But physical evidence was recovered from the crime scene in the form of DNA, fingerprints, bloody footprints, and other evidence - including hairs grasped in the victim's hand. These hairs were revealed at the autopsy once the medical examiner removed the crime scene bags, which had been placed over the victim's hands to preserve evidence.

Detective Nichols, who was at the autopsy, stated in his deposition that he saw hair adhered to the index and middle finger of the victim's hand.

Detective Nichols's Deposition June 2005 page 64:

In reference to the victim's hand during the autopsy:

Defense attorney's Question: "Okay, And with regard to the hairs, they were not loose in the bags,"

Nichol's Answer: "Still attached or on the hands."

Defense attorney's question: "Adhering to the hands?"

Nichol's Answer: "Yes"

It was only at this time that the police realized there was crucial evidence in the victim's hand. Protective bags taped to the victim's hands by Detective Jeff Nichols had safeguarded this evidence.

After Ryan and Chuck were arrested the hairs were sent to the Missouri Highway Patrol and finally to the FBI lab for analysis and comparison to Ryan, Chuck and the victim.

The findings were unequivocal - the hairs clutched by Kent Heitholt were not his, Ryan's or Chuck's. The identification of these hairs was not pursued by the prosecution.

Although hair found on the victim was considered crucial evidence by the prosecutor in Rios's murder case tried in Boone County in the summer of 2005, it was dismissed in the Ryan Ferguson trial.

The question is WHY? - Especially in the absence of any evidence that linked Ryan Ferguson and Chuck Erickson to the murder of Kent Heitholt.

Was this because this hair evidence didn't fit the preconceived idea the police had as to who had committed this crime? At the very least the police should have tested this vital hair evidence against all police personnel at the crime scene as well as others such as emergency and medical personnel to determine the source of this most crucial piece of evidence.

There was no murder weapon ever found, no fingerprints that belong to Ryan or Chuck, no bloodstained clothing, no DNA of the accused boys at the scene. In fact, forensic experts found no traces of blood in Ryan's car or in Chuck's home.

This was determined by a police expert who administered a luminol test. This test is used to determine the presence of blood. (According to the experts, blood lasts for an infinite amount of time and is next to impossible to remove). With that much blood at the crime scene one would think the murderers would have left some trace.

Fingerprints, footprints and DNA samples collected from the crime scene remain unidentified. To this day the police have not found a match for the hair clutched by Mr. Heitholt, and they have not matched one bit of evidence to anyone. Who do these unidentified samples belong to?