The Tape Evidence

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

The Tape Evidence

During my trial, the state called as a witness Sheriff James “Red” Lyons of Watauga County. Sheriff Lyons testified after he was called to the scene where Gunnarsson’s body was found, he inspected the area near the body. He discovered what appeared to be electrical tape and masking tape near Gunnarsson’s left foot (TP.1210).

During the search of my residence on February 1 and February 2, 1994, Agent John Bendura testified that he removed some small strips of electrical tape from behind the washer and dryer in my utility room (Volume III, TPP. 1198-1201).

Agent Bendura qualified as an expert in the field of fiber and textile identification (Volume III, TP. 1185). He compared the electrical tape found at the crime scene with the electrical tape found behind the washer and dryer. He testified that he found the width and texture of both pieces of tape to be consistent. In Agent Bendura’s opinion, both pieces of tape could have come from the same source, however, it was just as possible that both pieces of electrical tape could have been manufactured in the same batch (Volume III, TP. 1201).

Evidence developed at trial showed that tape, including electrical tape is produced in mass quantity. Also, tape is manufactured and produced in huge rolls. If an order was placed for one million rolls of black ½” electrical tape and all the tape was made in the same batch, each and every roll of tape would have the same texture and adhesive backing and would be consistent with each other.

Agent Bendura admitted at trial, the only way to determine if tape came from the same roll is to match the ends of the tape together, which would be positive proof the tape came from the same roll, a fact he was unable to do in this case (Volume III, TP. 1201-1202). Agent Bendura also admitted that he could not connect the electrical tape from the crime scene to the electrical tape removed from behind my washer and dryer to the exclusion of all black ½” electrical tape that has been produced. Agent Bendura testified that no rolls of masking tape of any kind were found at my residence.

Defense attorneys never explained:

	If the tape from the crime scene had come from the same roll as the tape from behind the washer and dryer, and if Gunnarsson was able to move around 360 degrees inside the trunk, and if the tape had been used to bind and gag him, why the fibers found on the tape did not come from the trunk mat, since the trunk of my car was the last place the state claimed he was alive.
	Why investigators never checked the tape from behind my washer and dryer and from the crime scene to see if this tape contained my fingerprints, which would have proven I put the tape there.
	Why an empty roll of electrical tape and the cellophane wrapper for the tape were found in the area where Gunnarsson’s body was found, yet these items were never examined for fingerprints.
	Since it was the theory of the state that the masking and electrical tape strips were used to bind and gag Gunnarsson, why the used rolls of masking and electrical tape that were found inside Gunnarsson’s residence were never compared to the tape from the crime scene to see if the ends matched, since Agent Bendura testified that matching the ends of tape was the only way to find out if tape had come from the same roll (Volume III, TP. 1201-1202).
	Why the only examinations conducted and the only reports filed were on the tape evidence found at my residence, and not from the tape at Gunnarsson’s residence.

Again so many unanswered questions that my trial attorneys never tried to answer. This is a mystery that has never been explained.

Two facts remain very clear. First, based on the tape evidence only, the state had no case against me. If the tape evidence was so strong I would have been arrested when this evidence was first discovered by the state in early March 1994. And second, the state based their arrest and indictment of me on the suspicious hair evidence alone, a fact the District Attorney Tom Rusher can not deny. As he stated during closing arguments to the jury “The hair evidence is the state’s case, and that defendant came within a hair of getting away with murder” (States closing arguments, P. 42).

Back to Top