George Perrot spent 30 years in prison because of one single hair strand.

In 1985 a 78 year old women was raped by a burglar.

Pierrot was 17 at the time and thought witness testimony did not look anything like the burglar.

FBI agent Wayne Oakes was called to the stand as the "expert" on hair analysis.

On the stand Oakes bombarded the jury with scientific words about the hair and ended with saying The hair found on the sheet exhibits all the same microscopic hair arranged in the same way as the characteristics present in the known hair from Perrot.

The testimony was so strong that there was no doubt Perrot was guilty.

From the case knowledge and understanding of hair analysis has increased.

Scientists have learned that hair analysis could not distinguish one individual to the exclusion of all others.

Statistical weight could not be given to comparisons to suggest a likelihood that the hair derived from a specific source.

Expert witnesses should not cite the number of hair analyses they had conducted in the lab to ensure that the idea they could definitively state that a hair belonged to a specific individual.

Agent Oakes made all three mistakes during his testimony

From agent Oakes mistakes as well as the lack of information in hair analysis the FBI has wrongfully convicted ten's of thousands people.