Custer County Sheriff Lloyd “Rich” Smith had never publicly admitted or denied that Officer Sergeant Pete Elliott had used anonymous Facebook accounts to libel and possibly intimidate a witness. On November 4, 2025 the Tribune published an exposé on how Sergeant Pete Elliott had used two anonymous Facebook accounts to libel and possibly tamper with a key witness in the Hanme Clark triple murder trial.
While the Tribune had repeatedly reached out to the District Attorney’s Office (DA) and the Custer County Sheriff’s Office, neither had publicly stated if they had performed an investigation into the matter or confirmed or denied the Tribune’s allegations officially. New court records now show that not only did the Sheriff and District Attorney know about Sergeant Elliott’s actions, but they decided to bury that admission, hoping that public attention about the incident would “die down.”
The records show that on November 3, Sheriff Smith sent an email to Custer County Attorney Dan Slater stating, “The Tribune published another article that contains inaccurate information. Below is my draft response, which I sent to the DA for review as well.” The email included a copy of the Tribune article.
The Sheriff’s introduction states that the November 4 Tribune article contained inaccurate information: “The Wet Mountain Tribune’s recent article concerning Sergeant Pete Elliott and the Custer County Sheriff’s Office contains several factual errors and misleading implications that deserve correction. While we respect the role of the free press, the public also deserves accurate reporting supported by verifiable evidence.”
The Sheriff’s draft response then admits that Sergeant Elliott was indeed behind the anonymous Facebook attacks against a key witness, and former Custer County Deputy, Sergeant Jason Salbato. “First, it is true that Sergeant Pete Elliott posted critical remarks about the Tribune’s coverage on social media. Those comments, however, were not an official statement of the Custer County Sheriff’s Office. Sergeant Elliott acted in his individual capacity, and as a private citizen, he is protected under the First Amendment to express his personal opinions. While the tone of those posts is regrettable, conflating an individual’s opinion with an institutional directive is simply false.” Elliott was not the only one to attack Salbato on Facebook; Brian Harris, who is the husband of Under Sheriff Susan Barnes, joined in the libel against Salbato. The Sheriff also noticeably declined to address the many lies Sergeant Elliott had published in his attacks.
The Sheriff’s rebuttal continues, claiming that it had no knowledge of what Sergeant Elliott intended to write and did not approve of his actions beforehand. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office defended the arrest and firing of former Deputy Jason Salbato even though a court had tossed the case after discovery violations and an overall lack of evidence against Salbato (the Sheriff’s complete draft statement and email chain is published in full on page five of the December 18 print edition).
District Attorney Jeff Lindsey responded to Sheriff Smith’s draft rebuttal and suggested that by publishing a rebuttal, it would just fuel interest in what the Tribune’s investigation had revealed. “I am generally not in favor of responding to this but will leave it with you, Sheriff Smith. My thought is that if you respond, you cause more people to read the initial story instead of letting it die down. My best guess is that Hedberg is baiting you into an argument which he would control since he has the power of the press. These are the types of articles he writes to create more press, which will undoubtedly come from him.” The email ends with District Attorney Lindsey correcting the Sheriff on an error the Sheriff made about Brady Letters.
Sheriff Smith responded, stating, “ok thank you. I wont respond for now.”
What Sheriff Smith and Jeff Lindsey did not know on November 4 was that the defense teams for Hanme Clark and his co-defendant and partner Nancy Rae Medina-Kochis would quickly file Motions for Discovery Violations and ask the court to punish the District Attorney’s Office (and by extension the Custer County Sheriff’s Office) for its ongoing discovery violations. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution protect people in the United States from tyrannical government prosecution. Those accused have the right to face their accusers and to have access to the evidence that is being used to support those allegations through due process. The District Attorney’s Office under Linda Stanley and now Jeff Lindsey (who had worked for a time under Stanley) has continued to violate these basic rules of judicial proceedings. It should be noted that discovery violations are very unusual in the rest of the state.
District Court Judge Lauren Swan, during a hearing on Monday, December 8, expressed concern that Sergeant Elliott’s actions were akin to “witness tampering” and that the matter would likely be the subject of a hearing on December 18.
Both Sheriff Smith and District Attorney Lindsey ran on campaigns of trust, transparency, and courage, pledging not to hide information from the public for personal or political reasons. Of course, there is information that neither man can publicly share during a trial or investigation due to ethical rules and state laws; however, the suppression of knowledge regarding Sergeant Elliott seems to be a breach of their public pledges.
The Tribune will provide an update to the court hearing regarding the matter at a later date. This author has been subpoenaed to testify at the hearing regarding Sergeant Elliott’s actions.
-Jordan Hedberg
To read the original Exposé click the photo below
