Statement from Dr. Henry Lee：
I am disappointed to learn of the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Victor Bolden in regard to liability in the convictions of Mr. Birch and Mr. Henning.
In 1985, the Connecticut State Police Major Crimes Squad (CSP-MCS) was requested to investigate this homicide scene. CSP-MCS was in charge of the Carr homicide scene. In my capacity as head of the Forensic Science Laboratory, my colleagues and I were called to the homicide scene in New Milford on the night of December 2, 1985, to conduct field chemical tests and perform initial crime scene reconstruction. Hundreds of areas were tested for the presence of fingerprints, footprints and biological evidence including the upstairs bathroom, sink and the towel in question. I did not participate nor was involved in any of the subsequent criminal investigations.
A light red smear was observed on one of the towels in the upstairs bathroom. Some spots were also observed in the sink of the upstairs bathroom. I applied Tetra methybenzidine (TMB) on the surface of the towel and sink. TMB is a chemical test for blood used during the 1980s. A smear on the towel and some spots in the sink gave a positive chemical reaction. Under my instruction, the towel and the liquid in the sink trap were collected by a CSP-MCS Detective. Those items were placed in separate evidence bags, sealed with evidence tape, and stored in the evidence room. For unknown reasons, the towel was never submitted to the Lab for a confirmatory blood test at that time.
I am a forensic scientist and I only present my scientific findings in the court of law. It is not my role to determine what evidence to introduce and what questions to ask a witness during the trial. I was not responsible for the documentation, collection of evidence, and for photographing the scene.
Mr. Birch and Mr. Henning did not become suspects until weeks after my December 2, 1985 crime scene visit. My scientific findings at the crime scene were completed well before they became suspects. I was called by the State’s Attorney to testify about my scene reconstruction and the chemical testing used at the scene. I have no motive nor reason to fabricate evidence. My chemical testing of the towel played no direct role in implicating Mr. Birch and Mr. Henning or anyone else as suspects in this crime. Further, my scientific testimony at their trial included exculpatory evidence, such as a negative finding of blood on their clothing that served to exonerate them.
A negative finding for blood on the towel 20 years later should not be interpreted as fact that there was never a positive test for the presence of blood on this towel
nor should a quantum leap in thinking be made that this was an attempt to fabricate evidence. It is not only against the scientific principle but also without any logical reason. This towel was stored at an evidence room for 20 years. It is not unusual for biodegradation, decomposition, or denaturation to occur. Biological evidence consumed by testing, breaking down with age and unfavorable conditions are scientific facts and no forensic scientist will argue against it. In addition, the small amount of blood-like smear evidence may even be consumed during testing or have fallen off the surface of the towel.
When reviewing the copy of the case materials that I do have, I found a copy of the evidence label that was placed on the evidence bag containing the towel. The tag clearly reads: “Exhibit 16 , Date seized 12-2-85 , Time 2305…Item white towel with pink/green (illegible) pattern w/ blood like smear on same… Location 2nd floor bathroom sink rack…”. (see attached photos). This evidence tag clearly shows that a blood like smear was identified on the bathroom towel when the CSP- MCS and lab personnel were at the scene. The towel with blood like smear was collected and sealed in an evidence bag on 12/2/1985 at 23:05. It is clear and direct evidence that I did not fabricate evidence. The towel was tested, identified as blood like smear on that towel and collected at the scene on 12/2/1985 at 23:05.
