Harrington Links

Interview of Kevin Duane Hughes

Re: State of Iowa vs. Terry Harrington

In the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County at Council Bluffs

Lawrence A. Farwell, PhD

Chairman and Chief Scientist -- Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc.

Date of interview: May 17, 2000

Date of report: June 24, 2000

On May 17, 2000 at approximately 10 AM I spoke with Kevin Duane Hughes at his place of employment, Interstate Printing, located at 16th and Grace Street, Omaha, Nebraska.  Private Investigator James R. Smith also participated in the interview.  Mr. Smith and I asked Mr. Hughes about his testimony in the trial of Terry Harrington and the events leading up to that testimony.

In answer to questions, Mr. Hughes stated that he had testified in Terry Harrington’s trial that he drove with Mr. Harrington and Curtis McGee to McIntyre Oldsmobile on the night of the murder of John Schweer.  He said he saw Mr. Harrington and Mr. McGee leave the car and walk towards the place where the crime was committed, with Harrington carrying a shotgun under his coat.  He said they disappeared around a corner, and shortly thereafter he heard a shot, and then saw Harrington and McGee running from around a building at the scene of the crime.  He said the three of them then drove away together.

I informed Mr. Hughes of the fact that on April 18 and April 25, 2000 I had conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington that had showed that Harrington’s brain did not contain significant details of the murder of John Schweer.  I informed him that this Brain Fingerprinting result provides objective scientific evidence that the record in Terry Harrington’s brain does not match the crime scene for the murder of John Schweer.  Therefore, Hughes’ testimony in the trial was called into question.

Mr. Hughes said he had been tortured by memories ever since the Harrington trial.  He said he had had nightmares about this for the last 20 years.  He said he didn’t want to go through any more interrogations or court proceedings.

Mr. Smith and I pointed out that Mr. Harrington had spent 22 years in prison as a result of Hughes’ lying under oath in the trial.  We expressed the opinion that Hughes’ telling the truth would help to end this injustice, and would serve to take a burden off Hughes as well.  We pointed out that Mr. Hughes had created problems for himself by lying under oath.  We advised Mr. Hughes that it would be in his own best interest to tell the truth at this time.

I reiterated that we had solid scientific evidence obtained through Brain Fingerprinting that called into question his story implicating Mr. Harrington.  My primary message to Mr. Hughes was that Brain Fingerprinting shed new light on the case, and there was no point in his continuing to maintain the lie that he had told in the original trial.

After some time, Mr. Hughes said, “They didn’t do it.  None of us went over there.” (In context, “over there” referred to the scene of the crime, which was in Council Bluffs; Hughes and Harrington lived in Omaha at the time.)

I asked if he had any knowledge or information implicating Mr. Harrington in the crime.  He answered, “No, none of us did it.  I don’t know anything about it.”

I asked him how and why he came up with the story about accompanying Harrington to the scene of the crime.  He said that at the time of the crime he was 16 years old.  He was under arrest for other crimes.  The police and prosecutor threatened to prosecute him for the Schweer murder.  “I didn’t want no murder rap,” he said.

Hughes said that police officers Larson and Brown and prosecutor Hrvol had told him that Harrington and McGee had signed sworn statements alleging that Hughes had committed the murder.  He said they told him he would not be charged with the murder if he gave evidence against someone else.  Hughes said he then made the allegations about Harrington in order to avoid prosecution himself.  He said he had thought he would get life in prison if he didn’t testify against Harrington.

Hughes said that he had constructed the false story through interchanges with the police and the prosecutor.  He would provide a series of details, and when the details he provided did not match known information, they would tell him so, and he would change the story.  Through this process he constructed the story that he told at the trial.

I asked Mr. Hughes to make a sworn statement before a court reporter of the true story about the Harrington case.  He agreed to accompany Mr. Smith and me to the court reporter’s office and to provide a sworn and videotaped statement, and he agreed to tell the truth, as he had not done previously.  At approximately 11:00 AM we drove to Thomas and Thomas Court Reporters and Certified Legal Video, 502 North 40^th Street, Omaha.  There Mr. Hughes provided a sworn statement in response to my questions, interspersed with a few questions from Mr. Smith.  The information in the sworn statement was in accord with the above information that Mr. Hughes told us during the interview described herein.

Back     HARRINGTON LINKS    HOME