Henry Lee in Disgrace

Henry Lee first came to national attention in the O.J. Trial, as a forensic science witness for the defense. I can remember only vaguely what he testified about, but I do remember his demeanor, which I found deeply offensive, very well.

The public persona that he adopted was like that of Charlie Chan, the fictional detective made famous in 1930s and 1940s movies. Both Dr. Lee and Charlie Chan played the role of the inscrutable Chinese man, full of wise aphorisms. What I notices perhaps most about Dr. Lee was his calculated striving to appear nonthreatening to native-born Americans.

"Do you remember this or that white person?" (not an exact quote) someone asked him while he was on the stand. What did he reply? "Ooh, they all look alike to me!" He he. It turns out that this is not an original utterance that Dr. Lee cooked up on the spur of the moment, but merely a practiced line from his repetoir as a professional witness.

The O.J. Trial is over, but for Dr. Lee, and many others, this terrible crime served as a launching pad for remunerative careers in the public eye.

The ones who did not benefit from the trial, of course, are those survivors of victims Ron and Nicole. They were left holding the emotional bag. It will never be over for them.

Now they may have some very small measure of consolation--Dr. Lee, who, in his O.J. days, bamboozled a willing jury into believing that DNA was not really evidence is in public disgrace. It seems Dr. Lee tampered with evidence in the murder trial of another famous sociopath, Phil Spector, who fully expects to walk free. After all, he's paying people like Dr. Lee top dollar to lie, cheat, steal and pocket evidence to achieve this goal!

Maybe Mr. Spector will even hire defense attorney Leslie Abramson (she of the Fatal Attraction hairdo) to publicly say that he's "adorable" like she did for those dead-eyed Menendez brothers who were once her clients.

Anyway, here's what the newspapers are saying about Dr. Lee and his tampering in a nutshell--

The beautiful but desperate actress, Lana Clarkson, who accompanied Mr. Spector to his mansion only to be shot to death, may have held up her hands to protect herself. A white acrylic fingernail was spotted at the crime scene, and three witnesses saw the good Dr. Lee swoop in and pocket that fake fingernail.

Dr. Lee's response? "What fingernail?" He probably thought that he could ride on his reputation as a popular media personality to carry him through this crisis.

However, the Spector Trial judge ruled that Dr. Henry Lee deliberately withheld this evidence from prosecuters.

It's not clear how much the jurors in the Spector Trial will hear about Dr. Lee's dishonesty, but his reputation is now irreparably damaged, a fact which is sure to affect his future career in a most negative manner.

I think this loss of reputation is not punishment enough for trying to deny the dead Ms. Clarkson some measure of dignity. Justice is obviously an elusive concept for one who is dead, but some measure of justice must be sought for this victim.

I know who killed Lana Clarkson and so do you. Let's hope that he's convicted of her murder.

Jenny

Family First?

When people talk about the concept of "family" it is often with a sort of religious fervor. However, I've always been suspicious of excessive religiosity as well as exaggerated sentiments about family. Regardless of what values one may profess to hold dear, it is what one does rather than says that is the deciding factor for me. Let me explain...

A while ago I had a client, Yesenia (fake name) whose hovering parent, Dolores (which means "pains" in Spanish) had coerced her naive young daughter into co-signing for a bunch of fraudulent real estate loans plus car loans for a fleet of luxury SUVs.

Yesenia also owed a substantial amount of money on credit cards that Dolores had used and promised to pay back but never did.

More concerned about shielding herself from liability than her daughter's welfare, Dolores indignantly tried to micro-manage her daughter's bankruptcy, bossing me around with veiled threats like, "I'm the one paying for this bankruptcy." As if I cared! My responsibility is to my client, not to some third party who happens to be footing the bill.

After what seemed like a hundred phone calls, with Dolores demanding information that was protected by the attorney-client privilege I politely but firmly told Dolores not to call anymore. I had told her that I would under no circumstances reveal any details about her daughter's bankruptcy, and to stop badgering me. She was not pleased and actually became rather abusive. So, I told her, "Dolores, even your name hurts." She gasped and hung up the phone. He he!

There are many people like Dolores out there, who think nothing of manipulating a weak family member into co-signing for them. Family members can have a special sense of entitlement. They think you owe them!

It's not uncommon to see parents like Dolores, and conversely, adult children who bully their elderly relatives into co-signing loans and credit cards for them.

This reality hardly meaures up to our Hallmark culture's sentiments about family. When I see clients who have been exploited by greedy family members, I often ask them if they would put up with this kind of behavior from a non-relative. Usually the answer is a resounding "no" followed by explanations about what we owe to our families.

But what do we really owe to family members who exploit us? I don't think we owe them very much, if at all.

Family members who feel a deep sense of entitlement will help themselves to our money, our credit, and even our sanity. A lack of boundaries with one's family often leads to broken marriages (just think of the stereotypical meddling mother-in-law), visits to a psychiatrist, and bankruptcy.

I think it's important for people to draw a line in the sand when it comes to anyone's outrageous requests.

The ability to say no, to put off immediate gratification, or to resist pressure in the case of lending money or signatures to relatives, pays great dividends in future happiness.

If you're not sure it's a good idea, say no or demand some time to thing things over. Then once you've thought it over, you can say no!

If your family members really loved you, would they ask you to risk your financial future for them? No way! If someone tries to take advantage of you, reconsider your relationship with that person, and try and get some distance, at least temporarily. Do we love the truck that runs us over?

Best Wishes,

Jenny

P.S. Dolores--maybe your daughter can co-sign for you for a bicycle. Or else she can lend you the money for a Metro pass!

Don't String Me Along!

I recently read a book by physicist Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, which criticizes string theory and, more importantly I think, scientists and academia in general.

I am not a physicist by any means, but we do live in a physical world, and it's been important for me to have a basic understanding of the laws of physics. As a young teenager, when I first studied elementary physics, it cleared up a lot of things for me--like why my legs weren't as efficient as a bicycle, and why a bicycle wasn't as efficient as a car.

When I entered college I was immediately suspicious of professors whose Wordlviews left no room for dispute, or even any slight variation. While I don't wish to accuse all of these Volvo-driving professors of living in an ivory tower, some of them showed great disconnect between their philosophies (usually what they wrote about in their dissertations)and what actually was happening in the world.

It's been clear to me for many years that many of the principles of theoretical physics are simply untested myths that few physicists dare to question--at least not if they aspire to tenure at a university.

String theory probably does have some validity, but even a lay person can see that it is more of a hypothesis than an absolute fact, as so many academics claim.

And I'm tired of academics and intellectuals being the sole arbiters of truth. In many cases they're just plain wrong! Like that linguistics professor I had at UCLA who told me that I was too old to learn a foreign language, and might as well not even bother. I was eighteen years old when she told me that. I have since gone on to learn Spanish and German. And what about all the immigrants who come here and learn English? Most may not speak perfectly, but if they try they can become proficient. Had that linguistics professor never met any of these people?

Another example of academic foolishness is when DH hired a professor of computer science from UCLA to set up his many websites. This professor thought that he knew all there was to know about computers--and if you didn't start learning yesterday, you were doomed to be a computer illiterate forever. Well, DH picked this guy's brains, so to speak, and expanded upon what he had learned. Later, DH ended up advising this professor on some esoteric details of computer science, when the professor hit a dead end in his "research".

There is a danger among university people to discount the opinions and experiences of those who do not tow the line--if you don't believe as they believe, you may as well be guilty of heresy in the Middle Ages, so unpopular will you become at voicing your unwanted observations.

While I enjoyed the parts of Dr. Smolin's book where he pokes holes in the string theory, what stuck with me most is his criticism of academia. Honestly, I can only say he should have offered even stronger criticism.

That being said, I can never repay the debt I owe to those professors of great humility and open-mindedness who taught me to think critically, and observe the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Best Wishes,


Jenny