- YES:be a part of history making earth better protected (google map) (yahoo map) Joyce Gilchrist From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Joyce Gilchrist is a former forensic chemist who had participated in over 3,000 criminal cases in 21 years while working for the Oklahoma City police department,[1][2] and who was accused of falsifying evidence.[1][3] Her evidence led in part to 23 people being sentenced to death, 11 of whom have been executed.[1] After her dismissal, Gilchrist alleged that she was fired in retaliation for reporting sexual misconduct.[4] Contents 1 Biography 2 Aftermath 3 References 4 External links Biography Gilchrist earned the nickname "Black Magic" for her ability to match DNA evidence that other forensic examiners could not.[1] She was also known for being unusually adept at testifying and persuading juries, thus obtaining convictions.[1][5] In 1994, Gilchrist was promoted to supervisor from forensic chemist after just 9 years on the job,[1] but her colleagues began to raise concerns about her work.[1][6][7] Gilchrist was dismissed in September 2001 due to "flawed casework analysis" and "laboratory mismanagement".[7] Concerns about Gilchrist's actions were first raised when a landscaper, Jeffrey Todd Pierce, who had been convicted of rape in 1986 largely based on Gilchrist's evidence despite a clean criminal record and good alibi, was exonerated based on additional DNA evidence. Pierce, a husband and the father of two infant children, was misidentified in a police line-up. After voluntarily giving hair and blood samples to the police investigators in an attempt to clear his name, he was arrested and charged with the rape. Gilchrist claimed his hair samples were "microscopically consistent" with the hairs found at the crime scene. Pierce was cleared of the crime in 2001 after DNA evidence was re-examined, and released after 15 years in prison. Pierce subsequently filed a lawsuit against Oklahoma City, seeking $75 million and charging that Gilchrist and Bob Macy, a now-retired district attorney, conspired to produce false evidence against him.[4][8] The suit was settled for $4 million in 2007, with one Oklahoma City councilman noting that the city could have had to pay much more.[9] Aftermath Other cases from individuals convicted on Gilchrist's testimony continue to work their way through the courts. Michael Blair was sentenced to die for the murder of a young girl in 1993.[10] The evidence leading to his conviction included shafts of hair found near the girl's body and in Blair's car.[10] New DNA evidence showed that the hair matched neither the girl, nor Blair.[10] During the early 1990s, Oklahoma state law did not allow defense attorneys to use government funds to hire other forensic scientists to verify Gilchrist's claims. However, during appeals of Malcolm Rent Johnson's death penalty case, two forensic experts hired by the defense were critical of Gilchrist's testimony, particularly as it relied upon several "blue-colored hairs" that seemed too "ubiquitous" to be useful evidence.[11] Curtis McCarty was released in 2007 after spending nearly 20 years on death row. The courts found that Gilchrist acted to either alter or intentionally lose evidence. In 2009 McCarty's lawsuit reached a settlement in which Gilchrist was responsible for a payment of over $16 million, an amount that she is attempting to force Oklahoma City to pay.[12] Over 1,700 cases in which Gilchrist's evidence was significant to a conviction were reviewed by the state of Oklahoma.[4][8] Gilchrist's attorney stated that, "The criticism of [Joyce Gilchrist] around here is second only to that of Timothy McVeigh."[1] After her dismissal, Gilchrist filed a lawsuit seeking $20.1 million, claiming that her firing was actually motivated by revenge, after she reported sexual misconduct by her supervisor.[4] References Police Chemist Is Rebutted After Man's Execution Published: August 30, 2001 A now-scrutinized Oklahoma City police chemist whose testimony helped convict a man later executed for murder cited scientific evidence that does not exist, a Police Department memorandum says. The memorandum, written by another chemist in the Oklahoma City police laboratory and obtained by The Associated Press, refers to the case of Malcolm Rent Johnson, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder and was executed on Jan. 6, 2000. At trial, the testifying chemist, Joyce Gilchrist, said six samples taken from the victim's bedroom showed semen consistent with Mr. Johnson's blood type. But a re-examination of those slides this July 30 showed that ''spermatozoa is not present,'' says the memorandum, dated July 31, addressed to the city attorney's office and signed by Ms. Gilchrist's colleague Laura Schile. Ms. Schile resigned from the city's embattled forensics laboratory on Aug. 2, citing a hostile work environment. But her memorandum said the laboratory's three other scientists -- aside from Ms. Gilchrist, who is suspended -- agreed with her that sperm was not present. One of those chemists, Kyla Marshall, confirmed that when the slides were retested, they revealed no sperm, just a few fibers from the victim's bedspread and pillowcase. Sperm does not deteriorate for decades, Ms. Marshall said. The memorandum is the latest turn in the events surrounding Ms. Gilchrist, who has been accused of repeatedly overstating courtroom testimony and performing shoddy forensic analysis. She has previously denied any wrongdoing, and her lawyer did not return calls seeking comment on Ms. Schile's memorandum. Luscombe, Belinda (May 13, 2001). "When The Evidence Lies". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved May 9, 2009. Yardley, Jim (May 2, 2001). "Inquiry Focuses on Scientists Employed by Prosecutors". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved May 8, 2009. Franklin E. Zimring (2003). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-517820-3. Retrieved May 8, 2009. "Police Chemist's Suit Says Firing Was Retaliatory". The New York Times. April 26, 2002. Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved May 9, 2009. Fuhrman, Mark (2003). Death and Justice. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-073208-3. Retrieved May 8, 2009. Dwyer, Kevin; Fiorillo, Juré (2006). True Stories of Law & Order: The Real Crimes Behind the Best Episodes of the Hit TV Show. New York: Berkley Boulevard. ISBN 0-425-21190-8. Retrieved May 8, 2009. "Police Chemist Accused of Shoddy Work Is Fired". The New York Times. September 26, 2001. Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved May 9, 2009. "Under The Microscope". CBS News. July 24, 2002. Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved May 9, 2009. "Man gets $4 million over wrong rape conviction". MSNBC. January 24, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2009. Scheck ;=, Barry; Neufeld, Peter (May 11, 2001). "Junk Science, Junk Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2009. Yardley, Jim (September 2, 2001). "Oklahoma Retraces Big Step in Capital Case". The New York Times. pp. 1--2. Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved May 9, 2009. "Former DA Bob Macy, ex-forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist settle case". Oklahoma Gazette. June 17, 2009. Retrieved July 18, 2009. External links New York Times Police Chemist Is Rebutted After Man's Execution New York Times In Rape Case Gone Awry, New Suspect New York Times Court Overturns Death Sentence New York Times Oklahoma Will Study Capital Cases New York Times Death Penalty Cases Reviewed New York Times Man Is Reunited with Family New York Times Oklahoma Governor Weighs Independent Inquiry on Lab New York Times Flaws in Chemist's Findings Free Man at Center of Inquiry New York Times Capital Case Re-Examined do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers post id: 4787518516 posted: an hour ago updated: 27 minutes ago email to friend ♥ best of [?] When The Evidence Lies By Belinda Luscombe Sunday, May. 13, 2001 Print Email Share Reprints Jim Fowler has been struck twice by lightning. A retired house painter in Oklahoma City, Okla., Fowler lived through his 19-year-old son Mark's arrest in 1985 for murdering three people in a grocery-store holdup. Mark was sentenced to death. A year later Fowler's mother Anne Laura was raped and murdered, and a man named Robert Lee Miller Jr. was sentenced to die for the crime. The same Oklahoma City police department forensic scientist, Joyce Gilchrist, testified at both trials. But DNA evidence later proved she was wrong about Miller. He was released after 10 years on death row, and a man previously cleared by Gilchrist was charged with the crime. Fowler can't help wondering if Gilchrist's testimony was equally inept at the trial of his son Mark, who was executed in January. Last week gave Fowler even more reason to wonder. A state judge ordered a man named Jeffrey Pierce released after serving 15 years of a 65-year sentence for rape. Gilchrist placed him at the scene of the crime, but DNA evidence proved he was not the rapist. In response, Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating launched a review of every one of the thousands of cases Gilchrist touched between 1980 and 1993, starting with 12 in which death sentences were handed down. But in another 11 of her cases, the defendants have already been put to death. The state is giving the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System $725,000 to hire two attorneys and conduct DNA testing of any evidence analyzed by Gilchrist that led to a conviction. A preliminary FBI study of eight cases found that in at least five, she had made outright errors or overstepped "the acceptable limits of forensic science." Gilchrist got convictions by matching hair samples with a certainty other forensic scientists found impossible to achieve. She also appears to have withheld evidence from the defense and failed to perform tests that could have cleared defendants. It's a bitter convolution of fate that Gilchrist should be based in Oklahoma City, the last place one would expect to find compelling arguments against the death penalty. Her story can't help but give Oklahomans pause about the quality of justice meted out by their courts. Says Gilchrist's lawyer, Melvin Hall: "The criticism of her around here is second only to that of Timothy McVeigh." But the allegations also underscore a national problem: the sometimes dangerously persuasive power of courtroom science. Juries tend to regard forensic evidence more highly than they regard witnesses because it is purportedly more objective. But forensic scientists work so closely with the police and district attorneys that their objectivity cannot be taken for granted. Gilchrist told TIME in an interview last week that she's bewildered by her predicament. "I'm just one entity within a number of people who testify," she says. "They're keying on the negative and not looking at the good work I did." In her 21-year career with the Oklahoma City police, she had an unbroken string of positive job evaluations and was Civilian Police Employee of the Year in 1985. Her ability to sway juries and win convictions earned her the nickname "Black Magic." In 1994 she was promoted from forensic chemist to supervisor. Until recently, Hall says, she did not have "a bad piece of paper in her file." Now Gilchrist is on paid leave; in June she will face a two-day hearing to decide whether the police department should fire her. Meanwhile, her reputation has been shattered. The hammer blow came when Pierce, a landscaper who was convicted of rape in 1986, was released last week after DNA testing exonerated him. He had been found guilty despite a clean record and plausible alibi largely because of Gilchrist's analysis of hair at the crime scene. "I'm just the one who opened the door," said Pierce. "There will be a lot more coming out behind me." Pierce lost 15 years, his marriage and the chance to see his twin boys grow up. But some fear there were others who paid even more dearly: the 11 executed defendants. The Oklahoma attorney general has temporarily shut the gate on execution of the 12 still on death row in whose trials Gilchrist was involved. While the D.A.'s office believes that the convictions will stand, these cases will be the first to be reconsidered. Defense lawyers fear that the innocent who took plea bargains in the face of her expertise will never come to light. Gilchrist told TIME, "There may be a few differences because of DNA analysis," but she is confident most of her findings will be confirmed. "I worked hard, long and consistently on every case," she says. "I always based my opinion on scientific findings." She insists she didn't overstate those findings to please the D.A.'s office or secure convictions. "I feel comfortable with the conclusions I drew." But defense lawyers say the Gilchrist investigation is long overdue. Her work has been making colleagues queasy for years. In January 1987, John Wilson, a forensic scientist with the Kansas City police crime lab, filed a complaint about her with the Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists. (The association declined to take action.) Jack Dempsey Pointer, president of the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, says his group has been fighting for an investigation "almost since the time she went to work" at the lab. "We have been screaming in the wind, and nobody has been listening." 1 | 2 Next » I CANNOT RETRIVE SECOND PAGE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Gazette Former DA Bob Macy, ex-forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist settle case Wednesday, June 17, 2009 By Scott Cooper As more cases involving former Oklahoma City Police Department forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist make their way through the legal system, the inner workings of the police lab and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office are revealed layer by layer. When Curtis Edward McCarty was released from custody in 2007 after spending nearly 20 years on death row, the courts found that Gilchrist acted to either alter or intentionally lose evidence. With Bryson, attorneys looked more into the abilities of Gilchrist as a scientist and the hands-off approach the police department and the district attorney’s office took to their controversial chemist. A trial was set to begin later this month which would have been the first public testimony of Gilchrist, former District Attorney Bob Macy and several of Macy’s prosecutors as well as police officials. It would have been an opportunity for the public to hear firsthand the explanations as to why a man who was found to have no biological evidence linking him to a crime spent more than decade in prison. But at a last-ditch settlement conference meeting in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Robert Bacharach on June 3, the opposing sides came to an agreement. Gilchrist agreed to hand over $16.5 million, according to court records. Bryson also worked out a deal with Macy, but the details of their settlement are sealed. The case file is not sealed, however, and the depositions of Gilchrist and Macy include hundreds of documents and other testimonials that provide a keen glimpse into how one man’s life can be altered by science or ethics. CONVICTION AND EXONERATION Bryson was convicted in 1983 of raping and kidnapping Theresa Taylor and sentenced to 85 years in prison. Taylor, a legal secretary at the time, testified she was attacked walking to her car from the Liberty Tower in downtown Oklahoma City, forced into a car and driven to a remote area where she was brutally raped. Taylor escaped after biting the attacker’s penis, who then ran away screaming in pain. The victim then made her way to a nearby house and called police. The key pieces of evidence used against Bryson were hair, blood and semen samples, eyewitness testimony from the victim and another person in the area of the attack, and injuries to Bryson’s penis after he went to a doctor for treatment. Gilchrist testified at the 1983 trial that the hair and blood samples were consistent to Bryson. She told a jury the blood type from the sample was the same as Bryson’s, and the hair was consistent with Bryson’s hair. The key pieces of evidence used against Bryson were hair, blood and semen samples, eyewitness testimony from the victim and another person in the area of the attack, and injuries to Bryson’s penis after he went to a doctor for treatment. Gilchrist testified at the 1983 trial that the hair and blood samples were consistent to Bryson. She told a jury the blood type from the sample was the same as Bryson’s, and the hair was consistent with Bryson’s hair. But other scientists who looked into Gilchrist’s original work claim that, had the chemist conducted her science correctly, Bryson should have been excluded before the 1983 trial, regardless of DNA testing. Brian Wraxall, chief forensic serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California, looked over Gilchrist’s lab notes last November and found serious flaws from his former student. Gilchrist received some of her training at the institute. Of particular note was the robe the victim wore after escaping to a nearby house. Semen stains were found on the robe which Gilchrist tested and concluded could have come from Bryson. But Wraxall said Gilchrist did not conduct the tests properly and that Bryson would have been excluded as a donor. “Ms. Gilchrist failed to run a substrate or background control from the robe as she was taught in my laboratory,” Wraxall wrote in his report. But Wraxall’s pupil took a hard stance on her testing during her deposition on March 6, 2008. “Just because that wasn’t his DNA in that semen found in her vagina does not mean he’s not the rapist,” Gilchrist said. “Now, if you can exclude him using … DNA testing on those hairs, then I would agree with you then that he’s not the rapist, but until that happens, I stand by the results of my analysis.” DEBUNKED However, the hair analysis has also been debunked. In 2001, the FBI conducted reviews of Gilchrist’s work and concluded the hair evidence did not match Bryson. But during her deposition, Gilchrist shrugged off conclusions of other analysts: “That happens all the time. Hair examination is very subjective, and experts may or may not agree on the conclusions that are reached. So if someone else disagrees with my findings, I don’t put much weight in that.” Gilchrist and her attorney, Melvin Hall, refused to comment for the story, as did Bryson and his attorney Mark Barrett, along with Macy and his attorney. Whether Gilchrist was even qualified to conduct such tests became a topic for Bryson’s attorneys. Records of Gilchrist’s college transcript and early training at FBI labs show the chemist had difficulty with some of her science classes. According to her transcripts from the University of Oklahoma and University of Central Oklahoma, Gilchrist was placed on academic probation more than once, as well as academic suspension. At OU, she received a grade of D in general chemistry. At UCO, she earned C and D grades in chemistry courses like general physics and quantitative analysis. During her deposition, Gilchrist was questioned about the marks she received while training with the FBI. Barrett pointed out several instances where Gilchrist misidentified hair samples during tests. But Gilchrist contended mistakes were to be expected as it was her first week in training. She received a certificate stating she had completed the FBI course. During the deposition, city attorney Richard Smith tried to make light of Barrett’s line of questioning: Smith: “Did you get 100 percent on every spelling test you’ve ever took?” Gilchrist: “No.” GILCHRIST REFLECTS Through the years, as one former convict gets exonerated after another, Gilchrist did reflect on any mistakes she had made, particularly when it came to hair analysis, and not letting a jury think she could identify a person through hair samples. “There’s a lot of things I probably regret during the course of my lifetime. I probably regret not expounding a little further instead of just answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question and not being able to qualify my answer, taking that opportunity to do so. Yeah, I regret that.” But regardless of what mistakes Gilchrist made, she had the full backing of the district attorney’s office, even in the face of criticism from other forensic scientists and high court judges. “I observed Joyce Gilchrist on numerous occasions in the courtroom testifying and being cross-examined, and it was my opinion that she was very professional, very thorough in her work,” Macy said during his deposition on Oct. 24, 2008. “I don’t know how much more investigation would need to have been done than what I was seeing daily in the courtroom.” John Wilson with the Kansas City police lab was one of the scientists sounding alarm bells about Gilchrist’s work. Wilson had testified in some of the cases as an expert witness to rebut Gilchrist. Macy said he thought Wilson’s behavior was unethical. “I thought Wilson was … one of the forensic chemists for a law enforcement agency there,” Macy said. “They had trained him and given him all his education and background, and he was out for hire to the defense. I expressed not only to Wilson but to his supervisor that I had a kind of an ethical problem with it.” In the original filing of the lawsuit, Bryson named not just Gilchrist and Macy as defendants, but the city and several former police chiefs as well. The chiefs and the city were dismissed from the case on the grounds their actions had nothing to do with Bryson’s wrongful conviction. A judge also tossed out most of the complaints Bryson filed against Macy save one, which the two sides settled on. Toward the end of his deposition, Macy took offense to some of the questions which dealt with evidence either being tampered with, falsified or intentionally lost, allegations raised by other courts in some of Gilchrist’s cases. “I spent my entire life in law enforcement or prosecution, and I found that they’re probably the most dedicated, honest bunch of people in the world. … Why would a person want to hide evidence?” The proceedings are still not over yet, according to court records. With Gilchrist agreeing to pay Bryson $16.5 million — a sum she does not have — a battle is to unfold as to who will pay that money. Gilchrist claims the city should pay since the action took place when she was employed with the police department. The city disagrees, saying Gilchrist violated city policies and therefore should not be indemnified by the city. The city does have a policy to pay up to $10 million for damages inflicted by an employee. The issue between Gilchrist and the city is set for court later this month. —Scott Cooper Read the Records for Yourself: Bob Macy Deposition 1 Bob Macy Deposition 2 Bob Macy Deposition 3 Brian Waxall Report Joyce Gilchrist College Transcript Joyce Gilchrist Deposition 1 Joyce Gilchrist Deposition 2 Joyce Gilchrist Deposition 3 Joyce Gilchrist Deposition 4 Judge Marcus Report Junk Science Truth in Justice
