So Many Unanswered Questions

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

So Many Unanswered Questions

	If Bendura was unfolding the mat onto his examination table to do his six or more methodical searches, then he would refold the mat, and if he repeated this same process six or more times, why did he not see the hairs during the first six or more searches?
	If it was the state’s theory that Gunnarsson was alive inside the trunk during the drive from Salisbury, N.C. to Boone N.C., a trip of two and one half hours, and if he could move around 360 degrees inside the trunk, why were hairs only found in a one-square foot area and not all over the entire mat?
	If Gunnarsson was bound and gagged with tape, as the state claimed, and if he could move around inside the trunk, how was it possible that not one tiny fiber from the trunk mat was able to attach itself to the tape and the fibers found on the tape were never identified as to the source?
	If it was the state’s theory that the last place Gunnarsson was alive was inside the car trunk with his head on the mat, how was it possible that not one tiny fiber from the trunk mat was found in his hair and the fibers that were found were never identified?
	Why did the police fail to compare the fibers on the tape to the fibers found in his hair to see if they were consistent with each other to determine if they came from the same source since the police were aware the fibers did not come from the trunk mat?
	How was it possible, since it was the state’s theory Gunnarsson had been placed in the trunk nude, that no abdominal hair, leg, arm or pubic hairs were found on the mat, when the evidence showed he had a great deal of body hair?
	How could a trained scientist have gone over the 1/8” thick trunk mat methodically in two-inch grids specifically looking for trace evidence, hairs and fibers and miss seventeen (17) hairs, repeatedly, for twenty-two months? These hairs were in a one square foot area, yet he just casually noticed the hairs as he was folding up the mat.
	Why would a highly trained scientist search for trace evidence, tiny hairs and fibers, and only use tape to blot the mat to try to pick up hairs or fibers and do only visual examinations and never, in twenty-two months, think to look for this type of evidence on the mat using a microscope or even a simple magnifying glass?
	If the carpet shampoo was done in December 1993 or January 1994 as the state alledged, by a professional at Sam’s Car Wash, how was it possible that Agent Bendura would get dirt and debris out of the mat during his repeated examinations, which he started in February 1994?
	Did my defense attorneys not find it strange that the types of hairs found on the mat by the S.B.I. were telegon hairs, the same type of hairs that Agent Hamlin testified you would find in your hairbrush? Two hairbrushes were removed from Gunnarsson’s residence, yet the hairbrushes were mysteriously lost before trial.
	Did my appeal attorney, Thomas King, not find it strange that he discovered during the appeal process that seventeen (17) of the hairs Bendura received from the medical examiner were missing? That was the exact number of hairs found on the trunk mat by Bendura. Bendura was only able to account for 103 hairs. However, Thomas King never made the appellate court aware of this discrepancy.
	Did Bendura not find it strange that he found 17 of the 120 hairs he received from the medical examiner missing before trial? This is the exact number of hairs found on the trunk mat. Was Bendura not concerned enough to come forward with this information or make the defense attorneys or even the District Attorney aware of this information?

How was it possible for Agent Bendura to find the hairs on the trunk mat on Sunday October 8, 1995, which was a day the S.B.I. Laboratory was closed?

	How was it possible that Agent Bendura just casually noticed hairs on the trunk mat after not finding any hairs and fibers during six detailed searches of the mat over a twenty-two month period, when all of the hairs were in a one square foot area?
	Why would a trained scientist, the head of the Trace Evidence Section for the S.B.I. Laboratory, write and certify a laboratory report nine months before the start of my trial, showing that he had turned the hair evidence over to the F.B.I. for testing forty nine (49) days before the hairs were found on the mat?
	Why would a trained scientist, the head of the Trace Evidence Section for the S.B.I. Laboratory, write and certify and sign a laboratory report, nine months before the start of my trial, showing that he had taken the hairs from the trunk mat for P.C.R. testing on October 18, 1995 yet come into court and testify under oath that he had taken the same hair for testing on August 9, 1996? Would a trained scientist not know when he took the key piece of evidence for testing or make any notes of the date and time a key piece of evidence was tested in this case?
	How could Agent Hamlin have taken the hairs for P.C.R. testing on August 9, 1996 to Roche Laboratory but testify the hairs were turned over to the F.B.I. laboratory in Washington D.C. on the same day?
	How was it possible for the hairs to have been at two places at the same time?
	Why would Agent Hamlin testify under oath that he had turned the hairs over to the F.B.I. Agent Glasgow on August 9, 1996, knowing the state would call Glasgow as a witness and Glasgow would testify that he did not receive these hairs until August 19, 1996?
	If the carpet shampoo ground the 17 hairs so deeply into the trunk mat, as the state claimed, that it took two years to find them, why did the same carpet shampoo not grind any of Gunnarsson’s chest, abdominal, leg, arm or pubic hair into the mat since it was the state’s theory that he was placed in the trunk nude?
	Since the state’s own evidence showed that the longest possible time Gunnarsson could have been inside the trunk was two and one half hours, how did the alleged carpet shampoo remove every hair that would have built up on a fourteen year old trunk mat, yet conveniently leave just the 17 hairs from the victim’s head in a one square foot area?

There are so many unanswered questions about the only direct evidence linking me to Gunnarsson’s death my attorneys, Bruce Kaplan, Chester Whittle and Thomas King never asked. Even though my defense attorneys stated numerous times prior to trial that the state’s hair evidence was very suspicious and did not add up, and it was obvious the hairs were planted, they never attacked the evidence at trial. Even with obvious facts that pointed directly to the hairs being planted on the mat by the police, and Agent Hamlin’s inconsistent laboratory report and testing, they never filed a motion to suppress the sole piece of evidence the state claimed linked me to the death of Viktor Gunnarsson. Neither did they bring their evidence to the jury’s attention.

Ironically, during oral arguments to the N.C. Court of Appeals in February 1999, where the suspicious hair evidence was briefly mentioned to the court by Appellate Attorney Thomas King, Chief Judge John Martin asked why no motion to suppress the hair evidence was filed by defense counsel. Mr. King had no answer. Since this issue was not developed at trial, this information was not in the trial transcripts and the issue was not considered on appeal.

In fact, neither of my court appointed defense attorneys ever defended a defendant in a capital case before and neither began to review the evidence against me until 11 days before opening arguments were made. They both would later say they were convinced the case against me was so weak that I would be acquitted without the benefit of a defense. How wrong they were.

Back to Top