I will never forget August 30, 2006. I was on A-pod, occupying B-dayroom’s recreational section, nexus to Death Watch on Texas Death Row. It was after 5:30 p.m. and visitation was over, so I headed toward the front of the dayroom, hoping to catch a guy I affectionately called RoadDawg. His real name was Derrick Frazier, but many knew him as Hasan. Before that, he was Castro – like Fidel, Cuba’s former dictator.
Hasan never knew his father. His mother left when he was fifteen, weeks later to be found dead of a drug overdose. He had an abusive stepfather. Eventually, Hasan grew tired of the abuse and ran away. He began living in the streets and soon after was adopted by Crip gang members. Becoming a new member meant he had to get a new name, and that’s how Castro was born.
I didn’t meet Castro until after he arrived on Texas Death Row. It was then that he denounced his gang, took up religion and became a Muslim. He studied the religion relentlessly, renaming himself Hasan and following the ways of Islam. He founded two newsletters – Operation L.I.F.E. and the Texas Chapter of the Human Rights Coalition, and that is how I came to know him. Hasan took his money from that and practiced ‘zakat’ towards his fellow death row inmates, no matter what race or religion. If you didn’t have, he gave clandestinely.
When he told me he had received an execution date, he said it as if he was telling me the score to a football game that I had missed, there was no emotion – at least, none on the outside. He told me he was going to unroll his mat and pray… and he did.
Hasan had a friend from Canada that was seeing him through visits. He even had her visit me. He was visiting with her on August 30, 2006, as I stood in the dayroom waiting to get a glimpse of him, to somehow communicate my solidarity through a look I planned on giving him. Shortly after 5:30 that evening he came walking through the door, looking like a king who stared down adversaries without an ounce of fear. He hadn’t noticed me, so I called out to him. Robotically, he turned my way, and seeing me, broke free from the escorting officers’ grips and started my way. He was handcuffed, and the guards didn’t stop him. I had no idea what I was going to do, but I stuck my hands out of the bars and gave him a hug. He began to cry, tears that fell rapidly, knowing time was running out.
Then he kissed my left cheek, whispering into my ear, “RoadDawg, do me a favor. You have the best chance of any of us here. Get free. Go home. Don’t let these folks win. Promise me!”
I told him nothing. Not that I didn’t want to. I was still shocked he kissed me, and at the same time the guards started calling his name and came to retrieve him to bring him into the ‘death watch’ cell. It all happened so fast, words eluded me, and I watched my friend walk off.
That night I was standing in the door of my cell, all the lights off on the pod, when I became aware of something I was seeing. If I looked at the pod’s control picket that is made of glass, I could see the reflection of all the cells on death watch, and I turned my attention to #8 cell, which held Hasan. There he was, standing in the door with his light on. His light was on. Mine was off. I watched him for a few hours. He didn’t move once. Through the years I wondered what he was looking at. Was he soaking in his last hours of life as he looked out in the dark jungle of iron bars and steel gates? Trying to understand how he came to his final moments? Was he waiting and hoping for a miracle? Or was he wondering what was I doing standing in my cell’s door in the dark? Did he see me? Eventually, I went to lay down. I said a prayer for my friend and would get up to come to the door every so often only to see him still standing there.
Hasan left at 7:40 a.m. for his last few hours of visitation with his friend from Canada. I also was told that an aunt came to see him. He never came back.
When they pronounced him dead a little after 6:30 that evening, I cried, unconsciously holding the cheek he’d kissed. My friend was the epitome of change, strength, and courage. I will never forget that about him.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Charles “Chucky” Mamou is the first place winner of our most recent writing contest. Although a long-time writer for WITS, he rarely enters our contests. I’m glad he did. Mr. Mamou has always maintained his innocence, and after extensive research into his case, WITS actively advocates for him. If you would like to know more about his case and sign a letter requesting an investigation, please add your name to his petition.
Charles Mamou can be contacted at: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
My grandmother died a day after my quick conviction. “She saw you on TV after you were sentenced to death and she died. You killed her by breaking her heart.” I got hate mail from my own flesh and blood after my conviction. – Charles Mamou
Charles Mamou’s family was divided, according to Mamou, half quickly disowning him and wishing he were dead.
But, what did they know, really? They knew the same thing I did when I first looked up articles on Charles Mamou, a new writer for WITS, what the prosecution wanted them to know – what the jury, the defense, and the media heard. I read various versions of a brutal, lone murderer who sexually assaulted a girl before killing her in an abandoned house. It wasn’t a wonder he got hate mail. I’d learned to look past the headlines, things not always as they seem.
After reading the transcripts, I got a slightly clearer picture. As the prosecution’s story goes, Charles Mamou went on a killing rampage sparked by a drug deal gone wrong, drove off with the victim, sexually assaulted her, and murdered her in a very hard to find backyard in Houston – a city he didn’t live in. All the other individuals involved in the drug deal, all residents of Houston, slept after the initial drug deal and knew nothing, a couple of them testifying for the state…
So – I looked even closer. If it were a card game, there would be money on the table, not a life, and some would say the deck was ‘stacked’. It turns out, the state had information that not only could have supported Charles Mamou’s claims of innocence, but the information could have also led to finding out what really took place that night. Evidence that existed all along and more recent interviews reveal a few things. The state had a list of phone calls that were made that night. All of the callers in those records, the individuals involved in the drug deal, from the ‘cooker’, to the driver, to the introducer, were not sleeping that night according to their phones. Not only that, recent interviews put them all in the parking lot of Howard Scott’s apartment that night, along with Charles Mamou – who was supposed to be off on a lone sexual assault and murder. If Charles Mamou was in the parking lot along with the car he was driving – so was the victim. Which is what Charles Mamou has always asserted – that he fled the drug deal gone wrong and drove back to Howard Scott’s apartment complex.
In the absence of shared information, the existing phone records, witnesses were not called to testify, and those who were called testified they were sleeping – even though the state knew their phones were in use. Does an attorney have an obligation to bring it to the attention of the court or his witness when they are not telling the truth and the attorney is aware of it?
Phone calls that should have been traced, never were – no one will ever know where the calls were placed from. They could have been dialed from the backyard where the body was found. They could have been placed from anywhere in Texas. The calls would have certainly helped determine what happened that night. The callers never had to answer questions about where they were when they placed the calls. The owner of the phone line they called – never had to explain who was calling and what they said. The man whose phone was receiving the calls testified for the state, saying he was asleep and his phone was not ringing. Regardless of records indicating that was not true, the state’s witness was never corrected by the prosecutor. No one questioned why his phone was ringing until 3:43 a.m. the night the victim was murdered and why one phone call went out at 3:59 a.m. requesting a cab – yet the state had information these calls took place.
One of the callers to the home did the same, testifying for the state and saying he went home to bed that night and didn’t use his phone. The witness and driver in the drug deal did not have to explain why his cell phone dialed Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m. or where he was at when the call was made. Rather, he testified he had went to bed.
The other callers on the record never even had to step foot in a courtroom. They were never called by either side. But, all the callers were up and about that night, not sleeping, and witnesses have since said they saw all the callers in one parking lot that night – Howard Scott’s parking lot.
It isn’t surprising the jury came back with a guilty verdict, no more surprising than it would be in a poker game with no aces in the cards dealt to the other players, but rather held in the dealer’s hand. Charles Mamou certainly looked the part, he was a drug dealer. Just in case though, they hung on to one more card. The sexual assault. While fighting for the death penalty, the prosecution called him ‘vicious’, ‘ruthless’, and ‘cold-blooded’. The jury was told he ‘devastated and destroyed’, that he ‘marches her to the back, and he makes her commit oral sodomy, makes her suck his penis. Imagine that, ladies and gentleman’.
While saying those words to the jury the prosecution knew not only about the phone records that could have been used to defend Mamou, they also knew something else. There was a rape kit collected from the body along with trace evidence, and that kit was collected by the medical examiner who did not make one note of it in his autopsy report. He also did not breathe one word of it in his testimony. The prosecutor’s office not only knew about the collection of the evidence, they requested that it be processed and they had received the results. The results indicated there was ‘no semen found’. In addition to that, trace evidence was collected that Mamou never knew about. For two decades – he never knew. Neither did the jury, or his family, or the victim’s family.
There is no nice way to say it. The state had information that not only could have supported Charles Mamou’s claims of innocence, but the information could have also led to finding out what happened that night. Evidence and interviews that have since taken place tell us a few things. All of the callers in those records were not sleeping that night. Recent interviews put them all in the parking lot of Howard Scott’s apartment, along with Charles Mamou – who was supposed to be off on a lone sexual assault and murder. Involved parties, according to the phone records, were not called to testify, and those who did testified they were sleeping – regardless of what the state knew.
Charles Mamou absorbed the anger for the loss of his grandmother. He had no other choice. Since his conviction, he has been living in a 9 x 6 cell in solitary confinement. No one sees his tears. No one can measure his depression. People have moved on with their lives, his children have been raised, his grandchildren don’t know him. As it stands now, he will be executed. His appeals are exhausted, he is waiting on a date, and if his parents are still alive when it comes, they will watch their son be belted down to a table as poison gets pumped into his veins and he takes his final breath. Is that the justice we should be shooting for?
Many anti-death penalty activists find their stance not because they are necessarily opposed to the death penalty. They base their stance on the knowledge the deck sometimes gets stacked. Not every prosecutor is as interested in finding out exactly what happened as they are in securing a win. If anyone wanted to know what happened to the victim twenty years ago, those phone calls would have been traced. The individuals making the calls would have been interviewed, their stories documented, statements taken and compared. It defies logic to even try and argue differently, to suggest those individuals not be interviewed and those calls not be traced. A girl was murdered – every stone should have been turned over to find out what happened. Instead – nothing. There is not one recorded interview with two of those callers that night, both of whom are said to have been in the parking lot, and one of who’s name is recorded as being the caller for a cab from Howard Scott’s apartment at 3:59 a.m. Yet – not one interview with him or the other individual calling the apartment and seen in the parking lot that night. As a matter of fact, Howard Scott’s first interview with police that was performed on the first day he was transported to HPD – is not in any file. It does not exist. I was told, “Not everything makes it into the file.”
What could have been discovered if, in 1999, this case had been investigated and the phone records and physical evidence shared? Where were the phone calls made from? What would the callers have said about what they were doing that night had they been asked? What would the recipient of the phone calls have said if he had been confronted with the question, rather than allowed to say – ‘I was sleeping’?
The window of opportunity on what could have been determined is shut. The Harris County prosecutor’s office did that, not Charles Mamou. The deck was stacked against Mamou, the victim’s family, Mamou’s family, the jury, and anyone who has ever read the story. Everybody loses. The prosecution may have felt not sharing the information they had would secure a ‘win’ for their office, but how is that winning? You can’t win when you cheat, it’s a façade, a farce. One person does not get to decide what part of the puzzle we can use. To argue a case in a court of law, what people look towards for truth, justice, equality and fairness, while keeping information to yourself, and not only doing that but also exploiting the lack of knowledge and arguing scenarios such as witnesses sleeping and sexual assault – that is not a win.
There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing Charles Mamou’s troubling case.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
You can also reach him through jpay.com.
SIGN HIS PETITION – LEARN ABOUT HIS CASE. Charles Mamou is a long time WITS writer. He is part of our writing family and his case has been studied and shared here for a couple years. Please sign a petition requesting that his case be truly investigated – for the first time. If you learn enough about his case, you will likely agree, there was not much done in the way of investigation. What we have been able to learn, supports that. Please sign.
People tell me to have faith, and I get it, I really do. I always want to have faith, but sometimes my mind is cluttered with so much doubt. They’ll try to encourage me and say things like, “You are so strong, Chucky,” meaning mentally. If only I had a penny for every time somebody told me that.
The truth is, they don’t see it, but sometimes things hit me out of the blue, and I cry for reasons I’m not totally sure of. I stress about everything, from small to big issues. I recently became a grandfather. I can’t tell you how it feels not being there for him. I failed as a parent to my own children. I see my grandson as my parental redemption ticket – however, I’m still locked up. And my stress continues.
Psychologically, there is nothing like being on Texas death row. Every day is a struggle within a struggle. You have to fight. You have to fight for toilet paper. You have to fight for commissary, a phone call, mail or Jpays, decent and edible food. And you have to keep on fighting just to be treated like a person and not some animal. What is even more insane is, just when you think you have resolved an issue, the next day you have to resolve it all over again. I think I’ve heard it said, “Hell is a repetitious place.”
I rarely talk about the things that go on here. I don’t talk about it to my loved ones, ‘cause I don’t want to worry them. If I knew they were worried, it would cause me more stress. So, I deal with it alone, as I have always done. Self-absorbed to self-abuse… self. I wouldn’t recommend that mind-set to anyone. It’s not ideal or healthy. But, in here, I know there is nothing any other human being can do to alleviate the inner loneliness.
Nehemiah once prayed to God, “Now strengthen my hands.” He had to fight every day and when he grew weary, and it seemed he could not go on, he prayed to God for the strength to endure. So do I. That’s how I get by. With God, I am able to get through this. Without God, I don’t believe I’d be alive to be able to write these words with the hands that God has made stronger.
There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing Charles Mamou’s troubling case.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
You can also reach him through jpay.com.
SIGN HIS PETITION – LEARN ABOUT HIS CASE. Charles Mamou is a long time WITS writer. He is part of our writing family and his case has been studied and shared here for a couple years. Please sign a petition requesting that his case be truly investigated – for the first time. If you learn enough about his case, you will likely agree, there was not much done in the way of investigation. What we have been able to learn, supports that. Please sign.
My Ma may be many things but listening to her testimony, you’d know she always wanted to be a mother – and I wouldn’t want any other. She’s an affable woman, kinda quirky, though stern, sorta introverted, yet capable of being extroverted. She was the perfect match for me. But early on there was a problem. According to her, doctors told her she would not be a fruitful woman. You’d have to know her struggles growing up to understand how the nineteen-year-old-her felt hearing such news. But she clung to her faith, praying to her God to be able to have children.
Some time later she became pregnant with me.
To let my mom tell it, the voice of God spoke to her and told her she would ‘produce fruit and multiply’, akin to some women in the Bible, Manoa, Hannah, Elizabeth, to name a few. Some folk thought my mom read the bible too much. Some would tell her to eat kale with her stacked plate of gravy filled pork chops. My mom’s mother also told her I would grow up to be a preacher preaching from the pulpit. HA! I’m sure she’s turning over in her grave if it is possible and if she can see me now.
In all, my mother gave birth to six beautiful children with good character. Not bad for a single mom. When her time comes to enter those pearly gates, they will accept her with open arms.
Recently, my mom wrote to tell me that upon receiving one of my letters, she almost questioned her faith, that it took her a few days to reason with her better self and allow the Lord to help her move on.
When I was arrested for capital murder in 1998, every day felt like intertwined moments travelled in slow motion. Days passed in a nebulous state. Mentally, I was part optimistic, believing, ‘Okay, I know I did not kill any girl. I will tell this to the jury, and I’ll be back to the hole-n-the-wall in no time’.
I was part delusional when I spoke to my baby mommas, ‘Yo, don’t worry. I’ll be home in a few months. Nothing has changed.’
Reality though? Reality can be a cruel and cold awakening. That was my reality after the verdict came back. The all non-black jury got it wrong. It was harsh. Wrong. So fucking wrong.
The pain I felt for the next 2,160 hours was a feeling I beg to never endure again – and there was nothing I could do about it.
While I awaited trial, I was held in Harris County’s jail, the 701 annex. They had regular church services there, and I was invited to attend. The room held about fifteen young men – all black, many serving county jail time, a few waiting for the ‘prison chain bus’ to begin their lengthy penitentiary time. And a couple of our fates were still up-in-the-air. I thought that if I showed God I was willing to sit in a banal smelling church’s chapel in a genuflection pose, mumbling a few amens, God… this mighty Being, would help a brotha out. I have to be honest to give my testimony, right?
One inmate was asked to sing a song. His last name was Cook. He was about to go home. He spoke about wanting to become an R&B artist. Other brothers laid hands on him, as if to pray for his success. I recall a lot about that moment, and I’ve forgotten a lot about that moment. I’ll never forget his voice though, the lyrics he would sing, nor the emotional tsunami he stirred inside of me that night.
“I AM a Living Testimony. Should have been dead and gone, but the Lord helped me to move on…”
His voice was celestial, and a montage of images from my life – good times and bad, accomplishments and many failures – cluttered my mind. You see, I should have been dead and gone, and for whatever reason, the Lord helped me to move on.
Still today, I live, not because I’m good looking or wear two pair of socks on my left foot and only one pair on my right. I survived not because I am a con man, nor because I have dodged the wrath of the racist judicial system. No. I live ‘cause the Lord God wants me to live on.
Before I was sentenced to death, folks said I wouldn’t live to see 21. After I was sentenced to death they said I wouldn’t live to see 35. As of April, 2021, I’m 46 years old and counting. I’m not bragging about ‘me’ –existing in solitary confinement for over two decades is a daily struggle, mentally and physically. But what I do want to brag about is my ‘message’. What I’ve learned. Whatever you are going through – addiction, your cross to bare – you are greater in will than any drug that was designed to crush your will. Illness can wreck your body, but it can’t wreck your spirit. If you are homeless or incarcerated for a crime you didn’t do – you are alive.
Do better. Be better. Love more. Each of us is a ‘living testimony’. For some reason, the Lord has let us live on…
‘Anyone who is living still has HOPE. Even a live dog is better off than a dead lion.’ – Ecclesiastes 9:4
There is also a facebook page dedicated to Charles Mamou’s troubling case.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
You can also reach him through jpay.com.
SIGN HIS PETITION – LEARN ABOUT HIS CASE. Charles Mamou is a long time WITS writer. He is part of our writing family and his case has been studied and shared here for a couple years. Please sign a petition requesting that his case be investigated – for the first time. What we have found has made it clear to us that it never was.
Charles Mamou is a WITS writer. He has always maintained his innocence. He has been on death row for over twenty years. There is evidence and information the Harris County prosecution had that Charles Mamou didn’t know existed for over two decades. That information could have been used to determine what happened to the victim if anyone had pursued it.
Nothing physically ties Charles Mamou to the scene of the crime, other than the testimony of witnesses that were involved in a drug deal with him that night. There is not a fingerprint of his there. There is not a footprint of his there. No witnesses saw him there. There was a shell casing – that cannot be tied definitively to any weapon, but no weapon was ever found. Mamou was from out of town, the men who testified were not. The body was found in a location even the police described as difficult to locate. One of the witnesses worked for Orkin – on the side of town where the body was found behind a house for sale.
The individuals who testified against Charles Mamou were apparently never charged for their involvement in any of the events that took place that night – and phone records the prosecution had access to indicate two of those witnesses were not telling the truth on the stand.
A letter never presented to the jury and written by the ‘star’ witness who said Charles Mamou confessed to him says, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”
Charles Mamou has waited long enough for someone to help him. He’s not asking for any breaks – he’s asking for an investigation into his case, one that includes all the evidence the Houston Police Department had twenty years ago, which includes trace evidence obtained in a rape kit that was never shared with Mamou.
Please sign the above letter asking the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to reinvestigate this case.
UPDATE: This post was temporarily removed, after I was contacted and told I couldn’t share this information. After a thorough review, I disagree. The information came from trial transcripts that Charles Mamou gave me access to. In addition to that, the other records are public and the letter was written to Charles Mamou and belongs to him. Walk In Those Shoes is about writers in prison and trying to understand their experience with the justice system. If I can’t share public information without being warned and told not to – is it a wonder people end up on death row that are innocent?
A fax cover sheet addressed to Assistant District Attorney Lyn McClellan and dated September 24, 1999, along with an HPD officer’s handwritten caller ID records were seen for the first time by Charles Mamou in 2020, over twenty years after the Houston Police Department and District Attorney’s office had access to them. The cover sheet and phone records were not shared with Mamou at trial, and could have assisted in the investigation as well as discredited the testimony of two of the prosecution’s key witnesses. In a case without physical evidence, those witnesses were critical. The jury that found Charles Mamou guilty and sentenced him to death never saw the documents, and they were only recently obtained by Mamou’s advocates.
Charles Mamou was sentenced to die in 1999, not long after this fax is dated, for the kidnapping and murder of Mary Carmouche. Mamou has always maintained his innocence and describes fleeing a drug deal gone wrong in a car that didn’t belong to him – Carmouche was in the backseat – and returning to an apartment complex in Houston, Texas, where he was staying. Mamou lived in Louisiana and was in Texas, in most part, for a drug deal. According to Mamou, he last saw Carmouche alive and in the parking lot of the apartment complex, along with several other individuals, two of whom would end up being key witnesses for the prosecution, claiming they were at home in bed, and never saw Mamou after the drug deal – also claiming they did not make or receive phone calls that night.
The phone records – one of two pieces of actual evidence in the case – were never shared with Mamou or the jury. The other piece of evidence that Mamou and the jury never heard about was a rape kit that was collected, which included the collection of ‘trace evidence’ and ‘hairs’. In a case with no fingerprints at the scene of the body, no footprints, no witnesses, no weapon – a rape kit and phone records are the next best thing. The prosecution knew about both. The jury and Mamou knew about neither. Not only did the prosecution know about the rape kit – they also told the jury Mamou sexually assaulted the victim.
The HPD investigator’s notes include identifying notations next to the phone numbers. The victim was last seen alive on the evening of December 6, 1998, early morning of December 7, 1998. The key witness, Howard Scott, lived at the apartment complex Mamou said he drove the car to. These are Scott’s caller ID records from that night, as written by an HPD investigator that went to Scott’s apartment on December 8, 1998.
11:19 p.m., Oretha Gray; 11:25 p.m., Sun Suites; 11:46 p.m., Emily Griggs; 11:48 p.m., Meri Eubanks; 12:14 a.m., payphone; 12:19 a.m., M.E. Brinson – Shawn’s mother; 1:54 a.m., Meri Eubanks; 2:37 a.m., wireless [WRITER’S NOTE: the phone number listed at 2:37 is identified in HPD’s file as belonging to another key witness, Samuel Johnson]; 3:12 a.m., M.E. Brinson – Shawn calls for Howard; 3:43 a.m., call notes.
Mamou could have used this information in his defense, and investigators may have had an opportunity to pursue the location of the wireless phone call made at 2:37 a.m. from a cell phone used by Samuel Johnson, a witness who testified he was home in bed and didn’t talk to anyone that night. Johnson’s contradicting statement and testimony are sufficient reason to pursue the origin and purpose of the 2:37 a.m. phone call for anyone trying to find answers in a murder investigation.
Charles Mamou did not live in Houston. All of the key witnesses did, and Samuel Johnson also worked for Orkin at the time, testifying that his area was in the southwest area of Houston. Although it was often reported that the victim was found near some abandoned houses, she was actually found in what detectives described as a hard to find location in a suburban neighborhood in the southwest area of Houston in the backyard of a house that was for sale – not some abandoned houses.
When the HPD investigator went to Howard Scott’s apartment on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, the investigator was actually hoping to arrest Mamou. They knew he was there that morning from Howard Scott’s wife, and they knew Mamou had been involved in the drug deal that Mary Carmouche had last been seen at. Investigators didn’t find Mamou, but they wrote down Scott’s caller ID records and transported Scott to HPD that day to make a written statement. Not only is that documented in HPD’s case file, Detective Novak also testified regarding Howard Scott’s written statement that day.
That original statement from Howard Scott is nowhere to be found. It is not in the HPD case file, and according to the District Attorney’s office, they don’t have it either. I was told by HPD, that ‘everything doesn’t always makes it into the file’. The following day, police brought Scott and his wife back to HPD and took written statements again on Wednesday, December 9, 1998. Both of Robin Scott’s statements are available, but Howard Scott’s original statement is missing.
I tried to speak to Scott in 2019, but he refused to talk to me. He has spoken to other people over the years, and his statements are inconsistent throughout. The most recent of which, in 2019, includes a physical description of Carmouche from that night, and seeing Samuel Johnson, Charles Mamou and Mary Carmouche all at the apartment complex at the same time – a complete reversal from his testimony, in which he claimed he was home in bed and did not see Samuel Johnson or Charles Mamou after the drug deal, and his phone did not ring. Howard Scott described seeing Samuel Johnson, Charles Mamou, Mary Carmouche, and Kenneth Duplechan all alive and at the apartment complex parking lot after the drug deal.
The jury never heard that. The prosecutor who, according to the the fax cover sheet, was sent Scott’s caller ID records on September 24, 1999, listened to his witness testify two weeks later on October 7, 1999, about going to bed between 11 and midnight, and about how the phone was ringing prior to that, as he sat with ‘Shawn’ and Ken. Scott told the jury there were ‘no more phone calls’ after he went to bed. Neither the jury nor Mamou are ever told ‘Shawn’, the man Scott said he was talking to in his apartment before he went to bed between 11 and 12, called Scott’s apartment at 12:19 a.m., and again at 3:12 a.m., and that Scott’s phone didn’t stop ringing until 3:43 a.m. Although Howard Scott has consistantly contradicted himself for twenty years, and his first statement is missing, he was a key witness in the case against Mamou.
Samuel Johnson, the driver in the drug deal gone wrong, who fled the alley without Mamou, testified he went straight home to bed and spoke to no one, never seeing Mamou or Carmouche again, not seeing or speaking to anyone that night. According to the HPD investigator’s notes, Samuel Johnson called Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m., from a wireless phone. At that time in history, landlines were frequently used for phone calls made from a person’s residence, and wireless calls were more likely to be made when away from home. Mamou never had an opportunity to point out to the jury that Johnson’s phone made a call to Howard Scott’s apartment nor was he able to investigate the location of the call’s origin. The prosecution did not share the available information with the jury.
‘Ken’ who Howard Scott mentioned was sitting in his living room in his testimony, has since been interviewed, although there is nothing in HPD’s file to indicate that anyone involved in trying to find Carmouche’s killer ever interviewed him during HPD’s ‘investigation’. In 2019 Kenneth Duplechan told an investigator he saw Charles Mamou, Howard Scott, Samuel Johnson and Shawn Eaglin in the apartment complex parking lot that night – along with the blue Lexus Mamou fled the drug deal in. That statement contradicts everything the jury was told. Kenneth Duplechan also stated he stayed in the parking lot talking to Howard Scott and Charles Mamou after Samuel Johnson drove away. The jury never heard any of that, but the phone records reveal one name coming up twice on Scott’s phone that night – Meri Eubanks. Meri Eubanks does appear to know Kenneth Duplechan, but Eubanks and Duplechan will not respond to inquiries from me. Although the HPD investigator is the individual who wrote down the name Meri Eubanks in his notes as a caller to Scott’s apartment, there are no records of anyone at HPD interviewing Eubanks in their efforts to locate Carmouche’s killer.
There were other phone calls made to the apartment that night that could have been investigated, but according to police files were not, and Mamou was not aware of them at the time, so he was unable to pursue them himself.
The prosecution also knew about actual physical evidence that was collected as part of a rape kit. They did not share what they learned with the jury or Mamou. That information has been kept from Mamou for over twenty years.
On July 8, 1999, two months before Mamou’s trial, an investigator for the District Attorney, Al Rodriguez, contacted HPD and asked them to process a rape kit.
On July 12, 1999, the results were back, indicating that no semen was detected, trace evidence and hairs existed and had been collected.
During the trial, the medical examiner testified at length about the procedures during an autopsy as well as reviewing the autopsy report itself. At no point throughout the entire trial, or in the twenty years since, was Charles Mamou or the jury told a rape kit existed. Quite the opposite. The rape kis was so well not documented, that in 2007 a private investigator looking for more evidence had to report back to Mamou that he could not find more evidence obtained by the medical examiner.
Last year, on October 30, 2019, after I had gone to HPD and the District Attorney’s office requesting the results of the rape kit and being told they don’t keep that kind of information, I contacted the Harris County Medical examiner looking for the information. It was confirmed for me at that time that the rape kit had been collected at the time of the autopsy in spite of the medical examiner neglecting to include that information in his autopsy report and testimony.
On November 19, 2019, I was able to obtain the results to the actual rape kit, noting no semen found and trace evidence collected.
The information wasn’t just kept from Mamou and the jury, the prosecutor also told the jury that a sexual assault took place, but failed to share with the jury or the defense that no semen was found .
A lot of things were told to the jury to steer them in the direction of a guilty verdict. The day after Carmouche went missing, Mamou was with his cousin when he picked up some sunglasses that he had dropped during his stay in Houston. Without surrounding information, the sunglasses became tied to the victim in the courtroom and later in news reports. It was never pointed out for the jury that the glasses were found approximately five miles from the body.
There were a lot of things not pointed out for the jury. Mamou never saw the original video statement of his cousin, Terrence Dodson, who told jurors that Mamou confessed to him. In 2019, I sent Mamou a transcript of the original statement. Although Dodson testified Mamou confessed to him over days, partially in person and partially over the phone, HPD investigators had recorded Dodson originally telling them Mamou called him from Louisiana ‘before day’ on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, and told him everything. Investigators knew, while they were listening to Dodson’s statement, Mamou had not left Houston until Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. on a bus. The interview took place on Wednesday, December 9, 1998.
Dodson’s testimony not only differed from his statement, but Mamou never saw Dodson again after the morning of Monday, December 7, 1998. He could not have confessed to him in person as he testified, nor could he have confessed in one phone call from Louisiana before day on December 8, 1998, as he said in his original statement because Mamou did not leave Houston on a bus headed to Louisiana until Tuesday afternoon at 1:30.
The jury also never saw a letter Terrence Dodson wrote to Mamou a month after Carmouche was murdered, stating he was glad Mamou didn’t tell him anything.
In 2019 it was noted in the HPD case files linked to Mamou’s case that biological evidence was signed out. I inquired at HPD, the Property Room, the Homicide Department, and the District Attorney’s office regarding why the evidence was signed out.
At the HPD Records Department, I was told they didn’t know the answer, and I should contact the Property Room, the District Attorney’s office, and the Medical Examiner.
At the District Attorney’s office, I was told the case was currently ‘closed’. There would be no current requests for evidence from them because no one was working it, and the files themselves were in storage – the case was inactive.
At the HPD Property Room, which was where the biological evidence was signed out from – I was told there is protocol in place, and in order to find out why the biological evidence was signed out, I would need to go to Homicide and speak with the investigator on the case.
At Homicide, I was told it was a ‘cold case’ and there was no active investigator on the case, I would need to talk to the person in charge of cold cases.
The cold case investigator wasn’t in and never returned my phone call.
I later received a phone call from D. Wilker in Homicide. I was told ‘only the Property Division could answer my questions’. Of note – the Property Division is where I had originally gone and was told that due to ‘protocol’, I would need to go to Homicide.
During that phone conversation, I was also told Ms. Wilker would reach out to the Property Division to see if she could get an answer for me, but she couldn’t make any promises. In addition, she informed me ‘we are mandated to test every piece of evidence’, suggesting that the evidence was taken out for testing. Ms. Wilker also suggested an investigator could have requested the material be checked out, but as I had already been told – there was no investigator on the case at that time. I was told she would get back in touch with me after she reached out to the Property Division.
After a couple weeks and no contact from Ms. Wilker – I called her. Ms. Wilker told me the rape kit results I was looking for at that time, which I later found without her assistance, were ‘irrelevant’. I was told the defense had every piece of evidence they needed to have. The ‘window of opportunity’ for finding out anything was closed. And, finally, yes, the evidence had been checked out in 2019 and had been in the possession of Mary K. Childs-Henry, but it was now back where it belonged. It had been checked out for ‘cataloging purposes’.
I then asked Ms. Wilker if she considered the matter closed, and she told me she did.
After that phone call I wrote a letter to Internal Affairs and the Chief of Police, as ‘cataloging’ two pieces of twenty year old biological evidence didn’t seem logical, and I had just been told the rape kit results that were never shared with Mamou were ‘irrelevant’, which also seemed illogical considering evidence was collected .
The Houston Police Department responded, telling me no one had done anything wrong. “In your letter, you inquired about procedures for removing evidence regarding Mr. Mamou’s case. The District Attorney is the only person that can authorize any type of evidence to be released for any reason. There are procedures in place for care, custody and control of evidence that is stored in the Property Room. You may reach the Harris County District Attorney’s Office at ….”
As of this date, it remains unclear why the biological evidence was signed out in 2019.
Charles Mamou has spent over two decades on death row and is awaiting an execution date. In a case without evidence shared with the jury, the prosecution painted a picture. In the painting, the jury was told Mamou sexually assaulted the victim and murdered individuals in previous unsolved murder cases. They were shown autopsy photos of another murder victim, from another crime, and heard the impact statements from the victim’s family in that crime.
One might argue with HPD that evidence is relevant. It’s relevant to victims and their families, and it is relevant to defendants. Charles Mamou’s little sister recently described the last Christmas Eve she shared with her brother over twenty years ago. She and her family spent the day at her Uncle White’s house in Lafayette. Their uncle had a house big enough for everybody, and his gumbo took all day and night to cook, but was worth the wait.
When the family got home that night, they could barely get through the living room because Mamou and his friends had been busy picking up gifts while everyone was gone. The kids weren’t allowed to open anything until morning, but their mom did allow them to set off the fireworks Mamou had brought home. There were so many, Mamou’s sister remembers the sky turning pink, and she remembers seeing two of Mamou’s children that night and the step kids he treated like his own.
Following is testimony taken from trial transcripts dated October 13, 1999, during the Punishment Phase of the case against Charles Mamou, Volume 22, beginning on Page 67. The disturbing case – which includes information the District Attorney had that was never shared with Mamou, including a rape kit and untested evidence, the prosecution not bringing attention to information they had that could discredit two of their witnesses while they were on the stand, a letter written by a key witness that the court appointed defense never presented and even biological evidence being signed out by an HPD employee with no explanation in 2019 – had returned a guilty verdict. At this point in the trial – the goal was to ensure Mamou received the death penalty. The prosecution brought Joseph Melancon to the stand to testify that Mamou had killed someone else months before. Mamou was never tried in this case, nor given an opportunity to defend himself. I’ve abbreviated the testimony here, but it is taken directly from the transcripts.
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. 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. Did you get to the Jamaica Club? A. No, we didn’t. Q. What happened on the way to the 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. 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. 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. What happened when you arrived at the convenience store? A. They had three guys standing out at the convenience store. Q. Okay. Did ya’ll 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. 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 Wiener Man. 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 of 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. 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 Wiener Man. 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 the 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? Judge, We object to hearsay. The Court, It’s overruled. Q. What did you hear him say? A. He said, My boys shot me, and he just kept saying it over and over. 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 I used his phone. Q. Okay. And who did you call? A. I called my wife.
The witness then goes on to testify he fled Houston out of fear for his life. He said he didn’t ‘feel safe’. When questioned by the defense –
Q. Did Lonnie and Weiner Man stick around with you for the police to get there that night? A. I was with them when the police and the paramedics got there. Q. And you offered information to them and gave them your name? A. No. Q. Police ask you what your name was? A. No
Q. How long after you saw Bruiser and Mr. Mamou drive off did you hear what you thought might have been a gunshot? A. Maybe four or five minutes. Q. And who are you talking to at the time that that happens? A. Lonnie and Wiener Man.
Q. When you talked to Sergeant Herman from Houston Homicide Department, do you tell him basically what you‘ve told us here today? A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you introduce Bruiser to Charles Mamou? A. No, I didn’t.
After the testimony of Joseph Melancon, the medical examiner was called to the stand and autopsy photographs of ‘Bruiser’ were shared with the jury, including close up views of the gunshot entrance wound and his face. The deceased man’s big sister then testified regarding the loss of her brother and how it impacted her family.
Charles Mamou was not on trial for the murder of Anthony Williams (Bruiser). He was on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Mary Carmouche in a case I’ve detailed extensively and some of those details can be found here. The prosecution pushed for a death sentence after they already had a ‘guilty’ verdict. Going into the punishment phase, they knew they already had the upper hand and were privvy to things – Mamou only found out this past year.
The jury only heard the above testimony – which seems pretty cut and dry. What I’m sharing here is what the jury never heard, what HPD knew all along, and I would venture to guess the prosecution did as well since Lynn McClellan supplied Det. Novak with a grand jury subpoena in connection with this investigation on September 23, 1999, during the Mamou trial. This is what the jury never heard:
Unlike his testimony, according to the HPD file, Joseph Melancon contacted police on October 16, 1998, after he heard police wanted to talk to him. Sgt. Herrmann recorded what Joseph Melancon stated at that time.
Joseph 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. Joseph Melancon stated this was some time around 11:00 PM. Joseph Melancon stated just after he and Chucky Mamou arrived at the Club, Chucky Mamou met the complainant and they started talking.
Joseph Melancon stated, in a short while, Chucky came and told him he had to do some business, and at that time Chucky Mamou and the complainant left the Shannon’s Club. Joseph Melancon stated he remained at the Shannon’s Club and he was visiting with a man called Weiner Man and also a man named Lonnie. Joseph Melancon stated while they were talking someone came up and told Weiner Man that the complainant had been shot.
This original statement, made less than two months after the murder, is a far cry from Melancon’s testimony. There is more that police knew.
The next actual ‘witness’ police spoke to that knew anything about the incident was the man known as Weiner Man. On December 7, 1998, police talked to him. According to police records, he stated, ‘he was at the club in the next block south of where the complainant got shot.’ Police went on to say, ‘after he learned the complainant had been shot, he went to where the complainant was laying on the parking lot of the auto repair shop.’ ‘he heard the complainant say that my home boy shot me.’
The first two statements in the file made by individuals who might know something, Joseph Melancon and Weiner Man – both contradict the testimony used at Mamou’s trial. According to Weiner Man, he doesn’t mention Mamou, and he says he was in a club at the time of the shooting. Investigators also spoke to Mamou’s father early on in the investigation and were told he’d seen his son, Charles Mamou, in Louisiana that Sunday, as there had been a family wedding on the day of the shooting.
On September 20, 1999, during Mamou’s trial, Detective Novak of HPD, the investigator that weighed heavily in the highly questionable case built against Mamou, re-opened the Anthony Gibson (Bruiser) case. He immediately spoke to a cousin of Joseph Melancon’s who made a video statement that was summarized in the police file. His description of what Melancon told him happened is different than the others. According to the police summary, “They all three met up and went over to Mannies to discuss what they were going to do. He says that Bruiser and Chucky then bought a beer at the store and that Bruiser and Chucky then left and went back to Mannies. He says that his cousin, Joey, then told him that a few minutes later he heard some gunshots and he took off running. He stated that he had never met Chucky Mamou nor had ever seen him. He says that he learned through his conversation with his cousin that the guy was Chucky Mamou and that Chucky and his cousin grew up with one another in Sunset, Louisiana, and Opelousas, Louisiana, and attended school together. He stated that Joey told him that it was a marijuana deal and that Chucky was paying $7,500 for the marijuana. He said his cousin helped set up the dope deal. He says that his cousin also was standing in close proximity to Mannies and saw the sport utility vehicle pull up at Mannies and soon afterwards he heard two gunshots and that is when his cousin took off running. He says that his cousin fled to Dallas after Chucky threatened to kill him if he ever told.”
In contrast to the testimony, Melancon’s cousin has the three parties meeting up at Mannies prior to anything happening. It indicates Melancon arranged the exchange and also states twice that Melancon took off running, rather than getting in a vehicle with Lonnie, as he testified, and going toward the shooting. Of note, it also says that Bruiser, Mamou and Melancon all met up at Mannies, ‘and after Bruiser and Chucky got to know one another they took his cousin back to the store and let him off’. So – in this version, Melancon introduced Bruiser and Mamou and all three were in a car together at one point. This contradicts every previous statement.
On September 21, 1999, Sgt. Novak takes a written statement from a man named Adam Peterson. He describes what he saw in the parking lot of the convenience store, after he pulled up and saw Bruiser there. ‘When I was talking to Bruiser, I noticed a sport utility vehicle that was dark in color either black or green, pull into the parking lot. I saw Joey walk over to the sport utility vehicle on the driver’s side. Joey and the driver were talking. I then got out of the truck and walked in the store.’
Peterson goes on to describe the driver of the vehicle going in the store and purchasing a beer. Peterson drove away from the parking lot, and didn’t know anything else. When shown a photo spread which included Charles Mamou, he could not identify anyone. Of note, Peterson also says, ‘I talked with Joey very briefly. Joey is a cousin to Joseph Malbrough. Joey told me that he had just been on Main and that was a bunch of women out there. And my response to him was if there were so many women out there, then why wasn’t he out there. His response was that I had just left from out there.’ What’s interesting about this portion of the statement – Joseph Melancon will later tell police he’s never heard of this man and didn’t speak to him in the parking lot. Also interesting – this witness told police Melancon was not in a car with anyone, but rather at the store when the vehicle pulled up that had its occupant go in and buy a beer.
On September 22, 1999, Weiner Man went to the homicide office. Again, this investigation was occurring during Mamou’s trial. Weiner Man stated, ‘He had gone to the Buffalo Store and saw Bruiser and Lonnie in the parking lot. He stated he talked to Bruiser and that he told him not to leave.’
He went on, ‘He stated he told Bruiser that he was hungry and he went to Shannon’s and ordered a hamburger. He stated that Bruiser came in 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 than stated, ‘that he remained inside Shannon’s and a short time later Cedric came running and told him that Bruiser had been shot. Eric stated that he went to the parking lot of Mannies and tried to talk to Bruiser and that Bruiser told him, My homeboy did this.”
This statement was made by someone who, by all appearances, had nothing to gain, and it contradicts everything said on the stand. It doesn’t even mention Charles Mamou being with Melancon.
Then – once again – police spoke with Joseph Melancon, days before he testified, on October 4, 1999. This is what he told police during that interview:
I brought my wife the car, she got in, I told her that me and Chucky, we was gonna go out, I’d talk to her later. Got in with Chucky. Umm, we left. When we was gettin’ on 635 we supposed to be going to Jamaica, and, uh, Chucky got a phone call. And, he, when he got off the phone, he said he needed to go take care of something, umm, and then we would go out. I was ridin’ with him, I said fine. We pulled up at a store off of Buffalo, I was familiar with the area, I have some cousins that live in the area. We pulled up at Buffalo. Umm, Bruiser, umm, Weinerman, and Lonnie was standing out. I got out the truck. Bruiser got in the truck. I was talking to Lonnie and Weinerman, umm, next thing I know, Chucky got out the truck, and he went inside the store. So, I asked Bruiser what was going on, Bruiser kinda looked at me like, it’s wasn’t none of my business, he said Chucky’s just going in the store, and buy us a couple a beers, then we gonna go around the corner, and we gonna be right back. So, I walked away from the truck, continued to talk to Lonnie and Weinerman. They left. They made a left on, umm, Almeda. Me, Lonnie and Wienerman was talking and we heard something. And Weinerman said, did you all, did you hear that? And I said, yeah, it kinda sounded like a gunshot. And we just went on talking. The next five, six minutes, guy came running from down the street, said Bruiser had been shot. I jumped in the car with Lonnie, rode to the, I saw Bruiser laying down, he had been shot. Umm, got out there, you know, I saw him layin down, and I knew Bruiser, we used to play basketball in the neighborhood, umm, off Almeda Manor, the neighborhood right approaching where he got shot at. I just, kinda, I was shocked. I was real shocked. Umm, I saw him laying down there. One of my other partners was out there, Chris. I told Chris, I said, uh, man, let me go use your phone…”
Just when you think there can’t be more contradictions – there are. In his video statement, Melancon describes Mamou getting a phone call in the car regarding a drug transaction. He states that Chucky said, “you got that for me?” to the person on the other end of the line. Melancon doesn’t mention setting up the deal or introducing anybody.
When asked about talking to Adam Peterson, who also went by the name Tim, in the convenience store parking lot, the man that Detective Novak had spoken to and who detailed a conversation with Melancon in the parking lot, Melancon states, ‘No. I don’t know. I don’t recall.’
‘Tim’s’ real name is Adam Peterson.
‘Tim. I don’t know a Tim. I don’t know Adam Peterson.’
Did you walk up to anybody in a truck and start talking to anybody in a pick-up truck?
‘No.’
While you were in front of the Buffalo Store?
‘Uh-uh.’
You positive?
‘I’m positive. The only conversation I had was with Lonnie and Weinerman. And we was just talking, just shooting the breeze. And I didn’t, no. I didn’t go up to no pick-up.’
Try as they might, detectives couldn’t get any of Joseph Melancon’s versions of what happened that night to match anybody else’s.
They asked him, “Did he say anything to you, to let you know where he was going? That he was going to come back and pick you up?”
‘No.’
Police had Melancon’s earlier statements when he described being inside Shannon’s Club with Mamou, stating, ‘a short while Chucky came and told him he had to do some business, and at that time Chucky Mamou and the complainant left the Shannon’s Club.’
That is a lot for one person to get confused – two people in a club and one coming to say he was leaving vs. two people in a convenience store parking lot and one not saying anything when he left. Detective Novak and HPD had done a lot to secure the conviction, so it seems this contradiction, along with all the others was irrelevant to the detective and the District Attorney.
Melancon’s interview proceeded.
Investigators had been told by Melancon’s cousin that Mamou had threatened him. Yet when they asked, “Did Chucky Mamou ever threaten to kill you?”
On this particular day, Melancon replied, ‘No.’
At any time?
‘MMM-mmm.’
Melancon’s cousin had also told police that Melancon had told him it was a marijuana deal. So they asked, “Did he say specifically what he had?”
‘No, he didn’t never say, you got the dope for me. He never said nothin’ he just said, do you have that for me.’
Police had also heard from Melancon’s cousin that Melancon had introduced Mamou and Bruiser. But on this day, “Who introduced Chucky to Bruiser?”
‘I don’t know. I…’
“Why is everybody telling us that the introduction was made by you? And again – you’re not in any kind of trouble.”
‘I don’t know.’
“You’re not in any kind of trouble. And I’m not sitting here trying to tell you, we’re trying to make a dope case on you, cause that’s not – “
‘Right.’
“Cause that’s not what we’re trying to do. I’m trying to get you to tell me the truth about what happened. Is it coincidental, are you wanting me to believe it’s coincidental that Bruiser and Chucky got together?
‘Yeah.’
During all three conversations with Melancon that are on record, including this lengthy recorded video, Melancon never mentions seeing Bruiser as he was dying or hearing him make any statements. It seems reasonable that if Melancon had been standing over Bruiser as he spoke his last words, he would have relayed that information to police previously, or shared that information with his cousin. He does, however, comment when detectives show him a photo of Charles Mamou, ‘Yep. Been dreaming about it. I’ll never forget his face’ It isn’t until October 13, 1999, nine days after his last recorded interview with police and over a year after the murder of Bruiser took place – that Joseph Melancon testifies to something he has never once stated on the record before, ‘He said, My boys shot me, and he just kept saying it over and over.’ According to his testimony he’d stood over a dying man and heard him speak, yet in over twelve months, several interviews, and versions he’d told his own cousin, he’d never said that before.
Lynn Mclellen succeeded in acquiring a death sentence, and the jury nor Mamou ever heard any of the witness statements that were sitting in HPD’s case file. Melancon’s own statements don’t support each other and every other existing witness doesn’t support Melancon’s testimony. What’s also interesting – anyone who says Mamou was ‘involved’ was told that by someone else. Charles Mamou is out of appeals and waiting on his execution date.
All posts and details of this case, can be found here. Anyone with information regarding this case or the above case that was used to obtain a death sentence, can contact me, 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
Houston’s Police Chief, Art Acevedo, recently received cheers from protestors, “We will march as a department with everybody in this community. I will march until I can’t stand no more.”
Charles Mamou has lived on Death Row for over twenty years for a case built by the Houston Police Department and prosecuted by Harris County, Texas. Mamou is out of appeals, and despite what that means for a man on death row, the Houston Police Department is not interested in addressing any mishandling of his case. A few short months ago, I was ‘dismissed’ by the Houston Police Department when I tried to obtain answers. I was told by Ms. Wilker at HPD that what I was looking for was ‘irrelevant’ and the ‘window of opportunity’ to obtain the information was ‘closed’.
I tried to explain to Ms. Wilker during our several conversations that it was relevant and what I was looking for, rape kit results, were significant because the prosecutor told the jury Charles Mamou sexually assaulted the victim. Ms. Wilker wouldn’t acknowledge the importance of the information.
I was able to obtain the rape kit results without the help of HPD or the Harris County District Attorney’s office. As it turns out, the results revealed the D.A. knew prior to trial that while they were accusing Mamou of sexual assault, there was no semen found. They also learned before the trial and from those results that trace evidence existed in the case. They never told Mamou, and they didn’t tell him a few months ago when I was requesting their help in the matter. Again, HPD’s position, according to Ms. Wilker, the rape kit results are irrelevant and the window of opportunity to obtain that information is closed.
Legally, Mamou’s case has been rubber-stamped and through the Texas process – he will be executed in the near future. But this is what people should know when the execution takes place. I didn’t just go to HPD looking for rape kit results. There is a lot more the jury never knew in the Mamou case in addition to a rape kit and the results from it.
In 2019, twenty years after Mamou’s death sentence began, the case file states ‘biological evidence’ was signed out on two different occasions. Mamou, who has always maintained his innocence, is going to be executed so it seems reasonable he should know why biological evidence was being signed out in his case. Coincidentally or not, the employee who signed for both items has been written about on several occasions in the Houston Chronicle for issues related to mishandling of evidence. The employee also worked in the HPD lab back in 1998 when the crime occurred, and it appears someone that looks strikingly like that employee is in Mamou evidence photographs from the time. For all those reason, I also inquired at HPD as to why the evidence was signed out.
I was told by HPD to ask the District Attorney’s office and the HPD Property Room, which I did. The District Attorney’s office told me they had not requested any evidence to be tested, the file was not active. The Property Room told me to go to Homicide and ask the investigator working the case. Homicide told me no one was working the case. My question came full circle back to HPD, and I was told by Ms. Wilker in a phone conversation that the evidence was signed out and in the possession of Mary K. Childs-Henry at one time, but it was ‘now back where it belonged’. Not satisfied, I asked if she considered the matter closed – she responded she did.
After that phone call, I wrote to Internal Affairs and copied Chief Art Acevedo, hoping to address why evidence in the Mamou case would be signed for if there was no detective working the case and the District Attorney did not request it. HPD responded via a letter dated December 17, 2019. “The incident described by you does not support an allegation of misconduct on the part of a member of the Houston Police Department. There is no allegation described by you that would initiate an investigation.” It went on to say, “The District Attorney is the only person that can authorize any type of evidence to be released for any reason.”
And so – no one needs to explain why biological evidence in a capital murder case gets signed out.
It doesn’t end with an undisclosed rape kit, or undisclosed trace evidence or having to not account for removing evidence in a capital murder that resulted in a death sentence.
The case was built from the ground up on a one-time suspect telling police that Mamou confessed to him. HPD investigators were aware when they were recording that suspect’s statement that what he was describing couldn’t have taken place the way described. The witness, Terrence Dodson, said Mamou confessed to him in a one phone call ‘confession’ from Louisiana on the previous day, Tuesday morning ‘before day’. The police didn’t stop him at that point. At the very time he was making this statement, police were taking a statement in another room from a man who said Mamou was in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday morning, and that man drove Mamou to the bus stop on Tuesday in the afternoon, around 1:30.
Mamou and Terrence Dodson, the witness who testified Mamou confessed to him.
That wasn’t all. Police knew Mamou was in Houston on Tuesday because the man who was recording the statement, Det. Novak, had actually spoken to the woman whose apartment Mamou had slept in on Monday night and that detective also obtained a warrant in Houston on Tuesday morning as police tried to arrest Mamou at that apartment located in Houston. They missed Mamou, who was later dropped off at the bus stop by the witness in the other room at HPD. The HPD interviewer, Novak, also notarized the statement of the man in the next room who said he drove Mamou to the bus stop. Novak was also the one who spoke to the woman whose apartment Mamou slept at and where he was located on Tuesday morning.
If that wasn’t enough, the ‘star’ witness also clearly told police Mamou was planning on taking a bus from Louisiana to Houston on Tuesday and had asked the witness to pick him up at the bus station. Again – detectives knew Mamou was not in Louisaina on Tuesday morning and they also knew he actually took a bus from Houston to Louisiana on Tuesday – the exact opposite of what the witness was describing.
That witness’ testimony later changed at trial, and he described a confession that took place over days, over the phone and in person, even though Mamou never saw that man again after Monday morning. Mamou never saw the interview, and was unaware of the discrepancies until last year.
There is more.
Investigators, when they went to the apartment that Tuesday morning to talk to the resident there, Howard Scott, they wrote down every single one of the phone calls on his caller I.D. from the night of the crime. That information was never shared with Mamou, but would have discredited two of the state’s witnesses who testified they were in bed sleeping and not using their phones. Howard Scott said his phone simply stopped ringing between 11 and 12 when he went to bed. When asked on the stand if it was because it was unplugged, he said no. It was because it simply stopped ringing.
An HPD investigator faxed the phone records to the District Attorney during the trial and before that testimony. The District Attorney didn’t pull his witness to the side during his testimony or in any way indicate the witness was lying. There was also at least one phone call that went out of the apartment that night according to the caller I.D. of Yellow Cab.
Included in the fax HPD sent to the D.A. were the phone calls placed to the apartment by another suspect, Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson also testified he was in bed sleeping and had not contacted anyone or made any calls to Howard Scott – whose caller ID said he did. Again, the District Attorney did not ask his witness to tell the truth, or ask for an opportunity to speak to his witness on the side and explain to him that he needed to tell the truth on the stand.
What’s even more important about Samuel Johnson’s phone call – it was made from a cell phone. In 1998, it would be common for people to use their landline for phone calls from their residence and a cell phone if they were not at home. Unfortunately, those phone records were never shared with Mamou, and he didn’t know they existed until recently. The opportunity to trace that phone call is gone.
There is more about that Tuesday and the police talking to Howard and Robin Scott. Police drove them both to HPD to get their statements. Robin Scott’s statement from that day is in the file, Howard Scott’s is not – even though it is well documented that Howard Scott was taken to HPD on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, for a statement. In addition, Detective Novak testified he took a written statement from Scott when he went to HPD that day, and Howard himself has since told an investigator that HPD would not let him and his wife leave the police department that day until their statements matched.
As if that wasn’t enough. Detective Novak reopened an investigation into an unsolved murder in Houston from months earlier during the trial. What’s found in that file, isn’t much, but there is a witness statement in there that describes an individual in a bar, even describes how he was dressed, who left the bar with the victim. He also describes someone coming in a short time later saying the victim had been shot. That statement was never shared with the jury. Rather – the ‘man in the bar’, Joseph Melancon, testified at Mamou’s trial. His testimony did not match any of his earlier recorded accounts, but the jury didn’t know that, and Mamou got accused of the unsolved crime. The jury never heard the witness statement describing Melancon leaving with the victim, nor did they get to hear any defense from Mamou. Mamou was not charged with that crime, although he is listed as charged. The jury got to see the dead man’s autopsy photos and hear from his grieving family members though.
That is what took place in the hands of Harris County and the Houston Police Department. If you try to inquire with them regarding what took place, you may be told what you want to know is “irrelevant” and “the window of opportunity is closed”, but I would be happy to share with you what I have.
When Charles Mamou gets executed, his parents will most likely be offered the opportunity to watch, but it won’t be on camera for the world to see.
Chief Acevedo and the Harris County prosecutors always have the power to do the right thing and the window of opportunity is never closed. It is more open now than it has ever been.
“Compassion takes courage,” Mamou wrote me recently. Will the powers that be have the courage to do the right thing – or keep insisting some window is closed?
All posts and details of this case, including phone records that were not shared with the defense, a letter from the ‘key witness’ stating he didn’t know anything, and how Mamou was even accused of an unsolved murder during his trial can be found here. Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth. Share his story.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351 Mamou can also be contacted through JPay via email, but please include your mailing address if you contact him this way, as he can only respond through the mail.
“The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done.The suppression of facts or the secreting of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible.” – Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association
Harris County sent Charles Mamou to death row in 1999 in a case with no eye-witnesses or physical identifying evidence at the scene, a case built on the testimony of a witness who said Charles Mamou confessed to him. Other than that statement, which was recorded and contradicts facts and the witness’ own testimony, questions remain.
Why was Mamou never told a rape kit had been collected? Why was Mamou never given phone records revealing activities of other possible suspects that night? Why wasn’t Mamou told one of those phone calls was from a ‘cell phone’ and could have possibly been traced? Why is a key witness’ original statement not in the file? Why was there no documentation of another ‘possible suspect’s’ interviews in the file? Why was biological evidence in the case signed out of HPD’s Property Room last year, twenty years later?
Possibly the biggest question of all – was the case against Charles Mamou built to prosecute, rather than see justice done? There wasn’t ‘one’ issue, but many, and information Mamou could have used to defend himself wasn’t shared with him.
HPD Case File 157191298, Supplement 11, “D.A.’s Office is requesting that the rape kit obtained by the Harris County Morgue at time of the autopsy be processed through our crime lab.” No one told Mamou a rape kit had been collected. For two decades – he never knew. Mamou is out of appeals and waiting an execution date, and still, he has never had this information shared with him by Harris County. He has this information now because advocates who believe in his innocence located it.
The HPD case file went on to say, “Forward the findings of the rape kit examination to D.A. Investigator Al Rodriquez.” That was in 1999. In 2019 when I asked an HPD employee where the rape kit results were, I was told “they are irrelevant.”
During the trial the prosecutor assured the jury Mamou had sexually assaulted the victim. It was not mentioned that ‘no semen’ was found in the rape kit which included oral swabs. It was not mentioned in the autopsy report. It was not mentioned in the medical examiner’s testimony. There was not a word said to indicate a rape kit had been collected.
While asking the jury to sentence Mamou to death, the prosecution stated, “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, Page 38
Mamou wasn’t charged with sexual assault, but the prosecution learned something when they received the results of the rape kit. Through the rape kit, ‘trace evidence’ was collected from the victim, including ‘hairs’ collected from her shirt and fingernail scrapings. This information, as well, was not shared with Mamou and was just discovered last year by advocates.
Regarding the night of the crime, Mamou has admitted to his role in the drug deal and the subsequent shooting – and even to fleeing in a car that held Mary Carmouche. He says he drove back to the location where he was staying and all the other parties involved in the drug deal were located there. That is the last place he says he saw Mary Carmouche. The things he describes seeing in the apartment complex parking lot have been supported by evidence as well as statements the jury never saw. The prosecutor claimed Mamou left the drug deal and drove Carmouche to a suburban neighborhood where he sexually assaulted and murdered her.
The Houston Police Department had in their possession something that would have helped Mamou support the events as he described them, but Mamou never saw this information. A fax cover sheet indicates HPD sent this information to Lyn McClellen, the prosecutor, while the trial was underway. HPD had their own handwritten phone records from the apartment Mamou said he drove to. All of the people he said were out and about that night – had been communicating with that apartment up until 3:43 a.m. that Sunday night. The phone records indicated they were not sleeping as they testified.
When the prosecution’s witness, the resident of the apartment, testified in court that he went to sleep at 11:00 or 12:00 and his phone stopped ringing – the prosecution didn’t stop the proceedings or ask to speak to their witness on the side or get clarification. The defense specifically asked –
Q. And at what time do you go to bed? A. I went right after that, I guess about 11:00 or 12:00. Q. I’m sorry? A. About 11:00 or 12:00, something like that.
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)
Lyn Mclellan said nothing. At no time did he mention phone records. The phone was ringing at 11:19 p.m., 11:25 p.m., 11:46 p.m., 11:48 p.m., 12:14 a.m. 12:19 a.m., 1:54 a.m., 2:37 a.m., 3:12 a.m., and 3:43 a.m. That doesn’t include a known outgoing call for a Yellow Cab at 3:59 a.m.
The ‘driver’ related to the drug deal was also one of the prosecution’s witnesses. He, also, testified he was sleeping that night. According to Samuel Johnson, he went straight home after the shooting at 12:00 midnight:
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. (Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 149)
Once again, the prosecution did not stop the trial or in any way indicate their witness was being deceptive.
“It is unprofessional and dishonorable to deal other than candidly with the facts in taking the statements of witnesses, in drawing affidavits and other documents, and in the presentation of causes.” –Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association
“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” – Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Charles Mamou is out of appeals and awaiting a date for his execution after spending over two decades of his life on Death Row in Texas.
All posts and details of this case, including phone records that were not shared with the defense, a letter from the ‘key witness’ stating he didn’t know anything, and how Mamou was even accused of an unsolved murder during his trial can be found here. Anyone with information regarding 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 Mamou can also be contacted through JPay via email, but please include your mailing address if you contact him this way, as he can only respond through the mail.
“Please keep fighting for my son.” That was a text received from Charles Mamou’s mother. Her son was sentenced to death over twenty years ago in Houston, while the Harris County District Attorney’s Office was under the rule of Johnny Holmes, a man known for and proud of pursuing the death penalty.
The amount of information manipulated or not shared with the jury in the Mamou case is disturbing, but one aspect that gets overlooked, is the theatrics and misinformation put into destroying Mamou’s character for the jury. What they lacked in evidence, was made up for in portraying the defendant as a monster. And then they instructed the jury they could consider things they would ‘hear about his character’ when deciding the case. – Volume 24 of the Reporters’ Record at page 6.
Charles Mamou, Jr., carrying his godson in Sunset, LA.
But what did the D.A. really know about Charles Mamou?
Mamou got into the business of dealing drugs early on in his life. He wasn’t born into the ‘haves’ and knew his fair share of struggle. He struggled with school. He struggled with his health. He absolutely could have chosen a different path, but he saw an opportunity dealing drugs and the well-travelled avenue to taking care of the people he cared most about – not to mention keeping the hot water on. Hot water wasn’t something he always had growing up.
Over time, Mamou earned a reputation, but it wasn’t one for violence. As one resident of Sunset described him,
“Chucky was a respectable boy and a fine young man. I worked as a cook at Sunset Elementary School where Chucky attended. He was a quiet little boy and mainly kept to himself. To my knowledge, he did not have any behavior problems in school and his grades were either average or above average.
“When Chucky was older, he would often talk to my son about his problems. My son was on drugs and Chucky would advise him to do better things with his life. I wanted my son to be more like Chucky.
“There were times when I went shopping and Chucky was in the grocery store. He would buy my groceries and never wanted any money back. There were many other people in town that Chucky would help buy groceries, pay rent or their electric bill. Chucky helped people.”
Don’t get me wrong. There was nothing glamorous about what Charles Mamou did for a living. He wasn’t a violent man though. Regardless of how the prosecution described him for the jury, the people who knew him day in and day out had a more accurate perspective.
Another man that knew Charles Mamou, Jr., stating they met in the ‘streets’ and clubs, also described his friend.
“Chucky does not have a ‘rough bone’ in his body. I have witnessed him paying bills for friend, family members and other people in the community. Charles, Jr., is a friend that everyone wishes to have once in their life.”
“If it was the dope that put Charles, Jr., behind bars, I pray that everyone in the world would burn the dope, and start praying.”
It was the ‘dope’ that put Mamou behind bars.
In 1998 three men knowingly brought a girl to a dark alley in Houston, with a plan. According to everyone involved, including the testimony of the two surviving men – they were there for one reason and one reason only. They were there to rob Charles Mamou at gunpoint. That’s it.
That was the plan, but it didn’t work out the way it was supposed to. Mamou started shooting when confronted with a gun pointed in his direction. His driver drove off and left him behind. He jumped in the car that belonged to the men who were attempting to rob him and drove back to the apartment complex on Fondren, in Houston, where he was staying and where the other individuals who helped organize the drug deal were located. All of the existing evidence supports that, including things Mamou said he observed when he got back to the apartments, which observations have been confirmed by statements the jury never heard, as well as evidence that existed.
The greatest injustice in this story – was the lack of effort to find out what really happened to the victim after she got to the apartment complex that night. There was no effort made to pursue possible answers, including tracking a cell phone call that one of the involved parties made that night – from who knows where. That individual said he was in bed sleeping – but the police knew his cell phone made a phone call at 2:37 a.m. on the night in question. One would think tracking a cell phone call from a suspect and the driver in the drug deal would be standard, especially in light of the fact that individual claimed to have been sleeping and not making or receiving phone calls at the time. He lied. His cell phone made a call from somewhere at 2:37 a.m. The police documented that information the week of the murder, although they never pursued it, and faxed the phone records to the District Attorney after the court proceedings began.
Charles Mamou only just became aware those phone records existed and were in the hands of the Houston Police Department and the District Attorney twenty years ago.
The prosecution didn’t pursue the information they had that might uncover what happened to the victim, but were more focused on convincing the jury that Charles Mamou was a monster.
And so, even though the medical examiner, Roger Milton, never mentioned a rape kit that was collected in his Autopsy Report, and even though the District Attorney requested the rape kit be processed and received the results of the rape kit prior to the trial – that information was also never shared with Charles Mamou. Mamou never knew a rape kit was gathered until last year.
Rather than share that information with the jury, Lyn McClellan, an Assistant District Attorney for Harris County did something else. He and his team chose to tell the jury that Charles Mamou sexually assaulted the victim. The entire time he was doing that, he knew full well a rape kit had been collected – and it revealed no semen found on any items.
“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. That same attorney went on to describe Mamou’s character, “He’s vicious.” “He’s ruthless.” “He’s cold-blooded.” “He devastated and destroyed.”
The prosecution had no evidence that Charles Mamou did anything to Mary Carmouche. They had phone records Mamou didn’t know about. They had a rape kit Mamou didn’t know about. And something else they’ve had all these years – ‘trace evidence’, ‘hairs’ that were collected during the collection of the rape it. That evidence sat in the HPD Property Room for twenty years, and Charles Mamou nor the jury were ever informed they existed.
Of note, in 2019, two envelopes containing ‘biological evidence’ in this case were signed out of the Property Room, but it is unknown for what purpose or who authorized the removal, as HPD will not respond, other than to tell me the D.A. is the only one who can authorize removal of evidence. At the D.A.’s office I was told they didn’t know anything about the removal of the evidence.
Years ago, Chris Mamou described his brother in a statement.
‘Chucky’ and his brother, Christopher Mamou.
“Growing up, I can always remember my brother being there and looking out for me.”
“…he taught me how to walk with my head up high.”
“…he took me to the basketball court and tried to teach me how to play.”
“Charles, Jr., encouraged me to excel in school by rewarding me with praises and benefits, such as paying for my way to the neighbor dance if I had a good report.”
“…nothing would compare to the feeling of just making him proud which also encouraged me to do well.”
“All I knew was he had his own money and he shared with everyone – family, friends, or a stranger who needed help. I saw this and wanted to do the same thing. I approached him about making my own money and was denied, remembering his reasoning was that this was not for everybody. He did not want me to get involved.”
Charles Mamou has spent over twenty years on death row and awaits his execution for a drug deal gone wrong– not a murder. Investigators didn’t pursue what happened to Mary Carmouche after she arrived at that apartment complex. They were focused on ‘making’ Charles Mamou guilty – but none of the pieces fit. No matter which way you turn the puzzle, they won’t fit. Sticking to the ‘story’ isn’t going to make it any more true than it was twenty years ago. Mamou can be executed – it’s not going to make it true. He can die incarcerated during a pandemic – it still won’t make it true.
“He’s my firstborn. He has my name.” Charles Mamou, Sr., will never give up on his son. He recently told me, “If they want to kill an innocent man – take me. Don’t take him – take me.”
All posts and details of this case, including phone records that were not shared with the defense, a letter from the ‘key witness’ stating he didn’t know anything, and how Mamou was even accused of an unsolved murder during his trial can be found here. Anyone with information regarding 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
