The Hair Evidence

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

The Hair Evidence

It was the state’s theory that in the early morning hours of December 4, 1993, I drove to Viktor Gunnarsson’s apartment, forced the nude Gunnarsson into the trunk of my car, drove him to an area known as Deep Gap, North Carolina, shot and killed him.

The clothing Gunnarsson was last seen wearing on the night of December 3, 1993 was removed from his bedroom in his apartment by Special Agent Troy Hamlin of the S.B.I. and transported to the laboratory. However, the police failed to examine or process any of the clothing for hairs, fibers, or blood (Volume III, TP. 1207-1208). Hamlin testified that two hairbrushes were removed from Gunnarsson’s residence during the search on January 13, 1994. The hair from the brushes was never tested. Agent Hamlin also testified that the hairs found on the trunk mat were Telegon hairs, which are hairs at the end of the growing cycle and that you can brush your hair and easily remove those hairs or find them on your lap or in your hairbrush (Volume III, TP 1284). Yet, when asked at trial about the hairbrushes he had removed from Gunnarsson’s residence during the January 13, 1994 search, Hamlin testified the hairbrushes had been misplaced and could not be found (Volume III, TP 1286).

Special Agent Bendura testified that he had removed the trunk mats from my Dodge Diplomat and Chevrolet Monte Carlo during the early morning hours of February 1 and February 2, 1994. He stated that he took carpet samples from the vehicles and throughout my residence (Volume III, TP 1206).

The state presented evidence from their hair expert, Agent Troy Hamlin, who testified that when two items are in contact with one another there is always a possibility of transfer and that is essentially what they look for (hairs and fibers) when they examine a piece of evidence in the laboratory (Volume IV, TP 1311).

Bendura also testified that he went to the medical examiner’s office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina on February 15, 1994 and told Dr. Butts he would like to get additional hair samples from the victim because the amount he had from Gunnarsson was limited. One hundred and twenty head hairs from the victim were placed in a white envelope by Dr. Butts and given to Agent Bendura (Volume III, TP 1206-1207).

Bendura testified that back at the laboratory he removed the hairs from the envelope and placed them in petri dishes so that he could go under the “stereomicroscope” to look for anything adhering to the hairs (Volume III, TP 1208). He then probed the hairs under the “stereomicroscope” and found fibers that he removed from the hair. Bendura testified that he was attempting to make fiber associations to two things: 1) the victims head hair that he removed from the tape found at the crime scene; 2) the items from the vehicles to see if he could associate the items from the victim’s hair and fiber adhering to the tape back to my vehicles and the carpet samples from the victim’s residence. Bendura said a total of seventy-two individual packages, which contained several thousand fibers were used in attempts to make comparisons (Volume III, TP 1208-1209).

Bendura then testified that after taking possession of the trunk mat from the Monte Carlo on February 1 and February 2, 1994, he took the mat to the S.B.I. Laboratory. Bendura said that once back at the S.B.I. Laboratory with the black trunk mat, he conducted a visual examination of the mat. He then went over the trunk mat with methanol soluble tape, methodically in two-inch grids, repeating the process more than six times and never removed or observed any hairs on the trunk mat. There was never any testimony, nor was Bendura asked, why he never examined the trunk mat for hairs or fibers with any kind of special magnification equipment, or even a magnifying glass to look for tiny hairs or fibers. Twenty-two months later, and after several other examinations, on October 8, 1995, Agent Bendura had finished his methodical examination of the trunk mat. He was in the process of folding up the black trunk mat when he just casually noticed several human hairs on the mat. Bendura clearly testified that he thought it was strange that he had gone over the mat many times methodically in two inch grids, but never noticed the hairs before and that he did not pick up the hairs by blotting the mat with tape (Volume III, TP 1212). When he looked, Bendura testified that he found 17 hairs that he removed with a pair of tweezers (Volume III, TP 1214).

Bendura also testified that the trunk mat and the hairs he had received from the medical examiner were not secured in any locked area during his examination of the trunk mat, but were left out on his examining table (Volume III, TP 1212-1213).

Bendura then testified that he found all of the hairs in a one-foot diameter circle and all of the hairs were accumulated within that one-foot area, and not over the entire mat (Volume III, TP 1217).

During my appeal, my attorney Thomas King told my parents, Burl and Barbara Childress, of Columbus, Ohio, he contracted Agent Bendura about the hair evidence because he felt the hair evidence was very suspicious. Agent Bendura admitted that if the right questions had been asked by defense attorneys, Bruce Kaplan and Chester Whittle, Jr. during trial, he would have testified that he could not have missed seeing the hairs on the trunk mat during his six prior searches.

Bendura also admitted to King, during my appeal, that he had received 120 head hairs belonging to the victim from the medical examiner. He put these into a white envelope and took them back to the laboratory. He then put them into petri dishes as confirmed by his testimony at trial (Volume III, TP. 1206-1208). Bendura told King that before trial, he had discovered that 17 hairs were missing out of the 120 hairs he had received from the medical examiner. He could only account for 103 hairs. Bendura admitted if he had been asked, he would have testified about the 17 missing hairs but no one asked and he did not volunteer the information.

Even after discovering that 17 hairs were missing from the laboratory, which was the exact same number that Bendura testified at trial that he had found on the mat, my appeal attorney, Thomas King, never made the appellate court aware of this information, and never used the information in my appeal.

Bendura then testified that after finding the hairs on October 8, 1995, the next day, October 9, 1995, he turned the hairs from the trunk mat over to Agent Troy Hamlin (Volume III, TP 1219).

My defense attorneys were well aware during my trial that the S.B.I. Laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina is open Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. They were aware that Sunday, October 8, 1995, the day Bendura testified under oath that he found the hairs on the mat, the S.B.I. Laboratory was closed (Exhibit B, S.B.I. Web Site and C, Calendar of 1995). However, neither attorney ever raised this issue at trial, nor did they attempt to prove the hairs could not have been found on October 8, 1995, by subpoenaing the SBI Laboratory records for this particular day.

Bendura further testified that each time he examined the mat on the multiple examinations, he was able to remove debris from the mat (Volume III, TP 1234). This was a clear indication the trunk mat was dirty and had not been cleaned. The state claimed that I had the cars professionally cleaned at Sam’s Car Wash in Salisbury, North Carolina in December 1993 or January 1994, where the trunk mat was shampooed. However, when Bendura started to examine the mat in February 1994, he was able to get debris out of the mat.

Another disturbing fact that was never brought out by defense attorneys is listed as Exhibit “D”. This is the “laboratory report” of Agent Troy Hamlin, Special Agent with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation in charge of the Trace Evidence Section of the crime laboratory. His report, based on an examination of the 17 Caucasian head hairs that allegedly came from the trunk mat of my Monte Carlo, shows that 16 of these hairs were found to be microscopically consistent with the head hair of Victor Gunnarsson. A later examination by the F.B.I. Laboratory in Washington, D.C. showed that the hairs from the trunk mat were consistent with known hair samples from Viktor Gunnarsson through mitochondrial DNA testing.

Agent Hamlin testified that he received the hairs from the trunk mat from Agent Bendura on October 9, 1995 (Volume IV, TP 1303-1304). However, page two of his laboratory report indicates that the hairs from the trunk mat were transferred to Agent Glasgow of the F.B.I. on August 19, 1995 which was forty nine (49) days before Agent Bendura testified he found the hair on the mat. It would have been impossible for Agent Hamlin to have turned over the hairs to F.B.I. Agent Glasgow before the hairs were found (Exhibit D, S.B.I. Lab Report).

Agent Bendura also testified that, while he did six or more methodical searches, he did not write down the dates or times he examined the mat during the twenty-two month period the mat was in his possession (Volume III, TP 1233). However, during the search of my residence on February 1 and February 2, 1994, Bendura kept a master evidence log where he wrote down the precise dates and times of various pieces of potential evidence, even if the evidence was seized minutes apart. Defense Counsel never asked him to explain why he would keep an evidence log where he wrote down the precise dates and times of various pieces of potential evidence that were seized, but failed to write down any dates or times that he conducted the six or more methodical searches of the trunk mat.

Agent Hamlin testified on cross-examination and redirect examination that he took the hairs from the trunk mat of the Monte Carlo to Roche Laboratory (formerly known as Lab Corp) on August 9, 1996. At the trial the following colloquy was recorded:

Q: I understand, now sir, you on August 9, 1996 submitted the hairs found on the carpet from the Monte Carlo to Roche Laboratory for P.C.R. analysis.

A: That’s correct. (Volume IV, TP 1329)

Hamlin typed his completed laboratory report, which he signed and certified as true and accurate on September 5, 1996, just nine months before the start of my trial. Hamlin wrote in his laboratory report that he took the same hairs for P.C.R. analysis on October 18, 1995. Hamlin’s laboratory report shows that he took the same hairs from the trunk mat for P.C.R. analysis 10 months before he testified to at trial (Exhibit “D”, pg. 2). Defense attorneys never asked why, or brought to the jury’s attention how a trained scientist, an expert in the field of forensic hair examination and head of the Trace Evidence Section of the S.B.I. Crime Laboratory, would write, certify and sign as true and accurate, a laboratory report and be ten months off as to when he took the key piece of hair evidence for testing.

Agent Hamlin next testified that he received the hairs from Agent Bendura on October 9, 1995 and that he turned the hairs over to F.B.I. Agent David Glasgow on August 9, 1996 (Volume IV, TP 1303-1304). On cross-examination by defense attorney Bruce Kaplan, the following colloquy was recorded:

Q: Mr. Hamlin, when did the hairs from Agent Bendura come into your possession?

A: October 9, 1995.

Q: And when did any of these hairs leave your possession?

A: Those hairs were submitted to Special Agent Glasgow.

Q: On what date?

A: August 9, 1996.

However, Hamlin had previously testified that he had taken the hairs from the trunk mat to Roche Laboratory for P.C.R. testing on August 9, 1996 (Volume IV, TP 1329). Hamlin was never asked how it was possible that he had the hairs at Roche Laboratory for P.C.R. testing on August 9, 1996 and had given the same hairs to F.B.I. Agent Glasgow on August 9, 1996. It would have been impossible for the hairs to have been at Roche Laboratory for P.C.R. testing on August 9, 1996 and been in the possession of F.B.I. Agent Glasgow on the same day.

Agent Glasgow testified that he received this same evidence from Agent Hamlin on August 19, 1996, not August 9, 1996 as Hamlin testified (Volume III, TP 1100). Therefore, there is another ten days that the state could not account for the only direct piece of evidence they claimed linked me to Gunnarsson’s death.

It was also the state’s theory that Gunnarsson was bound and gagged with masking and electrical tape strips and placed nude in the trunk of my 1979 Monte Carlo. Masking and electrical tape strips were found at the crime scene that contained sixty hairs that were found to be consistent with that of Gunnarsson’s hair (Volume IV, P. 1332). The laboratory examination by Agent Bendura showed that fibers were found on the pieces of the masking and electrical tape strips which were recovered near Gunnarsson’s left foot in Watauga County (TP. 1206). However, not one fiber from the trunk mat was found on the tape and these fibers were never identified (Volume III, TP 1231).

The state also presented evidence that a person 6’3” weighing 205 pounds, slightly larger than Viktor Gunnarsson, could fit inside the trunk of my Monte Carlo. They showed it would have been possible for Gunnarsson to move around inside the trunk a full 360 degrees (TP 1136), (TP 1158), (Volume III, TP 1025-1026).

Trial testimony from Agent Bendura showed that fibers were also found in Gunnarsson’s hair (Volume III, TP 1208). However, trial testimony from Agent Bendura showed the fibers found in Gunnarsson’s hair did not come from the trunk mat of my Monte Carlo (Volume III, TP. 1209-1212). The fibers were never identified (Volume III, TP. 1213). Bendura testified that he never compared fibers found on the tape to the fibers found in the victim’s hair to see if they could have come from the same source (Volume III, TP 1231-1232).

It was also the state’s theory that Gunnarsson was alive in the trunk of my Monte Carlo during the trip from Salisbury, North Carolina to Boone, North Carolina and that he was killed in the spot where his body was found. The drive from Salisbury, North Carolina to Boone, North Carolina is a two and one half hour drive (Bond hearing transcript page 47, Detective Townsend’s testimony, November 6, 1995) (Sheriff Lyons testimony TP 1206).

It is hard to believe that not one piece of fiber from the Monte Carlo trunk mat was attached to the tape holding Gunnarsson nor were any fibers from the mat found in his hair. This is hard to believe considering the state’s theory that:

	Gunnarsson could move around inside the trunk a full 360 degrees
	Gunnarsson was in the trunk two and one half hours
	The trunk was the last place he was to have been alive
	Gunnarsson was bound with masking and electrical tape, which should have picked up fibers from the mat.

Moreover, the autopsy report showed that Gunnarsson had a great deal of body hair including anterior chest, abdominal, leg and arm hair (TP 1170). Dr. Butts, the Medical Examiner, testified that the autopsy report from his examination of the body showed that Gunnarsson had a great deal of body hair (TP 1170). Only the seventeen hairs were found in a one-foot diameter area on the trunk mat originating from Gunnarsson’s head.

I tried to point out to my defense counsel that is was just unbelievable that seventeen hairs could come from Gunnarsson’s head, all in a one-foot diameter area, but no other evidence of chest, pubic, arm or leg hairs were found when the state’s evidence was that Gunnarsson was placed in the trunk nude. I also tried to point out that taken with the fact that no fibers from the trunk mat were found in either Gunnarsson’s hair or on the tape from the crime scene, and the other inconsistent hair evidence the state had presented from their experts, the hair had to have been planted.

However, both defense attorneys ignored this evidence and never brought out these facts to the jury at trial or during closing arguments.

Agent Bendura also testified that eleven months after discovering the seventeen hairs on the trunk mat on October 8, 1995, he again just casually noticed three additional hairs on the mat in the exact same area where he had found the original seventeen hairs. However, for reasons that were never explained, Bendura never requested any examination or tests on the three additional hairs, which he said he threw away (Volume III, TP 1212-1213).

Bendura further testified that he did not notice the seventeen hairs until he was holding the mat at an angle while folding the mat up for the last time to put it into a bag to ship it back to investigators (Volume III, TP 1212-1213).

Back to Top