I rather doubt that the strand of hair was the only evidence introduced in the case. Heck, maybe it was my hair. That doesn't exonerate the man convicted of the murder.
Thank you! Jeez, I know they didn't have DNA testing in 1989, but I seriously doubt they would sentence someone to death because he had hair that "looked like" one found at the scene. I'm sure there was much more to it. I still don't know how DNA "exonerates" people anyway. Just because it wasn't from that particular guy doesn't prove he wasn't at the scene. Maybe he had accomplices.