UPDATED: Level 3 Sex Offender Registers with Marlborough Police
Police Chief Mark Leonard notifies the community that a Level 3 sex offender has registered his residence in Marlborough, but reminds residents that this man is not wanted by police.
Photos
Pdfs
The Marlborough Police Department alerted the media on Thursday afternoon to the fact the a Level III sex offender has registered to live inside the City limits.
Charles T. Gilchrest, 51, formerly of 26 Oak Pond Ave., Millbury, according to court records recorded in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, registered his home address in Marlborough at 62 Neil St.
Gilchrest was convicted on Jan. 13, 2011 on three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 years of age.
"Pursuant to the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Statute, I am obligated to notify various organizations of the presence of Level III (high risk of re-offense) Sex Offenders in the community," said Chief Mark Leonard in a statement.
The Chief did stress that Gilchrest is not currently wanted by police.
The original charges in the case came after he was arrested on a warrant in Bellingham, according to the July 22, 2010 issue of The Milford Daily News.
He was arraigned in Worcester District Court in late July of 2010 where he was accused of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and three counts of rape of a child with force. He was released on $20,000 cash bail at that time, according to the court records.
The Milford Daily News reported Gilchrest's address as being in Marlborough at 62 Neil St., while those early court records reveal the address in Millbury. A call to the Worcester District Clerk's office by Marlborough Patch, to clarify this point and to acquire the details of his sentence, has not yet been returned.
Gilchrest's address in this case is an important factor as his Marlborough residence appears to be less than 1000 feet away from a public park. This would be a violation of his status as a Level III offender, in that the local ordinance requires him to maintain a residence beyond that distance, unless he has lived at that location since before the law was written.
A Marlborough Patch reader contacted the Marlborough Police Department on Friday and was told that Gilchrest met the residency requirement—being grandfathered in at that locale—and would only be in violation if he was found loitering in the area of the park.
Gilchrest is one of nine Level 3 offenders living in the Marlborough community.
The classification of Level 3 is derived from the State's belief that the offender may recidivate.
"The Board has determined that this individual is at a high risk to reoffend and that the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active community notification," said a statement.
By releasing this information to the public, the police department is simply acting in accordance with Massachusetts state law. (See attached flier)
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to keep up to date on the latest Marlborough news, or simply hit the "like" button at the top of this page.
Damon Michaels
10:29 am on Friday, May 27, 2011
Seems to me that he lives too close to a park. By judging the distance on google it appears he is closer than 1000 feet to a park.
Map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=62+Neil+Street,+Marlborough,+MA&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=62+Neil+St,+Marlborough,+Massachusetts+01752&ll=42.343423,-71.5452&spn=0.003224,0.004823&t=h&z=18
Law:
http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/gen/marlboroughma_citycouncl/sex%20offender%20order.pdf
Josh Gray
10:41 am on Friday, May 27, 2011
As the crow flies it certainly seems like it is a close call. (Google Maps will only give me distance by following the streets.) I can check with the police on that.
Erica
10:53 am on Friday, May 27, 2011
I just called and left a message with Detective Shea about it. As a mother of two young children who frequents that park, I feel I have a right to ask about the distance. Google Maps does only list by way of the streets (.4 mile), but this guy molested/raped children... you think he is a good law abiding citizen who wouldn't dare walk through people's yards to get to the park where children play? I highly doubt it.
Josh Gray
11:45 am on Friday, May 27, 2011
You beat me to it, Erica. Let us know what she says.
Erica
12:48 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
You know something, Josh? I have no idea what she was talking about! She said that he had the right to live within 1000 ft of the park, but he just could not loiter. That's not what the ordinance clearly states. She also mentioned something about him being grandfathered in. I have no idea what she means by that either, since he did not establish residency prior to when the ordinance came out (I think it came out last year, although the pdf does not have a date listed). She said if I was interested in sex offenders I should come in an fill out an inquiry form. Could you please give her a call and see if she tells you a different story or explains herself further? Until I hear otherwise, I will not be taking my children to the John St. park anymore.
Josh Gray
1:27 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
I will research the things you mentioned, talk to the police, and update the story as soon as possible (probably the end of the weekend). I am away for the holiday, but will be updating Patch throughout. Thanks for checking back!
Damon Michaels
1:46 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
I measured the distance more accurately. He is about 600 to 700 feet as the crow flies. There is no grandfather available in this case. The law clearly states this! The law clearly states that he cannot live within 1000 feet, period.
I will be interested in hearing how this ends up.
Jim
1:51 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
Call me crazy but he was convicted of these horrific crimes in january and he is out already. Please tell me I am missing something here
PM Higgins
3:58 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
He has lived at that address at least 7 years - the crime happened over 10 yrs ago - if he was voted most likely to re-offend wouldn't he have done it by now?
JPC
4:35 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
To PM Higgins, if you read the article and look at the SOR form, it says conviction date was 1/13/2011. So if you're saying he committed another offense ten years ago, I suggest the point is made for re-offense. Prosecution rests.
The article also says he lived in Millbury previously so where do you get he's lived at that address for 7 years? Either you or the article is wrong.
skullyd
3:39 pm on Monday, October 15, 2012
He did a Massachusetts PLEA BARGIN.
Kim
4:27 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
To PM Higgins: The article states he was convicted from a 2010 case in January 2011; that is not over ten years ago. I live very close to there with a young daughter. He does not belong living on Neil Street - a hop skip and a jump from John Street park plain and simple. A level three means that he is "most likely to re-offend".
Erica
7:49 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
To PM Higgins: It doesn't really matter whether he commited the crimes last week or 10 years ago - he RAPED and commited assault and battery on children under the age of 14. Children, innocent children. I am guessing you don't have any, since you are so blase about the issue. He is listed as level 3 for a reason, "Registered sex offenders pose a clear threat to the children, the elderly and the mentally retarded residing or visiting in the community... registered sex offenders are more likely than any other type of offender to re-offend for another sexual offense".
I had to laugh when I read your statement "if he was voted most likely to re-offend wouldn't he have done it by now?". Yeah, and people who quit doing smoking 10 years ago are never ever going to slip and light up another cigarette. Sexual predators are just that, predators. The law is there to protect them from having temptations or access to their victims.
PM Higgins
8:35 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
The only and I put emphasis on "only" "victim" is in her twenties now - and her accusations are from her memory of long ago. She dropped the rape charge - why was that? Erica - you say he raped her but she - the victim - dropped the charge - do you understand that? She is an adult and dropped the charge. He is my neighbor of 7 yrs. on Neil St, I have children - & have a college degree too - what else do you need to know to pass judgement? I did not make the foolish correlation to smoking - you did. If you want to spend your time on a witch hunt so be it. I will not respond to any more comments from hysterical, ignorant, over-reacting people.
Damon Michaels
3:18 pm on Wednesday, June 1, 2011
@PM Higgins - The guy is guilty, a done deal. If he was not guilty then he would not have been convicted based on whatever evidence was presented. I pass judgement based on his conviction! Erica did not correlate one with the other, she did provide an example of something similar, but that's not a correlation. She is not tieing (sp) smoking to sexual assault.
There is no witch hunt. No one here is hysterical or over-reacting, except perhaps you in your extensive defending of the guy.
Josh Gray
4:34 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
Here is the Marlborough law on the matter: http://www.marlborough-ma.gov/gen/marlboroughma_citycouncl/sex%20offender%20order.pdf
At this time we do not have all the information pertaining to why this individual is grandfathered at this residence, and police are unlikely to be very specific on that detail. It could be for several reasons that are not immediately evident.
Also, residence in this situation can be misleading because secondary addresses are put into the mix. State law: "Secondary addresses'', the addresses of all places where a sex offender lives, abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not a sex offender's primary address; or a place where a sex offender routinely lives, abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 4 or more consecutive or nonconsecutive days in any month and which is not a sex offender's permanent address, including any out-of-state address.
Josh Gray
5:13 pm on Friday, May 27, 2011
I wasn't able to get ahold of anyone in the Worcester Clerk's office (for sentencing details) before they closed for the weekend. We will update this story as soon as possible, but until then take a look at my last point; it should begin to give you an idea of where this is going.
Amanda
8:39 pm on Tuesday, May 31, 2011
PM Higgins... the woman may have dropped the charge however that does not mean the rape didnt happen. There are tons of reasons the charges could have been dropped. Considering he was still convicted of the crime even though the victim didnt press charges leads me to believe he DID rape the woman. This also means that her accusations were proven. PM Higgins - do you understand that?
Josh Gray
10:49 pm on Tuesday, May 31, 2011
To get the information on sentencing and trial details, I will have to go over to Worcester District Court and search for the docket number. I will get over there as soon as possible, but I wanted to update those following this story.
skullyd
4:41 pm on Sunday, December 4, 2011
I have a Huge problem with a Level 3 child rapist living around the block from our family. There are parks and schools within walking distance of our home as well as the home of the monster. Did a background check on Mr. Gilchrist. Guess what? Do it yourself. Hey Joss Grey, Follow up or lose all of your credit in this town.
Josh Gray
4:54 pm on Sunday, December 4, 2011
Hi, At the time of this post in May, I posted information pertaining to grandfathering laws in Massachusetts. This particular individual cannot be evicted from his home according to state law. I have spoken to our state rep (Steven Levy) about this as well. Let me know if you approach the legislature about changing the law.
Paul Bishop
9:53 am on Monday, December 5, 2011
It seems to me the obvious issue here is spineless judiciary. We agree as a society that child predation is among the most heinous of crimes.. but we in fact do not sentence child predators in line. You know what would interrupt his residence in Marlborough? A time of residence in Billerica House of Corrections. I truly mean this. If prison is his primary residence, even for a relatively short time, then his "primary residence" status cannot be grandfathered, bye bye Creep. Can anyone tell me why a simple (even couple of month) prison term isn't a residence, and then, can anyone tell me where we as a society have gotten to, to not have put him behind bars for a very long time (if not LIFE)?
Josh Gray
11:55 am on Monday, December 5, 2011
Interesting points, Paul. I know Rep. Levy has been active in trying to change the state laws in this area. I'll touch base with him soon and see if the legislation is going anywhere.
skullyd
3:16 pm on Sunday, October 14, 2012
Halloween is coming up, keep your children AWAY from 62 Neil ST. The Monster is waiting....... With the consent of the Marlboro PD. Grandfathered my rear end!