“Famed Forensic Scientist Henry Lee’s Liability in Fabricating Evidence Exposed in Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit”

Forensic scientist Henry Lee defended himself after being found liable in a lawsuit for fabricating evidence in a murder trial. Ralph “Ricky” Birch and Shawn Henning were wrongfully convicted based on Lee’s testimony about bloodstains on a towel found at the crime scene. Tests later showed the stain was not blood. Lee denied fabricating evidence and suggested the blood may have degraded over time. The only outstanding issue in Lee’s case is the amount of damages. Lee’s work in other cases has also come under scrutiny. The cases against the other defendants will go to trial. PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press reported

<

div>

Famed Forensic Scientist Henry Lee Defends Reputation After Being Found Liable in Fabricating Evidence Lawsuit

Last week, a federal judge found renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee liable for fabricating evidence in a murder trial that resulted in the wrongful conviction of Ralph “Ricky” Birch and Shawn Henning. The two men spent decades in prison for the 1985 slaying of Everett Carr based partly on testimony about bloodstains on a towel found at the crime scene. However, tests conducted after the trial revealed that the stain was not blood.

Following the vacation of their felony murder convictions in 2020, Birch and Henning filed a federal wrongful conviction lawsuit against Lee, eight police investigators, and the town of New Milford. U.S. District Court Judge Victor Bolden ruled last Friday that there was no evidence of Lee conducting any blood tests on the towel, leading to a motion for summary judgment against Lee and leaving only the determination of damages to be decided by a jury.

In response to the ruling, Lee expressed disappointment and maintained his innocence, suggesting that the traces of blood may have degraded over the 20-year period between the crime and when the defense experts tested the towel. He emphasized that his chemical testing of the towel did not directly implicate Birch, Henning, or anyone else as suspects in the crime. Lee also highlighted his exculpatory testimony at the trial, including the negative finding of blood on the defendants’ clothing.

Notably, there was no forensic evidence linking Birch and Henning to the murder. Their clothes and car showed no signs of blood, and none of the hairs or fingerprints found at the crime scene matched theirs. Despite the recent ruling against Lee, the cases against the other defendants named in the lawsuit will proceed to a full trial.

Henry Lee, the former head of Connecticut’s forensic laboratory and a professor emeritus at the University of New Haven’s Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences, gained prominence for his involvement in high-profile cases like the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the JonBenet Ramsey case, the Scott Peterson murder trial, and the Phil Spector murder trial. However, his work has faced scrutiny in several instances, such as accusations of taking evidence from the crime scene in the Spector case.

Despite the judge’s ruling, Lee maintained that he testified truthfully and stressed that his role as a forensic scientist is to present scientific findings in the court of law, not to determine what evidence is introduced or what questions are asked during a trial. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong’s office, representing Lee and the troopers in the lawsuit, intends to file an appeal, citing the failure to properly use an immunity defense that could have protected Lee from damages.

.