[IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
)
Michael H. Chapel )
Petitioner, Pro se )
)
v. ) Case No. 93-B-01818-6
)
State of Georgia )
Respondent )
________________________________
__________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF ALTERNATE JUROR
PHILIP R. SULLIVAN
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S
EXTRAORDINARY MOTION
______________________________________________________________________________
Comes now Philip R. Sullivan, Affiant and Alternate Juror at the trial in August and September of 1995 of Michael H. Chapel for the murder and robbery on or about April 15, 1993 of Emogene Thompson of Sugar Hill Georgia and begs consideration of this, his declaration and statement of facts involving matters of which he has knowledge, which now he presents to this Honorable Court.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The subject trial of Michael H. Chapel began on August 2, 1995 with preliminary matters including the selection of a jury. Affiant was the last (eighteenth) juror selected with the last 6 being selected as alternates, a fact kept from the jurors until the case was given to the jury. On August 22, 1995, the trial before the jury began with opening statements. On September 5, 1995, the case was given to the jury, and on September 8, 1995 they returned verdicts of guilty on all counts. On September 10, 1995, Defendant Michael H. Chapel was sentenced to two life terms plus five (5) years. As a matter of record, not knowing the Georgia or Gwinnett County protocols, Affiant did not learn of his alternate status until the case was given to the jury; he had stated his wishes not to serve as a juror in no uncertain terms at voir dire, and, when left off the deliberating panel, he was further disappointed.
After carefully listening to weeks of testimony and considering all other evidence presented, Affiant was astonished at the jury’s guilty verdict. At that time, Affiant did not believe the State had proved its case; however this perspective was to change.
Affiant watched the ineffective attempts to rectify this miscarriage of justice for several years until the professionals walked away and left Michael Chapel, as District Attorney Danny Porter so colorfully put it in the media, “swinging in the wind”.
In January of 2000 Affiant, now retired, determined to assist Michael Chapel in his struggle to exonerate himself in any legal and honorable way possible. His not inconsiderable skills from education and especially experience in the areas of research and analysis[1] over a long and varied career in both the public and private sectors have since provided him an intimate, almost encyclopedic knowledge of this case from its pre-trial beginning to the present.
SOURCES
Affiant avers that all of the information put forth in this affidavit are drawn exclusively from the existing trial record and from documentary evidence that, in all but a few instances, was provided to the Defense and/or to the media by the Gwinnett County Police Department and/or the Office of the Gwinnett County District Attorney.
IMPACT ON JURY OF ISSUES CITED IN PETITIONER’S MOTION
Petitioner, Michael Chapel, comes before
this Court with an extraordinary motion consisting of two parts, only one of
which can be commented on by Affiant in an attempt to relate the effect upon
the jurors of the issue: PART ONE, DNA testing of the Petitioner’s raincoat.
The Petitioner’s raincoat was not tested for
Emogene Thompson’s, DNA at the time of his arrest in April 1993 nor at any
point up to and including the time of his trial in August and September 1995.
At trial, this failure to test was attributed to the opinions expressed by the
then best perceived authorities available to the State, the experts at the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation Crime Laboratory.
In testimony during the Petitioner’s trial, it was made clear the combined opinion of GBI DNA Expert Keith Goff and the Director of the Crime Lab George Herrin, himself a DNA expert, was that if the existing technology were applied to the microscopic bloodspots on the Petitioner’s raincoat, it would probably fail to produce a result.
Again, in testimony, both Dr. Herrin and Mr. Goff testified to a recent pre-trial meeting between them and Assistant District Attorney Scott Smeal and Defense Attorney Johnny Moore where this was discussed and a decision not to test the raincoat was made not to test the raincoat for DNA was made at that time. It is the opinion of the Petitioner today’s PCR technology has well overcome any difficulties that may have contributed to the “no test” decision of 1995, and he has become aware the State of Georgia has provided a remedy to which he is entitled to test the raincoat for the Victim’s DNA.
It was the sense of the jury DNA that testing of the Petitioner’s raincoat would provide undeniable proof of the guilt or innocence of Michael Chapel; that the presence of the victim’s DNA in blood in Chapel’s police unit or upon his raincoat alone could possibly be explained, but that the presence of Emogene Thompson’s blood DNA in both of these placed could no longer be considered mere coincidence, and, without convincing explanation, such a condition would thus bring closure to the question of Michael Chapel’s guilt or innocence, and a verdict could be quickly agreed upon.
Affiant comes to this conclusion based upon several events and conditions. Regardless of the prohibition on the discussion of the case among the jurors, there are always slips by one or another, and such slips concerning the possibility of the victim’s DNA being both in his unit and on his raincoat brought forth several such slips. There was never any argument about this possibility; only body language that expressed frustration that such an easy but out of reach solution to the problem of guilt or innocence, head nods and shoulder shrugs before the subject could be quickly changed.
In a jury, particularly one that is sequestered as ours was, there are always rumors; and there were a number of rumors regarding the testing of DNA on the Defendant’s raincoat. One that Affiant particularly remembers is that District Attorney Danny Porter had been overheard by one of the jurors to remark that the only way the raincoat could be tested successfully was to cut it up into little pieces, and that he, Mr. Porter, was unwilling to do that.
Even if the raincoat could not be tested for DNA, could at least the blood spots on Chapel’s raincoat at least have been tested for blood type? If the blood type of those stains on the raincoat had been that of Mrs. Thompson, although certainly not as definitive as a DNA match, this would have an offer by the Prosecution of some kind of relationship between the blood found in the Defendant’s police unit and the bloodstains on his raincoat. The jurors waited for this question at least to be answered, but during the entire trial, there was never any mention of the blood type of anyone related in any way to the victim or her murder.
During Mr. Chapel’s trial there were several contentions that the Defendant was being railroaded; sacrificed as a Judas Goat to drag the public’s attention from the corruption problems then widespread and eventually investigated in the Gwinnett County Police Department. Regardless of the truth of such contentions, once expressed they always remained in the back of each juror’s mind causing every happening in the trial to pass through that filter. The fact that there was so little discussion regarding the non-testing of the microscopic bloodstains on the Petitioner’s raincoat, including no discussion at all of utilizing outside resources, lent more than a little credence to the possibility of conspiracy among the authorities responsible for insuring Mr. Chapel a fair trial.
On March 11, 1997,
Dateline[2] NBC
devoted its entire hour segment to the Chapel trial, “The Thin Blue Line[3]”.
The final portion of that broadcast consisted of an interview with six jurors,
half of the deliberating jurors, and different jurors in that group
remarked on both the absence of DNA testing of the raincoat, indicating its
value to the jurors, and the possibility of a Gwinnett County conspiracy
involved in the arrest, investigation and trial of Michael Chapel.
At a party a few months
after the trial, more a social get-together after the trial that included most
the juror’s not in the Dateline segment, some jurors described
Chapel’s attitude as seeming arrogant. As proof, they described his shiny
“cowboy” boots (the boots were Chapel’s
only dress footwear); and his habit of turning around occasionally and talking
to a gentleman in the first row behind the Defense table (the jurors were
unaware that the gentleman Chapel was addressing was Defense Investigator
Dennis Miller.) The court should have made clear to the jury that the front row
of spectator seats are reserved for the Prosecution and Defense investigators.
These jurors, now free to
discuss the case, were also clearly concerned about the DNA and conspiracy
issues. As Affiant discussed the trial with these jurors, it suddenly occurred
to all that what was remembered from testimony was not the testimony itself but
what District Attorney Danny Porter had told us what the testimony was going to
be in his opening statement and what he told us the testimony was in his
closing statement – and there was no difference, regardless of what the
witnesses had said in their testimony.
An example of this was the
amount of time the Eyewitness, Karl Kautter, was able to view the police officer
in the patrol car that passed Kautter and his driver Paul Omodt while driving
on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.
This is what Danny Porter
said about that window of time in his opening statement:
The passenger in
the car [Karl Kautter], who you will hear testify, looked over and realized it
was a Gwinnett County police car, and he presumed that it was the same car that
he had just passed. He looked at that car, the car remained beside them all the
way down Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, a distance that you'll see from here
[indicating] to the Gwinnco is seven-tenths of a mile. And from this
intersection here [indicating] to where the police car eventually turned off
[Raymond K. Smith Boulevard] is eight-tenths of a mile from the muffler shop. And the car -- the police car remained beside the
witnesses' car the entire time. The passenger looked over to see the person
driving the car. He looked at him the entire time.[4]
This is what Danny Porter said about that window of time in his closing
statement:
As they went by,
the car pulled up behind them rapidly, came to the side, and stayed to
the side[5]. And at that point Mr. Kautter -- this was at
nine forty-five -- Mr. Kautter turned and looked. (See footnote below[6].)
Think about the degree of attention you'd be paying as you looked over to see
if that officer was going to flip on his blue light. And think about how much attention you'd be paying as you drove
from where Peachtree Industrial four-lanes for almost half a mile to R. H.
Smith Drive, and think of how long that takes at forty-five miles an hour.[7]
Using the
formula (distance / 3600[8])
* MPH = Travel Time, District Attorney Danny Porter showed very little
difference in the window of time Paul Omodt’s passenger Eyewitness Karl Kautter
had to scrutinize the officer sitting in the police vehicle adjacent to them as
they drove side by side from the beginning of the four lane highway as it
crossed Georgia 20 until the police unit turned off at R. K. Smith Boulevard
just after passing Georgia 20. In his opening statement, Mr. Porter computed
that time to be 52.8 seconds, and in his closing statement, the District
Attorney named two known points on PIB and this allowed the viewing window to
be computed to be 34 seconds. Not really that much difference, but District
Attorney Porter stated that this area of PIB was well lit and hinted that the
automobiles had to stop for signals at the timed lights located at First Ave.
and again at Georgia Highway 20.
Here
is what the testimony of Driver Paul Omodt[9],
Passenger Eyewitness Karl Kautter and yes, there was even testimony by District
Attorney Danny Porter who clarified a location during his questioning of Paul
Omodt.[10]
Witness Karl Kautter testified that he saw the officer in the driveway walking from the patrol car
toward the victim’s vehicle:
[Karl Kautter, Trial, Page
3529, Line 19]
By Prosecutor
Porter
Q. And as you approached, did you see
anyone near the vehicles?
A. There was a person walking up
towards the vehicle, the vehicle that was in front of the police car.
[Paul Omodt, Trial, Page
3508, Line 23]
By Prosecutor Porter
Q. Did you see anyone in the dark car
that was in the front --
A. No, sir. I didn't see anybody in that car. I did have the chance to see an officer leaning over into the car
or leaning over the window.
[Paul Omodt, Trial, Page
3510, Line 8]
By Prosecutor Porter
Q. All right. So as you got onto the four-laned area of Peachtree Industrial
Boulevard north of Gwinnco --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- did a car come up behind you?
A. A car came up behind us and passed
us in the right lane. I was staying
towards the middle or I was in the left lane at that time.
Q. Could you describe that for the
jury?
A. As we approached the road that goes
down toward Little Mill -- not Little Mill, I'm sorry, Petro [phonetic
spelling] Lane[11], a police
squad car passed us on the right as we were approaching that road.
Q. All right. Did the patrol car pass you or did it remain alongside of you?
A. Well, it passed us. It passed us.
Omodt’s further testimony:
[Paul Omodt, Trial, Page 3511, Line 25]
By Prosecutor Porter
Q. I'd like you to take the pointer, if
you could, and make sure the jury can see, so you'll have to sort of stand to
the side. Could you explain, as you
were traveling northbound, where the patrol cruiser caught up with you and what
happened after that as you traveled northbound?
A. As I remember, we were traveling on
the inside lane here, the police cruiser would have passed us in through this
area right in through here. He was well
in front of us before we got to this light.
And later Mr. Porter helpfully explains the traffic light referred to by Omodt.
[Porter, Trial, Page 3513,
Line 5]
MR. PORTER:
Your Honor, for the record, Mr. Omodt has referred to the light at First
Avenue, that is, First Avenue on the south side -- excuse me. First Avenue if you turn to the right, and
it's Alton Tucker Boulevard if you turn to the left.
Now, using
the testimony of both Mr. Omodt and Eyewitness Karl Kautter, ably assisted by
the testimony of their questioner Danny Porter, indicated the amount of time of
Mr. Kautter’s viewing window of the police officer that passed them really was.
First though, please allow Affiant to construct a small table to normalize and
calibrate the data:
VIEWING WINDOW TIME FOR
EYEWITNESS
|
PIB LANDMARK DESCRIPTION |
DISTANCE FROM GWINNCO IN FEET[12]
|
SECONDS FOR TRAVEL[13] |
|
Gwinnco
Muffler Shop Driveway |
0 |
0 |
|
Beginning of 2 to 4 Lane Transition |
843 |
10.5 |
|
Full Transition To 4 Lanes |
1264 |
15.8 |
|
Intersection Of Roosevelt Circle |
2600 |
32.5 |
|
Intersection Of Alton Tucker[14] |
2942 |
36.8 |
|
Intersection of Georgia 20 |
3831 |
47.9 |
|
Intersection of R. K. Smith Blvd.[15]
|
3984 |
49.8 |
Clearly, The viewing window for Eyewitness Karl Kautter for observing the police car that passed he and his driver Paul Omodt, and Mr. Porter was right in the middle of this exchange. First, it was patently impossible for the police vehicle in the driveway of the Gwinnco Muffler Shop to have been the same police vehicle that caught the Omodt/Kautter automobile at the beginning of the 2 to 4 lane transition within a few seconds after passing the driveway at 45 MPH the driveway[16]. One can only imagine Officer Michael Chapel hurrying back from the window of the victim’s automobile where the officer was last seen, stuffing his almost 6’ 7” 300 pound frame into his unit, backing onto PIB and managing to catch and then pass the Omodt/Kautter vehicle[17]; and for what purpose?
One can see from our table that there are only 1336 feet from the full transition to four lanes on PIB to Roosevelt Circle, less possibly 100 feet because Omodt’s testimony was that the passing was completed as they approached Roosevelt Circle.
Assuming the 45 MPH speed of the Omodt/Kautter automobile, the “other” police vehicle would have some 1286 feet to pass. Again assuming a ten (10) foot civilian automobile, the police officer would only come into the viewing window of Eyewitness Kautter as he came even with the Eyewitness passenger, unless of course he was turned in his seat looking backward, which was not Kautter’s testimony. One automobile will pass another at the rate of 1.5 feet for each mile per hour the passing vehicle exceeds the passed vehicle. Assuming then that the passing function was linear, i.e., steady, the profile of the police officer would then have been in Eyewitness Kautter’s viewing window at most for about two seconds during the three feet it took for the police car driver to move ahead of the Eyewitness’s “profile” viewing area. After those two seconds, the Passenger Eyewitness Karl Kautter would only have a view of the back of the police officer’s head. If the passing function were not linear, i.e., the police officer either sharply sped up to pass, the profile viewing window would be shorter or if he found some reason to dally, the profile viewing window, might be a second or two longer, but this was not Karl Kautter’s testimony.
District Attorney Danny Porter must have been aware of the testimony of Paul Omodt and Karl Kautter and the implications of that testimony, indeed Mr. Porter even participated in giving information to the Court that amounted to evidence. Why in the World did he say the same things in his closing argument about this encounter that he did in his opening argument, even enhancing his remarks to make a better story. Is it really possible that the saying that if you tell the same lie over and over and over again, the people will begin to believe it? There was one organization in the first half of the last Century that had a great deal of success with those kinds of tactics.
Finally, at trial, Eyewitness Karl Kautter never did make a believable identification of Michael Chapel as the police officer that passed the Omodt/Kautter automobile on that night, April 15, 1993. Sure, Mr. Kautter satisfied the pro-forma requirement and waved his arm unenthusiastically toward the left side of the courtroom and in the general direction of the defense table, but he did not follow up orally by locating Chapel precisely or describing him physically or by his clothing. In fact I do not believe Mr. Kautter ever did look at the Defendant from the stand.
By itself, this kind of behavior on the part of such an important witness, but when it came time to identify a picture of the Defendant from among a deck of photos containing every Northside officer during the month of April 1993, Mr. Kautter was totally unsuccessful. In fact he did not offer any name at all for the image on the photograph that he finally agreed was the officer that passed he and Omodt that night.
At the completion of his questioning of Eyewitness Kautter, District Attorney continuously pushed the photograph labeled D-31 at the witness and asked if the photograph was of the officer that passed them that night. Mr. Kautter’s first responded that the photo was not J.C. Morgan, a Northside Officer Defendant Chapel suspected was a very “dirty” cop and who killed himself a few weeks after Michael Chapel was arrested for this murder.
When Prosecutor Porter again thrust the D-31 photograph at Mr. Kautter and again asked if the photo was of the officer that passed he and Omodt that night, and again Eyewitness Kautter began to reply that the D-31 photograph was not of J.C. Morgan; however before he could complete saying those words, Prosecutor Porter again and aggressively demanded to know if the D-31 photograph was of the officer that passed he and Omodt that night, and finally Eyewitness Kautter acquiesced replied only yes.
Did this highly dramatic exchange identify Officer Michael Chapel as the officer in the patrol car that passed the Eyewitness and his driver on the night of the murder? Of course not! All that was testified to and thus legally established was that Photograph D-31 did not contain the picture of the late Officer J.C. Morgan, and nothing else.
Just a few words about Emogene Thompson’s purse, of which the District Attorney was so enamored during the trial that it gained the sobriquet “The Phantom Purse”. Mrs. Thompson’s purse was mentioned at least 27 times in questions or testimony. Her friends, the so-called “hearsay” witnesses, mentioned it at least 11 times in questions or answers, though none of them ever saw any such money in the victim’s purse or even heard Mrs. Thompson say she had the money in her purse. Mrs. Arnold would say several times Mrs. Thompson said she intended to carry the money in her purse, and Mrs. Chance even thought she saw the victim’s purse but not its contents. She thought it was medium sized and gray but not a shoulder bag. Even Mrs. Burel would only say she had the money on her but not in her purse.
The victim’s son, Michael Thompson on the other hand was peppered with questions about his mother’s purse. He maintained that she did carry her money around in her purse. That was his story, and he was going to stick to it.
District Attorney Danny Porter though was credited with eleven (11) references to Mrs. Thompson’s purse, the most individual references to the victim’s purse. Mr. Porter must have been referencing the testimony of Michael Thompson when he reassured the Court that he had testimonial evidence that Mrs. Thompson always carried her money in her purse because no one else, even Mrs. Burel, would ever admit to seeing or hearing of such a thing. Indeed, Delores Burel would say that she could not envision any purse containing so much currency. The District Attorney would state emphatically at least three and perhaps even four times that the victim’s purse was the only possible instrument of transfer of Mrs. Thompson’s blood from her automobile into the police unit of Michael Chapel. Of Course when the purse was accidentally by a child playing in the woods behind Emogene and Michael Thompson’s trailer home some six months after the trial ended, extensive scientific testing could find no evidence of blood, the victim’s or that of anyone else.
One of these statements regarding the blood in Chapel’s police unit seems only intended to provoke the Defendant. On cross-examination, District Attorney Porter demanded of the Defendant:
Q.
There's been no evidence anything else
happened. That's your theory. There's been no evidence that anything
happened. The evidence is Steve Cline
locked the car, and Nancy Jenkins went out and it was locked, and it was
unlocked with your keys. 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.
There is indeed a limit to the patience of even the most dedicated of readers, regardless of the depth of knowledge of the Affiant or how vitally important that writer feels his information to be. However, it would be impossible to close this affidavit without citing two matters Affiant feels are in fact tacit confessions of misconduct, possibly even criminal misconduct on the part of the Gwinnett County Police and District Attorney. These have to do with the information given to Dateline NBC by these organizations and that information, in fact evidence was subsequently broadcast by the Dateline NBC Organization.
The original Photographic Lineup used to identify the Defendant was unfairly and perhaps even criminally rigged to highlight the Defendant[18]. Note on this photo lineup the image of the Defendant is at least one-third larger than all of the other images. Note also that the Defendant is the only photo that was shot from an oblique angle so that he casts a shadow. Finally, note that the shadow cast covers the left side of the defendant’s face, and it is this, left profile that would have been presented to the Eyewitness Karl Kautter. An expert could probably point out additional problems with this lineup, however Affiant’s skills in this area are limited.
The Gwinnett County Police and District Attorney recognized that among the potential audience for the Dateline NBC broadcast of “The Thin Blue Line” would be professional forensic experts who undoubtedly would recognize the flaws and highlighting in the original photo lineup, and there might be unanticipated negative repercussions. They therefore presented a different photo lineup[19] to Dateline NBC to broadcast. Note that all of photo lineup highlighting is missing in this Photo Lineup; however, the artist did neglect to remove the inappropriately situated shadow to the left of the Defendant’s face and some touchup work has been done to the left side of Defendant’s face.
This lineup substitution for national, network broadcast to avoid criticism and perhaps worse is nothing if it is not a tacit confession of photo lineup highlighting guilt on the part of the Gwinnett County Police and District Attorney.
The second tacit admission of guilt has to do with the Dateline NBC mislabeling and discussion of what the Gwinnett County authorities described to that organization was evidence of high velocity blood spatter that the broadcasting organization then used to illustrate indisputable evidence of high velocity blood spatter on the right sleeve of the Defendant’s raincoat where on a close contact wound is the most highly suspected site on a such a garment[20]. The GBI Serologist, Jennifer Wilson[21], who is a well trained and educated serologist who tested the entire garment in July of 1993 for human blood, circled in blue pen all of the human blood stains she found regardless of size, even microscopic[22]. There was no blood evidence indicated on the right sleeve of the Defendant’s raincoat.
Respectfully submitted this __________ day of _______________, 2005.
Philip R. Sullivan
Alternate Juror, At The 1995
Trial of Michael Chapel
Ozark, Alabama
Psullivan200@charter.net
PHILIP R.
SULLIVAN EXHIBIT “A”
MOST RECENT ACTIVITIES
Civil Service/Military retired since January 3, 1997
Food and Drug Administration,
Southeast Regional Office. Atlanta. GA. 3/92-1/97
Regional Computer Center Director – Regional
Information Security Officer
Independent Computer Programmer/Analyst and ADP Consulting Analyst. 10/89 - 3/92
Los Angeles/ Atlanta, GA, (Contracts with:
AT&T, IBM, UPS, NABISCO, and others)
Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc. Port Hueneme. CA. 7/87 -10/89
Senior Systems Analyst/ADP Manager
Logicon. Inc.,
Advanced Technology Division. Woodland Hills. CA 7/85 -10/86
Senior Computer Scientist
Norman Engineering Co., Los Angeles. CA. 4/80 -10/84
Manager, Computer Services
Autologic Inc., Newburv Park. CA. 11/77 - 4/80
Senior Systems Analyst/Acting Director
Systems Engineering
Litton Industries, Mellonics Information Center. Canoga Park. CA. 10/74 - 4/77
Senior Data Systems Analyst
Research Systems, Inc.. Manhattan Beach. CA. 11/72 -10/74
Manager Systems Development
Security Pacific National Bank. Economic Research Department Los Angeles. CA . 6/67 - 6/72
Research Economist/Research Officer/Assistant
Research Manager
U.S. DHEW
Social Security Administration, Various Cities, 9/60 – 9/66
Claims
Representative
MILITARY SERVICE DATES
U.S. Air Force 01/03/50
– 09/08/53
U.S. Army 08/02/55
– 08/22/57
EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN
CAMPUS American Legion
BA European Area Studies (1959) Air Force Association
Berlin Veterans Association
St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO
Graduate Studies in Economics (1962-1967)
|
EXHIBIT “B”- LEGITIMATE USE OF CAPTURED
VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHS BY MEDIA (Appeared in Part “B” “Nation and World” Dothan
Alabama Eagle, Thursday, October 13, 2005 |
DATELINE:
Some felt that the defense had raised valid points about a sloppy police
investigation. For example:
JUROR: “Why wasn’t the blood on Chapel’s raincoat tested to see if it was the victims?”
DATELINE: And jurors were also
bothered by the possibility of a police conspiracy.
JUROR: “I had a lot of questions right from the start. The first thing I thought was ‘Why on earth is the Gwinnett County Police Department investigating itself?’”
DATELINE: The jurors were concerned
about the defense allegation that it may have been the county police spare car
that might have been at the scene.
JUROR: “Was any blood found in that car?”
DATELINE:
And from what the Defense saw as Chapel’s confidence, the jurors saw as
something else:
JUROR: “I think he thought he was above the law. He was the law, but he was one step above that[23]. But then, after the guilty verdict, the jurors saw something else. They did not respond to DA Porter’s plea for a death penalty but, as described by this same juror, with their verdict they found the crime and effects on Chapel and his family as: “Heartbreaking.”
|
EXHIBIT “D”- SECOND POLICE VEHICLE
CATCHES OMODT/KAUTTER VEHICLE AND MUST WAIT FOR FULL TRANSITION TO PASS |
EXHIBIT “E”-
SECOND POLICE VEHICLE
PASSES OMODT/KAUTTER VEHICLE AS THEY APPROACH ROOSEVELT CIRCLE AFTER GAINING
ACCESS TO RIGHT LANE AND IS WELL AHEAD AS IT REACHED ALTON TUCKER BOULEVARD |
EXHIBIT “F”-
PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUP
PREPARED BY THE GWINNETT COUNTY POLICE AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO BE SHOWN TO
WITNESSES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECT PURPOSES |
|
EXHIBIT “G”- PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUP
BROADCAST BY DATELINE NBC “The Thin Blue Line” on March 11, 1997 |
The original photographic lineup was obviously redone by the Gwinnett County Police and District Attorney and represented to Dateline NBC staff as the lineup used by Witness Karl Kautter to identify Defendant Chapel and subsequently show to Chapel’s jury.
|
EXHIBIT “H”- POLICE RAINCOAT IDENTIFIED IN DATELINE NBC NATIONAL
TELECAST AS THE RIGHT SLEEVE OF DEFENDANT’S RAINCOAT AT HIS TRIAL FOR THE MURDER OF EMOGENE
THOMPSON |
DATELINE NBC “The Thin Blue Line” Broadcast 3/11/1997
This image of Defendant Chapel’s Raincoat was
identified in the broadcast as the right sleeve of the garment. In reality GBI
Serologist Jennifer Wilson identified microscopic spots on the right lower
chest area as human blood using accepted testing methods and circled the spots
in indelible blue ink.
EXHIBIT “I”-
JENNIFER WILSON, GBI CRIME
LAB SEROLOGIST |
EXHIBIT “J”-
DEFENDANT’S
RAINCOAT AS FOUND IN DEFENSE FILES THE BLUE CIRCLES ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF
THE JACKET IN THE PHOTO ARE THE SAME MARKINGS IDENTIFIED TO DATELINE NBC AS
THOSE ON THE RIGHT SLEEVE OF THE GARMENT |
Photograph of Defendant’s Raincoat as found in defense files. From the table and other items in the background it appears to be one of the photographs taken at the GBI Crime Lab on March 15, 1995. The photographer was probably Defense Investigator Dennis Miller. Clearly the spots circled by GBI Serologist Jennifer Wilson are not on the right sleeve of the garment.