Victim’s Pick Is Ruled Out as Accomplice : Robbery: The Sheriff’s Department has all but dismissed the possibility that a second deputy was involved in the bizarre incident in which an officer was slain by his friend and colleague.

A San Diego County sheriff’s deputy identified as a possible accomplice in an attempted armed robbery of an Encinitas home by another officer has an “ironclad alibi” and has been ruled out as a suspect, investigators have told the victim and his attorney.

As a result, the Sheriff’s Department has all but dismissed the possibility that a second officer was involved in the bizarre robbery attempt Wednesday in which Deputy Michael Stanewich was fatally shot by another deputy while beating Donald Van Ort.

Van Ort, 32, has asserted that Stanewich was accompanied by another man who was among a group of six plainclothes deputies who searched his home for narcotics May 30. He described the man as having a slight build with a dark complexion and long hair.

On Wednesday, Stanewich entered Van Ort’s Encinitas home at gunpoint, Van Ort said, as the accomplice fled. The 10-year-veteran then pulled a stocking over his head and hogtied both Van Ort and his 82-year-old grandmother, Van Ort said, and began to beat Van Ort and doused him with lighter fluid.

In the midst of the assault, Gary Steadman, a fellow officer from the Encinitas substation, arrived at the scene and shot Stanewich, only to discover after pulling off the mask that he had killed a longtime friend.

On Friday night, Van Ort was asked to go to the Encinitas station to try and identify the accomplice, according to August Anderson, Van Ort’s attorney. For about 10 minutes, he scanned five sets of five photographs, each of which contained one of the deputies who participated in the search, along with “filler” photos of other officers.

Van Ort was able to identify each of the five deputies, although he was asked to choose only the man who looked most like the one he saw with Stanewich that day.

He pointed to one of the deputies and was asked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being absolute certainty, whether he had selected the right man. He chose the number 5, according to Anderson.

Investigators left the room for half an hour, Anderson said, and when they returned, they told Anderson and her client that the deputy Van Ort had chosen had been under investigation for his alleged role in the crime but that he had provided an alibi and was not a suspect.

Sheriff’s spokesman Dan Greenblat said Saturday that investigators have “eliminated any deputies as suspects,” barring extraordinary new evidence. He confirmed that Van Ort had identified a deputy who had an “ironclad” excuse, although he would not describe the officer’s alibi.

Anderson, who Friday called for an independent federal investigation of the incident, said Saturday that she was surprised and disappointed that the Sheriff’s Department was close to concluding that another deputy was not involved.

“From my standpoint, they are not being thorough enough in this case,” she said. “I can’t say without a doubt that I believe the deputy (Van Ort identified) has an alibi. We have lives in danger here, and they have done nothing to protect us.”

After holding a news conference Friday to say that Van Ort had discovered new physical evidence in the case that investigators overlooked--a rake, shovel, vial and matches--Anderson said she had been admonished by sheriff’s officials not to speak with the media.

“We told them that talking to the press was the only way of assuring that we’d stay alive,” she said. “I don’t trust the Sheriff’s Department as far as I can throw them. I felt horrendous turning over evidence to them. I wanted to turn it over to anyone else except them.”

A source close to the investigation who requested anonymity said the department is infuriated with Van Ort and the two news conferences he has held so far, one claiming he saw a second deputy at the scene and the other to denounce the investigation.

“He and his attorney have done a lot of public relations damage to the department,” the source said. “The department has been treated shabbily.”

Anderson and Van Ort are also upset that investigators took so long to question Julie Malone, Van Ort’s former girlfriend, whom he has accused of persuading detectives to search his home in May. Van Ort has also suggested that Stanewich and Malone may have known each other.

Van Ort was arrested in 1989 for beating Malone, pleaded guilty and spent eight months in County Jail at Vista. Malone suffered a concussion, broken hand, crushed larynx, dislocated jaw and bite marks on her face and body, according to the sheriff’s investigation of the case.

Malone’s attorney, Bradley Hallen, said she spent three days in the hospital and has undergone surgery three times because of the assault.

Van Ort also settled a civil suit with Malone for $75,000 over the incident.

Through Hallen, Malone has denied any involvement in the department’s narcotics search or knowing Stanewich. Sheriff’s officials said they know of no relationship between Malone and the department or its deputies.

Anderson said investigators interviewed Malone only Friday, two days after the armed robbery attempt, and “got to her five minutes before the press did. I don’t know how thorough an investigation that was.”

Meanwhile, Van Ort has stayed away from the home he and his grandmother have shared for several years for fear that the accomplice will return to harm them.

With rope burns still on his face, Van Ort said Friday that Stanewich was the lead detective in the visit by six plainclothes officers May 30.

He said the detective wanted to look into his safe because of an anonymous tip that drugs were inside.

Van Ort opened the safe without revealing the combination and allowed Stanewich to look at its contents--about $100,000 in cash, some rings and family heirlooms. No drugs were found. Later, he changed the lock on the safe and moved some of the money because he feared the detective might return, Anderson said.

The day after the search, Van Ort said he caught Stanewich on his property and that when confronted, the deputy said he was there to let Van Ort know there was no urinalysis report in his probation report. After the matter had been resolved and Stanewich left, Van Ort said, he noticed the back screen door had been pried open.

During Wednesday’s attack, Stanewich demanded the combination to the safe as he handcuffed Van Ort to a chair, drew a pillowcase over his head and doused both Van Ort and his grandmother with lighter fluid from a syringe. The grandmother threw a set of matches in a drawer before Stanewich could notice, Van Ort said.