.
Feedback

Judge Bumps Accused Serial Killer's Trial to April 2013

Joseph Naso, 78, is representing himself in the case and said he could not be ready for trial in January because of the volume of the reports he has received.

The trial of accused killer Joseph Naso has been postponed until April 24.

Naso, 78, initially was scheduled to be tried in Marin County Superior in October for killing four women between 1977 and 1994 in Marin, Contra Costa and Yuba counties, including whose body was found near Fairfax. His trial was then re-scheduled for January when Naso said he needed more time.

Judge Andrew Sweet granted Naso a continuance until April on Friday, Deputy District Attorney Rosemary Slote said.

The prosecution opposed the continuance, but the judge ruled in Naso's favor because he is representing himself, Slote said.

Naso said he could not be ready for trial in January because of the volume of the reports he has received, Slote said.

The judge also agreed to designate Naso's advisory counsel, Deputy Public Defender Pedro Oliveros, Naso's stand-by counsel, Slote said. As stand-by counsel, Oliveros will represent Naso if Naso's right to represent himself is rescinded, Slote said.

Naso is charged with the murder of Roxene Roggasch in January 1977; Carmen Colon, 22, in Contra Costa County in August 1978; Pamela Parsons, 38, in Contra Costa County on Sept. 19, 1993; and Tracy Tafoya, 31, in August 1994 in Yuba County. The victims were found along roadsides in the three counties.

Roggasch's body was found on the eastern slope of White's Hill near Fairfax on Jan. 11, 1977. She was wearing a pair of pantyhose inside out, another pair was found around her neck, a third pair was found in her mouth and a fourth pair was wrapped around her mouth.

At Naso's preliminary hearing in January, Contra Costa County sheriff's Deputy Tuan Nguyen, a criminalist who processed and examined the pantyhose for DNA evidence, testified semen from two males was found on the inside of the pantyhose Roggasch was wearing. He said one of the sperm samples "likely" came from Naso.

"You are likely the source as Male B. We can never say you are, just likely are," Nguyen testified on cross-examination.

Nguyen also testified DNA found on the pantyhose wrapped around Roggasch's neck matched that of Naso's former wife Judith Naso. The pair of pantyhose wrapped around Roggasch's mouth contained "contact" DNA from at least four individuals, Nguyen testified. It was of poor quality and he was unable to develop individual DNA profiles from it, he said.

The Marin County District Attorney's Office is alleging Naso, a self-employed photographer who took photos of scantily-clothed women who appeared dead, asleep or unconscious, strangled the four women who worked as prostitutes.

--Bay City News Service

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Anselmo-Fairfax Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jessica Mullins (Editor) May 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for the feedback, John. To my knowledge, we don't have a comments stream anywhere. DefinitelyRead More submit your comments here (it's the most efficient way to get your thoughts heard at the higher level): http://ow.ly/l4cyg
M. Kathryn Thompson May 21, 2013 at 09:54 am
Dr. Gullion is also lovely with men who get breast cancer as my husband did, he's the best!
Bren April 22, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Is anybody else here getting multiple e-mail notifications of new comments by Jo Tog, and thenRead More clicking the link, only to find that they are actually old comments from Jo Tog, but with today's date on them? What's the deal? Did all his comments get flagged and deleted, and now he's re-posting them? Most curious.
Sierra Salin April 22, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jo Trog, we live in a Corporatocracy, not a republic. We abdicated the Republic after 9/11, if notRead More before. Know the difference.
Hiba April 21, 2013 at 06:52 pm
Banning the sale in a free market economy is too strong. I believe people should be able to chooseRead More so long as the product is labeled correctly, and even placed in a section with a big sign that says "GM Food products". Would I buy it if I pass the section at the grocery store: NO.
A May 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Many people in Marin are already at 50% or more of their entire income to pay for housing. And weRead More have no rent control here in Marin which is the only way I've seen that most seniors have been able to stay in San Francisco for several decades. Regarding your statement: "Market rate housing generates tax revenues, which in turn pay for schools, parks, emergency services, etc." Low income people pay a lot of sales tax in Marin (which is really high) and that also supports these causes. If they don't have the money to pay property taxes to own property, then the fact is, they just can't pay it. Be thankful that a large group of the population in Marin makes enough money to own property and pay it (and turn around and sell their houses for a handsome profit as well, don't forget about that.) Some folks here are just SPOILED rotten. Perhaps you should lobby that Marin employers just pay people living wages so they can afford to become buyers here and pay property taxes instead of trying to lobby against housing for the poor. Goodness knows how many taxes child-free low income people have paid to support wealthy folks kids and schools here. We don't get any of that, either, but we still have to pay for it...
A May 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm
I've heard that Marin is already in violation (either state or federal, or both) of not havingRead More enough low income housing in the county for its population. I think the county is under pressure to come into compliance which it has been out of in this area for a long time. This can only serve to better the lives of low income and elderly people in our county and perhaps reduce homelessness as well which is something we sorely need to do. However, what is amazing to me is that what we are calling "low income" housing in Marin still costs $1K+ a month per person from what I can tell. That's not "low income". Someone paying that much needs to be earning about $4K a month to keep housing costs in the 25-30% range that every financial planner recommends for a basic budget. I see a lot of low income people working HARD full-time to earn $1,600 a month here in restaurants, grocery stores, retail, hair salons, gyms, even clinics. They can't afford to live in Marin so many of them commute in from the east bay and further north to work in Marin. That is what is not sustainable. Think about the gas and pollution and the quality of life in the community due to turnover because there is no personal interaction with the staff of a lot of these places anymore because they don't stick around for very long.