A representitive from ShurTape, the type of duct tape used in the Ramsey case (and maybe also in the Peterson case) was on Greta last night:
Greta: Back now live from Modesto. Tonight, unconfirmed reports say duct tape found near Laci and Conner's bodies is similar to tape used to post missing posters when Laci first vanished. And that's not all. KTVU-TV reports Scott Peterson's fingerprint was found on the missing poster tape.
Joining us on the phone is the quality assurance manager for the manufacturer of a brand of duct tape called Duck Tape. Carter MacFarland's company is called SurTape Technologies. Also back with us is forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden.
Carter, if I gave you two pieces of duct tape, could you compare them and determine them to be from the same roll?
Carter McFarland, ShurTape: I could look at the two different types and determine if they had similar patterns between the two and the film and the cloth and the adhesive.
Greta: How unique is duct tape? I mean, if I handed you just a simple piece of duct tape, can you tell me whether or not it's duct tape, for instance, that your company manufactures?
Carter McFarland: Well, going through and looking at, actually, the film itself, looking at the color, the texture, the type of film it is and the layers of the film, as well as what the cloth is made of, if it's a woven or a knit cloth, and analyzing the cloth that's in the tape, as well as the adhesive, you can determine a particular manufacturer for a tape.
Greta: Carter, is duct tape unique, in the sense that the type of duct tape you manufacture, for instance, is unique from a duct tape that another manufacturer might make?
Carter McFarland: Yes, it would be. Different manufacturers have different technologies. They use different type of films, as well as different type of cloths, as well as the adhesives have some different characteristics also.
Greta: All right, Carter. If I, in terms of an entire roll of duct tape, are the sort of signature aspects of the duct tape ,are they consistent throughout the entire roll, so you could tell whether or not a piece of tape came from a particular roll?
Carter McFarland: Yes, there would be some similarities that would be throughout that roll.
Greta: But how do you know that it's not just simply, if I gave you two pieces of tape, how do you know if it came from one roll or it simply came from two different rolls manufactured by your company?
Carter McFarland: You really would have to take the two samples and analyze them and, you know, look for the similarities between the two. It's difficult to tell without actually looking at the samples themselves.
Greta: But if you do have the samples, can you do it with a reasonable level of certainty?
Carter McFarland: With a reasonable level of certainty, yes.
Greta: Can you give me odds?
Carter McFarland: It would be difficult for me to, you know, give you a percentage.
Greta: Dr. Baden, what do you make of, you've done a lot of forensic study of the duct tape, you know, the fact that if you got two pieces, one around Laci and Conner and one on a poster. Don't know if they're the same.
Dr. Baden: I think, Greta, what we're seeing is the difference between science and the criminal justice system, with the hair, as well as with the duct tape. As Geoffrey said, when you put a case into court, as you've said, you build a case with many different pieces of evidence, none of which may be 100 percent specific. The mitochondrial dna isn't 100 percent specific in the hair, but taken together with the history, with the circumstances, with the Amber Frey tapes, with the duct tape, which may not be 100 percent, but if the duct tape matches, if the hair matches, if all the circumstances match, then it's unlikely that it's somebody else's hair in the boat. How it got there is something else, but I think that
Greta: All right.
Dr. Baden: It sounds like there, it will be important evidence, the duct tape.
Greta: All right. Carter, thank you. And now back to our expert panel.
All right, let me go to you, Bernie. I mean, the thing that sort of, that concerns me about the tape is that, you know, even as Dr. Baden says, as you put these little pieces together, you know, it may build a case against someone, but at some point, if you put really unreliable pieces together, it would be unfair to an accused.
Bernie Grimm: It would be unfair. And listening to Mr. MacFarland, you did a great job. It reminds me of the heydays, Greta, back in the '60s or '70s, whenever you were practicing, where you used to just annihilate experts.
Greta: The '80s, thank you, Bernie! Bernie, '80s...
Bernie Grimm: All right. I was just trying to get back at you for kicking me off the show on Friday. But at any rate, I saw you annihilate experts, and Mr. MacFarland, you were very nice to him, but all he's essentially said is if this tape is, for example, from 3M, and I'm not saying it's from 3M, essentially, I can say it's 3M tape, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, I can't say it is on this same roll. You gave him 17 different ways to Sunday to get it out, but he couldn't.
What Dr. Baden would talk about, I think, that's more important, is that adhesive tape, and especially duct tape, is very, very durable, even if it's in the water for the longest period of time.
Dr. Baden: Yes.
Carter McFarland: It could have hair on it. It could have fingerprints on it. But here's the thing that connects it all. And you talked about the first question to me was, Let's say the evidence is unreliable. Geoff's point, when we started the show, is so riveting, that they will despise Scott Peterson at the end of this trial so much, they almost will virtually ignore the evidence, whether it's good or bad, and perhaps convict him, whether he's innocent or not, is the frightening thing.
Greta: Gloria, what do you think of this duct tape?
Gloria Allred: Well, I mean, I think if, as and when it's introduced as evidence, and the reports are that it's not expected to be introduced at the preliminary hearing. But if it is, it'll be yet just another piece of evidence, and the jury will weigh its value, what weight it should give to that piece of evidence.
Greta: But even before it gets there...
Gloria Allred: And it won't be the only,I don't agree that there's going to be any smoking gun bombshell from...
Greta: But wait a second. Wait a second, Gloria. Even before it gets to the jury, the judge has to make a determination that it doesn't have some sort of wild prejudicial impact that outweighs whatever value it has to prove something. And simply the fact you have duct tape, there's lots of duct tape in this world. You know, there's, the judge may conclude that the jury would wildly connect this and that it's unreasonable.
Gloria Allred: I don't think that this is the kind of evidence that the judge would make a determination is more prejudicial than probative, which is the standard.
Greta: Geoff?
Geoffrey Fieger: I suspect that Bernie's wife tapes him up every night when he goes home.
Carter McFarland: Oh, Gee!
Geoffrey Fieger: But beyond that, I think this is the type of evidence, based on what I've just heard, that a judge might very well exclude, if the attempt was being made to suggest that this tape is the same as another tape, without some really compelling scientific basis. But let's remember, for instance, that it wasn't too long ago, it was within our careers, that people were convicted based upon their blood type. For instance, if blood type O was found at the scene and the alleged perpetrator had blood type O, even though 50 million other people have it, or 2 billion, that evidence was allowed, and the jury was allowed to consider whether the accused was the perpetrator.
) but II think of films where a victim has been gagged like this and the gag usually goes across to the cheeks.