Lie, after lie, after lie was heard by the jury in the trial of Charles Mamou. 

Q.           When you talked to Sergeant Herman from Houston Homicide Department, did you tell him basically what you’ve told us here today?

A.            Yes.

That was the testimony of Joseph Melancon – and it was a lie, one of a stream of lies. That lie, as most were, was documented in the HPD case file at the time it was said.  The jury was not informed it was a lie.

Here is a portion of the testimony Melancon gave describing what took place on September 5, 1998, three months before the murder Charles Mamou was on trial for.  The testimony will be followed by what Melancon actually told police.  (Volume 22, of the Reporter’s Record at page 66)

Q . Did ya’ll make arrangements then to get together on Saturday?
A. Yes.
Q.   Why were you going to get together on Saturday?
A.    It was the Prairie View and Texas Southern game, and we was going to go out.
Q.  Did you then meet up with the defendant, Charles Mamou, on that Saturday evening?
A.    Yes.
Q.   And where did – where did you meet him at?
A.    At my house.
Q.   What part of town did you live in?
A.    Southwest side.
Q.   When he came over to your house, how did he get to your house?  Do you know?
A.    In like a brown Blazer.
Q.   Brown Blazer?
A.    Like a Durango, something like that.
Q.   I didn’t understand that.
A.    Chevrolet Durango, one of the little small Blazers.
Q.   And was he by himself or with someone?
A.    By himself.
Q.   And did ya’ll end up then going out that evening?
A.    Yes.
Q.   About what time, if you know, did you leave?
A.    8:30, 9:00, 9:30, something.  Maybe 9:30, 10:00.
Q.   All right. And where were you going to go when you left?
A.    We was going to Jamaica.  It’s a club.
Q.  And where is that club located?  Do you know what street?
A.    On the south side.  I don’t know.  I don’t remember.
Q.   Did you get to the Jamaica Club?
A.    No, we didn’t.
Q.   What happened on the way to Jamaica Club that prevented you from getting there?
A.    Chucky got a phone call on his cell phone.
Q.  And do you know who he was talking to?
A.    No, I don’t.
Q.   You just heard his end of the conversation?
A.    Yeah.
Q.   What was he saying in the cell phone?
A.    He said, You got that for me.
Q.   I’m sorry.  I want you to back up a little bit from the microphone.
A.    Do you have that for me?
Q.   What did he say next, if you recall?
A.    He hung up.
Q.   All right.  Where did you end up going?
A.    To the little store on Buffalo and West Fuqua.
Q.   Buffalo, meaning Buffalo Speedway?
A.    Yes.  
Q.   Now, how many people were in the vehicle you were in?
A.    Just me and Chucky.
Q.   When you got to the store at Fuqua and Buffalo Speedway, what kind of store was it, do you know?
A.    It was like a convenience store.
Q.   And was there anything close by the convenience store?
A.    It was a club.  It was called Shannon’s.
Q.   Not the club you were initially going to–
A.    No.
Q.   –but a different club. What happened when you arrived at the convenience store?
A.    They had three guys standing out at the convenience store.
Q.  Okay.  Did y’all park, or what did you do?
A.    We pulled up. And one of the guys came to the car’s front passenger door, and I got out and they got in.
Q.  Did you know who that person was?
A.    Yes, I did.
Q.   And how did you know who – what did you know that person’s name to be?
A.    Bruiser.
Q.   Did you know him by any other name?
A.    No, I didn’t.

At this point, the defense objected, but the objection was overruled.  The witness continued to describe that night:

Q.  And what did you say the person you’ve identified as Bruiser did when he came to your side of the vehicle you were in?
A.    He opened my door.
Q.   Okay. And did you get out or did you stay in?
A.    I got out.
Q.   Where did you go?
A.    I went and talked to the two guys that was standing up with him.
Q.   And who were the two guys?
A.    A guy named Lonnie and Weinerman.
Q.  What did Bruiser do after you got out of the vehicle?
A.    Him and Chucky was in the vehicle talking.
Q.   All right.  So did Bruiser get in the vehicle?
A.    Yes.
Q.   What did you see the defendant, Charles Mamou, do then, the next thing you saw him do?
A.    He got out the vehicle and went into the store.
Q.  Did you see him come out of the store with anything?
A.    Yes.
Q.   What did he come out of the store with?
A.    Two brown bags.  Looked like something to drink was in them.
Q.   All right.  What did he do after he came out of the store. Where did he go and what did he do?
A.    He got in the driver’s seat and drove off.
Q.  All right.  Did he say anything to you before he drove off?
A.    No.
Q.  All right.  Now the plan had been ya’ll were going to go to Jamaica Club, right?
A.    Correct.
Q.  Did the defendant say anything about why you weren’t immediately going to Jamaica Club?  Did he say what he was going to do first?
A.    He said he needed to take care of something.
Q.  All right.  When he drove off, did you expect him to come back?
A.    Yes.
Q.  What were you doing then after you saw the defendant and the person you identified as Bruiser drive off in a vehicle driven by the defendant? What were you doing?
A.    I was talking to Lonnie and another guy named Weinerman.
Q.   And while you were outside the store talking, did you hear anything unusual?
A.    Yes.
Q.  What did you hear?
A.    Sounded like a gunshot.
Q.     One or more?
A.    One.
Q.   After you heard what sounded like a gunshot, did someone come to the location where you were at?
A.    Yes.
Q.  Do you know who this person was?
A.    No.
Q.  Without telling me what they said, did they say something?
A.    Yes.
Q .    As a result of what they said, what did you do, if anything?
A.    I got in the car with Lonnie, and we rode over on West Fuqua by the entrance to the Almeda Manor neighborhood, the entrance to that subdivision. 
Q.   What was there at that location?
A.    It was a lot of people around, and Bruiser was laying on the ground.
Q.  Now did you get out of the vehicle?
A.    Yes, I did.
Q.  Did you go to where Bruiser was?
A.    Yes, I did.
Q.   Did you hear anything Bruiser was saying?
A.   Yes, I did.
Q.  What was he saying?
A.    He said, My boys shot me, and he just kept saying it over and over.
Q.  Repeating that same phrase?  You need to say yes or no.
A.    Yes.
Q.   After you saw Bruiser laying there, what did you do?
A.    I walked over about two houses down with another friend of mine from the neighborhood and used his phone.
Q.  Okay.  And who did you call?
A.    I called my wife.
Q.  What did you ask her to do, if anything?
A.    I told her to come get me.
Q.   And did she?
A.    Yes, sir.
Q.  Before you left that scene, did any ambulance or people arrive to tend to Bruiser?
A.    Yes. 

Joseph Melancon then went on to describe how he was so fearful of Charles Mamou after that night that he fled Houston and moved to Dallas. 

When questioned by the defense, he is asked to clarify a couple things.

Q.  Now, when he comes over on that Saturday, you said he came over at either 8:30 to 900 or 9:30 to 10:00?
A.    Correct.
Q.  You don’t recall which. But do you recall at the time he came over your wife was not home?
A.    That’s correct.
Q.  Your wife was working until what time that night.
A.    I think she got off at 9:30 or 10:00. 
Q.   At some point, do you guys leave?
A.    Right.
Q.   Does your wife come home?
A.    No, I had to bring her the car. We only had one car at the time.
Q.   Okay.  So did you take the five-month-old with you over to where your wife was working?
A.    Right.
Q.  So you drive the car over, and you leave your child with your wife. And then you and Charles were going to probably go clubbing at that point?
A.    Right.

The attorney asks him again about what happened when he heard the gunshot.

Q.   You went to the scene, how did you get from the convenience store to where Bruiser was?
A.   I rode with Lonnie.
Q.   Okay.  So Lonnie had his vehicle there?
A.   Correct.
Q.   And did Weinerman get in the car with you?
A.   No.

And then Melancon was asked about when he originally spoke to police.

Q.   When you talked to Sergeant Herman from Houston Homicide Department, did you tell him basically what you’ve told us here today?
A.  Yes. 

After this testimony, the prosecutor brought in the medical examiner to share graphic photos of Anthony Williams’ autopsy, followed by Anthony Williams’ older sister who described how her brother’s death impacted her family – and Mr. Williams’ seven year old son. 

That was all done to convince the jury that Charles Mamou had killed Mary Carmouche, but he was not on trial for the murder of Anthony Williams.  I challenge anyone to look at that testimony and what police and the D.A. knew at the time and not recognize the lengths that were gone to in an effort to secure a death sentence.

This is what police actually knew at that time.

•  Officers on duty that night received the call at 10:01 P.M. on September 5, 1998, from dispatch regarding the shooting. 
• After this incident took place, Joseph Malencon began telling people his childhood acquaintance, Charles Mamou, had murdered Anthony Williams. 
• Investigators looked into Malencon’s allegations early on and didn’t pursue them.  Charles Mamou had been with two women in Louisiana that weekend, which also happened to be the weekend of a family wedding.  Mamou didn’t attend the wedding itself, but he did see his family that weekend in addition to staying with the two women in a hotel in Louisiana.
• The following is what Malencon originally told police – which doesn’t even closely resemble his testimony:
  
  On the night of this incident he was at his residence.  Melancon stated the possible suspect, Chucky Mamou, called him and came and picked him up and they went to the Shannon’s Club on Buffalo Speedway and Fuqua (he testified in detail about them going to a convenience store).  Joseph Melancon stated that was around 11:00 PM (an hour after the shooting took place).
  Joseph Melancon then stated, just after he and Chucky Mamou arrived in the club, Chucky Mamou met Anthony Williams and they started talking.  (in his testimony – they were never in a club) Joseph Melancon stated, in a short while Chucky Mamou came and told him he had to do some business, and at that time Chucky Mamou and the victim left the Shannon’s Club (again, in his tesimony, they were never in a club).
  Joseph Melancon stated he remained at the Shannons’s Club and he was visiting with a man called Weinerman and also a man named Lonnie. Joseph Melancon stated while they were talking someone came up and told Weinerman that the victim had been shot (in his testimony he was outside a convenience story and heard a gunshot).
  That statement is a completely different story then Melancon’s sworn testimony. The jury never heard this statement, and Mamou never saw it for over twenty years.
• Sergeant Novak reopened this case on September 20, 1999, in an effort to help the District Attorney secure a guilty verdict in the case against Charles Mamou for the murder of Mary Carmouche.  None of the information they were able to gather supported Melancon’s original statement, and no one could identify Charles Mamou as being involved – outside of various stories they had heard from Joseph Melancon.  Sgt. Novak was an experienced detective, not fresh to the Houston Police Department. He saw exactly what I saw when he Iooked at the file.
• The few witness accounts that support each other – were those shared by individuals first on the scene.  One of those individuals told police he ran into Shannon’s Club to get help and located Weinerman inside, along with Lonnie – the man Joseph Melancon testified drove him to the scene of the shooting after they both heard a shot outside at the convenience store.  Lonnie was not outside the convenience store – he was inside Shannon’s Club according to the witness.
• One of the central witnesses to this case and a man everyone saw that night was interviewed by police.  He stated that Bruiser was hungry and he went to Shannon’s and ordered a hamburger.  He stated that he and Bruiser went into the club, and shortly thereafter Joey entered the club.  He stated that Joey was dressed up in a crisp white shirt like he was clubbing. He stated that Joey went over to Bruiser and they spoke out of his hearing and that Joey left the club and Bruiser and Lonnie followed.  The witness continues and stated – “A short time later Cedric came running in and told him that Bruiser had been shot.”
  That statement mirrors what the first witness on the scene told police.
• The above witness, as well as witnesses on the scene all agree the only words Bruiser said were, “My homeboy did this.”
  Charles Mamou was not Anthony Williams’ ‘homeboy’. They didn’t know each other, and on the night in question, Mamou was with two women, and his family was celebrating a wedding in Louisiana. 
  Joseph Melancon, on the other hand, was a friend of Bruiser’s.  One of the witnesses that night  told police, “Joey may have something to do with Bruiser’s death.”
• Joe Malbrough, a cousin of Joseph Malencon, told police an even different version of what Joseph Melancon told him, telling police that Joey told him he was standing outside the convenience store when he heard gunshots and he took off  running.  That version of events contradicts Malencon’s own statement which had him inside the club, someone coming in to tell him about the shooting, and getting in a vehicle and driving to the victim…  It also contradicts his original statement which had him outside a convenience store, hearing a gunshot and getting in a vehicle with a friend and driving towards the victim.
• There was evidence Charles Mamou was with two women on the night in question – as well as seen in Lousiana that weekend. 

What’s clear – a girl was murdered after a drug deal gone wrong in December, 1998, and it was decided Charles Mamou was going to be the one to pay the price.  It didn’t matter what police knew. 

This series of posts have covered a good part of this case.  The picture the prosecution painted of Charles Mamou – “vicious”, “ruthless”, “cold-blooded”, “manipulative”, “liar”, “controlling”.  The jury was told, “His comfort zones are guns and bloodshed and murder.”  “It’s only a question of when the next victim will be.”  “He devastated and destroyed.  And that’s all he’s ever done, with his drugs, with his guns.”

The jury heard, “Premeditation to the max,” even though the drug dealers present that night testified they were actually on that alley to rob Mamou at gunpoint.   The prosecutor at one point saying, “You could examine every piece of evidence…” 

Therein lies the problem.  The jury didn’t have access to all that McClellan and HPD knew.  Neither did Charles Mamou.  I have no idea what Mamou’s court appointed defense attorney was doing, he’s never responded to any requests I’ve made to talk.

Previously shared on this site regarding this case:

-The key witness for the prosecution – testified Charles Mamou confessed to him after he found out police where looking for him in connection to murder.  That witness’ testimony became the outline for the case, even though the confession couldn’t have taken place the way the witness described in his original video statement. His actual trial testimony was different than his original statement, including how the alleged confession took place.

–A critical witness’ first written statement to police is not in the police file.

-The prosecution repeatedly accused Mamou of sexually assaulting the victim, forcing her to perform oral sex – all the while knowing that a rape kit had been collected. The D.A. requested the rape kit be processed prior to the trial, and it indicated ‘no semen was found’ – but Charles Mamou never knew a rape kit even existed, so could not use this to defend himself.

-The D.A. learned from the rape kit results that ‘hairs’ and ‘trace evidence’ existed that were collected from the victim, but Mamou never knew this and never had an opportunity to pursue testing that evidence.

–The D.A. was faxed phone records after court proceedings began, which the defense could have used to support what Mamou said happened that night, but he was never given that information.

-The D.A. had records that the ‘driver’ that night did not go home and go to sleep as he testified, and Mamou did not have that information.  The prosecution did not share the information with the jury. 

-The D.A. had phone records that would have supported Mamou’s version of what took place that night with regard to Shawn Eaglin, who was described by investigators as a ‘potential suspect’, but they did not share that information with the jury or Mamou.

-As the prosecution listened to Howard Scott testify regarding not getting any more phone calls that night – they knew he had because they had his caller I.D. records, but neither the jury, nor Mamou, was informed.

-It appeared the prosecution was trying to make Mamou sound foolish with regard to his assertion that he saw a man on a bike in the parking lot when he pulled into the apartment complex.  All the while they had phone records that indicate someone had called Howard Scott’s apartment that night.  And that somebody was actually associated in some way – with the guy on the bike.  Mamou nor the jury was given this information.

Nobody has to believe Charles Mamou, who has maintained his innocence from day one.  One only needs to look in the case file and see what HPD and the prosecution knew.   Unfortunately, knowing what happened doesn’t ‘undo’ what was done.  Charles Mamou has lived on Death Row in Texas for over two decades and awaits a date for his execution. 

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

All related posts detailing all I have learned over the last two years are available at Charles Mamou.

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

The prosecution ‘won’ the case against Charles Mamou, but what did winning look like?

In a nutshell, the District Attorney claimed:

1. Samuel Johnson drove Charles Mamou to a drug deal in Houston.
2. Mamou attempted to murder all three ‘sellers’ at the scene and fled in their vehicle, which had Mary Carmouche in the backseat, leaving his driver behind.
3. Mamou did not go back to the apartments where he was staying, but drove the victim to a house for sale in a suburban neighborhood, sexually assaulted and then murdered her.

Mamou, on the other hand, claimed he drove back to the apartment complex where he was staying and described what he saw there.  Throughout the trial, the prosecution ridiculed those claims.  Mamou’s version of events:

1. Gunfire broke out when the planned robbery of Mamou began.
2. Mamou fired a gun in fear for his life, and jumped in the ‘would-be’ robbers’ car.
3. He drove back to the apartment complex where he was staying, following his driver who had left without him, Samuel Johnson.
4. Mary Carmouche was in the backseat of the car he fled in.
5. The last time he saw the victim was in the apartment complex parking lot.
6. He recalled the people he saw in the parking lot when he arrived – Howard Scott, Samuel Johnson, Shawn Eaglin, and a man on a bike.
7. He said he went into Howard Scott’s apartment – and when he went back outside Carmouche was gone.

What’s known:

*The two surviving drug dealers from the alley testified they were there to rob Charles Mamou.

*Those same men testified Samuel Johnson left the alley first.

*Samuel Johnson, the driver, testified Mamou left him and Johnson went home, showered, drank a coke, and went to bed, never talking to anyone and never calling anyone.  What Mamou didn’t know for 20 years was that investigators knew, in addition to the witnesses’ at the scene contradicting Johnson, Johnson’s cell phone made a phone call to Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m.  According to their records, they faxed that information to the D.A.’s office during the trial.  Charles Mamou was never informed about Johnson’s phone call, and could not use that information to defend himself, nor was he given an opportunity to pursue identifying where that cell phone call was made from.  Howard Scott had a phone in his apartment – but this call was made from a cell phone.    

That phone call would have also called into question Johnson’s credibility. 

It also supports Charles Mamou’s account that Samuel Johnson was not sleeping that night.

In addition to what was known at the time of trial, in 2019 two witnesses described seeing Samuel Johnson in the parking lot that night, along with Charles Mamou.

*Howard Scott testified his phone stopped ringing that night.  In reality, his caller I.D. records indicated he was receiving calls through 3:43 a.m.  The Houston Police Department knew this, and according to their records, faxed that information to the District Attorney.  Charles Mamou was never informed and never given an opportunity to point out how that information called into question Scott’s credibility.

Howard Scott receiving phone calls from the parties Mamou claimed to have seen in the parking lot that night also supports Mamou’s version of events and contradicts the scenario described to the jury of all the other parties having no involvement.

In addition to what was known at the time of the trial, in 2019 a witness described seeing Howard Scott in the parking lot, along with Charles Mamou.

*Mamou claimed he saw Shawn Eaglin in the parking lot.  Eaglin’s name is hand-written throughout the Houston Police Department’s file, there are indications he was questioned, and he was also described as a ‘possible suspect’ in court – but any records of police interviews with him do not exist in the police file.

Twenty years ago, Mamou said he saw Shawn Eaglin take a Yellow Cab out of the apartment complex. The prosecution attempted to discredit that, arguing there could be multiple ‘Shawns’ in the complex.  According to the cab report – and not pointed out for the jury – the phone number listed on the cab call report came from Howard Scott’s apartment. 

Also, the Houston Police Department had phone records indicating Eaglin called Howard Scott’s apartment, that Sunday night. The last call he made to Scott’s apartment was at 3:12 a.m.  That information was not shared with Mamou, and he did not have an opportunity to use it in support of his version of events.

Scott’s apartment telephone called for a Yellow Cab for ‘Shawn’ at 3:59 a.m. 

*The ‘guy on the bike’ was an opportunity for the prosecution to ridicule and be dismissive of Mamou’s claims.  All the while, the prosecution knew Mamou didn’t have much to support what he saw, but as it turns out – the Houston Police Department had some information that could have possibly helped unravel that mystery.  In that fax that they sent to the District Attorney – there were other phone calls made to Howard Scott’s apartment that night.  One of those phone numbers had ties to none other than – the ‘guy on the bike’.  The phone number belonged to a female, and an HPD investigator jotted her name down.  It turns out that female knows ‘the guy on the bike’.  Although investigators wrote her name down, there is no record they ever spoke to her.

In 2019, a private investigator spoke to ‘the guy on the bike’ who remembers being in the parking lot that night ‘after midnight’ and seeing Charles Mamou, Samuel Johnson and Howard Scott.

As it turns out, everything Charles Mamou says he remembered that night – investigators had reason to believe was true.  They shared what they knew with the District Attorney.  Nobody shared that information with the jury or the defendant, but rather the focus seemed to be on destroying Mamou’s character and making his claims of seeing people in the parking lot look foolish.

So – what happened to Mary if Charles Mamou drove back to that parking lot, and that was the last place he saw her?  This is twenty years later.  Is there any way to get a location on a cell phone call from twenty years ago?  I have no idea, but one investigator told me no. 

The District Attorney took it a step further to convince a jury Mamou was guilty.  Accusations of sexual assault were made although there were no charges.  The prosecution accused Mamou of sexually assaulting the victim, forcing her to perform oral sex before killing her.  The entire time they were making those accusations, they were fully aware a rape kit had been collected, and it indicated no semen was found on any items submitted.  There were ‘hairs’ and ‘trace evidence’ collected that could have possibly been tested, but that information was never shared with Charles Mamou.

So where did the prosecution’s story come from?  The day Terrence Dodson learned police had a mug shot of him and were looking for him in connection to a murder, he called homicide detectives and told them Charles Mamou confessed to him.  Investigators took a statement, knowing parts of that statement couldn’t be true.  Regardless – that became the case.  Dodson’s later testimony contradicted his original statement, but the jury never heard the original statement.

Race is a part of this I don’t like to bring up – because too many people lessen the message and call it a ‘card’.  They will use the very mention of race to discard the entirety of what happened.  To reduce what was done here to ‘race’ alone reduces all the other aspects of what took place.  This method of sentencing someone to death is much bigger than race, but it is definitely a factor that can’t be ignored – especially in that time and in that location. 

It’s likely that had Mamou been white, privileged, wealthy, represented by a private attorney and not in Harris County in 1998 – he wouldn’t be on death row.  Had a motivated attorney been given all the above information twenty years ago, not only would Mamou probably not be where he is, the truth of whatever happened that night might have come out. Everything the detectives knew and later shared with the District Attorney – supported what Mamou claimed happened, all the way to the ‘guy on the bike’. A ‘guy on a bike’ isn’t something that could easily be made up and coincidentally be exactly right.

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

All related posts detailing all I have learned over the last two years are available at Charles Mamou.

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

What happened after the shooting on Lantern Point Drive?  Witnesses testified Charles Mamou’s driver left without him.  He then jumped in their blue Lexus with Mary Carmouche in the backseat and fled the scene.  Mamou has always maintained he followed his driver, Samuel Johnson, back to an apartment complex where he was staying and where the Lexus was found by police with a flat tire.  Witnesses have also put Samuel Johnson driving into the parking lot prior to Mamou, although the jury never heard that.

Samuel Johnson supported the D.A.’s version, testifying Mamou drove away from Lantern Point and Johnson simply went home to sleep after the shooting, never speaking to anyone.  Contradicting that testimony and unknown to Mamou or the jury, an HPD investigator faxed phone records to the District Attorney’s office indicating Johnson used his cell phone at 2:37 a.m. to call Howard Scott’s apartment – another individual witnessed in the parking lot that night. 

Early in the investigation detectives heard the name Shawn Eaglin and were so interested in his involvement, they placed him in a photospread.  (HPD Incident Report Supplement 9). 

Eaglin’s name surfaced multiple times in witness statements. One witness described investigators going to Eaglin’s home, “Last night while we were at my father-in-law’s house, Shawn Eaglin came to the house.   While Shawn was there, we discussed the homicide division coming to my job, my apartment, Ced’s job (Ced is Shawn’s little cousin) and Shawn’s house.”

The witness continued, “At this time, Shawn stated that he needed to check on a friend of his by the name of Bug.  I then asked Shawn why did he have to check on Bug [Samuel Johnson]?  He never answered why.  I asked them who did they know with a red Intrepid car.  Shawn started to answer me, but then he said, ‘No, I better not.’”

Detective Novak, in his testimony, referred to Shawn Eaglin as the third individual he was looking at as a ‘potential suspect’.   

Q.  At a later time did you look for more than one individual other than Mr. Mamou?

A.  Yes.

Q.  What is that person’s name?

A.  We – there was an individual that –

Q.  Can you just give me his name?

A.  Terrence Dodson.

Q.  Other than Terrence Dodson and Mr. Mamou, was there a third individual you were looking at as a potential suspect?

A.  Shawn Eaglin.

(Volume 18 of the Reporter’s Record at page 189)

Detective Novak had a thirty year career with HPD at the time. He described Shawn Eaglin as a potential suspect, yet there are no records of any interviews with Eaglin.  According to Samuel Johnson’s testimony, Eaglin was responsible for connecting him with Mamou.

Q.  Where did you meet him?

A.  I met him at a friend of mine’s.

Q.  And this friend’s name is what?

A.  Shawn Eaglin.

Q.  Shawn Eaglin?

A.  Right.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 17)

Q.  And where was it that you first met Mr. Mamou?

A.  Shawn Eaglin’s home.

Q.  And this is the same home that you just referred to as off of West Airport?

A.  Right.

Howard Scott, the man who’s apartment Charles Mamou stayed in, was transported to HPD for a statement on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.  That statement is not in the Incident file so we may never know what Scott told investigators that day, but Scott also mentioned Eaglin in his testimony.

When asked about the first time he met Mamou,

A.  Through a mutual friend.

Q.  And that being who?

A.  Shawn Eaglin.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 123)

Q.  How long have you known Bug (Samuel Johnson)?

A.  Just a few years through – like I said, I met him through the same person, Shawn Eaglin.

Q.  Shawn Eaglin?

A.  Yes, sir.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 126)

Q.  From between that first time and December 6^th, how many other times do you meet him or see him?

A.  Just a few other times.  Like I said, at Shawn’s house we met.  You know, that’s it.

Q.  So – and this is before the time that he comes and stays at your house?

A.  Yes, sir.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 132)

Q.  So, we get through Friday.  Now Saturday, are there people coming over to your apartment while he’s there? 

A.  Yes, sir, Shawn and, you know, just mutual friends that come over from time to time.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 139)

Q.  You ever meet a fellow by the name of Samuel Johnson?

A.  No, sir.

Q.  That’s a person they’re referring to as Bug?

A.  No, I know Bug.

Q.  Did you know Bug before you met Mr. Mamou?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How you been knowing Bug?

A.  Through Shawn, the same person.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 140)

Specifically describing the night of December 6, 1998, and the apartment complex, Howard Scott testified,

A.  We are outside on the front porch.

Q.  You said, ‘we’re’.  Who is the group?

A.   It was me, Ken, Shawn and that’s it. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 147)

Q.  Any discussion going on between you and Shawn?

A.  No, sir.

Q.  Are you making any comments to any of the people that – your company there – that Chucky and Bug been gone for a long time?

A.  No, sir.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 148)

Scott is specifically asked about his phone.

Q.  So are you awoken by telephone calls even after you go to bed?

A.  No, sir, no more phone calls.   After awhile it wasn’t no more phone calls. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 149)

Q.  Is that because you pulled a plug out of the phone or –

A.  No, it just stopped ringing. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 150)

According to a fax sent to the District Attorney’s office from HPD while the court proceedings were underway, Howard Scott’s phone was ringing that night.  That information was not shared with the jury or Charles Mamou.

Howard again refers to Shawn Eaglin being at the apartment complex that night.

Q.  Mr. Scott, you talked about Shawn Eaglin being there at your house with his kids for a while, and then he left. When Shawn came back around midnight or a little after, how long did he stay before he left again?

A.  I guess about thirty to forty minutes.

Q.  So, he left again about 12:00, 12:45 or 1:00 o’clock?

A.  Yes, sir.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 152)

Repeatedly, Shawn Eaglin is placed at the apartment complex that night.

Q.  Well, when Shawn is there, I mean, is it right at midnight?  It is 1:00 o’clock?  Do you know what time it is?

A.  I can’t recall the time. 

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 153)

Q.  So, it could have been anywhere from about midnight to 2:30 in the morning?

A.  Yes, sir, could have been.

Q.  And when you say he then leaves, do you say good-bye to him at your front door and you close the door and go back to bed?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  So you don’t actually see where he goes to at that point?  He’s not inside your apartment?

A.   No, sir.

(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 153)

Court testimony wasn’t all that indicated Shawn Eaglin was at the apartment complex that night.  A Yellow Cab employee was called to the stand during the trial and questioned about a call the company received that night.  As an exhibit, he brought with him a printout from December 6, 1998.

Q.  Let me hand back to you Defendant’s Exhibit No. 9.  With regard to the call that is reflected at the bottom of that sheet, again, the location where the call was made to the cab driver that went out to a location, what location did he go to?

A.  He went to 10800 Fondren.

Q.  Was there a particular apartment unit number?

A  He was given Apartment Number 1402. (Howard Scott’s apartment number)

Q.  And the name of the caller?

A.  The caller said his name was Shawn.

(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 134)

The prosecutor did his best to discount that testimony and exhibit.  He questioned the Yellow Cab employee about many things.

Q.   And there is no indication by that record that anybody went to Apartment 1402, is there? 

A.  No.

Q.  In fact, they went to a big box?  Isn’t that what there is a notation at the side and—

A.  The directions say, yes.

(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 136)

Q.  Okay.  So when a person calls in you don’t know if they’re giving you the apartment number they’re in or they’re just giving you an apartment number?

A. That is true.

(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 136)

Q.  I understand you assume.  Now it says a name there, Shawn. Do you know how many Shawns live over in the 10800 block of Fondren?

A.  No, sir.

Q.  Do you know who that Shawn is?

A.  No.

(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 138)

Charles Mamou has maintained he drove the Lexus from the drug deal to the apartment complex.  He also said he later saw Shawn Eaglin leave Howard Scott’s apartment and get in a Yellow Cab vehicle.  There is very little evidence in this case, but the little there is, is consistent with Mamou’s recollection of events.

The D.A. tried to call into question the reliability of the Yellow Cab report, and even asked about how the phone number was recorded – which turned out to be caller I.D.  The prosecutor did not ask the witness about the particular number itself or share what was known about the phone number on the report.  The jury never knew, nor did Charles Mamou, that the phone number requesting the cab came from inside Howard and Robin Scott’s apartment, which is consistent with exactly what Charles Mamou said he saw twenty years ago. 

The jury was also not told Shawn Eaglin lived five minutes from Howard Scott’s apartment – the exact amount of time the taxi’s meter was running, from 4:04 a.m. until 4:09 a.m.

Harris County dominated the field when it came to racking up death sentences, and Lyn McClellan was an MVP.  The case he built against Mamou was built on one man’s statement – a statement investigators knew didn’t match up to actual events and described a confession in a phone call from Louisiana when Mamou was actually in Houston. 

It appears anything that contradicted that statement either didn’t make it into the file or was removed, and anything investigators or the D.A. knew that contradicted that statement – was not shared with Mamou or the jury. 

The fax HPD sent to the D.A. didn’t just contain a record of Samual Johnson’s calls, it also showed phone calls from Shawn Eaglin. 

There is not one record of any interview with Shawn Eaglin in the case file.  He was at one time considered a suspect.  He was present on the night in question. He was described as talking about investigators going to his home in a witness statement.  He had his name on a cab report for a cab ordered from inside Scott’s apartment.  He was referred to by almost everyone involved as the party that introduced them all.  His name, ‘Shawn’, is handwritten several times in the HPD file.  And he was calling Howard Scott as late as 3:12 a.m. on a Sunday night – the jury never heard that.

There comes a point when sloppy record keeping turns a corner…

Like any record of an interview with Howard Scott at HPD on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, there are no records of any interviews with Shawn Eaglin.

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

All related posts detailing all I have learned over the last two years are available at Charles Mamou.

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

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