Three key players in the Patricia Rorrer’s 1998 murder trial revisited that event Monday in Lehigh County Court, and all three made clear that time can draw a veil even over the sharpest memories.

“It was 25 years ago, so nothing is total recall,” said James Burke, one of Rorrer’s two original defense attorneys, when asked to remember whether or not he ever saw one of the FBI documents at the center of Rorrer’s latest bid for exoneration.

Rorrer was convicted at the monthlong trial and sentenced to life in prison for killing Catasauqua mother Joann Katrinak, the wife of Rorrer’s ex-boyfriend, Andrew, and the Katrinaks’ infant son, Alex, in December 1994.

A combination of scientific and circumstantial evidence convinced the jury that Rorrer, enraged after Joann told her to quit calling the house to talk to Andrew, drove 500 miles from her North Carolina home, kidnapped and killed the mother and child and left their bodies in a patch of woods in Heidelberg Township.

The scientific evidence included microscopic and DNA analysis of strands of blonde hair taken from a seat back of Katrinak’s car. A handwritten note on a report about the hair says the strands were not artificially treated.

Rorrer’s attorneys say that’s a crucial detail, because her hair at the time was not only dyed blonde but had been permed, a process that involves chemical treatment.

If the defense had seen the notation, the discrepancy would surely have been raised and perhaps swayed the jury that the hair evidence was unreliable, attorney Troy Crichton argued.

That suggests the report with the note wasn’t included in the evidence provided to the defense, and should thus be regarded as new evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial. That would clear the way for Rorrer to continue her appeal.

The fog of time might be the most significant factor working against Rorrer, who entered Judge Douglas Reichley’s courtroom in a prison jumpsuit and smiled at the gallery full of supporters who have come to fervently believe in her innocence.

Burke said the defense “absolutely” requested the raw notes of the FBI analysts at the time, but added that he couldn’t remember with certainty whether he had seen reports with handwritten notes on them.

Reports introduced at trial did not contain handwritten notes. Prosecutor Heather Gallagher said it is routine for such reports to be clean copies of information compiled from earlier drafts, with information left out if it is deemed incorrect or irrelevant.

Burke, however, said the note about the hair being untreated “certainly would have been grounds for cross-examination,” suggesting the defense never saw it at any time.

Mike McIntyre, the former Lehigh County assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, said he was sure all notes were provided, though he, too, acknowledged the passage of time made elements of the case hard to recall.

“The general practice was ‘If I had it, the defense had it,’ ” he said, describing his approach to discovery. “If you’re going to try to convict someone, you’d better not be holding on to anything the defense hasn’t seen.”

Joseph DiZinno, the former FBI analyst who made the notation about the hair, said it was routine for all notes to be turned over during discovery, but he could not conclusively say that was the case this time.

“It was 25 years ago so I don’t know, but it was routine,” said DiZinno, who testified by video from his office at George Mason University in Virginia.

Whether the notes would have made a difference in the trial is debatable. While testing showed the hairs were not artificially treated, DiZinno said hair can be turned blonde by other methods, including exposure to sunlight or to the ultraviolet rays of a tanning bed.

McIntyre said that’s the argument he would have made had the issue come up at trial, noting that Rorrer had engaged in a tanning regimen for a time before her arrest.

The evidence hearing had been scheduled for three days this week but Monday’s five-hour hearing proved sufficient to address the issues. The attorneys will await the filing of the testimony and then have a period of time to draft and file responses.

Reichley said the next court action will likely come in the spring.

Morning Call reporter Daniel Patrick Sheehan can be reached at 610-820-6598 or dsheehan@mcall.com.