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

[Jackie-O]

Night's out with Amber, LOL! Yes it could be quite costly to live a double life...dinners, motels, gifts, x-tra cell phones, PO Boxes, storage facilities, and so on.

[Cloe]

That is what I had thought - but now I am not so sure.

[Cloe]

I had wondered about the jewelry too - maybe he had taken some, sold it and bought the boat.And maybe Laci had discovered it missing on Dec.23rd.

[Canadian Outrage]

YES, I do, without her legs being taped together, it would have been a "normal" coffin birth imo.

[Sandylapper]

Did MPD behave properly when they took the mops? Did they tell Scott that we think there may be evidence here that there's been foul play, and you are naturally a suspect? Did they properly document what they were thinking/doing? I just don't think any defense attorney is going to let that one slide.

[Velveeta]

It seems so wrong to think that SP could have killed his lovely, pregnant wife....I hear where you're coming from.

But, there's so much information out there about SP's own behavior and we watched him ourselves. The cops were whispering to each other right off the bat. Didn't know what he was fishing for? No bait? We don't yet know if he had the pole or not.

OK, let's say I'm going to TRY very hard to believe his story:

*SP says he told Laci he was going fishing in a boat that he says WAS going to be a surprise for her the next day because it was too cold to golf, but plenty warm enough to fish. (Right off the bat, I've got a problem with those but I'll let it pass for now)

*Says he left at 9:30am to stop at the office and then go fishing. (Actually stopped at secret warehouse first to pick up the boat and then went to his office warehouse)

*Says he launched around 12:00 and fished for a couple hours. Let's say until 2:00pm. During that time, he calls his dad when he's supposedly out on the lake and never says "Hey Dad, I'm fishing".

*Says he called Laci twice around 2:00pm when he finished fishing cause it was cold.

*Gets home around 4:30-5:00pm. Now it should dawn on him that Laci's cell phone and purse are at home. She has NOT retrieved the message he left her on either the cell OR the home phone. At this point, this innocent man knows that it's highly unusual for the dog to be in the yard with it's leash on. At this point he can deduce that Laci hasn't been around for almost 3 hours (if we calculate just from his attempted call). Her car is there, it doesn't smell like the Christmas cookies that he said she was going to bake. He must be curious.

What does he do??????

Eats some pizza cause HE'S hungry.
Takes a shower cause HE'S dirty.
Starts laundry cause HIS clothes are stinky.
Empties a laundry bucket.
THEN FREAKS OUT and calls his mother-in-law saying "LACI'S MISSING!!!"

He calls all Laci's friends.
He calls their neighbors.
He DOES NOT call ANYONE in HIS family. Did he call his brothers? NO. Did he call his sisters? NO. Did he call his parents? NO!

Why not? Can you give me a reasonable excuse for him NOT calling anyone in HIS family? He had just talked to his dad a few hours ago. Why not call his family?

[Jackie-O]

I guess we will see if they will enter this mop evidence..I think that's why the Pros. covered theri asses in the cross by asking the Det. if Snott willingly let them take the mop and bucket.

[Sandylapper]

Anse, I perked up when I heard the Carroll story. Now, it might be total BS, but since I'm totally looking for ANYONE AND ALL, who might have had a hand in "who killed Laci and Conner", I just can't summarily dismiss all that I've heard on TV about Carroll, Dirty and Skeeter, and I believe the ball is in the DA's court to tell us if there is a connection. If I'm suspicious of anyone and everyone's "behavior" at this point, it's not just Scott's Peterson's. Sorry, for me, that has to include MPD's reluctance to say or tell us "ANYTHING". We're just supposed to "trust" them implicitly, no questions asked?

[Sandylapper]

FWIW, I believe he had an expense account and would have "expensed" his nights out on the town with Amber.

[Sandylapper]

If a family member smelled it, and MPD didn't detect it, what would that say to us? That MPD was reacting to the family's say-so very early?

[Sandylapper]

That's a possibility, Cloe! But I still want to know if Amber (per chance) called the Peterson home on the 23rd, and for the life of me and in the interest of justice, I don't understand why it's such a deep, dark secret!

[Jackie-O]

I'm not done reading your post yet but right off the bat I see something very important..
He tells everyone he is going golfing, but goes fishing instead...
Did he tell Laci he was going fishing or golfing?? Why would he not tell his 8 mo. pregnant wife where he was going, especially if he was driving 90 minutes away, when his wife was not feeling well, fatigued and swollen.
There goes the x-mas surprise..he sure would have told his wife he was going fishing, wouldn't he? I wonder if anyone asked him that?

[Velveeta]

Right. He can't have it both ways. He can't say that the boat was "going" to be a surprise, AND that he told her he was going fishing in the same breath. It doesn't compute.

[Sandylapper]

*Says he left at 9:30am to stop at the office and then go fishing. (Actually stopped at secret warehouse first to pick up the boat and then went to his office warehouse)

Is that a documented fact, Vel? That the boat was definitely at the "secret warehouse"? Could he have actually backed that boat into the "secret warehouse"? I don't know that! Don't think I've seen a pic of the "secret warehouse".

THEN FREAKS OUT and calls his mother-in-law saying "LACI'S MISSING!!!"

That's not exactly how I understood it. I thought he called Sharon and asked the question, "Is Laci there"? She's says, "no", and he says, something to the effect, "Well, then, Laci is missing".

Vel, I also don't quite get that, if a man were innocent, why he would go outside the parameter of Modesto, and start alerting everyone in San Diego that Laci was "missing" at that particular point in time. Would there be some special reason that Laci went to San Diego and not tell him?

Hey, I've gotta lot of catching up to do! Haven't even been to today's thread!

[Devil_Anse]

That would depend on who reported it to the press. I don't know who reported it to the people who reported it to US!

I know it's almost a cliche that cops supposedly are sloppy all the time, and don't care if they frame people, but really, sometimes things are exactly as they seem. IMO, that's pretty much the case here. They had/have no motivation to frame this 2-bit manure salesman. I'm sure they'd never even heard of him b/f.

[Devil_Anse]

I don't think Tradecorp gave him an expense allowance. That's never been how it's worked with any of the reps I've known. (Obviously, the reps I've known repped for other things.) As a matter of fact, the reps I've known had to even pay for their own samples. They made up for all this stuff by having a lot of tax deductible things. And the field can be very lucrative.

But in order to have the deduction, of course, you still must spend the money! I don't think Tradecorp was paying for Scott's sales/social things.

[Devil_Anse]

Very well expressed!!!

[Devil_Anse]

Hey, Carroll and Tony-Dirty and Anthony-Skeeter (or was one of them Doug?) may well exist, and maybe they are involved.

BUT to me it all adds up the same b/c the Carroll story, if true, still implicates Scott in murder for hire, which is CAPITAL murder. For that reason, proving/disproving the existence of their plot does not change it for me from trying to find out if Scott alone killed her.

[Devil_Anse]

One thing I don't get is why you seem to trust this Frank Muna and his convict client more than you trust the Modesto cops.

[Devil_Anse]

Greta VS just said now b/f her commercial: "Why is the defense raising questions about a fax at Scott's warehouse?"

Obviously she's talking about his work warehouse, not his secret one. What's this about, I wonder?