Customer Reviews

Cracking Cases: The Science of Solving Crimes

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Assisted by Thomas W. O'Neil, Lee wrote this book primarily for persons such as I whose understanding of murder trials depended almost entirely, at least until the O.J. Simpson trial, on plays, films and television programs. Lee played a key role in the Simpson trial which is among the five he examines in this book. The other four (all resulting in a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt) involved homicide charges against Kenneth Mathison, Richard Bunel Crafts, Edward Robert Sherman, and Theodore ("Ted") MacArthur. Although all of these other four cases were no doubt widely covered by national media, I was unfamiliar with them until reading Lee's book. Throughout, he generously acknowledges the importance of teamwork and praises all of his associates. Lee defines the term forensics as "the direct application of scientific knowledge and techniques to matters of law." He notes that "the wise forensic investigator will always remember that he must bring all of his life experiences and logic to find the truth. This means common sense, informed intuition, and the courage to see things as they are. Then he must speak honestly about all that it adds up to." The process is necessarily complicated and demanding, requiring as much patience as it does precision.

It would be a disservice to both Lee and his reader to share more than a few details in this review. "Each of the five cases presents the opportunity, through its respective facts, investigation, and legal resolution, to study particular aspects of forensic investigation and how the work fits in with the rest of the criminal justice system." What Lee accomplishes in this book is to help his reader to develop (or at least understand) some of the skills he (Lee) has used while accompanying him during the investigation of five different murders. Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Evans' The Casebook of Forensic Science: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Cases; Criminal Investigation co-authored by Swanson, Chamelin, and Territo; and Punitive Damages co-authored by Sunstein, Hastie, Payne, and Schkade.

This book contains many details on five cases that are of interest for various reasons. Granted police work doesn't live by the rules of good plot development or story presentation, but parts of the book seem more like you are reading an investigators notebook instead of a finished published piece of literature. Some people may prefer that, but it didn't add to my appreciation of the book.

Particularly jarring for me was a sentence in the beginning of the epilogue where Dr. Lee writes "It also seems appropriate to quote an African American athlete, philosopher, and Muslim, as I end this book, Muhammad Ali said, `The truth shall set you free.'" Most people in the western world would attribute this quote to Jesus as quoted in the King James version of the Bible, John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (KJV translation done about 400 years ago.) This is the famous verse that is on the wall of the CIA's original building's main lobby (where it is also attributed to John 8:32.) This type of gaffe is something I would have expected a publisher to catch before going to print and does raise some questions about the accuracy of other facts in the book, (just like irregularities in Mark Fuhrman's statements helped to cast doubt over the whole O.J. Simpson investigation.)

In Dr. Lee's defense he does say a few times that he was raised in China and is unfamiliar with many western customs, (as he points out in one case saying he didn't know that Christmas was a big holiday when he called a bunch of people to work a case then.)

A lot of details, but not as much style.

Despite the fact that this book 1) was boring at times due to the plethora of technical facts, 2) the poor editing, and 3) the lack of writing skill of the author, I enjoyed this book immensely and felt that I learned a great deal from reading it. I came away from it feeling glad that I took the time to read it. Contrary to how I feel after reading some books written in a highly polished manner, this book came across to me as very real (this ain't Agatha Christie), and the author came across as a diligent, intelligent, scientifically minded, fair, and appropriately humble man.

What I learned: I got a glimmering of the huge amount of painstaking examination of detail involved in forensic pathology, I got an idea of how court procedure can hinder the bringing out of the truth, I got a glimpse of how easy it is to bungle the preservation of the evidence, and I got a picture of the number of dedicated people who work together trying to solve whodunits. I also got a view into the personalities of a few wife-murderers.

The page 9 gaffe about chopsticks not falling to the floor in a vacuum was written by Judge Gill (was his memory of the story correct?) and the page 54 mention of those gigantic red blood cells should have been edited out. Two things that stood out in my mind were: the fact that the drops of blood on Nicole Simpson's back were washed away! (evidence which could have incontrovertibly established the innocence or guilt of O.J.) and the fact that the young girl's testimony that Edward Sherman had had a phony telephone conversation with his wife (attempting to make others think she was still alive) was thrown out at the trial.

This book held my interest. I'm glad that we have people like Henry Lee, Michael Baden, and Cyril Wecht working so hard for all of us. And I find it fascinating to get a peek at them and how they do their work, in a down-to-earth, unglorified, objective way. That is what this book did for me.

Dr. Lee earns his praise in this genuine examination of these pertinent and riveting cases. I am an avid reader of forensic non-fiction and I was sincerely impressed with Dr. Lee's unrelenting attention to detail. He explores the Skakel and Ramsey cases with a nuanced and candid eye, offering insights that I can only attribute to such a seasoned forensic professional as Dr. Lee. Each chapter offers a meticulous analysis of the cases' facts and distinctive datum. I am a sincere admirer of Dr. Lee's distinguished works, and this book is no exception.

I couldn't make it through the entire book. Sorry. Too much detail to keep my interest. Henry Lee made me realize that forensic investigation means spending hour after hour cataloging every speck in a crime scene when 99.99999% of the specks are probably irrelevant. Hey, I didn't want to be a crime scene investigator. But anyone who thinks they do should read this first. By the way, I'd rather see the profession portrayed this was rather than in the CSI television series, which is totally absurd.

Cracking Cases: The Science of Solving Crimes, by Dr. Henry C Lee

Forensics is the application of science to matters of law. It is both an art and a science: intuition and common sense are needed. More murders occur during holidays: stress, pressure, alcohol, and confrontations. This book covers his investigation into five cases of spousal murder. The author mentions his co-workers for each case, and other background material.

Chapter 1 tells of a couple driving in the rain. During an argument the wife jumps out of the car. While searching the highway the husband strikes and kills his wife. The lack of exterior damage to the van says murder, not a traffic accident. Blood spatters inside the van tell a story. The description of evidence reads like it came out of a textbook. Page 54 says "a red blood cell is about 7.6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness"; shouldn't that be micrometers?

Chapter 2 tells of the disappearance of a spouse. It changed the law to not depend on finding a body for proof of homicide. Only a few bone fragments and teeth were found. The husband passed a lie detector test; page 105 tells of one trick to use. The spouse's friends reported her missing; the house was searched, and evidence was found. Page 120 lists a "Nanurrn Pistole"; shouldn't that be "Manurhin"?

Chapter 3 tells of a worst case scenario in this country's media. Dr. Lee was called for questions on certain troublesome facts (p.162). He joined the defense team because of "a number of intractable and critical errors had been made by some of the investigators ... and that the alleged findings did not bear the stamp of truth" (p.165). The found bloody glove had parts stuck together, but none of the leaves or twigs! This suggests it was planted hours later. After the blood sample was received, it was taken to the crime scene instead of logging it in as evidence. This was a very serious mistake which compromised the sample itself and the chain of custody (p.193). Dr. Lee noticed they failed to collect the blood drops on the female victim's back that came from above her body (p.195)! The cyclone fence and the vegetation behind the guest house showed that no one climbed over this fence (p.197). The Deputy Coroner testified the forensic evidence placed the deaths after 11PM (p.202). Pages 211-3 list critical questions on this case. The blood on the back gate was fresher although it was collected three weeks later. Swatches that dried overnight somehow left bloodstains. The jury decided 'not guilty' after three hours, but the court of public opinion is talking longer.

Chapter 4 tells of the importance of establishing time of death. After leaving Friday evening, the husband called home from a friend's house. Their daughter listened in and heard a one-sided conversation. This chapter ends with methods used to estimate time of death.

Chapter 5 tells of the importance of preserving the crime scene and the physical evidence (blood, gun shot residue, bullet trajectory). The husband called in to report that his wife shot herself on the left side of her head. She was right handed and had no blood spatter on either hand; no fingerprints were found on the gun. "Something wrong here."

The Epilogue suggests marriages with very deep domestic conflicts can end up in tragedy. There was minimal marriage counseling in these cases.

<< The above review was misfiled. Here is the correct review. >>

Cracking More Cases, Henry C. Lee, MD -- More Forensic Investigations

Dr. Henry C. Lee is a professor of forensic science at the University of New Haven, and has been a consultant for over three-hundred police and law enforcement agencies, and an expert witness for the prosecution and defense in many high-profile cases. The `Prologue' explains that technological breakthroughs have enabled the police to re-open and solve very old cold cases. Why is there such an increase in forensic investigations? The OJ case in 1995 and the `CSI' show since 2000 has popularized this arcane science. Three of these five cases have received more publicity. The news media can assist investigators (p.12). He compliments Alex Hunter for doing the right thing (p.13). Thomas W. O'Neil is a professional writer and a professor of English.

Chapter 1 is about the 1973 murder of Penney Serra in a public parking garage in daytime. At age ten Penney became the homemaker for a younger sister and father after her mother died. After high school she worked for a dentist. On Friday July 16 Penney went to town on errands and parked her car at 12:42 PM. After 1 PM a parking employee returned from lunch and found her body by a staircase. The police were called. Blood spots created a trail (p.23). Bloody fingerprints were in her car (p.24). An attendant remembered a young man with long dark hair. Penney was stabbed in her chest. The witnesses were used to create a drawing, it did not resemble Penney's old boyfriend closely, his family said he was at work. A mechanic's rag on the car floor was a clue, but untraceable like the fingerprints (p.30). The crime was recreated (p.39). Twenty-one years later a man beat his girlfriend and was arrested; his fingerprint matched the one from the Serra case (p.43). Edward R. Grant was arrested and convicted because of the DNA and fingerprint evidence after 29 years (p.61). The key to solving cold cases is to never give up (p.63). [Note how blood spots show up on a light blue dress.]

Chapter 2 is about the murder of Martha Moxley in 1975. The crime scene was contaminated, the case turned cold. The pages tell about the background of the Moxley and Skakel families. What are their children like? Can a wealthy family intimidate local law enforcement (p.84)? Can you believe what you see on TV (p.101)? A newspaper article in November 1995 created a sensation (p.102). In June 2002 Michael Skakel was convicted (p.112). The autopsy was delayed (p.115), and evidence was missing. "The absence of evidence is equally as important as the presence of evidence" (p.116). Reliance on polygraph tests was a mistake. This crime could have been solved many years earlier (p.119).

Chapter 3 is about the JonBenet Ramsey murder in December 1996. It was well-publicized and unusual for a small town (p.122). The crime scene wasn't properly secured and protected (p.123). [Is there something wrong in making young girls into beaauty queens (p.132)?] Was the interest in this case a "sick curiosity" (p.185)? DA Alex Hunter decided that there was "probable cause" but not "beyond a reasonable doubt" (p.190). Patsy and John answered the detective's questions (pp.201-204). Detectives studied the 15-room house (p.211). It remains unsolved today.

Chapter 4 is the Lisa Peng case, arrested for the murder of her husband's mistress and baby (p.255). After a mistrial, the second trial convicted her (p.258). This was overturned. There was a plea deal (p.263). There is a Summary about these problems (pp. 264-265).
Chapter 5 is the Suzan Barratt case. Forensic investigators' work is long, tedious, and painstaking (p.267). There is human error (p.268). Stephen Haines was found dead in his garage with bruises and abrasions on his body. Suzan Barratt admitted hitting him with a wine bottle (p.272). Haines was an alcoholic and hemophiliac (an explanation for bleeding and bruises). "Very few individuals really know the true facts ... of the case" (p.281). Talk-show hosts (actors on radio) are entertainers who affect public opinion that can lead to false convictions. The statements of Barratt were not admitted, the charges were dropped (p.283). The `Epilogue' warns against making simple mistakes. The investigators should keep an open mind and only use the evidence to lead to a solution.

There are five cases in this book examined in detail by the illustrious Dr. Henry Lee. They are

The Concetta "Penney" Serra Case
The Skakel-Moxley Case
The JonBenet Ramsey Case
The Lisa Peng Case; and
The Suzan Barratt Case.

I'll look briefly at two of them.

The longest chapter in the book is on the JonBenet Ramsey case. Lee gives a comprehensive summary of events from a forensic point of view including a lot of material about the rift between the Boulder police and the district attorney's office, and the problems they had with the intensive media coverage. I didn't learn anything new, having read several books on the case, but I would note that twice Lee mentions that the blow to the head that JonBenet suffered was "fatal." This is significant since it means that the ligature application around her neck was not the cause of death. This would be another bit of evidence indicating an elaborate attempt at a coverup.

I was disappointed that Lee would not venture an opinion on who killed JonBenet, although at one point he indicates that he advised the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, that she may have died as the result of an accident during some kind of domestic quarrel. The conclusion that many who followed the case came to was that Patsy Ramsey lost her temper (perhaps over JonBenet's bed-wetting) and either hit JonBenet with some instrument--a golf club, a flashlight--or shook her so hard that JonBenet hit her head on something like the porcelain toilet. Unable to revive her child, Patsy Ramsey panicked, and in her distraught state of mind devised an elaborate coverup which she presented to her husband. Although he should have known better, John Ramsey decided to go along with the coverup. What they should have done of course was to own up to the accident. However, by applying the ligature around JonBenet's neck (presumably Patsy did that), they had burned their bridges and so were stuck with the transparent story. Fortunately for them the incompetent police so compromised the crime scene that they were never able to gain enough evidence to prove that the Ramseys were responsible. See Sgt. Steve Thomas's book Jon Benét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (2000) for an authoritative report on the case.

(For those who cling to the intruder story put out by John and Patsy Ramsey, I can only say the coverup letter and the coverup ligature seem fantastically out of place in such a scenario. However, even though I am fairly sure that the Ramseys in some way "did it," I would not convict them from the evidence I have seen since there is "reasonable" doubt about what actually happened. Furthermore, I believe they stupidly covered up an accident--or at worse a "manslaughter." They didn't mean to kill their daughter.)

In the Skakel-Moxley case, Dr. Lee is a bit more forthcoming in his opinion (perhaps because Michael Skakel was actually convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley). Still it is fascinating to read how carefully Dr. Lee presents his opinions. I followed the case and I've read Mark Fuhrman's book on the subject, Murder in Greenwich (1998). (Yes, he too from the O.J. Simpson trial.) One of the things that Dr. Lee does in this book is emphasize the sheer brutality of the murder as he describes in lurid detail how Skakel killed her with a golf club, hitting her so hard that the club broke; and then he stabbed her with the broken end of the club.

Two quick points:

One, notice that what these two cases (and others) have in common is poor police work by cops who were seemingly in awe of the wealth and status of the accused and their families and connections. In other words, if you're rich and famous, it is easier to get away with murder (literally).

Two, Dr. Lee makes the very excellent point (in his usual careful style) that our over reliance on confessions often does not make for justice. He writes, "questions raised about confessions by an increasing number of writers and scholars today only serve, in my scientist's opinion, to underscore the importance that forensic and scientific evidence will play in courtrooms in the years ahead." (p. 118)

Oh, and yes, Dr. Lee is very much taken with himself, but I think he has license. He really is a brilliant and enormously dedicated forensic scientist, so much so that he is sometimes hired by either the prosecution or the defense just so that he will then not be able to work for the other side! (Actually, it has happened that Dr. Lee has worked for both sides of a case, although I don't believe simultaneously.) He is a frequent visitor on Court TV and other media where his insights into cases are very much worth hearing.

Bottom line: interesting book, very much worth reading, especially if you haven't taken a detailed look at these cases.

The forensic science covered in Cracking Cases makes for very interesting reading. Dr. Lee covers such subjects as the handling and preservation of a crime scene, blood-spatter analysis, and DNA analysis.

Though Dr. Lee is obviously one of the foremost scientists in his field, he is not a thrilling writer. He spends too much time on background issues of the 5 cases profiled here, and not enough time on the actual forensic issues. Also, his writing can become tedious, especially when he takes out time to shower praise on those who helped him with his cases.

The coverage of the subjects is basic, and can be understood by anyone. And, despite the drawbacks, the book reads fairly quickly, especially if one is interested in this subject matter. Recommended for all those interested.

The quote attributed to the writer on pg. 9 (as pointed out by a previous reviewer) concerning gravity not existing in a vacuum begs so many questions, most notably, "WHA!?!?" If the writer is this confused concerning basic physics, how can his expert testimony in a courtroom be worth anything?

I became interested in looking for these books aver reading Dr. Michael Baden's books. With the high praise that Baden placed on Dr. Lee I was looking forward to reading this book.

All in all I enjoyed the cases that Dr. Lee presented. The Skakel case was particularly interesting as I lived in Mass for a while and heard a lot about this crime. The facts were laid out prior to going into the investigation and finally trial if there was one.

While most of the cases proved interesting, I was a bit bored with the long section on JonBenet Ramsey as there was no real conclusion (just like the real case). Most of the book was dedicated to this case, and all it seemed to be was a bashing at the Police in Boulder. There was no conclusion drawn, and it just seemed like a lot of writing for basically one statement.

All in all the 4 cases presented other than Ramsey were very interesting. Obviously Dr. puts his best foot forward and looks very good in all of the cases presented while others look very bad. (Like the police who ruled a natural death a homicide.) It would be interesting if Dr. Lee presented a case or two where he was stumped and someone or something else helped solve the case that he was working on. That would eliminate the feeling that if Dr. Lee is on a case, it will be solved.

All in all I would give this book 3.5 stars but I rounded up for this review. A good read if you are interested in true crime, or forensics.