Browse through Dr. Lee's website. He is a forensic science expert (and was the expert shown in the Peterson documentary).
Choose one of the cases that he was an expert on. This page only gives a brief summary of each case. You are of course not required to purchase anything to finish this assignment :) Please google around (e.g., henry lee martha moxley) to find additional information on the case to answer the following questions. What was his area of expertise? What evidence did he evaluate? How was his expertise and testimony used in trial? What other thoughts do you have about how experts are used in criminal cases?
Dr. Henry Lee is a forensic psychologist who defines his work as 'criminalistics' which involves going to crime scenes to assist the police in collecting, preserving, examining, & analyzing evidence. There are different sub-specialties, but he is notorious for his work analyzing blood stains and patterns. Lee was asked to provide his expertise in blood spatter analysis in defense of Michael Peterson who was accused of murdering his wife in their home.
The biggest red flag that made people question Kathleen's death being due to an accidental fall was the amount of blood at the scene. Pools of blood stained the stair steps, hallway walls, door frames, floor, her body and clothes, as well as Michael Peterson's clothing. The first crime scene analyst who was an expert in blood spatter felt strongly that it was a homicide. The blood spatter on the inside leg of Peterson's shorts raised a lot of suspicion, along with the fact that a lot of the blood had already dried up by the time Michael Peterson called 911 and they arrived.
It was Dr. Henry Lee's job to examine the blood stains, provide his expert opinion, and testify in court on Michael's behalf. The documentary we watched in class captured his examination of the crime scene on film. An NBC News article about the case said that "Dr. Lee explained the blood spatter in a theatrical manner," by putting ketchup in his mouth, spitting it out in a way that the victim would have coughed up blood. His explanation was that the strange patterns were from her struggle to recover, coughing, sneezing, breathing and trying to stand up. What was strange about his testimony was that he said there was "too much blood for a beating." This really doesn't make any sense at all since being brutally beaten to death is a lot more likely to produce more blood than an accidental fall. Lee said that all the blood could only have been from her own actions, which also doesn't make much sense because if she could do that to herself on accident & produce that much blood, then why couldn't an intentional beating produce that much blood or more? He also claimed that the bloody footprint on the back side of Kathleen's sweatpants (the side facing the floor) & the blood on the inside leg of Peterson's shorts were from when Michael "tended to her" after he came inside and saw what had happened to her. His testimony in trial was followed up by another defense attorney, Rudolph, who argued that the police were incompetent.
In my eyes, Lee's testimony demonstrates what both our textbook & the Minds on Trail book say about experts being viewed as "hired guns" who just testify on whatever side they are hired on regardless of the evidence. The fact that Lee was already a celebrity expert witness from the OJ Simpson case also plays into the dynamics of the trial & his testimony. The blood stains were pretty much the number one thing going against Michael Peterson's claimed innocence, so I feel like an expert testimony about that part of the evidence needed to be the strongest part of their defense, when it seemed like the weakest to me. Their job is to show that things aren't always as they seem by using their expertise to explain things that other people wouldn't notice or understand or think of, but Lee's claim goes completely against common sense that even an idiot can figure out.
source-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15894727/ns/dateline_nbc/t/death-bottom-stairs/#.UImiOrTlfzJ
I chose to use his work on the O.J. Simpson case to see what type of testimony he did there. His websites surprised me a little in the formatting that was used and the way they protrayed Henry it seems as if they were trying to get him to look like a super hero in some ways. They did not give up much of any information within his website about his involvement in cases, instead you were redirected into buying his book to find out more about the trial.
He was hired for the defense, as he usually is, to give testimony on the area of expertise he is best known for, blood splatter analysis. During this case this also meant that he was to give testimony on things such as a bloody shoe print found at the scene of the crime. Many of the people did not like the idea that he was working for the defense and he got a lot of slack from people for working the case the way he did.
One of the last points made by Dr. Lee was that a blood stain that was found on an envelope in the house was in fact a shoeprint that didn't match the shoeprint of the designer shoes that OJ was said to be wearing the day of the murder. This opinion caused quite an uproar in the courtroom simply because the prosecutions expert (an expert hired from the FBI) had stated before that he didn't believe that the stain wasn't made from a shoe at all. A fellow FBI expert also concluded that the stain was a fabric mark and not made by a shoe. This type of dissonance from experts is something that could lead to a lot of bias in cases such as this one. It could confuse the jury and cause the lawyers to switch their style from figuring out he truth, to simply trying to discredit the other side's expert. This sort of thing is just exactly what could cause confusion within the jury of who to believe. It also shows how unreliable experts can be.
This confusion between experts didn't do a whole lot of good for Henry Lee's reputation. It was also said that he tried to make his case by suggesting that the Los Angelos crime scene detectives and investigators were incompentent in their job and that the blood sample had be contaiminated. He also suggested in his testimony that he was in favor of the theory that the evidence that was being presented had been planted and that his main argument was that the murder had been done by more than one person, neither of them being OJ Simpson.
All of these factors and more made him about the most unpopular person in terms of the legal workers.
I think using experts can be helpful in any case to be an informant for the jury so they may have some more background subject that they are asked to vote on. But in my opinion, having an expert give their opinion is somewhat iffy. I believe, as most people might that you would probably believe an expert over someone who has not had experience in the field. So in a sense I believe that letting the experts testify whether they believe the case should go one way or another is giving too much power to the experts and not enough power to the general public as far as the juries go.
Its a complex system I know and if I was on the jury I would love to know everything but when it comes to someones life in prison or death vs themliving free it's something that shouldn't be toyed with by experts who could possibly be biased based on the fact that they were paid to be there.
Terms: testimony, case, trial, defense, blood spatter analysis, scene, crime, murder prosecutions, expert, jury, lawyer, incompetent, contamination,
Dr. Henry Lee’s website was very informational and interesting, so I was glad that we got the chance to browse through it. I was amazed to see the number of famous cases that he had worked on and played a role in. He is a forensic science expert, which encompasses many different fields of science and entails collecting and analyzing physical evidence in criminal cases. Forensic science experts can be called to present expert testimony in court as well.
I chose to look up information from the O.J. Simpson case that Dr. Lee was an expert on. This particular case was about the double homicide of Simpson’s former wife and her friend. They were savagely killed near the front gate of Nicole Brown Simpson’s condo in Los Angeles, and O.J. Simpson became an early suspect. Later on, he took on the role of murder defendant.
Lee was called on to testify for the defense, and he stated that he was asked to perform the tasks of reviewing physical evidence, studying the crime scene and crime scene pictures, trying to find the scientific facts. He stated that his role in this case was rather limited because his skills were not needed for any other aspects of investigation. During direct examination at the trial, Lee was asked to discuss his work in bloodstain pattern analysis and demonstrate different kinds of bloodstain patterns. He intricately discussed how different blood droplets with different velocities could create different stains. He also was asked to talk about socks that were lying in the middle of the crime scene. He examined these socks, which were of interest due to what is known as wet blood transfer. During this set of questions, the direct examiner was attempting to prove that Simpson was not guilty due to the fact that he should have had blood on him after committing such a brutal crime.
During cross-examination, Lee was grilled for the different kinds of work he has done in previous cases. His cross-examiner discussed how there is a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter. During recross-examination, they were basically trying to get Lee to say that it was possible for O.J. Simpson to not have a large amount of blood on him from brutally killing his former wife and her friend.
The area of Lee’s expertise that was in the spotlight during this specific case was his bloodstain pattern analysis. As stated before, he evaluated evidence that was left at the crime scene as well as photographs of what the crime scene was like immediately after the crime had occurred. He had to evaluate a bloody footprint and a bloodstain that was on an envelope from the house. He was testifying for the defense, which meant that he was being used to prove that O.J. Simpson was innocent. Therefore, his expertise and testimony was used in trial to make the jury believe that Simpson did not commit this horrendous crime. Lee used his bloodstain pattern analysis to justify that since Simpson did not have blood on him from the scene of the crime that he could not have possibly killed two people. His testimony was obviously taken into consideration because of the fact that O.J. Simpson’s verdict was that of not guilty.
I have both positive and negative feelings when it comes to using experts in criminal cases. One one hand, experts can provide strong information that would save an innocent person from incarceration, or they could assist in getting a guilty person locked up. On the other hand, though, I am almost hesitant when it comes to fully agreeing with the information that an expert presents to the court. For one, the expert in question could be simply sharing their opinions with the court, and this would make it hard for the jury to pick out information that is actually helpful to the case. When someone is considered an expert in a certain field, you don’t want to have to be worried that they are presenting biased or faulty information, but this could definitely happen. It is also scary to think that expert testimony could be strong enough to sway a jury’s decision, especially if the expert gives information that is inaccurate, such as in the Andrea Yates case with the man who testified that she probably got the idea to drown her five children from an episode of Law and Order. There are so many things that could be great about using experts in criminal cases, but there are also so many things that could go wrong.
Terms: forensic science, expert, criminal case, expert testimony, homicide, suspect, defendant, defense, crime scene, investigation, direct examination, trial, bloodstain pattern analysis, cross-examination, recross-examination, innocent, testimony, guilty, court, bias, jury
Dr. Henry Lee is a world renowned forensic investigator whose skills have been utilized in over 6,000 cases globally. With over 30 year in experience in crime scene investigation and forensic analysis, Lee's expertise has been called to many famous cases, including the Elizabeth Smart case, forensic analysis of post 9/11 material, and also the OJ Simpson trial.
In the nationally famous trial of OJ Simpson, Lee was called to testify to provide insight on the forensic science behind the evidence presented at the trial. Lee's expertise was in various thing, and Lee provided knowledge about blood splatter analysis, trace evidence, physical evidence, and crime scene reconstruction. During OJ's trial, he explained that the patterns of the blood were not consistent with the accusations that were being made against Simpson. It is said that Henry Lee's testimony was the reason that OJ Simpson was acquitted from his charges made by the prosecution.
Lee also had a theory that the murder of Nicole Simpson could have been possibly made by multiple attackers. This was due to the inconsistency of the footprints found at the scene, and later went back to the crime scene two weeks after his initial investigation. By using photographs and his knowledge of imprints, Lee testified that the imprints made by the person at the scene of the crime were not made by the same person, and this provided a crucial analysis for the defense's case.
Henry Lee's testimonies among various trials are excellent examples of how an expert can be cause a turn of events in the middle of a trial. The OJ Simpson trial was changed dramatically in the defense's favor following Henry Lee's testimony. I did learn, however, that there are some discrepancies and criticisms that many have found with Lee's testimonies. The prosecution challenged his credibility on more than one occasion during the trial.
Another trial that seemed to have an unorthodox analysis was that of Michael Peterson, who was accused of murdering his wife in their home, by allegedly beating her to death. Michael Peterson was testifying that his wife fell down the stairs, and that was what caused her dismal end. The photographs provided by detectives displayed large amounts of blood in a splatter format that gave reason to believe that Michael's wife was beaten to death. After Lee's examination of the blood splatter pattern, he concluded that there was too much blood to have been a beating.
Many found Lee's analysis to be not credible, and felt that he did not properly analyze the blood splatter pattern on the walls of the Peterson home. Michael Peterson was later convicted and charged with the murder of his wife, and sentenced to prison. He was, however, allowed a retrial, and was set free.
I think that an expert can be a very useful tool in evaluating physical evidence and could possibly be the most useful tool in reconstructing a crime scene from the beginning to end. As long as the expert is using their knowledge to the best of their ability, they can provide justice for victims and those effected by the heinous crimes in society.
Dr. Henry Lee was the consultant that was brought onto the Michael Peterson case as a consultant. He has also worked on many other notorious cases. In exploring his website, I discovered his explanation of forensic science. He discusses criminalistics. He mentions that criminalistics are just a part of forensics. Criminalistics is collection and identification of physical evidence using science that will apply in law. He identifies forensic pathology as the aspect of medical investigation that applies to the body.
Initially, I looked at the Charles Lindbergh baby case and the Lacie Peterson case. However, it was difficult to locate reliable information regarding Henry Lee’s participation in these cases. I next went to the O.J. Simpson case. In this case, Dr. Lee was brought on as an expert. The first questions he was asked were questions about his job title and experience. These questions were used to validate to the jury why he is a credible expert. The attorneys mostly asked questions regarding procedures used when collecting evidence and how blood spatter can be used to figure out aspects of the scene. The blood spatter was the most of the evidence that he evaluated that we learned about. In the end, his expertise and testimony seemed to be used so that they could prove that it is possible for someone to commit a crime with their being blood evidence on their own self. At the end, the prosecution tried to prove that even though O.J. only had two blood droplets on himself, he still could have slit an individual’s throat.
My main thought on how experts are used in criminal cases is that experts are very useful in criminal cases. Experts are able to provide insight to details that would seem insignificant to the average Joe but can actually impact a case significantly. Forensic experts are useful in determining the number of people at the scene and helpful in recreating the scene. Memory experts can inform the jury on how memory changes over time in different situations and that the eyewitness actually may not be recalling the information correctly. The list goes on and on in many different areas of expertise. Some areas that are important but may be overlooked include the analysis of insects and wildlife. The experts can provide information on how they came to their conclusions that may aid in determining the perpetrator.
Terms Used: Forensic Science, Criminalistics, Forensic Pathology, Expert, Jury, Evidence, Blood Spatter, Testimony, Prosecution, Memory, Eyewitness
Martha Moxley and her other fifteen year-old neighborhood friends went out late one autumn night in 1975 to cause some ruckus. It was close to Halloween, so they wanted to play pranks on their neighbors. When their ‘night of mischief’ was over, Moxley went to hang out with the neighbor boys while their parents were away on a hunting trip. Little did she know that she would not return home that night. Moxley’s body was ultimately found outside of her parents’ home behind a tree, completely beaten with her pants nearly off. After many years of investigation, no progress was found. Almost twenty years go by, and Moxley’s case was reopened in 1991. With the help of Dr. Henry Lee, investigators hoped to finally bring some justice to Martha Moxley and her grieving family.
At this point in time, Dr. Lee was the former head of the Connecticut State Police and was considered one of the world’s leading criminal forensic scientists. He was asked to review the already collected evidence involving the murder of Martha Moxley in hopes to recreate the crime scene. His area of expertise was remarkably utilized when he was able to determine that Moxley’s jeans and underwear were pulled down before she suffered the blows to the head by only studying the blood splatter through pictures of the crime scene. Thus, it is definitely appropriate to deem blood splatter as his area of expertise if he is able to conclude such events through simply examining pictures rather than having to be at the actual crime scene. There was other evidence of blood splatter that was on the surrounding leaves, but the wind through the night ruined any important evidence that would have been analyzed through Dr. Lee’s expertise. Dr. Lee did conclude, however, that all of the blood at the scene belonged to the victim.
Blood splatter was not the only evidence that Dr. Lee evaluated from the crime scene. He examined the clothing that Moxley was wearing that night, but the evidence was inconclusive. In addition, he was provided with the autopsy report and was able to establish that she was killed with a golf club that matched the set that was in the Skakel’s (neighbor) garage. He was able to establish that Moxley was hit so hard with the golf club that the head flew off over one hundred feet. In addition to Dr. Lee’s conclusions, he also found that Moxley’s body was dragged nearly eighty feet away from where she was murdered to a nearby pine tree.
Dr. Lee’s expertise was much respected in trial, even if it wasn’t what the prosecution had hoped for. Dr. Lee’s testimony ultimately explained that the prosecution did not have any direct evidence leading Michael Skakel, Moxley’s friend and neighbor, to her death. Through his reexamination of all of the evidence involved in the case, he testified that there was no sufficient DNA that placed Skakel personally at the crime scene. While Dr. Lee and his team were able to identify exactly what happened regarding the crime scene during the reconstruction– what happened, where it happened, when it happened and how it happened – they were unsuccessful at determining who it was that physically committed the crime. However, he was able to determine that the motive was sexually motivated, and using his knowledge and experience was able to infer that because her body was dragged so far to a tree in the darkness of the night, the murderer had to have been familiar with the environment. Thus, while he wasn’t able to identify the murderer through DNA evidence, he was able to insinuate and hypothesize that the murderer was nearby.
Personally, I feel like experts are a great asset to both the prosecution and defense within a trial. However, I believe that their testimonies can be somewhat farfetched and very biased. I think that they are very helpful when educating the jury on the complex systems regarding forensics, but I believe that they should always have cold hard evidence to back up their claims. If they are going to give their expert testimony, they should base their ‘opinions’ on the facts that they are claiming to be true. Furthermore, I believe that their testimonies are mostly biased due to the fact that they are being paid to testify as an expert witness. When they give their opinion that is ‘swaying’ the jury, they are being given too much authority when they should only be used to testify the evidence that they found throughout the case.
Terms: Testimony, forensics, prosecution, defense, trial, expertise, blood splatter, evidence, murder, victim, evidence, crime scene, investigation, autopsy, DNA.
Dr. Henry Lee is one of the most recognized forensic scientists. He has had years of experience in research, teaching, writing, investigating, and testifying in highly publicized cases.
For this assignment, I researched the JonBenet Ramsey case. I chose to look into this case because I remember when it happened, and it has always remained a mystery, with little hope for justice.
On December 26th, 1996, Patsy Ramsey made a call to 911 reporting that JonBenet, a young pageant child, had been abducted from their high-end home in Boulder, Colorado. JonBenet was found dead in the family's basement eight hours after she had been reported missing. Although this case remains an unsolved mystery, her immediate family had always been the main suspects, although now cleared.
This case has been scrutinized, as many steps taken by the police that day have since been claimed to be critical mistakes. For example, they did not seal off the crime scene when JonBenet was reported missing, letting family and friends come and go as they pleased. Forensic evidence was also not collected well before and after JonBenet was found.
Dr. Lee was unsure if this was a murder or if JonBenet died from the accounts of an accident. He suggested that maybe what happened as an accidental killing was staged by only one parent into an elaborate crime scene, including a ransom note and outside evidence to cover up the accident. He believed that JonBenet had been taken out of the house that day for possible exploitation, accidentally killed, and brought back home with a ransom note created to cover the family’s traces.
http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/484/2
Dr. Lee had expertise in this case on fiber evidence among other things. Law enforcement found that the duct tape that was located on JonBenet’s mouth contained the same fibers that were found on Patsy, JonBenet’s mother’s sweater worn the day before, however Dr. Lee suggested that those fibers could have been transferred by a kiss goodnight from the night before. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence
Dr. Lee was on an expert prosecution team that believed that someone in the family was responsible for the death; however the head of the investigation team, Smitt, provided opinion that an intruder killed JonBenet, which conflicted with Lee’s team. http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm
I couldn't find much more information about Lee’s involvement within this case. This case has remained to be very messy and misleading through the years, with little hope for justice. Not only is this case messy in court and in investigation, but the internet has all sorts of unfinished stories on this case as well.
I think that experts can be used in cases very well for the right reasons. I think some experts can also say what the person who hired them wants them to say if forced or rewarded. I also believe that one should choose an expert carefully, as not all experts have the same expertise. This can allow for scrutiny if the expert does not have the “correct” expertise for what is needed in testimony.
Dr. Lee, however, holds high expertise in forensic science and obviously has a successful track record, due to his involvement in so many high profile cases. Unfortunately, this case remains to be unsolved and until further evidence resurfaces, no progress can be made.
I chose to find more information on the O.J. Simpson trial. Simpson was being charged with double homocide of his wife and friend. They were killed at Nicole Brown Simpson's condo in Las Angeles. After missing the arraignment of the charges, Simpson led the police on a chase which ended at his home and was taken into custody being charged with double homocide.
Dr. Henry Lee was called to testify for the defense. Dr. Lee said his role in this case was limited. He was not able to see the actual scene as it was. Dr. Lee was first to explain blood pattern. He was first questioned by Mr. Scheck. He explained how and where blood could come from (arteries, veins, capillaries) and how each could effect the blood pattern. He was given red ink and an eye dropper to explain a drop of blood. He was first asked to examine some photo's and explain them. He then was asked about his examination of a pair of socks. When Mr. Scheck was asking Dr. Lee questions on the procedures he would use to store the socks as evidence. Dr. Lee noted that the socks were cross-contaminated because they were stored together and not separately. He said there were 'wet blood transfers' from the socks into the bag, which could lead to false interpretations.
He was then cross-examined by Mr. Goldberg. Goldberg's examination of Dr. Lee had questions asking about a previous case Dr. Lee was involved in. He asked about how evidence was obtained in that case. Then he started asking seeming complex questions (at least to Dr. Lee, who understood eventually) about how the 'absence' of evidence. He was saying that depending on the situation, a suspect may have little or a lot of blood on them.
In the redirect examination, Mr. Scheck asked about a situation of the scene and asked Dr. Lee what the blood patterns would be like. In the recross examination, Mr. Goldberg again referred back to an old case. He asked how there was not much blood on the suspect and so on. Then asked if someone were to cover someone's throat and cut it, if there would be much blood on the assailant. Dr. Lee answered with probably not.
I feel there are both benefits and drawbacks in using experts. I feel they are more beneficial than negative. I think they are very knowledgable in the area that they have experience in. They can provide insight on an aspect of the trial (murder scene, psychological disorder, etc) that the people of the jury are not familiar with. On the other hand, I feel that some experts may become biased and answer more favorably toward whichever side (prosecution or defense) asked them to testify. I noticed that when Mr. Scheck was examining, Dr. Lee's answers were more stern (answering with straight 'yes' answers) while when Mr. Goldberg was examining he was using more passive answers (such as using 'probably')
Dr. Henry Lee is one of the best and most famous Forensic Scientist out there. Dr. Lee has worked on over 6,000 different cases all over the world and some of the most famous cases he has also been a part of. His website was very interesting to look at; especially all of information that they had on him with his education because it was a very long list. What I enjoyed most about his website was the tour of the forensic lab and the pictures that were shown with it. The part I liked most about the lab was the Firearms Reference Collection and how they have thousands of different firearms in their lab that they use during crimes to match a bullet that they found at the crime scene to a gun that is in their collection. It was a good site to learn about a famous Forensic Scientist that I had never heard of.
The site listed a few cases that Dr. Lee had been involved in that eventually made national television. I attempted to look up the Laci Peterson and Elizabeth Smart case, but there wasn't a whole lot to be found unless you bought is book or there was also other books that could be purchased to have a more in depth look into these cases. The case that I was able to find more information on was the JonBenet Ramsey case.
The case all began on the morning after Christmas of 1996 where Patsy Ramsey made a 911 call telling the police that her daughter had been abducted. There had been a ransom note at the kitchen table demanding $118,000 and if it wasn't received their daughter was going to be executed. When the search for clues began at the household, Ramsey was found in a room in the basement with a white sheet overtop of her. It all became suspicious so quickly because usually an abductor wouldn't leave the person they were abducting in the house, especially if they were asking for ransom. Eventually her parents became the main suspects for the murder of their daughter. There had been allegations saying that the father was sexually assaulting his daughter, at least over 300 times. While reading this story on the internet, you can tell the media had a huge role in this because every little thing they thought they heard or that wasn't probably true, they made it into a much bigger ordeal which made the Ramsey's look really bad. The entire case dealt with which of the parents was the most likely one to kill their daughter and all of the allegations that were made about them that eventually turned out to be not true. It seemed as if they were being suspected during the investigation because they were getting nowhere with the evidence and they thought there couldn't be anybody else who did this.
Dr. Henry Lee was then brought in from the prosecution team to test the possibility that DNA had been left behind somewhere on JonBenet's body. There was DNA found but there was never a match as to whose it was. Months went back and this case wasn't going anywhere because there was hardly any evidence to pin it on just one person. Dr. Lee noted that there was still a lot of evidence that needed to be gone over. However, a lot of this evidence would be inconclusive. The evidence that they had that they could never figure out was: the random boot print outside the house, unknown DNA that was found on JonBenet and her underpants, there was marks on her body that looked to be from a stun gun, and signs that somebody may have broken in through the basement windown. It's too bad that they had all of this evidence but could never find the suspect. Dr. Lee states that, "he is unsure whether the child was murdered or died in what started to be an accident." They have gotten closer to finding who may have done it and there best lead is on John Mark Karr, who eventually confessed to the murder of Ramsey, but it's still not 100% certain if that is what really happened.
I believe that in this case Dr. Lee was held to a certain standard because of how good of a forensic scientist he was. In this case he dealt with many different fibers and other such evidence, but they never found any DNA or anything from the evidence which is probably really hard to take in. Even with that though he still stayed positive through the entire thing and said that there is always evidence resurfacing and to look into and that's exactly what he's going to do. I feel that with other experts as well they are all held to a higher standard because of the title they are given as "experts." If you are an expert than you should know pretty much everything that you are an expert on and I feel like people wouldn't think of experts to be wrong. But when you are an expert and extremely good at your job, then you are like a Dr. Henry Lee who is a famous forensic scientist that has worked many high profile cases because of his expertise.
Another source that I found out about the case dealt with many fibers that on been found on or around where JonBenet was found and how they may possibly have came from either one of the parents. Eventually they were all excluded from the case.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber%20Evidence
terms used: forensic scientist, evidence, fibers, murder, suspect, firearms, sexual assault, DNA, investigation,
Dr. Henry Lee is a renowned forensic criminologist who is known for his scientific advancements in DNA collection and processing and for his work analyzing blood pools and spatter. Dr. Lee is seen as a celebrity forensic criminologist due to his involvement in famous cases such as the O.J. Simpson trial, JonBenet Ramsey trial, Laci Peterson trial, and most recently, the Casey Anthony trial. Dr. Lee has also been involved in cases that were not quite as publicized but are as equally important such as the Martha Moxley case.
On October 30, 1975 Martha Moxley, 15 years old, went missing after spending the night with her friends in Greenwich, Connecticut. The next morning her body was found under a tree in her backyard. Suspects at the time were Martha’s neighbors, Tommy and Michael Skakel, who also happened to be the recently deceased Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s nephews. Reports claim that in the early investigation both Skakel boys received special treatment due to their family connections. The case was not highly publicized in the national media and had very few leads, until a book about the murder was written and the case was reopened by Detective Frank Garr in 1991. Garr enlisted the help of six forensic scientists to review autopsy reports, police reports, evidence, and the crime scene. One of the six forensic scientists was Dr. Henry Lee. Lee and the other forensic scientists recreated the crime scene allowing them to reenact the details in the reports and utilize evidence to determine who killed Martha Moxley. Investigators claimed that the recreation of the crime scene was extremely helpful and provided new insight on the case. Dr. Lee provided investigators with a six inch thick report of his findings that were not disclosed to the public. The evidence that was reported to the media was a strand of hair that was found at the crime scene that did not match the prime suspect and pieces of a golf club that were found scattered either intentionally or from shattering due to force. Dr. Lee also used his experience in analyzing blood spatter to determine that Martha Moxley was murdered in the driveway and then dragged 80 feet to the back yard. Dr. Lee was reported as working on the case for two years while recreating scene and analyzing evidence and reports.
Although Dr. Henry Lee was an important part in reopening Martha Moxley’s case and contributing through forensic science, his major attribution to the case was when he testified in front of both a grand jury and a trial jury. On November 13, 1998, Dr. Henry Lee testified in front of a grand jury about his findings and his belief that Michael Skakel was responsible for the death of Martha Moxley. The presentation of the Martha Moxley case in front of a grand jury began in July of 1998 and ended in December of 1999 and 50 witnesses spoke. On January of 2000, prosecutors announced that an arrest warrant was issued for Michael Skakel being charged for murder as a juvenile, his trial was set for May of 2002. On May 9th of 2002, Dr. Henry Lee testified in court of his findings regarding the Martha Moxley case. Dr. Lee’s testimony was used to provide a graphic description of how Martha Moxley was killed. During his testimony, Dr. Lee used grisly pictures showing Martha’s body bludgeoned to death under a tree in the backyard, and used photographs showing the pools of blood found in the driveway. The photos used were so graphic that Martha’s mother and brother did not appear in court that day. Dr. Lee testified that his analysis of the blood led him to believe that Martha Moxley died in the driveway of her house and then was dragged to the backyard. He also described that the dragging of her body had caused some of the wounds on her body. During Dr. Lee’s testimony, close up pictures of Martha’s wounds were also shown to help Dr. Lee explain how much force had to be used to create such deep lesions. Dr. Lee testified that in order for Martha’s injuries to be so severe and the golf club to be shattered into several pieces flying nearly 100 feet from the body, an extreme amount of force had to be used which normally stems from hatred and anger. Dr. Lee also testified that Martha’s jeans and underwear were rolled down to her ankles before any of the severe blows were made to her body, however, no other evidence was found that proved Martha had been sexually assaulted. During cross-examination Dr. Lee was hit hard when questioned about DNA and fingerprint evidence which was nonexistent. Lee told the defense attorney that he had no direct evidence (DNA or fingerprints) linking Michael Skakel to the crime scene. In the end, however, Michael Skakel was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to 20 years in jail and was recently rejected for an appeal of his case.
I feel as though using an expert witness can be beneficial to a case. Expert witnesses can provide insight to jurors about events that occurred during a crime that may seem strange or outside the realm of a lay person’s knowledge. On the other hand, experts can become too involved in the criminal justice system and begin to become an advocate for one side rather than presenting facts, whether it supports or goes against a side’s case. Also, as shown in this case, Dr. Lee’s testimony was not only used for providing scientific evidence to what occurred but also was an excuse to provide graphic pictures that would play on jurors emotions. Experts can have a positive influence on a case but jurors must use discretion when an expert is speaking and try to decipher whether the expert is providing useful information. After doing research on Dr. Henry Lee, I feel as though he has become an expert witness that enjoys the fame of being involved with infamous cases and uses his celebrity status to be a promoter rather than presenting facts.
Terms: forensic criminologist, DNA, blood pools, blood splatter, autopsy report, police report, evidence, grand jury, trial jury, arrest warrant, fingerprinting
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/nyregion/expert-sees-no-direct-ties-to-skakel-in-killing.html
http://www.marthamoxley.com/
http://www.oocities.org/tallygal00/Timeline.htm
Dr. Henry Lee is a world renowned forensic scientist who has worked on thousands of cases, including some very famous cases. He studies crime scenes and picks them apart looking for the smallest pieces of evidence to help solve a case, and people turn to him because they know he can figure it out.
For this assignment, I looked through the summaries of the cases on Dr. Lee’s website. I didn’t want to research a case that I knew about like the OJ Simpson trial or Jon Benet Ramsey so I decided to look up the case of Martha Moxley.
Martha Moxley was a 15 year old girl that was brutally murdered on the night before Halloween. I had not heard of this case before so I thought it would be interesting to learn something new. Law enforcement working to solve the case as well as the public that was watching had no idea who the murderer could be. Along with that, the case took many weird twists throughout the span it was opened. The trial carried out for many years before it was finally solved just a few years ago. Dr. Henry Lee was one expert that was brought into this case to help solve it.
As we learned in the case of Mike Peterson, Dr. Lee is an expert in blood stains and blood spatters. That is also what he did in the case of Martha Moxley. While there was not a ton of information about what Dr. Lee did exactly to help this case out, I found one article that talked a little bit about it.
In this article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/nyregion/expert-sees-no-direct-ties-to-skakel-in-killing.html) it talks about how Dr. Lee was working with the defense trying to prove Michael Skakel’s innocence. Although Skakel was ultimately convicted with the murder of Martha Moxley, Dr. Lee offered some testimonies about why he should not have been. To start off, Dr. Lee again looked at the blood splatters that occurred while Martha Moxley was being bludgeoned to death. About this subject he just stated details about when certain events would have occurred that night, like her body being dragged a couple feet before being dumped where it was found.
The more important part Dr. Lee had in this case was that he was saying the prosecutors had no definite DNA evidence linking Michael Skakel to the crime or crime scene. He pointed out that there was no blood or semen at the crime scene directly showing Skakel was a part of the crime.
I think Dr. Lee is a good example of an expert used in trial because he just states the fact. And I think that that is very important when dealing with trials and cases like this. He was brought on by the defense to try and show Skakel’s innocence but nowhere along the line did he state any false facts trying to prove Skakel’s innocence. He merely just says what’s what in a very professional manner that the jury can understand. I think having someone on stand doing that is an asset to whoever hired them because they are only trying to help find the truth.
Terms: forensic scientist, crime scenes, law enforcement, trial, blood stains, blood spatters, defense, prosecution, DNA evidence
Dr. Henry Lee is a profound forensic science expert, who has been a key player in many major criminal cases such as Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, O.J. Simpson, and was even involved in a review of John F. Kennedy’s assassination! The educational and experiential background that this man has, truly defines him as an EXPERT!
The famous case that Dr. Lee was a part of that I chose to look into further, was the O.J. Simpson case.
-----------------------------------------------------------
O.J. Simpson Case:
Dr. Lee was called as an expert witness for the defense, which is on rare occasion for Dr. Lee. He stated in this trial, that 95% of the time he is on the side of the Prosecution in criminal cases and that only 5% of the time he is on the side of the Defense such as in this case. In the O.J. Simpson trial, Dr. Lee was called upon from the Defense to examine what was left of the crime scene, which was minimal by the time he had arrived. He was also asked to examine the physical evidence of the crime scene. Dr. Henry Lee examined photographs taken by the LAPD of the crime scene, as well as, performed an inspection of the crime scene.
Area of Expertise: In the O.J. Simpson trial, Dr. Henry Lee testified about his expertise in not only bloodstain pattern analysis, but also, the procedures on the collection of crime-scene evidence.
Evidence Evaluated: Dr. Henry Lee evaluated such evidence as blood stain patterns, bloody socks left at the scene of the crime, and the paper bag in which the LAPD had contained the bloody socks, although, most of the evidence that Dr. Lee evaluated was unfortunately in the form of photographs taken by the LAPD.
Expertise/Testimony Used In Trial: Dr. Lee’s testimony was used by the Defense to show that the way in which the LAPD transferred the socks from the crime scene and placed the bloody socks into a paper bag could allow for the cross-contamination of the blood due to the fact that because the blood had seeped through the paper bag, the mixture of the blood could now show false readings when examined in a lab. Dr. Lee’s expertise was used in explaining how different patterns of bloodstains are formed from what part of the body was cut, and how far away the surface the blood landed on was from the impact site.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts: After reading about the O.J. Simpson case, it truly showed me how important and vital experts can be in a trial. This trial truly showed how important it is to carefully come upon a crime scene, as well as, carefully process the scene in order not to contaminate any evidence. I think that expert testimonies in trials are fascinating to listen to!
Dr. Henry Lee has been a major contribution to many high profile cases throughout his life. He is also a very well educated man by the looks of his website. While reading through his website he explains what forensic science is. He explains it by calling it criminalistics which is only a part of the forensic science field but it’s the recognition, collection, identification, individualization, and evaluation of physical evidence using the techniques of natural science in matters of legal significance. It includes the reconstruction of events based on the analysis of physical evidence and the interpretation of crime scene patterns. In class, we watch the Peterson case unfold and we actually saw Dr. Lee using criminalistics in the staircase if I remember correctly. He always states that forensic medicine is used in the investigations of deaths.
The case I wanted to look further into was the Laci Peterson case because I remember hearing about that. I thought I remembered Scott Peterson was found guilty and was sentenced to the death penalty so I was wondering if he was still alive. However, finding information about her case and how Dr. Henry Lee was involved was hard to find so I switched to the O.J. Simpson case. Dr. Lee was brought in for the defense of O.J. Lee told the juror what his job title was and how he was a credible source. He assured them he was an expert in this area and had plenty of experience to back it up. As I read through the thread that he was on the stand he never exactly states what his expertise was in but that he had written numerous books and articles relating to forensic science. Dr. Lee was used to evaluate and review physical evidence, study the crime scene and crime scene pictures, photographs and try to find the scientific facts in the case. However, Lee did mention that his strength was in physical evidence instead of saying that he was an expert on physical evidence. Dr. Lee reviewed physical evidence from a pathway at Brown’s house and noticed that there is evidence that points to the fact that there could have been multiple attackers. Dr. Lee was unable to determine if some of the imprints found on the walkway were actually footprints and the prosecution was trying to say they were O.J. Simpson’s footprints. The most interesting fact that I read from this case was that 95 percent of the time Dr. Lee testifies for the prosecution and 5 percent for the defense and in this case he was testifying for the defense. With that said, Dr. Lee found some pretty solid evidence that O.J. Simpson didn't murder his wife and I think the jury was highly convinced of that.
Honestly, I do feel that experts are helpful for both the defense and prosecution. I think they can make or break a court case. However, I believe with any amount of money you can find someone or persuade someone to testify on your behavior. Hopefully if that happens, the judge and the jurors can tell that they are just full of crap. For example, in the MOT chapter we read on experts the judge could just tell that the defense “expert” was just talking out his butt. Also, I think in cases like that it could just turn into the battle of the experts. If that happens the case could go either way. So I believe they are helpful in some situations and just annoying in others.
Terms: forensic science, court case, judge, juror, defense, prosecution, physical evidence, testimony, guilty
I decided to do research on the O.J. Simpson case. In this case Simpson’s former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman were killed near her condominium home in the Brentwood area. Simpson became a suspect early in the investigation. Simpson failed to appear at her arraignment on charges of a double homicide this led cops on a car chase with Simpson. Finally when his car pulled into his house and he was taken into custody.
Dr. Henry Lee was hired for the defense side of this trial. His area of expertise is blood splatters. He was there to investigate a bloody shoe print left at the crime scene. Dr. Lee stated that the bloody shoe print did not match the shoe of O.J. Simpson. This caused quite a dilemma since two other experts stated that they believed the blood was not a shoe print. This shows an example to me that experts cannot be reliable and also show a lot of bias in a case such as this one. Dr. Lee stated that his expertise on this case was very limited due to the fact that he wasn’t able to see the crime scene and also was only about to look at pictures taken.
When Dr. Lee was to stand trial he had to explain where the blood came from and how. Dr. Lee was asked to look at some photos and explain them. There was a pair of bloody socks at the scene but Dr. Lee stated since the socks were put into a paper bag they socks were not cross-contaminated because they were stored together and also the blood transfers from the socks to the bag which can cause false interpretations.
Dr. Lee is known to be very insightful and helps with a ton of cases but in my opinion I think that bringing experts into cases just casues bias in the courtroom and is more negative than it is positive. In some cases they can be very helpful but for example in the O.J. Simpson case it became very bias due to the fact the each of the experts said something different leaving the jury very confused and hard to decide which expert is actually right.
It was very interesting to read about O.J. Simpsons case and hear how Dr. Lee talked about the blood splatters. But I still don’t think experts should be called for a case.
The case that I chose to research was the case of Laci Peterson. The case is about a pregnant women gone missing and soon found dead. Laci was found by a couple walking their dog months later. The body washed up on the shore of the San Francisco Bay. When the body had arrived it was decomposed enough to not be of value for evidence. The death could not be determined from the body. Peterson was missing forearms, her right foot, and the left leg. However, the body had not reached the point of decomposition of the male fetus that had washed up prior to Laci Peterson’s body. The fetus had escaped the body through the decomposition of the body. Scott Peterson soon became a suspect to the case. Dr. Henry Lee soon helped to discover the more evidence by the defense. Scott Peterson was found guilty of first degree murder for Laci Peterson and second degree murder for the unborn fetus. Dr. Henery Lee is a well known Forensic Scientist. His main expertise includes; trace evidence, crime scene evidence, blood splatter interpretation, physical evidence, and some other case specific specialties. In this case Dr. Henry Lee is analyzing the cause of death. Lee was hired by Scott Petersons Defense.
After reading many articles and learning more about Dr. Henry Lee I learned more about the case and the evidence that was present. Many of the websites were articles, or interviews that did not have straight information. One article stated that Lee found a mop in the house that contained traces of the vomit which contained the date rape drug. This would prove that there was some sort of foul play prior to death. Another autopsy report stated that there was weapon evidence for a knife being inserted above the stomach. Another report was debating the death of Connor. Because the fetus was not decomposed like the body, it served as a basis for evidence. Another article states that there was a noose around the neck of the baby. The autopsy confirms this evidence. From what I have learned the only confirmed evidence was a single strand of hair on Peterson’s boat. When Peterson was found to be arrested major evidence was present that he was planning a crime.
This case was somewhat hard for me to follow. Although, reading quotes and autopsy notes gave me a little insight on the case. Generally it seems that Henry analyzed the facts of the case on a scientific level to convey to the jury. This case has ambiguous factors. The two Forensic scientists had several factors stating that the evidence found could be proven wrong. However, Scott was found guilty and now serves his sentence.
Key Terms: Forensic Science, Evidence, First Degree murder, second degree murder, trial, jury, testimony,trace evidence, blood splater analyzation,
The case that I chose to research was the case of Laci Peterson. The case is about a pregnant women gone missing and soon found dead. Laci was found by a couple walking their dog months later. The body washed up on the shore of the San Francisco Bay. When the body had arrived it was decomposed enough to not be of value for evidence. The death could not be determined from the body. Peterson was missing forearms, her right foot, and the left leg. However, the body had not reached the point of decomposition of the male fetus that had washed up prior to Laci Peterson’s body. The fetus had escaped the body through the decomposition of the body. Scott Peterson soon became a suspect to the case. Dr. Henry Lee soon helped to discover the more evidence by the defense. Scott Peterson was found guilty of first degree murder for Laci Peterson and second degree murder for the unborn fetus. Dr. Henery Lee is a well known Forensic Scientist. His main expertise includes; trace evidence, crime scene evidence, blood splatter interpretation, physical evidence, and some other case specific specialties. In this case Dr. Henry Lee is analyzing the cause of death. Lee was hired by Scott Petersons Defense.
After reading many articles and learning more about Dr. Henry Lee I learned more about the case and the evidence that was present. Many of the websites were articles, or interviews that did not have straight information. One article stated that Lee found a mop in the house that contained traces of the vomit which contained the date rape drug. This would prove that there was some sort of foul play prior to death. Another autopsy report stated that there was weapon evidence for a knife being inserted above the stomach. Another report was debating the death of Connor. Because the fetus was not decomposed like the body, it served as a basis for evidence. Another article states that there was a noose around the neck of the baby. The autopsy confirms this evidence. From what I have learned the only confirmed evidence was a single strand of hair on Peterson’s boat. When Peterson was found to be arrested major evidence was present that he was planning a crime.
This case was somewhat hard for me to follow. Although, reading quotes and autopsy notes gave me a little insight on the case. Generally it seems that Henry analyzed the facts of the case on a scientific level to convey to the jury. This case has ambiguous factors. The two Forensic scientists had several factors stating that the evidence found could be proven wrong. However, Scott was found guilty and now serves his sentence.
Key Terms: Forensic Science, Evidence, First Degree murder, second degree murder, trial, jury, testimony,trace evidence,crime scene, blood splater interpretation, physical evidence
Dr. Henry Lee is a renowned forensic criminologist. He has helped solve many cases's that seemed to have hit a dead end. For this assignment I read about Martha Moxley. Martha was a 15 year old girl that every one seem to like was nice, funny, easy to get a long with. she had just gotten a new boy friend and was going to visit him the night before Halloween. Her and her friends decided to have a little fun before hand throwing eggs and toilet paper at houses. They had stopped at the house o tommy and Michael Skakel.
I had a little bit of a hard time finding a lot of information about all this im not sure why. But the next day after her body was found under a tree in her back yard. She had been beaten to death with a golf club then stab in the neck with it from what i read. They say that the club belonged to a set that the Skakels owned. Dr. lee says what he found was trace evidence. I had a hard time finding out what he actually did. But he knows about blood and blood can tell people many different things.
On the website of Dr. Lees it says that she was raped. On a different website it says she was not. So I believe that this was part of what Dr. lee found out and helped with the case and that is were the trace evidence came from.
It's a great thing that we have experts to help us solve tough cases like this. One's who can tell a story about the smallest bit of evidence you can find. I believe that experts like Henry Lee are good because of how much background they have and how many cases they have worked. For someone to testify you have to make sure they stick to the evidence and don't become bias of the outcome because of what the case is about.
Dr. Henry Lee is a world renowned forensic psychologist who has worked on many high profile cases. He is an expert in his field and has provided valuable, game-changing testimony for many murder cases. His website is pretty cool and full of information about his work, extensive education, and experience in forensic psychology. His work is especially interesting because of the amount of information that he is able to draw from very small details in a case. This struck me particularly in his analysis of the blood spatter in the Michael Peterson documentary that we watched in class.
Of his high-profile cases, I chose to research his involvement with the OJ Simpson trial. After the killings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goodman were murdered near the front gate of her condo. After failing to appear for his arraignment for double homicide, Simpson and his friend A.C. Cowlings led police on a 60 mile slow chase while Simpson held a gun to his head. Then he was taken into custody.
Lee was brought on to consult by the defense. He testified to the fact that investigators at the scene were not careful in taking blood samples.This gave possible indication of evidence tampering by the police, which was certainly a break for the defense.He also noticed new evidence, the possible presence of extra footprints which suggested the possibility of multiple attackers. He was also asked to examine a pair of bloody socks, which he determined to have been cross-contaminated and therefore inconclusive in regards to the case.
Lee's testimonies are a great example of how valuable experts are to the legal system. They can ascertain details that would otherwise go unnoticed and therefore play a major role for both the defense and the prosecution.
Terms: forensic psychologist, expert, testimony, murder, blood-spatter, defense, evidence, tampering, investigators, cross-contaminated, prosecution
Dr. Henry Lee is a forensic criminologist that has achieved world fame for the work he has done. Lee has been involved in over 6,000 cases and has testified in many high profile cases. The case I am choosing is that of Martha Moxley, a 15 year old girl found dead at the base of a tree in her yard in 1991.
Martha was an average 15 year old with a new boyfriend whom she was going to see on the night of her murder. Sadly Martha never made it to his house, she was instead bludgeoned to death with a golf club. One of the reasons this case became prominent in the news was because of the main suspect, Michael Skakel, was the nephew of the recently deceased Robert Kennedy.
Some of the evidence found at the scene were the remnants of a shattered golf club (the murder weapon) and a hair. The hair was later found to not match the suspects but the golf club was determined to have come from a set belonging to Skakel’s mother.
Dr. Lee’s role in this case was as a forensic investigator and he help view the case in a different way, eventually leading to new discoveries. Lee wanted to reconstruct the crime scene and start over, examining it piece by piece. Some of the things uncovered were in relation to blood spatter. Certain blood stains and marks were found on Martha’s pants which had been pulled down to her ankles. These indicated that the pants had been torn down before the major wounds were inflicted.
As in many cases it was with this blood evidence that Dr. Lee would lend his expertise. Blood splatter can often tell a large amount about the force and angle used, both of which can be used to narrow down suspects. This is just one of many case that Lee has provided testimony for.
I believe that experts play a critical role in trials. It take a very specific knowledge and years of practice in order to identify some of the minute differences in evidence that can lead to a break in a case. Having an expert testify also assists in the credibility of the evidence and the resulting arrests or action.
For my blog I decided to look into the Martha Moxley case because it was the one I was the least familiar with. Martha Moxley was a fifteen year old girl from an affluent family found murdered in the backyard of her home in a gated community in Greenwich, Connecticut in 1975. She had been beaten to death and dumped at the foot of a tree in her back yard showing signs of possible sexual assault. The night before she had gone to the nearby home of a boy she was interested in for dinner. This boy, Tommy Skakel, was 17, and had a brother named Michael Skakel who was Martha's age (15). Both boys were interested in Martha and were known to have violent rivalries. Martha kept a diary in which she spoke of Tommy "trying to get to first and second base" with her. These were the facts known at the time of the crime.
Martha had been beaten with a golf club. This broken club was found stabbed into her neck upon the discovery of her body. This club was quickly identified as part of an expensive set belonging to the Skakel family. Though police did a brief walk through with the Skakel families' permission, a warrant was never requested. Tommy told police he left Martha outside at 9:30 because he had to go inside and do a homework assignment. It was later proved that there had never been an assignment. Police believe this alibi was given because there was a noted disturbance at 10pm and a neighbor went out to investigate. Tommy claimed he never heard Martha so he should have had no reason to know about the disturbance, and therefore should have had no reason to lie about doing homework at 9:30.
Dr. Henry Lee didn't come onto the case until 1993. He was asked to look over DNA evidence from the crime scene. This included hairs, fibers, blood stains, and skin found under the victims nails. It was at this time Tommy came forward and admitted that he and Martha had had a sexual encounter the night of her murder. There had been no reason for Tommy to change his story to this more incriminating version save to explain any new DNA evidence Dr. Lee may have been about to uncover.
Dr. Lee compiled an extensive crime reenactment in which he stated that Martha would have first been struck in the face and would have cried out. Someone should have heard her. She was then beaten so hard with the golf club that the head of the club broke off and flew fifty feet from the crime scene. Martha was then stabbed in the neck with the broken golf club and then drug to the base of the tree in her back yard. Dr. Lee was able to provide the crime scene location relative to the dumping ground, the manner of the attack, and established that she could and would have initially cried out for help. Though he did not to my knowledge provide any new DNA evidence, the threat of his findings did prompt a suspect to bring forth new evidence about the crimes timeline.
Though most of the evidence I found pertained to Tommy Skakel, Michael Skakel was found guilty for the murder in 2002 and sentenced to 20 years- life for the murder of Martha Moxley. I was surprised from my readings that there was enough conclusive evidence to send anyone to prison for any substantial period of time. While Dr. Lee was able to bring to light important new evidence about the location and circumstances of the crime, there was no DNA evidence added to the case.
I think that experts are an important asset to the legal justice system and can provide important information and guidance in certain cases, but I wish that there was some way to make them equally available to both sides (prosecution and defense). This case was unique in a way because both the victim and the suspects were wealthy and could provide themselves with comparable legal representation, but in man of the cases we have talked about in class only one side is able to afford access to experts that could have a dramatic impact on their case.
http://www.marthamoxley.com/
http://marthamoxley.www8.50megs.com/Sustom.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/nyregion/expert-sees-no-direct-ties-to-skakel-in-killing.html
I choose the case of Oj Simpson. I knew they very basics of this case but of course didn't know any details and it is a very popular case.
Simpson's former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed near the front gate of her condominium in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. Simpson became an early suspect. Earlier that day, O.J. had failed to appear for arraignment on charges of double homicide. Is he guilty of this double homicide?
Dr. Lee's area of expertise was hair examination, crime scene reconstruction, trace evidence and blood pattern interpretation. He was very rarely (less than 5%) called to the side of the defense. He is usually called for prosecution. In this case he was there to act an as independent consultant. He says it has nothing to do with his official capacity. In his testimony on this website he mentions that he is the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory and chief criminalist for state of Connecticut.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/leetest.html
He was called to exam "some physical evidence and exam, study the crime scene and crime scene pictures, photographs, try to find the scientific fact, what involved in this case. So my role is rather limited, not really involving other aspect of investigation. In addition, when the time I was called in, the crime scene already almost nonexist. So my involvement just so-called a limit review of the crime scene photographs and crime scene inspection. Physical evidence, that's my strength. I exam quite a few pieces physical evidence." As you continue reading you see the biggest piece of evidence he was to evaluate was blood patterns. He was even asked to draw different patterns while on the stand. He was there to discuss the bloody shoes prints and socks. Lee said they didn't match OJ Simpson and he now had to explain where they came from. Lee does mention that he as limited on his evidence and knowledge because he wasn't able to see the exact crime scene.
As I you read this testimony you realize how many important steps are involved in crime scene evaluation and evidence. Lee mentions how the socks, because put into one envelope, are already contaminated and not in their virgin state anymore. He says that it would have matter if he wore gloves hair net etc or not because of the way they were collected.
I feel calling experts to the stand have positives and negatives. I fee like once people hear the word "expert" they automatically assume everything they say is correct and true. Not saying Dr. Lee isn't an expert and isn't very knowledgeable in blood patterns but I felt having him hindered the case. I'm sure his discussions were too complex for an average jury to really understand the stuff he was discussing in his testimony.
terms: testimony, jury, expert, contaminated, crime scene, evidence, hair examination, crime scene reconstruction, trace evidence and blood pattern interpretation, double homicides, suspect, arraignment
Dr. Henry Lee is a chief criminalist for the state of Connecticut and the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory. Dr. Lee has written over 20 books, monographs, and chapters in textbooks. He is considered one of the most notable forensic scientists today and has been involved in several famous cases. One case with Dr. Lee’s involvement was the O.J. Simpson case.
In the O.J. Simpson case, forensic expert Dr. Lee was instructed to review trace evidence and study the crime scene and crime scene pictures. His purpose was to find the scientific fact, what was involved in this case. Dr. Lee’s testimony included the involvement of blood splatter and footprints. To explain the patterns of the blood splatter, Dr. Lee explained how the patterns formed then provided a demonstration using an eyedropper and ink. With farther evidence including the footprints found at the crime scene, Dr. Lee’s testimony questioned the possibility of multiple perpetrators.
Some believe Dr. Lee’s testimony was biased favoring the defense of O.J. Simpson. Overall I believe Dr. Lee merely presented the evidence in a non-biased way and explained his finding to the court well. I also conclude that experts overall are helpful in court cases. Experts are helpful when they provide accurate information in a non-biased way and in a way for everyone to understand. Dr. Lee did an excellent job of presenting the information to the court in an easier way by providing a demonstration. Majority of people are visual learners and Dr. Lee’s demonstration of blood splatter provided a visual.
Experts are not helpful when they are presenting inaccurate and or biased information. They are also unhelpful when the information provided is unclear. An example includes the expert in Cameron Hooker’s case, forensic scientist Dr. Lunde. Dr. Lunde provided inaccurate and biased information to the court. His information was also very unclear thus his expertise was questioned and unhelpful to the court case.
Overall Dr. Lee is a well-known applicable expert. He has creditable experience and excels well in explaining and demonstrating helpful aspects in court cases. Dr. Lee’s testimony in the O.J. Simpson cases provided an alternative possibility of more than one perpetrator. Although some people were not pleased with Dr. Lee’s testimony, it is important to consider all the possibilities of how the murder occurred. Experts in general can be helpful or harmful; in this case I believe Dr. Lee was helpful.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/leetest.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-11/us/court.archive.simpson10_1_imprints-police-officers-bruno-magli?_s=PM:US
Terms: Forensic science, criminalist, trace evidence, foot prints, blood splatter, perpetrator, testimony, experts
Dr. Lee’s website was very interesting and it showed the numerous cases which he has looked at and researched. However, I did think that it would be more useful if the website gave a bit more information about what Dr. Lee did for the those cases or what area he gave expertise to. I think that this would have given me a better idea from the beginning of what Dr. Lee can to do to assist a case rather than just background information about the case itself.
After looking around at the cases that Dr. Lee has examined, I decided upon the OJ Simpson trial. The case is about the brutal killings of Simpson’s former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and he friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson became a suspect early in the case, and the car chase in the infamous ‘white bronco’, which occurred 5 days later, made the police question his compliancy even more. . During the time of the trial Dr. Lee was the chief criminalist for the state of Connecticut as well as the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory, however when he was called for his testimony, he was only called as an expert. His job titles gave him credibility to the jury and helped to lay a foundation of his knowledge, but he was there for the defense as an expert.
Dr. Lee was called to testify and examine his personal expertise, which was blood spatter analysis. He brought up the different kinds of blood spatter that occurred in the case using photographs and how the blood would have been transferred throughout the brutal ordeal. His expertise about other evidence that deal with blood patterns at the crime scene were used, as shown when he stated the fact that there was a bloody shoeprint on an envelope, which did not match Simpson shoe during the time. His expertise in the case was to assist the jury, and the defense used him in order to reinforce the fact that if OJ had committed the murders, he would have been forced to have a large amount of blood on him. He used his knowledge of blood spatter analysis to explain to the jury that both killings would not be able to occur with the killer’s clothes being without bloodstains from the victims. This proved to be an important aspect to the trial, due to the fact that the cross examination tried to prove that OJ was responsible for the murders, and it was possible for him to not have that much blood on his clothing. It was helpful to sway the jury to a verdict of not guilty.
Overall I have mixed feelings about experts being used in criminal cases. It is very useful to use their expertise in order for the jury to make the most accurate and justified law decision, however I do think that it is difficult for an expert to be completely unbiased. It is their job to simply give information, not to sway the jury and make the case themselves. However, I think that their abundant knowledge about a specific area, and how intricate it may be could cause confusion in the jury as well. Experts have a difficult and time-consuming job. Although there are drawbacks, it is important for the jury to be as knowledgeable as possible because they have someone else’s life in their hands. In order for them to make a decision that it is fair, having experts is crucial.
Terms: experts, testimony, criminalist, forensic laboratory, blood spatter analysis, blood patterns, criminal cases
I focused on Dr. Henry Lee’s testimony during the trial of O.J. Simpson. Dr. Lee testified on blood smatters and blood smears that were found in the crime scene investigation. According to the transcript of his testimony, Dr. Lee has had a significant amount of experience in this field of study. However, specifically on the case, Dr. Lee testified as to the likeliness/unlikeliness that O.J. could not have been splattered by his wife’s blood in a violent, close-contact, contained situation. Under some rather brutal cross-examination, Dr. Lee admitted that in all probability, should the killing have been done in close quarters, the perpetrator would have gotten some blood on him. That being said, Dr. Lee maintained that it was possible that he did not get any blood on him. In addition, Dr. Lee said it was UNLIKELY that the perpetrator would have blood on him or her if the killing had been done from far away. Though, as the crime was a stabbing, this struck me as rather irrelevant information.
Additionally, Dr. Lee testified about some blood smears involving socks. I’m not entirely I understand the relevance or even the discussion correctly, but it seems like he was explaining how the socks were contaminated. This contamination would place some doubts on the credibility of any evidence the blood was being used at. For example, though I did not read the entire transcript of the case (just Dr. Lee’s, but it was all of Dr. Lee’s), it seemed to suggest that the socks were linking O.J.’s DNA to the crime scene. However, if those were contaminated, it may have come from somewhere else. Dr. Lee stated that he would have kept the socks separate, and as they were wet, not have put them into a paper bag. (Unrelated but, I found it very professional of him to not accuse the LAPD of dereliction of duty or doing a bad job or anything like that. He had struck me as rather pompous while going through his website, but after reading that I questioned my original judgment). Again, as the defense pointed out, this merely through doubts on some of the evidence provided by the prosecution and “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” it does through doubt on the legitimacy of the charge. And jurors are instructed to be beyond a reasonable doubt when voting for conviction.
This case caused me to further understand the necessity of experts’ testimony. Should Dr. Lee not have been there, the prosecution may have spun any number of myths about the unlikeness of there being no blood on O.J. Simpson. And the same holds true for the defense; they may have insisted that there was a great likeliness that he would not have gotten blood on him. And as a layman, I’m still not sure I understand this as the transcript states that the prosecution was cross-examining him and got Dr. Lee to admit that O.J. probably would have blood on him, even though there was a change he did not. Commonsensically, it seems there is a mistake in the transcript, but I may simply not understand.
Martha Moxley, a fifteen-year-old Connecticut girl, was beaten and murdered in 1975. She received wounds from a golf club, her pants were nearly stripped off, and she was found in her backyard. She had just left the home of Tommy and Michael Skakel.
When this crime occurred, Dr. Lee was working as a forensic scientist for the Connecticut State Police Forensic Crime Laboratory. As a forensic investigator, Lee “examined the crime scene and reviewed more than 150 photos and 200 documents” (http://www.marthamoxley.com/news/050802ctv.htm). He used his already world-renowned expertise to examine blood spatter, hair samples, DNA, golf club wounds, and all other physical evidence.
When analyzing the evidence, Dr. Lee recreated the scene of the murder. Lee testified that Moxley had been killed in the driveway based on the pools of blood located there. From the blood spatter, he concluded that Moxley had been dragged several feet after she had already died. He also testified that Moxley’s body had been turned over while she was dragged and that the person dragging Moxley had changed directions. Two hairs were found at the scene, but these hairs could not be conclusively matched to anyone. Lee concluded from the photographs of Moxley and from crime scene evidence that the golf club had broken while Moxley was being beaten with it. No foreign DNA was found at the crime scene, though I should note that DNA evidence was just being introduced during the time of Moxley’s murder. For this trial, Dr. Lee said that he had to rely on “indirect forensic evidence.”
While at trial, Dr. Lee used the direct and indirect evidence to conclude that Michael Skakel was responsible for the murder of Moxley. He created a timeline of the murder for the prosecution and used this timeline to show that it was highly likely that Skakel would have been present at the murder because Moxley had just left Skakel’s home before she was murdered. However, Lee could not directly place Skakel at the crime scene because no DNA evidence was available. Despite this, Lee theorized that the murder was sexually-motivated, and, therefore, was likely to be committed by Michael who had claimed that he had tried to kiss Moxley on the night of the murder but was rejected. Though Lee’s conclusion wasn’t exactly what the prosecution was expecting, Lee’s testimony helped identify the correct person and Skakel was convicted for the murder of Moxley. Because Lee worked very hard to recreate the events that happened during the murder, he was able to paint a picture for the jury. As a result, Lee’s testimony was extremely compelling.
Overall, I think having an expert witness testify at a trial is beneficial. Though some experts may disagree with each other and create more confusion, most experts will be able to paint a clearer picture for the jury. As a result, the jury will be better qualified to administer justice. For example, Dr. Lee was able to testify as to what type of force was needed to create the wounds on Moxley’s body. Lee concluded that the amount of force used to create these types of wounds is usually precipitated by extreme anger or passion. Therefore, the jury was able to pin a motive on Michael Skakel. Experts like forensic entomologists, medical doctors, and psychologists can all show juries the true meaning and weight of the evidence presented.
Blood spatter, blood pools, DNA, hair samples, motive, forensic scientist/investigator, indirect/direct forensic evidence, expert, passion, entomologists, psychologists
Dr. Henry Lee is one of the most outstanding forensic science. He has a lot of experience, education, and many qualifications of the court. He has worked many famous cases from John F. Kennedy to O. J. Simpson.
The case I decided to look upon was the case of the six year old JonBenet Ramsey, who was found murdered in her basement. JonBenet was found duct taped and straggled. A gruesome way to die. It all started when Boulder Police Department received a phone call the morning after Christmas in 1996. Patsy Ramsey(mother) had said that her daughter had been kidnapped from home that night. This case investigation lasted for years and remained unsolved.
Throughout the whole investigation there was many theories. Automatically, they tried to blame the mother. Saying she had some kind of motive for doing. During the investigation there were a variety of aspects to be investigated including the fibers on the duct tape. Henry Lee had a commented that many several fibers were found on the duct tape cover JonBenet’s mouth. They were microscopically similar to the ones similar to Patsy’s jacket worn on Christmas. Police thought that was very relevant, but Dr. Henry Lees’s expertise on these sort of things concluded that the fibers could have just ended up there if a mother kissed her goodnight and the fibers were transferred.
This statement helped rule out Patsy as a suspect, but of course many other theories grew. I think experts have a way of helping people in these situations. Disproving theories that arise by police. They have a variety of skills to come closer to knowing the truth. Clearly Dr. Lees comment helped prove that Patsy was a loving mother and did not do anything to harm her child.
When looking through the Dr. Henry Lee website it gives brief info about his most famous cases, where he went to school, where he has worked, organizations he is part of, and etc. Also when going through the website it gives a little tour of getting evidence from several different types of physical evidence such as DNA, bullet identification, Hair, fingerprints, and etc. Even though this was an interesting site it was mainly just a website to purchase his books.
For the OJ Simpson trial Dr. Henry Lee was called by attorney Bob Shapiro to help in the case on the defense. In the testimony Dr. Henry Lee states that his position at the time was the “chief criminalist for state of Connecticut, and the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory. In the forensic content of this case Dr. Henry Lee was to review the physical evidence and also examine it, look over the crime scene plus pictures taken of the crime scene, examine the pictures of other photographic evidence, and bloodstain pattern analysis.
In the trial he did a lot of explaining what bloodstain pattern analysis was and showed demonstrations on paper with red ink. He later got questioned about a pair of socks and also wet blood transfers which are contact smears. Dr. Henry Lee had his previous experience in some famous cases brought up such as the Craft case where the husband put Mrs. Craft through a wood chipper to get rid of the body. Most of the questioning done in this testimony was about blood spatter and biological evidence on examples of a criminal.
I do not really have any other thoughts about experts the only ones I have are already in the previous experts blog
Terms: Attorney, defense, testimony, forensic, bloodstain pattern analysis, and blood transfers
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/leetest.html