Burton Katz
Henry Lee: Is Spector the downfall of a famous criminalist?
Judge Larry Paul Fidler held a hearing over several days outside the jury’s presence to address allegations by the prosecution that famed criminalist Dr. Henry Lee withheld evidence that he allegedly uncovered at the crime scene the day following Lana Clarkson’s death by handgun. That is a devastating allegation going to the heart of Lee’s honesty and credibility, no matter how you mince the words.
As you may recall, Bob Shapiro, Spector’s first defense attorney, did what he is noted for doing, quickly lining up the most gifted forensic criminalists and experts before the prosecution can retain them. Thus, Lee and famed forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden were dispatched from the East Coast to the Spector crime scene the day following the shooting death of Clarkson.
Both Lee and Baden provided critical testimony in the O.J. Simpson murder trial that paved the way for Simpson’s acquittal. They are very, very good at what they do. They are also hired guns. They have the ability to dramatically persuade juries that there exists a “doubt” based upon their forensic analysis of the crime scene and pathology evidence. Their orchestrated reputations as forensic gurus, larger than life, instill confidence in their lofty pronouncements.
Juries love forensic testimony and embrace the notion that crime scene forensics offer the key to the puzzle to what really happened. The truth is, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. Crime scenes are often contaminated, evidence recovered often has nothing to do with the killing, is often misread, mishandled and, worst of all, misinterpreted. Sometimes deliberately.
Here’s what the controversy is about. Sara Caplan, an attorney who was working with Shapiro, was present at the crime scene and testified that she observed Lee retrieve a “little white thing” from the carpet in the foyer where Clarkson died of a gunshot wound, and place it into a clear vial.
Lee, who denies having done so, failed to turn over any such item to the prosecution. If indeed he found crime scene evidence, he is duty bound to turn it over to the police investigators. One witness, Stanley White, a retired Sheriff’s homicide detective hired as an investigator on the original defense team, purportedly identified the “white” object as a fingernail. He claimed that pieces of fingernails are common at crime scenes because they are defensive wounds suffered when the victim uses his or her hands to fend off an attack. “It looked like a defensive-wounded fingernail,” he said. More damning was White’s testimony that the fingernail was streaked with silver, consistent with gunpowder residue. Caplan described it as “flat with uneven edges,” which is consistent with a fingernail.
If such evidence exists, it is extremely important to the prosecution as it supports their theory that Clarkson attempted to stop Spector from forcing the gun into her mouth and suffered the loss of an acrylic nail blown away by the exploding gun.
Judge Fidler said he had “an absolute obligation when there is any inference or allegation that any evidence has been tampered with to make inquiry…” The judge talked about the importance of guaranteeing the sanctity of any evidence or lack of evidence on which a jury would be asked to return a verdict.
After three days of testimony, including the testimony of Baden, Fidler concluded that he believed attorney Caplan as being more credible than Lee. I don’t care how you spin this, there is only one reasonable interpretation, and that is that the judge regards Lee’s categorical denial of finding such an item to be false. OK, let’s say it. The judge believes he lied.
What this means to an internationally famous criminalist is that he may be suspect when advancing fancy theories that tend to exonerate a defendant. Integrity is the key to an expert’s testimony. We don’t know. They’re supposed to guide us. They’re supposed to lead us to the discovery of the truth. If one deliberately hides or withholds evidence presumably unfavorable to the opposition, how can a jury ever invest trust in such a person to take them on that journey?
If Lee is called as a defense witness as planned, the jury will be told of this incident. It will be up to the jury to decide if Lee is worthy of belief. How would you decide?