Fiber Expert for Defense Reverses Self in Peyer Case

An expert witness for the defense in former CHP Officer Craig Peyer’s murder trial testified Wednesday that two dark fibers recovered from the victim’s hands are “inconsistent” with fibers from Peyer’s CHP shoulder patch.

The statements contradicted his testimony from Peyer’s first trial and startled attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense.

Perplexing Testimony

In confusing and often rambling testimony, fiber expert John Reffner said he now believes that the fibers are “inconsistent.” When he testified Feb. 5 at the first trial, Reffner said the fibers found in Cara Knott’s hands were “consistent” with similar fibers taken from the California Highway Patrol patches on Peyer’s jacket.

“They’re consistent, but I can’t say they’re the same or a match,” Reffner said in his earlier testimony, in which he agreed with the prosecution’s expert witness.

On Wednesday, Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Pfingst immediately jumped on the contradictory testimony, which came during cross-examination, and asked Reffner whether he did not remember testifying differently at the first trial.

Reffner, red-faced and often stumbling on words, told Pfingst he changed his mind after reviewing the evidence and his earlier testimony. Reffner also said he did not bother to notify defense attorney Robert Grimes about the change in his testimony and was revealing his new position for the first time on the witness stand.

“Consistent does not mean that they came from the same source,” Reffner said.

Grimes asked Reffner whether he had changed his mind because he found the prosecution expert’s testing methods faulty.

Faults in Testing Claimed

Reffner listed several faults he found with tests conducted by the prosecution’s fiber expert, Richard Bisbing. Several times, Reffner emphasized that he uses a different testing method than most forensic fiber experts in the country.

He uses a process called normalization, which uses a complex computer formula and numbers to compare fibers. Bisbing uses the widely accepted “qualitative” method, which compares fibers by using graph lines and charts to measure dye absorption and light.

Under questioning by Pfingst, Reffner acknowledged that only two crime labs in the country use the normalization process. Reffner also testified that he had never testified about the normalization process and had done only “about 20 forensic fiber comparisons” in 32 years.

Earlier, Reffner offered confusing testimony when he testified about two purple fibers lifted from Peyer’s left boot, which the prosecution says came from the purple sweat pants that Knott was wearing when she was strangled Dec. 27, 1986. The prosecution’s expert compared the two fibers found on the boot to a fiber taken from the pants and said they were similar.

“I could not exclude the possibility that they (three fibers) came from the same source, . . . but it’s not possible to state that they could have come from a common source,” Reffner said under questioning by Grimes.

When he was questioned by Pfingst about the same fibers, Reffner said:

“I would not be able to exclude at this time that they could have come from the same source.”

A minute later, after looking at the prosecution expert’s graphs, Reffner said he “would have to exclude that they came from the same source.”

Purple Fibers on Gun

Pfingst also questioned Reffner about a purple fiber found on Peyer’s service revolver. Reffner had told Grimes that the fiber found on the gun and the test fiber from Knott’s pants had “many similarities . . . but the similarities are not enough to say they came from a common source.”

When questioned by Pfingst about the same purple fibers, Reffner said that he could not “exclude” the fibers from the gun coming from the pants, but that he could not “include” them either.

In response to a question by Grimes, Reffner said the purple fibers recovered from Peyer’s pistol and boot could have come from a coat that San Diego police recovered from a closet in Peyer’s home.