NBC DATELINE THE THIN BLUE LINE
Could jurors find the truth in a trial that could end
in the electric chair?[1]
In its portrayal of the 1995 trial of
Gwinnett County Police Officer Michael Chapel for the murder of Emogene
Thompson in the telecast of “The Thin
Blue Line”, NBC DATELINE displayed an incredible naiveté in their dealings with
District Attorney Danny Porter and the Gwinnett County police department.
Without questioning the authenticity of
any of the materials provided by these organizations DATELINE included much
evidence that in some cases after only cursory investigation would prove to be
at best described as misleading and at worst altered or otherwise constructed
to obtain the criminal conviction of the Defendant Chapel.
DATELINE does not claim to be investigative reporting, and, even more importantly, the skill and cunning of the bogus case that Gwinnett County constructed against Michael Chapel in the two-and-one-half years between the murder of Emogene Thompson and his trial for that murder was such that even now, fifteen years after the murder and thirteen years after the trial, the truth in the case is extremely difficult to comprehend. Nevertheless, as a news organization and a reputable broadcaster and part of the national information media, NBC has an obligation to exercise a measure of due diligence in portrayals, particularly in news events as important as murder trials. The question then is: “Did DATELINE exercise sufficient due diligence before broadcasting ‘The Thin Blue Line?’”
A few representative examples showing lack of due diligence are presented here – there are many, many more. Photo number 1 is an enhanced photographic lineup given DATELINE which is not the original shown to witnesses. Photo number 2 is a photograph given DATELINE that purported to be that of the right sleeve of Chapel’s raincoat but in reality was a manipulation of that garment. Photo number 3 is an altered picture of Mrs. Thompson in her automobile with no bloodstains visible in the photograph and is reminiscent of the Sherlock Holmes’ famous “Dog That Did Not Bark”. Photos numbers 4 and 5 are crime scene photographs altered in such a way as to attempt to hide the real trajectory of the bullet fired from the back seat of Mrs. Thompson’s vehicle. Finally Photos 6 AND 7 show an attempt by the prosecution to validate their theory implicating Officer Chapel that the bullets were fired from outside of Mrs. Thompson’s vehicle through the driver’s window by establishing bloodspots on the passenger door as blood backspatter on the driver’s door and hiding the blood backspatter on the real driver’s door.
1. DANNY PORTER GIVES
DATELINE A FRAUDULENT PHOTOLINEUP
PHOTO LINEUP SHOWN TO WITNESSES
|
Remarks |
|
|
In both photographic lineups, Officer Michael Chapel is the third from the left in the top row. Notice in the lineup shown to witnesses that the image in the Chapel photograph is about one and one-half times as large as the other images in the lineup. In addition the photographs of the other officers were taken direct on so there was no shadow. The photo of Chapel was taken at an angle to cast a shadow to differentiate the image and to partially hide the left side of his face. |
PHOTO LINEUP SHOWN ON DATELINE
|
Remarks (Continued) |
|
|
The left side of the face was important since it was the only portion of the officer visible to the only eyewitness Karl Kautter. Kautter saw a police officer in left profile as a police cruiser briefly passed the automobile in which he was a passenger on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard on the night of the murder of Emogene Thompson. Notice too that even in the DATELINE photograph of Chapel the shadow is still in the photograph. |
2.
ANOTHER FRAUDULENT PHOTOGRAPH GIVEN DATELINE
HOW TO MAKE A SLEEVE
RAINCOAT SHOWING MARKS ON FRONT
|
Remarks |
|
|
Georgia State Crime Lib Serologist Jennifer Wilson Tested Chapel’s raincoat for human blood on May 7, 1993. She found and circled nine (9) bloodstains that were imperceptible to the naked eye. Three (3) on the left side; one (1) near the collar; one (1) under the right armpit toward the rear; one (1) on the left shoulder; one (1) under the 4th snap; and two (2) at the bottom of the left sleeve.
|
RAINCOAT FOLDED TO APPEAR AS RIGHT
SLEEVE SHOWN ON DATELINE
|
Remarks continued |
|
|
Mrs. Wilson found no other bloodstains on the right sleeve or anywhere else on the garment. The raincoat shown in the photo on the left was folded and photographed in such a way as to appear as the right sleeve. DATELINE bought this trickery and presented it on its program as the right sleeve of Chapel’s raincoat. The DATELINE commentary as this fraudulent photo was shown was that “the blood was mostly on the right sleeve.” |
3. ANOTHER
FRAUDULENT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN BY DATELINE
“THE DOG
THAT DID NOT BARK”
EMOGENE IN THE DRIVERS SEAT ON
DATELINE
|
Remarks |
|
|
This photograph was prominently displayed toward the beginning of the DATELINE telecast. It shows the body of Emogene Thompson in the driver’s seat of her automobile. The red hue in the photograph has been almost completely removed and thus no blood is displayed on her clothing or on any surface of her automobile. Note the very dark red of the color of her windbreaker and that her face and much of the automobile is in darkness caused by the hue desaturation. |
PHOTO WITH RED HUE PARTIALLY RESTORED
|
Remarks continued |
|
|
Here is the same photograph with the red color partially restored. The author is not expert in the area of photograph alteration, and this is the best he can do to restore the color in the photograph. Note the collar of her windbreaker that is a very bright red. This is the guide used in the color restoration. See the below pictures for a close-up of the automobile driver’s window and exterior from an externally taken photograph. What makes this photograph so questionable is the complete lack of any blood after two shots to the head in the photo given DATELINE. |
4.
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 13
THE BLOOD
THAT DISAPPEARED
THE REAL
BULLET TRAJECTORY (PART 1)
THOMPSON AUTO BEFORE COLOR
RESTORATION
|
Remarks |
|
|
This is the photograph of the Thompson vehicle found in the defense files. Note the yellow tape at the bottom of the photo. The first officer on the scene placed yellow police tape only around the vehicle using pylons borrowed from the muffler shop. The post storm wind that morning blew over the pylons, and the tape began to pick up red stains from a blood trail running from the trunk around the car to the passenger door. Note the lack of direct sunlight. |
PHOTO WITH COLOR RESTORED AND
ARROWS TO ATTEMPTED ALTERATIONS
|
Remarks continued |
|
|
The photograph was taken with a Polaroid camera. The colors were brought out using only brightness and contrast. The post storm wind whipped the yellow tape and the bloodstains smeared the car body. Primitive attempts were made to cover the stains. The arrows point out these out. Below is a close-up of the driver’s window and interior.
|
5.
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 12
HOW TO
CREATE DIRECT SUNLIGHT SUNLIGHT
THE REAL
BULLET TRAJECTORY (PART 2)
EXHIBIT 12 AS PROVIDED BY DANNY
PORTER AND SHOWN ON DATELINE
|
Remarks |
|
|
This photograph of Mrs. Thompson provided to DATELINE was cleverly distorted with some light source to hide the high velocity blood spatter on the windshield of the vehicle. The same photograph was found in the defense files and is shown in contrast below. The photograph was taken at the crime scene through the windshield of the vehicle. |
EXHIBIT 12 FOUND IN DEFENSE FILES
|
Remarks continued |
|
|
The blood spatter seen in the photograph that appears to be on the clothing, hair, upholstery and dashboard of the vehicle in reality is high velocity blood spatter on the passenger side windshield of her car. An enlargement of this photograph shows this clearly. This would indicate that the gunshot creating that high velocity spatter was from the rear seat of the vehicle rather from the driver side window. Together with the photograph in 5. above Prosecution Exhibit 12, the real trajectory of Shot #2 can be established.
|
6.
PROSECUTION EXHIBITS 17 AND 18
ESTBLISHING
AN IMAGINARY BULLET TRAJECTORY
SHOWING
THE JURY PHONY BLOOD BACKSPATTER
|
|
Except from Certified Trial Transcript [Judy Graham, Trial, Page 3243, Line 22, by Prosecutor Smeal] Q. I'm handing you what's been previously marked as State's
Exhibit 17. Can you identify that photograph, please? A. Yes,
sir. This is a photograph of the
driver's side door from the inside -- the inside of the driver's side
door. The door was open. Q. And what do those
marks appear to be on that door? A. These appear to be
blood spatter and maybe also some flesh up here in the corner. Q. Does that fairly and
accurately depict how that door appeared to you that day? A. Yes. Q. I'm handing you
what's been previously been marked as State's Exhibit
18. Can you identify that
photograph, please? A. Yes. This is another picture of the same door. Q. I'm
sorry. Which door is that? A. This is
the driver's side door. Q. Okay. And does that fairly and accurately depict
how the driver's side door appeared to you that day? A. Yes. Prosecutor Smeal, Trial, Page 3248, Line
8]
MR. SMEAL: The next
photograph is State's
Exhibit 17. [[Presenting to the jury] JUROR:
Passenger side door? MR. SMEAL:
This was identified as the passenger side door. THE COURT: You're just
stating the Exhibit Number, Mr. Smeal. MR. SMEAL: That was State's Exhibit 17. The next photograph is State's
Exhibit 18 Excerpt
from Trial Transcript Exhibit Index S-17 Photograph, Vehicle, Inside Driver's
Side Door 3247 S-18 Photograph, Vehicle, Driver's Side
Door 3247 |
7. THE
PROSECUTION SUPPORTS EXHIBITS 17 AND 18 BY
ESTBLISHING
AN IMAGINARY BULLET TRAJECTORY
BY HIDING THE REAL BLOOD BACKSPATTER
DRIVER’S DOOR FOUND IN DEFENSE
FILES
|
Remarks |
|
|
To support the Prosecution’s attempt to establish Exhibits 17 and 18 as photographs of blood backspatter on what was really the passenger door, it was necessary to remove the actual blood backspatter on the real photograph of the driver’s door. The police or prosecutors or both simply removed all color from the photograph using the hue desaturation tool. Then to establish the photo as a color picture, blue color was added just under the windows and by the door handles. Note that the desaturation was not completely successful, leaving a pinkish tinge on the lower right of the door. |
DRIVER’S DOOR AFTER PARTIAL COLOR
RETRIEVAL
|
Remarks continued |
|
|
The author, who is not highly skilled in photographic color techniques, was able to recover traces of the real blood backspatter on the real driver’s door in some measure by simply reversing the hue desaturation. The viewer should remember that these pictures are not the actual photographs produced from negatives, but only photocopies of them. It is surprising then that there was any success in color retrieval working with these pictures. However, imperfect as it is, it is clear that the substances are blood and the spots on the window and elsewhere clearly describe high velocity blood spatter.
|
