George Perrot

The Crime

In the fall of 1985, police in Springfield, Massachusetts were investigating a series of house burglaries in the Malibu Drive neighborhood. Several of the break-ins involved sexual attacks on elderly women. Two of the break-ins occurred about an hour apart on Nov. 30, 1985.

In the first incident, 68-year-old Emily Lichwala reported that she was awakened at 3 a.m. by the sound of someone trying to break into her kitchen. She heard glass shatter. Ms. Lichwala went outside but saw no one. She discovered her purse was gone.

An hour later and not far away, a 78-year-old woman, M.P., was awakened by her dog barking. She went to the kitchen and opened the door, but didn’t see or hear anything. She went back to bed, taking a stick with her for protection.

Not long after, she heard someone enter the house. She went back to the kitchen where an intruder confronted her and pushed her back into her bedroom. She said he struck her, sexually assaulted her on the floor, and left with her purse. She said the attacker was clean-shaven, had dark wavy hair, and wore a blue jacket, dark pants, and white sneakers.

The Investigation

A week later, 17-year-old George Perrot became a suspect.  On the night of Dec. 6, 1985, after a night spent ingesting drugs and alcohol, he broke into the home of Joseph McNabb on Allendale Circle in Springfield. When Mr. Perrot realized Mr. McNabb and his wife were home, he fled. 

At about 2:15 a.m. on Dec. 7, 1985, Officer James Murphy responded to Mr. McNabb’s home and got a description of the burglar. Mr. Murphy then went to the area of Malibu Drive where a woman reported that a man had snatched her purse at a Denny’s restaurant. She said she and her friend had chased the purse snatcher through the snow to Malibu Drive. Mr. Murphy concluded that the footprints in the snow were similar to a footprint seen outside Mr. McNabb’s home. He followed the footprints to Mr. Perrot’s home. Mr. Perrot was arrested. 

Beginning at about 4:30 a.m., detectives interrogated Mr. Perrot over the next 12 hours, specifically about the break-in of Ms. Lichwala’s home and the break-in and sexual assault of M.P. on Nov. 30. He denied involvement in those incidents, but signed a statement admitting to the purse snatching and the McNabb break-in.

Later, Mr. Perrot signed a statement admitting to breaking into Ms. Lichwala and M.P.’s homes but denied sexually assaulting M.P. Detectives said that while giving his statement, Mr. Perrot became emotional, wept, and asked for a gun to commit suicide. He was placed on suicide watch.

At 4:30 p.m., Ms. Lichwala, M.P., Mr. McNabb, and Mae Marchand, whose home also had been broken into, viewed a lineup that included Mr. Perrot and several police officers acting as fillers. Mr. Perrot’s hair was long and curly, and he had a mustache and a goatee. Mr. McNabb identified Mr. Perrot, but M.P., Ms. Lichwala, and Ms. Marchand did not. 

The Trials

In December 1987, Mr. Perrot went to trial In Hampden County Superior Court for the break-in and sexual assault of M.P. and breaking into Ms. Lichwala’s home. By that time, he had been convicted of the McNabb break-in and sentenced to 10 to 12 years in prison.

Prosecutor Francis Bloom told the jury that FBI Agent Wayne Oakes, a crime lab hair analyst, would testify that a head hair found in M.P.’s bedroom was “absolutely” not M.P.’s. Mr. Bloom said Agent Oakes would testify that the hair had 15 to 25 characteristics that were “identical to every characteristic of the head hair” from Mr. Perrot. Mr. Bloom also said that FBI Agent William Eubanks, a crime lab analyst, would testify that blood on a pair of gloves found in M.P.’s bedroom was consistent with Mr. Perrot’s blood, and that “every genetic marker” in blood on the bed sheet from M.P.’s bedroom was consistent with Mr. Perrot’s blood.

M.P. testified that a man who was clean-shaven had assaulted her on the floor. She said the bed sheet had an old bloodstain from years earlier when a relative who was ill had stayed there.

Ms. Lichwala testified that she never saw the person who broke into her home.

Springfield Detective Thomas Jarvis testified that Mr. Perrot, who had a mustache and beard when arrested, confessed to the break-ins at M.P.’s and Ms. Lichwala’s residences, but denied sexually assaulting M.P. 

Although M.P. said she was assaulted on the floor, Mr. Eubanks testified that he analyzed two bloodstains on the bed sheet. He said he was unable to determine a blood type but that he identified four genetic markers on the larger stain. Mr. Eubanks said that Mr. Perrot’s blood had all four genetic markers. He said that the blood did not come from M.P. Mr. Eubanks also said he found a bloodstain on the gloves that had a genetic marker that both M.P. and Mr. Perrot had.

Agent Oakes testified that he had microscopically compared the two recovered head hairs with hair from Mr. Perrot. He said that he excluded M.P. as the source of the hair and that there were “no significant differences in any of the microscopic characteristics” between the recovered hair and Mr. Perrot’s hair.

Agent Oakes conceded that hair comparison could not be the basis of a positive identification. Nevertheless, he said that he had “worked thousands of cases involving thousands of known hair standards, so when I do in fact associate a questioned hair with a known hair standard, in my opinion, it forms a basis of a strong association, because very rarely do I see known samples from two people that are so alike that I cannot tell them apart.”

Ms. Lichwala’s purse, which had been found, was admitted into evidence, though there was no proof connecting it to Mr. Perrot.

Mr. Perrot testified that he did not remember signing the statement admitting to the M.P. and Ms. Lichwala break-ins and denied that he committed the crimes. He said that on the date of the crimes, he had been drinking beer and had taken two “purple” Mescaline pills. He also testified that detectives beat him during his interrogation.

On Dec. 14, 1987, the jury convicted Mr. Perrot of aggravated rape, burglary and assault in a dwelling, unarmed robbery, and indecent assault and battery. He was sentenced to life in prison.

On June 4, 1990, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial, ruling Ms. Lichwala’s purse should not have been allowed into evidence.

At the retrial, the defense again focused on M.P.’s insistence that her attacker was clean-shaven. The prosecution presented the same evidence relating to the hair microscopy and blood analysis.

On Jan. 9, 1992, Mr. Perrot was convicted again of the same charges. He was sentenced to life in prison.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts upheld his conviction in 1995.

The Exoneration

In September 2001, a defense motion for a new trial was granted because the prosecutor at the retrial, Brett Vottero, had made improper comments about the presumption of innocence and improperly vouched for the credibility of the FBI agents.

In May 2003, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the lower court ruling and reinstated Mr. Perrot’s convictions and sentence.

In 2013, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers began a review of FBI analysts’ testimony and reports on hair comparisons. Ultimately, the review found that analysts had provided erroneous testimony or reports in more than 90% of cases studied. 

After reviewing Agent Oakes’s testimony in Mr. Perrot’s 1992 trial, the FBI concluded that Agent Oakes made erroneous statements.

By that time, the law firm of Ropes & Gray was examining Mr. Perrot’s case. The evidence was too degraded for DNA testing, so the lawyers shifted their focus to the hair microscopy issue and enlisted the Innocence Project and the Massachusetts Committee for Public Services Counsel Innocence Program.

In 2014, the defense sought a new trial contending that Agent Oakes had given false and misleading hair analysis testimony. They filed a supplemental petition following the discovery of previously undisclosed laboratory notes from Agent Eubanks’ blood analysis. These notes indicated that contrary to his testimony during the trial, Agent Eubanks had conducted a blood typing test on the bed sheet, which may have yielded a weak response for the Type A antigen. Given that Mr. Perrot has blood type O, he was excluded from consideration.

In January 2016, Superior Court Judge Robert Kane vacated Mr. Perrot’s convictions relating to the break-in and sexual assault of M.P. Judge Kane said that the hair analysis evidence at the 1992 trial “exceeded the foundational science.” 

The defense did not challenge Mr. Perrot’s conviction for the burglary of Ms. Lichwala’s home.

On Feb. 10, 2016, Mr. Perrot was released from prison pending a third trial. On Oct. 11, 2017, the charges were dismissed.

In 2018, Mr. Perrot filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages.