Wig fibers were found in the car, but these were never fully proven to be from the wig shop. Eight wig fibers were found Navigator, which were believed to come from the wig that Dror's grandmother wore, or the wig that Dror's stepmother sometimes wore.

However, at trial, the prosecution's witness, Ms. Reidun Hillman, presented this evidence as being "consistent" with fibers found at the wig store. In reality, there were absolutely no similarities between the two sets of fibers, in so-far that they are both fibers. Wigs are worn by women throughout the planet, and they all share similar fibers. Hillman’s argument proved no definitive connection between the Wig Shop fibers and those found in the car. Even though this evidence did not prove any connection to the crime, it was used repeatedly by the prosecution and by the Houston Chronicle as evidence of guilt..

Reidun Hillman , the crime lab technician that testified for the prosecution, was forced to resign in 2003-2004 due to threats of being fired. It was later revealed by the Bromwich Report that Ms . Hillman had never been trained to be a criminologist, or to perform any type of serology work. She only received training to test fiber or hair evidence. Furthermore, Hillman was known for aligning her testimony to that of what the prosecution was trying to present. Ms. Hillman committed perjury in the George Rodriguez case, in which an innocent man was convicted of rape and sent to prison for life. He as finally released after 17 years, after DNA retesting overturned his case.

Ms. Hillman used the word "consistent", which was common terminology in the HPD crime lab. The same language was used to convict Josiah Sutton of a rape he did not commit. Sutton was later released after DNA retesting proved that he did not commit the rape. Sutton had already served four years in prison when he was released.

This is another myth perpetrated by the prosecution and the Houston Chronicle. In fact, Dror was never even charged with evading arrest.

In November of 1998 , Dror 's grandparents were visiting Houston from Israel for medical reasons. Dror was planning on returning with his elderly grandparents to Israel when their visit was over in the first week of December of 1998. When Dror was released from police custody on the night of the crime, he was informed that he was no longer a part of the investigation . The following week he escorted his grandparents back to Israel. After a few weeks, he returned to Houston. At that time, Dror had been planning on a backpacking trip to Thailand, which he had been saving for by working as a waiter at a neighborhood restaurant. However, before he left on the trip, he sought the advice of the Goldberg family attorney. He then contacted the assistant district attorney Chuck Rosenthal, to ask if there were any reasons for him to not travel abroad. In a recorded conversation, ADA Chuck Rosenthal stated that the defense had no objection to Dror’s travel plans, as he was not a part of the investigation any longer.

While Dror was backpacking through Thailand, the Houston Chronicle and the victims’ family increased pressure for an arrest. An indictment was put out in Dror’s name. Later, an international warrant was also issued.

During this time, Dror's family went to great lengths to locate him and to notify him of the indictment. They even placed a giant advertisement in the International Herald Tribune, which he later viewed. Once Dror contacted his family and learned about the indictment, he made preparations to come home. His attorney even made plans for the police to meet him at the airport, and for bond to be set. However, on the way home to Houston to face the charges against him, Dror was stopped by the German border police. Dror ended up spending six months in a German prison. During that time, he fought for extradition so that he could prove his innocence. Finally, in December of 1999 he was brought back to Houston. During the trial, prosecutor Kelly Siegler made repeated inappropriate comments about Dror's trips. When Dror's attorney attempted to introduce the recording of Chuck Rosenthal permitting Dror to leave on the trip, the judge would not allow him to do so. Dror was not allowed to defend himself against the prosecution's claims that he may have been running from the law. This painted the wrong picture for the jury at Dror's trial, making them see the defendant as a scheming flight risk with a guilty conscience.

During the trial, the judge allowed the prosecution to introduce letters that Dror had written to a childhood friend four years prior to the trial. He was a teenager when he wrote these letters, and by Dror's own admission, they are crude, stupid, and very immature. One of the letters has a part speaking badly about girls that Dror and the friend knew at school and spoke about his hatred towards Palestinians. When Dror wrote this letter, this friend was serving in the Israeli army, and Palestinian terrorists were bombing Israel on a weekly basis. Dror had grown up in Tel Aviv, Israel, and still has family and a grandmother living there today. However, at the time of the trial, the judge only allowed the prosecution to read the crude and prejudicial parts of the letter, but she would not allow the defense to read the entire letter in order to rebuke the prosecution’s claims. The prosecution used this letter as character evidence against Dror.

The letter was completely unrelated to the crime, and did not prove intent, motive, plan, or really anything other than the fact that four years prior to the trial, Dror was just another immature boy. Unfortunately, the letter became a cornerstone of the prosecution's case, and was reviewed extensively by the Houston Chronicle.