DNA expert Barry Scheck has warned state Attorney General Drew Edmondson that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and criminalist Melvin Hett might compromise the investigation into Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist. Scheck, director of the Innocence Project, recommended that not only Gilchrist cases should be investigated, but also those where hair comparisons were conducted at the OSBI laboratory, according to the letter obtained by The Oklahoman.

Hett is one of five OSBI criminalists assigned to review forensic hair analysis results in 1,448 Oklahoma City Police Department cases assigned to Gilchrist. Hett is accused in a federal lawsuit of misidentifying hairs and giving exaggerated testimony that helped send two innocent men to prison in 1988. Scheck is one of the attorneys in the civil lawsuit.

"Discovery in this lawsuit has brought to light facts that call into question the
competence and integrity of Mr. Hett as well as some of the customs, policiesand practices of the hair analysis unit at OSBI," Scheck said.

Kym Koch, OSBI spokeswoman, said, "I can understand Mr. Scheck’s concerns, certainly, because of the lawsuit. But we knew about the lawsuit before and have absolute confidence in Mel."

Scheck also offered to help Oklahoma investigate cases involving hair comparisons. The noted defense attorney will bring experienced attorneys to Oklahoma to review the cases with hair analysis and independent labs to test the evidence.

Gerald Adams, spokesman for the attorney general, prepared a written response to Scheck Thursday. "The letter will say that we are systematically reviewing death penalty cases no matter who did the forensic testing," Adams said.

"In addition to that, it will say that OIDS (Oklahoma Indigent Defense System)
has the resources now and the ability to ask for forensic testing in all cases, not just death penalty cases."

Hett, supervisor of the Enid OSBI lab, conducted the microscopic hair analysis
in the 1982 slaying of Deborah Sue Carter, 21, in Ada. The 25-year chemist tied
17 hairs found at the scene to Ronald Keith Williamson, 48, and Dennis Leon
Fritz, 51. Williamson was sentenced to death and came within five days of being executed. Fritz received a life sentence. After 12 years in prison, they were freed April 15, 1999, when a new DNA test on semen cleared them of killing Carter. They are now suing Hett and others involved in their arrests and incarceration.

The FBI has accused Gilchrist of shoddy work in five criminal cases. At least
six federal, state and local agencies began investigating the suspended 21-year
police chemist and her cases. Gilchrist, on paid administrative leave, defends her work. The governor and attorney general asked the OSBI to investigate death penalty and other cases where Gilchrist did hair comparisons. The Oklahoma Indigent. Defense System received an additional $725,000 from the Legislature to examine questionable cases.

As part of the Gilchrist investigation, OSBI will review the forensic hair test
results and then the cases will be turned over to the attorney general and the
Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to examine case files and testimony.

In his letter, Scheck calls microscopic hair analysis "junk science" that is not
just a problem in Oklahoma but nationwide. He said other states will have to
re-examine cases with hair comparisons.

As an example, Scheck cited hair analysis and testimony in a 1987 murder trial
given by FBI supervisory special agent Douglas Deedrick, who conducted the
review of eight of Gilchrist’s criminal cases. DNA testing disputed his findings.

Deedrick had testified that hair found in the victim’s car was indistinguishable
from that of the defendant, Michael McCormick. Last month, the DNA test discovered the hair did not belong to the man who spent the last 13 years on Tennessee’s death row.

"The point here is certainly not to impugn the integrity of agent Deedrick who has played an important role in the Gilchrist investigation," Scheck said. "Rather, we only seek to emphasize that, as far as hair microscopy cases are concerned, it would (be) appropriate and economical to look at non-Gilchrist OSBI cases where there is a concern about wrongful conviction ."That just shows that microscopic hair comparisons have a very high error rate. So, we have to look at all of these cases."