DNA evidence that prosecutors say connects a former Penn State football player to the apartment where a Penn State senior was found brutally murdered in June was portrayed in court documents as scientifically sound.

But as the defendant's lawyer questioned a lead detective, the accuracy of that evidence was called into question.

Despite testimony from the detective that the criminal complaint against the defendant contained false statements, LaVon Chisley, 23, was bound over for trial on first- and third- degree murder charges at his Friday preliminary hearing.

Chisley is charged with killing Langston Carraway, 26, who was found by his brother June 5 on a couch in his apartment, 110 Northbrook Lane, police said. Carraway was found with "several slice marks" to his neck and 93 stab wounds, Patton Township Police Officer Tom Snyder said during testimony Friday.

Bloody meat scissors with about 7-inch blades and multiple steak knives, some broken and with about 4-inch handles, were strewn near the couch, he said. Snyder also observed words on the wall that appeared to be written in blood, he said. He did not say what words were written.

At the hearing, a black, shiny, rubber glove, purchased by police at a local hardware store, was admitted

as evidence. Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said the glove is similar to one that was found a few feet from Carraway's body -- the glove that gave authorities key DNA evidence.

According to court documents, "two separate DNA profiles were obtained [from the glove]. One of the profiles belonged to [Carraway], and the other belonged to [Chisley]. The only DNA profile found inside the glove was Chisley's."

But when Karen Muir, Chisley's lawyer, read that statement verbatim to Patton Township Police Detective Christopher Federinko and asked if it was true, he told the court it was not.

The DNA does not "match" Chisley's. In fact, Carraway and Chisley "cannot be excluded as contributors to the blood on the glove," Federinko said. Also, a third DNA profile was found inside the glove that does not appear to match Chisley or Carraway, he added.

"The DNA evidence is not what the Commonwealth says it is," Muir said. "It's not what it has in the affidavit of probable cause. It's not a match. The affidavit is full of lies, half-truths and unsupported innuendoes."

Madeira said the DNA was analyzed using an exclusionary method and that there is a one in 160 million chance the DNA profile belongs to another black person other than Chisley. Testimony indicated that the testing cannot conclusively determine that the DNA found on the glove is Chisley's or Carraway's, but it also cannot rule them out.

"The DNA evidence speaks for itself. What was entered into court today indicates a match to two individuals and only two individuals, Mr. Carraway and Mr. Chisley," Madeira said. "And when the scientist takes the stand, it will become clearer how unlikely it is that it's a DNA match to anyone else in the world except for Mr. Chisley."

As for the third DNA profile, when asked if that implied another person was involved in the murder, Madeira said experts would say that is "statistically improbable, if not impossible."

Muir's argument also hinged on a new piece of information contained in the autopsy report -- that light-colored hairs of varied lengths were found on the victim.

"My client has short, dark hair," Muir said. "This is evidence that has never been processed. It has never been evaluated."

However, Madeira said the hair strands were not relevant to Friday's hearing and hinted that they had been tested.

"No one said that we didn't [test the hairs]," he said.

Also called to testify was Chisley's friend, Kerry Onaka, who told the court she saw Chisley in possession of a black rubber glove similar to the one found at the crime scene.

Onaka -- who said she has known Chisley in an "intimate" manner since the summer of 2003 -- testified that Chisley called her June 20 and told her to tell police he stayed at her apartment the night of June 3. She said Chisley became angry when she asked him why she should lie. Court documents indicate the murder occurred between 8 p.m. June 3 and 6:30 a.m. June 4.

Onaka and Chisley traveled to Baltimore June 4. Onaka said they planned to leave at 8 a.m. June 4, but Chisley called her at 6 a.m. demanding to leave immediately.

Muir suggested holes in Onaka's testimony.

"I found that she could very easily remember everything the Commonwealth asked her, but when I asked her very specific questions, she couldn't remember, she couldn't recall, she was confused," Muir said.

Muir also took issue with a statement in the criminal complaint regarding the glove Onaka identified as Chisley's.

According to the criminal complaint, Onaka was shown a glove "identical" to the one found at the crime scene -- "Onaka identified the glove as the glove that was in Chisley's pocket the evening of June 3, 2006."

Muir asked Federinko if that statement was true after pointing out that it was not the "identical" glove found at the crime scene, but rather a "similar" glove.

"That [statement] is not true because that's not the exact glove," Muir said.

In response, Madeira said Muir was relying on "semantics, semantics, semantics."

"Unfortunately, the question asked of this detective was about one sentence and read alone, that one sentence doesn't appear to be accurate, but read in the context of the four corners of the document, it does appear to be consistent and accurate," he said.

Muir said her next step will be to file a motion for reduction of bail. Chisley currently has no set bail, as is the norm for the majority of first-degree murder cases. Madeira said he would oppose a motion for bail.