Hendricks was interviewed immediately on return from his trip and became the primary suspect due to his relationship with the victims and the police detectives' initial dissatisfaction with his demeanor.
Hendricks' guilt was questioned due to the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and the possible prejudicial effect of statements made about his religious beliefs.
Some of these women gave testimony for the prosecution that Hendricks asked them to remove clothing and made intimate contact with their upper bodies during private test-fittings.
Since the brace was normally worn externally, expert witnesses were called to testify that regular clothing and a brief fitting time were more typical, emphasized with an in-court demonstration.
His lawyers failed to challenge some other key pieces of the prosecution's evidence, such as how the order of killings was dubious for a sole killer acting on Hendricks' schedule that evening, and that the weapons and blood spatter suggested two perpetrators.
In 1991, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction and Hendricks was granted a retrial at the McLean County Law and Justice Center in Bloomington.
[2] The episode also attracted the attention of Champaign, Illinois columnist Jim Dey writing in the News-Gazette, who summarized the major points of the trial and the criticisms levied against it.