Rex Allen Keller, Jr.

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

Rex Allen Keller, Jr.

At trial, the state called star witness Rex Allen Keller, Jr. The state had Keller testify to alleged events that he claimed to have knowledge of, the state claimed connected me to the deaths of Gunnarsson and Miller.

First, Keller testified under oath that I had asked him the best way to hide a gun. Keller testified the alleged conversation took place at my residence in February 1993. Then he changed the date to February 1994, then changed the date back to February 1993 and finally, at the District Attorney’s suggestion, he changed the date back to February 1994 (Volume II, TP. 790).

Keller testified that he had informed me to put the gun in PVC pipe and bury it under concrete so a dog would not dig it up. He had learned of this information from reading Soldier of Fortune magazines (Volume II, TPP. 790-791).

It was the state’s theory that I was seeking information from Keller about how to hide the murder weapons the state claimed I used to kill Miller and Gunnarsson.

But a fact never brought out by defense counsel that would have cast doubt on Keller’s truthfulness and veracity was that Keller had given a statement to investigators on October 13, 1995, twenty months before his trial testimony, where he had informed investigators that the same alleged conversation had taken place at his store in “February 1992” (Keller’s statement, October 13, 1995, pg. 10, paragraph 4).

Kay Weden had previously testified under oath that I did not meet her or her mother, Catherine Miller until July 1992 (Volume I, TP. 178). From February 1992 until December 1993 when the murders took place was twenty two months.

Keller was telling investigators in his statement on October 13, 1995 that I was asking him the best way to hide a possible murder weapon, five months before I met Kay Weden or her mother, Catherine Miller, and twenty two months before the murders took place.

Defense counsel never explained why they failed to cross examine Keller about his prior statement to police on October 13, 1995 that cast doubt on his veracity and that made no sense.

Who would ask someone how to hide a possible murder weapon five months before they met one of the victims, Mrs. Miller, and almost two years before either murder occurred?

Second, Keller testified that I came to his residence in Harmony, North Carolina in March 1994 and asked him to help me make an audio tape so I could give it to my attorneys to help me account for a Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver. Keller testified that he helped me fabricate a story about how I no longer had the Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver (Volume II, TP. 800-801). Keller testified that I never mentioned anything about a Ruger .22 caliber rifle to him or any other brand of .22 caliber weapon (Volume II, TP. 801-802).

It was the state’s theory that I was trying to get Keller to help me account for the weapon that was used to kill Gunnarsson.

Al Langley, the state’s firearm expert in ballistics testified that a Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver could not have fired the bullets removed from Gunnarsson, however, the bullets could have been fired from a Ruger .22 caliber rifle, as well as numerous other .22 caliber weapons (Volume II, TP. 623).

No audio tape was ever introduced by the state to support Keller’s testimony. And no audio tape was ever introduced by the defense to try to account for a Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver.

Also, Keller’s testimony made no sense and was inconsistent with the state’s own expert witness testimony that I had asked Keller to help me make an audio tape to account for a Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver.

It was never brought to the jury’s attention that, it made absolutely no sense that I would ask Keller to help me make an audio tape to account for a Dan Wesson .22 caliber revolver, a type of firearm the state’s own evidence showed could not have been used to kill Gunnarsson, but that I never asked Keller to help me make an audio tape to help account for a Ruger .22 caliber rifle or any of the other numerous .22 caliber weapons that could have been used to kill Gunnarsson.

On appeal, my appellate attorney Thomas King never brought this information out to the appellate courts since Keller’s testimony concerning the alleged audio tape was addressed by the Court on direct appeal. All the appellate courts read was that I had asked Keller to help me make an audio tape to help account for a weapon the police alleged was used to kill Gunnarsson. The appellate court’s decision on this issue was not based on the true facts or all the evidence that was developed at trial.

Third, Keller testified at trial that I had given him a Colt .38 caliber revolver and $500.00 in November or December 1993 and the money was for the purpose of assaulting and scaring Kay Weden and her son (Volume II, TPP. 782-786).

However, at the 404(b) hearing which was held in November 1996, just seven months before trial, Keller had been asked by the District Attorney, was the money for the purpose of payment for assaulting and scaring Kay Weden and her son. Keller clearly testified “No, no sir the money was just a loan [404(b) hearing, TPP. 212-213].

Again, on cross examination by Mr. Kaplan at the 404(b) hearing, the following colloquy was had:

Q: Did you ever ask Mr. Underwood for favors?

A: Just a loan because like I said, I didn’t have a job and there was no hope of me getting a job and I needed money for Christmas.

Q: There probably wasn’t a lot of hope that Mr. Underwood would be paid back in the future based on that?

A: Not at that time.

Q: But you intended to pay him back?

A: Eventually, you see, I also borrowed money from my brother and my mom.

[404(b) hearing, TPP. 233-234].

It is clear from Keller’s own sworn testimony at the 404(b) hearing that he asked me for a loan. And Keller’s testimony at the 404(b) hearing contradicted his trial testimony that I gave him $500.00 for the purpose of assaulting and scaring Kay Weden and her son.

However, defense attorneys never questioned Keller or brought to the attention of the jury Keller’s prior testimony under oath at the 404(b) hearing that the money was just a loan.

Cherlyn Lashan Mack was Keller’s girlfriend in November and December 1993.

Mack was interviewed by investigators on October 24, 1995. Mack clearly told investigators that she did recall Keller saying that he was going to borrow some money from Underwood to buy Christmas gifts. Shortly afterwards he obtained $500.00 which Keller said he borrowed from Underwood (statement of October 24, 1995, page l, paragraph 3). Unfortunately, Ms. Mack was never called to testify on my behalf to dispute Keller’s testimony.

Fourth, Keller testified and had also told investigators in his statement on October 13, 1995 that Mack was present the day that I brought him a Colt .38 revolver. Mack told investigators in her statement to them on October 24, 1995 that she was never present when Keller said Underwood brought him a Colt .38 revolver and she did not recall Underwood ever giving Keller any gun to keep (statement of October 24, 1995, page 1, paragraph 2). Again, unfortunately Ms. Mack was never called on my behalf to testify and to dispute Keller’s testimony.

Fifth, Keller testified and told investigators in his statement on October 13, 1995 that I came back to pick up the Colt .38 prior to the Miller murder. Keller stated that when I came back and got the gun from him that Mack noted that I was calm on this occasion. Mack noted that I had mellowed out. This was in the first week of December 1993 (statement of October 13, 1995, page 6, paragraph 6) (Volume II, TPP. 785-786).

However, defense counsel never cross examined Keller about the fact that also in his statement on October 13, 1995, he had given investigators an entirely different version of the same event. Keller had stated that on the night I came to pick up the .38, I was ranting and raving. He and Mack had sat there for a long time trying to calm me down (statement October 24, 1995, page 7, paragraph 4).

Again, Ms. Mack told investigators in her statement on October 24, 1995 that she had no idea what Keller is talking about, and she was never present when Keller claimed I had come to pick up a gun or leave a gun, and that Keller was crazy and was lying to the police (statement of October 24, 1995, page 1, paragraph 2).

Defense attorneys never explained why Ms. Mack was never called as a witness, even though she was listed as a defense witness and her testimony could have disputed everything Keller testified to and what he had told the police in statements (Exhibit T, Defense witness list).

More importantly, if Ms. Mack had been called to testify, she would have testified that the state’s star witness, Allen Keller, had confessed to her that he was a hit man and a trained killer and had committed two murders in the past.

In her statement to investigators on July 28, 1995, Mack stated:

Keller would kill someone in a minute. Keller was confident he would never be caught for murder because he was so “well trained”. Keller said he was a hit man before she met him. Keller told her that he could shoot a needle of air between a person’s toes causing death that appeared to result from a heart attack. Keller showed her a bag containing a needle and syringe and told her he had killed someone with it before. Keller showed her a black leather hat, black leather boots, black gloves and black pants he said he uses when he kills people. Mack stated Keller had shot and killed someone before (statement of July 28, 1995, page 8, paragraph 3).

This was evidence that investigators were aware of almost three months before Keller was interviewed for the first time on October 13, 1995. However, when Keller was interviewed by four highly trained and experienced homicide investigators on October 13, 1995, Keller was never asked, let alone questioned about his admission to Ms. Mack that he was a “trained hit man” who had confessed to two murders.

Defense counsel never called Mack as a witness to discredit Keller and to attack his credibility or impeach his testimony on cross examination. Defense counsel failed to even question Keller, the state’s star witness, about his admission that he was a hit man and a well trained killer or that he had committed two cold blooded murders.

Back to Top

Keller’s Letter, “It Was a Pro Hit on Gunnarsson”

Sixth, trial testimony showed that Keller had written a letter to me on October 6, 1994 while Keller was serving an eight month prison sentence for food stamp fraud. The letter dealt with information Keller claimed to have discovered concerning the murder of Viktor Gunnarsson.

Trial testimony also showed that Keller had stated in the letter that “he had good news for me”. What he was going to tell was that he had received information involving the murder of Viktor Gunnarsson.

In the letter Keller informed me that he had been having coffee with a man who had worked for the National Security Agency and that Gunnarsson’s name had come up.

Keller informed me that, in short, I would not be charged and Gunnarsson’s death was a pro hit. Keller stated that the victim, Viktor Gunnarsson did not kill the Swedish Prime Minister for the U.S., but for the Russians and the hit on Gunnarsson was done to save a government from being embarrassed.

Finally, Keller informed me not to write or ask any questions because all mail was censored. He said there were a lot of “C.I.A.” boys at the prison where he was and that a cellmate of his who had given him the information was one of Oliver North’s boys and the N.S.A. group knew each other from jobs in the Middle East and Salvador (Volume II, TP. 818) (Exhibit J, Keller’s letter dated October 6, 1994).

Defense counsel’s theory at trial was that Gunnarsson’s death was in fact connected to his arrest for the assassination of the Swedish Prime Minister in 1986.

Mr. Chaudhury had supplied defense counsel with information that he knew Viktor Gunnarsson. He said, in talking with Gunnarsson, Gunnarsson had bragged to him that he had killed the Prime Minister of Sweden in 1986 and gotten away with it. According to Chaudhury, Gunnarsson had told him he hated all political leaders and would kill them all if he had a chance (Exhibit F, Interview of Rana Chaudhury).

Unfortunately, this witness was never called to testify, which supported the defense theory that Gunnarsson’s death was connected to his involvement in the assassination of the Swedish Prime Minister.

However, at trial when Keller was asked about his letter to me on October 6, 1994, Keller testified that “some little crazy man” who was in prison with him had supplied him this information (Volume II, TP. 819).

But Keller never mentioned in his letter that some crazy man had supplied him with the information that he had given me in his letter.

Keller never explained nor was he asked on cross examination:

	Why he never went to the police with this information.
	Why he never mentioned the letter to the police when he was interviewed three times in October 1995.
	Why he would write all of the things in the letter if they had not been true or had been given to him by some crazy man in prison.

Defense counsel never asked Keller to explain why he said one thing in the letter but something entirely different at trial.

Seventh, Keller testified that he and I had driven by Kay Weden’s home in the summer of 1993 (Volume II, TP. 833).

It was clear that the state’s theory was that we rode by Weden’s residence for the purpose of showing Keller where she lived so Keller could carry out the assault he had testified I paid him $500.00 to commit on Weden and her son.

However, on cross examination, Keller contradicted his prior sworn testimony. He testified that he did not know Kay Weden or her son and did not know where Kay Weden lived and had never been by their home (Volume II, TPP. 833-834).

Keller never explained:

	How he was to carry out a planned assault on two people he did not know and did not know where they lived.
	That he planned to pay back the $500.00 he said he had been paid to carry out the assault.
	Why he would ask me for a loan of $500.00 then come into court and testify that I gave him the money to assault Kay Weden and her son.

Back to Top