I am writing you in response to your article of January 18, 1997 on the Michael Chapel case. You are generally to be commended for a balanced view of the case, but several points made by county officials should be cleared up.
There is new evidence which we are still in the process of assembling for filing in court. We will not file piecemeal papers and are working to put together the complete motion for filing in the new future.
There is new evidence which is dramatic and indicates Mike Chapel’s innocence. Some of it – from the government’s side – has already been publicly disclosed. The raincoat that Chapel alleged wore during the murder had no gunpowder residue on it – a fact entirely inconsistent with his guilt and a fact suppressed by the prosecution. The purse which he allegedly stole was recovered in 1996 near Emogene Thompson’s home with credit cards and other items intact. There is evidence that the purse was not in this location in 1993 and 1994. Chapel was incarcerated in April 1993 and could not have planted the purse back in the victim’s neighborhood after he was arrested.
Other witnesses have come forward with important information, which we agreed to only disclose in the court filing. Anyone else with any information should contact our investigator, Boris Korczak - 703-503-3350. There is also an Internet site with extensive information on the case at Gwinnett Online (http//:gwinnett-online.com/chapel).
Some statements in your article made by the prosecutor and police officials are patently wrong. The police department refers to an eyewitness at trial who identified Chapel at the murder scene. This witness actually described an officer at the scene that did not fit Chapel’s description. He made an equivocal photo identification of Chapel as being in a car on the PIB that night, but described the county’s spare car, not Chapel’s car. This witness in court, when asked if he saw Chapel on the PIB, stated, "I can’t be sure".
Your article states that three witnesses testified that Ms. Thompson was going to meet Chapel the night she was killed. No one so testified. Two witnesses testified that she was expecting to meet him that week, although they did not indicate when. Another witness who testified about talking to her less than a hour and a half before her murder stated as follows:
Q. So as far as you know, she never had a meeting with him that night arranged?
A. The last I talked to her, he had not called her.
The evidence as described by the prosecution is different that the evidence that was actually presented. Other evidence of innocence existed, but was not presented to the jury. Finally, new evidence of innocence will be introduced in the new trial motion and hearing.
These efforts on Mike Chapel’s behalf are being paid for by private donations. The money is sent to an account monitored by a CPA. All funds go to Mike’s defense. We are still operating with less than one third of the defense costs being paid to date. We have contacted the Secretary of State’s office concerning the need for any permit and will fully comply with any applicable law.
Efforts to discredit our defense team cannot in the end make up for the lack of a case against Mike Chapel. While our obligation is to our client, the public’s obligation is to assure that justice is done.
Randy M. Mott, Esq
Michael Chapel Defense
P.O. Box 565
Falls Church, VA 20040-0565