DNA Dispute In Laci Case

CBS News ^ | Oct 30, 2003

[runningbear]

DNA Dispute In Laci Case

Scott Peterson enters the courtroom in Stanislaus County Superior Court in Modesto, Calif., Friday, Oct. 24, 2003. (Photo: AP)

DNA Dispute In Laci Case

MODESTO, Calif., Oct. 30, 2003

Peterson Hearing Opens

The hair, found in a pair of pliers on the boat Scott Peterson took fishing the day his wife disappeared, matched a genetic sample from Laci Peterson's mother, an FBI expert testified Wednesday, the first day of the preliminary hearing.

(CBS/AP) As Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing resumes in Modesto, California Thursday, disputed DNA evidence will likely be the center of attention.

The hearing will determine whether he must stand trial for the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson.

On Wednesday, both sides disputed the type of DNA test that prosecutors say proves a hair found in his boat was Laci Peterson's.

The hair, found in a pair of pliers on the boat Scott Peterson took fishing the day his wife disappeared, matched a genetic sample from Laci Peterson's mother, an FBI expert testified Wednesday, the first day of the preliminary hearing.

For much of the day inside a packed courtroom, FBI lab supervisor Constance Fisher testified about the controversial method of DNA analysis she specializes in that can show a genetic match between a mother and child.

She testified that a one-inch strand of hair found on pliers in the boat did not match Scott Peterson, but did match a swab of DNA taken from the mouth of his mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha.

Defense lawyer Mark Geragos is challenging the admissibility of the testimony, saying the analysis was the subject of a "raging debate" in the scientific community and suggesting that the hair sample may have been contaminated or tampered with by law enforcement.

The technique has not been widely accepted in courts, and it was only ruled admissible once in a California state court, in the case of an accused murderer in San Diego.

With the exception of a brief mention of Laci Peterson's family at the start of the hearing, the 27-year-old substitute teacher's name was never uttered again during the daylong hearing in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

The hearing is expected to last into next week, after which Judge Al Girolami will decide if Peterson is tried on two counts of murder that could lead to the death penalty.

While the proceedings are expected to reveal the broadest and most detailed look at the case police built against the 31-year-old former..............

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peterson will put on DNA expert

Posted 11/2/2003 11:11 PM Updated 11/3/2003 7:17 AM

Peterson will put on DNA expert

By John Ritter, USA TODAY

MODESTO, Calif. — Could a single strand of hair be the smoking gun in the Laci Peterson murder case?

Scott Peterson's attorney wants hair evidence kept out of the case. By Al Golub, pool

Seems possible after most of last week's testimony centered on that hair. If it wasn't important, why did Scott Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos, spend seven hours grilling an FBI scientist on the nitty-gritty of DNA analysis?

And why, after all that, will he put his own DNA expert on the stand this week to try to persuade Judge Al Girolami to reject the hair as evidence?

Only the defense knows. But legal analysts caution that what seems compelling in this preliminary hearing — an early phase of Scott Peterson's battle to beat a double-murder charge and stay off death row — may not be later.

Geragos may believe the hair is a key to prosecutors' theory that Peterson killed his wife and dumped her body in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve. Prosecutors will try to prove the hair was Laci Peterson's and ended up in the boat after she was dead. A clash this week may be over whether Laci had ever been on her husband's recently purchased boat. If prosecutors can show she hadn't, the hair might seem even more damaging.

Geragos is fighting aggressively to keep the hair away from a future jury. Failing that, another strategy "may be to make the hair seem like a bigger deal than it is," says Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. "Then if he can knock the hair out, it sounds like he knocked out the case."

But the hair may not be crucial — even to prosecutors. Their goal is to convince the judge to hold Peterson for trial, not to present their whole case. They may save their best evidence, including blood, witness statements or wiretaps.

In the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder case, a knife prominent in the preliminary hearing barely came up at trial. "It was a big red herring," Levenson says. "This hair could end up the big red herring."

Even if prosecutors David Harris and Rick Distaso consider other evidence more critical to a conviction, they may feel pressure to offer hair as scientific evidence.

"If they go to trial in a case of this magnitude without impressive scientific testimony, some jurors may be disappointed," says Ed Imwinkelried, a law professor at the University of California-Davis. Disappointed jurors could spell acquittal, he says.

Even though the DNA analysis at issue is new to most courts, judges almost always have allowed it as evidence in cases where it has been argued, Imwinkelried says.

Knowing that, Geragos may be trying to get the judge to limit how far a prosecution witness can go in attaching importance to the DNA..............

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNA at Center of Laci Peterson Hearings

DNA at Center of Laci Peterson Hearings

Monday November 3, 2003 12:46 PM

By JIM WASSERMAN

Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Defense attorneys in the Scott Peterson trial have called mitochondrial DNA evidence questionable science, frustrating experts and putting under a microscope what has become a mainstream tool of American justice.

Mitochondrial DNA, the genetic identification method cited last week in Peterson's preliminary hearing, has been used hundreds of times in the nation's courtrooms, helping convict the guilty and free the innocent, experts say.

It first appeared in a sensational 1996 Tennessee murder trial, but it has been used less frequently in California, which has higher barriers for new evidentiary techniques.

Prosecutors in the Peterson case are using mitochondrial DNA to make a case that a human hair found in pliers in Peterson's boat came from his wife, Laci, whom he is accused of killing last year.

The evidence is key to a possible prosecution argument that Peterson used the boat to ferry his pregnant wife's body to a watery grave on the day she disappeared from their Modesto home. Peterson, 31, is now charged with murder in the deaths of his 27-year-old wife and their unborn son.

Mark Geragos, Peterson's attorney, has attacked the mitochondrial DNA evidence, calling it the unreliable subject of ``raging debate'' among scientists.

Not so, said Dr. Terry Melton, chief executive officer of Mitotyping Technologies in State College, Pa., one of a handful of laboratories in the United States that extract cellular blueprints from evidence.

``It's been around for about 20 years,'' Melton said. ``The armed forces used it to ID remains of Vietnam veterans for 10 years. Now it's being introduced quite a bit in court.''

Experts say mitochondrial DNA - a tiny ring-shaped molecule that's much smaller than the more familiar nuclear DNA that reveals genetic makeup - helped identify victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack in New York. It can be extracted from hair and bones when little else remains of a body. The process takes a few days and typically costs about $2,500, Melton said.

Geragos grilled the prosecution's FBI witness about the science's weak points, prompting admissions of computer glitches and breakdowns in lab equipment. He plans to call his own witnesses to discredit forensic........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecutor slowly shows Peterson case

Prosecutor slowly shows Peterson case

By GARTH STAPLEY

BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: November 2, 2003, 12:08:14 PM PST

The mystery surrounding the Peterson case lives on. A court-imposed gag order kept evidence securely under wraps for several months, fueling speculation by TV pundits and coffeehouse gossipers.

Did Scott Peterson kill his pregnant wife, Laci, and dump her body in San Francisco Bay? Did Satanists snatch her for an evil ritual? What about his affair, the brown van and hypnotized witnesses?

The wild guessing only added to the mystique surrounding the double-murder case -- one with a Hollywoodlike story-line that started with a seemingly happy young couple about to become parents, and ended in deception and death.

Wait until the preliminary hearing, various media trumpeted. That's when closely guarded evidence will come out, and all will become clear, they assured.

And it is coming out -- but at a trickle, with a heavy dose of droning about mitochondrial DNA. In fact, the first two days of the much-heralded hearing opened with exhaustive technical detail surrounding a single human hair.

Trials begin with opening statements by attorneys on both sides. They lay out in simple terms what they hope to prove, so jurors know what to look for as the evidence unfolds.

But preliminary hearings are different. In this one, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami -- who has reviewed thousands of pages of documents kept sealed from public view -- needed no introduction.

Consequently, the public is being fed details in bits and pieces, with no real context. And observers continue to rely on incomplete media reports and talking heads whose view of the big picture is, at best, obscured.

"The judge knows where it's going," said legal scholar Michael Vitiello, a criminal law professor with Sacramento's McGeorge School of Law. "He doesn't need the same kind of game plan you would have for a jury."

Pine-Sol, dark warehouse

Among the unlinked pieces of testimony offered Friday:

A house cleaner mopped the kitchen floor with water and "a little bit of Pine-Sol," but used chlorine bleach for bathroom floors.

Laci Peterson and her sister, Amy Rocha ..........

Early questions on Peterson's story

Early questions on Peterson's story

By JOHN COTE AND GARTH STAPLEY

BEE STAFF WRITERS

Last Updated: October 31, 2003, 03:33:00 PM PST

3:33 p.m., PST: Scott Peterson showed police a parking receipt from the Berkeley marina on Christmas Eve but didn’t respond when asked what type of fish he went fishing for, an officer testified today.

“He couldn’t say,” Det. Jon Evers said in Stanislaus County Superior Court during Scott Peterson’s preliminary hearing.

The 31-year-old Modesto man is charged with double murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and their son. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing in Stanislaus County Superior Court, Judge Al Girolami will determine whether Peterson should be held over for trial.

Evers, who was a patrol officer at the time Laci Peterson disappeared, also testified that Peterson did not respond when his wife’s stepfather, an avid fisherman..........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE SHERIFF'S PRESSRELEASE LINK:

"Court on Monday & Doc Online

Posted on Friday, October 31 2003 at 3:04 PM PST ----

ATTENTION: Court on Monday, 11/3/03 begins at 9:00 AM. If you have a pass for seating in the courtroom, you MUST BE IN THE COURTROOM and SEATED by 8:45 am (PST).

A new court document is also now available online at http://www.pressupdate.info. Click on "Court Docs" for the following document.

1. Minute Order: Preliminary Hearing 10/31/03 (ie; Third day court provided overview) PDF (30 KB)

IMPORTANT!!! You must be in the courtroom and seated by 8:45 AM on Monday. Court begins at 9:00 am.

Anyone using the audio overflow room must turn their cell phones off - that means COMPLETE OFF - no vibrating/ringing phones permitted. This room is an extension of the courtroom and the sames rules apply.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Superior Court, Stanislaus County October 31, 2003

Minute Order: Preliminary Hearing
(ie; Third day court provided overview

[Canadian Outrage]

Not to worry bluebell, I do that too when I am skimming and trying to catch up on a thread. LOL

[texasbluebell]

Yes, I just can't resist commenting sometimes, even though I know someone has probably answered already!

[Velveeta]

So the duct tape would be a huge find if they can connect it to Scott.

I think so too, especially if there are fingerprints on both pieces.

[Jackie-O]

I agree Dev, that's when I started thinking twice about Snott being a suspect, he was never in front of the camera pleading with the public to help find his wife...only the family members. Then when word came from Amber, I knew why he was hiding his mug...didn't want LE to pin a motive on him. That's where he screwed up, he should have come clean about Amber from the first day. LE may have never had the opportunity to tape him. Those tapes are going to send him up the river, IMO. His own words...

[Canadian Outrage]

That's my opinion too Jackie. There is really nothing much better than one's own words to hang a person. I went back to last nights thread and answered some posts that were posted after I left. LOL is that called "getting the last word in"?

[Canadian Outrage]

Is there any new news from this afternoon yet? I really need to get some work done here but I'm having trouble getting away from here. I might need to pop out of here for about an hour.

[Velveeta]

But, I will say that I believe the MPD acted a little too hastily in treating him as a suspect

Actually, what amazes me is that MPD investigated as quickly and diligently as they did. Something must have made those detectives instantly suspect that this wasn't just a woman gone shopping. Think about it! How often have we heard of people having to BEG LE to investigate a missing adult?

If you put yourself into his shoes for just a couple of minutes (we do owe him the presumption of innocence, don't we?), then why were they so anxious to take him to the warehouse?

Hinky meter went up for MPD detectives same as it did for us, the second we heard his lies.

We haven't always told our folks everything either. But, my husband and I have always consulted on major purchases. I would consider a boat a major purchase. But then Scott didn't tell Laci about the secret storage facility or secret mailbox either.

I guarantee you Sandy, if there's anything that points to his innocence, I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. So far, I don't see any other suspects. Still waiting for Geragos' Perry Mason moment!

[Velveeta]

Precisely!

[Velveeta]

I remember thinking early on..."where is the husband?" Why is he not begging for his wife to come home?? Poor Amy, she just was there and sobbing....but she was there. Only one missing from the support and pleas for assistance was Snott.

[Velveeta]

I wonder now if the cervix had a greater tendency to stay intact especially *because* of the tape!?! (Sorry this is gross, but) the sea creatures were probably not able to readily access that area as they were the "untaped" areas.

[Velveeta]

Only news is that everyone knocked off early today after McAllister had his moment to insinuate that the pliers were planted. Prince Geragos is busy, so everyone must wait.

[Jackie-O]

CO, have you been over to today's thread yet? Let me know if you need a ping. Yeti's poped up over there...funny pics from clouda.

[Jackie-O]

Yes that is gross but at this point I think most of us have been desensitized to some of the subject matter...much like the RN in you.
These days, 10 months into this case, I loose it every time they show Sharon's press statement...they showed it during Nancy's show about a half hour ago, and I cried like a baby.

[Sandylapper]

Hinky meter went up for MPD detectives same as it did for us, the second we heard his lies.

The MPD detectives' hinky meter evidently went up for them on the day she disappeared! Why? Did we hear about some other lie he had told before we learned about Amber?

I would consider a boat a major purchase.

I would, too, Vel, and the old 'lapper and I would have discussed it. How do we know for a fact that Laci didn't sell some jewelry and give the money to Scott? Maybe she was crazy about that guy and wanted to give him something "great for Christmas", and "don't tell the family yet". Or what about if he stole a piece of jewelry from her and sold it to get the boat?

So far, I don't see any other suspects.

That's why I want to know from Stanislaus DA what they've found out about Cory Carroll, Dirty and Skeeter. As far as I'm concerned, they might really be suspects, if we could only get answers to fair questions.

[Sandylapper]

Only news is that everyone knocked off early today after McAllister had his moment to insinuate that the pliers were planted.

One other interesting thing I heard today on CTV was Evers said today he did NOT smell bleach, and that he didn't have a cold.

[Jackie-O]

I saw that too, and what I found interesting about that was WHY did McAllister make a big deal in cross asking why they took the mop out of the house, no evidence receipt given to Snotty..laying the groundwork to exclued the evidence in trial...WHY?

[Devil_Anse]

I assure you, he got his presumption of innocence from me. I saw no reason to think he did it, until I started hearing some things. Even then, we've all questioned the sources time and again. If we hadn't started out with the hypothesis that he was innocent, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about each detail. We'd have said, "okay, that's the answer", and gone on to something that wasn't "solved".

I don't sit here hoping the prosecution has ammunition b/c I want to see some man I've never met go to jail or be executed. Why would I care? I sit here hoping the prosecution has ammunition b/c I want to KNOW, want to be sure in my mind. I would be just as curious to hear about anyone else who was starting to look suspicious. I assure you, when I heard about that former boyfriend of Laci's who's now in prison b/c he shot his lover, I perked up. But when I found out he'd definitely been in prison in another state when Laci disappeared, I lost interest in that angle.

[Devil_Anse]

She was probably selling and pawning the jewelry to make up for the money Scott was draining out of their finances with his frequent trips to Fresno and nights on the town with Amber!

[Devil_Anse]

Well, that's interesting. So who was the cop who said there was a strong odor of bleach? Or did someone in the family smell it?

[Cloe]

I was thinking more of the cervix being slightly opened - just enough for fluid to escape. I knew the baby had been expelled through the top of the uterus.
"Taping her up like a sausage roll" seems to make the deed seem so much worse !