DNA Dispute In Laci Case

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

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.

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..............

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

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..............

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

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........

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

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."

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

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..........

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

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.

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

Nothing more needs be said there. And sturgeon don't need bait; you can just throw in strands of human hair and they fly up and flop into the boat.

ROFLMBO!! Paging Ron Popeil, paging Ron Popeil! New invention idea, can be marketed in time for all those Christmas Eve fisherman.

I too would find it easier to lie in front of everyone else in the world than my own family

That's what I think too. He couldn't have lied as well to his own family, especially the siblings....they know brother dearest all too well.

LOL RR, the rep for the duct tape manufacturer was a call-in guest one of the TV shows yesterday.
Guess where this case's duct tape came from? Concord, NC., just south of Hickory.

I truly hope there would be evidence that SP did not do this.

Guess I do, too, Vel. I hope that he at least knew he did not have it in him to look her in the eyes and do the killing himself, even if he did hire someone to do it. That might say to all of us that Laci, in her last moments, never knew Scott had anything to do with it. At least, she would have been spared the knowledge of the ultimate betrayal. It just seems to me that in her last horrific moments, there should be something, some pain, she was spared. But if it was done that way, he still needs the max punishment, and so do the other perps. JMO

"Someone" wanted to secure that crotch area. Doesn't make sense that if a stranger killed her they'd take such care at taping her up.

Taping the crotch in this case makes me think of overkill stabbings and the destruction of certain body parts.

"Someone" must of had a great hatred for that area of Laci's body and/or wanted make sure 'her' baby never came out.

I wonder how Jackie giving up several children affected Scott. What did that teach Scott about the worth of one's child?

Children as disposable commodities when they aren't wanted? Does he have mother issues?

...we did NOT tell our in-laws, or my mother, whenever we bought a boat, cars, or anything until after the fact.

But Scott didn't even tell anyone after the fact....

I think he wanted to make sure the baby didn't come out accidently. Makes me wonder if a "stranger" would have been at all concerned about this.

I'm curious about his mother issues as well. She taught him that children/people are disposable. Can you imagine what went on in that household?

OK kids, we have another announcement to make. We have yet another sibling of yours who has found us.

When did he tell them that Laci was missing, and that he had gone fishing that day?

Herg, our situation was probably different (as is every married couple's), but we told our parents as the occasion arose. When we visited our parents' home, they would get to see a new car whenever we went. If we went fishing with any of them, they got to see new a boat. Our parents weren't paying for any of this, and we didn't like questions, like "how much did that set you back"? Unfortunately, my in-laws put monetary value on everything (rest their souls), and thought they had a right to know. We didn't like it and didn't do any unnecessary "sharing" of that type info.

Thanks, hergus! Now, is that his "private" storage unit? If so, even though MPD knew about it, they didn't tell anyone, right? We found out later through leaks, right? We only knew of his actual worksite warehouse?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.