DNA evidence takes center stage during Faith Hedgepeth murder trial

DNA evidence takes center stage during Faith Hedgepeth murder trial Categories: Faith Hedgepeth Trial DNA evidence takes center stage during Faith Hedgepeth murder trial Prosecutors spent most the day in court questioning forensic scientist Erin Ermish, who said she analyzed around 190 to 200 DNA samples and compiled around 32 reports related to Hedgepeth’s killing since 2012. Aidan Lockhart, Enterprise Managing Editor • October 14, 2026 Cassidy Toy Reynolds The exterior of the Durham County Courthouse in Durham, N.C., on Monday, Sept. 28, 2026. Content warning: This story contains mentions of violence, sexual assault and graphic content.  Testimony during the Faith Hedgepeth murder trial Wednesday centered on DNA analysis and a male DNA profile found on multiple pieces of evidence left at the crime scene.  Hedgepeth was a 19-year-old UNC sophomore who was killed in her Durham apartment on Sept. 7, 2012. According to her death certificate and later autopsy reports, she died from blunt force trauma to the head.  The trial seeks to determine whether 33-year-old Miguel Salguero Olivares is guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense in connection with Hedgepeth’s killing. Investigators say Olivares’ DNA was linked to the murder weapon nine years after Hedgepeth’s murder. The day began with the continued questioning of North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation forensic scientist Summer Maffett. Prosecutors continued to ask Maffet about fingerprints found on a blue Riesling wine bottle she analyzed, which was found on the floor of the bedroom Hedgepeth’s body was found in.  Maffet stated that two of the three testable prints found on the bottle, a palm print and a left thumb print, matched those of defendant Salguero Olivares. She said the third print was not able to be identified, though she was able to rule out Hedgepeth’s roommate Karena Rosario. During cross-examination, defense attorneys asked Maffett about the significance of fingerprint evidence. When asked about her ability to determine when a fingerprint was left on an object, Maffett confirmed there is no way to know how old a fingerprint is and that the order in which multiple fingerprints were left can only be determined if they overlap.  After Maffett’s testimony concluded, the state called Erin Ermish, a forensic scientist at the N.C. State Crime Laboratory who has worked on the Hedgepeth case since September 2012. Ermish testified that she was the only person in the State Crime Lab who conducted DNA analysis in relation to the case; she said she analyzed around 190 to 200 DNA samples and compiled around 32 reports during this period.  Prosecutors presented a slideshow, created by Ermish, which contained information about DNA and the process of DNA analysis. Ermish explained to the jury that DNA is unique for every individual, excluding identical twins. She said after a DNA sample arrives at the lab, she isolates, quantifies and amplifies the sample for analysis. The DNA sample is then separated into component pieces and a DNA profile is created, she said. She then interprets the data and determines if there are multiple people contributing to the profile.  The prosecution then began presenting laboratory report summaries that Ermish compiled after performing DNA analysis of evidence sent to the State Crime Lab.  The first report, dated Sept. 26, 2012, detailed Ermish’s examination of oral, rectal and vaginal swabs taken from Hedgepeth’s body during the medical examiner’s sexual assault evidence collection examination: a blood sample from Hedgepeth; cheek swabs from Rosario and others; swabs taken of Rosario’s phone, phone case, sandals and jean shorts; swabs from the interior passenger door of the car Rosario’s friend, Jordan McCrary, drove when he picked her up from her apartment on Sept. 7 and the Bacardi rum bottle which was wrapped in the comforter covering Hedgepeth when she was found by Rosario.  The prosecution asked Ermish to describe each portion of the report and describe the forensic tests involved in analyzing blood and DNA. Ermish stated that she detected the presence of sperm on the vaginal and rectal swabs. The vaginal swab predominately contained DNA from Hedgepeth, though there were additional alleles that could not be accounted for. The rectal swab was also found to be a mixture of DNA, though the predominant DNA profile was found to be from an unknown male individual, not Hedgepeth. This unknown profile was also found on multiple other pieces of evidence.  Prosecutors moved on to Rosario’s jean shorts. Ermish said that she tested stains on the shorts which were presumptively positive for blood and that after further testing she identified the blood as matching Rosario’s DNA profile.  Ermish then discussed her analysis of the Bacardi rum bottle, which investigators believe to be the weapon used to kill Hedgepeth. Ermish said she took two swabs of blood from the bottle, one from the neck and another from the bottom. She said the swab taken from the neck of the bottle contained a DNA profile which was indicative of a mixture. She said the predominant profile matched Hedgepeth’s DNA, though there were other alleles which could not be accounted for.  The swab taken from the bottom of the bottle, Ermish said, contained a single-source DNA profile which matched only Hedgepeth.  The prosecution then moved on to Ermish’s second report, dated Oct. 22, 2012. In this report, Ermish detailed the testing of additional items including swabs taken from the bathroom sink, Hedgepeth’s boxer shorts and underwear — which were found rolled up together on the floor — and swabs from Hedgepeth’s fingernails. This second report also indicated that the partially predominant male DNA profile obtained from the rectal swab could not be excluded from the DNA profile mixture obtained from the neck of the Bacardi rum bottle. According to the report and Ermish’s testimony, the swabs from the bathroom sink in Hedgepeth’s apartment tested presumptively positive for blood but a DNA profile was not obtained. Ermish said dilution can be a factor in obtaining a profile. Hedgepeth’s boxer shorts and underwear both presumptively tested negative for the presence of semen. Samples taken from the boxer shorts were also tested for the presence of DNA.  Ermish tested multiple portions of the boxer shorts, including two sections near the waistband of the shorts. She said that since the boxer shorts and underwear were found rolled up together on the floor, she tested the areas where she thought a person may have grabbed to take them off.  Testing of these areas indicated a mixture of DNA which included Hedgepeth’s. Ermish said that the partially predominant male DNA profile of an unknown individual, the same found from the rectal swab, could not be excluded from the mixture found on the boxer shorts.  Ermish also tested samples taken from Hedgepeth’s fingernails. When asked by the prosecution how DNA can get underneath a fingernail, Ermish stated that this could occur if someone were to scratch or hold hands with another person. DNA testing of swabs from Hedgepeth’s fingernails on her left hand revealed a mixture which contained Hedgepeth’s DNA. Additionally, both the unknown male DNA profile obtained from the rectal swab and Rosario’s DNA profile could not be ruled out from the mixture. Ermish said that she was aware at the time of testing that Rosario was Hedgepeth’s roommate, and that while she would not expect Rosario’s DNA to be found on Hedgepeth’s fingernails, she also would not be surprised to.  Prosecutors moved on to a third report dated Nov. 19, 2012. This report included additional items sent for testing, including the blue Riesling wine bottle found on the floor of the bedroom, a paper bag with writing on it which reads “I’M NOT STUPID / BITCH / JEALOUS,” a green and white pen found in the doorway, a used tampon found on the floor of the bedroom, a used panty liner found on a futon and Hedgepeth’s cellphone, cellphone case and shirt she was wearing when her body was found.  Ermish said the tampon and panty liner tested presumptively negative for the presence of semen. The string of the tampon was tested for DNA and was found to be a mixture; the predominant profile matched Hedgepeth.  Ermish said that a DNA profile matching the unknown male DNA profile previously identified from the rectal swab was also found on the top portion of the blue Riesling bottle and the white paper bag.  The report also states that for swabs taken from the sticky side of the panty liner and the green and white pen, the unknown male DNA profile previously obtained from the rectal swab could not be excluded from the mixture of DNA present on these items, though numerous other DNA profiles tested were able to be excluded.  Prosecutors presented another report, dated Dec. 10, 2013. New evidentiary items in this report included a white tube top with black polka dots that Rosario said she wore on Sept. 6 and 7, 2012, a paper armband and black bracelet.  No interpretable DNA profile was obtained from the tube top. The arm band and bracelet both contained a mixture of DNA consistent with at least two contributors, and in both cases, partially matched Rosario’s DNA. Judge Keith Gregory adjourned the court at 5 p.m. The trial will continue Thursday at 9:30 a.m.  @dailytarheel | [email protected] 2 Like This Story Share on Facebook Share on X Email this Story Print this Story More to Discover More in Faith Hedgepeth Trial Specialists who collected and examined crime scene evidence questioned in Hedgepeth murder trial Lead investigator, digital forensics specialist called to the stand to begin third week of Faith Hedgepeth murder trial Week 2 of Faith Hedgepeth murder trial heard multiple witnesses, examined crime scene evidence Forensic specialists testify about Faith Hedgepeth autopsy, crime-scene bloodstains during murder trial Faith Hedgepeth’s roommate recounts discovering her body during second day of testimony Faith Hedgepeth’s former roommate testifies midway through second week of murder trial About the Contributors Aidan Lockhart, Enterprise Managing Editor Aidan Lockhart is the 2026-27 enterprise managing editor. He previously served as the summer managing editor, enterprise editor and a senior writer on the University Desk. Aidan is a senior studying neuroscience with minors in English and chemistry. Send tips to @aidanlockhart.68 on Signal. Cassidy Toy Reynolds, Assistant Photo Editor Cassidy is the 2026-2027 assistant photo editor. She previously served as a senior staffer on the photo desk. Cassidy is a junior studying biology on the pre-nursing track.