Scratch Marks Found Inside the Trunk

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

Scratch Marks Found Inside the Trunk

During the search of my vehicles by investigators on February 1 and February 2, 1994, scratch marks were discovered inside the trunk on the left quarter panel and wheel well (TP. 1577-1578). It was the state’s theory that while Gunnarsson was inside the trunk, he made the scratches in an attempt to claw his way out.

The state cannot deny this was their theory, which was supported by the closing arguments of the District Attorney Tom Rusher. Mr. Rusher stated during closing arguments, “The victim was scratching for justice, justice that never came to him.” The District Attorney further stated, “It appeared that someone had taken a tire tool to make the marks inside the trunk in an attempt to get out.” (Closing arguments of District Attorney Tom Rusher TP.49)

During the search of the vehicle on February 1 and February 2, 1994, photographs were taken by investigators (Volume II, PP. 421-424). Twenty one months later, on November 20, 1995, investigators returned to search the vehicle for a second time (Volume II, PP. 421-424). During the first search, at least twelve experienced criminal investigators who were present, noticed the scratches inside the trunk.

Detective Paula Townsend of the Watauga County Sheriff’s Office testified that during the second search of the Monte Carlo on November 20, 1995, she noticed the scratch marks had been painted over. She further testified that photographs were also taken of the scratches on November 20, 1995 (Volume II, TP. 461). At trial, the prosecution entered both photographs taken twenty one months apart into evidence. Detective Townsend also testified that she never took samples of the paint that she testified had been used to cover up the scratches. Neither did she ask for any tests to be conducted to find out if the paint she claimed had been used to paint over the scratches was different from the other black paint inside the trunk (T., Vol. II, pp. 461-462).

Defense attorneys had the state’s own photographic evidence to dispute Detective Townsend’s testimony that the scratches had been painted over between the first and second searches, however, this evidence was not pointed out to the jury. The photographs from the first and the second searches clearly showed the same scratches in each photograph. Also, evidence from Detective Townsend during cross examination disputed her testimony for the state that the scratches had been painted over. She testified under oath that during the second search the scratch marks could still be clearly observed (Volume II, TP 461-462).

Trial testimony from each and every officer who had observed the scratches during both searches clearly showed they had no idea how the scratches were made, when the scratches were made, or how long the scratches had been inside the trunk prior to February 1, 1994. Officers also testified they had no idea what made the scratch marks and there was no evidence to support the theory that the scratches had been made by the victim, Mr. Gunnarsson (Volume II, TP 458-460)( Volume IV, TP 1522)(TP 1607-1608).

Trial testimony from the state’s own expert, Dr. Butts, the chief Medical Examiner, clearly showed that Gunnarsson had no metal, paint, dirt or fibers underneath his finger nails. His fingernails were not broken and his hands were not damaged or cut. Other than the two bullet wounds, there was no damage to any other part of Gunnarsson’s body (TP 1174).

There was no testimony that supported the District Attorney’s statement that it appeared the scratch marks were made by a tire tool. The photographs taken by investigators showing the scratch marks and the trunk of the vehicle on February 1 and February 2, 1994 and again on November 20, 1995 clearly showed that there was no damage to the trunk lid, back seat or the trunk lock, the logical places a person would try to escape from if trapped inside a trunk.

Prosecutors never explained:

	Why, if Gunnarsson was trapped inside the trunk with a tire tool, he would scratch at the quarter panel and wheel well instead of trying to pry open the trunk lid.
	Why, if Gunnarsson had been in the trunk, there was no damage to the trunk lock, back seat or trunk lid, the most logical places a person would try to escape from if trapped in a trunk. Is it realistic to believe a person trapped inside a trunk would try and scratch their way through a quarter panel to escape?
	Since it was the state’s evidence Gunnarsson could move around 360 degrees inside the trunk, why was there only damage to one small area on the vehicle trunk?
	Since it was the state’s theory that Gunnarsson was bound and gagged with tape, how were his hands free to make the scratch marks?
	How Gunnarsson could make the scratches and not damage his hands or leave any blood inside the trunk area, or get any dirt, metal, paint fibers or debris from the trunk mat under his finger nails.
	Since the scratch marks were photographed and observed by at least twelve investigators on February 1 and February 2, 1994 and if they were made by Gunnarsson, why would I paint over the scratch marks “after” they had been observed and not “before” they were observed since the vehicle was not searched until six weeks after his body was found.
	Why the investigators never tested the tire tool to see if they could match it to the scratches or why the paint inside the trunk was never tested.

During direct appeal to the N.C. Court of Appeals and to the N.C. Supreme Court, Special Deputy Attorney General Ronald M. Marquette wrote in his brief for the state on page 8 that trial testimony showed that officers had observed the scratches inside the Monte Carlo but when the vehicle was searched again on November 20, 1995, the interior of the trunk had been painted, covering the scratches seen earlier. However, he failed to make the court aware of the true evidence that had been developed at trial concerning the scratch marks and that no evidence had been presented that connected the scratch marks as having been made by Gunnarsson.

On direct appeal, my appellate attorney, Thomas King, never addressed the scratch mark evidence that had been developed at trial, showing the scratches were not made by Mr. Gunnarsson.

In the N.C. Court of Appeals decision in August 1999, they did address the issue of the scratches found inside the trunk. However, since my appellate counsel never addressed this issue nor made the court aware of the evidence that was developed at trial that never connected the scratch marks as having been made by Gunnarsson, the Appeals Court based their decision only on what Mr. Marquette had written in his brief about the evidence, not the facts developed at trial.

Back to Top