Dr. Henry Lee: Evidence of Foul Play

0:00Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight risk-free today at greenlight.com slash Wondery. You may have heard of the sex cult NXIVM and the famous actress who went to prison for her involvement, Allison Mack.

0:38But she's never told her side of the story. Until now. People assume that I'm like this pervert. My name is Natalie Robamed, and in my new podcast, I talk to Alison to try to understand how she went from TV actor to cult member, and what she thinks of it all now. How do you feel about having been involved in bringing sexual trauma to other people? I mean, I don't even know how to answer that question. Alison, after NXIVM from CBC's Uncover, is available now, wherever you get your podcasts.

1:09July 10th, 2020 was a big day for Sean Henning and Ricky Birch, a day they'd likely looked forward to for decades. The two men emerged from the Superior Court in Torrington, Connecticut, wearing coordinated t-shirts. Each had a starkly powerful statement written across the chest. Birch's shirt was white with black lettering that said, I am innocent. Henning's was black with white text, which said, I didn't do it. It was a long and winding road that led them to that courtroom. 35 years before, they had been caught up in a bloody murder and became the prime suspects. They were convicted and received long prison sentences, 50 and 55 years.

1:54Then, earlier that day, a judge finally dismissed all charges against them. In a way, their t-shirts told the whole story. They were exonerated of the crimes they'd been accused of. They were innocent. They didn't do it. Yet, they did each spend nearly three decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit. And why was that? Who was to blame? From a certain perspective, one man bore a large part of the fault for sending them to prison. He was a forensic expert whose testimony helped convince a jury they were guilty. That man was part of the reason Henning and Birch ended up losing nearly 30 years of their lives behind bars.

2:42His name was Dr. Henry Lee.

2:52This is The Opportunist, an original podcast from Podcast One. You're listening to a story told in one episode called Dr. Henry Lee, Evidence of Foul Play.

3:05I'm Sarah James McLaughlin. In this episode, we dive into the story of Dr. Henry Lee, a forensic scientist and expert witness whose decades-long career was later overshadowed after shoddy testimony compromised several major cases.

3:52Henry Lee, the man who would one day be called the godfather of forensic science, science, worked his way up from humble beginnings. Born in China, the 11th of 13 children, he had to fend for himself from an early age. Li's father died when he was just 10 years old, leaving only his mother to care for him and his 12 siblings. The family moved to Taiwan, where Li made the very pragmatic decision to go to police college. Not because he had a passion for justice or law enforcement, but because it was free. Lee went on to become an officer in the Taipei Police Department, where he soon distinguished himself by rising to the rank of captain by the age of 22.

4:35From an early age, he proved that he had the foresight and the ambition to climb the ladder of success. In 1965, Lee made another major move where he immigrated to the United States with just$65 in his pocket. Seven years later, he graduated from college with a degree in forensic science. Keep in mind, this was the early 1970s. The concept of criminal forensics was still in its infancy. DNA matching wasn't even a thing until the mid-80s. So Lee was on the cutting edge of the field. He got his doctorate degree from NYU, and in 1979 was hired as the director of the Connecticut State Crime Lab. From there, like in Taiwan, Lee quickly worked his way up until eventually he was the chief criminologist of the state police.

5:29He also went into teaching, passing on his forensic knowledge. For more context on Lee and his career, we spoke with reporter Liz Hardaway, who covers breaking news and court proceedings for First Connecticut Media Group. So Dr. Henry Lee is a professor amaretis. He's a professor at the University of New Haven. He's the founder of the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science. He's a very renowned, well-known forensic scientist. He's worked in several high-profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, and Lacey Peterson murder cases. Over his career, Lee has claimed to have worked on more than 8 ,000 cases in 57 countries.

6:19But before Dr. Lee worked on such infamous cases, he was just a young forensic investigator in Connecticut trying to make a name for himself, which he first did back in 1986.

6:33Lee's beat break was the so-called woodchipper murder. The victim, Hela Crafts, went missing and suspicion fell on her husband. Lee led the forensic team and helped conclude that her husband had put her remains through a woodchipper. This theory allowed law enforcement to prosecute a murder case, even without a body, which was the first in Connecticut history. Alongside this work for the state lab, Lee also consulted on various criminal cases as an expert witness. One of these cases, coming a few years after the Woodchipper murder, was the fateful New Milford murder that saw Henning and Birch behind bars.

7:15On December 1, 1985, a 65-year-old Connecticut man named Everett Carr was brutally murdered in his daughter's home. Also, at the crime scene, bloody shoe prints led to a bedroom on the first floor, where some drawers were pulled out and ransacked. This seemed to suggest the motive was a burglary gone wrong. This was where Sean Henning and Ricky Birch came in, or at least that's what prosecutors tried to argue. Ralph Birch and Sean Henning, they were 18 and 17 years old at the time, and they were considered to be troubled youth. They were living in a stolen car and burglarizing homes in the New Milford area.

7:58Birch and Henning confessed to committing burglaries in the days leading up to Carr's murder. So with pressure building on law enforcement to solve the murder, they became prime suspects. But here's the thing. The crime scene went far beyond just a run-of-the-mill burglary. It was a vicious crime. He had 27 stab wounds. It was described as an extremely bloody crime scene. Carr was found in a pool of blood, and blood spatter and smears covered the walls around him. He also had his throat cut and suffered blows to the head, so just a horrific crime. Not to belabor the point, it was a very bloody crime scene.

8:45But somehow, neither Birch nor Henning was ever found to have any of the victim's blood on them. The state tested Henning and Birch's clothing and shoes, even the interior of the Buick they were living in. Not a speck of Carr's blood was found on any of it. This is where Dr. Lee came in. Lee was hired by the prosecution to testify how Birch and Henning could be guilty of the incredibly bloody murder without getting any blood on themselves. or leaving behind any physical evidence. Lee testified that it was possible for Burch and Henning to somehow commit the murder without getting much blood on them.

9:26After that, the state's case hinged on a towel found in a bathroom at the scene. So the biggest piece of evidence that this case was hinged on was a towel hanging next to a sink in an upstairs bathroom at the car crime scene. The towel contained a reddish smear, and Lee testified that he had conducted tests on the towel, and a smear of blood was found on one of the towels, and that the smear was analyzed and shows blood. He also testified that it was possible for the assailants to avoid getting much blood on them, despite the bloody crime scene. So Lee declared that Henning and Birch somehow avoided getting almost any blood on them, while they slit a man's throat, stabbed, and beat him.

10:14Then they proceeded upstairs, not leaving any traces of their DNA, and cleaned it up with a towel, only leaving a small stain behind. That theory of the crime may seem like a bit of a stretch, but Lee sold it with his trademark confidence and charm. And he also said his claims were backed up by science. He testified in front of the jury that the towel had been tested and come back positive for blood. So based on these testimonies, the prosecutor argued that the men had cleaned up after the murder. And in their closing argument, the prosecutor urged the jury to remember the bloody towel in the bathroom, claiming it gave the two men an opportunity to clean up.

11:01And that was enough to seal Henning and Birch's fates. So Ralph, Ricky Birch, and Sean Henning, they went to prison for the murder of Everett Carr. Lee moved on to other cases, but Henning and Birch maintained their innocence and went through the appeals process. Of course, after they were convicted, they filed appeals that were denied. They filed habeas petitions, which were also denied, but it wasn't really until 2019 that there was a turn in the case. It was their second habeas petition, and the Connecticut Supreme Court, in an appeal, found Birch and Henning were entitled to new trials, overturning their murder convictions.

11:47The court also ruled that Lee had given a false testimony in the 2019 one. Finally, decades later, they got a break in the case when new lawyers came across evidence that showed Lee had lied to the jury about the forensic test he'd done on the damning towel. so after the federal ruling he said he used a chemical test for blood it was used in the 80s he used it on the smear that was on the towel and he said they gave a positive chemical reaction but for unknown reasons that they were never submitted to the lab for a confirm they were never submitted to the lab for a confirmatory blood test at the time In court, he was saying that the towel tested positive for blood.

12:36The prosecutors used that, and they're telling the jury, remember the bloody towel. And now he's saying that the towel wasn't sent in for confirmatory tests. It was only field tests, which are presumptive. And he asserted that the results were not definitive. In fact, tests done on the towel decades later proved that the reddish-brown stain was not blood. That towel that Lee claimed had blood on it was holding together the prosecutor's case against Henning and Birch. Without it, their flimsy theory fell apart. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruling put it this way, and I quote, If the jury had known that Lee's testimony about finding blood on the bathroom towel was incorrect, that knowledge might well have caused it to question the reliability of his other testimony.

13:33If that had occurred, the state's entire case against the petitioner could very well have collapsed. In 2018, Henning, who was a minor when he was convicted, was released on parole. And in 2020, a judge overturned the convictions against both Henning and Birch, officially exonerating them. But not before they'd both been behind bars for decades. The state of Connecticut ended up paying out$25.2 million in damages to the two men. But that money can't give them back what they lost. In the midst of Henning and Birch being granted new trials, Lee went on the defensive. He gave a press conference and said, In my 57-year career, I have investigated over 8 ,000 cases and never ever was accused of any wrongdoing or for testifying intentionally wrong.

14:28This is the first case that I have had to defend myself. And as it turned out, it would be far from the last.

14:41Up next, as Lee becomes a celebrity among forensic experts, more and more alarming inconsistencies come up in his testimony. Now, back to the story. In 2020, two men that Dr. Lee had helped put behind bars were released. It turned out the evidence that Lee testified about was fabricated. In 2007, Lee was involved in another, even more high-profile case, where there was a different issue with how he handled the evidence. The murder trial of famous music producer Phil Spector. Back in 2003, Spector met actress Lana Clarkson at the House of Blues where she was working. She and Spector were driven to his mansion and his limousine.

15:30Then the next morning, Clarkson's body was found slumped in a chair, dead from a gunshot wound to her mouth. The question was, who pulled the trigger? Spector's defense argued that Clarkson herself had fired the gun in an accidental suicide. But there was some critical evidence missing. One of the white-colored acrylic fingernails on Clarkson's right hand was broken. That missing piece was never turned into evidence. This broken fingernail was critical because it could have suggested that Spector and Clarkson were engaged in a struggle before she was killed. That would undermine the idea that Clarkson accidentally shot herself and cast more suspicion on Spector.

16:13So what happened to that critical missing puzzle piece? It seemed that Dr. Lee had a hand in spiriting it away.

16:24Multiple witnesses at the crime scene, as evidence was being collected, said they saw Lee pick up a small white object off the floor. Sarah Kaplan, a former lawyer for Spector's defense, was called in to testify to what she saw. Now, what happened here is Ms. Kaplan was basically present during gathering of evidence, and by being so present, she made herself a witness to the actual gathering process. It's relevant testimony about the gathering of scientific evidence in this case, which is so highly relevant to whether or not Phil Spector possibly pulled the trigger. On the witness stand, Kaplan pointed the finger at Lee as the last person to have possession of the piece of evidence.

17:10There was something white that I saw. It was about the size of my entire fingernail. I called Dr. Lee's attention to it. He came over to it. He picked it up and put it in a vial. Whose possession was the last person you saw handling that item? Dr. Lee. Lee admitted that he did take an object from the crime scene, but he said it wasn't a fingernail but a piece of thread. Years later, in an interview, Lee admitted to having the nail, but said that he tried years earlier to send the evidence to attorneys on both sides of the case and no one would take it, which sounds awfully convenient. Stanley White, a former investigator for the Spectre defense team, also testified that Lee removed the nail from the scene.

18:07He thinks that Lee was intentionally trying to shift the outcome of the case by taking the piece of evidence. but that he got in over his head. White said, Lee got his ass kicked on that case. He thought he was a little too powerful. In other words, Lee saw an opportunity to score a point for his team, and he took it. But he got caught. A judge later ruled that Lee had hidden or destroyed the white object. This was a blow to his reputation and integrity. But there were so many other lurid details swirling around the Spectre trial, that Lee's transgression didn't make much of an impression. And his actions didn't end his career.

18:50Far from it. By his own count, he went on to work thousands more cases. To better understand the factors that may have motivated Dr. Lee to continue taking liberties with evidence, it's helpful to understand how expert testimony works in the criminal justice system. A quick breakdown. There are three kinds of witnesses in court. First, there's what's called a lay witness. This is someone who experienced events firsthand and can speak to what they saw. There are also character witnesses. They personally know a victim or defendant and can speak to who they are as people. For our purposes, it's important to note that lay and character witnesses aren't usually compensated much at all.

19:38Then there's the last kind, an expert witness. These are people who have special knowledge and training in a certain field that is relevant to a case. Naturally, forensic specialists like Dr. Lee are often called to testify in this capacity as their expertise can help a jury understand how a crime may have been committed. Since there's a very high demand for their services, expert witnesses can earn very high fees with virtually no limits. We're talking an average of$400 to$500 per hour. In a typical case, for about 25 hours of work, an expert witness can take home upwards of$13 ,000. And if you multiply that by thousands of cases over a career, you're really raking in the dough.

20:29But there are some uncomfortable reasons that expert witnesses make so much money. For one thing, they're paid for their ability to persuade people more than for their knowledge. It's not enough for an expert to just be an expert. To be effective, they have to convince a jury that a crime happened in a certain way. As it turned out, Lee was a natural at this. In the courtroom, people found him credible. charming even, he could break down complex scientific theories for juries. But when the moment was right, he could also crack a joke. Another confounding factor. Experts who can convince a jury and help attorneys win cases often get rewarded with more work and more money.

21:16From a prosecutor's perspective, it seems worthwhile to shell out more cash for someone who has a proven track record of landing convictions. However, this can incentivize experts to twist the facts to fit a certain narrative in the hopes that they'll get more work down the line. Like, for example, saying a stain on a towel is blood when it isn't. Or stealing a piece of a fingernail from a crime scene if it might hurt your side in court. The idea would be, I'll do a solid for these prosecutors now by wrapping up this case for them and they'll do a solid later by hiring me again. Even aside from financial gain, humans are social creatures and there is also a powerful instinct to want to help people who are on your team.

22:10But in the context of expert witnesses, this natural instinct to confirm and support a certain team can cause serious problems for the criminal justice system. With all of these factors pushing forensic experts like Lee to testify in a certain way, it makes more sense why he would continue to manipulate evidence to suit his own needs and the needs of the people that kept him in a job. So keep this in mind because he was accused of hiding evidence and giving incorrect testimony in several more cases. In 1984, Dr. Lee was brought into yet another bizarre and bloody murder case. This time, the victim was Janet Myers, a 25-year-old mother of two from Harvey, Louisiana.

22:59The circumstances surrounding her death were very strange. Janet Myers' husband, Kerry, alleged that his friend, William Fontenelle, burst into their home and attacked him with a baseball bat, then proceeded to beat and murder his wife. But Fontenelle had a different version of events. He claimed that he had slept with Janet, and Carrie attacked him and Janet in a jealous rage. For more context, we spoke with Alan Gautreaux, a historian, YouTube creator, and teacher who wrote a book called Southern Evil about famous crimes in the American South. Well, according to Carrie Myers, He came home and a gentleman by his friend, William Fontenelle, had hit him with an aluminum bat and broke his arm, his left arm.

23:50And they began fighting for about 10 hours in the home. They'd take breaks to eat and watch TV. A fistfight that lasted for 10 hours? With breaks to eat and watch TV? And there was another morbid reality hanging over the entire scene. and neither one of them noticed Janet Myers on the living room floor. She was still alive at the time, you could tell from the crime scene photos, because there was an arc where her arm had been moving in blood. Immediately after the murder, Fontanelle had become the prime suspect, and Kerry Myers was the prosecution's star witness against him. Kerry Myers was not a suspect at first, but William Fontanelle was.

24:42and there were certain protocols that weren't followed. Fontanil was charged with the murder, but his trial ended in a hung jury. But there was still pressure from the community to solve the case and put someone behind bars for killing young Janet Myers. So, several years after the killing, suspicion turned to the other man who was present at the scene, Janet's husband, Kerry Myers. In 1990, six years after Janet's murder, state prosecutors changed their strategy and charged both Myers and Fontenelle with the killing. And then finally, in 1990, both men were indicted for murder in the second degree.

25:28This was the point where prosecution brought in Dr. Lee to testify. By now, Lee had made a bit of a name for himself as an expert who could help clinch a conviction, even with long odds. And the odds in this case were long indeed. This was like 10 years before the OJ trial. But the whole gist of the matter was when Henry Lee came in, it was like everyone was awed by who he was. In fact, the prosecution was so eager to have Lee on their team that they made a special gesture to help persuade him to come aboard. They had to get, they promised him 200 pounds, they sent him 200 pounds of crawfish in order for him to take the case because they knew he was busy.

26:16That's right. Prosecutors gifted Lee and his forensic team with 200 pounds of seafood. And it worked. Lee took on the case and it turned out to be the start of a very cozy, decades-long relationship between him and the Jefferson Parish District Attorneys. Speaking during a 2019 presentation, Lee praised prosecutor Paul Connick Jr. for sending the gift saying, that's a good lawyer. And it wasn't a one-sided affair. Connick Jr. was taken with Lee saying, I want people I can trust to tell me we got it right. With Henry, I know. Now, those are pretty strong words about a forensic expert. It could be that Connick Jr.

27:03just thought Henry did accurate work. But you could also hear that and think that Connick seems very sure that working with Lee will get him the outcome he wants. At the same 2019 presentation, Lee put it another way. He said, I only do one thing, make the impossible possible. So this Louisiana prosecutor has this bizarre case. He tries to pin it on William Fontenelle, but it doesn't stick. Years go by with new resolution. He indicts Fontenelle and Myers. Then he makes this grand gesture to bring in Dr. Lee. He sends Lee photos and evidence, and Lee does what he does best. He took the evidence and he looked at it and he said that there was a pair of jeans that was taken from one of the men.

27:58He said that the person that was wearing these jeans was the person that actually murdered Janet Myers. Lee looked over the evidence and asserted that the pants Carrie Myers had been wearing were spattered with type A blood, which matched the victim, his late wife, Janet. This was despite the fact that forensics teams had already examined Carrie's genes without finding any type A blood on them. Lee took things a step further and testified that these spatters, that only he had seen, could indicate that Carrie was physically close to Janet when she died, and so he could be the killer. But here's the thing.