.
Feedback

Accused Serial Killer's Trial Postponed until April

Joseph 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.

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. 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As stand-by counsel, Oliveros will represent Naso if Naso's right to represent himself is rescinded, Slote said.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

See what else is happening on San Rafael Patch:

  1. 3 Women Hospitalized After Head-on Crash on Golden Gate Bridge
  2. Fairfax Fire Linked to Pot Growing Operation - Friends Mourn Resident
  3. Bagel Street Cafe to Open in Montecito and Community Acupuncture Comes to Fourth Street
  4. San Rafael’s Cheapest Homes: 30 Steven Way

"Like" us on Facebook | Follow us Twitter | Get "Patched" in with our newsletter | Start a blog

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Rafael 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
Kevin Moore May 11, 2013 at 04:20 pm
It would be nice if the comments section had "Thumbs up / Thumbs down" like the PressRead More Democrat.
Bob April 6, 2013 at 05:20 pm
Check with the San Rafael planning commission and get the low-down on why they turned down aRead More developer who submitted his plans to demolish and rebuild a mixed commercial/residential building at 2nd and B. That's directly across the street from SVDP, and a notorious loitering spot. It's currently a run-down box building that's long past its prime. The developer came in with a beautiful plan, and it was denied for, among other things, because it was not in keeping with the "Victorian era" of the others, and because the city was afraid people would store their bikes on the balconies. Take a look at it. It's the most run-down corner in the downtown area. A great way for a small town to thrive and achieve an identity, is to get people living there. The city makes it extremely difficult with their rigid design board, and archaic operations that remind me of private industry in the 70s. Oh, and then they approved Target - completely disregarding the data from our neighbors up north, as well as other small towns.
Scott Adams April 4, 2013 at 07:08 pm
Tim, I am aware of many who want to increase the housing density downtown. I am also aware thereRead More has been objections particularly around the bus and future SMART station. It seems having commercial use at street level and housing above is favored by the city. It would definitely help bring people downtown. Other elements besides safety, includes maintenance, on going activities and marketing. I made reference to Healdsburg which is a good case study. They endorsed a study by urban planners around 1990. It took until 2000 when Hotel Healdsburg opened and then the downtown took off. They have one big asset and that is their city park which is where they have ongoing activities. Public Spaces such as this offer a sense of place and acts as a magnet. If you go two or three block away from the park, Healdsburg is just another sleepy little town of 11,000. Sure the wine country is a tourist attraction, but according to the County Visitor's Bureau Marin has 12 million visitors a year who enjoy our natural environment and 80% leave and go elsewhere in the evening.
Tim H April 4, 2013 at 04:41 pm
Thank you all for your interest in this topic. Scott, are you aware of any new multifamily or mixedRead More use housing in downtown on the horizon? Someone in another article mentioned the need for greater density in the downtown area. It seems like greater density could make San Rafael a more attractive place to bring business. Maybe it's me being optimistic, but certain areas seem ripe for development which could be a catalyst for improving downtown. Just curious if others had any perspective of this issue.