The Chapman File

Terry Keel, back in his days as Travis Co. sheriff (Photo By Jana Birchum)

Wasn't this damned thing supposed to be over by now?

Who knows? There's been an information vacuum concerning the independent inquiry into whether APD Assistant Chief Jimmy Chapman committed perjury while under oath during a July deposition taken in connection with the whistleblower lawsuit filed by officer Jeff White. On the other hand, while the mess simmers, there's been no shortage of private (and public) hostility and jockeying between the attorneys for Chapman and White.

White filed suit in May 2002, alleging that Chapman transferred him away from his job in the organized crime and narcotics section in retaliation for White's alleging (as had other officers) that Chapman may have interfered with the now-defunct, mid-Nineties drug trafficking investigation, code-named Mala Sangre. In July, depositions were taken in an effort to determine whether White's suit should proceed or be dismissed, as the city has argued. Those first depositions (of Chapman, White, Chief Stan Knee, city outside counsel Lowell Denton, and City Manager Toby Futrell) were taken in July, and from them came the first questions about Chapman's veracity. Chapman claimed he had nothing to do with White's transfer, and that he never asked APD Internal Affairs investigators to remove a set of phone records belonging to former FBI agent John Maspero (now the Williamson Co. sheriff, with his own headline set of problems) from the file of an unrelated IA investigation.

Chapman's apparently inaccurate protestations about the phone records prompted Knee's hiring of James McLaughlin, director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, to conduct an inquiry. Chapman has been on restricted duty since Sept. 10. McLaughlin's inquiry was intended to last no more than 60 days, but is now nearly 90 days old, with no official word on its results.

On Oct. 25, Chapman's attorney, State Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, authored a righteous defense of his client in a Statesman op-ed. According to Keel, Chapman -- a man of "the utmost integrity" -- is being treated unfairly. The hullabaloo over whether Chapman lied about seeking to remove the phone records, wrote Keel, is "not only immaterial to [White's] lawsuit, but the records themselves were irrelevant" to the 1997 case. According to Keel, press coverage of the White lawsuit has been biased, based on "spin" and mere "snippets" of deposition testimony: "Specious allegations have in recent times become commonplace as a club to be wielded by some discontented [APD] employees whose motivations are often driven by their litigious agenda, or plain departmental politics."

Keel says his own motivation in defending Chapman is simply giving voice to the voiceless: "[APD] policy prevents Chapman from publicly responding to these matters, but fairness compels me to respond on his behalf."

The irony of Keel's position -- as a lawyer representing a client, writing a supposedly impartial editorial that also bashes White's "litigious" lawyer Don Feare -- appears to have been lost on the author. It was not lost on Feare, who fired off a response. It was not published, but he provided a copy to the Chronicle, in which he counters Keel's assertions. "Chapman, as Assistant Chief in the police department," Feare wrote, "is ably represented by [city attorney] Denton," who, Feare notes, has "spent many hours" questioning each of the deposition witnesses. "While no one outside of city management can speak to the content of the thus far secret ... inquiry into ... Chapman's testimony and other conduct," Feare continued, "the sworn depositions of a number of police officers, most of whom have never been involved in any [law]suit, present a clear picture of an atmosphere of fear and retaliation, coercion of lower ranking police officers and, failure to tell the truth while under oath." According to Feare, Keel's take on the Chapman affair suggests that Keel has never read any of the deposition testimony.

Indeed, Keel's published comments regarding Chapman's truthfulness have been challenged by several witnesses -- including at least three called by the city in their defense against White's suit. On Sept. 18, Keel told the Statesman that neither Chapman nor Maspero ever asked anyone in Internal Affairs to remove Maspero's phone records from the 1997 file. Instead, he said, the two simply inquired as to why the phone records were in the file. "Yes, they asked why," Keel told the daily. "And the answer was that there was no good reason. They were irrelevant." Keel said that Chapman and Maspero were told by IA investigators that if they had questions about the investigation, they should ask. "The question was simply asked," Keel said. "The question was a legitimate inquiry."

Unfortunately, Keel's version of events has been challenged by his client Chapman's own testimony, in which he acknowledged it would be inappropriate even to ask about the contents of an IA file, unless there was a legitimate supervisory reason to do so. Keel's public comments have also been challenged by the two IA detectives assigned to the 1997 case, both of whom insist Maspero and Chapman wanted Maspero's records removed from the file. Also on Sept. 18, Feare and Denton deposed city-subpoenaed witness Detective Rick Cockman, the lead investigator. "May I ask you if you read the article on the front page of the Metro and State section [of the Statesman] entitled, 'Keel: Officer Didn't Seek File Change'?" Feare asked Cockman.

"I read it," Cockman replied.

"There is a quote in there in which Mr. Keel ... says that [Chapman and Maspero] came to you-all and asked why the records were in that file, and the ... answer was that there was no good reason. They were irrelevant. Did you ever make that statement to anybody?" Feare asked.

"No," Cockman replied.

Feare then asked Cockman if there was any truth to Keel's assertion that neither Maspero nor Chapman asked that the records be removed. "Is that a true rendition of what took place in that office?" Feare asked.

"That's not true," Cockman replied.