Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesNo. DNA testing confirmed that a hair recovered from victim Frances Murphy’s glove did not come from Chester Weger, but it did not identify the killer or prove Weger’s innocence. In June 2025, a judge denied Weger’s post-conviction petition and left his conviction in place, finding the DNA evidence insufficient to undermine the guilty verdict.
What the DNA test established
The evidence at issue was a hair found on Frances Murphy’s glove. The parties did not dispute that it was not Weger’s; later DNA testing confirmed that the hair differed from his. That is an exclusion of Weger as the source of this particular hair—not an identification of who left it or when.
The hair’s significance was also limited by uncertainty about how historic evidence had been stored and handled. The court considered whether it could have come from Edward Bray, a local man who died on the day the women’s bodies were discovered, but did not treat that possibility as a conclusive identification. The court order addresses the evidence and its custody concerns: court order.
Why the result did not prove Weger’s innocence
A non-matching hair can show that one item of evidence is not Weger’s. Standing alone, it cannot establish that he had no role in the crime, determine when the hair reached the glove, or identify the person responsible. The judge weighed the result alongside the evidence and testimony presented at the post-conviction hearing rather than treating the hair as a verdict in itself.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11#1 Best Overall
Judge Michael C. Jansz summarized his assessment: “The court finds that this DNA evidence is not sufficiently conclusive for the court to lose confidence in the guilty verdict.” The quotation was reported by the Chicago Sun-Times.
What the judge decided—and what remains the defense’s position
Weger was convicted by a jury in 1961 of the murder of Lillian Oetting. He had confessed, later recanted, and maintained that his confession was coerced. The women—Oetting, Murphy, and Mildred Lindquist—were killed at Starved Rock State Park in March 1960. The Will County State’s Attorney’s office says the trial included the confession and other evidence: the office’s account of the conviction.
Rank #2
After Weger’s release on parole in 2020, he sought to overturn the conviction with DNA evidence and new witness accounts. A third-stage post-conviction evidentiary hearing ran from May 12 through May 28, 2025. On June 18, Judge Jansz denied the petition. The State’s Attorney’s office said the judge found the evidence presented not credible and upheld the conviction; that is the office’s characterization of the ruling. Read its statement on the petition decision.
Weger’s lawyers and family argued that the hair, considered with other evidence, supported his innocence and advanced an alternative account involving other people, including organized-crime figures. The judge did not accept the alternative account and related testimony as credible, according to the State’s Attorney’s office. That position should be distinguished from the narrower DNA finding: the tested hair was not Weger’s, but the court did not find that fact sufficient to overturn the verdict.
Rank #3
How the pardon request differs from overturning a conviction
Weger died in 2025. His family pursued a posthumous pardon, an executive clemency process separate from the court case. A pardon request is not a judicial exoneration and does not change the fact that the conviction remained in force after the June 2025 ruling.
The Illinois Prisoner Review Board heard the family’s request on October 6, 2026. As of October 8, 2026, reporting established that the hearing took place, but not the board’s recommendation or Governor JB Pritzker’s decision. WBEZ reports that the governor makes the final decision after receiving the board’s confidential recommendation: WBEZ’s explanation of the clemency process. The hearing date is also reported by current Chicago-area coverage. The outcome remains unresolved in the available reporting.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
- Students build unmatched deductive-reasoning skills as they become crime-solving stars
- Most scenarios have more than one plausible outcome, allowing individuals or groups to broadly interpret evidence
- Includes interpretive handwriting, body language, fingerprinting, and many more activities
At a glance: evidence, ruling, and clemency status
| Question | What is established |
|---|---|
| Did the hair come from Weger? | No. Testing confirmed that it did not. |
| Did the hair identify the killer or prove Weger’s innocence? | No. The result excluded Weger as the source of one hair but did not establish who left it or resolve guilt. |
| Did the court overturn the conviction? | No. The judge denied the post-conviction petition on June 18, 2025; the conviction remained in force. |
| Has the posthumous pardon been decided? | Not established by the reporting available as of October 8, 2026. The board held a hearing on October 6, but its recommendation and the governor’s decision were not reported. |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
