research and FINDINGS

Kevin Bowling: Indiana State Trooper at Salem Police Station possessed no experience in Child Molestation.

• Trooper Bowling was presented written evidence by the mother that her child had​ allegedly written for her and her husband stating what the child claimed Eddie had done to her. The Trooper lost this evidence and stated the last time he saw it was on his desk.

• Trooper Bowling did not order DNA collection nor had the skill set or tools to do so on the same date of the offense. 

• Nearly one year later, Detective William Wibbels determined the collection of DNA by Kevin Bowling would have been mute as noted in item #3 below. It is the opinion of Free-Eddie.com that this was a crucial error and mistake of not collecting the DNA.

There is no public record or evidence that the mother, took her daughter, or was ever directed to do so, to the hospital or an emergency care unit to have her child examined for STDs, rape, molestation, abuse, or physical or mental harm, even after Child Protection Services was contacted.

In the case, it is alleged that the child took a bath in Eddie's home. There were descrepecies on they timeline of that bath if it was taken before or after the alleged crime as well as questioning if a bath was even taken at all. DNA collection was determined to be mute by Indiana State Detective, William Wibbels, as DNA would have been all over her from everyone that lived in the home. 

• The child had stated in an interview that Eddie licked her vagina with his tongue. Eddie's specific DNA would have been the only DNA inside her genitalia. And only her specific DNA from her vagina would have been in his mouth.

• The child had stated in an interview that Eddie made her suck his penis with her mouth. Again, specific DNA would have been in her mouth and on his penis as no statement or evidence was made or presented that Eddie had taken a bath or shower. 

• The child had stated in an interview that Eddie touched the child with his penis and placed his hand inside her vagina. Once again, the same concern that specific DNA only belonging to the child and Mr. Nunley would have been found in her vagina and on his penis. Sperm and saliva have specific markers and signatures that can be identified in DNA collection and testing. (Click HERE for the supporting documentation. Also reference 2022 Code: §35-37-4-13.

• No report has been found where any forensics were conducted. The child's nor Eddie's clothes were taken for investigation or testing for DNA samples of body fluids, hair, or skin. Reference Indiana Code §31-33-5 that outlines duties to report child abuse or neglect. Indiana Code is clear that ANY individual, in any capacity, who suspects child abuse or neglect is a mandated reporter. Indiana Code §31-33-6 also provides immunity from criminal and civil liabilities to persons who report child abuse or neglect presuming the individual acted in good faith.  

• Please refer to the Indiana Guidelines for Medical Forensic Examination of Pediatric Sexual Abuse HERE.

Mr. Nunley offered and asked to take a Polygraph (Lie Detection) Test, and one was not administered. Please reference: §35-37-4.5-4 concerning Voluntary submission to polygraph examination.

The child's testimony in the trial changes from her deposition and her initial interview given at the Comfort House with Staff Member, Donna Black. Eddie's Public Defender, Ms. Susan Schultz based her defense on the ability and willingness that the child knew how to lie, was capable of lying and had lied before as proven in a letter written by the child concerning a Mr. Eddie Foreman, a former boyfriend to the mother. Once the letter was presented to county officials, Mr. Foreman was released. Eddie Nunley was not afforded the same generosity as this evidence was not submitted to the jury for review. Ms. Schultz also tried to prove that the child had been coerced and coached giving credence to why her testimony kept changing.​

Public Defender, Susan Schultz, failed to impeach the child after her initial testimony for prior allegation against Eddie Foreman who was a former boyfriend of her mother.

• Hand-written letter from the child stated that Eddie Foreman physically harmed both her and her mother.​

• (Click HERE to view that original letter. You can read the scanned letter as well as read the typed interpretation. provide by the staff of Free-Eddie.com)

• The child later rescinded the claim and admitted she had made up the story because she did not like Mr. Foreman.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to impeach Mr. Foreman to establish proof that not only did the child know how to lie, that she was capable and had lied before with the written evidence written by the child. Again, this was the preface of building her defense and this letter was never submitted in court or seen by the jury.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to impeach a critical witness, Michelle, who Eddie stated was on the phone the night of the alleged offense and later came to his home and spent most of that same night discussing the recent loss of her father, while the child was under his care. In a police report taken by Detective Wibbels, Michelle would admit to being in Eddie's home the night of April 13, 2007. In a later statement taken by Wibbels on October 30th, 2008, Michelle would recant her previous statement short before Eddie's trial. She stated that infact she was not at Eddie's home and changed her statement as she stated she was first uncertain.​

• Please note: During Mr. Nunley's trial, she was never subpoenaed or impeached to attend and give testimony.

Staff from Free-Eddie.com contacted Michelle by phone and she gave a statement that she does not deny nor confirm that she was in his home that evening. When Eddie was asked by Free-Eddie.com why her story changed, he believes she was being careful not to associate or incriminate herself with her usage of drugs and drug abuse.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to obtain a mistrial when the mother violated the Judge's Directive of the Court Rules when she alluded to hearing that Mr. Nunley, had "...other like claims..." with other children.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to establish a character profile for the mother, and her current husband, Richard, during the trial.

• The mother had committed check fraud or deception.

• The estranged husband, Richard had committed document falsification.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to sustain an objection to the Judge submitting the child's testimony that she wrote in court as the Court's or Judge's Evidence and submitting the evidence to the Jury for continual, at-will, access for review.​

• Such evidence is considered to be the MOST IMPORTANT and MOST CRUCIAL as it is the "Judge's Evidence."  This was inconsistent to the Judge's ruling.

• The count of disseminating matter harmful to minors, the CD containing porn, was later dropped and considered unreliable evidence as it was unreliable and too far removed from the alleged event just one year prior. Yet, once a jury is allowed to see, view, and listen to such material, even though it was dropped and the jury was told to disregard, one cannot unsee or unhear what has been seen or heard. This exhibit was damaging to Eddie's case.

Public Defender, Ms. Schultz, failed to demonstrate that there were in fact two separate visits on two different days where the child was in Mr. Nunley's home.

• Eddie counseled Ms. Schultz that on the night of the alleged offense, the child never took a bath nor brought over clothes to stay the night. He stated that the child's mother was only dropping off her daughter that night for Mr. Nunley to watch as she ran errands in Corydon, IN which was less than 15 miles or about 21 minutes away. The mother would later disclose to Eddie that she had done drugs and did not want to pick up her daughter until the effects wore off and she was sober.

• The bath and the overnight stay were on a previous visit; however, the mother left her daughter overnight on the night of the alleged offense until early afternoon the next day where she encountered Mr. Nunley, just after Michelle, Eddie's friend had left. 

• After the mother picked up her daughter, she left only to return about 90 minutes later to ask Eddie if her and her daughter could move in with him for a while as her current boyfriend, Hank, had thrown her out. Eddie believes the child told her mother that Michelle was there most of the night which he believes infuriated her as the mother did not like Michelle and wanted more than a friendship with Eddie.

• If the mother was upset enough to destroy property over an alleged molestation of her child, why was she not as concerned to take her daughter immediately to the hospital while calling the police on the way to a hospital? Free-Eddie.com could not find any report that the child was ever medically or physically examined.

The Free-Eddie.com Staff contacted the former Public Defender, Ms. Susan Schultz, and she stated that she believed that Lawrence Edward Nunley was in fact innocent.

• She believed the Judge wanted a conviction and to make an example of Mr. Nunley based on his demeanor and prior history. You can look up his history at mycase.IN.gov.

• Ms. Schultz went on to state that she was in fact ineffective counsel by not being able to make the necessary objections, impeachments, and submission of the daughter's letter about her lying about Eddie Foreman.

• She stated that she would testify and/or provide a written notarized statement to that effect. (Att. No. 15667-14) Last known address: 127 E. Chestnut St., Corydon, IN 47112. Public Published phone number: (812) 738-1900.

The excellent assistance received by the Appellate Counsel, Mr. Matthew Jon McGovern, in Mr. Nunley's Post Conviction Relief (PCR) was unable to subpoena: the child who is now over the age of 21, Mr. Eddie Foreman, the mother, or Eddie's friend, Michelle. Those witnesses needed to be questioned at the request of the Public Defender, Susan Schultz, during the original trial.