The Denice Haraway Case: Abduction, Murder, and a Missing Child

Note: This piece is drawn from facts and information detailed in the Forensic report by the author (Brent E. Turvey, PhD) filed with Fontenot's application for relief, See: Investigative and Forensic Assessment: Abduction and Homicide of Donna "Denice" Haraway.

Donna "Denice" Haraway (24,WF) was considered to be an attractive woman, though shy and a bit awkward, by those who knew her. She was eight months into her marriage with Steven Haraway at the time of her abduction from McAnally's convenience store. She had been employed there, working the counter, for about nine months.

By all accounts, Haraway was a dedicated student, in addition to being a wife and a holding down a job. She was enrolled at a local college, working towards a teaching degree. She would even study at the store, behind the counter, when things were slow. However, she had also been receiving harassing phone calls while work. And only while at work. This caused her a great deal of concern for her safety, as she often worked alone.

The Abduction
According to law enforcement reports, Haraway was last seen at McAnally's convenience store around 8:30 P.M. on Saturday, April 28th,1984. She was the lone clerk on duty that evening. This was not uncommon.

In relation to Haraway's disappearance, a regular customer, Gene Whelchel, made three calls that evening: first he called Mr. McAnally, the owner of the store; second, he called the store manager, Monroe Atkeson; and third, he called the Ada (Oklahoma) Police Department. Mr. Whelchel explained that when he arrived at the store, the clerk was not there and the cash register drawer was open. 

Mr. Atkeson, the store manager, drove from his home to the store. Additionally, Ada PD responded to the scene.

Other relevant background is taken directly from the court's decision in Fontenot v. State (1988):

Karl Fontenot

"[Karl Fontenot] and Tommy Ward were tried for the crimes during September, 1985. In October of 1984, Tommy Ward made a statement to law enforcement officers which inculpated Fontenot, an individual named Odell Titsworth, and to a slighter degree, himself. Fontenot and Titsworth were arrested as a result and Fontenot gave a statement substantially in agreement with Ward's except that it more clearly inculpated Ward. In each Ward's and Fontenot's statements, the instigator and ringleader in the criminal acts was said to be Titsworth. However, Titsworth was eliminated as a suspect within a few days of his arrest because of clear proof the police had that he had not been an accomplice.

According to the statements of Ward and Fontenot, Haraway was robbed of approximately $150.00, abducted, and taken to the grounds behind a power plant in Ada where she was raped. According to [Fontenot's] version, she was then taken to an abandoned house behind the plant where Titsworth stabbed her to death. She was then burned along with the house. When Haraway's remains were found in Hughes County, there was no evidence of charring or of stab wounds, and there was a single bullet wound to the skull."

It is helpful to understand that Karl Fontenot and Tommy Ward were convicted of abducting and murdering Hawaray 5 months before her body was actually found.

The Murder

On Monday, January 20^th, 1986, a trapper found the partial skeletal remains of Denice Haraway; these were later identified through her dental records. The remains were located approximately 1 mile south, and 3 ½ miles west, of Gerty, Oklahoma off a county road. The remains were found scattered in a wooded area. 

The few crime scene photographs that were taken depict a skull, various scattered bones, and a conspicuous pile of bones placed on a rock. Bits and pieces of clothing and jewelry were also found at the scene, but not photographed or otherwise documented. According to Mrs. Haraway’s autopsy report, a gunshot wound to the head was reported as the probable cause of death. There was no evidence that the victim was stabbed, burned, or sexually assaulted. 

In short, every detail alleged to be provided by Fontenot and Ward to investigators about the abduction and murder of Denice Haraway turned out to be either unsubstantiated or completely false.

Post-Conviction Review

In late 2012, this author (Brent E. Turvey, PhD) was retained by attorney Tiffany Murphy to conduct a post conviction review of the facts and evidence related to the abduction and murder of Donna “Denice” Haraway, and the conviction of Karl A. Fontenot (Fontenot v. State, 1988). He was then asked to provide a professional assessment of the quality, competence, and thoroughness of the investigative and forensic efforts in this case. This assessment was conducted with the intent of determining whether sufficient investigative and forensic efforts have been undertaken to establish the facts of the case for use in related court proceedings.

There were four major findings, the last of which is perhaps the most significant.

First: The investigative and forensic efforts of law enforcement at the location of Haraway’s abduction (McAnally’s convenience store; April 28, 1984) were inadequate rising to the level of abandonment.

This prevented the recognition, preservation, collection, and testing specific items of evidence, as well as an untold volume of evidence that would have been missed.

Note: As discussed in Crowder and Turvey (2013), and Gershman (1997), professional abandonment refers to incompetence and negligence to the point of effective professional absence causing harm to the client. In effect, it also refers to the abandonment of one’s professional duty of care.

Second: The investigative efforts of law enforcement subsequent to Haraway’s abduction were inadequate rising to the level of abandonment.

Third: The investigative and forensic efforts of law enforcement at the location where Haraway’s remains were found (West of Gerty, off a county road; Monday, January 20, 1986) were inadequate rising to the level of abandonment. This prevented the recognition, preservation, collection, and testing specific items of evidence, as well as an untold volume of evidence that would have been missed.

A Missing Child
Everyone agrees that Donna Haraway had not given birth prior to her abduction. However, her remains tell a different story. The remains found West of Gerty, which are conclusively identified as those of Donna “Denice” Haraway, belong to an adult female that has given birth to at least one child through her birth canal. As stated clearly in the Report from Richard McWilliams, Phd, Consulting Forensic Anthropologist to the ME’s Office, dated January 23, 1986: “Marks on the pelvis indicate she had given birth to at least one child."

This finding means that the victim would need to have been held in captivity for up to as many as nine months in order to have given birth. Consequently, any suspects generated would need to be capable of physically holding her. They would need a place to do it, and they would need to be available to keep her alive while she was captive. This means another crime scene.

Additionally, no skeletal remains of an infant were found in association with the remains of  Donna “Denice” Haraway. This means that either those scene search efforts were inadequate to the task of finding them; that the child was killed subsequent to its birth and disposed of elsewhere; or that the child was not killed and may yet be alive. None of these possibilities have been investigated, or excluded, by investigative efforts to date.

This leads to the author's final conclusion, which is: It is unclear from the case record that anyone, whether prosecution or defense, fully understood that forensic reports indicated that the victim had given birth to at least one child. Moreover, nobody involved seemed to understand what this meant for the investigation and prosecution of Karl Fontenot. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone focused on or followed up on this forensic finding, which is perhaps the single most important finding in this case.

In a case that already involves significant volumes of evidence (e.g., investigative reports and physical evidence) withheld from the defense, and investigative shortcomings across the board, the failure to grasp and follow up on this issue is not a surprise. However, this does not make it less important. Those interested in seeking the truth in this case, with the duty of care to do so, have an obligation to find out whether this child born subsequent to Harway's captivity was killed or perhaps remains alive to this day. The answer to that question is likely the answer to the entire case.

Hopefully, these and other relevant issues will be considered by the court in relation to the Application for Post-Conviction Relief filed by defense Attorney Tiffany Murphy late last month, on behalf of The Oklahoma Innocence Project.

See: The Oklahoman: Report sparks debate over innocence of Karl Fontenot

REFERENCES 

Chisum, J. and Turvey, B. (2011) Crime Reconstruction, 2nd ed., San Diego: Elsevier Science. 

Crowder, S. and Turvey, B. (2013) Ethical Justice: Applied Issues for Criminal Justice Students and Professionals, San Diego: Elsevier Science.

Fontenot v. State (1988) OK CR 170, 742 P.2d 31, Case Number: F-85-769. See also: Karl Fontenot v. State of Oklahoma, District Court of Pontotoc County State of Oklahoma, No. CR-88-43. Brief in Support of Application for Post-Conviction Relief.

Gershman, B. (1997) Trial Error and Misconduct, Lexis Law, Charlottesville, VA.

Forensic Science: Fraud and Error on the Rise

All across the United States, crime lab scandals have been making headlines. Not just in recent months, but for years. At the local level, this is generally perceived to be an isolated problem. The reality, however, is quite different. 

As explained in the new text Forensic Fraud: Evaluating Law Enforcement and Forensic Science Cultures in the Context of Examiner Misconduct (Elsevier, 2013), crime lab scandals related to forensic fraud and error are on the rise - worsening in the last few years. The result has been dozens of crime lab closures, tens of thousands of criminal cases thrown out and overturned, and millions of dollars in successful lawsuits against government agencies.

Forensic Fraud 
(Elsevier, 2013)

The subject remains sore and often forbidden within the forensic science community. Consequently, the frequency and conditions of its occurrence have not been researched, and incidents are regularly hidden from public scrutiny to maintain the reputations of those agencies and crime laboratories that have suffered its stain. As discussed in this new text (available in June), this is at least in part because those who have direct knowledge of forensic fraud also have a vested interest in keeping it from becoming public knowledge. 

There are a number of contributing factors: 

First, hiding or ignoring misconduct preserves the image of an examiner's agency or lab, and by extension their own reputation, out of concern for courtroom credibility and future employment prospects. 

Additionally, it must be understood that forensic practitioners are by definition involved in sensitive casework. As a function of their employment contracts, they may operate under strict confidentiality agreements or non-disclosure clauses that might preclude communication of any kind about active casework—especially that which reflects negatively on their employer. The fear of losing employment-related income (e.g., being fired), and any future employment prospects, is generally sufficient enough for most to avoid causing a breach, even when it is in the public interest. 

The majority of forensic scientists are also employed directly by police agencies or by crime labs associated with law enforcement and the prosecution. Consequently, open discussion and study of forensic fraud have long been considered a “third rail” in the forensic community. A brief explanation is necessary: the third rail is the method of providing electrical power to a railway, such as a mass transit system, by means of an exposed conductor. Anyone who touches the third rail is killed instantly by a surge of electricity. So it is with the issue of fraud. Such a discussion necessarily involves critical review of the actions and motives of law enforcement, prosecutors, and their scientific agents. These are not professional communities that are generally receptive of criticism or outside review, and they are frequently hostile to external or independent efforts involving either. Consequently, any forensic practitioner who raises these or related issues risks touching the third rail—being the object of hostility and derision within the law enforcement and government lab community, and committing career suicide in the process. This means not only the loss of employment, but also one’s friends, colleagues, and professional identity.

As a consequence of these and other related factors, the phenomenon of forensic fraud has remained a mystery ---- until now. The publication of Forensic Fraud represents the first real scientific effort to study and understand what happens when forensic scientists go bad and why - with realistic reforms. A more timely report on the state of forensic science is difficult to imagine.

In short, the research demonstrates that forensic fraud is not an isolated problem resulting from a few bad apples. Rather, it is most often the result of systemic and cultural failures, and arises primarily in association with law enforcement employed forensic personnel or those working for the prosecution. And when it is discovered, those involved are not generally fired, prosecuted, or otherwise punished - rather they are most often retained, perhaps transferred, or allowed to resign and move on to another agency where fraud can continue anew.

Forensic Fraud defines the nature of the problems in the forensic community; helps readers to understand the social contexts and personal motives that facilitate forensic fraud; provides informed strategies for mitigating forensic fraud; and ultimately seeks to keep the criminal justice system honest with itself and the public that it serves.

Some recent examples of forensic fraud, error, and other misconduct from just the past six months include the following:

1. Washington State Patrol Crime Lab
Among the most beleaguered crime lab systems in the nation at the moment, with a steady stream of scandals since 1999 (with the termination of Dr. John Brown for DNA related fraud), Lab Manager Kevin Fortney resigned his post this year while under investigation for fraud and error relating to multiple cases. 

Kevin Fortney

And it's only gotten worse since he left, with new revelations being uncovered every week. The Fortney scandal occurred while this lab system was only just healing from the fraud committed by former Lab Director Barry Logan and his subordinate Anne Marie Gordon.

2. Scottsdale Police Department Crime Lab

Scottsdale police crime lab criminalists, supervisors, and prosecutors have been arguing in court whether blood-alcohol evidence processed in the lab can trusted because of problems with equipment. They say it can. However, internal emails recently discovered to the defense paint a very different picture.

3. Onondaga County Crime Lab in Syracuse, NY

The fight between the Syracuse Police Department and the district attorney's office over who controls the Onondaga County crime lab reached a fever pitch this year, resulting in an investigation by the Inspector General's Office. No wrongdoing was uncovered at the lab, but tensions between the police department and the district attorney's office remain high.

4. Hinton Drug Lab in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
The Annie Dookhan scandal began unfolding in 2012. It involved dry-labbing in more than 30,000 cases, hundreds of cases overturned, and a crime 

Annie Dookhan

lab so bankrupt of scientific integrity and accountability at all levels of management that it had to be shut down. The investigation of the lab alone is still costing the state tens of millions. Though she confessed to investigators, she recently plead not guilty in court after being indicted for charges related to her many acts of fraud. 

This was far worse than the fraud committed by Debra Madden, which forced the closure of the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab (and is only just now winding down after four longs years of dismissed cases, hidden evidence, and hypocrisy). Consequently, the Annie Dookhan scandal will go down as one of the worst in the history of the forensic sciences. 

5. Massachusetts State Police Crime Scene Services Section
Det. Lt. Kenneth F. Martin, commanding officer of the Crime Scene Services Section, was recently stripped of his command and reassigned when it was learned that he was moonlighting as a defense expert on local cases.

6. Canton-Stark County Crime Lab - Ohio
The Stark County Crime Lab has been plagued with problems for the past year. 

Michael Short

Primarily, these relate to the inability to keep a fraudulent scientist fired (criminalist Michael Short); and the improper hiring of an unqualified police officer as lab director (Rick Perez). This required the director's near immediate resignation. Currently, in part due to evidence backlogs that have come to light because of the recent leadership change, DNA testing has been halted at the lab. It is currently being outsourced to the BCI. 

7. Beckley Police Department - West Virginia

Gabriella Brown

In the kind of case that is becoming all too common in the forensic sciences (see Sonja Farak, below), Gabriella Brown, an evidence technician, was charged with stealing drugs from the evidence locker she was in charge of. She was a civilian employee of the PD, and also holds an online Masters degree in Forensic Science from Marshall University. She recently plead guilty and was sentenced to four years probation.

8. Massachusetts State Drug Lab - Amherst
Sonja Farak, a forensic chemist, was recently indicted for stealing drugs and otherwise tampering with evidence at the state drug lab in Amherst, Massachusetts. The case is ongoing.


9. California State Crime Lab - Ripon
Hermon Brown, a criminalist, was recently convicted of embezzlement in relation to the theft of methamphetamine and cocaine from his lab. He was skimming from the drugs submitted by law enforcement, which alters weights and related charges. The fraud comes from misreporting the true weights in logbooks and reports. His fraud compromised dozens of local trials where he was scheduled to testify. After a couple of years waiting trial, he plead out and took 16 months of jail time.