The
defendant’s rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and
similar guarantees under the Constitution of the State of Georgia were violated
when a conspiracy developed between various members of the Gwinnett County
Police Department, the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office and others to
shape witness testimony, alter witness statements, plant incriminating evidence
and offered perjured testimony in order to obtain a conviction of Michael
Chapel.
1.
Bringing Down A Popular Street Cop Would Be A Career Maker
The
question must first be asked: Why would a conspiracy to frame Mike Chapel
develop within the law enforcement community? Chapel was a popular street cop
in the Buford area. The City of Buford thought so much of him that they asked
that he be permanently assigned to duty within the city itself. He was a gung
ho type of cop, a marine who for most of his police work was still in the
active reserve. He was the GCPD Swat Team leader until his health forced him to
stop that activity just a few weeks before the murder. Unlike most policemen,
Chapel did not work just his eight hours and make every arrest he could to
inflate his arrest record. Instead, like an old time beat cop, he was more
interested in controlling crime in his area. If he could straighten someone
out, particularly youngsters, he would work with him or her in preference to
arresting them.
Chapel
was particularly interested in suppressing drug traffic in Buford. He built a
network of informants in the drug community, injected his presence into areas
where drug traffic was common and attempted to break up that traffic with a
series of novel operations such as showing up in drug sales areas in a
limousine to make arrests and disrupting sales by cleverly introducing fake
drugs into dealer supplies. Chapel collected intelligence on drug activities in
his area in the form of audio and videotapes and photographs, all of which
disappeared after his arrest. When officially sanctioned drug suppression
activities continued to show no results because of what Chapel felt was police
tip offs to dealers, Chapel, with his superior and friends Sgt. Donald Stone
and Officers Brian Ready and Zimmerman initiated what Chapel called “Operation
No Mercy” to crack down on the trade in the last months of 1992 and the early
months of 1993.
The
answer then to why anyone would like to see Chapel framed is that, by revealing
Chapel, a popular street copy, as having feet of clay, everyone else in the law
enforcement community would look that much better, and, since the murder of
Emogene Thompson by a popular street cop would be of its nature high-profile,
Chapel’s destruction would be a career-maker. In fact that is exactly what
happened. Within months of Chapel’s conviction, Capt. Davis became Chief of
Police Davis; Lt. Latty became Capt. Latty and shortly thereafter Deputy Chief
Latty; Sgt. Cline became Lt. Cline and shortly thereafter Capt. Cline; Jack
Burnette went on retirement pay and went to work for Danny Porter in the
District Attorney’s office the next day; Deputy DA Tom Davis moved on the
Office of the Georgia Attorney General; and Danny Porter was re-elected
District Attorney of Gwinnett County.
2.
If Chapel Was Released After Arrest, Careers Would be Destroyed
Lt.
Latty had previously been Chief of Detectives at the Westside Precinct until he
was demoted because of his improprieties in a case where after exoneration an
arrestee had successfully brought suit against Gwinnett County and was awarded
damages in excess of ten million dollars.
[John Latty, Trial, Page 4447, Line 12]
Q.
Okay. Now,
R.
viewing
Mike Chapel, you made a reference in there that you'd been -- kicked up enough
dust or something. What were you
referring to?
A. That
I had kicked up enough dust?
Q. Yes,
sir.
A. I
don't remember the context of that statement.
Q. It
had something to do with you going to detectives down to the westside
precinct. You said you'd kicked up
enough dust and you never did come back up.
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Do
you know what I'm talking about now?
A. Yes,
sir. I was referring to the -- yes,
sir, I was referring to the Robert Wall lawsuit. I got transferred over it.
Q. Okay. You got transferred out of detectives over
that?
A. I
got transferred out of detectives, yes, sir.
One more such incident would probably have
put Lt. Latty back into a patrol car. When the case against Chapel began to
fall apart, Lt. Latty was under pressure to rehabilitate his case.
Lt.
Latty also saw himself as one of God’s agents on earth. Inscribed on his police
business card were these biblical references: Romans: 13:1,2,3,4 and I Peter:
2:13,14.
Romans: Chapter 13.
Let every
soul be subject unto the highest powers.
For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of
God.
For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid
of the power? Do that which is good, and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation.
For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid
of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
For He is the
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid:
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger
to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I Peter, Chapter 2.
Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme.
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Latty
professed to know who the evildoers were, and that he knew Chapel to be guilty
of murdering Emogene Thompson. He began to talk to Chapel about this.
[Chapel, Interrogation, Page 128]
Off. Chapel: [Unintelligible] to admit to
murder, and I can’t do that.
Lt. Latty: Oh. Well, yeah, I do want you to do that,
but this is something personal. As you think about these things in the days to
come and evaluate these things, I want you to consider your relationship to
God.
Off. Chapel: I want to say he hates me.
Lt. Latty: No. He loves you. He loves us all. And I
don’t say that carelessly. I don’t say that trying to elicit anything from you.
I hope you’ll think about that, because ultimately there’s who we have to give
the answer to. Ultimately, that’s who we have to give account to. What happens
here is almost trivial compared to that. But He loves you, He’ll forgive you,
He’ll help you, and you need that.
Off. Chapel: No, I need an alibi and a good witness.
Lt. Latty: That’s the standard by which I evaluate
my life and the decisions I make and what my life is about, the standard that’s
– that’s been laid out for us by the scriptures. It addresses all these
problems. There’s a remedy for – there’s a remedy for whatever we’ve done. We
seek it and want it.
Lt. Latty: -- when I was talking about that you’re
valuable, and there’s a lot – there’s a lot of your life that’s yet
salvageable, but only if you seek to do it and only if you look to the Lord for
that. He can salvage you, whatever happens from here on out, and he will if
that’s what you want. Now, I’m going to pray to end. Whatever you – whatever
you thin of me as we leave here tonight and whatever you think of me in the
days to come as I endeavor to assist in bringing this case to a conclusion and
helping to provide the evidence and the facts that we can uncover to the
prosecutors, I’m going to be remembering you, asking the Lord to – to receive
or reject that. Did you go to church as a kid, Sunday school?
Off Chapel: [nodding yes]
Lt. Latty: you was born in Atlanta wasn’t you?
Off Chapel: Uh-huh.
Lt. Latty: Is that where you grew up? Atlanta,
DeKalb County?
Off. Chapel: Yeah.
Lt. Latty: Did you ever go to vacation Bible School?
Off. Chapel: [Shakes head no.]
Lt. Latty: They never got you there when you was a
little guy?
Off. Chapel: I don’t think so. I don’t –
Lt. Latty: What do you think of that? You don’t buy
into it?
Off. Chapel: What, vacation Bible school?
Lt. Latty: Christianity, religion.,
Off. Chapel: Everybody needs to –
Lt. Latty: God, the devil.
Off. Chapel: Everybody needs to believe in
something.
Lt. Latty: What do you believe in?
Off Chapel: I believe things can get all fucked up.
Lt. Latty: Your own strength? Your own –
Off. Chapel: I believe there’s a great spirit up
there.
There
is no question, at least originally, that Lt. Latty believed Chapel to be guilty,
and imbedded in his promise to Chapel and whoever else might be listening was
the promise to “endeavor to assist in bringing this case to a conclusion and
helping to provide the evidence and the facts that we can uncover to the
prosecutors …”. His job, after all as implied by his police business card, was
to punish the evildoers.
In
a tape-recorded interview with National Police Defense Foundation investigators
Boris Korczak and William Acosta, then Capt. Latty described his feelings about
Michael Chapel:
[Korczak-Acosta Interview With Latty-Smith, 11/22/97[1]]
MR. LATTY:
-- were thinking of Mike Chapel as a cop. And, I help people to do
that by saying, "You know, Mike Chapel was not a cop. He was never a cop. He was never one of
us. He infiltrated our ranks. He's a criminal who infiltrated us. And, he got by with it for eight and a half
years. And, he committed numerous other
crimes." I'm sure you've heard the
stories. Mike Chapel has committed numerous crimes, even though he's never been
charged and wasn't proven, but if you are an old intelligence man you know how
those things run. And, he probably was
involved in another murder or two. Every time a little something comes up we
look into it and we'll continue to do that.
Now, I'll say this to you. We're off the record now.
The
tape recording device was turned off at that point.
When
on April 27, 1993, a few days after Chapel’s arrest, the case against him began
to fall apart, there was considerable pressure to rehabilitate that case.
Viewed against these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that the
victim’s blood was found in Chapel’s patrol car two days later on the eve of
the preliminary hearing.
It
is possible, just possible, that the blood in Chapel’s patrol car was
transferred from the victim’s automobile to Chapel’s patrol car accidentally on
the shoe of GCPD Technician Mary Ann White. Ms. White, along with Technician
Graham, searched the victim’s vehicle for the second bullet on April 20th.
To find that projectile, the two technicians had to remove the passenger seat
in the victim’s automobile.
[Crime Scene Report[2]
Dated 4/22/93]
On 04-20-93 technicians
graham and white and evidence technician . P. T. Swanson returned to the
vehicle and attempted. To locate a second
projectile. Technicians white and
Swanson removed the passenger seat from the front of the vehicle. A second projectile was found resting on the
underside of the seat. This projectile
was photographed and collected as evidence.
It was turned in to the property room and later transported to the state
crime lab.
It took a great deal of work
to secure the second projectile from under the passenger seat of the victim’s
car[3].
The floor underneath that seat was covered with blood[4].
It is more than possible that if Technician White’s shoe soles had crevices,
they probably became filled with blood from the floor.
If
the shoes were not cleaned or if all the blood that adhered to them had not
been cleaned by walking on soft surfaces like carpet, it is possible that her
shoe may have touched the raised armrest while she was searching the back seat
of Chapel’s patrol car prior to testing it for blood on April 29, 1993.
[Mary Ann White, Trial, Page 4597, Line 8]
By Prosecutor Smeal
Q. Okay. Were you present when she obtained the keys
and opened the vehicle?
A. I
was present when she opened the vehicle, but not when she obtained the keys.
Q. And
after the vehicle was opened, what happened next?
A. Well,
we just did a brief search looking for the car wash receipt.
Q. And
was that found?
A. No, it wasn't.
A
search for something not found must, by definition, have been a thorough
search, and probably involved lifting the rear seat cushion and looking at the
area of the rear window. If Ms. White placed her shoe against the arm rest,
which we know was raised from Ms. White’s testimony, and put any pressure on
it, some of the victim’s blood that had adhered to that shoe during the course
of the search of the victim’s car may have been transferred to the arm rest.
3.
The Case Against Chapel Was Falling Apart
The
second reason for the law enforcement community to frame Chapel was that their
“open and shut” case against Chapel kept falling apart. Chapel became the prime
suspect in the murder on the evening that Emogene Thompson’s murdered body was
discovered. Between that night, April 16, 1993, and the night Chapel was
arrested on the 23rd, the police investigators and investigators
from the District Attorney’s office had established what they thought was a
case as solid as a pioneer, three-legged stool against him:
1. The
investigators thought that Chapel could not account for his whereabouts between
8:30 PM and 10:07 PM when arrived at the Arden Drive address where he had been
dispatched. His best friend on the force, Officer Brian Reddy had denied that
Chapel was with him at Fire 14 that night.
2. Friends
of the victim had told investigators that she had told them she was working
with Chapel to recover the money that had been stolen allegedly by her son
since Chapel first answered her burglary 911 call on April 3, 1993, and they
alleged that the victim was to meet Chapel to review the progress on her case.
3. Chapel
had been identified from a photo lineup by two of the driver witnesses who
passed by the Gwinnco Muffler Shop where a police patrol car was seen either
alone or parked behind what appeared to be the victim’s car in the driveway.
4.
Pressure By Buford Drug Dealers To Get Chapel Off the Streets
In
the months leading up to the murder, Chapel, with a few of his friends, had
been putting pressure on the drug dealers in Buford. His “Operation No Mercy
had been in full swing for some time. His superiors in the GCPD had been
requesting Chapel to put pressure on a shadowy local character who turned out
to be a confidential informant for the DEA and FBI, Steve Mitchell, and on
another individual who was a suspect in the death of a Russian, Dennis Shelton,
who coincidently was a close friend of Michael Thompson, Emogene Thompson’s
son. The question has to be asked, was this their way of placing Chapel in
their company for other reasons? Was this perhaps a way to get Chapel off the
streets?
On
April 8, 1993, just one week before the murder, Steve Mitchell came into Chapel’s
gym while he, Chapel, was there. Once in Chapel’s office, Mitchell dumped out
$20,000.00 from a paper bag he was carrying with him. Chapel reacted properly,
stepping out and asking one of his assistants to notify the GCPD Intelligence
Unit.
[Chapel,
Trial, Page 6237, Line 25]
By
Ms. Rogan
Now, April the 8th rolls along.
It was just a typical ordinary day at the gym. I had to work that day -- no, I didn't have to work that day
because I was there in my truck. I
didn't have a radio. That was part of
the problem. I'm standing there. Cassandra's working out with Val, another
female. I'm training them. We're working out. I remember Cassie getting my attention. Somebody walked in. I
don't hear so well, and I didn't hear anybody come in, and she looked up, and I
turn around and there's this individual standing there. He snuck in somehow, and he's standing
there, and he's holding an envelope, large envelope, bulky with something. But he had a T-shirt on, jeans, so I wasn't
really concerned about a weapon because he was -- he had no capability to hide
it.
Well, I excused myself from the ladies,
and I went over there, and I asked him -- he said what he wanted, and he said
he needed to talk to me. So I went in
-- I asked him into my office, but as fate would have it my recording devices
were broken that day. He -- I was
unable to activate them, so he comes in, and I say, 'What's up?' You know, I'm thinking -- already thinking,
well, what does this guy want so we can go to Browning [the investigator that
had asked Chapel to put pressure on Mitchell].
He flops this large envelope down on the table, dumps it out. There's -- there's bundles of money,
currency, U. S. currency. I'm sitting
at my desk going 'nice, this is impressive, what's the story of this,' while
he's -- he's not really telling me what he's got it for or what he plans to do
with it. He just says -- he just -- I
don't even -- I don't understand why he's even showing it to me, first off. He -- I was the whole time looking at the
money bands because the money bands had distinct where they came from, the date
they were acquired by somebody, and I was logging all that down to give to
Investigator Browning or Special Agent Yeager.
Well, he -- like I said, he poured it out there, and I sat there and
tried to do that -- that undercover thing, you know, and just 'excuse me a
minute, the girls want me out here.'
So I went out, and I took their training
schedules, and I wrote a note on there to Cassie, I said, 'Call this number and
ask for Investigator Browning. Tell him
this subject is in the gym at this time with a lot of money. Do something. Be en route --' he was only a mile or two from the gym -- 'have
somebody en route, but come over here now.'
Well, at the time I didn't know that she couldn't make contact because
he only -- he stayed maybe five or ten minutes, but the highlight of it was, he
-- he never really explained where he got the money or what he had the money
for.
I asked him, trying to do an interrogation
on him, I said, 'What did you have the money for?' And he says, 'Well, I got a couple of jobs to do,' meaning he
could've had -- build a house for somebody or be a hit man, for all I know, but
he perceived himself to be a hit man.
That's why the FBI was investigating him. And I didn't -- odd behavior, but not too odd for him. And he left.
Well, as quick as he left, Cassie came up
and said, 'I couldn't get in touch with anybody.' No answer, as Sergeant Winderweedle said. Nobody's at the precinct during the daytime. This was around 12:30.
Well, I started calling, trying to find
Browning. I had his beeper number. I beeped him. No response. I called --
I forget the list, the actual list. I
called headquarters looking for them. I
called the criminal investigation department looking for somebody to tell this
information to. I called -- I called --
somehow got sent to internal affairs, which they were familiar with the subject
also. So I ended up speaking to Monica
Hack, who testified earlier, and for lack of anybody else, I said, 'This yo-yo
was here saying and doing this. If you
see Browning, have him contact me ASAP.'
And I even tried to call Lieutenant Powell that testified yesterday, but
I couldn't reach anybody.
Q. Did
you feel you had reason at that time to take this person into custody?
A. No,
none whatsoever.
Q. Did
you subsequently report what you had observed and done to --
A. Outside
contact with Monica Hack in internal affairs?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
I met with Greg Browning a day or two later and reported it.
After
being interrogated for several hours on the night of April 23, 1993, Chapel was
placed under arrest for the murder of Emogene Thompson. Even during the
interrogation, the case against Chapel began to fall apart. Officer Brian
Reddy, who had denied that Chapel had been at Fire 14 on the night of the
Murder, recanted his statement and admitted that Chapel had indeed been with
him at Fire 14 that night. This was backed-up by a statement from Sgt. Stone
who had been with the pair that night at Fire 14.
[Latty, Trial, Page 4467, Line 16]
By Mr. Moore:
Q. Okay. Now, on the tapes, you told Officer Chapel
that Brian Reddy had said he was not at the fire station?
A. That's right.
Q. And I believe Brian
Reddy gave a written statement to that effect; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was delivered
to you at headquarters, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir, it was. During the course of the interview, yes,
sir.
Q. And who took that statement?
A. I don't remember. I think a detective went out and talked to
him. There were a number of interviews
going on simultaneously as we had planned.
I don't remember who took the statement. I remember that somebody -- we sent somebody out to take the
statement, and as soon as we got it back, we wanted -- we were wanting to know
what they had to say about what was going on that night at that time.
Q. Okay. And do you know the reason why Brian Reddy
lied?
A. Well, I don't think he
lied. I think he was confused. He was off duty that night, and I'm told
that he had folks visiting him from New Jersey. It was some of his relatives.
And that he had drunk some beer that night, which Brian has been known
to do a time or two, and I think he got confused. I don't think he lied at all.
I think I said to Mike on the tape he must have panicked or something
when we approached him with this.
Q. Now, when did you find
out that he had not told you the truth?
A. During the course of the
interview when we got statements from some of the other officers, and they
confirmed that they had been at the Fire 14 and that Chapel had been at the
Fire 14 up to a point. Then we realized
it was a mistake.
C. The Case Against Chapel Begins To
Collapse
But in the early morning hours of
April 24, 1993, Lt. Latty arrested Chapel anyway, and the die was cast. Three
days later on April 27, 1993, several fire fighters from Fire 14 gave
statements to their Captain in which they stated that Officer Chapel had been
at Fire 14 until 10 PM or later.
One of the legs of the solid stool
had completely collapsed. When the other two legs were more closely examined,
they began to seem to be pretty fragile as well. The allegations by the
victim’s friends regarding her alleged relationship and the meeting on the
night of her murder were pure hearsay, and the driver eyewitnesses’
identifications of Chapel on examination were not as solid as they once
appeared. Dr. Brusey had selected two officers from the 8-officer photo lineup,
one of which was Chapel, and the circumstances of Karl Kautter’s identification
where he selected one officer first before identifying Chapel was shaky as
well. The other two legs of their solid stool were, after the 27th,
were collapsing as well.
But Lt. Latty had made the arrest.
All of a sudden, the career-maker case against Chapel began to look instead
like a career-breaker for Lt. Latty and the others, including others in the
Office of the District Attorney whose investigators had been instrumental in
gathering evidence against Chapel. Lt. Latty had in fact been Chief of
Detectives at another precinct, but he had been demoted and transferred as a
result of precipitous activities against another citizen who when released had
instituted a multimillion dollar suit against Gwinnett County.
On April 29, 1993, two days after
the firefighters made their statements, Sgt. Cline ordered Crime Scene
technicians Mary Ann White and Nancy Jenkins to test Officer Chapel’s patrol
car for blood evidence using Luminol presumptive blood testing. Voila, the
victim’s blood was found in Chapel’s patrol car. What more could be asked?
E.
Witness Testimony Is Manipulated
Witnesses
to the blue light activity were influenced to testify that they passed the
driveway of Gwinnco Muffler at 9:45 PM regardless of the circumstances of their
travel as described in the remainder of their testimony[5].
Witness
Daniel Gravitt testified that he passed the muffler shop between 9:40 and 9:50;
but he went on to testify that he arrived at his destination a little after 10
PM and that his destination was five (5) minutes drive from Gwinnco Muffler.
[Daniel Gravitt, Trial, Page 3464, Line 2]
By Prosecutor Porter.
Q. And
about what time of day or night were you going by the Gwinnco Muffler?
A. It
was between, I'd say, 9:40 and ten minutes till ten.
Q. And
did you see anything when you went by the Gwinnco Muffler?
A. I'd
see blue lights flashing, you know, like somebody -- they had a car pulled over
or something.
Q. All
right. Could you see what kind of car
it was that was pulled over?
A. No,
sir.
Q. Could
you tell what kind of car was under the blue lights?
A. No,
sir. I sure couldn't. I'd say it was up in the driveway of the
muffler shop there, and it was sort of storming and, you know, thundering and
lightning, and everything, and I was just more or less paying attention to the
road but, you know, with the blue lights flashing, they reflected everywhere.
Q. Now,
did you go on and pick up your daughter down there by North Gwinnett?
A. Right. Sure did.
And I got back about five after ten or so, and when we come back, I
didn't notice the blue lights over there.
Q. All
right. Did you notice anything in the
driveway?
A. No,
sir.
Q. Mr.
Gravitt, I'm going to ask you to step down off the stand for a second and I'm
going to ask you to look at a diagram if you could.
A. [Witness
complies]
Q. This
is a diagram that has been previously identified. It's a scale drawing of the Gwinnco Muffler Shop, and you're
going to have to sort of stand here because there's folks behind you.
A. Okay.
Q. And
it's magnetized, as you can see. This
is to scale, but the cars are not.
A. Uh-huh
[affirmative].
Q. This
is northbound towards Buford, towards me, and southbound is towards you as we
stand and look at the document. Could
you, to the best of your recollection, place the vehicles here as you saw them
the night of April 15?
A. The
only thing I seen -- I was driving down the road, and blue lights, you know,
flashing up in here and reflecting. I
couldn't tell you where the cars were.
Q. Okay. Can you say whether or not the police car or
any other car was in the acceleration lane?
A. Oh. It was not out in here. It was up in the parking lot.
Q. Thank
you. That's all the questions. You can take the stand again.
A. Uh-huh
[affirmative].
Q. And
I believe you said you picked up your daughter and went back?
A. Right.
Q. And
about what time was that?
A. I got there a little after ten, so it
would have been five minutes later or so.
About 10:15 or so, we came back through.
Witness
Karl Kautter testified that he passed the muffler shop between 9:30 and 9:45
PM; and yet his testimony was that he arrived home shortly after 10 PM, and he
lived by Lake Lanier on Ansel Court, fewer than five miles from Gwinnco Muffler[6].
The speed limit using the route described by Kautter and Omodt is mostly 45
PMH, with a short stretch at 55 MPH. The testimony of the Kautter’s driver,
Paul Omodt was that he was driving the speed limit. Both Kautter and Omodt
testified that the lights at First Ave. and Highway 20 were both green, and
there is only one thru stop sign on the route at Little Mill and Buford Dam
Road, thus, if the pair averaged 45 MPH, the driving time was approximately six
minutes.
In
his statement, Harland Preston stated that he left work in Duluth at 9:40 PM
drove approximately 10 to 15 minutes before reaching Gwinnco Muffler. From his
workplace (12 miles plus) the time would have been more like 15 to 20 or more
minutes. This would have driver Preston pass Gwinnco Muffler close to 10 PM.
According to Inv. Burnette’s undated “Narrative”, Lt. Latty told his officers
that Preston passed Gwinnco Muffler at 9:45 PM.
[Burnette, Summary of Case]
At approximately 10: 20 p. m. Lt. Latty
met with Harlan Preston at the road check in front of Gwinnco Muffler. Harlan Preston furnished Lt. Latty with his
address and home and business telephone number. Harlan Preston told Lt. Latty that he had passed by Gwinnco
Muffler on the previous evening at approximately 9:45 p.m. and had observed a
police unit on a traffic stop in the driveway of the business. Harlan Preston pointed out the area to Lt. Latty
where he had seen the traffic stop which was the same location where Emogene
Thompson was found dead in her car (E-41).
This
of course is not what Exhibit E-41 said[7].
Alan
Robertson in his first statement to police said that he passed the muffler shop
between 10 and 10:15 PM, but, in his testimony at trial as a result of District Attorney Porter’s intervention, he
recited a tortured account of circumstances that would have allowed him to pass
the Gwinnco Muffler about 9:40 or 9:45 PM based upon when hospital visiting
hours ended. This even though he did not know when visiting hours ended and
testified that he heard no announcements as to visiting hours while at the
hospital.
[Alan Robertson, Trial, Page 3435, Line 16]
By Prosecutor Porter:
Q. All right. Now, let me ask you, did you hear them
announce the closing hours, the end of visiting hours?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Okay. Did you discuss with anyone the possibility
of you staying after visiting hours had ended?
A. Well, I talked with my
friend's wife. I said, 'If you don't
care, I'd just like to' -- in fact, she asked me, she said, 'You're welcome to
stay on a little while if you want to, you know, after hours. I'm sure they won't say anything.' And I said, 'Well, I'd just like to stay
just a little while.'
Q. All right. Did you in fact stay a little while after
visiting hours -- after visiting hours ended?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how long, do you
think?
A. I'd say somewhere around
thirty minutes, thirty, forty minutes, something like that.
Q. Now, once -- and did you
leave at that time?
A. Right after that, yes,
sir, I left for home.
Q. Okay. Now, when you drove -- had you driven the
route between North Fulton Hospital and your home before that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you driven it
since?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you give us an
estimate of about how long it took you to drive from North Fulton Hospital to
Peachtree Industrial Boulevard at approximately the Gwinnco Muffler? Are you familiar with that location?
A. Yes, sir. I'd say approximately forty -- forty,
forty-five minutes.
Q. And were you paying
attention to the time at that point?
A. Not really. I was -- it was kind of rainy that night and
I was just, you know, just easing along.
I, you know, I didn't -- I wasn't looking at my watch or, you know, I
didn't have any certain place or time to be at, you know, so I wasn't really
paying any attention to the time. I was
just heading towards the house.
District Attorney Porter continued to
coach Robertson, and there is only Porter’s word that it was not in violation
of the rule of sequestration that had been invoked at the beginning of the
trial.
[Robertson, Trial, Page 3444, Line 25]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Okay. Is that the statement you gave the police
officers back in 1993 shortly after the incident occurred?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q. And at the time, you
told them ten to 10:15; is that correct?
A. When I went by Gwinnco,
yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. That was, you know, my
guesstimate.
Q. Okay. And is it likely -- isn't it likely that
your memory would have been fresher back then than it is now about the times?
A. As far as guessing the
time?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir. It would be -- it would be just as, you
know, about as good now as then or then as now.
Q. Okay. Now, you changed the time today. Did someone tell you to do something
different about when the hospital closed or something since that time?
A. No, sir. Nobody told me to, but when I found out the times was 8:30, I'm just going by how
long it took me to get home in my own mind.
I was thinking the closing time were around nine o'clock.
Q. Okay. And who told you what time the closing time
was?
A. I don't know whether it
was your investigating people or the Prosecution. I don't -- I say, it might have been the lady outside a while ago. I heard something about 8:30.
Q. Okay. Is she the lady that works for the DA's
office?
A. No. I mean -- no, not the lady, but the
gentlemen there. I can't even think of
his name. It's on the -- the attorneys,
one of the attorneys there. I can't think
of his name.
Q. Mr. Porter? Is he in the courtroom?
A. Is that Mr. Porter?
Q. Is he in the courtroom?
MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I'll
stipulate that after our interview with Mr. Robertson, the State inquired and
is prepared to present evidence regarding the closing time of North Fulton
Hospital. We informed Mr. Robertson of
that.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. PORTER: This was prior to
the rule of sequestration being invoked by the Defense or the state, and I'll
stipulate that my office provided him with that information.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Moore?
MR. MOORE: Your Honor, I'd ask
what date that was because the rule of sequestration was invoked when you
started selecting the jury and that was almost three weeks ago now.
THE COURT: But what does the
rule say about talking to your own witnesses?
MR. MOORE: Well, Your Honor, I
think you can talk to them and ask them what they may have heard or anything,
but to suggest to them what they should testify to or tell them what somebody
else is going to testify to is a clear violation of the rule of sequestration,
and we'd ask the Court to instruct the jury about that.
MR. PORTER: Your Honor, there
has been no violation.
THE WITNESS: I --
THE COURT: Just a moment.
MR. PORTER: The State in this
case interviewed Mr. Robertson in preparation for trial. As Mr. Moore knows, we sat in here eight
hours a day after the rule had been invoked.
I personally went to Mr. Robertson's house. At that time, we examined and decided after talking to him that
we would look into the North Fulton closing time. This had to be prior to jury selection, and we informed him of
that and let him draw his own conclusions.
And for Mr. Moore to insinuate that there's been any violation of the
rule of sequestration is unfounded and without basis.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moore, anything else?
MR. MOORE: Your Honor, I still
ask Mr. Porter to state what date it was.
MR. PORTER: Your Honor, I can't
recall the exact date. I interviewed a
hundred and some odd witnesses in this case.
Mr. Robertson may remember. I
went to his house.
THE COURT: That was prior to
yesterday?
MR. PORTER: It was prior to the
beginning of jury selection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moore?
MR. MOORE: I'll accept that if
Mr. Porter says it's prior to jury selection.
The
District Attorney followed Robertson’s testimony with Joan Shattuck the
hospital administrator of the hospital that Robertson was visiting. The time
8:30 kept coming up in the dialog, even though Ms. Shattuck herself seemed
unsure as when visiting hours ended.
[Joan Shattuck, Trial, Page 3457, Line 23]
By Prosecutor Porter:
Q. And how long have you
worked at North Fulton Hospital?
A. Ten years.
Q. I'm going to call it
North Fulton Hospital. That's how I'm
used to it. During that time, and let
me call your attention specifically to April 1993.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Are you aware of the
ending of visiting hours or the time of the ending of visiting hours?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us what
time that is?
A. 8:30.
Q. Is that strictly
enforced?
A. No. Not all the time. Uh-uh [negative].
Q. And people are allowed
to stay afterwards generally?
A. Oh, yes. Uh-huh.
Q. And let me ask you, on
April 15, 1993, were the closing hours or the end of visiting hours 8:30?
A. I would assume they are
-- they were because they've always been -- they've been 8:30 for as long as I
can remember.
Q. All right.
A. Uh-huh.
The Prosecution offered one more witness to show
that all police activity had ceased after 9:45 PM. David McGaha testified that
he left his place of employment in Duluth at 9:30 that night, was on his way by
9:35 PM and passed Gwinnco Muffler at 10 PM where he saw the victim’s car alone
in the driveway[8]. The driving
time for this witness to reach Gwinnco Muffler would have been the same from
Duluth as that for witness Harlan Preston, i.e., 15 to 20 minutes. That would
make witness McGaha pass Gwinnco Muffler at 9:50 to 9:55 PM, before the blue
light activity at 10 PM or later.
The
time shown in one signed witness statement was clearly altered to show that a
police vehicle was seen in the driveway of Gwinnco Muffler at 9:45 PM. On
4/19/93, before Chapel was arrested on April 23rd and the 9:45 time
became important, Lt. John Latty of the GCPD received a written statement from
Patricia Gimothy. Ms. Gimothy’s stated that she saw an automobile that, even
though was dark colored, she stated was some type of law enforcement vehicle.
The time on the statement was 9:45 PM, a time that was becoming important in
the theory of police and Prosecution. It is apparent even from the photocopy
that that time was altered with a different pen[9].
G.
Attempts To Manipulate Firefighter Testimony
About
a month before trial the District Attorney held several meetings with the
firefighters who had furnished statements showing Officer Chapel had left the
Fire 14 at 10 PM or later. His purpose in these meetings was not to ascertain
their testimony. Mr. Porter knew what the firefighters would say on the stand.
He had their statements. His purpose in these meetings was to confuse and
corrupt their forthcoming testimony to see if he could get them to support the
9:45 PM scenario as he had managed to do with the driver witnesses.
Firefighter
Sloan testified that while he was in another room, he made several trips to
kitchen area where the three policemen were watching TV. He recalled that the
three were still in that area when he retired between10 and 10:30 PM, as was
his normal routine.
[Robert
Sloan, Trial, Page 5555, Line 16]
By
Ms Rogan.
Q.
Do you recall who all was at the fire station that night?
A.
As far as?
Q.
Police officers, I'm sorry.
A.
There was Officer Chapel, Officer Stone, and another officer. I do not know his name or remember it at
this time.
Q.
So there were three police officers there at the this station?
A.
At least three.
Q.
Okay. And what were they doing there?
A.
They were there watching television.
Q.
Okay. Do you --
A.
I don't remember if they ate or what.
Q.
Okay. Do you remember what,
specifically, they were watching on television?
A.
No. I wasn't watching the television in
that room. I spent very little time in
that room.
Q.
Okay. What were you doing then?
A.
We have another area on the other side of the bay, and I was -- and that area
has a TV and a couch and a chair and an exercise area. It has weights, bicycles, that type of
thing, and I was primarily over there.
Q.
Were you in and out of --
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- the day room some?
A.
I moved in and out of there several times during the course of the evening.
Q.
Approximately how many other firemen were there that night; do you remember?
A.
At the station?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Well, we have an engine and a ladder and a med unit assigned there. I would say that we were at minimum staffing
because I was moved there. Nine, plus a
battalion chief and an aide, that would be 11, 11 fire uniform personnel.
Q.
Okay, who were present that night or was --
A.
Would be in and out. Would be assigned
at that station.
Q.
Okay. Do you have a recollection of
what time the police officers arrived?
A.
Yes. I believe it was around seven --
around seven o'clock at night, something like that.
Q.
Do you have a recollection --
A.
No, correction. I believe it was
earlier than that, than seven o'clock.
I remember at the seven o'clock time, they was definitely there.
Q.
Do you recall whether it was still light out or not?
A.
No, I do not.
Q.
Do you have a recollection of what time the officers left that night?
A.
Best of my recollection, it was between ten and 10:30. I was on my way to the bunk room to retire
for the evening when I saw police officers still there. I was just passing through to go to the bunk
room.
Q.
And around what time did you normally retire for the evening?
A.
Usually around ten o'clock in the evening.
The District Attorney apparently did
not get anywhere with Sloan, but did get him to admit that since he was not in
the room all the time, it would have been possible for Chapel to temporarily
leave the station. He did however have some choice words about Sloan in his
closing argument.
[Porter, Trial, Page 6640,
Line 5]
Sloan doesn't remember
anything. He wasn't paying
attention. He can't even tell you if
Chapel was in the fire station[10].
This last was just another truth-twister that the
District Attorney peppered the Court and the jury with. Firefighter Sloan
stated quite clearly that Officer Chapel was at the fire station that night.
What Sloan did say in his cross-examination by District Attorney Porter was
that, since he was not in the room all of the time, he could not swear that
Chapel was there continuously from the time he arrived until he, Chapel, left
at about 10 PM. In his redirect examination by Ms. Rogan however, Firefighter
Sloan stated quite specifically that Officer Chapel was at the fire station
watching TV at the time he, Sloan, went to bed at about 10 PM.
[Robert
Sloan, Trial, Page 5565, Line 16]
By
Ms Rogan.
Q.
Okay. One last question. This statement, the letter that you submitted
at the behest of your superior officer, do you recall saying in the statement
that at the time you went to bed you saw all three officers watching TV?
A.
Yes, I do remember saying that.
Q.
Okay. And would you say that your
memory of what happened in April of 1993, specifically on April 15th of 1993,
was better at that time than it may be now?
A.
Oh, yes.
In his direct testimony, Pierce
described his contacts with the people from the district attorney’s officer:
[Firefighter Pierce, Trial,
Page 5575, Line 2]
By Ms. Rogan:
Q. And have you met with the district
attorney or representatives from his office since that time?
A. Yes, I have.
A. About a month ago, I
guess.
Q. And were you asked to
assemble at the fire station for a meeting?
A. Yes. That's where they met with us.
Q. And then were you
interviewed by someone as to the events of that night?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I believe you made
reference just before to being shown the TV listings for that evening?
A. Yes.
Q. Did someone from the
district attorney's office bring you a TV listing from that day?
A. No. They made a phone call to me later on, a
couple of days after that, and we discussed what the movie was about and picked
out what show it was, because I didn't recollect the name of the show, and
found out that the time it went off was 9:30.
Q. Okay. So someone from the district attorney's
office told you that movie had gone off at 9:30?
A. Yes.
H. Attempts To Plant False
Memories In Witnesses
In his cross-examination of the firefighters, the District Attorney does not challenge Sloan’s memory. With his cross-examination of firefighters Westbrooks and Wilson, Porter simply attempts to negotiate some times.
[Jeffery Westbrooks, Trial, Page 5611, Line 7]
By Prosecutor Porter:
Q. Now, if the evidence
showed that the movie that you were watching on TV ended at 9:30, would that
change your estimate of when Chapel left?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I can look back
from what I had written at the time two years ago to refresh my statement, and
the best I can remember it was around the time I had stated, and it was
basically right before I went to bed.
Q. But you don't have any
independent memory of it?
A. Well, I mean, yes, I
remember it being around ten. Q. But 'around ten,' could it have been
9:40?
A. Very possible.
Q. Could it have been as
early as 9:30?
A. I wouldn't think so.
Q. Could it have been as
early as 9:35?
A. I wouldn't think so.
Q. So you would say that
he could have left as early as 9:40, and that's what you mean by 'around ten'?
A. Well, basically, I had
wrote ten to 10:15, you know, and that was when my memory was a lot
fresher. Now, I just, you know, two
years ago, I'd just have to say around ten, because right now that's the best
that I can actually remember.
Q. But you didn't really
remember it even then, did you?
A. Yes. I mean, what I wrote down was the best I
remember.
Q. Well, I understand that,
and I'm not saying that you didn't. But
there's nothing significant that makes ten, 10:15, 9:45, 9:40 stick in your
mind much one way or the other, is there?
A. No.
Q. And so ten seemed about
as good a guess as any based on your reconstruction of the events, doesn't it?
A. Yeah, within a, you
know, 30 minute time frame. So if I,
you know, would say ten, I'd give it plus or minus 15 minutes.
Q. Thank you.
[Stanley Wilson, Trial, Page
5599, Line 15]
By Prosecutor
Porter:
Q. So you weren't really paying any degree of attention as to what
time it was or what time anything was happening that night on the 15th, were
you?
A. As far as -- if I wrote
22:00 hours, which I did, which is ten o'clock, ten p.m., for some reason I did
look at a time, for some reason or another.
I remember that time somehow.
Q. But you don't know what
that reason is?
A. No. Whether I just looked at my watch or looked
at the clock on the wall at the time.
But for some reason, he was leaving or something, and I just happened to
look at my watch, I think, or something, you know. That's -- that's what I was saying, so I don't know why, but I
did.
Q. But you didn't -- you
testified here today that that night was no different than anything else. What was significant about Chapel getting up
and leaving?
A. I don't know. I guess I was just standing there at the
time or something or other.
Q. So you don't even know
what was significant about it?
A. No.
Q. And you can't say what
caused your attention?
A. No. Not other than if I was just standing there
in the doorway when he was getting ready to leave or something or other.
Q. And so the only reason
that you think it's ten o'clock today is because you said it was ten o'clock
then?
A. Well, I'm not saying it
was exactly ten o'clock. It was, you
know, around ten o'clock.
Q. Could it have been 30
minutes?
A. I would think -- I
wouldn't think 30 minutes before I would've -- I would have probably put 9:30
instead of ten o'clock.
Q. Could it have been 20
minutes?
A. I'm not saying --
anything could be possible there. But
for some reason I would say it was closer to ten than it would be 9:30.
Q. But you don't know that
today?
A. No. I mean, that's been two and a half years
ago, three years ago.
Q. And there was nothing
significant that night?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Thank you.
Not exactly a recantation of the statements
of 4/27/93. Remember that each of these firefighters prepared their statements
independently. Almost two and one-half years later there memories were
understandably hazy about the events of that night, and Prosecutor Porter
continued to try and take advantage of this, first in his meetings with these
men just before the trial and even on the stand trying to get them to say they
were watching the movie on cable that ended at 9:30 PM, which did not show
local severe weather warnings, rather than on the broadcast channel which was
showing the weather information that they all remembered that night.
In his closing argument, Porter
takes the anything’s possible remarks on the stand and transforms them into
absolute statements by the firefighters. He states
emphatically that the Westbrooks and Wilson had changed their testimony to have
Chapel leaving the Fire 14 as early as 9:40 PM instead of 10PM or later as in
their statements of April 27, 1993. What Mr. Porter did not tell the jury was
that in re-direct examination by Ms. Rogan these firefighters stated
emphatically that Chapel did not leave the firehouse until 10 to 10:15 PM.
[Porter, Trial, Page 6640, Line 8]
Westbrooks and
Wilson, who key their memory to no specific event, who say they don't have any
reason to remember the 15th over any other night, acknowledge that Chapel could
have left the fire station as early as nine-forty.
Even if it was as early as 9:40 PM that Chapel left Fire 14, he could not have possibly fired the shots that killed Emogene Thompson as he was walking out the door of Fire 14:
[Porter,
Trial, Page 6664, Line 2]
And how much
time does he have to do it? He arrives
by nine-thirty. The shots happen at
about nine-forty. By nine forty-five
Karl Kautter and Paul Omodt and Allen Robertson are driving by, and they're not
seeing a traffic stop. They're seeing
the cleanup on a murder scene, because Michael Chapel has already killed
Emogene Thompson by nine forty-five.
Prosecutor Porter had better luck
with Firefighter Pierce. There were two movies playing on TV at the time on the
night of the murder. The District Attorney persuaded Pierce that he and the
others, including the policemen, were watching a cable move that ended at 9:30.
Pierce had tied Chapel’s departure to the five minutes before or five minutes
after the movie ended. In his original statement, Pierce said that he and
others were watching a movie with the three policemen, and when the movie was
over, Officer Chapel put on his raincoat and left. Pierce went on to say that
he went to bed before the other two officers left.
Prosecutor Porter then questioned
Pierce, and Pierce finally gave Porter what he what he had been fishing for.
[David Pierce, Trial, Page 5576, Line 5]
By Prosecutor Porter:
Q. Hello, David.
A. Hi.
Q. Do you remember speaking
to me about a month ago that day at the fire station?
A. Yes. Yes, I do.
Q. In fact, we talked to
you as a group and then individually interviewed you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you,
the TVs at the fire station, they're equipped with cable, aren't they?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's not really
uncommon for y'all to watch cable movies, is it?
A. Not at all.
Q. And normally when you
watch a movie on cable, it plays it all the way from the credits at the
beginning to the credits at the end, doesn't it?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Do you normally watch
the credits or do you switch to another channel?
A. That depends on who has
the remote.
Q. But it wouldn't be
surprising that on the night of the 15th that because of the weather -- and
usually, even though there's a time schedule on the TV guide, don't the movies
usually end earlier than the allotted time?
A. Sometimes, yes.
Q. And don't they usually
have a station break sort of thing, upcoming attractions, and all that?
A. Yes.
Q. So on the night of the
15th, you testified that y'all were watching a movie; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you specifically
remember Chapel being there?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you specifically
remember Stone being there?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you specifically
remember the big guy with the flat top and the New Jersey accent?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you gave your
statement -- when you gave your statement in April of 1993, didn't you key the
time that Chapel left to the ending of the movie? Didn't you tie those two together?
A. Yes, somewhat -- within
five or ten minutes of that time.
Q. So he left either five
minutes before the movie ended or five minutes after, would you say?
A. After the movie was
over, it was, you know -- it could have been -- I could have set there five or
ten minutes, I don't know, but I know that he left before I got up and went
into the bunk room.
Q. So would it be your --
would it be your testimony that he probably left before even the movie was over
or as it was just ending?
A. I would say as it was
ending.
Q. And do you remember him
putting anything on as he left the fire station?
A. Yes. He put on a raincoat.
Q. And what did he do
after he put the raincoat on?
A. He walked out the door.
Q. Now, I'm going to show
you -- I'm going to show you what I've had previously marked as State's Exhibit
Number 154, and turning to the first page, can you take a look at that and see
if you can identify what it is.
A. [Witness complies]
Q. Do you recognize that
at all?
A. It looks like a TV
guide.
Q. And what week is that
for?
A. April 11th to the 17th.
MR. PORTER: All right. Your Honor, at this time the State would
tender into evidence State's Exhibit Number 154, which is a certified copy of
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution TV listing.
It's commonly called the Tweek -- or TV Week, I'm sorry -- that is a
certified copy of that document which is contained on microfiche at the
Gwinnett -- the Lake Lanier Regional Library, and it has a certificate of
authenticity attached to it.
THE COURT: For what year?
MR. PORTER: For April the 11th
through the 15th of 1993.
THE COURT: Mr. Moore?
MS. ROGAN: We would stipulate
to its admission.
THE COURT: State's 154 is
admitted.
BY MR. PORTER:
Q. Now, Mr. Pierce, could
you flip through to that, particularly to the night of Thursday, April the
15th. And the pages are basically in
order, so you can use it just like you would.
Do you see the television listing for that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you look through
that television listing and identify is the movie you were watching that night
listed on that television listing?
A. Yes.
Q. And what channel was it
on?
A. It was on Cinemax.
Q. What time did it begin?
A. Eight p.m.
Q. And what time did it
end, according to the time slot?
A. Nine-thirty p.m.
Q. What was the name of
that movie, Mr. Pierce?
A. 'A Time to Die.'
Q. Do you recall what it
was about?
A. Yes. It was about some bad cops.
Q. And were there any
specific acts that these bad cops did that you remember?
A. It was just like a
crime spree where if somebody got in their way they would kill them.
Q. Thank you.
It is not surprising that Firefighter Pierce
could describe the movie so well since he was staring at the TV Guide that
Porter had just given him. If Firefighter Pierce had remarked that the film
starred underage porn queen Tracy Lord, his testimony would have had greater
impact. In an atmosphere of an audience where testosterone must have been
dripping from the ceiling, one of those viewers must have noticed. None of the
other firefighters remembered the film or its star, and Firefighter Pierce was
watching the same film as the rest of them:
[Stanley Wilson, Trial, Page 5596, Line 14]
By Prosecutor Porter:
Q. But you all were
watching a movie?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. And David Pierce was
there?
A. Yes.
I.
Blood Evidence Planted In Chapel’s Patrol Car
Emogene
Thompson’s missing purse was the alleged blood transfer agent from the victim’s
automobile to Chapel’s patrol car:
[Chapel Trial, Page 6291, Line 14]
By Prosecutor Porter
Q. So
do you have any plausible, reasonable explanation to give this jury of why
Emogene Thompson's blood was in your patrol car other than the fact that it
transferred from the purse that you took out of her car after you shot her?
A. I have no plausible reason why Emogene
Thompson's blood would be in my car, if it was, in fact, her blood.
The missing purse was accidentally
found buried in the woods
behind the victim’s trailer in 1996. When found it had no fingerprints or blood
evidence on it[11].
The
blood evidence was found in Chapel’s patrol car on April 29, 1993 by GCPD crime
scene technicians Mary Ann White and Nancy Jenkins acting under the orders of
Sgt. Cline. The technicians used the luminal presumptive blood testing
procedure. After removing Officer Chapel’s “pursuit pack” and various other
articles from the patrol car, they first sprayed the chemical on the front seat
area with the armrests in the up position where they found them and where
Chapel customarily kept them because they interfered with his access to his
pursuit pack and his operation of the patrol car MDT[12].
When no apparent bloodstains appeared, the technicians lowered the armrests and
repeated the tests.
[Mary Ann White, Trial, Page 4633, Line
20]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Okay. What was the position of the armrest there
before you started your test?
A. They
were up.
Q. And
had anybody moved those, to your knowledge, prior to you beginning your test?
A. I
don't know.
Q. Now,
when you did your Luminol test, did you do the underside first?
A. Yes.
Q. And
then you pulled them down to do the -- to spray the topside?
A. That's correct.
At
this point the bloodstain was found on the armrest[13],
and through various processes, made its way to the GBI Crime Lab where it was
found to be the blood of Emogene Thompson. It should be noted that the
bloodstain was almost at the extreme rear of the armrest, and the seat
backrests would have hindered access to the spot where the bloodstain was found[14].
It
is important to understand that the armrests in Chapel’s patrol car were always
kept in the “up” position. Chapel is about 6’ 6” in height, and, at that time,
weighed over 300 pounds with his police gear on. Not only did the armrests
interfere with his access to his pursuit pack and interfere with his operation
of the MDT, being right-handed, they interfered with his access to his weapon.
That those armrests had not been in the down position for some time was
apparent. Chapel had had his patrol car washed and the inside of the vehicle
vacuumed on April 16th, the day after the murder, and yet, when the
technicians lowered the armrests, some dust and other debris was loosened and
fell to the seats, and a clean area of the seat backrest covered by the armrest
was uncovered[15]. When in
the “up” position, this seems a highly difficult place for such an accidental
transfer.
[Mary Ann White, Trial, Page 4643, Line
23]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Ma'am,
could you maybe come down and show the jury, if you would, how the armrest was
when you started to do your test?
A. [Stepping
to the jury box] Both of these arms --
let me get --
Q. Sure.
THE COURT: Mr. Moore, you may want to move that podium.
MR. MOORE: Yeah. I'll move the
podium back here for you.
BY MR. MOORE:
A. [Continuing] Both of these armrests were up. This is how it attached to the driver's side
and they -- sorry -- they were both up when I began spraying, and then -- and
then I flipped them down when I did this.
Q. Okay. And all this debris and what appears to be dust,
dirt, and everything, is that the way it was when you found it?
A. No.
From
the night of April 23rd, when Chapel was arrested, to April 29th,
when the vehicle was tested for blood, Chapel’s patrol car sat in the open area
of the precinct parking lot, perhaps locked but definitely unsealed. It was
only after the testing was done on the 29th that the vehicle was
placed in secure storage.
[Mary Ann White, Trial, Page 4635, Line 4]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Now,
after you finished your test and everything, where was Unit 197 secured at?
A. In
the fenced area back behind headquarters.
Q. Do
you know why it wasn't placed in the fenced area prior to your test?
A. No,
I don't.
Q. Do
you have any knowledge as to who, if anybody, had been in the vehicle prior to
the time that you did your test?
A. No,
I don't.
Q. Does
the police department maintain extra sets of keys for the vehicles at the
police department?
A. I
believe they do.
Q. Okay. In the event somebody loses theirs or
something like that?
A. I
think the shop may have an extra set.
Q. Okay. Do you have a car issued to you?
A. No,
I don't.
Q. Do
you know whether or not when the cars are taken in for repairs and everything
that the people at the shop have an extra set of keys to all the cars?
A. They have access to a set.
Not
only did the maintenance shop have spare keys, Chapel was notorious for locking
his keys in his patrol car, and he kept several sets of keys stashed in various
places in the precinct. Actually most patrol officers kept several sets of keys
to their patrol cars just in case they locked themselves out, or lost the
primary set during a foot chase, or for any other of the myriad reasons their
keys could be lost or stolen. They simply did not want such an item included in
their records.
Finally,
from their association with criminals who opened automobiles for a living and
from long experience of helping many motorists who themselves had locked their
keys in their cars, opening the door of Chapel’s patrol car would have been
child’s play for any police officer or, for that matter, any criminal. Without
a proper seal and storage in a secure place, Chapel’s vehicle over those six
days was open to all kinds of foul play.
J.
Testimony About The Blood Spatter Evidence On Raincoat Was Perjured
The
circumstances surrounding the testimony of a member of the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation Crime Lab regarding alleged blood spatter on Officer Chapel’s
raincoat indicate that testimony was perjured. On the stand, Kelly Fite, a GBI
technician, claimed that he examined Chapel’s raincoat on July 7, 1993, and, at
that time, he saw blood spatter on the garment that he circled with a pen on
June 22, 1995, shortly before the trial, at the request of the Gwinnett County
District Attorney.
The
questions that must be answered are one: Did the spots that Fite circled on
June 22, 1995 exist on the raincoat on July 7, 1993? Two: if they existed, were
they blood of human origin on July 7, 1993? Three: were the spots added after
July 7, 1993 and before June 22, 1995? And four, if the spots were added after
June 22, 1995, when were they added and how did it happen?
At
trial Ms. Wilson, a GBI serologist, testified as to her qualifications.
[Jennifer Wilson, Trial, Page 4796, Line
14]
By Mr. Smeal
Q. What
is your occupation, Ms. Wilson?
A. I
am a forensic serologist, DNA analyst.
Q. Okay. And with whom are you a serologist?
A. I
work for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sciences,
also known as the state crime lab.
Q. How
long have you been so employed?
A. Approximately
six years.
Q. And
what are your duties as a forensic serologist and DNA analyst with the Georgia
state crime lab?
A. As
a serologist, I identify, classify, and individualize body fluids such as blood,
semen, and saliva and stains from those body fluids.
Q. Okay. What education, training, and experience
have you had in the area of forensic serology?
A. I
have a Bachelor of Science degree from Georgia State University in biology with
a minor in chemistry. I've also
successfully completed a one-year intensive training program in the field of
forensic serology at the crime lab, GBI crime lab. I've also successfully completed a course at the FBI academy in
Quantico, Virginia, in the field of forensic serology, and I've also just
recently completed a nine-month intensive training program in the field of
forensic DNA analysis. I am certified
by the American Board of Criminalists, and I'm also a member of the American
Academy of Forensic Scientists and the Southern Association of Forensic
Scientists.
Q. Ms.
Wilson, have you testified before in the courts in Georgia as a forensic
serologist?
A. Yes,
I have.
Q. Have
you been qualified as an expert in that area?
A. Yes,
I have.
Q. As
part of your duties at the state crime lab, are you trained to test for the
presence of blood in a stain which has been obtained from a crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. And
are you also trained to determine whether or not that blood is of human origin?
A. Yes,
I am.
Q. Approximately
how many times have you testified in court?
A. Approximately
fifty times.
MR. SMEAL: Your Honor, at this time, the state would be offering Jennifer
Wilson as an expert in the area of forensic serology.
THE COURT: Mr. Moore, do you wish to voir dire the witness?
MR. MOORE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court finds her qualified.
Go ahead, please.
Early
in her testimony at trial, Ms. Wilson described how she tested items for human
blood. She is testifying about the material from the car seat, but she indicated
that his was her general method of testing.
[Jennifer Wilson, Trial, Page 4805, Line
4]
By Prosecutor Smeal
Q. After
receiving State's 116, which is the car seat, Ms. Wilson, did you test that
item for the presence of blood?
A. Yes,
I did.
Q. And
would you explain to the jury how you did that?
A. Initially,
in many cases what I'll do is I'll look for a characteristic reddish-brown
stain. In this case, due to the color
of the material on the car seat, I did look for stains, but it was also -- my
intention was directed to these areas by one of the investigating
officers. And then what I do is when I
find a stain or questionable area, I'll take two cotton-tipped applicators,
that just looks like long Q-tips and I'll moisten those with saline solution. I'll get part of the stain off and I'll
conduct a chemical test which in the presence of blood will turn -- it's
actually two tests. And in the presence
of blood, I will get two significant color changes.
Q. Okay. Did the two tests that you ran, did they
have a name?
A. Yes. The first test, the chemical is called
tetramethylbenzadine, but we abbreviate that TMB, and the other one is
phenolphthalein, and do you need me to spell those?
Q. That's
okay.
A. Okay.
And that's generally what the tests are called. They're just named by the chemicals that we
use.
Later
in her testimony, she described the tests she did on Chapel’s raincoat on July 7, 1993.
[Jennifer Wilson, Trial, Page 4812, Line
14]
By Mr. Smeal
Q. What
tests did you run on the raincoat,
Ms. Wilson?
A. I
tested several stains for the presence of blood and also species origin.
Q. And
did you utilize the same tests that you have alluded to earlier?
A. Yes,
I did.
Q. And
based upon your education, training, and experience in forensic serology and
the use of those tests on that raincoat, did you arrive at an opinion as to
whether there was blood on the raincoat?
A. Yes,
I did.
Q. And
what was that opinion?
A. That
the stains that I tested revealed the presence of blood of human origin.
Q. If
you could, please, come down for one second, ma'am.
[The witness stepped down to the jury
box. Mr. Smeal positions raincoat on
the easel.]
[Jennifer Wilson, Trial Page 4812]
By Prosecutor Smeal
Q. Directing
your attention, Ms. Wilson, to the raincoat that you've just described, there
appear to be some markings on this raincoat.
Can you explain those to the jury, how those marks came to be and also
explain further the location of the blood that you concluded was on the
raincoat?
A. Some
of the markings, to my understanding, were made by Kelly Fite. The markings that I made were the ones done in blue ink there on the
front, on the right and the left side, and also on the left sleeve of the
jacket. And these are the areas that I
tested.
Q. Were
the tests that you have explained done with respect to each mark that's labeled
with a blue circle?
A. Yes.
Q. And
the test results that you've alluded to the presence of human blood, did you
arrive at that opinion with respect to each blue circle?
A. Yes,
I did.
During
cross-examination, Ms. Wilson described the location of the blood spots and
when she performed these tests.
[Jennifer Wilson, Trial, Page 4821, Line
21]
By Ms. Rogan
Q. If
you can come back on down, I have a couple of questions about this raincoat
here.
A. [Witness
complies]
Q. You've
pointed out for the jury, I believe, various other markings that you've made
with the blue magic marker --
A. Yes.
Q. --
when did you make those markings?
A. Excuse
me.
Q. That's
okay.
A. [Returning
to the stand] Those were made on July
7, 1993.
Q. Okay. And I see there are a couple of initials
here. Your initials are JSW?
A. [Stepping
down from the stand] Yes, they are.
Q. Okay. So you made markings up here near the neck?
A. Yes.
Q. Up
here on the left shoulder?
A. Yes.
Q. Over
here on the right chest area, sort of under the arm?
A. Yes.
Q. And
then right here in the front?
A. Yes.
Q. Right
here?
A. Yes.
Q. Underneath
a button area and here on the left sleeve?
A. Yes.
Q. Another
one on the left sleeve?
A. Yes,
I had two.
Officer
Chapel’s raincoat after examination and testing by Jennifer Wilson on July 7,
1993 contained only the ten or so spots of blood of human origin and were so
marked by blue marking pen with circles[16].
There is no testimony about the testing of similar spots on the raincoat that
on testing proved to be not blood of human origin.
Mr.
Miller was the defense investigator for attorneys Walt Britt and then the team
of Johnny Moore and Elizabeth Rogan. Chapel’s raincoat was contaminated with
Emogene Thompson’s blood a few months before trial. This issue was touched on
briefly by Dennis Miller at the hearing for a new trial.
[Dennis Miller, New Trial, Page 47, Line
8]
By Mr. Mott
Now, the thing about the raincoat was
that with myself, Mr. Moore, Ms. Rogan, and Rees [sic] Smith, and two GBI
forensics people, the raincoat was contaminated the day that we went over to
the GBI to review the – and look at the evidence. It was contaminated with the
victim’s blood.
In
a memo to file regarding this incident, Mr. Miller described the incident in
detail.
MEMO TO: FILE NO: 10-40143
FROM: D. MILLER
SUBJECT: GBI CRIME LAB -
MICHAEL CHAPEL
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
On March 15, 1995, I met Attorneys Johnny Moore, Elizabeth
Rogan and Reece Smith at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab on
Panthersville Road in Decatur, Georgia, for the purpose of reviewing and
photographing evidence in the Chapel case. Present, on behalf of the GBI, were
Forensic Serologist JenniferWilson and C. Keith Goff.
We viewed each article
of evidence in numeric order, those numerals assigned on the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation Division of Forensic Sciences Official Report, number 1 through
26. We viewed these items in numerical order beginning at one. Item number 6 was a brown paper bag secured
with staples labeled 93G-0195, Emogene Bertha Thompson clothing. Mr. Goff
carefully removed the staples and opened the brown paper bag, revealing
clothing worn by the victim. Mr. Goff
removed a bra, panties, sweater, pants and jacket. As he removed each item, he carefully layed them on the
conference table to allow me to photograph each item
individually. As he removed the sweater from the paper bag and layed it on the
table, the sweater was caked in blood, which had dried. As Mr. Goff uncrumbled
the sweater, flakes and pieces of the victim’s blood fell off the sweater and
on to the conference table[17].
After photographing all of the victim's clothing, Mr. Goff moved on to the
other items of evidence. After viewing Items
7 through 17, some of which were placed on the conference table to be
photographed, Item number 18, a brown paper bag sealed with tape containing one
rain jacket was presented. Mr. Goff carefully cut opened the paper bag and
removed a yellow rain jacket with several circles drawn in what appeared to be
a blue marker indicating areas within the circles as areas which tested
positive for human blood. Mr. Goff then spread this jacket out on the
conference table to allow me to photograph it.
It should be noted that
no efforts were made to clean or remove the particles of dried blood identified
as belonging to the victim that had fallen onto the conference table before
this rain jacket was placed on the table.
This was witnessed by myself,
Johnny Moore, Elizabeth Rogan, Reece Smith, C. Keith Goff and Jennifer Wilson.
During the displaying of this rain jacket, Ms. Wilson commented that the jacket
has been maintained in a freezer to preserve the blood evidence; however, the
only testing done on the blood evidence has been to determine that it is of
human origin. Ms. Wilson did not comment and it is unknown whether or not
additional tests are intended for this rain jacket; however, note should be
made that the jacket was contaminated with samples of the victim's blood on
this date[18].
Mr.
Smith was present when the Chapel’s raincoat was contaminated at the GBI Lab[19].
4. Johnny
Moore
Mr.
Moore was present when the Chapel’s raincoat was contaminated at the GBI Lab[20].
Ms
Rogan was present when the Chapel’s raincoat was contaminated at the GBI Lab[21].
Keith
Goff, a GBI forensic scientist, was present at the GBI Lab when the raincoat contamination
incident took place. At trial, he was asked about the incident.
[Keith Goff, Trial, Page 5268, Line 1]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Do
you recall taking out Ms. Thompson's clothing and everything and displaying it
on a conference room table there?
A. Yes,
sir, I believe I do.
Q. Okay. And it was laid out on a conference room
table?
A. Yes,
sir, I think so.
Q. Was
anybody wearing gloves or anything?
A. To
the best of my knowledge, I don't think we were, but I'm not absolutely
certain.
Q. So
everybody was handling these -- you remember people handling these materials
that had blood on them without gloves?
A. I
believe that's correct.
Q. Now,
after Ms. Thompson's clothing was laid out, do you recall laying that raincoat,
State's Exhibit Number 129, on that conference room table?
A. I
recall laying it out. I don't remember
what order it was in, but I do recall laying it out.
Q. Okay. And do you recall that when Ms. Thompson's
clothing was laid out that there were little bits of dried blood flaking off
all over the table?
A. There
may have been.
Q. Is
it likely it would have been?
A. It's
very possible there could be some.
Q. Mr.
Goff, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Number 95
and ask you if you recognize that?
A. It's
a photograph. It appears to be of a
shirt with blood stains on it.
Q. Is
that the one Ms. Thompson had or can you tell?
A. Do
you remember what our item number was?
Q. I'm
not sure if I know the item number or not.
A. Okay.
Q. Number
six, I believe, on your lab report.
A. I
can't say absolutely for certain this is her clothing because I don't remember
independently, but it appears to be.
Q. Okay. Can you see anything on the table there
beside the clothing, any flakes of dried blood or anything?
A. There
are some reddish-brown flakes that could be some dried blood there on the
table.
Q. Okay. And given the fact that a bunch of bloody
clothing was -- dried clothing, was laid out there, it's likely there would be
flakes of dried blood, isn't it?
A. Yes,
sir, it is.
Q. And
the raincoat, 129, State's 129, was taken out and laid on that table there?
A. Yes,
sir, I believe it was.
Q. It
was taken out of a freezer where it was being stored; is that correct?
A. I'm
not sure it was in a freezer. I think
it was in a refrigerator.
Q. Okay. If Ms. Wilson testified that it was a
freezer, would you defer to her testimony?
A. Yes,
sir, I would, because she had possession of it most of the time.
Q. Okay. And the jury will remember what she
testified to, of course. Now, that was
taken out of the freezer and laid on those dried blood flecks of Ms. Thompson
there on that table. Do you --
A. It
could have been. If there were flakes
on the table, it could have laid on some of them.
Q. The
raincoat wasn't the first thing we looked at, was it?
A. I
can't recall independently exactly which order we went in, so I'm not sure, you
know, which items we looked at and what order they were in.
Q. Now,
at that time, that raincoat was still being held for possible testing, wasn't
it?
A. Yes,
sir, it was.
Q. And
that's the reason it was being either refrigerated or frozen?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
if there was any moisture still left in that coat when it was taken out of the
freezer or storage and you lay it on that table, it could pick up blood from
Ms. Thompson on it, couldn't it?
A. If there was a sufficient amount of
moisture on it and if the flake was small enough, it might pick up a very small
amount, but that's not too likely.
Mr. Goff says that if there were a sufficient
amount of moisture on the raincoat, and if the flake were small enough, it
might pick up a very small amount. If we remember Dr. Frick’s excellent
instructive testimony, a very small amount would be just the kind of stain that
would mimic high velocity blood spatter. The question is though, where would
the raincoat pick up any moisture so that when it was taken from the freezer
and warmed on the conference table, it could hydrate these tiny blood flecks?
The answer to the question again
comes from Jennifer Wilson. In her description of her testing method, after
identifying the small reddish-brown spots, she described the second part of her
test was to “take two
cotton-tipped applicators, that just looks like long Q-tips and I'll moisten
those with saline solution. “I'll get part of the stain off and I'll conduct a
chemical test which in the presence of blood will turn -- it's actually two
tests. And in the presence of blood, I
will get two significant color changes.”
We
know that Jennifer Wilson successfully identified ten or more human blood
stains on the raincoat. We don’t know how many bloodstains she tested that were
not human, and we don’t know how many stains she tested that were not blood. If
Ms. Wilson did not thoroughly dry the garment, the moisture from the saline
solution would go right back into the freezer with the tested garment.
7.
Kelly Fite [See Below for date of Fite’s Observation. It’s the same as the date
Jennifer Wilson originally tested the raincoat for human blood.].]
On
August 24, 1995, two days after the jury was seated in the Chapel murder trial
Kelly Fite of the Georgia GBI Crime Lab produced a blood spatter report on the
Chapel’s raincoat. In his testimony concerning this report, Fite states without
equivocation that he first observed the blood spatter on July 7, 1993. He
further stated that in May 1995 he circled spots referred to above by Jennifer
Wilson on the raincoat that he identified as human blood.
At
trial, the State put Mr. Fite forward as a blood spatter witness.
[Kelly Fite, Trial, Page 4850, Line 3,
Jury not present]
By Mr. Moore
Q. I
couldn't remember if you were a doctor or not.
A. No.
Q. Okay. Mr. Fite, what experience do you have in
being able to tell human blood as opposed to animal blood or any other kind of
blood?
A. None.
Q. Okay. And when you go to a crime scene where
you've examined these blood spatters in the past, generally you have a body
there and you have blood spatter nearby; is that correct?
A. That's
correct.
Q. So
you know that the blood likely came from the body that's there nearby?
A. That's
correct.
Q. When
you're presented with a piece of evidence that you don't have any way of
knowing whether it's connected with that particular crime scene or not, do you
have any way of determining if what appears to be blood on it is human or
animal?
A. I
don't do the blood typing or determine if it's human, but I have people that do
that.
Q. But
the only time you'd know if it is human would be if they had tested it; is that
correct?
A. That's
correct, sir.
Q. Okay. And any opinion you gave as to blood
spatters, you couldn't say whether it was human or not unless it had been
tested?
A. That's
correct.
The
Court qualified Mr. Fite as a blood spatter expert but not as an expert in
forensic serology, and allowed him to testify about spots on the raincoat.
[Kelly Fite, Trial, Page 4873, Line 12]
By Mr. Moore
Q. Mr.
Fite, did you have occasion to examine State's Exhibit 129, which is displayed
on this -- displayed before you at this
time? Would you come down here and look
at it, please?
A. [Witness
steps down from the stand] Yes, I did.
Q. Are
the markings on this right area of the coat, on the right sleeve, are those
markings that you've made on this jacket?
A. Yes.
Q. And
those markings appear to be identifying small specks on the coat?
A. Small,
reddish-brown stains.
Q. Okay. And did you examine this coat for the
purpose of determining whether there was high velocity blood spatter on this
coat?
A. Yes.
Q. And
with respect to the blue marks, they were not placed there by yourself; is that
correct?
A. That's
correct.
Q. Did
you examine this coat to determine whether the specks on the right side of the
coat and on the right sleeve appear to be consistent with marks which have been
circled in blue?
A. Some
of the marks in blue are in the center of this high velocity spatter pattern.
Q. Okay. And did you regard that as being important
in making your determination to whether there was high velocity blood spatter
on that coat?
A. I
thought that they were part of the pattern and that's how I made my
determination.
Q. All
right. Assuming, Mr. Fite, that there
has been testimony that the blue circled specks are blood of human origin, in
light of your background and experience and examination of the remainder of the
markings on the coat, are you able to render an opinion as to whether there is
high velocity blood spatter on that raincoat?
A. The areas that I identified or the small
reddish-brown stains which are identical in color to the circled areas, they're
in a pattern which is indicative of high velocity blood spatter.
In Redirect examination, Mr. Fite explained his
activities regarding the raincoat.
[Kelly Fite, Trial Page 4873]
By Mr. Smeal
Q. Mr.
Fite, did I hear you correctly? Did you
say that you first reported the high velocity blood spatter in a crime lab
report in August of 1995?
A. No
-- yes, I think that's right.
Q. I'm
showing you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit D-80. I would direct your attention to page 6.
A. Okay. June 22.
Okay.
Q. Okay. So you reported high velocity blood spatter
in June of 1995; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All
right. And that was when you put that
information in the crime lab report; is that correct?
A. That's
correct.
Q. Okay. When did you actually do the examination and
reach the conclusion that it was high velocity blood spatter?
A. I
reached the conclusion on the 7th of July of 1993,
when I saw the raincoat to start with.
I knew what it was.
Q. All
right. And did --
A. I
didn't -- I didn't go back and mark the spots until May of 1995.
Q. And
your conclusion in July of 1993, did you convey that information to Investigator
Jack Burnette?
A. I
did.
Q. And
did you memorialize your finding as to high velocity blood spatter in the crime
lab report in response to a request by the Gwinnett County district attorney's
office?
A. I did.
Mr. Fite testified that
he first saw the raincoat on July 7th, 1993 and reached the
conclusion that the spots that he later identified and marked in May of 1995 as
high velocity blood spatter. It is more than interesting that Mr. Fite claims
to have seen the raincoat and identified the spots as blood spatter on the very
same day that Jennifer Wilson tested the raincoat for human blood and made her
marks on the raincoat. If Kelly Fite saw the little brownish-red spots that he
later marked, certainly Jennifer Wilson, a trained serologist, must also have
seen them. Who was right? Did Jennifer Wilson miss all of those spots that
Kelly Fite marked as high velocity blood spatter in August of 1995? This seems
unlikely. Remember how Ms. Wilson made her tests. First she looks for
“characteristic reddish-brown stains”. Mr. Fite says that he too saw all of the
“reddish-brown” stains that he identified as consistent with those marked by
Ms. Wilson. Were the reddish-brown stains that Mr. Fite found a different
reddish-brown than those Ms. Wilson found on the same day? Unlikely.
Ms. Wilson identified blood spots in
the unlikeliest places on the coat. She found
and marked blood stains on the tip of the left sleeve, and on the back
of the left sleeve, and underneath the button flap. The only conclusion that can
be drawn is that the reddish-brown stains that Mr. Fite identified in August of
1995[22]
were not there on July 7th, 1993, and Mr. Fite perjured himself in
his testimony, and that at the request of the District Attorney of Gwinnett
County.
K.
The Pattern Of New Evidence Discovery By The Prosecution
There
was a pattern of discovery of new evidence against Officer Chapel each time
that the case against him faltered right up to the eve of his trial places such
evidence in question.
1.
After the Firefighters Give Chapel An Alibi
After
the firefighters gave statements that Chapel had not left the Fire 14 until 10
PM or later on 4/27/93, blood evidence was found in his patrol car on 4/29/93.
As an added incentive to plant blood in Chapel’s patrol car, it should be noted
that the preliminary hearing in Chapel’s case was the next day, 4/30/93.
2.
When The Prosecution Needs To Account For More Of The Stolen Money
When
the Prosecution could not account for several thousand dollars of the
supposedly stolen money by Officer Chapel, the manager of a male dancer troupe,
Kendon Curtis, came forward in January 1995, almost two years after the crime,
to give evidence that he saw Chapel’s wife Eren in possession of $3000.00 after
the murder[23].
3.
WhenThe Prosecution Needs More Evidence to ensure a conviction
On
the eve of the trial Kelly Fite, an analyst for the GBI Crime Lab, was
requested to and performed a blood spatter analysis on Chapel’s raincoat that
had been contaminated with the blood of the victim at the GBI laboratory a few
months before[24].
A
critical item of evidence, the crime scene photograph showing high velocity
blood spatter on the front windshield of the victim’s car was successfully kept
from the jury by the prosecutors and police by having Officer Ed Byers
misidentify that photograph to the jury and then by avoiding publishing the
photograph to the jury[25].
Another
critical item of evidence, the crime scene photograph showing blood on the
inside of victim’s passenger side front door was misidentified by Technician
Graham as a photograph of the driver’s side door[26].
This was an attempt to display blood back-spatter to support the prosecution’s
claim that the first shot was fired from outside the victim’s car. [For a more complete description of these misidentifications
see the discussion of Technician Graham’s testimony in Chapter 14.]
Because there was absolutely no blood of any kind on the driver’s door, these
misidentifications were necessary for the prosecution to set up Kelly Fite’s suborned and perjured
testimony regarding the supposed blood spatter on Chapel’s Raincoat.
That
portion of the flat tire on the victim’s automobile that contained the knife
cut was later completely altered by cutting away a part of tire[27].
In doing so without documenting the size of the cut on the inside of the tire,
there was no way to determine whether the leak in the tire was such that the
car could have been driven for any distance before it became undrivable. At
trial, Technician Judy Graham indicated that the cut on the inside of the tire
was much smaller and could have been as small a pinprick.
[Judy Graham, Trial, Page 3255, Line 21]
By Prosecutor Smeal
[State's Exhibit Number 24 was marked for
identification by the court reporter.]
BY MR. SMEAL:
Q. Ms.
Graham, if you could perhaps just step down here and I'd ask you to take a look
at what's been previously been marked as State's Exhibit 24. Can you identify that item?
A. [The
witness stepped down] Yes, sir. This appears to be the same tire that we
took off the car and sent to the crime lab.
Q. Is
that your packaging material that the tire is in at this point?
A. No,
ours -- we use brown kraft paper. This
was put on by the crime lab when they sent it back.
Q. Was
there -- there appears to be a rather large hole in the tire at this
point. Was that in the tire when you
packaged it up between the 16th and the 19th of April 1993?
A. Not
that hole. There was a hole, but it was
more like a cut, not anything like that.
You couldn't see air through it.
Q. Okay. With the exception of that alteration, the
large hole, does that tire appear to be in the same condition today as it was
back in April 1993, when you packaged it?
A. Yes,
it does.
[The
witness returned to the stand.]
The
cut to the tire was made prior to the victim leaving her home for work with her
killers as passengers[28].
This becomes important in that it allowed the victim to leave the area of her
home, but it also insured that the killers would have an opportunity for the
murder prior to the victim reaching the Norcross area where she worked.
[1] Attached as Document Exhibit 6-05, Korczak-Acosta Interview with Latty-Smith
[12] Mobile Display Terminal – The Patrol Car’s Computer
[19] See Document Exhibit 6-02, Declaration of Rees R. Smith
[23] See Document Exhibit 5-08, Declaration of Eren Chapel
[24] See Ground 6, J “Testimony About The Blood Spatter Evidence Was Perjured”
[25] See Ground 14, B “The Prosecution Hides A Critical Photograph From The Jury”
[26] See Ground 14, C “Crime Scene Technician Judy Graham Misidentifies A Photograph”
[28] See Ground 5, B “Autopsy And Crime Scene Reports Prove Shots Fired From Inside Victim’s Car”
