Unanswered Questions in Forensic Hair Analysis:
Forensic evidence, particularly hair analysis, plays a crucial role in criminal investigations. However, the case involving Kevin Herrick highlights significant questions regarding the use and omission of such evidence.
Initial Forensic Analysis and Surprising Findings: In this case, head and pubic hair samples were collected from Kevin Herrick, John Doe, and Jane Doe. These samples were sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for forensic comparison against hair evidence found at the crime scene, specifically from John and Jane's bedsheets.
- On June 29, 1990, the FDLE report concluded that the microanalysis of the hairs obtained from the bedsheets did not match Kevin Herrick.
- Crucially, the FDLE analysis also determined that some of the hair samples collected did not match Jane Doe or John Doe either.
- This physical evidence strongly suggested that someone else was present in that bed.
Evidence Omitted from Trial and Subsequent Efforts: Despite these significant findings, this critical physical evidence was not discussed at all during the trial.
- When Kevin Herrick questioned his defense attorney, Mr. Lienster, he was informed that the FDLE fiber analysis was inconclusive.
In 2007, The Innocence Project became involved, representing Kevin Herrick in post-conviction proceedings.
- Their primary objective was to have the DNA tested from the hairs recovered from the victim’s bedsheets. The specific purpose of this DNA testing was to identify the actual assailant in the case.
However, the pursuit of this crucial DNA evidence faced an unexpected setback:
- The motion for post-conviction DNA testing was inexplicably denied.
- Due to this denial, The Innocence Project had no alternative but to conclude their representation of Kevin Herrick.
- In 2025, after multiple requests over more than 30 years, the Largo Police admitted that they destroyed the evidence in 1992.
Kevin's trial attorney, Ed Leinster, was concurrently representing a client in an appeal arguing that DNA should not be admissible. He could not ethically argue that DNA should be admitted in Kevin's case.
This case raises serious questions about the handling of forensic evidence and the pursuit of justice when key information remains unexamined.