In 2012, at the recommendation of a chief psychologist
tasked with addressing the declining mental health and cognitive deficiency on
Death Row, prison administrators implemented a pilot program. The first of its
kind, the project proved to be a success, stanching the oozing misery of
decades of meaningless activities while igniting an air of motivation
throughout Death Row that would not be extinguished by tabletop turnabouts and
legal letdowns. Finally, there was a
glimmer of behavior both rehabilitative and restorative from men eager to not
only divest but defy the stereotypical personas indicative of our status. Further programs were in order, and over the
next few years several classes were offered that would challenge our decision
making while enhancing our social skills by affording us merit in the Death Row
community.
One such class was Drama, a weekly therapy group in which we
convened over play scripts and films while educing our various perspectives.
Though some viewed the course unfavorably in the prison setting, others were
undeterred as we embraced the colloquial demands of Drama, where we first met
Ms. Dee, a psychologist in the prison’s mental health department. Ms. Dee was passionate about helping others
and answered the call for volunteers. She was well-spoken and witty, often
engaging us in prison jargon and disarming our leeriness by showing off her
ability to adapt. It was through her willingness to surround herself with convicted
murderers without reservation, many of us were reminded what it felt like to be
trustworthy again.
Ms. Dee had come from an artistic background, and in college
she minored in Drama, therefore she signed on to teach two programs. The Art class was thought to be an hour long period
of doodling or guys making off with supplies to barter for other desirables.
However, Ms. Dee wasn’t having it – she expected more. She assigned us
projects, lent her assistance and held us to such high standards that we found
ourselves working diligently for her affirmation. Soon we were delving into
visual graphics, dimensions and the terminology of Art. Ms. Dee even invited
her mother, a working class artist, to join us and impart her wisdom on the
subject. What an honorable gesture and show of trust and respect. It made her
more to us than just some quirky prison staffer whose goodness was infectious,
Ms. Dee was like family.
The Drama program, however, didn’t start out as promising
because of the stigma of weakness in the penal system. Many were unwilling to
compromise their image, so instead they shunned the idea. But then there were those who leapt at the
opportunity to add another layer of refinement and reform, and although it
wasn’t the most popular choice, still we were committed to Ms. Dee.
We covered plays like Antigone, the Crucible and Shakespeare’s
Hamlet with elaborate group discussions to follow, sometimes peeling the words
off the very pages and attaching them to our own personal experiences. Then we watched televised renditions of each
play and absorbed the onscreen nuances, while all along Ms. Dee had a vision of
her own to host a Death Row play.
At the mention of performing a play, I thought not only was
this woman bold and overly optimistic but also a bit nutty. Who in their right mind would put their
reputation on the line for a bunch of condemned souls? Who had that amount of confidence
and trust in men so untrustworthy?
Apparently, Ms. Dee did, and as it turned out, her confidence would not
waiver.
We did what’s called a dry read. Then she assigned roles. Afterwards, we began rehearsals. We transitioned
from on-script reading to off-script memorization until our roles became as
much a part of our identity as the red jumpsuits we wore. Ms. Dee also gave us
pointers to hone our acting chops. “Do
not break the plane of the invisible wall,” she’d say, or, “Always… always face
the audience.”
Most days she could be seen seated atop a steel dayroom
table in casual clothes and slides with her hair pulled back in a ponytail and a
steady glare behind her fitted fames as she yelled, “Enunciate! Enunciate!!!” which was quite frustrating
since most of us didn’t know what the word meant. Yet Ms. Dee was relentless, tapping into our
potential and pushing us to the brink as she often stayed late after work and
scheduled rehearsals on her days off.
On the day of the performance, we actors were still experiencing miscues. I begged Ms. Dee to postpone the production.
“But whyyy?” she chimed, her accent flush with reassurance
as she added, “You guys are so ready. You just don’t know how good you all are.
Trust me. You’ll do great.”
And as the crowds rolled in and the seats filled, still she
was unfazed, believing so much in our capabilities that soon we believed in
ourselves.
For forty-five minutes we performed Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men, a play about the woeful indifference and tangled injustice of jury deliberation. Audience members sat transfixed as they soaked in our exchange. Fellow inmates nodded with admiration. And when the play was over and the last actor exited the stage, the room erupted in applause. What a tremendous feeling of validation to have others acknowledge our worth. What a sense of accomplishment to face our fears and prevail. But the ultimate reward was seeing Ms. Dee teary-eyed with pride. She never stopped believing in us.
Unfortunately, Ms. Dee experienced some challenges in the work-place
and was later relieved of her position. Shortly after, all Death Row programs, including
Drama, were discontinued. It seems that
in the great scheme of things, Death Row inmates are undeserving of redemption
and any who should dare to restore in us dignity and value shall meet removal.
Ms. Dee was impacted by a disease that seeks to morally corrupt, a tainted
prison structure that rejects good will and blatantly lends itself to
recidivism. She was inadequately cared for by those who failed to nourish her efforts,
casting votes instead for candidates who offer nothing to effect policies on
prison reform.
Ms. Dee once said, ‘Everybody needs somebody to believe in them’. In believing in us, Ms. Dee did what most never have, making true reform a reality for a short time, and for that, we will forever believe in Ms. Dee.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Terry Robinson writes under the pen name ‘Chanton’, and this year he has seen the release of Crimson Letters, Voices From Death Row, in which he was a contributor. He continues to work on his memoirs, as well as a book of fiction. Terry Robinson has always maintained his innocence, and hopes to one day prove that and walk free. Mr. Robinson can be contacted at: Terry Robinson #0349019 Central Prison 4285 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4285
What happened after the shooting on Lantern Point Drive? Witnesses testified Charles Mamou’s driver left without him. He then jumped in their blue Lexus with Mary Carmouche in the backseat and fled the scene. Mamou has always maintained he followed his driver, Samuel Johnson, back to an apartment complex where he was staying and where the Lexus was found by police with a flat tire. Witnesses have also put Samuel Johnson driving into the parking lot prior to Mamou, although the jury never heard that.
Samuel Johnson supported the D.A.’s version, testifying Mamou drove away from Lantern Point and Johnson simply went home to sleep after the shooting, never speaking to anyone. Contradicting that testimony and unknown to Mamou or the jury, an HPD investigator faxed phone records to the District Attorney’s office indicating Johnson used his cell phone at 2:37 a.m. to call Howard Scott’s apartment – another individual witnessed in the parking lot that night.
Early in the investigation detectives heard the name Shawn
Eaglin and were so interested in his involvement, they placed him in a
photospread. (HPD Incident Report
Supplement 9).
Eaglin’s name surfaced multiple times in witness statements. One witness described investigators going to Eaglin’s home, “Last night while we were at my father-in-law’s house, Shawn Eaglin came to the house. While Shawn was there, we discussed the homicide division coming to my job, my apartment, Ced’s job (Ced is Shawn’s little cousin) and Shawn’s house.”
The witness continued, “At this time, Shawn stated that he
needed to check on a friend of his by the name of Bug. I then asked Shawn why did he have to check
on Bug [Samuel Johnson]? He never answered
why. I asked them who did they know with
a red Intrepid car. Shawn started to answer
me, but then he said, ‘No, I better not.’”
Detective Novak, in his testimony, referred to Shawn Eaglin
as the third individual he was looking at as a ‘potential suspect’.
Q. At a later time
did you look for more than one individual other than Mr. Mamou?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that
person’s name?
A. We – there was an
individual that –
Q. Can you just give
me his name?
A. Terrence Dodson.
Q. Other than
Terrence Dodson and Mr. Mamou, was there a third individual you were looking at
as a potential suspect?
A. Shawn Eaglin.
(Volume 18 of the Reporter’s Record at page 189)
Detective Novak had a thirty year career with HPD at the time. He described Shawn Eaglin as a potential suspect, yet there are no records of any interviews with Eaglin. According to Samuel Johnson’s testimony, Eaglin was responsible for connecting him with Mamou.
Q. Where did you meet
him?
A. I met him at a
friend of mine’s.
Q. And this friend’s
name is what?
A. Shawn Eaglin.
Q. Shawn Eaglin?
A. Right.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 17)
Q. And where was it
that you first met Mr. Mamou?
A. Shawn Eaglin’s
home.
Q. And this is the
same home that you just referred to as off of West Airport?
A. Right.
Howard Scott, the man who’s apartment Charles Mamou stayed in, was transported to HPD for a statement on Tuesday, December 8, 1998. That statement is not in the Incident file so we may never know what Scott told investigators that day, but Scott also mentioned Eaglin in his testimony.
When asked about the first time he met Mamou,
A. Through a mutual
friend.
Q. And that being
who?
A. Shawn Eaglin.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 123)
Q. How long have you
known Bug (Samuel Johnson)?
A. Just a few years
through – like I said, I met him through the same person, Shawn Eaglin.
Q. Shawn Eaglin?
A. Yes, sir.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 126)
Q. From between that
first time and December 6th, how many other times do you meet him or
see him?
A. Just a few other
times. Like I said, at Shawn’s house we
met. You know, that’s it.
Q. So – and this is
before the time that he comes and stays at your house?
A. Yes, sir.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 132)
Q. So, we get through
Friday. Now Saturday, are there people
coming over to your apartment while he’s there?
A. Yes, sir, Shawn
and, you know, just mutual friends that come over from time to time.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 139)
Q. You ever meet a
fellow by the name of Samuel Johnson?
A. No, sir.
Q. That’s a person
they’re referring to as Bug?
A. No, I know Bug.
Q. Did you know Bug
before you met Mr. Mamou?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How you been
knowing Bug?
A. Through Shawn, the
same person.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 140)
Specifically describing the night of December 6, 1998, and
the apartment complex, Howard Scott testified,
A. We are outside on
the front porch.
Q. You said,
‘we’re’. Who is the group?
A. It was me, Ken,
Shawn and that’s it.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 147)
Q. Any discussion
going on between you and Shawn?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you making any
comments to any of the people that – your company there – that Chucky and Bug
been gone for a long time?
A. No, sir.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 148)
Scott is specifically asked about his phone.
Q. So are you awoken
by telephone calls even after you go to bed?
A. No, sir, no more
phone calls. After awhile it wasn’t no
more phone calls.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 149)
Q. Is that because
you pulled a plug out of the phone or –
A. No, it just
stopped ringing.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 150)
According to a fax sent to the District Attorney’s office from HPD while the court proceedings were underway, Howard Scott’s phone was ringing that night. That information was not shared with the jury or Charles Mamou.
Howard again refers to Shawn Eaglin being at the apartment
complex that night.
Q. Mr. Scott, you
talked about Shawn Eaglin being there at your house with his kids for a while,
and then he left. When Shawn came back around midnight or a little after, how
long did he stay before he left again?
A. I guess about
thirty to forty minutes.
Q. So, he left again
about 12:00, 12:45 or 1:00 o’clock?
A. Yes, sir.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 152)
Repeatedly, Shawn Eaglin is placed at the apartment complex
that night.
Q. Well, when Shawn
is there, I mean, is it right at midnight?
It is 1:00 o’clock? Do you know
what time it is?
A. I can’t recall the
time.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 153)
Q. So, it could have
been anywhere from about midnight to 2:30 in the morning?
A. Yes, sir, could
have been.
Q. And when you say
he then leaves, do you say good-bye to him at your front door and you close the
door and go back to bed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you don’t
actually see where he goes to at that point?
He’s not inside your apartment?
A. No, sir.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 153)
Court testimony wasn’t all that indicated Shawn Eaglin was at the apartment complex that night. A Yellow Cab employee was called to the stand during the trial and questioned about a call the company received that night. As an exhibit, he brought with him a printout from December 6, 1998.
Q. Let me hand back
to you Defendant’s Exhibit No. 9. With
regard to the call that is reflected at the bottom of that sheet, again, the
location where the call was made to the cab driver that went out to a location,
what location did he go to?
A. He went to 10800
Fondren.
Q. Was there a
particular apartment unit number?
A He was given
Apartment Number 1402. (Howard Scott’s apartment number)
Q. And the name of
the caller?
A. The caller said
his name was Shawn.
(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 134)
The prosecutor did his best to discount that testimony and exhibit. He questioned the Yellow Cab employee about
many things.
Q. And there is no
indication by that record that anybody went to Apartment 1402, is there?
A. No.
Q. In fact, they went
to a big box? Isn’t that what there is a
notation at the side and—
A. The directions
say, yes.
(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 136)
Q. Okay. So when a person calls in you don’t know if
they’re giving you the apartment number they’re in or they’re just giving you
an apartment number?
A. That is true.
(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 136)
Q. I understand you
assume. Now it says a name there, Shawn.
Do you know how many Shawns live over in the 10800 block of Fondren?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know who
that Shawn is?
A. No.
(Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 138)
Charles Mamou has maintained he drove the Lexus from the
drug deal to the apartment complex. He also
said he later saw Shawn Eaglin leave Howard Scott’s apartment and get in a
Yellow Cab vehicle. There is very little
evidence in this case, but the little there is, is consistent with Mamou’s
recollection of events.
The D.A. tried to call into question the reliability of the Yellow Cab report, and even asked about how the phone number was recorded – which turned out to be caller I.D. The prosecutor did notask the witness about the particular number itself or share what was known about the phone number on the report. The jury never knew, nor did Charles Mamou, that the phone number requesting the cab came from inside Howard and Robin Scott’s apartment, which is consistent with exactly what Charles Mamou said he saw twenty years ago.
The jury was also not told Shawn Eaglin lived five minutes
from Howard Scott’s apartment – the exact amount of time the taxi’s meter was
running, from 4:04 a.m. until 4:09 a.m.
Harris County dominated the field when it came to racking up death sentences, and Lyn McClellan was an MVP. The case he built against Mamou was built on one man’s statement – a statement investigators knew didn’t match up to actual events and described a confession in a phone call from Louisiana when Mamou was actually in Houston.
It appears anything that contradicted that statement either
didn’t make it into the file or was removed, and anything investigators or the
D.A. knew that contradicted that statement – was not shared with Mamou or the
jury.
The fax HPD sent to the D.A. didn’t just contain a record of
Samual Johnson’s calls, it also showed phone calls from Shawn Eaglin.
There is not one record of any interview with Shawn Eaglin in the case file. He was at one time considered a suspect. He was present on the night in question. He was described as talking about investigators going to his home in a witness statement. He had his name on a cab report for a cab ordered from inside Scott’s apartment. He was referred to by almost everyone involved as the party that introduced them all. His name, ‘Shawn’, is handwritten several times in the HPD file. And he was calling Howard Scott as late as 3:12 a.m. on a Sunday night – the jury never heard that.
There comes a point when sloppy record keeping turns a corner…
Like any record of an interview with Howard Scott at HPD on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, there are no records of any interviews with Shawn Eaglin.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
All related posts detailing all I have learned over the last two years are available at Charles Mamou.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Charles Mamou, among 48 Texas inmates sent to the state’s Death Row in 1999, has always maintained his innocence. At first glance, forty-eight sounds like an impossible number, but a closer look brings into question the integrity of the system.
Investigators knew the evening of December 6, 1998, began with a drug deal gone bad, and they got the name of Charles Mamou from two men who later testified they planned to rob Mamou that night. That same week, on Wednesday, December 9, during the second interview of a woman named Robin Scott, police learned Samuel Johnson was Charles Mamou’s ‘driver’ for the drug deal gone wrong. According to Scott, her husband told her, ‘Bug (Samuel Johnson) drove off in his car, leaving Chuck behind.’(HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 11)
Later that same day homicide detectives picked up Samuel Johnson at his apartment and brought him to the homicide office where a written statement was taken. In his statement, Johnson described the evening as more of a social event, riding around and meeting up with people – not a drug transaction in the making. According to Johnson, and in contrast to the testimony of all surviving witnesses, Mamou drove away without him. He then went home, went to bed, and heard about the incident the next day on the news.
“When I saw this on the news, I couldn’t believe that Chucky would do something like this. I was scaredand I was shocked and this is the reason that I did not tell anyone.” – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 12)
Samuel Johnson’s shock at the news of what took place and his apparent mistaking a drug deal for a night of innocent socializing are all that is recorded in the police department’s Incident Report regarding his involvement. Much like the other individuals involved that night, it appears Johnson was not charged with anything in relation to the death of Mary Carmouche or the drug transaction, although his memory of what happened that night is in sharp contrast to what several other people recall.
According to the testimony of Dion Holley and Kevin Walter, Samuel Johnson drove away and left Mamou behind on the alley. According to the statement of Robin Scott, she was told ‘Bug drove off in his car, leaving Chuck behind’. According to Charles Mamou, Samuel Johnson pulled off in his car – and he jumped in the Lexus that held Mary Carmouche and fled the alley, returning to the apartment complex where all the involved individuals were located and where the Lexus was ultimately located by police with a flat tire – one of the few pieces of actual physical evidence.
Samuel Johnson also said in his statement to police that he
never again saw Mamou or the Lexus after driving away from the shooting.
Johnson’s statement doesn’t just contradict the recollection
of others, he also contradicts himself in his testimony, describing the
innocent night of socializing differently in the courtroom.
Q. And what did he
tell you he wanted to do?
A. He was going to
buy some dope.
Q. And wanted you to
take him to the location?
A. Right.
Q. And what were you going to get out of the deal?
A. I was going to get
something out of it. I don’t know how
much.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 24)
Q. Tell the members
of the jury exactly what it was that y’all were going to do.
A. Go buy some drugs.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 68)
Q. Did you have some
agreement with Mr. Mamou to engage in some type of illegal conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew full well
when you left to go and, in fact, throughout the day when you’re with him, that
you were going to engage in some type of illegal conduct.
A. Yes.
Q. And you realized
that conduct was a felony, correct?
A. Right.
Samuel Johnson also testified regarding what he would do if
something actually ‘happened’.
Q. And do you keep
your eyes on them the entire time, or are you doing other things?
A. I’m keeping my eye
on them at all times.
Q. Making sure that
nothing happened?
A. Yeah.
Q. What were you going
to do if something happened?
A. Probably would
have left.
Q. So, if something
had happened right there, your response would have been to leave and leave
Charles and Terrence there?
A. Yeah.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 74)
Something did happen.
The deal ended in gunfire with one man dead.
Samuel Johnson also testified regarding his own credibility.
Q. And I just want to
make sure we understand something; because when you talked to the police, you
told them a bunch of lies, didn’t you?
A. Yeah.
Q. And yet, the lies
that you tell them, they’re being told after you’ve been arrested, correct?
A. Right.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 98)
Q. Yet when you
talked to the police, you lied about – or you say now that you lied about the
Lexus’ hood being up?
A. Right.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 100)
Samuel Johnson’s testimony did mirror his original statement
in one aspect. He clearly indicated in
both that he went ‘directly home’. The
shooting on Lantern Point took place at around 12:00 midnight, which would have
him back at his apartment on Fondren at around 12:30 a.m. on December 7.
Q. You go directly
home?
A. Yeah.
Q. You tell your wife
what happened?
A. No, she was asleep
at the time.
Q. Pretty exciting
events in your life, isn’t it?
A. Very exciting.
Q. You just get in
bed and go to sleep?
A. No, I took a shower.
Q. Took a shower, and
then got in bed and went to sleep?
A. No, opened me a
can of soda and went to bed.
Q. Talk to anybody
that night?
A. No.
Q. Talk to Robin or
Howard Scott at any point after that?
A. No.
Two witnesses, in two separate interviews, have described Samuel
Johnson driving into the apartment complex where the Lexus was found, followed
shortly after by the Lexus with Charles Mamou – a little after midnight. Those witnesses appear to support Charles
Mamou, who has always maintained he fled the drug deal shooting and followed
Samuel Johnson back to the apartments.
It’s unclear what, if anything, the Houston Police Department may have pursued. There are references to interviews, which include references to a written statement made by Howard Scott on December 8 among others, but no actual record of vital interviews. After in-person, as well as telephone inquiries with the records department at HPD, I was told by one employee that not all the material gets put into the file. It’s unclear who decides what gets included.
In 2007 a private investigator, Carl Deal, who reviewed the
case files noted, “Further, Samuel Lee Johnson, Jr., who was present during the
shooting, who was the driver for Charles Mamou to the drug deal, provides a
substantially false statement to police regarding the facts of the shooting.”
He goes on to say, “Samuel Johnson was not prosecuted and
later became a witness on behalf of the state.
Statements, recordings of statements, kinesic interviewing assessments
of suspects and witnesses that depict the fine details of the original
transaction and exchange of violence, as well as the disposition of Mary
Carmouche in the two days that followed the shooting remain unresolved and
unannounced.
“In short, standard police protocol requires that when
police receive information, the motive for providing the information must be investigated
as well. And then the truthfulness of
the statements should be assessed through efforts at corroboration. All
statements should be recorded in writing, tape recorded or video-taped – and
police investigators should be making professional judgments in this process
based upon their experience in the signs and symptoms of deception, speaking as
to whether statements are credible.
“A series of witnesses – key among them being Samuel Johnson,
provided statements to police and then undoubtedly later to prosecutorial investigators
or attorneys which are not present in the investigative file.”
Samuel Johnson’s testimony seems to confirm Mr. Deal’s
opinion regarding follow-up interviews.
Q. The only persons you’ve spoken to about this case since December 6th of 1998 have been police officers and prosecutors, correct?
A. Right.
Q.
And how many times have you met with police or prosecutors since
December 6, 1998?
A. Numerous times.
(Volume 19 of the Reporter’s Record at page 50)
Moreover, the proceedings for Charles Mamou’s whirlwind capital murder trial began on September 7, 1999. Actual testimony began on October 4, 1999. Unbeknownst to Charles Mamou – or the jury – Officer Bob King at HPD faxed information to Lyn McClellan at the prosecutor’s office on September 24, 1999, after the trial was underway. Included in that fax were the detective’s handwritten notes documenting Samuel Johnson placing a call to Howard Scott’s apartment at 2:37 a.m. on the evening the events took place. The jury and Mamou only heard Johnson clearly testify that he went straight home and to sleep – talking to no one. The prosecutor heard the same thing, but failed to share with the jury or Charles Mamou the fax he received indicating Samuel Johnson wasn’t actually asleep – but dialing his cell phone and trying to contact Howard Scott at 2:37 in the morning. The phone call he made was from his cell phone – not his apartment’s landline. He could have been anywhere. Unfortunately, the jury was never able to hear Johnson be questioned regarding that phone call because Mamou never knew it happened. Legal? Maybe – I’m not an attorney. Moral and ethical – I’d have to say, no.
The prosecution wrapped up its case with a powerful attack on Mamou’s character, including accusing him of an unsolved murder months previous that he was never charged with, nor given an opportunity to defend himself in. That case is unresolved to this day but it was used as a tool to sentence Mamou to death.
According to his testimony, Samuel Johnson worked for Orkin,
treating homes throughout Houston. He
described the area he worked in as the west side, out towards Katy and the
southwest part of town.
I tried to contact Samuel Johnson in preparing this post. He did not respond to my request.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
In closing arguments, Lynn McClellan fought for the death penalty, assuring the jury that while determining Mamou’s future threat to society, they could consider things they would, “hear about his character”. – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 6
Mr. McClellan worked under District Attorney, Johnny Holmes, whose office was unquestionably skilled at acquiring death sentences, putting over 200 people on death row.
Ms. Connors, also during closing arguments, painted a picture for jurors, “And he takes her to Lynchester. He marches her to the back, and he makes her commit oral sodomy, makes her suck his penis. Imagine that, ladies and gentleman.” – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 38
She used multiple adjectives to describe Mamou, arguing, “You know he will be a continuing threat.”
“He’s vicious.”
“He’s ruthless.”
“He’s cold-blooded.”
“He devastated and destroyed.”
The jury was convinced, determining Mamou should be executed, and the media ran with the sexual assault, even though Mamou was never charged with that.
Mamou could not counter the claims. Unfortunately, although it seemed unusual, the Autopsy Report did not include any mention of a rape kit being collected or any other trace evidence. There seemed to be no physical evidence found on the victim to aid in the investigation. Even her clothing was reported to have been in place, including her belt buckle.
Roger Milton was the medical examiner who performed the autopsy and was called to testify at the trial of Charles Mamou. Mr. Milton described the process of recording his findings.
A. Well, at the time of the autopsy, everything that we observe, we document on a chart, written as well as a verbal, dictation into a cassette tape. So, as we observe the appearance of the body externally, we describe it on the tape and continue to describe the entire autopsy. And that tape is later transcribed into a typewritten report form. – Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 51
Q. Is the information placed on the report made by someone who has personal knowledge of what they’re observing? That would be you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have personal knowledge. You dictate your findings into a cassette recorder?
A. Correct.
Q. And it’s transcribed?
A. Right.
Q. And after you dictate your findings and the report is transcribed, do you review this report?
A. Yes.
Q. And as an assistant medical examiner, do you have care, custody, and control of the records at the medical examiner’s office?
A. Yes. – Volume 20 of the Reporter’s Record at page 51
According to the testimony, the entire autopsy is documented. So, when Mamou saw the Autopsy Report, it was apparent there was nothing found that might help in his defense. The thorough report included six single spaced pages of text describing the process, so detailed it documented where dry skin was located. What was obtained for toxicological analysis was described. A Report of Analysis of blood and urine was included. A seven-page Investigator Report was included which indicated Dr. Carter requested dentals to be done to confirm the victim’s identity. And although Mamou was accused of sexual assault by his cousin during the trial, there was no evidence to support or refute that – because it appeared no rape kit had been collected. There was no mention of it.
Or so Mamou thought until 2019. It was just last year he learned the Harris County D.A. knew one existed in 1999 and requested it be processed not long before the trial, the results to be forwarded to their office.
After a records request last year, it was found in Supplement Number 11 of Incident Report 157191298, that on Thursday, July 8, 1999 – a couple months prior to Mamou’s trial – “On this date, Sergeant Foltz received a phone call from D.A. Investigator Al Rodriguez requesting that Sergeant Foltz create this supplement and forward same to the Houston Police Crime Lab. Rodriguez advised the D.A.’s office is requesting that the rape kit obtained by the Harris County Morgue at the time of the autopsy be processed through our crime lab.”
The rape kit obtained at the time of the autopsy…
For twenty years, Charles Mamou never knew it existed, and less than a year ago he was told it did – and it has been sitting in the HPD Property Room all this time.
What other information did the rape kit contain that was withheld from Mamou for twenty years?
I contacted the Houston Police Department in an attempt to locate the results of the kit. I was told rape kit results were not kept in the Houston Police Department files, and upon further inquiries with the police department, I was ultimately told, “The rape kit results are irrelevant. Mamou was not charged with sexual assault, and he was given all that information during discovery. The opportunity to test anything is gone. That window of opportunity is closed.”
I asked the person who told me that if she considered the matter closed, and she replied, “Yes.”
Not to be deterred, I obtained the report through other avenues. The results the D.A. requested and received twenty years ago included, “Fingernail Scrapings” and “Trace Collection Items”.
Also reported, “No semen was detected on any items analyzed.” While the prosecution used ‘sexual assault’ allegations to their advantage – they had this information and never shared it with the jury or Mamou.
The jury and Mamou were also not told ‘hairs were collected from the t-shirt’ of the victim.
According to the report, included in the evidence is a “Plastic Ziploc (sealed) containing, ‘Trace Collection’ items – Not Analyzed.”
The only basis the prosecution had for sexual assault claims was Terrence Dodson’s statement claiming his cousin sexually assaulted and murdered the victim. As, shared previously, the ‘confession’ Dodson described could not have taken place the way he stated. Yet Dodson’s video statement to police – with all it’s inconsistancies investigators were aware of – seemed to have scripted the prosecution’s entire case.
Charles Mamou is out of appeals and awaiting his execution date.
Anyone with information regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. Anything you share with me will be confidential.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
After thirty minutes and forty-one seconds of listening to a ‘confession’ that Terrence Dodson said he heard from his cousin, Charles Mamou, investigators knew they had a problem. The times didn’t fit. If they could get past the bizarre confession itself – how were they going to work with the timeline…
It appears they attempted to help him, even though the details didn’t fit what they knew to be true. At 30 minutes into the videotaped interview, and after Terrence Dodson described a lengthy ‘confession’ that took place in a single phone call…
30:41 (Switches cops)
Cop: Uh, yea real quick, from what you just told us, you said it was Monday at 1:30 Baldy took Chucky to the bus station. And then Tuesday morning he called you and he lays it all out. I wanna make sure, Chucky went back to Louisiana on the very day after he did this jacking is that right? Or what, could it have been Tuesday?
Detectives wanted Dodson to say Mamou had left Texas on Tuesday afternoon, because they knew Mamou was in Texas on Tuesday, and they also knew the ‘confession’ could not have taken place the way Dodson was describing it, but they continued to record.
It was Wednesday,
December 9, 1998. The previous day,
Tuesday, investigators had contacted Charles Mamou, Sr., who told them that he
had last seen his son, Charles Mamou, Jr., with Terrence Dodson, his
cousin. Unbeknownst to him, Mamou’s father
led police to the key witness in a case that would send his son to death row.
The same day Mamou’s father heard from police, he contacted his nephew and told him detectives had stopped by with a picture of him. And so began Charles Mamou’s journey to over two decades on death row. Terrence Dodson contacted police the same day and said his cousin, Charles Mamou, Jr., had confessed to him. Within hours the man who police were looking for in connection to a murder was in front of a camera and giving a video statement, sharing a story that couldn’t have possibly happened the way he said it did.
At that point in time, investigators were well aware that Charles Mamou, Jr., had been in Texas until some time on Tuesday, December 8, 1998. According to Supplement 9 of Incident Report 156416498, the detective who was recording the statement, Sergeant Novak, had documented what he learned the day before, ‘he and Officer Chisholm had interviewed Robin Scott at her work. According to her, she had called her apartment and the suspect, Charles Mamou, was there with her brother, Howard Scott. Robin Scott was asked to sign a consent to search for her apartment and she did.’ Novak had Robin Scott call her apartment to find out if Charles Mamou was still there on Tuesday morning. After he found out Mamou was, he called in patrol units to watch the apartment while he obtained a warrant. Sergeant Novak and the other officers in the room all knew that Charles Mamou had been in Howard and Robin Scott’s apartment until mid morning on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.
Although it turned
out that Charles Mamou left the apartment after Robin Scott’s phone call and
before police were able to surround the apartment, when they interviewed Howard
Scott, the resident, he also told officers that Charles Mamou had spent Monday
night in his apartment and had left on Tuesday morning.
Sgt. Novak was a
seasoned detective. He had worked for
HPD for nearly thirty years at that point.
And he and the other investigators had been working on this case since
Monday. They also had taken a written statement
from Robin Scott on Tuesday, in which she said, ‘When I got up this morning at approximately 4:35 a.m. I found Chucky
sitting on the couch watching television. I told him to have a good day and
wished him well on his return home.’ She
continued to say, ‘Today the police came
to my job asking about Chucky and I told them that Chucky had spent the night
at my apartment last night. I then
called my house and spoke with Howard.
Howard told me that Chucky was still at the apartment.’
While Terrence Dodson was giving his statement, detectives were also in the process of taking a statement from Anthony Trail in the next room. As Dodson was sharing his story of a confession that took place from Louisiana on Monday, Trail was in another room at HPD having his written statement recorded, ‘On Tuesday morning, Chucky called me at 9:00 a.m.’ Trail goes on to say, ‘He asked me for a ride to the bus station. I told him that I recently wrecked my car and it was in the bodyshop. I told him that I needed to take some papers to the body shop and Chucky came with me. When we left the bodyshop, we went to the bus station downtown and I dropped him off. Chucky’s bus was supposed to leave at 1:30 p.m. We got there at 1:00 p.m. I told him to call me up. I went back home.’
The only person that didn’t seem to know where Charles Mamou, Jr., was on Tuesday morning was Terrence Dodson. Unfortunately, even though police knew that, his statement and testimony became the very center of the case built to sentence Mamou to death.
At thirteen minutes
in, Detective Novak didn’t blink when Dodson said, I believe that was
Monday that day that Chuckie left at 1:30, Baldy took him to the bus station,
Greyhound. I ain’t ride with them, took them to the Greyhound bus station,
Chucky left..
It wouldn’t be surprising to anyone who knew Charles Mamou and Terrence Dodson that Dodson wouldn’t know when Mamou left town. They were cousins, but Dodson was several years younger than Mamou and Mamou wouldn’t have been communicating with him the details of his travels.
Novak continued,
‘Going where?’
TD: To Louisiana, Lafayette, I guess. Tuesday morning before day, got a call. What you heard?
At this point, Dodson proceeds to share the confession that all
the men in the room knew couldn’t have taken place from Louisiana on Tuesday
morning ‘before day’.
I’ve struggled with sharing this portion of the statement, as some of what Dodson told police was graphic. I’ve removed portions I think are not necessary to share, but I’ve had to leave in portions that I feel show just what investigators were listening to and proceeded in their investigation in spite of. If I felt the evidence supported portions of this statement, I wouldn’t include it.
Also of note, although there are several references to a sexual
assault, a rape kit was collected as well as processed and although those
results only became known to Charles Mamou two decades later – the prosecution
knew the results at the time of the trial.
That issue will be addressed in a later post.
Terrence Dodson’s telling of the ‘confession’ began at 15:10 into the video. At over 18:35, he is just getting to the drug deal gone wrong, describing an almost comical scene where Mamou and the other party were tossing a bag of money at each other.
So they went down the dark street. Dude asked Chuckie, “Where the money?” So Chuckie said, I got the money, and threw him the paper bag, or whatever. The dude threw it back. So Chuckie said, “What’s up?” The dude said, “Man take the money out, let me see it.” Chuckie said, “The money right there,” threw it back at him. Chuckie said, by that time, he seen the dude like flinch, you know, like move in his seat.
Investigators didn’t question the money bag tossing or Dodson describing somebody sitting in a seat. The drug ‘transaction’ took place behind the car, on the street, not inside the car.
At over 21 minutes into the interview, Dodson is still describing the confession in one phone call. Detectives also didn’t question the bizarre picture Terrence Dodson was describing, as he talked about Mamou driving around ‘thinking’ after he fled the scene where he had just experienced an attempted robbery at gunpoint. Although Mary Carmouche was in the car Mamou fled the scene in after his driver left him on the dark alley, the investigation never turned up any sign of struggle within the vehicle. At the time of Dodson’s interview, the vehicle had been located at the apartments on Fondren where Mamou had been staying. The car had a flat tire and a window shot out. The drive from the location of the drug deal at midnight on Lantern Point Drive to the apartment complex on Fondren would have taken about twenty minutes, give or take.
At 21:17 into the interview, TD: So, he burnt off with the girl or whatever, and he said, he was riding around, just riding around thinking. Said the whole time the girl was all scared or whatever and he kept telling her, “Calm down, calm down, I’ma let you go, I’ma let you go, just calm down, but before he let her go he asked her, you know, “You gonna suck my dick?” And the girl said uh, he said she asked him, “How much you gonna pay me?” and he said, “I can tell you $10, you know.” But the girl was like, “Nah, I ain’t finna suck your dick for under $300, or whatever.” So he’s like, “Alright, well then, that’ll work.” But he also told me, you know, after she did that, he went on and put his drop, she screamed, he said how he felt like crying and all that.
Detectives didn’t question how bizarre it sounded for Mamou to be driving around ‘thinking’ after fleeing a drug shooting in a shot up car with a girl inside, a broken out window and a damaged tire. They didn’t question what had to sound like very strange behavior on the part of Charles Mamou as well as Mary Carmouche, as they listened to the man describing a ‘confession’ that took place in a phone call that they knew didn’t happen.
There has never been evidence of a sexual assault, nor was there any indication that a physical assault of any kind took place inside the car. Yet, the District Attorney repeatedly used Terrence Dodson’s story of a sexual assault to inflame the jury. So much so that news articles often report Charles Mamou was charged with sexual assault. He wasn’t. In reality, there is not a shred of evidence that indicates that Charles Mamou even touched the victim. The D.A. knew that. The only person who ever referred to a sexual assault was Terrence Dodson in a statement he gave – that investigators knew was not based on the facts as they knew them.
The odd statement continued with Terrence Dodson at one point claiming Charles Mamou was planning on killing several other people, including Dodson.
At 23:18 into the interview, DN: Did he tell you their names?
Terrence Dodson then told detectives two names and continued, “He didn’t say that last one and that shit spooked me, I said, man, he was talking about me. So I played dumb with it. I was like, you know what I’m saying, man you need go on and chill out.
Terrence Dodson then begins to share a story that police, once
again, have full knowledge can’t be true.
TD: So I was like, “Man,
you need to calm down,” His exact word
was, “Nah, fuck that. Look I am coming down there, and I will be there at 1:00
in the morning and when I beep you and put 3,1,80 and the time, that mean I’m
at the bus station. See if you can find me a ride. So I am like alright, but shit I turned my
beeper off, you know what I’m saying, and that was it.
24:11
DN: What day was this that he was coming down?
TD: This was uh, he told me this yesterday, for this morning, one
in the morning.
DN: Tonight he was coming in?
TD: Nah, Nah, yesterday.
DN: He was going to be in at 1:00 this morning, Wednesday
morning?
TD: Yes, yes.
Investigators knew that Charles Mamou had left Texas on a bus at 1:30 on Tuesday afternoon – and yet Terrence Dodson was telling them that Mamou had called him on Tuesday morning from Louisiana ‘before day’, confessed, and told him that he was coming into Houston on a bus on Tuesday, and would be arriving at 1:00 a.m. in the morning on Wednesday – to kill several more people. It made absolutely no sense that Charles Mamou would get on a bus at 1:30 in the afternoon in Houston, go to Louisiana and get on another bus and come back to Houston by 1:00 a.m. in the morning to murder three people, but investigators chose not to address that.
At thirty minutes in, they again try to get the days correct,
although it ultimately doesn’t matter because Charles Mamou never sees this
video, nor does the jury.
30:41
(Switches cops)
Cop: Uh, yea real quick, from what you just told us you said it was Monday at 1:30 Baldy took Chucky to the bus station. And then Tuesday morning he called you and he lays it all out. I wanna make sure, Chucky went back to Louisiana on the very day after he did this jacking is that right? Or what, could it have been Tuesday?
31:13
TD: I’m gonna be honest with you, now I’m not really sure but if
I’m not mistaken I believe it was Monday when he left. Cause like I said after
we picked him up from Fondren, now I made him drop me off and that was that, I
ain’t ride with him or nothing. Like I could be mistaken, it might have been
Tuesday.
31:44
Cop: Ok, but he called you on Tuesday, and said I am going to be
coming in at 1:00 A.M. Wednesday
morning to the bus station and I’ll page you then.
TD: Today is Wednesday right?
Cop: Today is Wednesday.
TD: Okay, then, that was last night. He said he was going to come
in last night at 1:00 in the morning.
Cop: Last night at 1:00 in the morning, so he would have called you on Tuesday and told you that.
TD: Yeah, that he is gonna be in at 1:00 A.M. in the morning.
32:10
Cop: 1:00 in the morning, Wednesday morning. So he definitely left
the day before which would be Monday. Is that correct?
TD: Yeah, he must’ve, he had to leave on Monday.
Cop: Ok. He had to leave on Monday?
The entire time the investigators are asking these questions, they know that Charles Mamou left Houston, Texas, on a bus at 1:30 in the afternoon on Tuesday, December 8, 1998.
Charles Mamou never saw the interview that his cousin gave to police. Dodson not only told police that Mamou had sexually assaulted and murdered Mary Carmouche, he also told them he had killed several other people on different occasions.
Dodson also wrote to Mamou more than a month later, while Mamou was in prison. At the time, Mamou didn’t know anything about the statement his cousin had given, and the jury never saw the letter, but in it Dodson wrote, “I’m glad you didn’t tell me shit about that cause I don’t wanna know shit, I feel better off that way.”
Although the jury never saw the letter or the video statement, they did get to hear Dodson’s testimony, which was not consistent with his statement.
What Terrence first told police was a confession from Mamou that took place in one phone call from Louisiana became quite different after several months and also several visits with the District Attorney.
Q. Now, when
you are having this conversation with the defendant later on – says, ‘Later on
I spoke with Charles’ – are you face to face?
A. Yes.
Q. Where are you?
A. On the porch.
Q. Whose porch?
A. Stephanie’s porch, my sister.
Q. Now you gave a whole lot of information in response to the prosecutor’s
questions about conversations you had with Charles and go into detail about the
jack on jack and these guys with a Bible. There was a shoot-out and goes into
detail about where the people were shooting and everything. And then, also
talking about the girl had been shot, that they had been outside. And he asked
you about talking with Detective Novak, and she supposedly had performed oral
sex on him. When do you get that information? What time is that?
A. I don’t really recall. I got, like I said, bits and pieces in person.
Q.
Is it one conversation or several?
A. It was several.
Q. Over what period of time?
A. I don’t really recall, a couple of days.
Q. So, it’s not just Monday, it’s Monday and Tuesday?
A. To the best of my knowledge, yeah.
Terrence Dodson’s odd story
is what became the foundation of the Harris County District Attorney’s
case. Everything from his story of
murder, to a sexual assault, to other murders that Dodson accused Mamou
of. Yet, from day one, they knew the
information he was sharing could not have taken place.
Anyone with information
regarding this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.
Anything you share with me will be confidential.
TO
CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351
Kevin Walter and Dion Holley lied to authorities when first asked what took place on Lantern Point Drive in Houston. They claimed they had stopped to help stranded motorists jumpstart their car, at which point they were carjacked and the girl they had with them, Mary, was kidnapped. It wasn’t until later and after assurances they would not be charged for their involvement, both men told police how they had planned to rob Charles Mamou at gunpoint. Both men also told police that Mamou’s driver, Samuel Johnson, drove away leaving Mamou behind – and he fled the scene in their Lexus.
The following day, in the early hours of Monday, December 7,
1998, Officer King received a call from the public information office. A news reporter had learned the name of a
possible suspect in the ‘carjacking’, which was later determined to be a drug
transaction gone wrong. The reporter had
spoken to Kevin Walter’s father and was told the suspect was a Charles Mamou,
A.K.A., ‘Chucky’. (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 5)
At 3:10 that same day, a call came into HPD regarding a
suspicious vehicle. The blue Lexus Mamou
had fled the robbery in was found at the Fondren Court Apartment Complex, 10800
Fondren. According to police records, ‘the
left front tire was flat. The driver’s
window was busted out’. The apartment
manager had become aware of the vehicle in the parking lot, and called the
police. (HPD Archived
Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 5)
The following morning, Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 8:25 a.m.,
Sergeant Bloyd and Officer King went to Herman Hospital to interview Kevin
Walter. During the interview, they were
given the phone number that Kevin had used to contact Chucky while arranging
the faux drug deal. That phone number
came up to a ‘Robin Scott’ and an apartment on Fondren – the same complex where
the blue Lexus was found. (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9)
Sgt. Novak and Officer Chisolm then went to Robin Scott’s
place of employment to interview her. After
speaking with her, they decided that Sergeant Bloyd and Officer King should go to
her apartment, while Novak and Chisolm took Ms. Scott to homicide for a
statement. (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9)
At 11:33 a.m. Officer Bloyd and Officer King knocked on the
apartment door of Howard and Robin Scott.
In anticipation of finding Charles Mamou in the apartment, Officer
Chisholm had secured an Arrest Warrant based on the false allegations of Dion
Holley, and the ‘carjacking’. The Arrest
Warrant stated that, “I, HF Chisholm, a peace officer employed by the City of
Houston Police Department, do solemnly swear that I have reason to believe and
do believe that the Defendant, Charles Mamou, Jr., a black male did, on
December 6, 1998, intentionally and knowingly commit the aggravated robbery of
Kevin Walter.”
Howard Scott answered the door, but he was alone. After interviewing Scott at the apartment, police learned that Scott had met Mamou through a friend – Shawn Eaglin. The Officers called Homicide and were told that Scott’s story did not match his wife’s, who was at Homicide giving a statement. “It was then decided to bring Howard Scott to the homicide office to be interviewed there since there were some discrepancies between his story and Robin’s. Officer Hollins then transported Howard Scott to the homicide office where he was interviewed by Sergeant Novak.” Not only does the Incident Report refer to the Interview of Howard Scott that took place at the Police Department on Tuesday, December 8, 1998 – it also mentions something that was learned during that interview. “During this interview, another potential suspect by the name of ‘Cedric’ was mentioned as being connected with Shawn and Chucky. See Sergeant Novak’s supplement for the details of this interview and the follow-up investigation concerning ‘Cedric’. (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 9)
The problem with that is – no one can ‘see Sergeant Novak’s supplement for details’ because there aren’t any ‘details of this interview’ in the case file. After a thorough records request, I traveled to the Houston Police Department and physically went through the file with an employee. There is no record of the interview of Howard Scott that took place on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the police department.
The only thing on record is that the police went to his
apartment and the conversation that took place there – prompted investigators
to bring him to the police department to be questioned.
Howard Scott’s wife, Robin Scott, was also interviewed on
Tuesday. She was not called as a witness
at the trial. According to her written
statement, “At about 12:15 a.m., I woke up after hearing the front door
opening. At that time I called for
Howard to come to my room. When Howard
came in I asked him if his company had left yet. Howard told me that they were about to
leave.” She goes on to say, “It seemed
like it was around thirty minutes later I heard a knock on the door. My brother got up and opened the door.” Robin Scott identified Howard Scott as her
brother at that time, because the apartment complex was not aware that she was
living with her husband. “I asked my
brother who was at the door, he told me that it was Chucky.”
She also stated she saw Chucky later that morning, “When I got up at 4:00 a.m. to go to the restroom I saw that the television was on and Chucky was sitting there watching television. He was by himself. I did not say anything to him. I then returned to my bed and got back up at 4:30 a.m. When I got up this time I started getting ready for work. I looked into the room and saw that Chucky was still in the room watching television.” Robin Scott was never called to the stand, and the jury was never made aware of this statement.
The HPD Incident Report says that the next day, Wednesday,
December 9, 1998, at 9:45 a.m., “Sergeants Yanchank and Ferguson went to pick
up Robin and Howard Scott to be re-interviewed. (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 11)
Later in the report – “Progress Report for Wednesday,
December 9, 1998: On this date, Sergeant
Yanchak and Sergeant Ferguson assisted Sergeant G.J. Novak and Officer H.F.
Chisholm in the follow up investigation into this offense. Earlier on this date, we had re-interviewed two witnesses
named Robin Marie Scott, and her husband, Howard Scott.” (HPD Archived
Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 13)
During the Mamou trial Detective Novak, after being sworn
in, was directly questioned about his activities on Tuesday, December 8,
1998.
Q. You indicated that
in checking the subscriber information, it came back for Robin Scott. Can you tell me again the unit number? I know the address was 10800.
A. I said 1423, but I
meant 1402.
Q. Okay. You indicated that you learned when you met
with Robin Scott who else lived there. She was living there with her husband,
Howard Scott?
A. That is correct.
The attorney then asked if Robin Scott had initially told police that Howard Scott was her brother.
A. That is correct.
Q. So she lied to
you initially?
A. Yes.
Q. How far into the
discussion with her did you finally learn that, in fact, Howard Scott was not
her brother but her husband?
A. When we
transported her to the police station for the purpose of taking her statement
from her concerning her knowledge, she admitted to us – of course, we had
Howard Scott transported to the homicide office where he, too, was making a written statement.
Howard Scott was taken back to the Police Department the next day as well as his wife. Apparently, officers were not content with whatever was said on Tuesday, although we will never know what that was. In Howard Scott’s statement on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, he actually refers to the previous day and being taken to the police department. “I got up Tuesday morning around 4:50 a.m. and walked my wife to the bus stop. I got back and Chucky was still asleep. I went back to bed and my wife called around 7:00 a.m. to wake me up. I got up and took my daughter to school around 7:30 a.m. Chucky was still in my apartment. I got back around 8:00 a.m. and Chucky was gone and my apartment door was unlocked. My wife then called around 11:00 a.m. and asked if Chucky was still in my apartment. I then asked her what was wrong and she asked again and I told her no. She then told me that’s all I needed to know and hung up. Around 11:30 a.m. two detectives showed up and began asking me about Chucky. I told them that Chucky left earlier and gave them permission to search my house. I later came with them to the homicide division.”
Sgt. Novak was no rookie.
He was a seasoned employee with nearly three decades of law enforcement
experience. The idea that he would interview an individual regarding the
kidnapping of a girl and not, at the very least, take notes is highly unlikely.
Whatever Howard Scott said at the police department on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, was never heard by the jury.
Anyone with information related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Home is not where we lie our heads, but where our hearts lie, places we’ve made such fond memories that they become ‘home’. One such place for me was the Pizza Inn of Wilson, North Carolina, a popular eatery with a rustic theme from an era that marked the century. The Pizza Inn was a throwback to the Old West, and although that was a time of great social inequity, this place attracted customers of all shades with deep roots to the area and shallow pockets. Some bathed in the ambiance of the dining décor, others dipped by for drive-thru. More than a community staple where kids made memories, the Pizza Inn was a sanctuary.
Growing up in low income housing on the outskirts of town,
my friends and I loved to explore. If
there was one thing we learned by not having much, it was that it didn’t take
much to have fun. Our callow
imaginations were like tokens of passage to adventure, turning local woodlands
into perilous jungles and rooftops to frigid mountains.
On Saturdays we’d pretend our bikes were exotic cars as we
raced across town through traffic. Nothing
could quell our enthusiasm but the air of hometown pizzas. All week long we’d stashed away coins, some of
us receiving allowances, in anticipation of the Pizza Inn’s All-You-Can-Eat
buffet, a utopia of sauces and molten cheeses all for ‘four dollars and
eighty-something cents’. If one of us
came up short, we all dug deep for donations.
Sighting the overhead logo through the trees, our legs
pumped even faster before arriving at the wooden guardrail out front where our
tires screeched to a halt. We tethered
our bikes under lock and key then poured through the corridors, dusting off our
soles and gritty misfortunes on a tatty welcome mat.
Once inside we were greeted by the hostess whose smile
dazzled with delight – not the smile we were used to, one half-cocked with
suspicion. In fact, that was the magic
of the Pizza Inn – its fair and equal treatment. At twelve years old, we’d long ago learned
of the racial imbalance that plagued American history, a sordid reality that we
wore like armor, making us wary of mistreatment yet defiant. But inside those doors there was no
distinguishing whites and blacks. No
disserving the lower class. No greeting more
hospitable for one patron than the next.
Everyone was V.I.P. There were no contemptuous glares or scowls of
rejection that condemned us for living in the projects, just hungry families
creating lasting memories in a place that was affordable and safe.
We strolled through a dining gallery of linen clothed tables surrounded by dimly lit booths with tapestries and other Western memorabilia fastened to the walls. Gentle melodies trickled in the background, blended with the thrum of chatter, while the featured attraction – the extravagant pizza display – elicited good cheer. Sausages. Hamburgers. Pepperonis. Cheeses. There were thin-crust pizzas topped with garlic. Onions, anchovies, mushrooms… and more, as we stood thinking, ‘there must be a god’.
After selecting our dining stations, the hostess scribbled down
our orders and bustled off to gather beverages while we filed around the buffet
cart, goaded by our appetites, stacking slice after slice on our plates.
We tossed around banter over warm bites of pizza until
seconds and thirds were in order, like members of an elite club enjoying a
round of laughs at a banquet that was held in our honor. We chomped away until
our work was done and our tummies round and laden as we made our way to the cashier’s
stand where we proudly settled our bill.
Those were the moments in which the Pizza Inn felt like ‘home’,
where a crew of adventurous kids with no more than a few scraps jingling in our
pockets could receive quality service and respect. Just thirteen years later – all of that
changed. Those memories became a distant
blur after robbers targeted the pizzeria and left their shift manager
dead. One of the perpetrators, a close friend
and neighbor, alleged I was his accomplice and actual triggerman. With a number of corroborating witness
accounts and shoddy legal representation, my innocence never stood a chance.
Unfortunately, it didn’t matter that critical lies were
told, DNA tests were negative and much of the testimony conflicted. Am I naïve enough to think that after twenty
years on Death Row being innocent even
matters? Maybe it does, but only to a
handful of hopeful humanitarians. To
others any claim of innocence on my part will be deemed both airy and
insulting.
So why did I write this piece if not some callous design to soften minds and recruit supporters by clinging on to meager contradictions? Set minds are hardly ever swayed, and it is not an attempt to evoke pity – that belongs to the families who’ve had to endure the tragic end of a loved one.
I wrote this merely to restore something that was lost, something that was no one’s to take. Of course, no amount of loss could ever equate to the loss of life. In no way am I making a comparison. Simply put, I am stating that due to my un-involvement, I’ve been made a victim too – as much as it will grind the teeth of the naysayers to hear. Vengeful mobs will revel at my extermination at the words of one seeking to escape accountability in a system that offers leniency to criminals for their role in a crime in order to secure a conviction. It’s because of this I even became dissociated with the Pizza Inn and consequentially suppressed memories, safeguarding my thoughts until I had almost forgotten what the place meant to me.
I am writing this to salvage a piece of my childhood that
was swallowed up in the debacle, memories of pleasure and independence, a time
when those grounds were sacred. I’m
writing to reclaim memories that bear the truth and don’t dispute my innocence,
memories of adventure, growth and pride… and lots of love for pizzas.
The Pizza Inn was a sanctuary, and its doors swung
unbiasedly open. The cost of a memory
was just ‘four dollars and eighty-something cents’. It was a place where no one
should ever have been murdered and no one falsely accused – and for now, I let
that be the one thing on which my innocence stands.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Terry Robinson writes under the pen name ‘Chanton’. Terry is a gifted and thoughtful writer who is currently working on two novels. He lives on Death Row but has always maintained his innocence. Mr. Robinson can be contacted at: Terry Robinson #0349019 Central Prison 4285 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4285
‘A Beretta 9mm pistol had been found in the roadway near the two surviving victims. It was loaded with 12 cartridges in the magazine but no round in the chamber.’ – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)
‘The possibility exists that whoever was armed with the Beretta had simply failed to rack a round in the chamber.’ – (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)
That was part of the initial Houston Police Department incident report, as recorded by HPD investigators when describing the scene they arrived upon in the early morning hours of December 7, 1998. Investigators were called to a shooting that turned out to be the location of a failed drug deal robbery. Charles Mamou fled that scene in a blue Lexus after his ride sped away without him, as testified to by both surviving witnesses. The police documented what they found at the time, including the loaded Beretta 9mm pistol found next to a man who was shot at the location on Lantern Point in Houston.
What was known by police and the District Attorney’s Office – is the incident began with three men bringing Mary Carmouche to a planned robbery of Charles Mamou on a dark alley. What happened after that is still unclear, but I will share everything I have learned on this page in the coming weeks.
The Harris County prosecution didn’t exactly describe what they knew of the events, but rather, passionately described a bloodthirsty, premeditated killing spree during closing arguments. They were trying to persuade the jury that Mamou should be sentenced to death, arguing he presented a continuing danger. The only things the prosecution could know with certainty was what the two witnesses shared and what the police officers found upon their arrival – a loaded Beretta 9mm pistol beside a man that had been shot. Other than that, the case against Charles Mamou has more questions than answers, including some information the District Attorney knew and the jury didn’t.
In a case with so many questions and little certainty, a lot of energy was devoted to the description of Charles Mamou in an effort to convince jurors to request the death penalty.
“You know, I know, he will commit criminal acts of violence
in the future. You know he will be a
continuing threat. And we only have to
prove he probably will. But each and
every one of you know he would. The only question is when, and who will be the
next victim?” – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 30
“And what do you know about this defendant? He’s vicious. He’s ruthless. He’s cold-blooded. He’s manipulative. He’s a liar, and he’s controlling.” – Volume 24 of
the Reporter’s Record at page 31
“He tried to murder all four of those people out there, but
that was beyond his control. But for the
grace of God, Kevin Walter’s medical records would be an autopsy report with
photos. He almost died. He severely injured him, and he tried to kill
Dion Holley. That was his plan. It was all premeditated.” – Volume 24 of
the Reporter’s Record at page 33
“His comfort zones are guns and bloodshed and murder.” – Volume 24 of
the Reporter’s Record at page 36
“It’s only a question of when the next victim will be.”– Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 39
“He devastated and destroyed. And that’s all he’s ever done, with his drugs, with his guns.”– Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 39
“Premeditation to the max.”– Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 40
“He spends other people’s lives like other people spend money. That’s his currency, death and destruction. There is nothing mitigating in this case. You could search till the cows come home. You could have everything read back. You could examine every piece of evidence. You’ll never find any mitigating in this situation.” – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 46
“It’s not your fault that you’re here. We’re here because of him. He placed you in that situation. He forced you to have to make this decision.” – Volume 24 of the Reporter’s Record at page 47
Although Lyn McClellan, the prosecutor, said, ‘You could examine every piece of evidence,’ everything the prosecution knew wasn’t shared with the jury. Twenty years after the trial – I know more than the jury knew then.
In addition to the witnesses stating Mamou’s driver left him behind, this is what was known and documented regarding that evening:
‘A Beretta 9mm pistol
had been found in the roadway near the two surviving victims. It was loaded with 12 cartridges in the
magazine but no round in the chamber.’ (HPD Archived Incident Report 156416498,
Supplement No. 2)
‘The possibility exists that whoever was armed with the
Beretta had simply failed to rack a round in the chamber.’ (HPD Archived
Incident Report 156416498, Supplement No. 2)
I will continue to share what I have learned over the last two years here. The prosecution secured a death penalty and the case was never again heard on appeal. Charles Mamou is currently waiting for his execution date.
Anyone with information
related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is
also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU:
Charles Mamou #999333
Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53
3872 South FM 350
Livingston, TX 77351
Sentenced to die, Charles Mamou has always maintained his innocence. The prosecution presented an elaborate story of a man who went on a shooting rampage that included a sexual assault. That story was then shared by the media.
What took place on December 6, 1998, according to witness testimony and actual evidence, began with an attempted robbery. The prosecution’s witness, Kevin Walter, helped arrange the sham ‘drug deal’ through a cousin from Sunset, Louisiana. Walter testified during the trial regarding the robbery of Charles Mamou.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 95:
Q. You didn’t have
any guns?
A. One.
Q. One gun?
A. Exact.
Q. Terrence Gibson?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was going
to take care of whatever was necessary in terms of getting the $20,000 from
Chucky Mamou, correct?
A. Correct.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 96:
Q. Let’s back up for
a second. Tell me – describe to the
members of the jury, what was your plan?
Just tell them in your own words, what was the plan to get the
money? Let them know.
A. See the money,
count the money, and see can I walk away with the money. That was my plan.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 101:
Q. So if the police
weren’t there, you would do whatever it takes to take the money? Fair statement? This is all about you getting twenty grand,
right?
A. Right.
Q. I believe your
testimony when Mr. McClellan was talking to you was the plan was to rob the
defendant, Charles Mamou, correct?
A. Correct.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 102:
Q. So, you’re feeling
comfortable that’s where you’re going to rob him, at that store over there?
A. Yeah, I feel more
comfortable off Cavalcade.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 105:
Q. You never had any
intention of giving him any dope?
A. Right.
Q. From start to
finish, your plan is to rip him off?
A. Right.
Q. At some point,
when it’s obvious to you that twenty thousand is no longer an issue, according
to your testimony, and it’s only forty-five hundred, you’re still wanting to
rip him off even for the forty-five hundred?
A. Yeah.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 112:
Q. But you had
already planned for everybody that was going to meet after you had ripped off
Chucky Mamou of his money?
A. Yes.
After testifying to picking up Mary Carmouche, Kevin Walter
continues to describe the plan.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 118:
Q. So you drive all
the way from the northeast side of town down to the Bennigan’s, and Miss
Carmouche is with you at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your plan
at that point when you’re going to the Bennigan’s? Can you still see the money, count the money,
take the money?
A. Exactly.
Q. So you know, when
you get to that location, all four of you, that your plan is still to rip him
off. Now at this point, do you believe there is still $20,000 at stake?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So before you go to Bennigan’s you’re still
thinking, twenty grand is what I’m going to be able to walk away from if I pull
this off?
A. Yes.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 120:
Q. Were you thinking
at that point that you’re still going to pull this off, the plot to take his
money?
A. Yes.
Q. Your thing at that
point, as you’re sitting there at the Bennigan’s, is getting closer and closer;
we’re finally going to be able to pull this off?
A. Right, once we
count the money.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 121:
Q. You were just
going to rip him off?
A. That’s what –
yeah.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 125:
Q. You weren’t going
to try and rob Mr. Mamou in the middle of the Fiesta store parking lot, were
you?
A. Yes. If he would have counted the money there, we
would have took it.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 126:
Q. So now we’ve been
through several failed attempts to be able to rip him off, correct?
A. Yeah.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 127:
Q. That is, now your
plan is to go wherever Chucky Mamou drives, and that’s where you’re going to
rip him off?
A. If we followed
him, yes.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 141:
Q. Now, was there a
point in time when you decided that it was okay to tell the police what had
happened once you realized you weren’t going to be prosecuted for anything,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that what
caused you to then come forward and say, here’s how – what I was going to
do. Once some police detective shows
you, tells you about how we’re not worried about you and this dope case; we’re
interested in prosecuting this guy, and that’s the first time you’ve
come forward with information, and you had basically explained what you
testified to on direct examination?
A. Right.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 161:
Q. How were you going
to get him to give you the money?
A. Once we count the
money, then we take the money.
Q. Just going to jump
in the car and run?
A. No. It was at gunpoint, of course, but it wasn’t
no plan.
Q. Pardon?
A. If it was going to
be at gunpoint, yes, of course, once we count the money.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 164:
Q. Your testimony was
that if it was necessary at some point to have a gunpoint to force the money,
you said that was okay, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. If the plan came
to that, that was okay with you?
A. No, it was no
plan.
Q. But if it came to
that, that was going to be all right, if it meant you getting the $20,000,
right?
A. Yes.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 166:
Q. You don’t – after
it’s obvious that you’re going to be going to Bennigan’s, right, you don’t let
Mary Carmouche off; you don’t take her home, do you, before going there?
A. No.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 167:
Q. When did you see
Terrence Gibson with a gun?
A. Early.
Volume 16 of the
Reporter’s Record at page 168:
Q. But you knew he
had a gun?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that if it came to gunpoint, then so be it, in terms of getting the $20,000 from Chucky Mamou?
A. Yes.
According to the testimony of Kevin Walter, he and his friends intended to rob Charles Mamou on December 6, 1998. As earlier posted, Kevin Walter also testified that Samuel Johnson, Mamou’s partner in the drug deal, drove away and left Mamou behind once that attempted robbery took place. According to the only witnesses at the scene, Mamou then fled in the Lexus.
Charles Mamou is out of appeals and waiting for an execution
date.
Anyone with information related to this case can contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net. There is also a facebook page dedicated to sharing the truth.
TO CONTACT CHARLES MAMOU: Charles Mamou #999333 Polunsky Unit 12-CD-53 3872 South FM 350 Livingston, TX 77351
Things were different in Harris County, Texas, two decades ago. It could be said there was a thirst for blood that is less pronounced now. Charles Mamou will most likely get an execution date in the near future for a case that was prosecuted when securing a death penalty was a badge of honor, celebrated even. It was more acceptable in the halls of justice at that time to jam the pieces of the puzzle into place if investigators or a prosecutor ‘wanted’ a particular someone for a crime – or throw the pieces out if need be. Hopefully, things are different now. Mamou will pay with his life for the climate of the late 90’s, but it’s not too late to share what the prosecution knew when they tried the case. And what they know today for that matter. There was little interest in finding out what happened back when they could have, and a lot of interest in making a guilty verdict stick – which took some doing with no evidence.
Charles Mamou first wrote for this site in March, 2018. Out of curiosity, I looked up some articles about him after the first few pieces he submitted. Two things stood out – allegations of sexual assault, some articles saying he was charged with that crime, and a pair of his sunglasses that were reported to have been left near the body. It had to be true if he left his sunglasses, right? I envisioned the location to be an abandoned house on a block of old abandoned houses. It wasn’t until I started reading Mamou’s case file I learned the sunglasses were miles from the body that was found in a residential neighborhood – and the sexual assault? There is a lot more to that story as well.
Charles Mamou, Jr., was born and raised in Sunset, Louisiana, and early on he began taking care of his family and broke the law to do it. Like many before him and since, some of his most successful role models were drug dealers. And so began his life of crime. He wasn’t a choir boy, but he had a reputation for helping people out.
Houston, Texas, wasn’t Mamou’s stomping ground. He didn’t know the area like the back of his hand, but his dad lived there, as well as a couple cousins. He would travel to the area for ‘business’, if you can call it that. That is why he was there in December, 1998. He was involved in a transaction that included several other individuals, all of whom were residents of Houston. He wasn’t even driving his own car on that trip. He was staying with a couple in their apartment and was being driven by others tied to the same anticipated business transaction.
The evening of December 6, 1998, was mild and dry. Lantern Point Drive, where the ‘drug deal’ and attempted robbery eventually took place, had no lights, and according to police, it was a cloudy night. Samuel Johnson was driving the car Mamou was in. Terrence Dodson had been a participant in the transaction earlier in the day, but had since gone home. The car they met on the dark street where it all took place carried four passengers, including Mary Carmouche.
All surviving parties later admitted to their involvement in a drug deal gone wrong, although no one was ever charged with anything involved in that incident other than Charles Mamou, who was charged with kidnapping when he fled the scene after gunfire erupted and his partner drove away without him. The deceased individual had a loaded gun next to his body, leaving a good argument for self-defense. Mary Carmouche was driven to the location by three men who were there to rob Mamou, and she was in the back seat of the car he sped away in.
When security guards arrived shortly after the shooting,
which took place around midnight, one man was dead and two were injured. Both vehicles were gone.
The two surviving men both testified in court that the vehicle
Samuel Johnson was driving drove off first – leaving Charles Mamou behind. Mamou then jumped into the blue Lexus and
fled the scene.
According to the testimony of Kevin Walter, (Volume 16, of the
Reporter’s Record at page 137):
Q.
All right. Then where was the blue Lexus at the point you picked up the
gun?
A.
Taking off.
Q.
Where was the red car?
A.
Done took off.
Q.
It had taken off before the blue car?
A.
Yes.
Kevin Walter had no reason to lie
about which car took off first, and according to his testimony, Samuel Johnson
drove away first in the red car – leaving Charles Mamou, who then jumped in the
blue Lexus and drove away.
Dion Holley was the other
individual who was shot at the scene. His
testimony (Volume 18, of the Reporter’s Record at page 115) was as follows:
Q. All right. And what did you see?
A. I saw the red car backing up and turned
around in the street, and I saw the blue car leaving off.
Q. When you say you saw the red car backing up
and turning around, how did they make – if they’re going backwards, how did
they turn around and go the other way?
Is it like a three point turn where they stop, back up, and pull around;
or is it like a scene on shows where they’re able to hit the brakes and the car
spins around?
A. That’s pretty much how it was.
Q. So, it was a very quick thing?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it appear to you that the red car was
trying to get out of there really quick?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And then that vehicle was followed by your
mom’s Lexus?
A. That’s
correct.
Samuel Johnson, the driver of the red car and Mamou’s associate in the deal, later became a suspect in this case. Although his version of events contradicted all of the witnesses’ testimony, the prosecution went with his description of what took place. According to Samuel Johnson’s statement to police, he was not concerned about Charles Mamou or the car that could have held the drugs he was there to buy that night. He was not concerned about the shooting he had been involved in or the girl whose whereabouts he supposedly knew nothing about. The following is Johnson’s testimony regarding what happened next (Volume 19, of the Reporter’s Record at page 115):
Q.
You go directly home?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Tell your wife what happened?
A.
No, she was asleep at the time
Q.
Pretty exciting events in our life, isn’t it?
A.
Very exciting.
Q.
You just get in bed and go to sleep?
A.
No, I took a shower.
Q.
Took a shower, and then got in bed and went to sleep?
A.
No, opened me a can of soda and went to bed.
Q.
Talk to anybody that night?
A.
No
The next morning Samuel Johnson got up in his usual fashion
and headed to work – where he was employed as an Orkin man, treating homes in the
Houston area.
Charles Mamou has always maintained that he followed Samuel Johnson back to the apartments, with Mary Carmouche in the car. According to Mamou there were other individuals present in the parking lot of the apartments when they arrived, along with himself, the victim and Johnson. Twenty years later, there are witnesses that support that.
Until his execution, I will be sharing everything I have learned over the last eighteen months. All of the information will be on a facebook page, Charles Mamou – How Wrongful Convictions Are Made, where I hope to share what the prosecution knew and what the defense failed to share. There will also be a catagory on this site, ‘Charles Mamou’, where every blog post will be kept.
Anyone with information regarding what took place in
December of 1998, please contact me at kimberleycarter@verizon.net.
