“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.  

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.

“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

April 17, 2019, ‘Items were signed for by Mary K. Childs-Henry – Item 001 Sealed envelope said to contain biological evidence.’

Then again, June 24, 2019, ‘Items were signed for by Mary K. Childs-Henry – Item 004 Sealed envelope said to contain biological evidence.’

The Mamou trial is riddled with information not shared with Charles Mamou or the jury – and in 2019 two notes were made in the case file noting – ‘Biological evidence’ signed for. Those two notes became two more things Harris County didn’t share with Charles Mamou.

*     *     *     *     *

In 1998, Charles Mamou was accused of fleeing a drug deal gone wrong and killing Mary Carmouche. He was then convicted and sentenced to death by a jury who wasn’t told all there was to know.

The victim was last seen late on a Sunday, early on Monday morning.  On a Wednesday, Terrence Dodson, the prosecution’s key witness, stated Mamou confessed to him, making a video statement.  In it, he claimed Mamou called him from Louisiana in the early morning hours of Tuesday – the day before.  He also stated Mamou told him to pick him up from the bus station in Houston that same night, Tuesday night. 

During that interview, investigators were aware Mamou was not in Louisiana on Tuesday morning nor on Tuesday mid-day, but actually in Houston.  Mamou didn’t get on a bus from Houston, going to Louisiana, until 1:30 in the afternoon on that Tuesday.  As a matter of fact, at the very time Dodson was making his statement in one room at HPD, another witness was making a statement as well. That witness actually drove Mamou to the bus station leaving Houston on Tuesday afternoon – not heading back to Houston as Dodson was telling police but away.  The written statement of the other witness – is notarized by the same investigator that took Dodson’s video statement.   Detective Novak had decades of experience at HPD.

The jury heard Dodson’s testimony and were never told the conflict. They also heard a different version of how the ‘confession’ took place than the recorded one.  At trial, the confession was described as taking place over days, partially on the phone and partially in person.  The jury never heard Dodson’s inconsistent details.

The jury was also never shown a letter Dodson wrote Mamou months later stating he was glad Mamou didn’t tell him shit. 

*     *     *     *     *

Mamou always maintained he drove back to an apartment complex on Fondren after the drug deal gone wrong – that was the last place he saw Mary Carmouche.  He’s described the people he saw and some details about the parking lot that night.  In contrast, the prosecution argued Mamou fled the drug deal, sexually assaulted and killed Carmouche behind a home on Lynchester Avenue. 

Mamou described seeing Shawn Eaglin leaving Howard Scott’s apartment and getting into a Yellow Cab that night.   An employee for Yellow Cab testified that – yes, the company had a call from a ‘Shawn’ and a cab was requested for the address of Howard Scott who lived at the complex.  The prosecution, in turn, pointed out that anybody could call a cab and use any name and any address – it doesn’t prove it was actually a legitimate call or that anyone was picked up. 

It was not pointed out for the jury that the caller I.D. from the cab company listed Howard Scott’s home phone number.  Mamou didn’t know until 2019 that the calling number listed on the Yellow Cab printout supported what he had always said.

The jury also did not hear Shawn Eaglin lived approximately five minutes from the apartment complex.   That is the amount of time the cab log indicated the customer’s drive was. 

*     *     *     *     *

According to Detective Novak’s testimony, Shawn Eaglin was an individual they were looking at as a potential suspect.   Eaglin’s  name is handwritten throughout the case file.  According to everyone’s testimony, Eaglin knew most of the individuals involved, as well as introduced most of them.  A written statement by Robin Scott refers to police going to Shawn Eaglin’s home during their investigation.    

There are no records of any interviews of Shawn Eaglin in HPD’s file. 

*     *     *     *     *

Howard Scott was transported to HPD along with his wife, although driven separately, on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.  He was transported from his home to be interviewed because what he was telling police was inconsistent with what they were hearing from his wife. 

Detective Novak, in his testimony, referred to taking a written statement from Scott the day they initially went to his home and transported him to the police department.    

Referred to several times, the original statement given by Howard Scott on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, is not in the records. 

In 2019, Scott told an investigator he saw Charles Mamou at the apartment complex parking lot that night.  He also said he saw Mary Carmouche there.

*     *     *     *     *

Howard Scott testified he went to bed that  night – getting ‘no more phone calls’.  When specifically asked if that was because his phone was unplugged, “No, it just stopped ringing.” 

His phone didn’t stop ringing and HPD was aware of that.  An investigator in Scott’s apartment wrote down all the calls from his caller I.D., jotting names by some of the numbers.  Phone calls were coming in to Howard Scott’s apartment through 3:43 A.M. that Sunday night.   In HPD’s file there is a fax cover sheet, dated September 24, 1999, indicating they faxed the phone records to Lynn McClellan, the prosecutor, during jury selection.

Mamou never knew about the phone records HPD and apparently the prosecutor were aware of until 2019. The jury was never told Howard Scott’s testimony was not accurate and his phone was ringing into the early morning hours.  Scott’s credibility was never questioned.

*     *     *     *     *

The phone records also indicated Shawn Eaglin, the man Mamou said took a cab from Scott’s apartment and the name the Yellow Cab company said called for a cab from Scott’s address at 3:59 A.M. – also called Howard Scott that night as late as 3:12 A.M. 

There were several phone calls from various people in the early morning hours to Scott’s apartment that night.  The jury was never made aware of any of them.   Charles Mamou was also unaware they existed. 

*     *     *     *     *

“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.”  The prosecution asked the jury to imagine that, all the while having results of a rape kit that included oral swabs.  The kit indicated no semen was detected.  Mamou never knew a kit existed until 2019.   The District Attorney had requested the kit be processed months before the trial and had already received the results. Mamou was never charged with sexual assault but the jury was told he assaulted the victim.

The kit also revealed the existence of ‘trace collection items’ and ‘hairs’. 

The prosecution nor the defense mentioned this to the jury.  Mamou was unaware any of it existed until last year. 

*     *     *     *     *

Robin Scott gave a written statement to police on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, when she and her husband were transported to HPD for statements, as well as Wednesday, December 9, when police brought them both in again, although Howard Scott’s original statement is not in the police file.  In one of Ms. Scott’s statements she told police Charles Mamou had arrived at her apartment at approximately 12:45 on the night of the incident.  That time frame would have made it impossible for Mamou to have accomplished what he was accused of, as well as supported his version of events in which he drove directly back to the apartment complex after the drug deal gone wrong.

The jury never knew about the interview.   Charles Mamou did not see this statement until 2019.

*     *     *     *     *

Samuel Johnson was a participant in the drug deal gone wrong, and Mamou described meeting him at the apartment complex after the original shooting.  In contrast, Johnson testified he drove away from the drug deal, straight to his home and to bed, never speaking to anyone. 

Phone records contradict that, indicating Samuel Johnson’s cell phone called Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 A.M.  The previously mentioned phone records included that information.  Samuel Johnson also had a landline at his apartment – but the phone call he made was from a cell phone.  Twenty years ago, people would often use their landline if they were in their home, but if police investigated the location the ‘cell phone’ call was made from, that information is not in the case file.  Mamou never had a chance to investigate where the call was made from, because he was unaware of the phone records HPD had.

At trial and without the phone records, Mamou did not have the opportunity to question Johnson’s credibility after he said he went straight to bed and spoke to no one. 

Two witnesses have since told an investigator they saw Samuel Johnson in the complex parking lot that night, having driven in just prior to Mamou – which is consistent with what Mamou has always maintained. 

*     *     *     *     *

Charles Mamou described a man on a bike in the complex parking lot when he arrived with Mary Carmouche.  The prosecution dismissed the claims.

It turns out an individual has since told an investigator he was in the parking lot that night – on a bike – and he saw Mamou drive into the parking lot after Samuel Johnson.

Also supporting Mamou’s account, the phone records indicate a unique phone number called Howard Scott’s apartment on the evening of the incident, at 11:48 P.M. and 1:54 A.M.  There is a handwritten note in the HPD investigators phone records, indicating a name next to the number.  That name – happens to be an acquaintance of the ‘man on the bike’.

The jury never heard any of that.

*     *     *     *     *

The prosecution told the jury, “He  tried to murder all four of those people out there, but that was beyond his control.”  “That was his plan.  It was all premeditated.”  “He’s vicious.  He’s ruthless.  He’s cold-blooded.”

The individual who died at the scene of the drug deal had a loaded gun in his hand.  Both surviving parties to the drug deal described their plan to rob Mamou at gunpoint.

*     *     *     *     *

The jury was shown autopsy photos and heard victim impact statements concerning a victim of an unsolved murder that took place several months earlier.  Mamou has never been charged with that crime, but HPD currently has him listed as ‘Arrested, Charged’. 

A man named Joseph Melancon claimed Mamou shot and killed the man, Anthony Williams.  The Williams case file includes a witness statement describing Joseph Melancon being dressed up and with Anthony Williams that night.  The witness describes the two men leaving the club together.   According to the witness, a short time after leaving with Melancon, a man ran in the club saying the victim had been shot.    

That witness indicated they thought Joseph Melancon was involved in the murder, but the case was never pursued after Joseph Melancon testified Charles Mamou committed the crime.  Melancon’s testimony did not match his original statement to police, but Mamou was never given an opportunity to defend himself of this crime, as he was never charged with the crime. 

*     *     *     *     *

That’s what took place in Harris County two decades ago.  So, in 2019 when it became known biological evidence was signed for, it was reasonable to want to know why. I flew to Houston.

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.

After I returned home, I was called by someone I had never spoken to, D. Wilker, from 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 was dismissive during this conversation, telling me the rape kit results I was looking for at that time were ‘irrelevant’.   I was told the defense had every piece of evidence they needed to know.  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, in light of the circles I had been lead in to come to that conclusion.  

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 for in 2019. 

The employee who signed for the evidence, Mary K. Childs-Henry, also worked for the HPD lab in 1998, when the crime occurred.   In the early 2000’s the Houston Chronicle ran several articles focused on HPDs troubled lab, to include mishandling of evidence.  Ms. Childs-Henry was mentioned in some of those articles. 

“Analyst Mary Childs-Henry never took statistics or genetics, and her failure to do a timely analysis of a DNA sample in 1996 was part of a chain of lab errors that allowed an innocent man to be held in jail for nine months, according to depositions and an internal memo. Two lawsuits were filed over that incident, which prompted the city to audit the lab.” –
Houston Chronicle, ‘Report: File review shows Houston police DNA analysts lack education, training’ – September 6, 2003

“”This just goes to show that the bench workers were doing nothing more than following orders and that the problems in that lab were created by the poor management within the lab and above,” said Fred Keys, Childs-Henry’s lawyer.” –
Houston Chronicle, ‘Panel Tosses Out Crime Analyst’s Lab Suspension’, By Todd Ackerman – February 28, 2004

“So far, two men have been released from prison after the discovery of flawed crime lab work in their cases. In a written statement, Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt announced that three lab analysts criticized in the report have been relieved of duty pending the outcome of an internal investigation. Those three employees are Mary Childs-Henry, Joseph H. Chu, and Raynard Cockrell.” –
Houston Chronicle, ‘More Problems Found At HPD Crime Lab’, By Steve McVicker and Roma Khanna – January 4, 2006

“Houston Police Department supervisors suspended Mary Childs-Henry, Joseph Chu and Raynard Cockrell after an independent team of experts found they had failed to report evidence that could have helped defendants and that they made errors in DNA and serology tests.” –
Houston Chronicle, ‘Crime-lab Analysts Had Avoided Serious Penalties’, By Roma Khanna – January 8, 2006

“The three – Mary Childs-Henry, Joseph Chu and Raynard Cockrell – were suspended recently after Bromwich’s team found they had failed to report evidence that could have helped defendants and that they made errors in DNA and serology tests.”
Houston Chronicle, ‘Crime Labe Investigator Wants Subpoena Power’, By Steve McVicker – January 10, 2006

“Three analysts suspended because of the latest findings by the Bromwich team — Mary Childs-Henry, Joseph Chu and Raynard Cockrell — have been targeted for discipline in the past but have escaped serious punishment.”
Houston Chronicle, ‘Crime Lab Investigator To Target Specific Cases’,
By Steve McVicker – January 11, 2006

Among the Courtroom exhibits are photos of the Lexus involved in the drug deal with someone in the background who bears a striking resemblance to Mary K. Childs-Henry. Having worked in the lab in 1998, it is possible she also worked on Mamou’s case twenty years ago.

The climate at that time in history, in that place, wasn’t a secret.  What remains to be seen is, will the Harris County of today execute Charles Mamou based on a 1999 decision jurors made without all the information available, at a time when the end game wasn’t always justice, but the conviction. 

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

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