Charles Mamou, among 48 Texas inmates sent to the state’s Death Row in 1999, has always maintained his innocence. At first glance, forty-eight sounds like an impossible number, but a closer look brings into question the integrity of the system.

Investigators knew the evening of December 6, 1998, began with a drug deal gone bad, and they got the name of Charles Mamou from two men who later testified they planned to rob Mamou that night.  That same week, on Wednesday, December 9, during the second interview of a woman named Robin Scott, police learned Samuel Johnson was Charles Mamou’s ‘driver’ for the drug deal gone wrong.  According to Scott, her husband told her, ‘Bug (Samuel Johnson) drove off in his car, leaving Chuck behind.’  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 11)

Later that same day homicide detectives picked up Samuel Johnson at his apartment and brought him to the homicide office where a written statement was taken. In his statement, Johnson described the evening as more of a social event, riding around and meeting up with people – not a drug transaction in the making.  According to Johnson, and in contrast to the testimony of all surviving witnesses, Mamou drove away without him.  He then went home, went to bed, and heard about the incident the next day on the news.

“When I saw this on the news, I couldn’t believe that Chucky would do something like this.  I was scared and I was shocked and this is the reason that I did not tell anyone.” – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 12)

Samuel Johnson’s shock at the news of what took place and his apparent mistaking a drug deal for a night of innocent socializing are all that is recorded in the police department’s Incident Report regarding his involvement.  Much like the other individuals involved that night, it appears Johnson was not charged with anything in relation to the death of Mary Carmouche or the drug transaction, although his memory of what happened that night is in sharp contrast to what several other people recall. 

According to the testimony of Dion Holley and Kevin Walter, Samuel Johnson drove away and left Mamou behind on the alley.  According to the statement of Robin Scott, she was told ‘Bug drove off in his car, leaving Chuck behind’.  According to Charles Mamou, Samuel Johnson pulled off in his car – and he jumped in the Lexus that held Mary Carmouche and fled the alley, returning to the apartment complex where all the involved individuals were located and where the Lexus was ultimately located by police with a flat tire – one of the few pieces of actual physical evidence.

Samuel Johnson also said in his statement to police that he never again saw Mamou or the Lexus after driving away from the shooting.

Johnson’s statement doesn’t just contradict the recollection of others, he also contradicts himself in his testimony, describing the innocent night of socializing differently in the courtroom.

Q.  And what did he tell you he wanted to do?

A.  He was going to buy some dope.

Q.  And wanted you to take him to the location?

A.  Right.

Q. And what were you going to get out of the deal?

A.  I was going to get something out of it.  I don’t know how much. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 24)

Q.  Tell the members of the jury exactly what it was that y’all were going to do.

A.  Go buy some drugs.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 68)

Q.  Did you have some agreement with Mr. Mamou to engage in some type of illegal conduct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You knew full well when you left to go and, in fact, throughout the day when you’re with him, that you were going to engage in some type of illegal conduct.

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you realized that conduct was a felony, correct?

A.  Right.

Samuel Johnson also testified regarding what he would do if something actually ‘happened’.

Q.  And do you keep your eyes on them the entire time, or are you doing other things?

A.  I’m keeping my eye on them at all times.

Q.  Making sure that nothing happened?

A.  Yeah.

Q.  What were you going to do if something happened?

A.  Probably would have left.

Q.  So, if something had happened right there, your response would have been to leave and leave Charles and Terrence there?

A.  Yeah. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 74)

Something did happen.  The deal ended in gunfire with one man dead. 

Samuel Johnson also testified regarding his own credibility.

Q.  And I just want to make sure we understand something; because when you talked to the police, you told them a bunch of lies, didn’t you?

A.  Yeah.

Q.  And yet, the lies that you tell them, they’re being told after you’ve been arrested, correct?

A.  Right. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 98)

Q.  Yet when you talked to the police, you lied about – or you say now that you lied about the Lexus’ hood being up?

A. Right.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 100)

Samuel Johnson’s testimony did mirror his original statement in one aspect.  He clearly indicated in both that he went ‘directly home’.  The shooting on Lantern Point took place at around 12:00 midnight, which would have him back at his apartment on Fondren at around 12:30 a.m. on December 7. 

Q.  You go directly home?

A.  Yeah.

Q.  You tell your wife what happened?

A.  No, she was asleep at the time.

Q.  Pretty exciting events in your life, isn’t it? 

A.  Very exciting.

Q.  You just get in bed and go to sleep?

A.  No, I took a shower.

Q.  Took a shower, and then got in bed and went to sleep?

A.  No, opened me a can of soda and went to bed.

Q.  Talk to anybody that night?

A.  No.

Q.  Talk to Robin or Howard Scott at any point after that?

A.  No. 

Two witnesses, in two separate interviews, have described Samuel Johnson driving into the apartment complex where the Lexus was found, followed shortly after by the Lexus with Charles Mamou – a little after midnight.  Those witnesses appear to support Charles Mamou, who has always maintained he fled the drug deal shooting and followed Samuel Johnson back to the apartments.    

It’s unclear what, if anything, the Houston Police Department may have pursued.  There are references to interviews, which include references to a written statement made by Howard Scott on December 8 among others, but no actual record of vital interviews.  After in-person, as well as telephone inquiries with the records department at HPD, I was told by one employee that not all the material gets put into the file.  It’s unclear who decides what gets included.

In 2007 a private investigator, Carl Deal, who reviewed the case files noted, “Further, Samuel Lee Johnson, Jr., who was present during the shooting, who was the driver for Charles Mamou to the drug deal, provides a substantially false statement to police regarding the facts of the shooting.”

He goes on to say, “Samuel Johnson was not prosecuted and later became a witness on behalf of the state.  Statements, recordings of statements, kinesic interviewing assessments of suspects and witnesses that depict the fine details of the original transaction and exchange of violence, as well as the disposition of Mary Carmouche in the two days that followed the shooting remain unresolved and unannounced.

“In short, standard police protocol requires that when police receive information, the motive for providing the information must be investigated as well.  And then the truthfulness of the statements should be assessed through efforts at corroboration. All statements should be recorded in writing, tape recorded or video-taped – and police investigators should be making professional judgments in this process based upon their experience in the signs and symptoms of deception, speaking as to whether statements are credible. 

“A series of witnesses – key among them being Samuel Johnson, provided statements to police and then undoubtedly later to prosecutorial investigators or attorneys which are not present in the investigative file.”

Samuel Johnson’s testimony seems to confirm Mr. Deal’s opinion regarding follow-up interviews.

Q.  The only persons you’ve spoken to about this case since December 6^th of 1998 have been police officers  and prosecutors, correct?

A.  Right.

Q.  And how many times have you met with police or prosecutors since December 6, 1998?

A.   Numerous times.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 50)

Moreover, the proceedings for Charles Mamou’s whirlwind capital murder trial began on September 7, 1999.  Actual testimony began on October 4, 1999.  Unbeknownst to Charles Mamou – or the jury – Officer Bob King at HPD faxed information to Lyn McClellan at the prosecutor’s office on September 24, 1999, after the trial was underway.  Included in that fax were the detective’s handwritten notes documenting Samuel Johnson placing a call to Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m. on the evening the events took place.  The jury and Mamou only heard Johnson clearly testify that he went straight home and to sleep – talking to no one.  The prosecutor heard the same thing, but failed to share with the jury or Charles Mamou the fax he received indicating Samuel Johnson wasn’t actually asleep – but dialing his cell phone and trying to contact Howard Scott at 2:37 in the morning.  The phone call he made was from his cell phone – not his apartment’s landline.  He could have been anywhere. Unfortunately, the jury was never able to hear Johnson be questioned regarding that phone call because Mamou never knew it happened. Legal? Maybe – I’m not an attorney. Moral and ethical – I’d have to say, no.

The prosecution wrapped up its case with a powerful attack on Mamou’s character, including accusing him of an unsolved murder months previous that he was never charged with, nor given an opportunity to defend himself in.  That case is unresolved to this day but it was used as a tool to sentence Mamou to death.

In addition to Samuel Johnson’s phone call that night, the prosecution also knew ‘hairs’ and ‘trace evidence’ were collected at the time of the victim’s autopsy.  Charles Mamou only learned of the phone call and untested evidence in 2019.

According to his testimony, Samuel Johnson worked for Orkin, treating homes throughout Houston.  He described the area he worked in as the west side, out towards Katy and the southwest part of town. 

I tried to contact Samuel Johnson in preparing this post. He did not respond to my request.

Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.  Anything you share with me will be confidential.

All related posts are available at Charles Mamou.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

In closing arguments, Lynn McClellan fought for the death penalty, assuring the jury that while determining Mamou’s future threat to society, they could consider things they would, “hear about his character”. – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 6

Mr. McClellan worked under District Attorney, Johnny Holmes, whose office was unquestionably skilled at acquiring death sentences, putting over 200 people on death row.

Ms. Connors, also during closing arguments, painted a picture for jurors, “And he takes her to Lynchester.  He marches her to the back, and he makes her commit oral sodomy, makes her suck his penis.  Imagine that, ladies and gentleman.” – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 38

She used multiple adjectives to describe Mamou, arguing, “You know he will be a continuing threat.” 

“He’s vicious.” 

“He’s ruthless.”

“He’s cold-blooded.”

“He devastated and destroyed.” 

The jury was convinced, determining Mamou should be executed, and the media ran with the sexual assault, even though Mamou was never charged with that.

Mamou could not counter the claims.  Unfortunately, although it seemed unusual, the Autopsy Report did not include any mention of a rape kit being collected or any other trace evidence.  There seemed to be no physical evidence found on the victim to aid in the investigation.  Even her clothing was reported to have been in place, including her belt buckle.

Roger Milton was the medical examiner who performed the autopsy and was called to testify at the trial of Charles Mamou.  Mr. Milton described the process of recording his findings.

A.  Well, at the time of the autopsy, everything that we observe, we document on a chart, written as well as a verbal, dictation into a cassette tape.  So, as we observe the appearance of the body externally, we describe it on the tape and continue to describe the entire autopsy. And that tape is later transcribed into a typewritten report form. – Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 51

Q.  Is the information placed on the report made by someone who has personal knowledge of what they’re observing?  That would be you, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You have personal knowledge.  You dictate your findings into a cassette recorder? 

A.  Correct.

Q.  And it’s transcribed?

A.  Right.

Q.  And after you dictate your findings and the report is transcribed, do you review this report?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And as an assistant medical examiner, do you have care, custody, and control of the records at the medical examiner’s office?

A.  Yes. – Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 51

According to the testimony, the entire autopsy is documented.  So, when Mamou saw the Autopsy Report, it was apparent there was nothing found that might help in his defense.  The thorough report included six single spaced pages of text describing the process, so detailed it documented where dry skin was located.  What was obtained for toxicological analysis was described.  A Report of Analysis of blood and urine was included.  A seven-page Investigator Report was included which indicated Dr. Carter requested dentals to be done to confirm the victim’s identity. And although Mamou was accused of sexual assault by his cousin during the trial, there was no evidence to support or refute that – because it appeared no rape kit had been collected.  There was no mention of it.

Or so Mamou thought until 2019. It was just last year he learned the Harris County D.A. knew one existed in 1999 and requested it be processed not long before the trial, the results to be forwarded to their office. 

After a records request last year, it was found in Supplement Number 11 of Incident Report 157191298, that on Thursday, July 8, 1999 – a couple months prior to Mamou’s trial – “On this date, Sergeant Foltz received a phone call from D.A. Investigator Al Rodriguez requesting that Sergeant Foltz create this supplement and forward same to the Houston Police Crime Lab. Rodriguez advised the D.A.’s office is requesting that the rape kit obtained by the Harris County Morgue at the time of the autopsy be processed through our crime lab.”

The rape kit obtained at the time of the autopsy… 

For twenty years, Charles Mamou never knew it existed, and less than a year ago he was told it did – and it has been sitting in the HPD Property Room all this time.   

What other information did the rape kit contain that was withheld from Mamou for twenty years?

I contacted the Houston Police Department in an attempt to locate the results of the kit.  I was told rape kit results were not kept in the Houston Police Department files, and upon further inquiries with the police department, I was ultimately told, “The rape kit results are irrelevant.  Mamou was not charged with sexual assault, and he was given all that information during discovery.  The opportunity to test anything is gone.  That window of opportunity is closed.”

I asked the person who told me that if she considered the matter closed, and she replied, “Yes.”

Not to be deterred, I obtained the report through other avenues.  The results the D.A. requested and received twenty years ago included, “Fingernail Scrapings” and “Trace Collection Items”. 

Also reported, “No semen was detected on any items analyzed.”  While the prosecution used ‘sexual assault’ allegations to their advantage – they had this information and never shared it with the jury or Mamou.

The jury and Mamou were also not told ‘hairs were collected from the t-shirt’ of the victim.

According to the report, included in the evidence is a “Plastic Ziploc (sealed) containing, ‘Trace Collection’ items – Not Analyzed.”

The only basis the prosecution had for sexual assault claims was Terrence Dodson’s statement claiming his cousin sexually assaulted and murdered the victim.  As, shared previously, the ‘confession’ Dodson described could not have taken place the way he stated. Yet Dodson’s video statement to police – with all it’s inconsistancies investigators were aware of – seemed to have scripted the prosecution’s entire case.

Charles Mamou is out of appeals and awaiting his execution date. 

Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.  Anything you share with me will be confidential.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

After thirty minutes and forty-one seconds of listening to a ‘confession’ that Terrence Dodson said he heard from his cousin, Charles Mamou, investigators knew they had a problem.  The times didn’t fit.  If they could get past the bizarre confession itself – how were they going to work with the timeline…

It appears they attempted to help him, even though the details didn’t fit what they knew to be true.  At 30 minutes into the videotaped interview, and after Terrence Dodson described a lengthy ‘confession’ that took place in a single phone call…

30:41 (Switches cops)

Cop: Uh, yea real quick, from what you just told us, you said it was Monday at 1:30 Baldy took Chucky to the bus station. And then Tuesday morning he called you and he lays it all out. I wanna make sure, Chucky went back to Louisiana on the very day after he did this jacking is that right? Or what, could it have been Tuesday?

Detectives wanted Dodson to say Mamou had left Texas on Tuesday afternoon, because they knew Mamou was in Texas on Tuesday, and they also knew the ‘confession’ could not have taken place the way Dodson was describing it, but they continued to record.

It was Wednesday, December 9, 1998.  The previous day, Tuesday, investigators had contacted Charles Mamou, Sr., who told them that he had last seen his son, Charles Mamou, Jr., with Terrence Dodson, his cousin.  Unbeknownst to him, Mamou’s father led police to the key witness in a case that would send his son to death row. 

The same day Mamou’s father heard from police, he contacted his nephew and told him detectives had stopped by with a picture of him.  And so began Charles Mamou’s journey to over two decades on death row.  Terrence Dodson contacted police the same day and said his cousin, Charles Mamou, Jr., had confessed to him.  Within hours the man who police were looking for in connection to a murder was in front of a camera and giving a video statement, sharing a story that couldn’t have possibly happened the way he said it did. 

At that point in time, investigators were well aware that Charles Mamou, Jr., had been in Texas until some time on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.  According to Supplement 9 of Incident Report 156416498, the detective who was recording the statement, Sergeant Novak, had documented what he learned the day before, ‘he and Officer Chisholm had interviewed Robin Scott at her work.  According to her, she had called her apartment and the suspect, Charles Mamou, was there with her brother, Howard Scott.  Robin Scott was asked to sign a consent to search for her apartment and she did.’  Novak had Robin Scott call her apartment to find out if Charles Mamou was still there on Tuesday morning. After he found out Mamou was, he called in patrol units to watch the apartment while he obtained a warrant.  Sergeant Novak and the other officers in the room all knew that Charles Mamou had been in Howard and Robin Scott’s apartment until mid morning on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.

Although it turned out that Charles Mamou left the apartment after Robin Scott’s phone call and before police were able to surround the apartment, when they interviewed Howard Scott, the resident, he also told officers that Charles Mamou had spent Monday night in his apartment and had left on Tuesday morning.

Sgt. Novak was a seasoned detective.  He had worked for HPD for nearly thirty years at that point.   And he and the other investigators had been working on this case since Monday.  They also had taken a written statement from Robin Scott on Tuesday, in which she said, ‘When I got up this morning at approximately 4:35 a.m. I found Chucky sitting on the couch watching television. I told him to have a good day and wished him well on his return home.’  She continued to say, ‘Today the police came to my job asking about Chucky and I told them that Chucky had spent the night at my apartment last night.  I then called my house and spoke with Howard.  Howard told me that Chucky was still at the apartment.’

While Terrence Dodson was giving his statement, detectives were also in the process of taking a statement from Anthony Trail in the next room.  As Dodson was sharing his story of a confession that took place from Louisiana on Monday, Trail was in another room at HPD having his written statement recorded, ‘On Tuesday morning, Chucky called me at 9:00 a.m.’    Trail goes on to say, ‘He asked me for a ride to the bus station.  I told him that I recently wrecked my car and it was in the bodyshop.  I told him that I needed to take some papers to the body shop and Chucky came with me.  When we left the bodyshop, we went to the bus station downtown and I dropped him off.  Chucky’s bus was supposed to leave at 1:30 p.m.  We got there at 1:00 p.m.  I told him to call me up.  I went back home.’

The only person that didn’t seem to know where Charles Mamou, Jr., was on Tuesday morning was Terrence Dodson.  Unfortunately, even though police knew that, his statement and testimony became the very center of the case built to sentence Mamou to death.

At thirteen minutes in, Detective Novak didn’t blink when Dodson said, I believe that was Monday that day that Chuckie left at 1:30, Baldy took him to the bus station, Greyhound. I ain’t ride with them, took them to the Greyhound bus station, Chucky left..    

It wouldn’t be surprising to anyone who knew Charles Mamou and Terrence Dodson that Dodson wouldn’t know when Mamou left town. They were cousins, but Dodson was several years younger than Mamou and Mamou wouldn’t have been communicating with him the details of his travels.

Novak continued, ‘Going where?’     

TD: To Louisiana, Lafayette, I guess. Tuesday morning before day, got a call. What you heard?

At this point, Dodson proceeds to share the confession that all the men in the room knew couldn’t have taken place from Louisiana on Tuesday morning ‘before day’.

I’ve struggled with sharing this portion of the statement, as some of what Dodson told police was graphic.  I’ve removed portions I think are not necessary to share, but I’ve had to leave in portions that I feel show just what investigators were listening to and proceeded in their investigation in spite of.  If I felt the evidence supported portions of this statement, I wouldn’t include it.

Also of note, although there are several references to a sexual assault, a rape kit was collected as well as processed and although those results only became known to Charles Mamou two decades later – the prosecution knew the results at the time of the trial.  That issue will be addressed in a later post.    

Terrence Dodson’s telling of the ‘confession’ began at 15:10 into the video.  At over 18:35, he is just getting to the drug deal gone wrong, describing an almost comical scene where Mamou and the other party were tossing a bag of money at each other.

So they went down the dark street.  Dude asked Chuckie, “Where the money?”  So Chuckie said, I got the money, and threw him the paper bag, or whatever. The dude threw it back.  So Chuckie said, “What’s up?” The dude said, “Man take the money out, let me see it.” Chuckie said, “The money right there,” threw it back at him. Chuckie said, by that time, he seen the dude like flinch, you know, like move in his seat. 

Investigators didn’t question the money bag tossing or Dodson describing somebody sitting in a seat.  The drug ‘transaction’ took place behind the car, on the street, not inside the car.

At over 21 minutes into the interview, Dodson is still describing the confession in one phone call.  Detectives also didn’t question the bizarre picture Terrence Dodson was describing, as he talked about Mamou driving around ‘thinking’ after he fled the scene where he had just experienced an attempted robbery at gunpoint.  Although Mary Carmouche was in the car Mamou fled the scene in after his driver left him on the dark alley, the investigation never turned up any sign of struggle within the vehicle.  At the time of Dodson’s interview, the vehicle had been located at the apartments on Fondren where Mamou had been staying. The car had a flat tire and a window shot out.  The drive from the location of the drug deal at midnight on Lantern Point Drive to the apartment complex on Fondren would have taken about twenty minutes, give or take.   

At 21:17 into the interview, TD: So, he burnt off with the girl or whatever, and he said, he was riding around, just riding around thinking.  Said the whole time the girl was all scared or whatever and he kept telling her, “Calm down, calm down, I’ma let you go, I’ma let you go, just calm down, but before he let her go he asked her, you know, “You gonna suck my dick?”  And the girl said uh, he said she asked him, “How much you gonna pay me?” and he said, “I can tell you $10, you know.”  But the girl was like, “Nah, I ain’t finna suck your dick for under $300, or whatever.”  So he’s like, “Alright, well then, that’ll work.” But he also told me, you know, after she did that, he went on and put his drop, she screamed, he said how he felt like crying and all that.

Detectives didn’t question how bizarre it sounded for Mamou to be driving around ‘thinking’ after fleeing a drug shooting in a shot up car with a girl inside, a broken out window and a damaged tire. They didn’t question what had to sound like very strange behavior on the part of Charles Mamou as well as Mary Carmouche, as they listened to the man describing a ‘confession’ that took place in a phone call that they knew didn’t happen.

There has never been evidence of a sexual assault, nor was there any indication that a physical assault of any kind took place inside the car. Yet, the District Attorney repeatedly used Terrence Dodson’s story of a sexual assault to inflame the jury.  So much so that news articles often report Charles Mamou was charged with sexual assault.  He wasn’t. In reality, there is not a shred of evidence that indicates that Charles Mamou even touched the victim.  The D.A. knew that. The only person who ever referred to a sexual assault was Terrence Dodson in a statement he gave – that investigators knew was not based on the facts as they knew them.

The odd statement continued with Terrence Dodson at one point claiming Charles Mamou was planning on killing several other people, including Dodson.

At 23:18 into the interview, DN: Did he tell you their names?

Terrence Dodson then told detectives two names and continued, “He didn’t say that last one and that shit spooked me, I said, man, he was talking about me.  So I played dumb with it. I was like, you know what I’m saying, man you need go on and chill out.

Terrence Dodson then begins to share a story that police, once again, have full knowledge can’t be true.

TD:  So I was like, “Man, you need to calm down,”  His exact word was, “Nah, fuck that. Look I am coming down there, and I will be there at 1:00 in the morning and when I beep you and put 3,1,80 and the time, that mean I’m at the bus station. See if you can find me a ride.  So I am like alright, but shit I turned my beeper off, you know what I’m saying, and that was it.

24:11

DN: What day was this that he was coming down?

TD: This was uh, he told me this yesterday, for this morning, one in the morning.

DN: Tonight he was coming in?

TD: Nah, Nah, yesterday.

DN: He was going to be in at 1:00 this morning, Wednesday morning? 

TD: Yes, yes.

Investigators knew that Charles Mamou had left Texas on a bus at 1:30 on Tuesday afternoon – and yet Terrence Dodson was telling them that Mamou had called him on Tuesday morning from Louisiana ‘before day’, confessed, and told him that he was coming into Houston on a bus on Tuesday, and would be arriving at 1:00 a.m. in the morning on Wednesday – to kill several more people.  It made absolutely no sense that Charles Mamou would get on a bus at 1:30 in the afternoon in Houston, go to Louisiana and get on another bus and come back to Houston by 1:00 a.m. in the morning to murder three people, but investigators chose not to address that.

At thirty minutes in, they again try to get the days correct, although it ultimately doesn’t matter because Charles Mamou never sees this video, nor does the jury.

30:41

(Switches cops)

Cop: Uh, yea real quick, from what you just told us you said it was Monday at 1:30 Baldy took Chucky to the bus station. And then Tuesday morning he called you and he lays it all out. I wanna make sure, Chucky went back to Louisiana on the very day after he did this jacking is that right? Or what, could it have been Tuesday?

31:13

TD: I’m gonna be honest with you, now I’m not really sure but if I’m not mistaken I believe it was Monday when he left. Cause like I said after we picked him up from Fondren, now I made him drop me off and that was that, I ain’t ride with him or nothing. Like I could be mistaken, it might have been Tuesday.

31:44

Cop: Ok, but he called you on Tuesday, and said I am going to be coming in at 1:00 A.M. Wednesday morning to the bus station and I’ll page you then.

TD: Today is Wednesday right?

Cop: Today is Wednesday.

TD: Okay, then, that was last night. He said he was going to come in last night at 1:00 in the morning.

Cop: Last night at 1:00 in the morning, so he would have called you on Tuesday and told you that.

TD: Yeah, that he is gonna be in at 1:00 A.M. in the morning.

32:10

Cop: 1:00 in the morning, Wednesday morning. So he definitely left the day before which would be Monday. Is that correct?

TD: Yeah, he must’ve, he had to leave on Monday.

Cop: Ok. He had to leave on Monday?

The entire time the investigators are asking these questions, they know that Charles Mamou left Houston, Texas, on a bus at 1:30 in the afternoon on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.

Charles Mamou never saw the interview that his cousin gave to police.  Dodson not only told police that Mamou had sexually assaulted and murdered Mary Carmouche, he also told them he had killed several other people on different occasions.  

Dodson also wrote to Mamou more than a month later, while Mamou was in prison.  At the time, Mamou didn’t know anything about the statement his cousin had given, and the jury never saw the letter, but in it Dodson wrote, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”

Although the jury never saw the letter or the video statement, they did get to hear Dodson’s testimony, which was not consistent with his statement.    

What Terrence first told police was a confession from Mamou that took place in one phone call from Louisiana became quite different after several months and also several visits with the District Attorney.

Q. Now, when you are having this conversation with the defendant later on – says, ‘Later on I spoke with Charles’ – are you face to face?
A. Yes.
Q. Where are you?
A. On the porch.
Q. Whose porch?
A. Stephanie’s porch, my sister.
Q. Now you gave a whole lot of information in response to the prosecutor’s questions about conversations you had with Charles and go into detail about the jack on jack and these guys with a Bible. There was a shoot-out and goes into detail about where the people were shooting and everything. And then, also talking about the girl had been shot, that they had been outside. And he asked you about talking with Detective Novak, and she supposedly had performed oral sex on him. When do you get that information? What time is that?
A. I don’t really recall. I got, like I said, bits and pieces in person.

Q. Is it one conversation or several?
A. It was several.
Q. Over what period of time?
A. I don’t really recall, a couple of days.
Q. So, it’s not just Monday, it’s Monday and Tuesday?
A. To the best of my knowledge, yeah.

Terrence Dodson’s odd story is what became the foundation of the Harris County District Attorney’s case.  Everything from his story of murder, to a sexual assault, to other murders that Dodson accused Mamou of.  Yet, from day one, they knew the information he was sharing could not have taken place. 

Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.  Anything you share with me will be confidential.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

Kevin Walter and Dion Holley lied to authorities when first asked what took place on Lantern Point Drive in Houston.  They claimed they had stopped to help stranded motorists jumpstart their car, at which point they were carjacked and the girl they had with them, Mary, was kidnapped.  It wasn’t until later and after assurances they would not be charged for their involvement, both men told police how they had planned to rob Charles Mamou at gunpoint.  Both men also told police that Mamou’s driver, Samuel Johnson, drove away leaving Mamou behind – and he fled the scene in their Lexus. 

The following day, in the early hours of Monday, December 7, 1998, Officer King received a call from the public information office.  A news reporter had learned the name of a possible suspect in the ‘carjacking’, which was later determined to be a drug transaction gone wrong.  The reporter had spoken to Kevin Walter’s father and was told the suspect was a Charles Mamou, A.K.A., ‘Chucky’.  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 5)

At 3:10 that same day, a call came into HPD regarding a suspicious vehicle.  The blue Lexus Mamou had fled the robbery in was found at the Fondren Court Apartment Complex, 10800 Fondren.  According to police records, ‘the left front tire was flat.  The driver’s window was busted out’.   The apartment manager had become aware of the vehicle in the parking lot, and called the police.   (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 5)

The following morning, Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 8:25 a.m., Sergeant Bloyd and Officer King went to Herman Hospital to interview Kevin Walter.  During the interview, they were given the phone number that Kevin had used to contact Chucky while arranging the faux drug deal.  That phone number came up to a ‘Robin Scott’ and an apartment on Fondren – the same complex where the blue Lexus was found.  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9) 

Sgt. Novak and Officer Chisolm then went to Robin Scott’s place of employment to interview her.  After speaking with her, they decided that Sergeant Bloyd and Officer King should go to her apartment, while Novak and Chisolm took Ms. Scott to homicide for a statement.  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9)

At 11:33 a.m. Officer Bloyd and Officer King knocked on the apartment door of Howard and Robin Scott.  In anticipation of finding Charles Mamou in the apartment, Officer Chisholm had secured an Arrest Warrant based on the false allegations of Dion Holley, and the ‘carjacking’.  The Arrest Warrant stated that, “I, HF Chisholm, a peace officer employed by the City of Houston Police Department, do solemnly swear that I have reason to believe and do believe that the Defendant, Charles Mamou, Jr., a black male did, on December 6, 1998, intentionally and knowingly commit the aggravated robbery of Kevin Walter.”

Howard Scott answered the door, but he was alone.  After interviewing Scott at the apartment, police learned that Scott had met Mamou through a friend – Shawn Eaglin.   The Officers called Homicide and were told that Scott’s story did not match his wife’s, who was at Homicide giving a statement.  “It was then decided to bring Howard Scott to the homicide office to be interviewed there since there were some discrepancies between his story and Robin’s.  Officer Hollins then transported Howard Scott to the homicide office where he was interviewed by Sergeant Novak.”  Not only does the Incident Report refer to the Interview of Howard Scott that took place at the Police Department on Tuesday, December 8, 1998 – it also mentions something that was learned during that interview.  “During this interview, another potential suspect by the name of ‘Cedric’ was mentioned as being connected with Shawn and Chucky.  See Sergeant Novak’s supplement for the details of this interview and the follow-up investigation concerning ‘Cedric’.   (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9)

The problem with that is – no one can ‘see Sergeant Novak’s supplement for details’ because there aren’t any ‘details of this interview’ in the case file.   After a thorough records request, I traveled to the Houston Police Department and physically went through the file with an employee.  There is no record of the interview of Howard Scott that took place on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the police department. 

The only thing on record is that the police went to his apartment and the conversation that took place there – prompted investigators to bring him to the police department to be questioned.

Howard Scott’s wife, Robin Scott, was also interviewed on Tuesday.  She was not called as a witness at the trial.   According to her written statement, “At about 12:15 a.m., I woke up after hearing the front door opening.  At that time I called for Howard to come to my room.  When Howard came in I asked him if his company had left yet.  Howard told me that they were about to leave.”  She goes on to say, “It seemed like it was around thirty minutes later I heard a knock on the door.  My brother got up and opened the door.”  Robin Scott identified Howard Scott as her brother at that time, because the apartment complex was not aware that she was living with her husband.  “I asked my brother who was at the door, he told me that it was Chucky.”

She also stated she saw Chucky later that morning, “When I got up at 4:00 a.m. to go to the restroom I saw that the television was on and Chucky was sitting there watching television.  He was by himself.  I did not say anything to him.  I then returned to my bed and got back up at 4:30 a.m. When I got up this time I started getting ready for work.  I looked into the room and saw that Chucky was still in the room watching television.”  Robin Scott was never called to the stand, and the jury was never made aware of this statement.

The HPD Incident Report says that the next day, Wednesday, December 9, 1998, at 9:45 a.m., “Sergeants Yanchank and Ferguson went to pick up Robin and Howard Scott to be re-interviewed.   (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 11)

Later in the report – “Progress Report for Wednesday, December 9, 1998:  On this date, Sergeant Yanchak and Sergeant Ferguson assisted Sergeant G.J. Novak and Officer H.F. Chisholm in the follow up investigation into this offense.  Earlier on this date, we had re-interviewed two witnesses named Robin Marie Scott, and her husband, Howard Scott.”  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 13)

During the Mamou trial Detective Novak, after being sworn in, was directly questioned about his activities on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.   

Q.  You indicated that in checking the subscriber information, it came back for Robin Scott.  Can you tell me again the unit number?  I know the address was 10800.

A.  I said 1423, but I meant 1402.

Q.  Okay.  You indicated that you learned when you met with Robin Scott who else lived there. She was living there with her husband, Howard Scott?

A.  That is correct.

The attorney then asked if Robin Scott had initially told police that Howard Scott was her brother.

A.    That is correct.

Q.   So she lied to you initially?

A.   Yes.

Q.  How far into the discussion with her did you finally learn that, in fact, Howard Scott was not her brother but her husband?

A.  When we transported her to the police station for the purpose of taking her statement from her concerning her knowledge, she admitted to us – of course, we had Howard Scott transported to the homicide office where he, too, was making a written statement.

Howard Scott was taken back to the Police Department the next day as well as his wife. Apparently, officers were not content with whatever was said on Tuesday, although we will never know what that was.  In Howard Scott’s statement on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, he actually refers to the previous day and being taken to the police department.   “I got up Tuesday morning around 4:50 a.m. and walked my wife to the bus stop.  I got back and Chucky was still asleep.   I went back to bed and my wife called around 7:00 a.m. to wake me up.  I got up and took my daughter to school around 7:30 a.m.  Chucky was still in my apartment.   I got back around 8:00 a.m. and Chucky was gone and my apartment door was unlocked.  My wife then called around 11:00 a.m. and asked if Chucky was still in my apartment.  I then asked her what was wrong and she asked again and I told her no.  She then told me that’s all I needed to know and hung up.  Around 11:30 a.m. two detectives showed up and began asking me about Chucky.    I told them that Chucky left earlier and gave them permission to search my house. I later came with them to the homicide division.”

Sgt. Novak was no rookie.  He was a seasoned employee with nearly three decades of law enforcement experience. The idea that he would interview an individual regarding the kidnapping of a girl and not, at the very least, take notes is highly unlikely. 

Whatever Howard Scott said at the police department on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, was never heard by the jury. 

Anyone with information related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

‘A Beretta 9mm pistol had been found in the roadway near the two surviving victims.  It was loaded with 12 cartridges in the magazine but no round in the chamber.’  – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)

‘The possibility exists that whoever was armed with the Beretta had simply failed to rack a round in the chamber.’ – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)

That was part of the initial Houston Police Department incident report, as recorded by HPD investigators when describing the scene they arrived upon in the early morning hours of December 7, 1998.   Investigators were called to a shooting that turned out to be the location of a failed drug deal robbery.  Charles Mamou fled that scene in a blue Lexus after his ride sped away without him, as testified to by both surviving witnesses. The police documented what they found at the time, including the loaded Beretta 9mm pistol found next to a man who was shot at the location on Lantern Point in Houston.

What was known by police and the District Attorney’s Office – is the incident began with three men bringing Mary Carmouche to a planned robbery of Charles Mamou on a dark alley.  What happened after that is still unclear, but I will share everything I have learned on this page in the coming weeks.

The Harris County prosecution didn’t exactly describe what they knew of the events, but rather, passionately described a bloodthirsty, premeditated killing spree during closing arguments.  They were trying to persuade the jury that Mamou should be sentenced to death, arguing he presented a continuing danger.  The only things the prosecution could know with certainty was what the two witnesses shared and what the police officers found upon their arrival – a loaded Beretta 9mm pistol beside a man that had been shot.  Other than that, the case against Charles Mamou has more questions than answers, including some information the District Attorney knew and the jury didn’t.

In a case with so many questions and little certainty, a lot of energy was devoted to the description of Charles Mamou in an effort to convince jurors to request the death penalty.

“You know, I know, he will commit criminal acts of violence in the future.  You know he will be a continuing threat.  And we only have to prove he probably will.  But each and every one of you know he would. The only question is when, and who will be the next victim?” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 30

“And what do you know about this defendant?  He’s vicious.   He’s ruthless.  He’s cold-blooded.  He’s manipulative.  He’s a liar, and he’s controlling.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 31

“He tried to murder all four of those people out there, but that was beyond his control.  But for the grace of God, Kevin Walter’s medical records would be an autopsy report with photos.  He almost died.  He severely injured him, and he tried to kill Dion Holley. That was his plan. It was all premeditated.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 33

“His comfort zones are guns and bloodshed and murder.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 36

“It’s only a question of when the next victim will be.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 39

“He devastated and destroyed.  And that’s all he’s ever done, with his drugs, with his guns.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 39

“Premeditation to the max.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 40

“He spends other people’s lives like other people spend money.  That’s his currency, death and destruction.  There is nothing mitigating in this case.  You could search till the cows come home.  You could have everything read back.  You could examine every piece of evidence.  You’ll never find any mitigating in this situation.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 46

“It’s not your fault that you’re here.  We’re here because of him. He placed you in that situation.  He forced you to have to make this decision.” –  Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 47

Although Lyn McClellan, the prosecutor, said, ‘You could examine every piece of evidence,’ everything the prosecution knew wasn’t shared with the jury.  Twenty years after the trial – I know more than the jury knew then. 

In addition to the witnesses stating Mamou’s driver left him behind, this is what was known and documented regarding that evening:

 ‘A Beretta 9mm pistol had been found in the roadway near the two surviving victims.  It was loaded with 12 cartridges in the magazine but no round in the chamber.’  (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)

‘The possibility exists that whoever was armed with the Beretta had simply failed to rack a round in the chamber.’ (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)

I will continue to share what I have learned over the last two years here.  The prosecution secured a death penalty and the case was never again heard on appeal.    Charles Mamou is currently waiting for his execution date. 

Anyone with information related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

Sentenced to die, Charles Mamou has always maintained his innocence.  The prosecution presented an elaborate story of a man who went on a shooting rampage that included a sexual assault.  That story was then shared by the media.

What took place on December 6, 1998, according to witness testimony and actual evidence, began with an attempted robbery.  The prosecution’s witness, Kevin Walter, helped arrange the sham ‘drug deal’ through a cousin from Sunset, Louisiana. Walter testified during the trial regarding the robbery of Charles Mamou. 

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 95:

Q.  You didn’t have any guns?

A.  One.

Q.  One gun?

A.  Exact.

Q.  Terrence Gibson?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that was going to take care of whatever was necessary in terms of getting the $20,000 from Chucky Mamou, correct?

A.  Correct.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 96:

Q.   Let’s back up for a second.  Tell me – describe to the members of the jury, what was your plan?  Just tell them in your own words, what was the plan to get the money?   Let them know.

A.  See the money, count the money, and see can I walk away with the money.  That was my plan.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 101:

Q.  So if the police weren’t there, you would do whatever it takes to take the money?  Fair statement?  This is all about you getting twenty grand, right?

A.  Right.

Q.  I believe your testimony when Mr. McClellan was talking to you was the plan was to rob the defendant, Charles Mamou, correct?

A.  Correct.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 102:

Q.  So, you’re feeling comfortable that’s where you’re going to rob him, at that store over there?

A.  Yeah, I feel more comfortable off Cavalcade.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 105:

Q.  You never had any intention of giving him any dope?

A.  Right.

Q.  From start to finish, your plan is to rip him off?

A.  Right.

Q.  At some point, when it’s obvious to you that twenty thousand is no longer an issue, according to your testimony, and it’s only forty-five hundred, you’re still wanting to rip him off even for the forty-five hundred?

A.  Yeah.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 112:

Q.  But you had already planned for everybody that was going to meet after you had ripped off Chucky Mamou of his money?

A.  Yes.

After testifying to picking up Mary Carmouche, Kevin Walter continues to describe the plan.  

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 118:

Q.  So you drive all the way from the northeast side of town down to the Bennigan’s, and Miss Carmouche is with you at that time?

A. Yes.

Q.  What is your plan at that point when you’re going to the Bennigan’s?  Can you still see the money, count the money, take the money?

A.  Exactly.

Q.  So you know, when you get to that location, all four of you, that your plan is still to rip him off. Now at this point, do you believe there is still $20,000 at stake?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  So before you go to Bennigan’s you’re still thinking, twenty grand is what I’m going to be able to walk away from if I pull this off?

A.  Yes.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 120:

Q.  Were you thinking at that point that you’re still going to pull this off, the plot to take his money?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Your thing at that point, as you’re sitting there at the Bennigan’s, is getting closer and closer; we’re finally going to be able to pull this off?

A.  Right, once we count the money.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 121:

Q.  You were just going to rip him off?

A.  That’s what – yeah.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 125:

Q.  You weren’t going to try and rob Mr. Mamou in the middle of the Fiesta store parking lot, were you?

A.  Yes.  If he would have counted the money there, we would have took it.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 126:

Q.  So now we’ve been through several failed attempts to be able to rip him off, correct?

A.  Yeah.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 127:

Q.  That is, now your plan is to go wherever Chucky Mamou drives, and that’s where you’re going to rip him off?

A.  If we followed him, yes.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 141:

Q.  Now, was there a point in time when you decided that it was okay to tell the police what had happened once you realized you weren’t going to be prosecuted for anything, correct?

A.  Correct.

Q.  Is that what caused you to then come forward and say, here’s how – what I was going to do.  Once some police detective shows you, tells you about how we’re not worried about you and this dope case; we’re interested in prosecuting this guy, and that’s the first time you’ve come forward with information, and you had basically explained what you testified to on direct examination?

A.  Right.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 161:

Q.  How were you going to get him to give you the money?

A.  Once we count the money, then we take the money.

Q.  Just going to jump in the car and run?

A.  No.  It was at gunpoint, of course, but it wasn’t no plan.

Q.  Pardon?

A.  If it was going to be at gunpoint, yes, of course, once we count the money.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 164:

Q.  Your testimony was that if it was necessary at some point to have a gunpoint to force the money, you said that was okay, isn’t it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  If the plan came to that, that was okay with you?

A.  No, it was no plan.

Q.  But if it came to that, that was going to be all right, if it meant you getting the $20,000, right?

A.  Yes.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 166:

Q.  You don’t – after it’s obvious that you’re going to be going to Bennigan’s, right, you don’t let Mary Carmouche off; you don’t take her home, do you, before going there?

A.  No. 

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 167:

Q.  When did you see Terrence Gibson with a gun?

A.  Early.

Volume 16 of the Reporter’s Record at page 168:

Q.  But you knew he had a gun?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you knew that if it came to gunpoint, then so be it, in terms of getting the $20,000 from Chucky Mamou?

A. Yes.

According to the testimony of Kevin Walter, he and his friends intended to rob Charles Mamou on December 6, 1998.    As earlier posted, Kevin Walter also testified that Samuel Johnson, Mamou’s partner in the drug deal, drove away and left Mamou behind once that attempted robbery took place.  According to the only witnesses at the scene, Mamou then fled in the Lexus.

Charles Mamou is out of appeals and waiting for an execution date. 

Anyone with information related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.

TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351

Things were different in Harris County, Texas, two decades ago.  It could be said there was a thirst for blood that is less pronounced now.  Charles Mamou will most likely get an execution date in the near future for a case that was prosecuted when securing a death penalty was a badge of honor, celebrated even.  It was more acceptable in the halls of justice at that time to jam the pieces of the puzzle into place if investigators or a prosecutor ‘wanted’ a particular someone for a crime – or throw the pieces out if need be.   Hopefully, things are different now.   Mamou will pay with his life for the climate of the late 90’s, but it’s not too late to share what the prosecution knew when they tried the case. And what they know today for that matter. There was little interest in finding out what happened back when they could have, and a lot of interest in making a guilty verdict stick – which took some doing with no evidence.

Charles Mamou first wrote for this site in March, 2018.  Out of curiosity, I looked up some articles about him after the first few pieces he submitted.  Two things stood out – allegations of sexual assault, some articles saying he was charged with that crime, and a pair of his sunglasses that were reported to have been left near the body.  It had to be true if he left his sunglasses, right?  I envisioned the location to be an abandoned house on a block of old abandoned houses.  It wasn’t until I started reading Mamou’s case file I learned the sunglasses were miles from the body that was found in a residential neighborhood – and the sexual assault?  There is a lot more to that story as well.

Charles Mamou, Jr., was born and raised in Sunset, Louisiana, and early on he began taking care of his family and broke the law to do it.  Like many before him and since, some of his most successful role models were drug dealers.  And so began his life of crime.  He wasn’t a choir boy, but he had a reputation for helping people out.

Houston, Texas, wasn’t Mamou’s stomping ground.  He didn’t know the area like the back of his hand, but his dad lived there, as well as a couple cousins.  He would travel to the area for ‘business’, if you can call it that.  That is why he was there in December, 1998.  He was involved in a transaction that included several other individuals, all of whom were residents of Houston.  He wasn’t even driving his own car on that trip.  He was staying with a couple in their apartment and was being driven by others tied to the same anticipated business transaction. 

The evening of December 6, 1998, was mild and dry.  Lantern Point Drive, where the ‘drug deal’ and attempted robbery eventually took place, had no lights, and according to police, it was a cloudy night.  Samuel Johnson was driving the car Mamou was in.  Terrence Dodson had been a participant in the transaction earlier in the day, but had since gone home.  The car they met on the dark street where it all took place carried four passengers, including Mary Carmouche.

All surviving parties later admitted to their involvement in a drug deal gone wrong, although no one was ever charged with anything involved in that incident other than Charles Mamou, who was charged with kidnapping when he fled the scene after gunfire erupted and his partner drove away without him.   The deceased individual had a loaded gun next to his body, leaving a good argument for self-defense.  Mary Carmouche was driven to the location by three men who were there to rob Mamou, and she was in the back seat of the car he sped away in. 

When security guards arrived shortly after the shooting, which took place around midnight, one man was dead and two were injured.  Both vehicles were gone.

The two surviving men both testified in court that the vehicle Samuel Johnson was driving drove off first – leaving Charles Mamou behind.  Mamou then jumped into the blue Lexus and fled the scene. 

According to the testimony of Kevin Walter, (Volume 16, of the Reporter’s Record at page 137):

Q.  All right. Then where was the blue Lexus at the point you picked up the gun?

A.  Taking off.

Q.  Where was the red car?

A.  Done took off.

Q.  It had taken off before the blue car?

A.  Yes.

Kevin Walter had no reason to lie about which car took off first, and according to his testimony, Samuel Johnson drove away first in the red car – leaving Charles Mamou, who then jumped in the blue Lexus and drove away.

Dion Holley was the other individual who was shot at the scene.  His testimony (Volume 18, of the Reporter’s Record at page 115) was as follows:

Q.  All right. And what did you see?

A.  I saw the red car backing up and turned around in the street, and I saw the blue car leaving off. 

Q.  When you say you saw the red car backing up and turning around, how did they make – if they’re going backwards, how did they turn around and go the other way?  Is it like a three point turn where they stop, back up, and pull around; or is it like a scene on shows where they’re able to hit the brakes and the car spins around?

A.  That’s pretty much how it was.

Q.  So, it was a very quick thing?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did it appear to you that the red car was trying to get out of there really quick?

A.  That’s correct.

Q.  And then that vehicle was followed by your mom’s Lexus?

A. That’s correct.

Samuel Johnson, the driver of the red car and Mamou’s associate in the deal, later became a suspect in this case.  Although his version of events contradicted all of the witnesses’ testimony, the prosecution went with his description of what took place.  According to Samuel Johnson’s statement to police, he was not concerned about Charles Mamou or the car that could have held the drugs he was there to buy that night.   He was not concerned about the shooting he had been involved in or the girl whose whereabouts he supposedly knew nothing about.  The following is Johnson’s testimony regarding what happened next (Volume 19, of the Reporter’s Record at page 115):

Q.  You go directly home?

A.  Yeah.

Q.  Tell your wife what happened?

A.  No, she was asleep at the time

Q.  Pretty exciting events in our life, isn’t it?

A.  Very exciting.

Q.  You just get in bed and go to sleep?

A.  No, I took a shower.

Q.  Took a shower, and then got in bed and went to sleep?

A.  No, opened me a can of soda and went to bed.

Q.  Talk to anybody that night?

A.  No

The next morning Samuel Johnson got up in his usual fashion and headed to work – where he was employed as an Orkin man, treating homes in the Houston area.

Charles Mamou has always maintained that he followed Samuel Johnson back to the apartments, with Mary Carmouche in the car.  According to Mamou there were other individuals present in the parking lot of the apartments when they arrived, along with himself, the victim and Johnson.   Twenty years later, there are witnesses that support that.

Until his execution, I will be sharing everything I have learned over the last eighteen months.  All of the information will be on a facebook page, Charles Mamou – How Wrongful Convictions Are Made, where I hope to share what the prosecution knew and what the defense failed to share.  There will also be a catagory on this site, ‘Charles Mamou’, where every blog post will be kept.

Anyone with information regarding what took place in December of 1998, please contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.