Burton Katz
The Spector Trial: Do statistics lie?
Werner Spitz, a crusty, seasoned forensic pathologist who claims to have performed or supervised an “incredible” number of autopsies (60,000) over a career spanning some 54 years testified that Lana Clarkson killed herself. He is now the second defense pathologist to opine that Clarkson met her death at her own hand, joining Vincent DiMaio, a Texas forensic pathologist who previously testified.
What appears to be important to Spitz and DiMaio is the statistical unlikelihood that one who dies from an oral gunshot wound is a victim of murder. Rather, they say that in nearly 99 percent of the cases in which a victim dies of an oral gunshot wound, such wound is self-inflicted. Add to that the claim that the blood spatter evidence proves that Spector was nothing more than a “passive” presence during the shooting death of Clarkson, and the case in their minds is solved.
The pathologists contend that if Spector was shoving or holding the gun in Clarkson’s mouth when it fired the deadly bullet, Spector would have been covered with more patterned blood and tissue debris. Thus, they say that Spector must have been standing a distance of at least six feet from Clarkson when the gun was fired.
As Jack Webb said, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” And that would be fine if real life murder could be solved in a black and white television episode of “Dragnet.” Spitz and DiMaio offer scientific “proof” that on its face is hard to refute: statistically, a death from an oral gunshot wound is invariably self-inflicted. But life holds nuance, and one must include all the relevant data before one can confidently use raw statistics to bolster an opinion. Statistics don’t show heart and emotion.
Where are the statistics that show how many oral gunshot victims killed themselves in the presence of an alleged pathologically disturbed individual who had previously threatened other women with guns under allegedly similar circumstances? Where are the statistics that show how many oral gunshot victims committed suicide in the house of a complete stranger they had met only two hours earlier? Where are the statistics that show how many oral gunshot victims killed themselves in a perfect stranger’s house, with their coats on, purse slung over their shoulder, seated next to an exterior door apparently trying to get to her waiting chauffeur?
How many oral gunshot victims died at their own hands when the only other living person (Spector) was also spattered with blood and tissue debris? Tell me, forensic experts, because I want to know. Show me the statistics that include the survivor’s (Spector’s) alleged attempt to wash blood and debris off his person; show me the statistics that include a statement by a person holding the death weapon, “I think I just killed someone,” immediately following an alleged suicide. Tell me, because if I want to know, so will the jury.
If you can’t show me any of the foregoing, then I’ll show you something we all should consider. Spitz has already billed for $45,000 and will in all likelihood bill for more. Yes, he has a right to be paid, and paid well for his expertise. But one can’t help speculate whether such handsome remuneration does not color his opinion, especially since Spitz showed utter contempt for such compelling evidence as Spector’s prior alleged assaults against women in which a gun was used. When challenged with Spector’s prior gun assaults against women, Spitz incredibly responded, “We all did stupid things 10 years ago or 20 years ago.”
When Prosecutor Alan Jackson asked Spitz: “Did you ever get drunk, get a woman alone, get angry when she wanted to leave, pull out a handgun, stick it in her face and force your will on her,” Spits replied: “I have been married for 45 years, so not in 45 years.”
When Jackson followed with the question, “So if you weren’t married, you would have pulled guns,” Spitz replied: “Well, who knows what you do when you are drunk.”
Oh my. “Who knows what you do when you are drunk.” Well, Spitz wouldn’t, but four other women know what Spector does when he is drunk in a situation similar to Lana Clarkson’s. Statistically speaking, he probably did it again.
Let’s hope the next expert witnesses don’t suffer from hubris. If forensic pathologists Cyril Wecht and Michael Baden are called to testify, as rumored, I hope they will at least give some serious thought to some of these other “facts” that may not be reflected in the raw statistics of oral-gunshot victims. At least, if they don’t arbitrarily exclude it and honestly evaluate it, then they will be entitled to our serious consideration of their proffered opinions.