**Begin Transcript**
INT: For the record, what is your name?
SUB: William Scott Armstrong, Jr.
INT: Are you aware that this conversation is recorded?
SUB: Yes.
INT: Are you aware that you have the right to an attorney present?
SUB: Miss, I am an attorney. I know my rights.
INT: Regulations. We have to do that.
SUB: I understand.
INT: What is your relation to the deceased, Daniel Mathers?
SUB: I was his immediate supervisor.
INT: How long did Mr. Mathers work for you?
SUB: Approximately seven years. Six and a half, to be precise.
INT: What was his position?
SUB: He was a junior member of the firm. Well on his way to becoming a partner. He was quite the go-getter, too - billed more hours than anyone else in the firm.
INT: What branch of the law did Mr. Mathers practice?
SUB: Divorce law and estate law.
INT: All right, that was the easy part. ::chuckling in background:: I'm going to ask some more personal questions about Mr. Mathers. Is that all right with you?
SUB: Shoot
.
INT: Did he ever exhibit signs of inappropriate behavior in the office? Did he ever come in to work intoxicated, or with a hangover?
SUB: He did have a tendency to hit the bottle when he was in a blue funk, but he never took it to work with him. I only saw him drunk once, and that was when his wife left him.
INT: Does this workplace have a policy regarding drug abuse?
SUB: Yes; we reserve the right to administer random urine tests of employees whom we suspect of illicit drug use.
INT: Was Mr. Mathers ever tested?
SUB: Once, at the same time his wife left.
INT: What were the results of that test?
SUB: It was negative.
INT: Did you ever hear of him having any romantic affairs, extra-marital or otherwise?
SUB: Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Dan Mathers being murdered?
INT: We're trying to build a picture of him so we can determine if anyone would target him, like a jealous girlfriend or a drug dealer, someone he may have owed money to.
SUB: ::long pause:: No, not that I can think of. His wife left him for another attorney, someone making more money than he was. You know how it is.
INT: Can you think of anyone he represented in the past who would hold a grudge against him?
SUB: ::long pause:: Yes, there was one incident. A woman he represented in divorce proceedings a year ago threatened to sue the whole firm over a misunderstanding about alimony. Her name was Emily Carlson - but she may have gone back to her maiden name now.
INT: Can you remember what her maiden name was?
SUB: Hansen. Emily Hansen.
INT: Why did she threaten suit?
SUB: She felt that we had cheated her out of a fair alimony payment.
INT: And what did she consider "fair"? Five, maybe six hundred a month?
SUB: ::laughing:: Oh, you're not even in the ballpark. She wanted over three thousand a month from this man.
INT: Three thousand? That's absurd, unless her ex-husband was very wealthy.
SUB: He was many things, but wealthy was something he definitely wasn't.
INT: That about wraps it up, then. Thank you for your time, sir.
SUB: It was my pleasure. And on a personal note, I hope you catch whoever did this.
INT: We'll do our best, sir.
**End Transcript**
(To Return Back to "Cold as Ice" sim summary click here.)