Early Edition

Jordan: Kennedy Relationship to Moxley Murder Case 'Distant'

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Consider the twists, turns and players in the Moxley case: A murder with a Kennedy connection, an investigation renewed by a book written by Mark Fuhrman, an old-fashioned crime story aided by new technology.

Casey Jordan is a criminologist and teaches criminal justice at New York City University, joins us to talk about this interesting case.

Casey, a year ago, they were conducting DNA tests on saliva found on Martha Moxley's clothing. Is this likely to be the link -- the direct link, perhaps, also, any DNA found on the golf clubs, to Michael?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Well, it certainly would be the best link in terms of explaining why, after almost 25 years, you suddenly have an arrest. We know that juries put a lot of credence in DNA and what we consider the hard, forensic evidence. And there are a lot of techniques that are available today that weren't available 20 years ago, which may be the basis for the arrest.

LIN: Well, can the integrity of the DNA withstand the test of time -- 25 years?

JORDAN: Well, the DNA doesn't change. What their biggest challenge is going to be is trying to prove that the chain of custody with the clothing that was tested or the golf club, the number of people that handled this sort of evidence, how it was stored, how many people may have had access to it. Those are the sort of things that could question the integrity of the DNA -- human error, not the scientific error.

LIN: Now, you bring up an interesting aspect to this case: human error. Twenty-five years ago, lots of stories printed about basic mistakes made by the responding officers, that they didn't seal off the crime scene; the public, in fact, was walking through the lawn area. How big a problem is this going to be for prosecutors?

JORDAN: Well, it may be a very big problem. But, at the same time, we know that they have interviewed more than 40 witnesses, and obviously there is enough testimony among these people, even after 20, 25 years, to try to corroborate the evidence that is probably the basis for the arrest. But I -- it certainly gives very good fodder for the defense attorney to bring up many, many issues about police -- not necessarily misconduct, but probably improper handling and procedure with the case that could easily raise reasonable doubt later.

LIN: And talk about irony: It was a book written by Mark Fuhrman, as we all know his role in the O.J. Simpson case, that was the catalyst for this reinvestigation. His role in this investigation, is that going to complicate things for prosecutors?

JORDAN: "Complicate" is probably an interesting word because I don't think that it hurts the prosecution, their case, but I think that if he tries to take credit for raising the evidence -- I think that what Mark Fuhrman did for this case is simply bring attention to it, and that that attention could probably only be a good thing for the prosecution in terms of getting new witnesses, new experts to take a look at this case. But I think that the book is out there, people will see it for what it is, and it's a done deal. I think he just needs to step back and see what happens with the case now.

LIN: And, certainly, the Kennedy name is bringing enough notoriety to this case. Do you think that there would be that much interest in this case, that much focus in this case now if it weren't for the Kennedy connection? And on the flip side of it, was that Kennedy name an influence as to why this investigation didn't go anywhere 25 years ago?

JORDAN: It certainly could have been 25 years ago. I really don't think that it has much bearing today in the year 2000. I think that people are certainly fascinated with any linkage to the Kennedy's, but this particular linkage is so intangential (ph). I mean, it's almost a distant relationship. I think that what people focus on is anything that has to do with wealth and influence and privilege; that always makes peoples' ears perk up and makes them interested. But I think we'll get away from the Kennedy linkage pretty quickly and probably just focus on the life of privilege in Greenwich, Connecticut.

LIN: Which is an interesting enough life to talk about.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

JORDAN: Quite welcome.

LIN: We'll see if this actually goes to trial.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com