon which 5 handwriting examination is based, whether or not 6 it's based on empirical data, whether the person 7 who is being identified as the expert witness 8 is, in fact -- does, in fact, have the 9 necessary qualifications to testify on the 10 matter. 11 Q. Do you familiarize yourself or try 12 to stay current on judicial decisions about 13 whether document examination and forensic 14 handwriting analysis is a field of science that 15 is sufficiently established that experts in the 16 field can provide their opinions on that subject 17 matter? 18 A. I try to. It's sometimes difficult 19 because cases come up all over the country, but 20 I make an effort to, and it is a subject that 21 is covered in the training. 22 Q. Did you read the ruling last year 23 from a federal district judge that refused to 24 permit a handwriting analyst to provide 25 testimony? 0052 1 A. Is this the one in Alaska? 2 Q. Yes, sir. Did you agree or disagree 3 with the judge's ruling? 4 A. I disagreed with the judge's ruling. 5 Q. Do you know the expert involved in 6 that case? 7 A. I believe he was a postal service 8 document examiner out of the postal lab in San 9 Francisco. 10 Q. Do you know of that individual's 11 credentials? 12 A. No, I don't. And I actually don't 13 know the person either, I just know where he's 14 from. I believe that he's actually been 15 involved in two Daubert challenges, the same 16 individual. 17 Q. Did he prevail, to your knowledge? 18 A. I don't believe he did. 19 Q. How many Daubert challenges have ever 20 been made against you as a testifying witness, 21 to the best of your recollection? 22 A. To the best of my recollection, 23 there was a case in Nevada involving the 24 president of a Latino organization, but the 25 judge immediately, as soon as the challenge was 0053 1 made, informed the attorneys that he would, in 2 fact, accept the testimony, so it didn't go very 3 far. 4 And then I believe there was an 5 attempt made in Cleveland on the part of the -- 6 on the part of the Tiger law firm in the case 7 of John Demjanjuk to try to use Daubert to 8 prevent my testimony in that case, that I -- 9 again, the judge ruled very quickly that he 10 would accept it. 11 Q. You mentioned the Cleveland case of 12 John Demjanjuk, I believe that's 13 D-E-M-J-A-N-J-U-K, am I correct? 14 A. (Nods head). You are. 15 Q. A number of accusations were made 16 with respect to criticizing your testimony at 17 various times in that long series of lawsuits; 18 were there not? 19 A. There were some accusations made 20 regarding the initial examinations back in 1980, 21 I think, but they were totally inaccurate. The 22 court record clearly reflects exactly what I 23 said, and my findings on that case never changed 24 from over the 21 years that I was involved in 25 that case. 0054 1 Q. Was it your position in that case 2 that John Demjanjuk was quote Ivan the Terrible 3 close quote? 4 A. It was not, and that was not what I 5 concluded. My determination was that the 6 document, the identity document that identified 7 him as a prison guard was a genuine, unaltered 8 document, and that the signatures of the camp 9 commander that appeared on that document as well 10 as the quartermaster were, in fact, written by 11 those people. 12 Q. And the ultimate outcome, at least 13 up to this time in the case of John Demjanjuk 14 I believe was just most recently determined 15 earlier this year; am I correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. And that is that while Mr. Demjanjuk 18 might not be Ivan the Terrible, he was ruled to 19 be a former prison guard in a Nazi concentration 20 camp; am I correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And at every course of that 23 proceeding throughout the U.S. and also in 24 Israel, your own testimony was important; was it 25 not? 0055 1 A. It was, yes. 2 Q. Did you testify in Israel? 3 A. I did. 4 Q. How many times? 5 A. One time over a period of three 6 days. 7 Q. Has your work in connection with the 8 case of John Demjanjuk been published in any 9 publication, journal or article so that it can 10 be studied or reviewed by your peers? 11 A. There was an initial paper that was 12 written and given out at a professional meeting 13 some years ago, but I was aware that the case 14 was not over and I didn't feel it appropriate 15 for me to discuss or publish the -- anything 16 pertaining to the case until after it had been 17 totally adjudicated. 18 Q. Who wrote the -- I'm sorry, please 19 finish. 20 A. And that's the reason that it was 21 never published in total, the total examination. 22 Q. Who wrote the original paper that 23 you just referred to? 24 A. I did do an initial paper, I 25 believe. It was probably after the -- it was 0056 1 probably after the Israeli trial, I'm not sure 2 when it was, but it was simply a paper that 3 dealt primarily with the types of examinations 4 that could be conducted on a document of this 5 type, the various types of examinations that 6 could authenticate a document of this type. 7 Q. To whom did you present that paper? 8 A. I believe it was presented to the 9 American Society of Questioned Document 10 Examiners, or it may have been presented to the 11 American Academy of forensic Sciences, I'm not 12 sure which organization I presented. Probably 13 the society, I would think. 14 Q. Do you retain a copy of your paper? 15 A. I do, but I would have to see if I 16 could find it. I'm not sure that I have it. 17 I think, though, that if you -- I think you 18 can find it, though, by going to the -- the 19 ASQDE, the American Society of Questioned 20 Document Examiners, has a database of papers 21 that you can search by author, and I know that 22 I have 17 papers listed, I believe, under my 23 name, and so you probably would be able to 24 obtain that paper that way. 25 Q. We will try that. If not, we may 0057 1 ask you for assistance in locating that. 2 Have you yourself published any 3 books, Mr. Epstein? 4 A. I have not. 5 Q. Have you published any articles in 6 professional or scholarly or scientific journals? 7 A. I have, not recently. Earlier I 8 published articles, I know there was an article 9 on a Joseph Mengele handwriting case that I 10 worked which was published in the American 11 Academy of Forensic Sciences Journal. I 12 published some articles in the International 13 Association for Identification News, and some in 14 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Journal. Some 15 were probably published in a publication called 16 the Detective, which was a CID army criminal 17 investigation publication. But these should all 18 be listed in that database. 19 Q. In the same American Society for 20 Questioned Document Examination database. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is the database a place where one 23 can find copies of the articles, or simply a 24 bibliography of the articles? 25 A. Actually, the articles are now being 0058 1 retained by the FBI laboratory. They have now 2 taken over the storage of all of the 3 professional papers, and I think there's about 4 eight thousand now in the database, and they are 5 now the keepers of that file. 6 Q. Mr. Epstein, we spoke about some of 7 the priorities of the Immigration and 8 Naturalization Service in the field of document 9 examination while you were the chief document 10 examiner at the INS. 11 Let me ask you how many times did 12 you yourself have experience with the authorship 13 of documents that I will categorize as extended 14 handwriting documents. 15 A. That's -- it's a common, common 16 case. There are various types of cases that 17 involve extended writing: letters, applications 18 of various kinds, threatening letters, obscene 19 letters, sometimes -- there's all kinds, and 20 when I was with the military we had -- I had a 21 great deal of exposure to suicide notes and 22 other extended writings of that type. 23 Q. How many times, Mr. Epstein, in your 24 career, to your knowledge, have you observed 25 extended handwriting samples where the 0059 1 handwriting took place within just a few minutes 2 before or after the murder of any individual? 3 A. I recall two cases, where one was a 4 suicide where the writing had been done just 5 moments before the woman committed suicide. 6 Actually, there were a number of suicides that I 7 recall now in France where, for whatever reason, 8 we had a great many suicides and I was -- but 9 at that time I was not a document examiner, I 10 was a criminal investigator, but I kept a lot 11 of suicide notes, photographs of suicide notes 12 that I was involved in, and later when I became 13 a document examiner I actually did a study of 14 suicide notes. 15 But anyway, there was another 16 situation involving a homicide that was committed 17 by a prostitute in Wisconsin, and she had -- 18 shortly after she had committed the crime she 19 wrote a very long letter to her family, and I 20 examined that writing. 21 So there have been occasions, and 22 there may have been others, I just can't 23 remember all of them. 24 Q. When was the situation involving the 25 homicide committed by the prostitute in 0060 1 Wisconsin? 2 A. It was while I was with the Alcohol, 3 Tobacco and Firearms laboratory, so it had to be 4 between 1978 and 1980, probably around 19 -- 5 probably around 1979. 6 Q. What was your position with the 7 BATF? 8 A. I was a senior document examiner. 9 Q. For the most part, the INS is not 10 the agency that is likely to be principally 11 involved in the analysis of an extended document 12 such as a threat, an extortion demand or a 13 blackmail demand; am I correct? 14 A. Well, normally, if you apply the 15 word normally to the case, that would be 16 correct. But there are exceptions to that, and 17 they are brought in by task force members. The 18 INS has members assigned to various task forces 19 in the government, and these task force members 20 often work various types of cases involving 21 these kinds of things and they submit the cases 22 for laboratory work. 23 In addition, I oftentimes accepted 24 cases from other government agencies. I did not 25 only do cases for INS. There are a number of 0061 1 government agencies that don't have forensic 2 capabilities, and if the case warranted a 3 document examination and they had nowhere to go 4 with it, I would accept those cases and work 5 them for the federal prison system and various 6 other government agencies. 7 Q. What was the purpose of your 8 examination of the letter written by the 9 prostitute in Wisconsin to her family shortly 10 after the homicide? 11 A. They were trying to identify -- the 12 letter was unsigned, it was found on the woman's 13 desk, and it was incriminating in the sense that 14 it said that she had committed a terrible thing 15 and that she would go away for awhile and for 16 the family not to worry, basically that was the 17 text of the letter, and it was -- there was -- 18 the purpose of the examination was to attempt to 19 identify whether she, in fact, had written the 20 letter. 21 Q. The purpose was to identify 22 authorship -- 23 A. Authorship. 24 Q. -- by a given individual. 25 A. That's right. 0062 1 Q. Did you do so? Did you identify 2 the author? 3 A. I didn't identify her completely. 4 There were a number of factors in this case 5 that restricted a definitive conclusion. There 6 were indications, strong indications that she 7 could have written this letter, but there were 8 -- this is one of those situations that I've 9 come across a number of times over the years 10 when a woman oftentimes becomes involved in a 11 violent type of crime. 12 The handwriting oftentimes reverts, I 13 think unconsciously, to a previous lower level 14 or style of writing. I saw the same thing in 15 the suicide case. I don't know, since I'm not 16 a psychiatrist I can't explain why that happens, 17 but I know that it happens in women. I 18 haven't seen it in men. 19 Oftentimes it's a style of writing 20 that they may have used earlier in their life, 21 and when you get writing, known writing that's 22 produced under stress, under the same sort of 23 conditions, if you can, you find the handwriting 24 characteristics that you're looking for. 25 What I did in the case in the 0063 1 Philippines in the suicide case was I wrote the 2 family and asked them to send me letters that 3 the woman had written when she was under stress 4 with her husband -- it was a bad marriage -- 5 and when I received those letters I was able to 6 positively identify the writing, but prior to 7 the receipt of those letters there were 8 handwriting characteristics present that I was 9 not able to identify. 10 In the case of Wisconsin I received 11 writings made while the woman was in prison, and 12 some of those writings were comparable and 13 others were not. By that I mean there was 14 unlike text for comparison. And so I was able 15 to state that there were indications that this 16 woman had written it, but I was not able to 17 state with any definitive conclusion that she 18 was. 19 Q. We've talked, Mr. Epstein, about the 20 training that you feel is necessary to qualify a 21 person to be a forensic document examiner. 22 A. Well, that the profession considers 23 to be necessary. 24 Q. Is a weekend survey course taught 25 over three or four weekends, even by a person 0064 1 as qualified, say, as Larry Zieglar, sufficient 2 to train a professional forensic document 3 examiner? 4 A. No, and Larry Zieglar would be the 5 first to tell you that. 6 Q. Actually, sir, with all due respect, 7 you're the first to tell me that, but I did 8 have my suspicions about the matter. 9 In addition to a three- to 10 four-weekend survey course taught, for example, 11 by Larry Zieglar at a local community college, 12 would it be sufficient if the person not only 13 had that Larry Zieglar three- to four-weekend 14 survey course but also had a three- to four-day 15 course conducted by a Secret Service investigator 16 such as John Hargett at a conference held by 17 the Northwest Fraud Investigators Association? 18 Would that be sufficient? 19 A. No, it wouldn't. 20 Q. Taken together? 21 A. Wouldn't matter. 22 Q. When were you certified by the 23 American Board of Forensic Document Examiners? 24 A. 1982, I believe. The board actually 25 came into existence -- I was the 36th person to 0065 1 be certified by the board. It might have been 2 a little earlier. It was shortly after the 3 board was formed and after it came into 4 existence. 5 Q. Do you know approximately how many 6 members the American Society of Questioned 7 Document Examiners is comprised of? 8 A. It's not a very large organization. 9 It's actually quite small. I don't believe that 10 there are probably -- they have various 11 categories of membership. They have 12 corresponding members, which are people outside 13 the country; they have regular members who are 14 people from the United States and Canada; but I 15 would say right now that there are probably, I 16 would say, 60, 50, 60, 70 members, something 17 like that. 18 Q. And how many, to your knowledge, 19 board-certified forensic document examiners are 20 there? And by that I mean certified by the 21 American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, 22 which you told us was the recognized -- the 23 only recognized body to certify such 24 professionals? 25 A. I would say a couple of hundred, 0066 1 probably, something like that. All of these 2 organizations, by the way, do have their 3 websites, in ABFDE.org, ASQDE.org, all of that 4 will give you all of their members. 5 Q. If a person claims to be a 6 board-certified questioned document examiner but 7 has no certification from the American Board of 8 Forensic Document Examiners, is that person being 9 misleading when the individual states he or she 10 is a board-certified questioned document 11 examiner? 12 A. Unless they truly believe that the 13 organization that they belong to has the 14 authority and is recognized by the profession to 15 do that, but again, if that's what they think 16 then they really don't know the profession at 17 all. 18 Any mainstream document examiner in 19 this country knows what the certifying body for 20 this profession is, and if they, in fact, know 21 that and then inform the court that they are 22 board-certified, then I believe they're 23 misleading the court. 24 Q. Does the American Society of 25 Questioned Document Examiners discriminate? 0067 1 A. Discriminate in what way? 2 Q. In any way. 3 A. Not to my knowledge. I was 4 president of that organization two years, and 5 the only thing it requires is that the people 6 who join have the credentials necessary to meet 7 the standards. They have to take the tests, 8 they have to have the proper training. They 9 have to be recommended by people within the 10 profession who know their work. But if they 11 meet those standards, that's the only 12 requirement. 13 Q. Does the American Society of 14 Questioned Document Examiners discriminate against 15 document examiners who are in private practice, 16 as opposed to government service? 17 A. Not at all. That organization 18 actually was established by private examiners, 19 and for many years there were very few 20 government examiners in that organization. 21 Albert Osborn, when he started that 22 organization and for many years after that, it 23 was strictly an organization of private 24 examiners, and today there are probably -- 25 certainly there are as many, if not more, 0068 1 private examiners in that organization as there 2 are government examiners. 3 Q. Does the American Board of Forensic 4 Document Examiners discriminate against those 5 documents examiners who are in private practice? 6 A. No, not at all, and again, that 7 organization, I'm sure, has probably more private 8 examiners than government examiners. 9 Again, the only thing that those 10 organizations require is that the people meet 11 the requirements. I mean, that's the only 12 thing. 13 Q. If a person testified that she 14 received board certification from the National 15 Association of Document Examiners because the 16 American Board of Forensic Document Examiners and 17 the American Society of Questioned Document 18 Examiners discriminated against her based on her 19 private as opposed to government practice, would 20 that individual, would that person's testimony 21 simply indicate the person is misinformed? 22 A. Well, I know for a fact that that 23 is not a reason for disallowing membership in 24 either or any of those professional 25 organizations. They will disallow membership if 0069 1 a person doesn't have at least a bachelor's 2 degree. They will disallow membership if the 3 person hasn't gone through at least a two-year 4 training program. 5 There are those reasons why a person 6 would be denied membership, but not because 7 they're in private practice, because a majority 8 of the people, like I say, are in private 9 practice that are members. 10 Q. Do the American Board of Forensic 11 Document Examiners and the American Society of 12 Questioned Document Examiners practice nepotism? 13 A. No, they don't. 14 Q. Do you know of any forensic science 15 organization that accredits the National 16 Association of Document Examiners? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. Do you refer business to -- ever, to 19 Cina Wong? 20 A. Never. 21 Q. To David Leibman? 22 A. Never. 23 Q. But you have from time to time 24 referred business to Larry Zieglar. 25 A. I have. 0070 1 Q. Have you not? 2 A. I consider Larry Zieglar to be a 3 qualified forensic document examiner. 4 Q. Mr. Epstein, do you have your own 5 laboratory? 6 A. I do. 7 Q. Is that in your home or do you have 8 an office outside your home? 9 A. It's in my home. 10 Q. What equipment is in your home lab? 11 A. I have all of the necessary 12 instrumental equipment. I have a video 13 spectrocomparator that allows for paper and ink 14 examinations. I have an electrostatic 15 deciphering apparatus that allows for the 16 examination of indented writing. 17 I have stereoscopic microscopes, 18 photographic equipment, measuring instruments, a 19 very extensive library. I can do most 20 examinations that are necessary to be done. 21 Q. Mr. Epstein, in your career have you 22 been mentioned or quoted in the news media, to 23 your knowledge? 24 A. I have. 25 Q. When? 0071 1 A. Over the years I've been fortunate 2 in having been involved in some interesting 3 cases that received public attention. 4 My 20 years with the office of 5 special investigations in the war crimes area, 6 many of those cases such as the Viral Trifa 7 case, the Archbishop of Romania, the Joseph 8 Mengele, a number of others that were important 9 at the time. 10 I was also involved in the Noriega 11 case in Miami, as a special request by the 12 attorney who was handling that case to do the 13 work in that case, which I did. So over the 14 years there have been cases where the news media 15 has been interested. 16 Q. To the best of your knowledge have 17 you been quoted in the tabloids? 18 A. I have, yeah. 19 Q. On what matters? 20 A. On the types of examinations that 21 were conducted in a particular case, the 22 circumstances surrounding the examinations that 23 were performed. 24 Q. Have you spoken to the news media 25 about the anthrax letters? 0072 1 A. I was, I forgot about those. 2 Q. Were you approached by reporters, or 3 did you initiate the calls? 4 A. No, I was approached by some 5 reporters out of Royters and also out of the 6 New York papers, as well as I think USA Today. 7 Q. Have you given any statements to the 8 responsible press or the tabloid press about the 9 murder of JonBenet Ramsey? 10 A. Absolutely not. 11 Q. Have you said anything to any 12 reporter about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey? 13 A. Absolutely not. 14 Q. Or about your having signed on as an 15 expert witness on behalf of Chris Wolf? 16 A. Absolutely not. 17 Q. Or about your having analyzed or 18 studied the ransom note that was found at the 19 home of John and Patsy Ramsey? 20 A. I have told no reporter anything 21 that I'm doing in this case. 22 Q. Has any reporter called you about 23 anything you're doing in this case? 24 A. I don't believe they have, no. 25 Q. Have you spoken to any broadcast 0073 1 entity, radio or television, or any cablecast 2 entity concerning the death of JonBenet Ramsey? 3 A. I have not, no. 4 Q. Did you authorize anyone to give 5 your report or any report you have given to 6 Mr. Darnay Hoffman to any news entity? 7 A. I have not. 8 Q. To any tabloid? 9 A. I have not. 10 Q. Did you know that it was given to 11 the tabloids? 12 A. I have seen the -- yes, in answer 13 to your question, I did know that it was given, 14 but I never gave permission for that. 15 Q. How do you know it was given? 16 A. I read it. 17 Q. What did you read and when? 18 A. I don't recall really when it was. 19 It was an article stating that -- basically my 20 findings. 21 Q. Do you recall in which publication 22 that was found? 23 A. It was in one of the trash, trash 24 sheets, the Globe or World or whatever those 25 things are called. 0074 1 Q. Enquirer? 2 A. Enquirer, yeah, I guess it was the 3 Enquirer. 4 Q. Did you suggest to Mr. Hoffman that 5 you'd prefer that not happen? 6 A. I didn't -- I didn't really discuss 7 it with him. I didn't feel it was my position 8 to tell him that. 9 Q. With respect -- jumping back to the 10 anthrax letters, did the United States government 11 ask you to study those letters? 12 A. No, they didn't. 13 Q. Or officially provide you with any 14 of those letters? 15 A. They did not, no. The news media 16 provided me with copies of the envelopes and the 17 letters. 18 Q. Did you ever see the original 19 anthrax envelopes or letters? 20 A. I did not see the originals, no. 21 MR. RAWLS: Let's take a brief 22 recess, if this is a convenient time. 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end 24 of Tape 1 to the deposition of Mr. Epstein. 25 The time is 11:34 a.m., and we're off the 0075 1 record. 2 (Recess). 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape 4 Number 2 to the deposition of Mr. Epstein, the 5 time is 11:53 a.m. and we're back on the 6 record. 7 BY MR. RAWLS: 8 Q. Mr. Epstein, have you kept records 9 of your own accuracy and your own errors during 10 your career as a questioned document examiner? 11 A. I have not, no. 12 Q. As best you recall, how many times 13 have you been mistaken on the authorship of a 14 document? 15 A. To the best of my knowledge, if I 16 have made a mistake it's never been brought to 17 my attention. 18 Q. So is it your view that your success 19 at questioned document examination has been 100 20 percent throughout your career? 21 A. As I say, if I have made a mistake 22 in this work, it has never been brought to my 23 attention. So I'm not aware of my mistakes 24 that I've made in the identification of 25 handwriting. 0076 1 Q. Have board-certified, by the right 2 board, the American Board of Forensic Document 3 Examiners, have board-certified examiners ever 4 disagreed with you before the case of the ransom 5 note in this case? 6 A. I'm sure they -- yes, they have, 7 certainly. In government service you don't have 8 as much disagreement as you have in the private 9 sector, but in some of the war crimes cases, 10 now that I think back, there were some document 11 examiners on the other side who did not conclude 12 the same way I did. 13 Q. Have judges ever disagreed with you? 14 A. Not to my knowledge, no. 15 Q. Have juries ever disagreed with your 16 conclusion? 17 A. Oh, I'm sure they have. That would 18 be almost an impossibility to have 100 percent 19 with juries. 20 Q. But you have never after the fact 21 looked back and said that your identification of 22 authorship of a questioned document has been 23 wrong. 24 A. I have not. 25 Q. Not ever, not once. 0077 1 A. Not once. 2 Q. Even after juries have disagreed. 3 A. Juries disagree for various reasons. 4 Q. Even after board-certified, qualified 5 document examiners have disagreed. 6 A. Absolutely. 7 Q. Now, when you first signed on to 8 accept this case on a pro bono basis while you 9 were still in government service sometime during 10 the year 2000 -- 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. -- what documents had you examined 13 with reference to this case at that time? 14 A. I examined the copies of the ransom 15 note and I examined some normal course of 16 business standards of Patsy Ramsey. 17 Q. What ones in particular? 18 A. Could I refer to my notes? 19 Q. Please. 20 A. I examined a copy of a three-page 21 handprinted ransom note, and then as far as the 22 standards there was a copy of a two-page letter 23 dated Wednesday, June 4th that was signed, 24 "Fondly, Patsy and JonBenet." 25 I examined a copy of the inside of 0078 1 a greeting card with the entry starting, "Hi, 2 Bob," and additional writing. 3 I examined a color copy of a 4 hand-printed sign. I examined some color copy 5 of package wrappers with the name Ramsey and 6 Ramsey Christmas written on it. 7 I examined a copy of a color 8 photograph with the writing Rainbow Fish Players. 9 I examined a copy of a photo album 10 pages with hand-printed entries, copy of an 11 ornamental circle with some handwriting in there. 12 I examined a two-page document which 13 was a copy of an entry form for the 1996 14 Lights of December parade bearing the known 15 handwriting of -- attributed to Patsy Ramsey. 16 Q. From whom had you received those 17 documents? 18 A. Those documents originally I received 19 from Larry Zieglar. 20 Q. What steps did you take to confirm 21 the authenticity of those documents and the fact 22 that they originated from the hand of Patsy 23 Ramsey at that time? 24 A. They were submitted to Larry Zieglar 25 as known writings, and I accepted them as known 0079 1 writings. 2 Q. You did not independently seek to 3 verify that they were known writings of Patsy 4 Ramsey. 5 A. I did not. 6 Q. By whom had Mr. Zieglar been hired, 7 if by anyone, to your knowledge? 8 A. By Mr. Darnay Hoffman. 9 Q. He disclosed that to you at the 10 outset. 11 A. Disclosed what? 12 Q. Mr. Zieglar disclosed to you that he 13 had been hired by Darnay Hoffman. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And for what purpose did Mr. Zieglar 16 tell you he had been hired? 17 A. To conduct the examinations of the 18 ransom note. 19 Q. With a view to doing what? 20 A. Attempting to identify its authorship. 21 Q. Well, actually, Mr. Hoffman's purpose, 22 you've known all along, was to try to pin the 23 ransom note on Patsy Ramsey; was it not? 24 A. Well, there was also a writing from 25 Mr. Ramsey that was also involved, and I don't 0080 1 -- I don't use the word pinned on anyone. 2 The writing -- it was an examination 3 to establish authorship, and that was the known 4 writing that was submitted. If that was not 5 the writer, you know, in other words, you don't 6 -- I don't enter a case with a preconceived 7 notion of any writer having done a particular 8 writing. My findings rest on what I find once 9 I do the examination, and so I don't accept any 10 case with the notion that a particular writer 11 has been preidentified. That's what I do. 12 That's the purpose of my being there is to 13 determine that. 14 Q. Mr. Epstein, this was a yes or no 15 question, and I object to all of your remarks 16 just now that were something other than yes or 17 no as unresponsive. 18 Let me remind you of the question. 19 MR. ALTMAN: Let me object, Jim, in 20 all due respect. I'll object to that. I 21 think he did respond to the question. 22 Q. Here's the question, Mr. Epstein: 23 Mr. Hoffman's purpose, you've known all along, 24 was to try to pin the ransom note on Patsy 25 Ramsey; was it or was it not? 0081 1 MR. ALTMAN: Objection to form. 2 A. Again, no, I didn't -- I was never 3 told when I was retained that the purpose of my 4 being retained was to pin the writing of the 5 ransom note on Patsy Ramsey. 6 Q. Now, did you at the time you were 7 first retained have a report from Cina Wong? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. Did you study it? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you read it? 12 A. I did read it. 13 Q. Did you know of her conclusion? 14 A. I know of her conclusions. 15 Q. At that time what was her 16 conclusion, as you recall? 17 A. Her conclusion was that Patsy Ramsey 18 wrote the ransom note. 19 Q. Now, as you sit here today, are you 20 telling us that when you first signed onto this 21 case in the year 2000 you did not know that 22 Darnay Hoffman had a prior history with regard 23 to the case of JonBenet Ramsey? 24 A. Quite honestly, I didn't know 25 Mr. Darnay Hoffman or his history as it involved 0082 1 this case. I became involved in this case, and 2 when I did is when I learned of Mr. Hoffman's 3 involvement. I did not know prior to my 4 involvement in this case anything about him or 5 actually not very much about the case. 6 Q. Mr. Epstein, are you telling us 7 today under oath that when you took this case 8 pro bono you neither knew about or cared about 9 Darnay Hoffman's previous efforts with respect to 10 the murder of JonBenet Ramsey to blame her 11 parents? 12 A. I knew that Mr. Hoffman had been 13 working on this case for a number of years, and 14 I was aware of other document examiners, if you 15 will, and I put it in quotes, who examined the 16 documents. 17 But my entry into this case, as far 18 as I was concerned, had nothing to do with what 19 had been done previously or what any intentions 20 were. My entry into this examination was to 21 conduct an examination and be able to examine 22 the known handwriting of the people involved. 23 Q. Well, let's take the first words you 24 just used in the part of your answer that was 25 responsive. Quote, I knew that Mr. Hoffman had 0083 1 been working on this case for a number of 2 years, end quote. 3 A. Right. 4 Q. What side did you know he was on? 5 A. Well, obviously I knew that he was 6 not on the Ramsey's side. 7 Q. You say obviously. Why was that 8 obvious to you? 9 A. Well, I was aware that -- actually, 10 I really don't know how much I was aware of at 11 the time. I was aware of very little. 12 I mean, Mr. Hoffman contacted Larry 13 Zieglar, who then contacted me and asked me to 14 take a look at this writing. 15 At that point in time I really 16 didn't know very much about the involvement of 17 Mr. Hoffman in the case or his past history. 18 All I knew was that he was representing 19 individuals who had sued the Ramseys, and, 20 therefore, I knew what side he was on. But as 21 far as the details or the other things that 22 went on, I was not familiar to them and I 23 really am not even today that familiar with it. 24 Q. Did you know that Mr. Hoffman had 25 been involved for years with the matter of 0084 1 JonBenet Ramsey, even before he had the benefit 2 of having a client in the matter? 3 A. I did not, no. 4 Q. Have you ever met Darnay Hoffman? 5 A. I have not. 6 Q. Your only contact with Darnay Hoffman 7 has been by telephone and by correspondence? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. I'm going to show you, Mr. Epstein, 10 a copy of a letter from 1997 that was sent by 11 Darnay Hoffman to Thomas C. Miller, Esquire, of 12 Denver, Colorado. 13 This document, I'll tell you for the 14 benefit of yourself and Mr. Hoffman and 15 Mr. Altman, is Defendant's Exhibit-9 to the 16 deposition of Cina Wong, which was taken on May 17 13, 2002, Monday of this week. 18 Have you seen that document before, 19 sir? 20 A. No, I haven't. 21 Q. Mr. -- 22 MR. WOOD: Ask him to read it. 23 Q. Would you please read that letter? 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. Have you, before today Mr. Epstein, 0085 1 have you -- and since you didn't see the letter 2 before today, were you aware from Mr. Hoffman of 3 what he says in that letter before today? 4 A. No, I wasn't aware. 5 Q. Would you read, sir, please, into 6 the record Mr. Darnay Hoffman's remarks? And 7 I'll show you where I'd like for you to begin. 8 The second full paragraph of Mr. Hoffman's 9 remarks about Paul Osborn. 10 A. "You might be interested to know 11 that I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. 12 Osborn, who is, as you probably already know, 13 the grandson of Albert S. and son of Albert D. 14 Osborn. He refuses to touch the Ramsey case 15 with a ten-foot pole. His reasons: He knows 16 the handwriting experts who gave their reports 17 to the defense team and to CBI -- four in all. 18 According to Osborn these experts are supposedly 19 top of their field. (He won't give me their 20 names) with impeccable ethical credentials. 21 Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy 22 and the ransom note writer's handwriting is at 23 the very lowest of the spectrum. There is 24 little or no basis for a match." 25 Q. The "he won't give me their names" 0086 1 was in parentheses, was it not, of the letter? 2 A. Uh-huh. 3 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 4 5 was marked for identification). 5 Q. Mr. Epstein, I'm going to show you a 6 document that's been marked Defendant's 7 Exhibit-5. This purports to be a letter of 8 December 11, 1997 from John Paul Osborn, 9 forensic document examiner in New York, to 10 someone whose name has been obliterated. Have 11 you ever seen this document before? 12 A. I have not, no. 13 Q. This document, you will notice, 14 Mr. Epstein, has a BPD document number on it. 15 The BPD is the Boulder Police Department. Would 16 you take a look -- would you read this document 17 to yourself and familiarize yourself with its 18 contents for a moment? 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Evan, would you read 20 this document to yourself also, because I've 21 never heard of this document. 22 MR. ALTMAN: Okay. 23 Q. Have you finished reading that 24 document to yourself? 25 A. I have. 0087 1 Q. And do you know John Paul Osborn? 2 A. I do, yes. 3 Q. Is he well-qualified? 4 A. He meets all the qualifications of 5 the profession. 6 Q. Is he an author of one of the texts 7 that you described earlier? 8 A. No, he's not. 9 Q. That was a different Osborn. 10 A. That was his father and grandfather. 11 Q. In fact, the name of his father is 12 on the same letterhead on Defendant's Exhibit 5; 13 is it not? 14 A. Albert, yes, Albert and Albert D. 15 Albert S. is the author of the books, and 16 Albert D. was his son. 17 Q. And who is Paul A. Osborn? 18 A. He's the son of Albert -- no, of -- 19 John Paul Osborn is the son of Paul Osborn, who 20 is, I guess, the fifth generation. 21 Q. Would you please read into the 22 record the paragraph that's the fourth paragraph 23 of the letter, it begins with the words "in 24 your letter"? 25 A. "In your letter, which accompanied 0088 1 the reproductions you submitted, you indicate 2 that you may wish to have a more detailed 3 analysis," in parentheses, "should I find any 4 similarities between the writing samples --" 5 MR. WOOD: Excuse me, the two 6 writing samples. 7 Q. The two writing samples. 8 A. "-- the two writing samples. There 9 are some similarities between the handprinting in 10 the ransom note and the writing you submit as 11 that of Christian Wolf. However, there are also 12 similarities between my own handprinting and that 13 on the questioned note, if you disregard the 14 poor line quality. Similarities, while playing 15 a role in the process of examination and 16 comparison of writing, are not as significant as 17 fundamental or significant differences. Many 18 people share common handwriting characteristics 19 and even been some distinctive handwriting 20 characteristics. The proper weight must be 21 given to differences which cannot be accounted 22 for by natural variation of a single writer." 23 Q. Do you agree with that paragraph you 24 have just read? 25 A. I agree with the paragraph, but not 0089 1 its application in this case. 2 Q. Do you agree with that paragraph 3 with respect to Christian Wolf in this case? 4 A. No. I can't say, because I really 5 did not do a comprehensive examination of the 6 Christian Wolf writing. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. Because I had already been working 9 on the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey, and after I 10 concluded that examination, which was more than 11 50 hours of work, I felt that I had identified 12 sufficient significant handwriting characteristics 13 with no significant differences, and that's where 14 I differ with Mr. Osborn is where he states 15 that there are significant differences. 16 There are no significant differences. 17 There are variations to the same basic 18 handwriting patterns, but there are no 19 significant differences. So once I've identified 20 a writer, there's no reason for me to examine 21 the handwriting of another person. If I didn't 22 identify it or if I had qualified the 23 identification, there would have been reason to 24 continue to look at other writers. But once 25 you've identified a person as having produced 0090 1 the writing, there is no reason to look for 2 other writers. 3 Q. And what was the date that you made 4 that identification of Patsy Ramsey as the 5 author of the ransom note? 6 MR. ALTMAN: Do you need to refer 7 to something? 8 A. Well, there was a prior report to 9 this -- to the Article 26 report, so it was 10 the initial, the initial report that I 11 submitted, and let me see if I have that. 12 It was after the exemplars had all 13 been released to me, and I produced the report 14 prior to the Article 26 report, and that was 15 probably in late -- in late 2001, but I don't 16 have -- I don't have that particular report. 17 MR. WOOD: We have it. We have it, 18 we'll show it to you. 19 Q. Why did you look at Chris Wolf's 20 handwriting at all if you had already decided 21 who wrote the ransom note? 22 A. I didn't examine Chris Wolf's 23 writing. It had been sent in to me, and I 24 don't recall exactly at what point in time I 25 received it in relation to when I actually 0091 1 completed the writing of Patsy Ramsey, but if I 2 had not completed that examination or if I had 3 not already reached a conclusion in the case, 4 then I would have probably examined that, but I 5 didn't because I had already completed my 6 examination of the Patsy Ramsey writing. 7 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 8 6 was marked for identification). 9 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, just as a point 10 here, I never heard who the Paul Osborn letter 11 was addressed to. 12 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, the -- 13 MR. WOOD: It's been redacted. 14 MR. RAWLS: There was a redaction 15 after the word "dear", so none of us has ever 16 seen the word or the name. 17 MR. HOFFMAN: So basically, for the 18 record, there is no identification as to who 19 that letter was sent to; is that correct? Do 20 you know who that letter was sent to? 21 MR. WOOD: It was in the Boulder 22 Police Department files. 23 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I see. Okay. Is 24 this something that was turned over to you by 25 the Boulder police? 0092 1 MR. RAWLS: Yes. 2 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. And they did 3 not identify through any other document or list 4 or anything else who the person that that was 5 addressed to, was addressed to. 6 MR. WOOD: No, they redacted the 7 name. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 9 MR. WOOD: The Boulder police did. 10 MR. HOFFMAN: All right, thank you. 11 BY MR. RAWLS: 12 Q. Mr. Epstein, I'm showing you 13 Defendant's Exhibit-6. Do you recognize that 14 document, sir? 15 A. Yes, that's the report, that's the 16 previous report. 17 Q. This is the only previous report 18 that you made in the year 2001 to Mr. Hoffman; 19 is it not, sir? 20 A. Yes, it is. 21 Q. There was not another written report 22 that you prepared other than this written report 23 to Mr. Hoffman and the Rule 26 report concerning 24 this case; am I correct? 25 A. I believe that's correct. 0093 1 Q. This is important, so if there is 2 some other report that you have rendered, please 3 tell us now. 4 MR. ALTMAN: Well, Jim, if you're 5 asking are these the reports that were prepared 6 based on, you know, the actual reports, these 7 are the only reports, I think is what he's 8 saying. 9 If you're saying there was any other 10 communication between attorney and expert, 11 obviously we've communicated. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: And, Jim, I take it 13 to the best of Mr. Epstein's current 14 recollection; correct? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. 16 There were correspondence over a couple of 17 years, but I believe that this is the only 18 report other than the Article 26 report. 19 Q. You had made only two written 20 reports, to the best of your knowledge, 21 concerning the ransom note found at the home of 22 John and Patsy Ramsey; true? 23 A. I believe so, yes. 24 Q. And I want to talk for a moment 25 about several parts of this exhibit, Defendant's 0094 1 Exhibit 6, your report dated February 25, 2001. 2 And you're a trained questioned document 3 examiner, so I'd like for you to look at Page 4 3 and tell me is that, indeed, your signature? 5 A. It is. 6 Q. Back to Page 1, please, you have 7 listed several items as quote the known 8 documents on Page 1 and Page 2; have you not? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. You say, "Exhibit 2 is a copy of a 11 two-page letter dated Wednesday, June 4, signed 12 quote fondly, Patsy and JonBenet, end quote, 13 bearing known handwriting attributed to Patsy 14 Ramsey". 15 A. That's attributed to Patsy Ramsey. 16 That's how it was given to me, and that's how 17 I have to accept it. I was not there when the 18 writing was done, so if someone gives me writing 19 and says this is the known writing of an 20 individual, then that is the writing -- that is 21 the way that I have to accept it. 22 Q. How did you verify that Exhibit 2 23 was, in fact, written by Patsy Ramsey? 24 A. By comparing it against other writing 25 within the known samples to see if there is 0095 1 similarity in the same handwriting 2 characteristics. 3 Q. And to what documents did you 4 compare Exhibit 2? 5 A. Well, all of the documents were 6 compared one to the other. Whatever comparable 7 text there was within each document was compared 8 against similar texts if it appeared in other 9 documents. 10 As an example, like letter 11 combinations were compared to like letter 12 combinations; like letter forms were compared to 13 like letter forms within the various documents 14 that were submitted. 15 Q. Did you make notes of those 16 comparisons? 17 A. I did make notes. I don't have 18 those notes with me, however. 19 Q. Are they still in your office? 20 A. I'm sure they are, yes. 21 Q. Can you share those with us, please? 22 A. Certainly. 23 Q. Did you take any steps to 24 authenticate Exhibits 2 through 9? And I'm 25 using the exhibit numbers that you used in what 0096 1 is Defendant's Exhibit 6 to this deposition. 2 Did you take any steps to verify that those 3 documents contained the handwriting of Patsy 4 Ramsey except to compare them to one another? 5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. Did you ask Mr. Darnay Hoffman for 7 verification that those documents contained the 8 handwriting of Patsy Ramsey? 9 A. I asked Mr. Hoffman for additional 10 writings. I asked him from the very beginning 11 to attempt to locate the same normal course of 12 business writings that had been previously used 13 in the examinations when they were first done by 14 the Boulder people and by Howard Rile and the 15 Ramsey document examiners. That was something 16 that I requested from the very beginning of my 17 involvement in the case. 18 Q. Now, I first want to, before I 19 follow up on what you did answer, I want to 20 ask you please to answer the question I asked 21 you, which was this: Did you ask Mr. Darnay 22 Hoffman for verification that those documents 23 contained the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey? 24 That's a yes or a no. 25 A. I'm not sure that I can answer that 0097 1 as a yes or a no, because -- and the reason is 2 because we spoke about known writings a lot, and 3 I made it, you know, clear that we would need 4 additional writings, additional known writings. 5 Whether I -- 6 Q. I'm not talking about -- 7 A. Whether I specifically asked that 8 these particular documents be further verified, I 9 don't believe I did. 10 Q. Thank you. 11 Now, why did you need additional 12 documents? 13 A. Because I didn't have enough verbatim 14 material. I didn't have enough of the same 15 words, the same letter combinations, repeated 16 sufficiently to be able to establish habituality, 17 to be able to establish handwriting patterns. 18 Q. And that's why you were constantly 19 seeking more writings. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Now, let's look at some of your 22 findings that are in Defendant's Exhibit 6. 23 First of all, Finding Number 1, you 24 state, and this is Page 2 of Defendant's Exhibit 25 6, "The handwriting on the ransom note is a 0098 1 classic example of an attempt to disguise the 2 true handwriting habits of the writer." 3 In your judgment is it prudent for a 4 person who is writing by hand a ransom note to 5 try to disguise his or her handwriting? 6 A. It is prudent. 7 Q. You would be very surprised if the 8 author of a handwritten ransom note did not try 9 to disguise his or her handwriting; would you 10 not, sir? 11 A. It would be unusual. 12 Q. Now, did you, when you made this 13 finding about the ransom note itself, did you 14 consider whether the ransom note was written 15 under stress? 16 A. I did consider that. 17 Q. Did you find any indication that the 18 author of the ransom note had lapsed into an 19 earlier type or style of handwriting? 20 A. No. The poor line quality of the 21 writing can be attributed to stress, it could be 22 attributed to disguise, it could be attributed 23 to an unconscious return to an earlier form of 24 writing. But in my evaluation of the writing I 25 felt that it was most likely that it was -- 0099 1 the poor line quality was due to disguise, 2 rather than to other reasons. 3 Q. So you found no indication at all -- 4 you did not conclude in 2001 and you do not 5 conclude now that the author of the ransom note 6 lapsed into earlier handwriting habits; am I 7 correct? 8 A. I found that the writing was of a 9 poor quality; that the writing, the 10 microstructure of the writing line was such that 11 it could have been either the person writing 12 under stress or a conscious attempt to disguise. 13 I felt there was more evidence of a conscious 14 attempt to disguise. 15 Q. You never ruled out the effect of 16 stress with regard to the handwriting in the 17 ransom note; did you, sir? 18 A. Not entirely, no. 19 Q. You never ruled it out in 2001, you 20 never ruled it out in the year 2000, and you 21 have not ruled it out today; have you, sir? 22 A. I haven't ruled out that it could be 23 a contributing factor to the poor line quality. 24 Q. And, as a matter of fact, is it 25 possible that the author of this ransom note was 0100 1 not under stress, under severe stress, if the 2 author of the ransom note had murdered JonBenet 3 Ramsey shortly before writing the note or did 4 murder JonBenet Ramsey shortly after writing the 5 ransom note? 6 A. Are you asking would the person be 7 under stress at that time? 8 Q. I'm asking is it possible that the 9 author of the ransom note was not under stress? 10 A. I don't know how I could answer a 11 question like that. I mean, I have to go by 12 what I have in front of me to examine, and 13 based on my experience and having seen disguise 14 for so many years, I felt that it was more as 15 a result of disguise than it was as a result 16 of stress. 17 Q. Mr. Epstein, have you seen any of 18 the photographs that depict the brutality of the 19 murder of JonBenet Ramsey? 20 A. I have not. 21 Q. Have you read articles about the 22 brutality of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey? 23 A. I have not. 24 Q. Turn, please, to the third page of 25 Defendant's Exhibit 6. Am I correct, 0101 1 Mr. Epstein, that you reminded Mr. Hoffman in 2 your paragraph numbered 3, found on Page 3 of 3 Defendant's Exhibit 6, that, "This forensic 4 examination was not undertaken with the belief 5 that a definitive finding concerning the 6 authorship of the note could be established with 7 the type and quantity of known writing presently 8 available, end quote? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And what I've just read from your 11 report is true; isn't it? 12 A. It is true, yes. 13 Q. From what you had available, you 14 knew you could not make a definitive finding; 15 correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. And, therefore, did you not make a 18 definitive finding; correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. In fact, your whole purpose and your 21 whole assignment as you and Mr. Hoffman had 22 worked it out at that time, in February of 23 2001, or by that time, was to quote determine 24 if further forensic examinations of Patsy 25 Ramsey's handwriting is justified, end quote. 0102 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. You said that was your purpose and, 3 indeed, it is true that that was your purpose; 4 correct? 5 A. That was my purpose. 6 Q. And you also told Mr. Hoffman 7 exactly what you needed; true? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. You needed the originals of Exhibits 10 2 through 9. 11 A. And we also discussed other known 12 documents. 13 Q. By this time in February 2001 when 14 you completed this report, how many hours had 15 you spent on the matter of this ransom note 16 assisting Darnay Hoffman? 17 A. Up to this point, the majority of 18 the time was involved with the ransom note 19 itself, not so much with the known writing, 20 because I recognized that the known writing was 21 inadequate for any kind of a definitive finding. 22 So the majority of the time, and I 23 would say, I don't know, 20, 25 hours, was 24 devoted to identifying the habitual handwriting 25 characteristics and the consistency of those 0103 1 habits within the ransom note and to try to 2 identify whether or not the degree of disguise 3 would somehow limit the possibility of an 4 identification. 5 Q. And about how much time in total up 6 to now? 7 A. Once I received the exemplars, which 8 if you will recall in my report I relied on 9 the exemplars only in my report and not the 10 standards, when I stated my conclusions, after I 11 received the exemplars I devoted a great deal of 12 time to going over all of the handwriting of 13 Patsy Ramsey taken at various times to determine 14 whether or not I had enough and sufficient 15 significant handwriting characteristics in 16 comparison with the ransom note to be able to 17 reach any kind of a definitive conclusion. 18 Q. Mr. Epstein, by February 25, 2001, 19 how much total time had you spent assisting 20 Darnay Hoffman with regard to the ransom note 21 found at the home of John and Patsy Ramsey? 22 A. About 20 to 25 hours. 23 Q. Thank you. And let me make sure 24 that we're all clear, that before February 25, 25 2001 you had agreed, for the reasons you've told 0104 1 us earlier, you had agreed to be an expert 2 witness and to assist Darnay Hoffman on a pro 3 bono basis; correct? 4 A. I had agreed to do the examinations 5 of the writing, right, on a -- 6 Q. On a pro bono basis. 7 A. -- on a pro bono basis. 8 Q. For the reasons you've given us 9 earlier. 10 A. Exactly. 11 Q. When did you first see the original 12 of the ransom note in this case? 13 A. I've never seen the original of the 14 ransom note. 15 Q. Well, what generation copy was the 16 copy you saw? 17 A. I couldn't tell you what generation 18 it was because I don't know -- it was not 19 possible to establish from the copy I received 20 what generation it was, but it was a copy that 21 was sufficient in quality to identify those 22 areas of the handwriting that had to be 23 examined. 24 Q. When did you first see the original 25 of what you in your report refer to as Exhibit 0105 1 2? 2 A. I never received -- I don't believe 3 I received copies -- could I look at my next 4 report? 5 Q. Please, indeed. 6 A. Yes, I always referred to those 7 documents as copies. I don't believe I was 8 ever given the originals of those documents. 9 Q. You say those documents. I was 10 asking you about Exhibit 2. 11 A. Exhibit 2. 12 Q. Did you ever receive or review or 13 see the original of Exhibit 3? 14 A. No, nor 4, nor 5, nor 6, nor 7, nor 15 8, nor 9. 16 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Epstein, have 17 any of your reports been sent to the Boulder 18 Police Department? 19 A. I would have no knowledge of that. 20 If they have, I'm not aware of it. 21 Q. Did Mr. Hoffman not tell you that he 22 was going to send your report to the Boulder 23 police? 24 A. He did not. 25 Q. You did not authorize that? 0106 1 A. I was not aware of it. 2 Q. Have you ever spoken to anyone with 3 the Boulder police? 4 A. I have not. 5 Q. Have you ever spoken to anyone with 6 the district attorney's office in Colorado that 7 investigated the murder of JonBenet Ramsey? 8 A. I have not. 9 Q. In 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999, were 10 you contacted by any law enforcement 11 representatives with respect to the authorship of 12 the ransom note found at the home of John and 13 Patsy Ramsey? 14 A. I was not. 15 Q. Did you volunteer your assistance in 16 any way in 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999 to any law 17 enforcement official with respect to the ransom 18 note or its authorship? 19 A. I did write actually two letters. 20 When I became familiar with the case, and, I 21 think, in fact, I may have even mentioned it to 22 Mr. Hoffman, I did contact the previous district 23 attorney's office in Boulder, along with my CV, 24 offering my services on a pro bono basis, and I 25 never received an answer from him. 0107 1 When the new district attorney took 2 office, I did the same thing. I wrote a 3 letter to her and also never received a reply. 4 Q. Can you tell us approximately the 5 dates that you wrote those letters? 6 A. I believe I have a copy of the 7 second letter. I don't believe I have a copy 8 of the first letter. 9 The dates, the letter going to the 10 present one was shortly after she took office, 11 when she replaced the previous district attorney, 12 and the original letter, I really can't recall 13 when that was. I mean, it was after I had had 14 an opportunity to look at the writing and study 15 the note, but prior to my being retained by 16 Mr. Hoffman. 17 Q. Do you have any of those letters 18 here with you today? 19 A. I do not, no. 20 Q. Do you have the second letter back 21 in your office? 22 A. I do. 23 Q. Can you please share that with us? 24 A. Certainly. 25 Q. Is there a copy of the first letter 0108 1 back in your office? 2 A. No. I looked for the first letter. 3 Actually, I don't know why it wasn't in my 4 files or my database. But I couldn't locate 5 the first one. But I did send one and they 6 may have it, I don't know. 7 Q. And did you, in either one of those 8 letters, did you volunteer any conclusion about 9 the matter? 10 A. I did not. 11 Q. Any opinion about the matter? 12 A. I did not. 13 Q. Did you hold any opinion about the 14 matter? 15 A. The only thing I stated was that I 16 felt that I could be of assistance to them, and 17 that I would be willing to work the case on a 18 pro bono basis. 19 Q. At that time had you seen any 20 reproduction or copy of the ransom note in any 21 medium whatsoever? 22 A. I did have copies of the ransom 23 note, yes. 24 Q. How had you obtained them? 25 A. I believe that those copies were 0109 1 given to me by Mr. Zieglar, but it was prior 2 to my involvement with Mr. Hoffman. I had 3 already seen -- or seen the copies of the 4 ransom note, and I had also seen some of the 5 known writing -- 6 Q. Of? 7 A. -- of Patsy Ramsey. 8 Q. But you did not say so to the 9 Boulder district attorney. 10 A. I did not, no. All I was doing was 11 telling -- I simply offered my services to them. 12 Q. Did you ever get a phone call in 13 return? 14 A. No, I never received any answer from 15 them. 16 Q. Had you reached any conclusion when 17 you wrote your second letter to the Boulder 18 district attorney? 19 A. No, I hadn't, because I had not done 20 all of the examinations that were necessary. 21 All I was doing was offering my services to do 22 the examinations. 23 Q. When did you first do a detailed 24 study of the ransom note itself? 25 A. It was probably around the end of -- 0110 1 the end of 2000 or the very beginning of 2001 2 when I was given copies of the ransom note. 3 Q. Did you draw up a master plan as a 4 result of your study of the ransom note? 5 A. A master plan? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. I don't know what you mean by that. 8 I went through the note and identified the 9 significant handwriting similarities, and I 10 numbered the lines, I identified various 11 combinations of habits that were repeated 12 throughout the note. I studied the writing over 13 a considerable period of time. I did those 14 kinds of things. 15 But as far as a master plan, I'm 16 not sure what you mean by that. 17 Q. And did you commit to writing your 18 observations about the ransom note that you've 19 just described to us, the significant handwriting 20 similarities, the various combinations of habits 21 that were repeated throughout the note? 22 A. They were reflected in my work right 23 here (indicating). 24 Q. Well, you're showing us pages of 25 your report, but did you, when you first studied 0111 1 the ransom note, create a written document or 2 any notes that -- 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. -- summarized your study of the 5 ransom note? 6 A. What I created was the information 7 that led to the creation of these charts. 8 Q. And did you create that in writing? 9 A. I did not create it in writing. I 10 created it through actually cutting out the 11 various combinations and various words within the 12 ransom note and comparing them against the known 13 similar writings from the exemplars. 14 Q. When you wrote your first letter to 15 the Boulder district attorney, this being Alex 16 Hunter, I assume; am I correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Had you at that time seen the ransom 19 note? 20 A. Yes, I had. 21 Q. Had you at that time seen any 22 documents attributed to Patsy Ramsey? 23 A. Yes, I had seen some copies of the 24 normal course of business writings. 25 Q. And are those exhibits listed in 0112 1 your report? 2 A. They are. 3 Q. Which ones, please? 4 A. I believe they were the Exhibits 2 5 through 9. 6 Q. So you had seen Exhibits 2 through 7 9, as you used those numbers in your report 8 dated February 25, 2001, at the time of your 9 first and at the time of your second letter to 10 the Boulder district attorney. 11 A. I did not identify any exhibits in 12 my letter. 13 Q. No, sir, my question is different. 14 You had seen -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- Exhibits 2 through 9 as you used 17 those numbers in your February 25, 2001 report 18 before either one of your letters to the Boulder 19 district attorney that you've told us about 20 today; true? 21 A. Would you ask that again? I'm not 22 sure exactly what you're asking. 23 Q. You wrote to district attorney Alex 24 Hunter volunteering your services. 25 A. Right. 0113 1 Q. You later wrote to his successor, 2 Mary Keenan; did you not, sir? 3 A. Right, that was the name, yes. 4 Q. And before sending the first of 5 those letters, you had seen both the ransom note 6 and Exhibits 2 through 9, as you use those 7 exhibit numbers in your February 25, 2001 8 report. 9 A. I had seen -- I had seen those 10 exhibits, yes. 11 Q. And did you state in either one of 12 those letters that there was any indication 13 known to you that Patsy Ramsey authored the 14 ransom note? 15 A. I did not. 16 Q. And did you have any information or 17 conclusion or opinion at the time you wrote 18 either letter that -- 19 A. No, and I didn't -- and I didn't -- 20 Q. -- excuse me, let me finish, please. 21 Mr. Epstein, this is an important 22 case. 23 A. I -- 24 Q. Mr. Wolf is accusing Patsy Ramsey of 25 murder. 0114 1 A. Right. 2 Q. He's accusing John Ramsey of covering 3 it up, and it's important that this record has 4 both my question and your answer. 5 A. I understand. 6 Q. So would you please let me finish? 7 A. Certainly. 8 Q. When you wrote district attorney Alex 9 Hunter and when you wrote district attorney 10 Keenan, did you hold any opinion or conclusion 11 that there was any indication that Patsy Ramsey 12 authored the ransom note? 13 A. I did not. I -- from what I had 14 seen, I felt that there were additional 15 examinations that were warranted, and that I 16 felt that if additional known writing that was 17 necessary to do a proper examination could be 18 collected and obtained, that an examination could 19 be conducted. 20 Q. In volunteering your services or 21 assistance to the Boulder district attorney, did 22 you inform the Boulder district attorney that 23 your investigation would be limited to Patsy 24 Ramsey? 25 A. No, I did not. 0115 1 Q. Did you suggest that your examination 2 would involve Patsy Ramsey? 3 A. No, I did not. 4 Q. Did you use the name of any person 5 in your letter -- 6 A. I didn't. 7 Q. -- other than JonBenet Ramsey? 8 A. I did not. I did not indicate in 9 any way which way, you know, I would reach any 10 kind of conclusion. My whole point of this and 11 what I've always said from the beginning is that 12 I just felt that there was not -- a sufficient 13 type or proper examination had not been 14 conducted. 15 Q. Did you ask the Boulder district 16 attorney to furnish you the originals of 17 Defendant's Exhibits -- 18 A. No, I didn't, because I first -- 19 Q. -- I'm sorry, of Exhibits 2 through 20 9? 21 A. I did not ask them for anything. I 22 was simply introducing myself. 23 Q. Turn with me, please, to Page 3, 24 again of Defendant's Exhibit 6. At the top of 25 the page in the first full sentence on that 0116 1 page your report states as follows: "Based on 2 the presently available documents, there are 3 strong indications that Patsy Ramsey is the 4 author of the ransom note." 5 Did I read that correctly? 6 A. You did. Strong indications is not 7 a definitive conclusion, it's only indications. 8 There were characteristics within the known 9 writing that I had at that time that were 10 comparable, and that were -- that if additional 11 known writing could be obtained of a sufficient 12 amount that there were indications that the 13 findings could be strengthened, but at this 14 point in time, it was strictly indications. 15 Q. When you wrote Alex Hunter and 16 volunteered your assistance, did you tell him 17 there were such strong indications? 18 A. I did not. 19 Q. Did you believe there were? 20 A. Myself? 21 Q. Yes, sir. 22 A. In my own mind, I believed there 23 were. But I never expressed them to anyone. 24 Q. When you wrote to district attorney 25 Keenan and volunteered your assistance, did you 0117 1 tell her that in your judgment there were quote 2 strong indications close quote? 3 A. No, I did not. I did not. 4 Q. Did you believe there were? 5 A. I believed there were, but I didn't 6 express it. 7 MR. RAWLS: All right. This is a 8 good time for a lunch break. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 10 12:56 p.m. 11 (Recess). 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 13 2:12 p.m. 14 BY MR. RAWLS: 15 Q. Mr. Epstein, in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 16 1999, what was your familiarity with the murder 17 investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey? 18 A. Only what I had read in the 19 newspapers and magazines, which was just 20 basically a description of the crime. I didn't 21 know any more than the average person who read 22 the paper. 23 Q. Have you read about the lawsuit 24 which Mr. Darnay Hoffman had filed against 25 district attorney Alex Hunter? 0118 1 A. No, I didn't. 2 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Hoffman had 3 sued and claimed that the district attorney, 4 Alex hunter, should be required to charge the 5 Ramseys with murder? 6 A. No, I'm not familiar with that. 7 Q. Do you know the outcome of that 8 case? 9 A. I don't, no. 10 Q. That's never been shared with you by 11 Mr. Hoffman. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Or by anybody else. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you review any handwriting report 16 of Larry Zieglar? 17 A. Yes, I did. 18 Q. With respect to the ransom note? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. Left -- or found at the home of 21 John and Patsy Ramsey? 22 A. The initial report. I don't believe 23 he ever did a final Article 26 report. 24 Q. And when did you read the initial 25 report of Larry Zieglar? 0119 1 A. As far as the date, I really can't 2 tell you. He -- after he had done the 3 examination he showed me the report and asked me 4 to read it over to see if it -- you know, if 5 there was anything that I saw in there that he 6 had left out or, you know, that didn't -- where 7 he didn't use the proper wording or whatever. 8 It was just basically to see if it 9 was -- if he had covered the subjects that he 10 was required to cover, that kind of thing. I 11 don't even really recall, you know, exactly what 12 he had said in the report because we did our 13 work independently. He did his examinations and 14 I did mine. And -- but I did have occasion to 15 see his report prior to him finalizing it. 16 Q. Did you see any report of his in 17 the year 2000? 18 A. I only saw one report. I don't 19 know whether that was the report in 2000 or 20 whether it was a different report. 21 Q. Well, let me -- 22 A. I think he only provided one report. 23 I don't know. 24 Q. He only provided one to you; is that 25 true? 0120 1 A. I've only seen one that I know of. 2 Q. And do you know if you saw that 3 while you were still employed by the Immigration 4 and Naturalization Service? 5 A. I believe I was. 6 Q. Did you see Larry Zieglar's report 7 before you were retained by Darnay Hoffman? 8 A. I think I had already been retained 9 by Darnay Hoffman and I think I had just 10 retired. Really, the date of when I first saw 11 it is not that clear in my mind, but I recall 12 that -- I think that I had already been 13 retained. 14 Q. And what did you tell Larry Zieglar 15 about whether his report covered the subjects 16 that it should cover? 17 A. I recall that there was nothing in 18 the report that I really found, you know, that 19 I could comment on. I mean, I read the 20 report, it sounded fine. Larry Zieglar writes 21 a, you know, a good report, he's been writing 22 them for years. I think he just wanted to 23 show it to me, basically, before he sent it 24 out. But I don't recall making any comments 25 about anything that he had to change in the 0121 1 report. 2 Basically it was -- it covered, I 3 imagine, whatever it was supposed to cover. I 4 don't really recall. 5 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 6 7 was marked for identification). 7 Q. Mr. Epstein, let me show you 8 Defendant's Exhibit-7 and ask you to take a look 9 at it, please, and tell us if this is the 10 report you saw. 11 A. This looks like, best of my 12 recollection, what I remember seeing. 13 Q. Did you copy from Mr. Zieglar's 14 report any language for your own? 15 A. I did not. Mr. Zieglar saw my 16 report. I don't know whether he saw my report 17 first or his report came to me first. I just 18 don't remember the sequence of events, but I 19 know that I didn't take anything from his 20 report. 21 Q. Let me share with you, or ask you 22 to focus, please, on the following language on 23 Page 2 of Defendant's Exhibit 7, and this is 24 from the paragraph numbered 2. 25 A. Okay. 0122 1 Q. It's in the sentence beginning "but 2 rather", and the quote I want to -- 3 A. You said Page 2? 4 Q. Page 2, Number 2. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. The language -- 7 A. Oh, but rather. I see it, yes. 8 Q. Do you see the language that 9 follows, quote was undertaken to determine if 10 further forensic examinations of Patsy Ramsey's 11 handwriting is warranted. Do you see that? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. Did I read it correctly? 14 A. You did. 15 Q. That identical verbatim language is 16 found in Paragraph 3 of your report, which is 17 Defendant's Exhibit 6. How can you account for 18 that, please? 19 A. I can account for that because my 20 report -- Larry Zieglar saw my report before I 21 saw his report and he probably borrowed that 22 sentence. We were asked -- we were asked the 23 same questions. We were asked to establish the 24 same thing. 25 After I had done my draft report, I 0123 1 know I showed it to Larry, he showed me his, 2 and now that that's in there I know that I 3 didn't take it from him, so if it's the same 4 sentence then he must have taken it from mine 5 because I didn't take it from his report. 6 Q. And would I be correct in stating 7 this as fact, Mr. Epstein: Before you finalized 8 your 2001 report to Mr. Hoffman you showed it 9 to Larry Zieglar; is that true? 10 A. After I had done my examination, 11 yes. 12 Q. And before Larry Zieglar finalized 13 his 2001 report, which is Defendant's Exhibit 7, 14 he shared it with you. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And at least one of you borrowed 17 language of the other. 18 A. It appears to be. But I can tell 19 you that I did not borrow his language, so 20 therefore he must have borrowed mine. 21 Q. Did you suggest any language for 22 Mr. Zieglar's report? 23 A. No, I didn't suggest any language. 24 Larry was well aware of the limitations that we 25 had at the time, and his examinations -- it's 0124 1 not unusual to come to similar language because 2 basically in questioned document work there are 3 certain standard sentences that are used in 4 different types of conclusions, and we were both 5 working with the same documents, we both came to 6 the same conclusions. But as far as that 7 particular sentence, it's very possible that he 8 borrowed it from me. 9 Q. Well, when you read his report 10 before he completed it, did it strike you as 11 strange that he used verbatim identical 12 phrases -- 13 A. I really -- 14 Q. -- from your report? 15 A. I'm sorry for interrupting you. But 16 I really didn't remember that that sentence was 17 verbatim from mine when I read it. I mainly 18 was looking to see whether the exhibits were 19 listed, whether or not, you know, he had 20 answered the question. But as far as the words 21 that he used, I wasn't really that concerned 22 with it. 23 Q. Who is James Gardiner? 24 A. James Gardiner? 25 Q. Yes, sir. 0125 1 A. I think he's the individual that I 2 also received some writing from, or he was 3 somehow involved, I think he was a homeless 4 person. Is this the homeless person that was 5 living in -- 6 Q. I don't know, I'm asking you. 7 A. And I say, my memory is very sketchy 8 because I didn't really do very much with 9 anything from James Gardiner, but I remember 10 that the name rings a bell, but I'm not 11 specific as to exactly who he is. 12 Q. So Mr. Darnay Hoffman furnished you 13 with handwriting exemplars which he told you 14 were from Patsy Ramsey; correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. He furnished you with handwriting 17 exemplars which he told you were from Chris 18 Wolf; is that correct? 19 A. I believe so, yes. 20 Q. And he furnished you with handwriting 21 exemplars which he told you were from James 22 Gardiner; am I correct about that as well? 23 A. Whether those were exemplars or some 24 other kind of writing, I did receive something 25 from James Gardiner, but I don't know if you 0126 1 could classify them as exemplars, that is 2 collect writings, or not. I don't believe they 3 were exemplars. I think they were some kind of 4 writing. 5 Q. Now, did you eliminate Chris Wolf as 6 the author of the ransom note based on Chris 7 Wolf's handwriting alone at any time? 8 A. No, I didn't, because again -- 9 Q. "No" is sufficient, Mr. Epstein. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Did you at any time eliminate James 12 Gardiner as the author of the ransom note based 13 on his own handwriting alone? 14 A. I did not, no. 15 Q. Now, you gave a Rule 26 report to 16 Mr. Hoffman containing a conclusion of yours 17 that Patsy Ramsey authored the ransom note; did 18 you not, sir? 19 A. I did. 20 Q. What is your degree of certainty 21 yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey 22 wrote the note? 23 A. I am absolutely certain that she 24 wrote the note. 25 Q. Is that 60 percent certain? 0127 1 A. No, that's 100 percent certain. 2 Q. You are 100 percent certain that 3 Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in this case; 4 is that your testimony? 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 Q. And the word 100 percent came out of 7 your mouth, not mine; correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. At least first. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And you are an individual who, to 12 the best of your knowledge, has never made an 13 error in determining the authorship of a 14 document; am I correct? 15 A. As I stated, if I have, and it's 16 very possible that I have, it's never been 17 brought to my attention. 18 Q. You will acknowledge that as a human 19 being the possibility of error is a part of 20 your genetic makeup. 21 A. Absolutely. 22 Q. But you will not testify that 23 there's any possibility of a mistake on your 24 part with respect to Patsy Ramsey; am I correct? 25 A. No, that's -- in regards to Patsy 0128 1 Ramsey I feel that the conclusion that I reached 2 is the correct one, and that is that she is 3 the author of that note. 4 Q. And again, that is with not just a 5 little bit certainty, that is with 100 percent 6 positive conviction. 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Do you know Lou Smit? 9 A. Lou Smith. I don't believe so. 10 Q. Do you know who he is? 11 A. I don't think so. 12 Q. Have you seen him on television? 13 A. Not that I can recall. 14 Q. You are, by the way -- you have had 15 some contact with Nebraska, I believe I recall 16 in your testimony and in your resume. I 17 believe that was your college; is it not? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. University of Nebraska? Did you 20 ever come to know Mr. Robert Stratbucker? 21 A. I don't believe so. 22 Q. Do you know who he is? 23 A. I don't. 24 Q. Mr. Epstein, Lou Smit, for your 25 information, is a retired former homicide 0129 1 investigator who was asked by the Boulder Police 2 Department to come out of retirement and assist 3 in the investigation into the murder of JonBenet 4 Ramsey. Does that ring a bell for you of any 5 sort? 6 A. No. 7 Q. That does not help you determine who 8 he is. 9 A. No. 10 Q. We have in the case called upon 11 Mr. Smit to share some of the results of his 12 investigation, and we've asked him to place that 13 in evidence and I'm going to share with you 14 some of the portions of Lou Smit's own personal 15 presentation as he has shared it with us. 16 Would you please mark this 17 Defendant's Exhibit-8, I believe is next. 18 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 19 8 was marked for identification). 20 Q. Mr. Epstein, this is a series, this 21 Defendant's Exhibit 8 which I'm about to hand 22 you, is a series of one, two, three, four, 23 five, six, seven pages of information which 24 comes -- these pages come from one portion of 25 Lou Smit's presentation. 0130 1 First, Mr. Smit -- and this is Page 2 1, if I could ask you to direct your attention, 3 please, to this case. Mr. Smit identifies six 4 individuals who have evaluated the ransom note. 5 First I want to ask you, are you familiar with 6 Chet Ubowski? 7 A. I've met him many years ago. I'm 8 not really acquainted with him, but I think I've 9 met him. 10 Q. Do you know that he is -- 11 A. I do know that he's a document 12 examiner at the Colorado bureau. 13 Q. Have you seen his name in the press 14 reports you have followed about the Ramsey case? 15 A. I have, yes. 16 Q. Do you know Leonard Speckin? 17 A. He's a chemist. Yes, I know him. 18 Q. Is he a qualified document examiner? 19 A. Not in my view, no. 20 Q. Do you know Edwin Alford? 21 A. Ed Alford I've known for many years. 22 Q. Is he a qualified document examiner? 23 A. He is. 24 Q. Do you know Lloyd Cunningham? 25 A. I do know him, yes. 0131 1 Q. Is he a qualified document examiner? 2 A. He has all of the credentials. 3 Q. Do you mean to say he is or he is 4 not? 5 A. I really don't know much about his 6 work. 7 Q. But by all of the credentials, does 8 that include board certification? 9 A. I believe he's board certified. I'm 10 not sure. 11 Q. By the proper board, not by the -- 12 A. Yeah, whenever I say board certified 13 I'm only assuming one board. And I believe he 14 is, but I don't really know for sure. 15 Q. Do you know Richard Dusick? 16 A. Secret Service, yes. 17 Q. Is he a qualified document examiner? 18 A. Best of my knowledge, he is. 19 Q. The Secret Service is more often 20 involved with criminal investigations than the 21 INS is; is it not, sir? 22 A. Dusick has a special job there. He 23 works with a particular database. I don't know 24 how much actual handwriting work he does. 25 I mean, he works with what's known 0132 1 as the Fish database, it's a database for 2 handwriting, and he's pretty much responsible for 3 that. But I have -- you know, I have no 4 qualms about his qualification. 5 Q. What is the Fish database? 6 A. It's an automated database that was 7 developed by the Germans to track similar 8 handwriting characteristics, and they use it for 9 their threatening letters against the president 10 and members of the cabinet. 11 What they do is they capture these 12 particular notes and later they're able to 13 search these notes by handwriting characteristics 14 to see whether or not that particular writer has 15 ever been identified before, ever written a note 16 before. 17 Q. And now back to the question that I 18 asked you a couple of questions ago, is this 19 true or is this false, that the Secret Service 20 is more often involved with criminal 21 investigations than is the INS? 22 A. That's true. 23 Q. Thank you. And do you know Howard 24 Rile? 25 A. I do. 0133 1 Q. Is he a qualified document examiner? 2 A. He meets all the qualifications. 3 Q. And you don't mean to be criticizing 4 him or his skills when you say that; do you? 5 A. Again, I've never really seen Howard 6 Rile's work. I know that he's one of the 7 busiest private document examiners in the 8 country. Probably has one of the largest 9 practices, and he's been doing it for 20 years, 10 so -- but I've never seen his work. We've 11 never been involved in the same case. So he 12 meets all the qualifications. 13 Q. The fact is you have never seen his 14 work before this case. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Am I correct? You have seen it in 17 this case; have you not? 18 A. I have. 19 Q. You have seen Lloyd Cunningham's work 20 in this case. 21 A. I have. 22 Q. Turn, please, to Page 2 of 23 Defendant's Exhibit 8. And according, at least, 24 to Lou Smit's presentation, Chet Ubowski of the 25 CBI found indications, that's the first bullet 0134 1 point. 2 The second bullet point is Chet 3 Ubowski found there is evidence which indicates 4 that the ransom note may have been written by 5 Patsy Ramsey. 6 You found the same to be true, did 7 you not, sir? There is such evidence. 8 A. Yes, I did. 9 Q. Mr. Ubowski, however, went on to 10 find, according to Lou Smit, as we see it here 11 in Defendant's Exhibit 8, that, quote, the 12 evidence falls short of that necessary to 13 support a definite conclusion, end quote. Did 14 you know before today that Mr. Ubowski had 15 reached that conclusion? 16 A. I don't believe I knew exactly what 17 conclusion he had reached, but I believe I did 18 know that he had some degree of indications. I 19 knew that his conclusion of the document 20 examiners that had been retained or used was the 21 strongest of the others, as compared to the 22 others. 23 Q. Where did you get the information 24 you've just told us that you knew? 25 A. Recently I was given a list of the 0135 1 document examiners that had work on the case. 2 Q. From whom? 3 A. From, I think, Mr. Darnay Hoffman. 4 Q. Do you have that with you? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Do you have it in your office? 7 A. I don't know that I even kept it. 8 It may be in my office, but I didn't consider 9 it, you know, that important. 10 Q. We would like a copy if you can 11 find that, please, sir. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. When was the first time that you had 14 any information about Chet Ubowski's findings or 15 conclusions concerning the Ramsey note in this 16 case? 17 A. Well, I knew that Chet Ubowski had 18 worked on the case because he was a member of 19 the Colorado bureau and I think he was the 20 senior person in the Colorado bureau, or he's 21 not. But anyway, I knew that he was there. 22 I knew that he had worked on it, 23 but I did not know what his findings or 24 conclusions were up until recently when I 25 received the note or the letter stating who the 0136 1 different -- 2 Q. How recently did you receive the 3 note or letter from Darnay Hoffman stating who 4 the different document examiners were who were 5 involved in the case? 6 A. I don't know. It might have been 7 30 days, 45 days ago. I mean, it was fairly 8 recent. 9 Q. It was after you did your Rule 26 10 report in this case. 11 A. Yes, it was. 12 Q. Let's turn to the next page, please, 13 of Defendant's Exhibit 8, that being the page 14 concerning Leonard Speckin. 15 A. Speckin. 16 Q. Speckin, thank you. According to 17 Lou Smit's presentation, Mr. Speckin is a police 18 expert and a private forensic document analyst. 19 Do you agree that those are among Mr. Speckin's 20 credentials? 21 A. I know that that's what he 22 advertises himself to be, yes. 23 Q. When did you learn of Mr. Speckin's 24 conclusions about the ransom note? 25 A. At the same time as I did about all 0137 1 the others, about 30 to -- 2 Q. Thirty to forty-five days ago. 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. When Mr. Hoffman sent you that 5 letter did he send you these pages from Lou 6 Smit's report? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did Mr. Hoffman send you information 9 that is consistent with this page that you're 10 now looking at, which is Page 3 of Defendant's 11 Exhibit 8? 12 A. So far it is, yes. 13 Q. Is it consistent with the entire 14 page of -- the entire third page of Defendant's 15 Exhibit 8? 16 A. I believe it's very similar to what 17 I read. I can't be sure that it's word for 18 word, but it's basically the same thing. 19 Q. According to Mr. Smit, and apparently 20 according to what you received independently from 21 Darnay Hoffman, Mr. Speckin concluded quote I 22 can find no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised 23 her handprinting exemplars, end quote. 24 Do you yourself agree that there's 25 no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her 0138 1 handprinting exemplars? 2 A. No, I don't agree. 3 Q. Okay. Mr. Speckin also, according 4 to Lou Smit and apparently also according to 5 what Mr. Hoffman shared with you before today, 6 but sometime this year, am I correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Mr. Speckin also concluded, quote, 9 when I compare the handprinting habits of Patsy 10 Ramsey with those presented in the questioned 11 ransom note, there exists agreement to the 12 extent that some of her individual letter 13 formations and letter combinations do appear in 14 the ransom note, end quote. 15 Now, you would agree with that 16 bullet point; would you not, sir? 17 A. I would substitute the word "some" 18 for a different word, but I would not say some. 19 I would say all. 20 Q. You would edit one word. 21 A. Well, in that particular sentence. 22 Q. Exactly. And Mr. Speckin went on, 23 did he not, according to Lou Smit and to 24 previous information you received this year from 25 Darnay Hoffman, to conclude, "When this agreement 0139 1 is weighed against the number, type and 2 consistency of the differences present, I am 3 unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of 4 the questioned ransom note with any degree of 5 certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate 6 her as the author." 7 It is proper in the field of 8 document examination, is it not, sir, to 9 consider differences as well as similarities? 10 A. Absolutely. 11 Q. And you yourself are unable to 12 eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author; are you 13 not? 14 A. I'm unable to eliminate her? 15 Q. Yes, sir. 16 A. I have identified her. 17 Q. You're unable to eliminate her, am I 18 not correct? 19 A. I could not eliminate her, no. 20 Q. Let's turn to the next page on Edwin 21 F. Alford, Jr. This is Page 4 of Defendant's 22 Exhibit 8. Did you learn about Mr. Alford's 23 conclusions from Darnay Hoffman this year for 24 the first time as well? 25 A. That's correct. 0140 1 Q. Did Mr. Hoffman's information given 2 to you this year agree with Lou Smit's summary 3 on Page 4 of Defendant's Exhibit 8? 4 A. As I remember it, it's close to 5 this, to the same thing. 6 Q. He too did not find quote a basis 7 for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of 8 the letter, end quote, as you understand the 9 facts; am I correct? 10 A. That's what he says, yes. 11 Q. Indeed, as Lou Smit characterizes it, 12 he found quote lack of indications, end quote. 13 A. That's what he says. 14 Q. Now, if you assume, as you were told 15 by Darnay Hoffman and as Lou Smit tells us in 16 these three pages we have just seen, that Chet 17 Ubowski did find what is summarized on Page 2, 18 that Leonard Speckin did find what is summarized 19 on Page 3, and that Edwin Alford did find what 20 is summarized on Page 4, is it your best 21 judgment that these men were dishonest or 22 incompetent? 23 A. I wish I could tell you that I knew 24 what caused them to reach their conclusions, but 25 obviously I don't. But I do have my own 0141 1 feelings as to how the chain of events, starting 2 from the very beginning, led up to a number of 3 other document examiners coming to the same 4 conclusion. And if you would like me to tell 5 you what that is, I will. 6 Q. Do you base it on facts? 7 A. No, I can't base it on fact. I can 8 base it on my experience with these people and 9 with the profession as I know it, and what 10 happens within a profession as small as this 11 one. 12 Q. Let me ask you to turn for a moment 13 past the Lloyd Cunningham page to the page on 14 Richard Dusick. And I think there may be a 15 spelling error on this page of Lou Smit's 16 materials, but this is the next to last page. 17 Do you see that? 18 A. Richard Dusick. 19 Q. Yes, sir. 20 A. Okay, I have it. 21 Q. Did Mr. Hoffman give you earlier 22 this year for the first time a summary of 23 Mr. Dusick's conclusions that is consistent with 24 Lou Smit's presentation page on Richard Dusick? 25 A. Prior to receiving the letter that 0142 1 had all of these document examiners on it, I 2 had heard, I believe from someone in the Secret 3 Service or some document examiner in the 4 government, that Richard Dusick had done some 5 examinations in the case, and that he had -- 6 they didn't tell me exactly what his conclusion 7 was, but they said that he had reached a 8 conclusion where he felt that Patsy Ramsey had 9 not done the ransom note, but I did not see 10 anything in writing or I didn't see anything as 11 to exactly what he said until I received the 12 letter. 13 Q. That is the letter from Darnay 14 Hoffman this year. 15 A. Right. 16 Q. Perhaps 30 to 45 days ago. 17 A. I believe so. I'm not exactly sure 18 of the time. 19 Q. And did Mr. Hoffman's letter provide 20 you information that is consistent with the page 21 that you see in Lou Smit's report? 22 A. Yes, I believe it is. 23 Q. So that, according both to Lou Smit 24 and to Darnay Hoffman, Richard Dusick found, 25 quote, lack of indications, end quote; true? 0143 1 A. That's what he seems to say, yes. 2 Q. And according to Lou Smit and to 3 Darnay Hoffman, Richard Dusick, document analyst 4 for the United States Secret Service, concluded 5 that a study and comparison of the questioned 6 and specimen writing submitted has resulted in 7 the conclusion that there is no evidence to 8 indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the 9 questioned material appearing on the ransom note; 10 true? 11 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, I would object to 12 form on that. You say according to Darnay 13 Hoffman. Are you indicating that he supplied 14 the document or are you indicating that 15 according to him this gentleman, Mr. Dusick, I 16 believe, stated what was stated? Maybe you want 17 to rephrase it. 18 Q. Mr. Epstein, what Darnay Hoffman told 19 you that Richard Dusick concluded is essentially 20 the same thing that Lou Smit's page tells you 21 Richard Dusick concluded; correct? 22 A. I believe so, yes. 23 Q. Now, of these individuals that we've 24 talked about so far -- they are Chet Ubowski, 25 Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick 0144 1 -- is it your understanding that each of them 2 was retained by the Colorado police and 3 investigative authorities? 4 A. I really don't know who retained 5 them. I would just be guessing if I told you 6 that I did. 7 Q. You do know that the Colorado 8 authorities for a time sought to make a case 9 against Patsy Ramsey; do you not? 10 A. I do know that, yes. 11 Q. And employed several handwriting 12 analysts to attempt to determine whether a case 13 could be made to prosecute Patsy based on the 14 ransom note. Do you not know that? 15 A. I do know that such examinations 16 were done, yeah. 17 Q. If these individuals were, in fact, 18 hired by the Colorado authorities, do you know 19 of any reason to believe they would be biased 20 in favor of Patsy Ramsey? 21 A. No, I don't have any reason to 22 believe they were biased of Patsy Ramsey, but if 23 I -- could I continue with my answer, or were 24 you going to stop me there? 25 Q. I think you're finished with your 0145 1 answer. 2 A. Well -- 3 Q. I think the answer was no. 4 A. No, I'm not really finished. 5 MR. ALTMAN: I think he's entitled 6 to explain. 7 A. I think there are some very 8 important points that have to be made in order 9 to really answer the question. 10 Q. To answer the question of bias? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Are you telling me you want to 13 speculate about the motives of these individuals? 14 A. I don't want to speculate, but I 15 feel that it's important to consider why some of 16 these conclusions were made. 17 Q. Do you have any information that is 18 going to tell us why these conclusions were made 19 that is not based on rank speculation on your 20 part? 21 MR. ALTMAN: Objection as to the 22 form. 23 A. No. 24 Q. The answer was no? Does the record 25 have that? Was that your answer? 0146 1 A. That was my answer. 2 Q. So if you added to your answer, 3 which you told me you wanted to do, you would 4 be adding material based purely on speculation? 5 Am I correct? 6 A. I don't know if you would call it 7 pure speculation. It would certainly be -- it 8 would be based on my experience with the 9 profession over the many years, and if you want 10 to call that speculation then I suppose it would 11 be speculation. 12 Q. Mr. Epstein, I think you've told us 13 enough about whether that's based on speculation 14 or not. 15 Now -- 16 MR. ALTMAN: So, Jim, I guess you 17 don't want him, then, to state the rest of his 18 response; is that correct? 19 MR. WOOD: Rank speculation. 20 MR. ALTMAN: I don't know that it's 21 rank speculation. If he has an opinion I feel 22 he's entitled to finish. 23 MR. ALTMAN: Look, this is an 24 expert's opinion deposition. By definition, when 25 you ask an expert an answer normally it's their 0147 1 opinion, to the degree that it's their opinion, 2 it's speculation, so it's almost a redundancy 3 here. 4 It's not rank speculation for him to 5 comment on his observations concerning Patsy 6 Ramsey's handwriting. It's not rank speculation 7 to comment on his observation after 40, 50 years 8 in the profession about how certain decisions 9 are reached by groups of handwriting experts, so 10 to that degree I don't think it's more or less 11 than what you've been asking him or any other 12 expert this whole time. 13 MR. RAWLS: I am ready to move to 14 the next question as soon as I'm permitted to 15 do so by opposing counsel. 16 Q. Would you turn, please, Mr. Epstein, 17 to the page on Lloyd Cunningham in Defendant's 18 Exhibit 8? 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. Did Mr. Hoffman share with you Lloyd 21 Cunningham's findings in his letter earlier this 22 year? 23 A. Lloyd Cunningham was listed as one 24 of the examiners. 25 Q. And, in fact, you have also read 0148 1 Lloyd Cunningham's expert witness report 2 submitted under Federal Rule 26 for use in this 3 case; have you not? 4 A. I have. 5 Q. You are, then, aware that 6 Mr. Cunningham does find a lack of indications; 7 are you not? 8 A. I am. 9 Q. That he concluded he cannot identify, 10 nor eliminate, Patsy Ramsey as the author of the 11 ransom note. 12 A. I'm familiar with that. 13 Q. That he has spent 20 hours examining 14 the samples and documents and found that there 15 were no significant individual characteristics, 16 but much significant difference between Patsy's 17 writing and the note. 18 And may I say that Lou Smit's 19 presentation was based on the report Lloyd 20 Cunningham submitted before the Rule 26 expert 21 witness report in this case. 22 And with that in mind, are you aware 23 that this page of Lou Smit's presentation is 24 accurate? 25 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, I'd ask you to 0149 1 define if you would what you meant by accurate. 2 Q. An accurate summary of Lloyd 3 Cunningham's conclusions. 4 A. This page is a summary of his 5 conclusions. 6 Q. And insofar as it summarizes his 7 conclusions, you understand that Mr. Cunningham 8 did, indeed, reach those conclusions. 9 A. I understand that he did, yes. 10 Q. And turn, please, to the last page 11 of Lou Smit's report. This is the page on 12 Howard Rile. And do you know that Mr. Rile 13 was a -- was formerly with the CBI as a 14 document examiner? 15 A. Yeah, I'm aware of that. 16 Q. Do you know that Howard Rile, in 17 fact, trained Chet Ubowski? 18 A. I think it's the other way around. 19 I think Chet Ubowski trained Howard Rile. 20 Q. Well, according to -- well, it may 21 be that neither of us is correct. We -- 22 A. I think Chet -- 23 Q. We know that Lloyd Cunningham, if 24 Lou Smit is to be believed, on Page 1, 25 certified Chet Ubowski. In any case, regardless 0150 1 of who trained whom and who certified whom, did 2 you understand that Howard Rile concluded that 3 Patsy Ramsey probably did not author the ransom 4 note? 5 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that. 6 Q. And that his opinion is that the 7 likelihood that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom 8 note is between probably not on the one hand 9 and elimination of Patsy Ramsey on the other. 10 Were you aware of that? 11 A. I was. 12 Q. And do you have any fact, 13 Mr. Epstein, that any of these individuals made 14 a report based on incompetence? And these 15 individuals, I mean Chet Ubowski, Leonard 16 Speckin, Edwin Alford, Lloyd Cunningham, Richard 17 Dusick and Howard Rile. 18 A. I, to be perfectly honest, don't 19 know how they reach their conclusions. 20 Q. But you certainly have no fact that 21 indicates it was based on incompetent. 22 A. I have no facts. 23 Q. And you have no facts that indicates 24 it was based on dishonesty. 25 A. I don't know why they reached or how 0151 1 they reached those conclusions. 2 Q. Now, how many prosecutors, to the 3 best of your knowledge, have looked at the 4 evidence, at all of the evidence, not just 5 handwriting analysis, concerning the murder of 6 JonBenet Ramsey? 7 A. I would have no idea. 8 Q. But you would be surprised if only a 9 small number of trained, experienced prosecutors 10 have looked at all of the body of evidence, 11 would you not, sir, in an unsolved murder case 12 dating from 1996? 13 A. I really don't know how many people 14 have looked at it. 15 Q. You certainly know that Alex Hunter 16 looked at it. 17 A. I would assume so. 18 Q. You certainly know that Ms. Keenan 19 looked at it? 20 A. Again, I would hope so. 21 Q. You know that each of their -- that 22 a group of assistants to each of them looked at 23 the evidence; do you know? 24 A. Again, I really don't know who 25 looked at it. 0152 1 Q. You know that a grand jury looked at 2 the evidence; do you not, sir? 3 A. I know that there was a grand jury, 4 but I don't know what evidence they looked at. 5 Q. You know the grand jury did not 6 indict; do you not, sir? 7 A. I'm aware of that. 8 Q. Does Alex Hunter have credibility to 9 you, sir? 10 A. I don't know Alex Hunter. 11 Q. You wrote to him volunteering your 12 assistance. Did you at the time believe him to 13 be a qualified, able district attorney and 14 prosecutor? 15 A. I wrote to him because he was the 16 district attorney, period. 17 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number 18 9 was marked for identification). 19 Q. Mr. Epstein, I'm showing you 20 Defendant's Exhibit-9, and for your benefit and 21 that of the record, this is -- this exhibit 22 consists of the cover page and Page 2 and 3 of 23 the initial pages of the transcript of the 24 deposition of Alex Hunter. 25 Have you before today become familiar 0153 1 with anything Alex Hunter testified about in 2 this case? 3 A. Nothing. 4 Q. So Mr. Hoffman's letter to you of 5 some weeks earlier this year with reference to 6 handwriting analysts did not including any 7 reference to Alex Hunter's testimony; correct? 8 A. It did not. 9 Q. And I will tell you, Mr. Epstein, 10 that this deposition was taken by my co-counsel, 11 Lin Wood, and my colleague, Derek Bauer, out in 12 Boulder, Colorado in November of last year. 13 I want to ask you to turn, please, 14 to the page that is actually the fourth page of 15 this exhibit, Defendant's Exhibit 9, but has at 16 the top of it Page Number 119. 17 A. Very well. 18 Q. And I'd like for you to simply read 19 to yourself from Line 9, and you'll see there's 20 a mark right above that line -- these are 21 questions by Mr. Wood, by the way, for your 22 information -- over to Page 122 and you'll see 23 a line there, but I want you to go a little 24 further. 25 I want you to go down through Line 0154 1 11 on 122 and simply familiarizing yourself with 2 this testimony before I ask you some questions 3 about it. 4 In fact, while you're doing so, 5 Mr. Epstein, I think we're going to need the 6 court reporter -- the videographer to change the 7 video tape, so may we go off the record briefly 8 while she does so? 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end 10 of Tape 2 to the deposition of Mr. Epstein. 11 The time is 3:01 and we're off the record. 12 (Recess). 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape 14 Number 3 to the deposition of Mr. Epstein. The 15 time is 3:10 p.m. and we're back on the record. 16 BY MR. RAWLS: 17 Q. Mr. Epstein, did you have a chance 18 to view those pages -- 19 A. I did. 20 Q. -- of former district attorney Alex 21 Hunter's testimony? 22 A. I did. 23 Q. Thank you. And of course, you do 24 understand, do you not, that part of the system 25 of justice in the United States is that a 0155 1 prosecutor has discretion whether to charge 2 someone or not. 3 A. I understand that. 4 Q. That some crimes require an 5 indictment by the grand jury under the United 6 States Constitution. 7 A. I understand that also. 8 Q. And are you aware that prosecutors 9 can decide that some cases should be pursued and 10 some cases should not? 11 A. Of course. 12 Q. And in your career with the 13 Immigration and Naturalization Service, you found 14 some evidence of crimes, did you not, from time 15 to time? 16 A. I have. 17 Q. But you alone could not make the 18 decision to accuse an individual of a crime 19 based solely on your own handwriting analysis; 20 could you, sir? 21 A. No, of course not. 22 Q. In our system it's vitally important 23 to the concept of justice and to the proper 24 prosecution of criminals that we have what's 25 called prosecutorial discretion to enter in; is 0156 1 it not? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 Q. You've always understood that. 4 A. I have. 5 Q. You have always been comfortable with 6 that decision; have you not? 7 A. I have. 8 Q. You yourself have never sued a 9 prosecutor to claim that someone should be 10 prosecuted; have you, sir? 11 A. No, I haven't. 12 Q. You yourself have never been a 13 prosecutor. 14 A. I have not. 15 Q. And, consequently, where your own 16 role has come into contact with the criminal 17 process, you have been in the role of an expert 18 witness on handwriting; have you not, sir? 19 A. I have. 20 Q. Or on document examination. 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Correct? You have never been in the 23 role of making a decision whether to prosecute 24 someone or not. 25 A. No, I haven't. 0157 1 Q. And sometimes that decision by a 2 prosecutor is a difficult decision; is it not? 3 A. I would think it is. 4 Q. And was Alex Hunter right, in your 5 judgment, to arm himself with the evidence 6 supplied by way of the reports of persons such 7 as Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford 8 and Richard Dusick? 9 A. That's a very difficult question for 10 me to answer, and the reason it is is because 11 Howard Rile and Lloyd Cunningham are private 12 examiners, and I don't know -- and you certainly 13 do, but I don't -- whether or not they were 14 retained by the Ramsey family initially or 15 whether they were retained by the Colorado 16 bureau. 17 Q. Let me remind you my question, which 18 did not mention Mr. Rile and did not mention 19 Mr. Cunningham. 20 A. But you said the document examiners 21 that were retained. 22 Q. Here's my question: Was Alex Hunter 23 right, in your judgment, to arm himself with the 24 evidence supplied by way of the reports of 25 persons such as Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, 0158 1 Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick? 2 A. Okay, Speckin I don't consider a 3 document examiner. Speckin has a document 4 laboratory. He's basically a chemist, he does 5 ink and paper work. He's a young fellow with 6 very little experience. If he has done 7 handwriting, it's been very little handwriting. 8 I don't know the circumstances under 9 which these examinations were done and I don't 10 know what kind of evidence was provided for the 11 district attorney to present to the grand jury. 12 Obviously I have a problem with the 13 findings in this case, otherwise I wouldn't be 14 here, and I believe that there are document 15 examiners out there, and I know there are 16 because they've come forward and told me so, who 17 believe as I do. 18 But the point is they were not 19 involved in this case, and the people that were 20 selected to do this examination, I don't know 21 what influences, outside influences played a part 22 on their findings and I don't know that they 23 were completely free to conduct their 24 examinations and to reach the conclusions in the 25 manner that they felt was necessary. 0159 1 So there's a lot of different 2 factors here. The evidence is there, the 3 physical evidence is there. Was it -- was it 4 used to its maximum? No, obviously I don't 5 think it was. And was that the fault of a 6 particular person or the system? I don't know. 7 Q. My question, Mr. Epstein, had to do 8 with Alex Hunter's decision. Was he right to 9 rely on people such as Chet Ubowski -- 10 A. And I tried to answer that. 11 Q. -- Leonard Speckin? 12 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, I think he 13 answered no. I think his answer was no because 14 he questioned their qualifications. I think the 15 answer was no. 16 MR. WOOD: You say he questioned 17 their qualifications? 18 MR. HOFFMAN: Such as those 19 particular individuals, it sounds to me like 20 Gideon is saying no, those are not the experts 21 he should have relied on, maybe questioned 22 document examiners in a generic sense, but those 23 individuals, it sounds to me like he's saying 24 no. 25 MR. RAWLS: Well, I object to the 0160 1 remarks, Mr. Hoffman, that you have made just 2 now and I object to the witness's interruption 3 of my question. Please don't interrupt until 4 I'm finished, and then I'd like for you, sir, 5 Mr. Epstein, to please answer. 6 BY MR. RAWLS: 7 Q. Was Alex Hunter right -- and I'll 8 leave Leonard Speckin out because you have told 9 me he's young, he's inexperienced and he's a 10 chemist, so we'll leave him out. 11 The first thing I want to ask is 12 was Alex Hunter right to try to get trained 13 document examiners -- 14 A. I think he was right in trying to 15 get trained document examiners. Whether he got 16 them is the question. 17 Q. And you've previously told us that 18 you believe Edwin Alford, Richard Dusick and 19 Chet Ubowski to be qualified document examiners; 20 do you not? 21 A. I know them to be qualified document 22 examiners, but I don't know the circumstances of 23 this case, how they worked. 24 Q. So one can only conclude that Alex 25 Hunter was correct to consult and to obtain a 0161 1 report from Chet Ubowski, from Edwin Alford and 2 from Richard Dusick; am I correct? 3 MR. ALTMAN: Objection as to form. 4 A. He was correct in what he attempted 5 to do. 6 Q. Thank you. And his decision was not 7 necessarily easy; was it? 8 A. I would not think so, no. 9 Q. This is the original of Defendant's 10 Exhibit 8, Mr. Epstein. Tell me if I'm right 11 or wrong about this, based on your 12 understanding. 13 Am I correct that Chet Ubowski had 14 access to the original ransom note? 15 A. I would certainly expect that he 16 would have had access to the originals. 17 Q. And you did not. 18 A. I did not. 19 Q. Have you ever requested the 20 opportunity to view the original ransom note? 21 A. Of course. 22 Q. When? 23 A. From the very beginning. 24 Q. To whom did you make that request? 25 A. When we -- when I first became 0162 1 involved in the case I told Mr. Hoffman that, 2 you know, that we would like to see all of the 3 original documents, if they were still available, 4 of the documents that were examined previously, 5 and obviously that included the ransom note. 6 Q. Mr. Epstein, I believe your 7 microphone may have slipped. 8 A. Slipped off. 9 Q. Were you finished with your answer? 10 A. Yes. Between, I -- when I first 11 became involved in this case I asked to see 12 whatever original documents were previously 13 examined by the document examiners before. 14 Q. And why did you want to see the 15 original ransom note? 16 A. Whenever an original is available, 17 it's just standard and automatic to want to see 18 it. 19 Q. There are some things you can tell 20 from the original that you cannot tell from a 21 copy; correct? 22 A. The line quality can be more 23 adequately examined. You can do a microscopic 24 examination of the microstructure of the line. 25 You can sometimes get a better idea of why the 0163 1 line quality is what it is. There are obvious 2 advantages to having the original. 3 Q. You can determine the amount of 4 pressure that was used on the writing implement; 5 can you not, sir? 6 A. You can. But from what you could 7 see already in the ransom note you could see 8 that the pressure was probably fairly even. 9 There was no feathering or up stroke and down 10 stroke differences, so -- 11 Q. Is it your understanding that Chet 12 Ubowski also had access to the originals of the 13 exemplars which he compared to the original 14 ransom note? 15 A. I would certainly expect that he 16 would. 17 Q. Was that an advantage? 18 A. It is an advantage to have the 19 originals. It's not always absolutely necessary, 20 but it's always an advantage. 21 Q. And did you understand that Chet 22 Ubowski also had access to original historical 23 writings of Patsy Ramsey? 24 A. Yes, and I felt those were very 25 important. 0164 1 Q. And did you have access to any of 2 those? 3 A. None other than those that were 4 listed in my report. Not originals. 5 Q. Did you have access to the originals 6 of any historical writings? 7 A. I did not. 8 Q. To the best of your knowledge did 9 Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick 10 have access to the original ransom note, to the 11 original handwriting exemplars of Patsy Ramsey 12 and to the original historical writings of Patsy 13 Ramsey? 14 A. I don't know. I don't know what 15 they had access to. I would imagine that 16 Howard Rile had access to the original documents 17 and Lloyd Cunningham would have had original 18 documents. 19 Q. As well. 20 A. As well. 21 Q. And for Lloyd Cunningham and Howard 22 Rile, were those advantages, i.e. the access to 23 the original ransom note, historical writings of 24 Patsy Ramsey and handwriting exemplars of Patsy 25 Ramsey? 0165 1 A. They are advantages. 2 Q. You've read the testimony of Alex 3 Hunter -- 4 A. I have. 5 Q. --that is part of Defendant's Exhibit 6 9; have you not? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you understand that from Alex 9 Hunter's perspective, the sum total of the 10 handwriting analysis done by the investigation on 11 Patsy Ramsey was that she was somewhere at about 12 a 4.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being 13 elimination. 14 A. (Nods head). 15 Q. Do you not, sir? 16 A. That's what he says. 17 Q. Thus, that from Alex Hunter's 18 perspective, Patsy Ramsey was not eliminated by 19 the experts chosen by the district attorney, but 20 she was close to elimination; correct? 21 A. That's what he says, yes. 22 Q. And from Alex Hunter's perspective, 23 you also understood that there were other 24 individuals under suspicion who were not 25 eliminated; correct? 0166 1 A. That's what I understand, yes. 2 Q. Who were not eliminated as the 3 author of the ransom note. 4 A. I understand that, right. 5 Q. Mr. Epstein, I thought about during 6 our break your desire, seconded by Mr. Hoffman 7 and Mr. Altman, your desire to share with us 8 your theory on how all these other document 9 examiners that we've talked about here got it 10 wrong except for you and your co-expert, Cina 11 Wong. 12 And I'm going to ask you to tell us 13 your theory in a minute, but first I want to 14 ask you if you were in a Daubert hearing in 15 front of our judge, Judge Julie Carnes in this 16 case, and if Judge Carnes asked you should she 17 permit Cina Wong to give expert opinion 18 testimony about the authorship of the Ramsey -- 19 excuse me, of the ransom note found at the home 20 of John and Patsy Ramsey in this case, what 21 would you tell her? 22 A. I would say that she may well be 23 correct in her findings, but that she does not 24 meet the standards of a forensic document 25 examiner as accepted by the profession. 0167 1 Q. And, therefore, as you understand the 2 Daubert rules, there is no sufficient scientific 3 basis in her qualifications, her training and 4 her credentials, for her to be permitted to 5 testify about the subject of handwriting 6 authenticity; correct? 7 A. If it was strictly interpreted, that 8 would be correct. 9 Q. And the "it" you refer to is 10 Daubert. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The Daubert test. 13 A. Right. 14 Q. It is your view under your 15 understanding of the Daubert test, and I know 16 you're not an attorney -- 17 A. I'm not. 18 Q. -- but it is your view under your 19 understanding of the Daubert test, and given 20 your knowledge, your education, your expertise, 21 your training and your experience as a 22 board-certified document examiner, that Cina Wong 23 is not qualified under Daubert to render an 24 opinion about authorship of the ransom note at 25 issue in this case; correct? 0168 1 A. I would say that's correct. 2 Q. Now, Mr. Epstein, what exactly is 3 your theory about how all these individuals, 4 Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford, 5 Lloyd Cunningham, Richard Dusick and Howard Rile, 6 got it wrong and you, sir, beginning in the 7 year 2000, almost four years after the murder in 8 this case, and without access to any original 9 handwriting of any party you analyzed, got it 10 right? 11 A. Very well. First of all, I'd like 12 to say that the field of forensic document 13 examination in the United States is a very small 14 profession, as you may well have found out, 15 especially within the ranks of those people who 16 are board-certified and who are the mainstream 17 examiners in this country. 18 Everyone knows everyone else. There 19 are certain document examiners who, because of 20 their exposure in the profession, because of the 21 work that they do, because of the workshops that 22 they may present, are looked upon by other 23 examiners as leaders in their field. 24 A lot of these examiners are in 25 private practice, and they're retained oftentimes 0169 1 by one side or the other. In this particular 2 case I think the fact that Howard Rile and 3 Lloyd Cunningham, who became involved in this 4 case very early on, and who were retained by 5 the Ramsey family, coupled with the fact that 6 Lloyd -- that Howard Rile came out of the 7 Colorado bureau and knew the people in the 8 Colorado bureau, I believe that that connection 9 was very instrumental in the Colorado bureau 10 coming to the conclusion that they did, because 11 Howard Rile had come to the conclusion that he 12 did. 13 Lloyd Cunningham works very closely 14 with Howard Rile and they were both on this 15 case, and then it was a matter of chain of 16 events, one document examiner after another 17 refusing to go up against someone who they knew, 18 someone who was large in the profession, for 19 fear that they would be criticized for saying 20 something that another examiner -- it's sort of 21 like an ethics within the medical community, 22 where one doctor protects the other doctor. 23 The fact that I think the whole 24 scenario may have been completely different if 25 Howard Rile had not been one of the first 0170 1 document examiners and who was not in private 2 practice, and if he had not been connected so 3 closely with the Colorado bureau; if it had been 4 a document examiner totally separate and apart; 5 if the document examiner had actually been a 6 document examiner in government service who had 7 nothing to gain by his conclusions, who was on 8 a salary rather than on a large retainer. 9 All of these things influence a 10 case, and when it came down to Dusick and it 11 came down to Speckin and it came down to 12 Alford, by that time a number of well-known 13 document examiners had already rendered 14 conclusions, and I feel personally that the 15 other examiners were simply afraid to state what 16 they believed to be the truth, or that they 17 simply didn't devote the necessary time. 18 This is the kind of case that you 19 have to devote a tremendous amount of time and 20 effort to. I've spent a lot of my years 21 working cases where you don't count the hours, 22 you simply count the weeks and you count the 23 months and you devote the time that's necessary. 24 If a document examiner is working 25 this kind of a case and counting the hours, 0171 1 he's going to get to a point where it's going 2 to be too expensive for him to bill, and so 3 he's either not going to do the case in the 4 time that's required or he's going to cut the 5 time short. 6 And I just don't believe that some 7 of these people devoted the necessary amount of 8 time to the case to come up with the correct 9 conclusions, and I think they simply went along 10 with what had been previously said because it 11 was the most expedient thing to do. 12 Q. I want to ask one question, 13 Mr. Epstein, and then take a brief recess. And 14 the purpose of the recess is to try to wind up 15 the questions I want to ask in order to 16 conclude our part of this deposition. 17 The question I have for you is this: 18 Do you know how much time was devoted to the 19 formulation of the conclusions of Chet Ubowski? 20 A. I do not know, no. 21 Q. Same question for Leonard Speckin. 22 Do you know how much time was devoted to 23 forming his conclusion? 24 A. I do not, no. 25 Q. Same question with Edwin Alford. 0172 1 A. (Shakes head). 2 Q. Same question, Lloyd Cunningham. 3 A. I think Lloyd Cunningham said he 4 spent 20 hours on the case. 5 Q. That was what Lou Smit said, and 6 that was before Lloyd Cunningham made his Rule 7 26 report. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Am I correct? 10 A. I'm not sure. 11 Q. Do you know how much time Richard 12 Dusick or Howard Rile spent arriving at their 13 conclusions on this case? 14 A. I do not know. 15 MR. RAWLS: May we take a brief 16 recess? 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 18 3:34 p.m. 19 (Recess). 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the 21 record at 3:44 p.m. 22 BY MR. RAWLS: 23 Q. Mr. Epstein, the answer that you 24 have given us about why in your judgment Chet 25 Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Lloyd Cunningham, 0173 1 Richard Dusick and Howard Rile got it wrong, 2 was, in fact, as you had told me earlier, rank 3 speculation; was it not? 4 A. It's -- that's my opinion. 5 Q. And your opinion is based on 6 speculation; is it not? 7 A. My opinion is based on my knowledge 8 of the profession and the people involved. 9 Q. And, in fact, you have no 10 information at all about the sequence of the 11 analyses done by Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, 12 Edwin Alford, Lloyd Cunningham, Richard Dusick 13 and Howard Rile; correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. To the best of your knowledge, Chet 16 Ubowski might have been first. 17 A. I would expect that he would have 18 been first, as far as the examination is 19 concerned. 20 Q. And for all you now, Howard Rile 21 might have been last; correct? 22 A. I don't believe he was last. 23 Q. What's your basis for having a 24 belief about sequence at all? 25 A. I know when Howard Rile came into 0174 1 the case it was early in the case. I mean, I 2 -- it was common knowledge in the profession 3 that he had been retained by the Ramseys early 4 on, so I don't believe he came in last. 5 Q. Do you know whether any of these 6 individuals even had access to Howard Rile's 7 findings, conclusions, reports or analyses when 8 he rendered his finding? 9 A. I don't know that for a fact, no. 10 Q. You don't know that Chet Ubowski had 11 any access to Howard Rile's findings, do you, 12 sir, when he reached his own conclusions? 13 A. I don't know any facts to that, no. 14 Q. You don't know if Chet Ubowski had 15 any access to Lloyd Cunningham's report or 16 conclusions when Chet Ubowski reached his 17 conclusion; do you, sir? 18 A. I don't know that they had any 19 access, but they certainly were aware of what 20 had been previously done, I mean -- 21 Q. What been previously done? 22 A. I mean, they were aware of the 23 people that had been retained on which side at 24 the time that they did their examinations. And 25 it's -- these people communicate by way of the 0175 1 -- by e-mail on a regular, constant basis, so I 2 don't know how much information passed from one 3 individual to another through e-mails and other 4 ways. 5 Q. If any. 6 A. If any. 7 Q. The fact is you're guessing; are you 8 not, sir? 9 A. I think it's a little bit stronger 10 than guessing, but if you want to say that I'm 11 guessing, that's fine. 12 Q. And as I understand what you've just 13 said, you think that Chet Ubowski, Leonard 14 Speckin, Edwin Alford and Richard Dusick may 15 have been so concerned about the mere retention 16 of Howard Rile that they pulled their punches; 17 is that your testimony? 18 A. No, I didn't say that. You did. 19 Q. Do you think that's what happened? 20 A. No, I don't think it has anything to 21 do with fear that anybody was retained. I 22 think it was a sequence of events of what had 23 been done previously, and people talk, it's a 24 small profession, everyone knows what everyone 25 else does in these kinds of cases, and there 0176 1 are certain people who don't have the stomach 2 for going up against someone else if they feel 3 that, you know -- 4 Q. Which of these individuals does not 5 have the stomach to go up against Howard Rile? 6 A. I don't -- I'm saying that there are 7 people in the profession who may fear -- it's 8 the same thing, if I attempted to contact 9 individuals after I became involved in this case 10 to see whether or not they would be interested 11 in doing some pro bono work in this case, and 12 I did try to contact some people who I had 13 confidence in, and to a person, even though some 14 of them were familiar with the case and were 15 familiar with the findings in the case, chose 16 not to get involved because it's not the kind 17 of case everybody wants to be involved in. 18 And some people consider that it's 19 not worth it. Whether they may agree or not 20 agree, that's not the thing that they weigh. 21 They weigh how difficult is it going to be on 22 me, what am I going to have to go through, am 23 I going to have to sit through a deposition for 24 eight hours, I don't need that. 25 So to a person, the people I 0177 1 contacted who I know can do this work and do 2 it right said that at this point in the case 3 they didn't want to become involved. 4 Q. Did you contact anybody who was 5 comfortable being co-expert with Cina Wong? 6 A. I didn't mention Cina Wong and until 7 I -- as I told you, I didn't know until this 8 morning riding over here that Cina Wong was even 9 involved, and you're trying to push my buttons, 10 I realize that. 11 Q. Sorry, sir, I have no opportunity to 12 push your buttons. 13 A. You do know which ones to push. 14 Q. I'm only given the right to ask you 15 questions. 16 A. And I'm here to answer them. 17 Q. Thank you. And if you have any 18 buttons visible, I'll try to stay away from 19 them. 20 A. I hope I can keep them concealed. 21 Q. You told us earlier that other 22 document examiners have come to you to say that 23 they believe that Patsy Ramsey authored the 24 ransom note; did you not, sir? 25 A. I did have some document examiners 0178 1 -- I'm -- if you're going to ask me who they 2 were, I'm not going to mention their names 3 because they did not -- some of them were given 4 access to these documents, and had an 5 opportunity to look at them, and I don't -- 6 they didn't want their names mentioned, and I 7 don't think it would be right for me to mention 8 them. 9 But I can tell you that I -- that I 10 did contact some people, and that was their 11 response. I would prefer to leave it that way. 12 I don't think -- if they wanted to come forward 13 they would have come forward themselves, and 14 it's not up to me to mention who they are. 15 Q. Well, no need for you to mention 16 Larry Zieglar, Cina Wong -- 17 A. I wouldn't mention Cina Wong. 18 Q. And I don't say that to push a 19 button. There's no need to mention David 20 Leibman. But apart from those three, are there 21 other experts -- 22 A. I can tell you that Richard 23 Williams, who is an ex retired FBI document 24 examiner who I have a lot of respect for and 25 who had an opportunity to see the documents 0179 1 because he is also a contract document examiner 2 for the Department of Justice, and at one time 3 we considered -- he considered becoming involved 4 in the case because he, after he had seen the 5 documents he -- and examined them he believed 6 that our findings, my findings and Larry 7 Zieglar's at the time were correct. 8 But there were personal circumstances 9 that came up involving another case in England 10 and it's a very large case, and he couldn't 11 jeopardize his position in that case because of 12 the circumstances of this case, and so he chose 13 not to become involved. 14 But there are other -- there are 15 some other document examiners who also are 16 familiar with the documents, who, when I 17 contacted them to see if they would be willing 18 to take this on on a pro bono basis -- and I 19 don't think it was the fact that it was pro 20 bono, it was simply the fact that I could tell 21 that they simply didn't want to become involved, 22 even though they knew that the findings that had 23 been previously reached were not correct. 24 Q. What documents did Richard Williams 25 have access to? 0180 1 A. Well, he certainly had access to a 2 copy of the ransom note, the copies of the 3 normal course of business writings that we 4 originally received. 5 I'm trying to think if he was still 6 considering involvement at the time that we got 7 the exemplars. I'm pretty sure that -- I'm 8 pretty sure that he may have seen the exemplars. 9 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, do you need 10 anything more definitive than what he knows? 11 Because I can tell you either on or off the 12 record. 13 MR. WOOD: Is Williams the guy you 14 withdrew as an expert? 15 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, uh-huh, I can 16 tell you because I actually sent material -- 17 MR. WOOD: I don't think we need 18 anything further. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay. 20 MR. WOOD: If he's not an expert, 21 he's not an expert. He didn't have the stomach 22 for it. 23 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, then if 24 he's not then I'm just wondering why the 25 questioning about what he looked at. If he's 0181 1 not in the case, he's not in, but if he's in 2 in terms of your questions in the deposition, if 3 you really need the answers to that, I can 4 answer them for you. 5 Q. Without the benefit of the exemplars 6 here in late 2001, there's not any expert that 7 can reach a definitive conclusion about 8 authorship of the ransom note; is there, sir? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Tell us why you felt the need to 11 recruit other questioned document examiners in 12 this case for Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Altman and Chris 13 Wolf. 14 A. I suppose it could be answered 15 strength in numbers, I guess. You have five 16 people on your side and I'm on this side by 17 myself. I think that answers it pretty well. 18 Q. By yourself, along with an individual 19 whom you'd prefer that I not name again. 20 A. An individual who I didn't know was 21 part of this until I got here this morning. 22 Q. You told us one reason some of these 23 individuals you spoke to were concerned about 24 coming into the case was that it might become 25 too expensive; did you not? 0182 1 A. Well, too expensive for them, but I 2 think it was more than that. I think it was 3 more a desire not to become involved in this 4 case, period. 5 Q. Do you know approximately how many 6 millions of dollars have been spent on this 7 investigation by the people of the State of 8 Colorado? 9 A. I have no idea. 10 Q. By the Boulder Police Department? 11 A. I would imagine that it's 12 considerable. 13 Q. By the Colorado Bureau of 14 Investigation? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. By the Boulder County District 17 Attorney's Office? 18 A. Again, don't know. 19 Q. By the FBI? 20 A. (Shakes head). I don't know. I 21 would imagine it would be considerable. 22 Q. You're not saying, Mr. Epstein, are 23 you, in this case, that Patsy Ramsey murdered 24 her daughter? 25 A. Absolutely not. 0183 1 Q. You told us earlier that your charge 2 for an eight-hour day is twelve hundred dollars; 3 am I correct? 4 A. Examination time. Deposition and 5 testimony time is sixteen hundred. 6 Q. And I believe that is exactly the 7 fee that Mr. Hoffman quoted to me for your 8 deposition day, and he also quoted to me the 9 amounts of your airfare and hotel expenses. 10 I am, therefore, handing you a check 11 now for $1,877. Please let me know if that 12 does not cover your travel expenses plus your 13 $1600 for your deposition today. 14 A. Fine, thank you. 15 Q. Does that appear to cover it? 16 A. It seems to. I think the air are 17 was -- round trip was $240 or something like 18 that, and I imagine the hotel is being paid for 19 directly. 20 Q. If there is more that is needed, 21 please let us know. 22 I've got just another question or 23 two, Mr. Epstein. 24 Early in the day, in talking about 25 your reasons for becoming involved in this case 0184 1 pro bono, and I think that under the 2 circumstances we can consider that now partially 3 pro bono and partially for fee; am I not 4 correct? 5 A. Certain portions of it I have billed 6 for. 7 Q. But your reasons for coming into 8 this case had to do with justice. 9 A. That was my only reason for coming 10 into this case. 11 Q. And you've told us here, however, 12 that you do not accuse Patsy Ramsey of murder. 13 A. No. There's no way I could do 14 anything like that. I am only involved in the 15 handwriting. 16 Q. And you also know that Patsy Ramsey 17 has never been indicted for murder; do you not, 18 sir? 19 A. I know that. 20 Q. You know that she has never been 21 charged for murder; don't you? 22 A. I know that also. 23 Q. And you know that whatever the 24 course of the criminal investigation going on in 25 Colorado, this case filed by Chris Wolf is a 0185 1 civil case; do you not? 2 A. I understand that. 3 Q. If Chris Wolf wins this case, you 4 understand he will win money; do you not, sir? 5 A. I imagine that's normally the 6 outcome, yes. 7 Q. And the criminal prosecution will not 8 be affected. 9 A. That, I don't know. I had always 10 hoped that perhaps this could lead to -- one 11 could lead to the other. 12 Q. One could lead to the prosecution of 13 whom? 14 A. If the evidence is finally recognized 15 as being stronger than it was previously 16 portrayed to be, then perhaps -- 17 Q. Prosecution of whom? 18 A. I don't know. That would be up to 19 the investigation. But I think that the ransom 20 note was an extremely important piece of 21 evidence. 22 Q. And you have no reason to believe 23 that the Colorado authorities asked Chris Wolf, 24 former reporter, former entertainer, to pursue a 25 civil action against John and Patsy Ramsey for 0186 1 libel; do you, sir? 2 A. I know nothing about that. 3 Q. As a matter of fact, you know 4 nothing about what was said in the Ramseys' book 5 about Chris Wolf, do you, sir? 6 A. I have not read the Ramseys' book. 7 Q. And whatever was said by the Ramseys 8 about Chris Wolf, you don't have any information 9 about whether it was true or false; do you, 10 sir? 11 A. I do not, no. I haven't read the 12 book. 13 Q. Nor do you have any information 14 about the reputation of Chris Wolf; do you, sir? 15 A. I know nothing about Chris Wolf 16 either. 17 Q. But you'll agree with me, will you 18 not, sir, that for anyone to use the media to 19 attack Patsy Ramsey, to call her a murderer when 20 she has been unindicted by the responsible 21 authorities is unfair, unseemly, improper and 22 unjust; would you not? 23 A. I think that's obviously the logical 24 thing is that you, you know, a person is always 25 innocent until they're proven guilty, and I 0187 1 believe that very strongly. But I also believe 2 that evidence, if it's there, it should be used. 3 Q. It should be used in a court of 4 law; should it not? 5 A. In a court of law, absolutely. 6 Q. It should be used in a grand jury; 7 should it not? 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. Not in the media. 10 A. Not in -- I'm -- I've never believed 11 in trying a case in the media. I don't like 12 the media. I try to stay away as far as I 13 can from the media. 14 Q. In fact, were you unhappy when 15 Darnay Hoffman on Court TV used your name to 16 accuse Patsy Ramsey of murder? 17 A. I had not seen that, but somebody 18 had told me about that, and I would have 19 preferred it go a different way. 20 Q. Were you unhappy when your name was 21 used to the National Enquirer with an accusation 22 that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note? 23 A. I was. 24 Q. And are you unhappy, Mr. Epstein, 25 that the only co-expert recruited by Chris Wolf 0188 1 in this case as a result of all the efforts of 2 Darnay Hoffman, all the efforts of Evan Altman 3 and all the efforts of yourself on the question 4 of handwriting is Cina Wong? 5 A. I'm very disappointed in my 6 profession right now over this whole case, and 7 that's why I'm here. 8 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, my part of 9 today's examination is concluded. 10 You have earlier told us that you 11 would like to ask some questions. I want to 12 make sure you and I are in accord; that you 13 have a perfect right to ask questions by way of 14 clarification or correction of previous answers, 15 but because I have paid for the witness' day, 16 you have no right to use the time I have paid 17 for for any direct examination of this witness 18 to support any motion or any position on any 19 motion that may be filed in this case. 20 Do we agree? 21 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, I don't know 22 what you mean by that. Obviously if you attach 23 his deposition to a summary judgment motion I'm 24 going to use whatever is -- I'm going to use 25 the complete transcript of this. 0189 1 However, I'm certainly going to treat 2 this as cross-examination with respect to his 3 testimony having been a direct examination, and 4 I will certainly not try to go outside the 5 bounds, so I'm not going to open up areas that 6 you haven't already previously discussed. 7 MR. WOOD: You're going to treat 8 your examination as cross-examination, Darnay? 9 MR. HOFFMAN: No, I'm going to treat 10 my examination as if it were a cross-examination 11 in the sense that -- or I guess that's the 12 best way, for the purposes of just simply 13 limiting my questioning to all those areas that 14 were brought in your testimony as if yours have 15 been -- your questioning, as if yours has been 16 a direct examination. So I'm following that 17 rule. 18 MR. WOOD: What rule is that? We 19 just took the discovery deposition of your 20 expert witness on cross-examination. 21 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, Lin, stop 22 trying to be a wise guy. 23 MR. WOOD: Now, I'm not trying to 24 -- you don't have the right -- 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Stop trying to be a 0190 1 wise guy, Lin, which is what you're doing right 2 now. 3 MR. WOOD: You do not have the -- 4 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm just analogizing. 5 I'm treating it as if it were a direct 6 examination for the purposes of trying to make 7 this analogy understandable, and, very simply, I 8 will not go outside the bounds of what was 9 asked at this deposition as if it had been a 10 direct examination at trial. 11 MR. ALTMAN: I think we're on the 12 same page on that. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: That's a pretty simple 14 concept. 15 MR. WOOD: I thought the question 16 was whether -- don't you agree you don't have 17 the right to conduct a direct examination on our 18 dollar. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely not. All I 20 want to do is just simply allow him to answer 21 a few of the questions that he might not have 22 been allowed to answer more fully that were 23 asked on your, you know, on your dime, so to 24 speak. 25 MR. WOOD: So you do agree that you 0191 1 do not have the right to do a direct 2 examination on our dime. 3 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, no, no. I 4 don't agree that there's any law or authority to 5 that effect so to that degree I don't agree 6 that you have a legal right to make that as a 7 requirement. 8 However, as far as to just simply 9 what I'm going to do is I'm certainly not going 10 to try and take advantage of the situation. 11 You certainly could have gone the full seven 12 hours. I appreciate the fact that you're 13 extending my witness the courtesy of letting him 14 leave so he can catch his flight and also 15 shorten your examination to give me a little 16 time to what I hope will be a legitimate 17 attempt to try and just let him augment some of 18 the answers that he had given in response to 19 your earlier questioning. 20 But you have no legal authority, in 21 my opinion, to limit it, and in that degree I 22 don't agree with you. However I'm telling you 23 that I will simply abide by our gentleman's 24 agreement that we're making right here that I 25 will limit it only to those areas that were 0192 1 gone into when you questioned him originally. 2 MR. WOOD: I haven't made any 3 agreement with you today. I don't think Jim 4 Rawls has made any agreement with you today. 5 MR. ALTMAN: Why don't we do this? 6 Why don't we proceed forward, and if you have 7 an objection, state your objection as we go. 8 MR. RAWLS: Let me -- Darnay, I 9 don't know if we're together. I understand what 10 I said to you, I'm not sure I understand your 11 intentions. 12 But rather than your explaining them 13 to me, let me say we will object if you 14 attempt to use any part of today's deposition, 15 all of which we've paid for, none of which 16 you've paid for, nor, as I understand the 17 witness' testimony, are you ever going to pay 18 for. 19 So if you attempt to use any part 20 of this in a way that I consider the subject 21 of a direct examination designed to get any 22 opinions of this witness into evidence in the 23 case, we will not only object, but we're late 24 in the afternoon on a Friday, we'll need to 25 call Judge Carnes about that. 0193 1 MR. HOFFMAN: You know what normally 2 happens in depositions? 3 MR. WOOD: Darnay, we don't need to 4 hear that. I've been taking depositions for 25 5 years. You haven't taken depositions -- I bet 6 you haven't taken five depositions in your whole 7 life. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, given the 9 fact that you've never tried a libel case in 10 front of a jury -- 11 MR. WOOD: Darnay Hoffman, let me 12 tell you something -- Darnay, you've never -- 13 the only case you ever tried you got hit for 14 $45 million when Bernie Getz was found guilty 15 for a crime he walked from in a criminal case. 16 Listen, I have tried cases for 25 17 years. I've tried more cases than you could 18 count in your sleep, big boy. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your first libel 20 case, okay. 21 MR. WOOD: Darnay, I don't have to 22 try a libel case to know how to try a case, 23 but after listening to Fleet White's deposition 24 it was obvious to me that you don't know how 25 to take a deposition. 0194 1 MR. HOFFMAN: That's okay. 2 MR. WOOD: Why don't you tell us 3 how many depositions you've taken in your 4 illustrious career? 5 MR. HOFFMAN: I've taken plenty. 6 MR. WOOD: I bet you haven't taken 7 25. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Can I tell you 9 something? I'm the only -- 10 MR. WOOD: I've tried more cases 11 than you've taken depositions. So don't lecture 12 me. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm the only man 14 on the planet that's taken Patsy Ramsey's 15 deposition, and plenty have tried, so don't -- 16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you 17 something, and it was a joke. You didn't know 18 what you were doing. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: I hope that's what you 20 believe because I hope you prepare your trial 21 case accordingly, underestimating me. 22 MR. WOOD: You're not going to see 23 a trial in this case. You're going to get 24 booted on summary judgment just like you got 25 booted out in Linda Hoffman Pugh's criminal 0195 1 case. 2 MR. HOFFMAN: Sorry, you're wrong. 3 I'm sorry, you're wrong. When you went -- 4 MR. WOOD: I'm sure you're 100 5 percent certain like this guy sitting across the 6 table is. 7 MR. HOFFMAN: If I was supposed to 8 be out of here, I would have been out on that 9 motion to dismiss, but you guys -- 10 MR. WOOD: You got by that motion 11 to dismiss by the thinnest of threads, only 12 because you were willing to plead anything, 13 despite the fact that you can't prove it. 14 MR. HOFFMAN: And the judge paid me 15 the complement of actually quoting extensively 16 from my brief. 17 MR. WOOD: I don't think the judge 18 paid you any complements. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm here, and all 20 I can tell you -- 21 MR. WOOD: You're here and you 22 haven't even bought the deposition -- 23 MR. HOFFMAN: And you guys couldn't 24 do what 95 percent of the lawyers in 25 America -- 0196 1 MR. WOOD: You're so proud of Patsy 2 Ramsey's deposition, you haven't even bothered to 3 pay for it. You haven't even paid the court 4 reporter for taking it down yet. 5 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, who cares -- 6 MR. WOOD: You haven't even paid the 7 court reporter for taking down Patsy Ramsey's 8 deposition. 9 MR. HOFFMAN: All right, so what? 10 MR. WOOD: You never got a copy of 11 it. I thought you were proud of it. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: So what's your 13 problem? 14 MR. WOOD: You don't have the money 15 to pay for it. It's a frivolous lawsuit filed 16 by a frivolous lawyer and you don't even have 17 the money to pay to come down and sit with 18 your own deposition witness. You never even met 19 your own client. 20 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, don't talk 21 to me about frivolity and the fact that I had 22 to go to an expert because your daughter had a 23 horse show that you had to attend and you 24 couldn't be a real lawyer over a weekend, you 25 actually had to twist everything into God knows 0197 1 what in order to be able to -- 2 MR. WOOD: I just wanted to make 3 damned sure that I would be there in Nebraska 4 to shred Robert Stratbucker. 5 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your family 6 outings -- 7 MR. WOOD: I'm going to eat him 8 alive. Be there. Be there, okay. Guess 9 what? I'm going to be at my daughter's horse 10 show and I'm also going to be in Omaha, 11 Nebraska to rip Stratbucker a new rear end, and 12 I bet you what, you aren't going to be there. 13 You ain't going to bother to be 14 there, neither is Evan Altman, because you don't 15 have the money and you're not willing to spend 16 the money on this frivolous case. You got 17 that? I'll see you in Omaha. Are you going 18 to be there or are you going to show up by 19 telephone? 20 MR. HOFFMAN: How can I not miss 21 this invitation to be in Omaha? Okay? 22 MR. WOOD: You be there. You be 23 there. I bet you a thousand dollars you won't 24 be there. Want to bet? 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin -- 0198 1 MR. WOOD: Because you're afraid to 2 fly. 3 MR. HOFFMAN: -- I would never, 4 never bet you, you know better than that. 5 MR. WOOD: You're afraid to fly; 6 aren't you? That's what you told Susan Bennett 7 -- Jamison. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: I liked the AirTran to 9 Atlanta, I told you that when I got there. 10 MR. WOOD: It looked like you were 11 scared to death. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: Only of you, Lin. 13 You frighten me. 14 MR. WOOD: Well, that may be the 15 only smart damned thing you've said since I laid 16 eyes on you the first time. All right, I've 17 vented enough. 18 All I'm saying is this: I don't 19 intend to sit here and listen to you lecture me 20 one damned second about how to take a 21 deposition. I know more about taking 22 depositions on the thumbnail of my right thumb 23 than you'll ever learn in your damn life. Do 24 we understand each other? 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I'll just have to 0199 1 take your word on that one. 2 MR. WOOD: You can take the word of 3 anybody that's ever had the opportunity to go up 4 against me in a courtroom. I'll talk to people 5 you've -- if we can find somebody. 6 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, this sounds like 7 rank speculation on your part. Just drop it. 8 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you 9 something, if I am lucky enough, you will have 10 your day with me, sir. 11 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I hope so, and I 12 hope -- 13 MR. WOOD: And it will be the 14 pleasure of my career when I take you down, and 15 that day may yet come because you still run 16 your mouth to the media so much that you're 17 going to get yourself sued eventually, you're 18 going to get your experts sued eventually, so 19 you just keep the business coming, Darnay. It's 20 really good for my pocketbook. I'm taking a 21 recess. 22 MR. HOFFMAN: I know in this case 23 that the Ramseys aren't paying a penny, the 24 insurance company is paying you finally, okay, 25 which is nice -- 0200 1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money 2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in 3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay. 4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling 5 for chump change, which you've done in all these 6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a 7 decent -- 8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in 9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire 10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that? 11 MR. HOFFMAN: You mean you've made 12 more than a hundred dollars? 13 MR. WOOD: Yes, I have made for 14 than a hundred dollars, Darnay. 15 MR. HOFFMAN: -- in this case. 16 Well, good. 17 MR. WOOD: I'd just like to know 18 the poor person that paid you the hundred 19 dollars. Maybe we'd have a good legal 20 malpractice claim. 21 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Are we 22 ready? 23 MR. RAWLS: Do we want to take a 24 short recess? 25 MR. ALTMAN: Maybe we ought to. 0201 1 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, if you'd like to, 2 that's fine. 3 Jim, just one thing I just want to 4 say. If at any point during my questioning or 5 whatever I'm in an area that you feel is 6 inappropriate, just simply tell me and I'll move 7 on. 8 MR. RAWLS: I guarantee you I will 9 do that. 10 MR. HOFFMAN: I appreciate the 11 courtesy you're extending me. And if there 12 becomes an issue as to how this is used in 13 court or whatever, just simply raise the 14 objection with the judge and that will certainly 15 settle the issue too, okay? We'll leave it 16 like that. 17 MR. RAWLS: Indeed, for now we will, 18 and let's have a brief recess. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 21 4:16 p.m. 22 (Recess). 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the 24 record, 4:21 p.m. 25 // 0202 1 EXAMINATION 2 BY-MR.HOFFMAN: 3 Q. Okay, Mr. Epstein, there is an area 4 in handwriting which is probably considered one 5 of the most important areas, which states this 6 proposition, that even though you may find 7 similarities, maybe even significant similarities 8 between a questioned document and known documents 9 of a particular author, that there can be 10 significant differences between the writings to 11 thereby allow the elimination of the author in 12 question. 13 Did you find that to be true in 14 this particular case when you looked at the 15 handwriting exemplars of Patsy Ramsey and the 16 ransom note? 17 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, I'll note an 18 objection as to form, and I do think this is 19 exactly what you are not entitled to do. 20 MR. HOFFMAN: Then I won't. You 21 asked earlier about the differences and the 22 distinction. Then I won't go into it if this 23 is an area that you think he is not called 24 for, in terms of your other area. 25 Can I ask him this question: With 0203 1 respect to when you look at handwriting and you 2 look for what you'd call significant characters 3 or connections or whatever, do you look for any 4 particular number of similarities to have any 5 confidence in your conclusions? 6 MR. RAWLS: That too, Darnay, in my 7 view, is the conduct of a direct examination, 8 and I don't think it's appropriate. 9 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, because in 10 answering a question of yours he had actually 11 used the term significant characteristics or 12 whatever, okay? All right, let me go into this 13 area. 14 BY MR. HOFFMAN: 15 Q. You were asked about the element of 16 stress versus disguise in terms of poor quality 17 handwriting, I think you were asked very early 18 on in that, and I want to ask you if you drew 19 any conclusion with respect to whether or not 20 Patsy -- the ransom note writer, I should say 21 this, showed any stress in their writing. 22 MR. RAWLS: And I must agree, this 23 is a question of clarification of something I 24 asked, and I have no objection to that question. 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, very good. 0204 1 A. And in answer to that question, I 2 never totally excluded the possibility that 3 stress was a part of what line quality was 4 composed of, because I don't know that any two 5 people under stress would react in the same way 6 to where you could say that you are totally -- 7 can be totally familiar with how a person's line 8 quality will look when under stress. 9 But I felt that the elements of 10 disguise were much more prominent and were more 11 consistent with those elements of disguise that 12 are normally identified to where that was the 13 prominent reason for the line quality being as 14 it was. 15 Q. I think that when you talked about 16 disguise you talked about it in explaining the 17 poor line quality that you noted in the 18 handwriting; is that true? 19 A. Yes, that's right. And actually, 20 even in the exemplars, in the exemplars that are 21 given by Patsy Ramsey, those exemplars are not 22 written as rapidly and as smoothly as she would 23 normally write in her normal course of business. 24 Is that intentional? It may well be 25 somewhat intentional, because she is certainly 0205 1 conscious of the exemplar writing phase and she 2 may still be attempting to alter some of the 3 habits that she knows she does, but on the 4 other hand it could also be the element of 5 stress that's injected at that time when someone 6 is being asked to provide handwriting samples in 7 a situation such as this. 8 The point is the handwriting in the 9 exemplars is not as naturally and freely and -- 10 freely executed as a normal course of business 11 writing that she would have done. 12 MR. RAWLS: I'll object to the 13 responsiveness of the answer after the words, 14 "Yes, that's right." 15 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. 16 Q. Now, with respect to today's 17 deposition or whatever, you haven't been asked 18 to show any of your exhibits; is that correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Okay. Have you attended many 21 depositions in the past? 22 A. I attended one just last week, and 23 over the years I've attended a number of them, 24 yes. 25 Q. In all of those depositions that you 0206 1 remember, were you asked to show your charts and 2 comment on them? 3 A. I was asked to certainly show what I 4 was going to testify to and to illustrate and 5 actually provide copies of what those 6 illustrations would be, yes. 7 Q. And were you actually questioned at 8 that time about your charts and asked to 9 actually give demonstrations with them? 10 A. I was asked to illustrate what it 11 was that I would demonstrated it at the time of 12 testimony. 13 Q. Using your charts? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. But you weren't asked that today; 16 were you? 17 A. I was not. 18 Q. Is this the first time this has ever 19 happened? 20 A. To the best of my recollection, it's 21 an unusual situation. If it has happened 22 before, I don't recall it. 23 Q. All right. And are you aware that 24 on Monday Cina testified for seven hours and was 25 not asked to demonstrate any of her charts? 0207 1 A. The whole thing about Cina is a 2 total surprise to me. 3 Q. Okay. But would you be surprised to 4 hear that Cina was not asked to demonstrate any 5 of her charts at that deposition? 6 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. 7 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to a 8 concept called blow smoke, is that a term of 9 art that you've actually heard in the 10 handwriting profession? 11 A. It's often used in the handwriting 12 profession when a document examiner comes into a 13 case simply to cast doubt or dispersions on a 14 particular finding, primarily to inject out into 15 the minds of the jury or to attempt to add 16 some sort of confusion to the case, without 17 specifically saying that the previous examiner 18 was wrong, in other words, they simply say there 19 wasn't enough evidence or the evidence was not 20 comparable, that kind of thing. So they -- the 21 term blowing smoke comes from that particular 22 type of testimony, if you will. 23 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, I can understand 24 your thoughtful questions to the witness about 25 my not having asked him to go over his own 0208 1 exhibits, his own charts, and the same of Cina 2 Wong. I know you're trying to help me learn 3 how to become a cross-examining counsel. 4 But I must say that I find no 5 purpose at all in the deposition record today in 6 the questions that I asked this witness for any 7 concept about blowing smoke. 8 I had that reaction to your 9 question, and that reaction is even more 10 profound having listened to the answer. 11 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, look, I'll tell 12 you what my followup question is to that, 13 because that sets up -- lays the foundation for 14 the next question, which is -- and if you don't 15 want him to go into this area we'll just talk 16 about it. 17 BY MR. HOFFMAN: 18 Q. Did you find any examples of blowing 19 smoke in either the report of Howard Rile or 20 Lloyd Cunningham. 21 MR. RAWLS: I object to this as 22 having no basis whatsoever in anything covered 23 today; as being a blatant effort to attempt to 24 take this deposition, for all of which we have 25 paid for, for none of which you have paid for, 0209 1 and to turn it into a piece of direct evidence 2 to use to attempt to impeach our two experts. 3 And, Darnay, with respect to our two 4 experts, not only have you failed to show them 5 any exhibits, including yours or their own, but 6 you've told us you don't even plan to take 7 their deposition testimony. So if you want to 8 impeach them, I suggest that you reconsider, and 9 you try to do that with the use of their own 10 testimony. 11 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, I would have 12 said the same thing with Cina Wong, but 13 apparently you wanted to use the deposition 14 testimony of Gideon to impeach her yourself, so 15 I think -- 16 MR. RAWLS: Well, and I had a lot 17 of trouble with that as well. 18 MR. WOOD: Took awhile for him to 19 get there; didn't it? 20 MR. RAWLS: But, Darnay, I remind 21 you, I paid for the time of this witness, and 22 I asked questions that were proper. If I had 23 not, you would have objected to them. So I do 24 object to this line that you're now pursuing. 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, well, then I 0210 1 won't continue in that line, all right? I'm 2 going to ask Gideon another question with 3 respect to the -- some of the earlier experts 4 that you were asked to comment on. 5 BY MR. HOFFMAN: 6 Q. You were asked to comment on Cina 7 Wong and her qualifications, and from what I 8 understand you do not believe she's a qualified 9 document examiner within your understanding of 10 that term used in your field; is that correct? 11 A. Within the requirements that the 12 profession has laid down. 13 Q. Do you feel her conclusions were 14 wrong with respect to her identifying Patsy 15 Ramsey as the ransom note writer? 16 A. No, I don't believe that her 17 conclusions were wrong. But, you know, this is 18 something that we certainly discussed earlier, 19 and, you know, how a person reaches those 20 conclusions and how they support those 21 conclusions is just as important as the 22 conclusions themselves. 23 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to David 24 Leibman, I think you were also asked about David 25 Leibman's professional credentials and I believe 0211 1 you also said that you didn't feel that he met 2 the credentials that you believe the profession 3 has established; is that correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. But do you feel that David Leibman 6 arrived at the wrong conclusion when he 7 concluded that Patsy Ramsey was, in fact, the 8 ransom note writer? 9 A. No, I don't believe he reached the 10 wrong conclusion. 11 Q. Were you aware of a report by a 12 Donald Lacy that was attached as an exhibit, I 13 believe, to the complaint? 14 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, I don't believe 15 the name Donald Lacy came up today before now. 16 MR. HOFFMAN: I wasn't sure whether 17 it had or hadn't, because I know that you had 18 talked about the other handwriting experts in 19 the case and I wasn't sure whether I had heard 20 his name or not. If you didn't mention his 21 name then I won't continue along those lines. 22 MR. WOOD: Lacy's one of the 23 graphologists? 24 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, he likes to 25 think of himself as a questioned document 0212 1 examiner, but you know how people are with that. 2 BY MR. HOFFMAN: 3 Q. I'll just ask for some clarification. 4 You were asked very specifically toward the end 5 of your deposition examination here about some 6 of the professionals that you had contacted 7 regarding their involvement in the case. Do you 8 remember that? 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 Q. Do you remember you were asked to 11 name some of them, and one of which you named 12 was Dick Williams or Richard Williams? 13 A. Yes, that's correct. 14 Q. Okay, now, I wasn't clear what it 15 was that you were saying. Did you say that 16 Richard Williams had actually reached a 17 conclusion in this case? 18 A. Richard Williams at one time was 19 willing to come into the case because he 20 believed that the conclusions that we had 21 reached were the correct conclusions. 22 Q. Which was? 23 A. That the ransom note was written by 24 Patsy Ramsey. 25 Q. And that is the same conclusion that 0213 1 Larry Zieglar had reached; is that correct? 2 A. That's the same conclusion that Larry 3 Zieglar had reached, that's correct. 4 Q. Let's see. I think I'm coming to 5 the end of my list here. 6 Oh, okay, you were also asked about 7 the district attorney's office and how hard this 8 type of decision making could be, and I believe 9 you were asked also whether or not they had 10 been wise in availing themselves of questioned 11 document examiners. 12 Were you surprised that you never 13 heard anything from the district attorney's 14 office after you had contacted them with your 15 credentials and your letter offering to help 16 them pro bono? 17 A. I wasn't really that surprised, 18 because so many crackpots have come out of the 19 woodwork in this case that I assume that they 20 just considered me another one of them, and 21 maybe if I had been one of the district 22 attorneys and been exposed to what they had been 23 exposed to I may have taken the same action. 24 But I would have liked to have heard from them, 25 but I wasn't totally surprised that I didn't. 0214 1 Q. See, I haven't seen your letter. 2 Was there anything in your letter indicating 3 that you were actually, in fact, something other 4 than a crackpot, like a qualified document 5 examiner? 6 A. I attached my CV, but that doesn't 7 mean that it was read. 8 MR. WOOD: Did he say anything in 9 the letter about being hired by you? 10 MR. HOFFMAN: Case closed there. 11 MR. WOOD: You're right about that. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, gentlemen, I've 13 had my fun, so to speak, and I've finished the 14 questioning of Mr. Epstein. 15 Jim, if you have any other 16 questions, please, at this point. 17 MR. RAWLS: Thank you for that 18 invitation, Darnay. We're completed. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Great. 20 MR. ALTMAN: Darnay, could we have 21 about two minutes? 22 MR. HOFFMAN: Sure. 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 24 4:35 p.m. 25 (Recess). 0215 1 MR. HOFFMAN: I've had an 2 opportunity to talk with Evan and with Gideon. 3 We're finished as far as our questioning is 4 concerned, so unless you have other questions 5 we're prepared to end the deposition whenever 6 you are. 7 MR. RAWLS: Well, I just want to 8 know, the conversation you just had with Evan 9 and with Mr. Epstein, was that on my nickel? 10 MR. HOFFMAN: I hope not. 11 MR. ALTMAN: It certainly wasn't 12 being recorded. 13 MR. RAWLS: Well, I move to strike 14 it. 15 I think we're all done. Thank you, 16 let's go off the record. 17 (WHEREUPON, the deposition was 18 concluded.) 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0216 1 STATE OF GEORGIA: 2 COUNTY OF FULTON: 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 4 transcript was reported, as stated in the 5 caption, and the questions and answers 6 thereto were reduced to typewriting under my 7 direction; that the foregoing pages represent 8 a true, complete, and correct transcript of 9 the evidence given upon said hearing, and I 10 further certify that I am not of kin or 11 counsel to the parties in the case; am not 12 in the employ of counsel for any of said 13 parties; nor am I in anywise interested in 14 the result of said case. 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0217 1 Disclosure Pursuant to Article 2 8(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the 3 Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial 4 Council of Georgia, I make the following 5 disclosure: 6 I am a Georgia Certified Court 7 Reporter, here as a representative of 8 Alexander Gallo & Associates, Inc., to report 9 the foregoing matter. Alexander Gallo & 10 Associates, Inc., is not taking this 11 deposition under any contract that is 12 prohibited by O.C.G.A. 5-14-37 (a) and (b). 13 Alexander Gallo & Associates, 14 Inc., will be charging its usual and 15 customary rates for this transcript. 16 . 17 . 18 19 VALERIE N. ALMAND, CCR-B-531 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0218 1 CAPTION 2 The Deposition of Gideon Epstein, 3 taken in the matter, on the date, and at the 4 time and place set out on the title page 5 hereof. 6 It was requested that the deposition 7 be taken by the reporter and that same be 8 reduced to typewritten form. 9 It was agreed by and between counsel 10 and the parties that the Deponent will read 11 and sign the transcript of said deposition. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0219 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF : 3 COUNTY/CITY OF : 4 Before me, this day, personally 5 appeared, Gideon Epstein, who, being duly 6 sworn, states that the foregoing transcript 7 of his/her Deposition, taken in the matter, 8 on the date, and at the time and place set 9 out on the title page hereof, constitutes a 10 true and accurate transcript of said 11 deposition. 12 13 Gideon Epstein 14 . 15 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 16 day of , 2002 in the 17 jurisdiction aforesaid. 18 19 My Commission Expires Notary Public 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 0220 1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 . 3 RE: Alexander Gallo & Associates 4 File No. 1637 5 Case Caption: Robert Christian Wolf vs. 6 John and Patricia Ramsey 7 Deponent: Gideon Epstein 8 Deposition Date: May 17, 2002 9 . 10 To the Reporter: 11 I have read the entire transcript of my 12 Deposition taken in the captioned matter or 13 the same has been read to me. I request 14 that the following changes be entered upon 15 the record for the reasons indicated. I 16 have signed my name to the Errata Sheet and 17 the appropriate Certificate and authorize you 18 to attach both to the original transcript. 19 . 20 Page No. Line No. Change to: 21 22 Reason for change: 23 Page No. Line No. Change to: 24 25 Reason for change: 0221 1 Page No. Line No. Change to: 2 3 Reason for change: 4 Page No. Line No. Change to: 5 6 Reason for change: 7 Page No. Line No. Change to: 8 9 Reason for change: 10 Deposition of Gideon Epstein 11 . 12 Page No. Line No. Change to: 13 14 Reason for change: 15 Page No. Line No. Change to: 16 17 Reason for change: 18 Page No. Line No. Change to: 19 20 Reason for change: 21 Page No. Line No. Change to: 22 23 Reason for change: 24 Page No. Line No. Change to: 25 0222 1 Reason for change: 2 Page No. Line No. Change to: 3 4 Reason for change: 5 . 6 . 7 SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ 8 Gideon Epstein 9 .