|
 |
 |
|
Seventeen Hairs | The State's Car Wash Theory | The Hair Evidence | So Many Unanswered Questions | Scratch Marks Found Inside the Trunk | The Alleged "Shoe Print" on the Trunk Lid | The Police Uniform Theory | N.C. Department of Transportation Map | Salisbury Telephone Book | Time Line | The Tape Evidence | Ballistics Evidence - Gunnarsson | Kay Weden and I Meet | An Unbelievable Theory | Shirley Scott & the 404(b) Hearing | Gunnarsson Alive? | Who was Viktor Gunnarsson | Three Strange Men | A Confession to Gunnarsson's Murder | Robbie Smith | The Missing Key | Brandon Shelton's Confession to Investigators? | One Puzzling Question | Coincidences? You be the Judge | Death of Catherine Miller | The Miller Evidence | Rex Allen Keller, Jr. | Beth Pitts | Kay Weden - Jason Weden | A Suspect in the Miller Murder | Still So Many Unanswered Questions
N.C. Department of Transportation Map
During the search of my residence on
February 1 and February 2, 1994, investigators discovered a N.C.
Department of Transportation map with the areas of Boone, Blowing Rock,
Lake Lure and Maggie Valley marked on the map. It was the state’s
theory that, since Gunnarsson was found in Boone, North Carolina, the
map was connected somehow to his death.
In the state’s brief to the N.C. Court of
Appeals, Mr. Marquette addressed the issue of the map being found in my
home during the search in February 1994. However, Mr. Marquette failed
to make the court aware of some very important facts that were developed
at trial. First, trial
evidence showed that the area of Deep Gap, where Gunnarsson’s body was
discovered on January 7, 1994 was not marked on the map (TP. 115)
(Volume II, TP. 448). Second,
the state’s evidence from witness Kay Weden clearly showed that each and
every place marked on the map were places we had been during the time we
had dated (Volume I, TPP. 324-325).
Third, the state produced no evidence at trial that showed
that this map was ever connected to the death of Mr. Gunnarsson in any
way.
Yet again, unfortunately for me, my
appellate attorneys never addressed this issue in the state’s brief on
appeal and the Appeals Court based their decision on this piece of
evidence on the state’s brief and not the true evidence developed at
trial.
|
