CA vs. Spector – “Is This the Country I Live In?”

He has a history of waving guns at women and there is a woman now found dead in his house and I am going to convict him of this? Is this the country I live in?  – Dr. Werner Spitz

My husband is from Michigan. Flint, Michigan, to be exact, born and raised in Flint. When he was a teenager he moved to Wayne County, the Detroit area.

After today I am extremely glad that Paul never wanted me to move to the Wayne county area – it seems that in Wayne County just a few years back Paul could have decided to throw me in a wood chipper and the esteemed County Coroner of Wayne county could very possibly determine it was a suicide and that I somehow had voluntarily walked into that chipper on my own, especially if any of my friends happened to report that I was sad. Seems the good former coroner relies quite heavily on “friends and people who knew the deceased” since he can’t get “state of mind” from an autopsy. Spitz testified this morning that “it’s impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy what someone was thinking from an autopsy – what surrounded this person, what drove this person” and Spitz said that since he never met this person before, he has to “rely on people who did know them – physicians, friends, relatives – they are the people I rely on when making my decision as to cause and manner of death.” How he manages to correlate what friends and relatives say into any meaningful conclusion without a psychology degree is beyond me.

Of course, Dr. Werner Spitz, this esteemed former County Coroner, who looks like he was in high school when the Grand Canyon was still being called “that pot hole over by the creek”, would not come to this “homicide versus suicide versus accident versus natural causes” conclusion right away. He would take a few days to read reports, look at the pictures, look at at all the documentation, then he would put all this info into a box – that box being his head, he says – then he would shake the box up a bit (meaning his head, I guess), and then sleep on it and come up with a decision. Because he’s just “God-like” that way.

Spitz has been making these grand pronouncements as to cause and manner of death in the United states since 1959, when he emigrated here from Germany. Which reminds me of why his voice sounds so familiar to me – he sounds just like Henry Kissinger, and his accent is so distinctive and so thick I won’t be surprised if the prosecution starts cross examining him on his language skills and whether or not he was “full of snacks and cookies and water and sound asleep” while writing his report. You know, the whole “good for the goose…” strategy.

Spitz testified for The U.S. President’s Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States (also known as the Rockefeller Commission) in 1978, this being the committee that was investigating the JFK and MLK assassinations. Spitz ended up authoring a report for that commission which devoted considerable attention to explaining why Connally’s dramatic reaction to the first shot, though occurring later in the Zapruder film than JFK’s, posed no obstacle to the Single Bullet Theory. Spitz said that these committees are still in session, ready should anyone else be assassinated, which I did not realize. (One hopes that he is not receiving his regular fee while he is on retainer).

Spitz was contacted to be an expert in this matter by one of Spector’s first attorneys, Robert Shapiro, who Spitz had turned down years ago when Shapiro contacted him to testify in the OJ Simpson trial. Spitz ended up testifying in the Simpson case for the Goldman family during the civil trial.

Spitz said that in the Lana Clarkson case he looked at the crime reports, the autopsy reports, the Grand Jury transcripts, and all other relevant documentation. He was not present at either the crime scene nor the autopsy itself.

Spitz pronounces, though, will all degree of certainty, this this was definitely a self inflicted wound. Spitz tempers this conclusion with the fact that self inflicted wounds can be of two classifications – either accidental or suicidal, but that in this case, since the wound was intra-oral, it was definitely suicide.

Christopher Plourd, for the defense, asks if Spitz was present for the testimony of Dr. Pena, the Forensic Pathologist and Deputy ME who examined Lana’s body at the crime scene, and Spitz says that yes, he was. Plourd then asks Spitz if he agrees with Dr. Pena’s conclusion that this was a homicide and after some stumbling where Spitz at first says “yes, I do”, he finally gets it right and says “No, I don’t”. He deems Dr. Pena’s conclusions “hasty” and says that they were made “with no due consideration.”

Spitz then gets into a long discussion and explanation of what happens when a gun is fired – the gasses and pressures that build up, the whole “chipmunk cheek” effect, the release of gunpowder, primer, smoke, gasses and debris that come from the muzzle and build up in the mouth to be released the same way – through the path of least resistance, which, in this case, was the exit through the least hard surfaces in Lana’s mouth – her two artificial teeth. Spitz testifies that instead of the recoil of the gun causing the dislodgment of these teeth, that it was the pressure of the gasses that knocked them out.

Spitz then tells the jury that these forces themselves – the gasses and the pressures, can cause damage to the body themselves, even without taking the missile or bullet into consideration, that there have been cases he has seen or handled wherein people were shot in the head with “dummy bullets” and either been severely injured or killed from the gasses which broke the bone and went inside the injury. This, of course, has been seen with the death of Jon Erick Hexum, the actor who shot himself in the temple with a gun loaded with blanks in the early 80′s. Although that death was attributed to the paper wadding that the blank bullet was wrapped with, not to the gasses or pressures themselves.

Spitz then goes on to say that there was actual evidence here of the great pressure that was inflicted inside the mouth, since there was bruising left on the face from the abnormally severe stretching of the skin. He points out these bruises on a picture of Lana Clarkson’s face from the autopsy. He explains how the skin stretches, then retracts, causing the breakage of blood vessels which causes the bruising.

Plourd then asks the witness how the teeth, which were found in the foyer and on the stairs, happened to get there, and if their placement when found could help to determine the position of Lana’s head when she was shot.

Spitz says that yes, the tremendous force of the pressure and gasses would easily expel the teeth to the location of the stairs and the foyer in front of the chair where she died, and that they would be in a direct line to her mouth, meaning that her head was facing forward when the gun was discharged.

Spitz then goes on to discount Dr. Pena’s testimony concerning the wounds on the tongue. Pena had testified that there was bruising on the side of the tongue consistent with “blunt force trauma” which he attributed to someone forcing the gun into Lana’s mouth. Spitz says that while he agrees with Pena’s ultimate determination that the bruising was due to “blunt force trauma”, he disagrees with the mechanism of this trauma, and that rather than attribute it to the gun hitting and bruising the tongue, he attributes it to the tongue being forced onto the back molars by the initial pressure of the gun discharging. Spitz opines that there is too much symmetry on the tongue with regards to the bruising for it to be caused by anything other than the back teeth and the hard palate. Spitz says that although Pena did not note it on the autopsy diagram, the pictures clearly show the same bruising on either side of the tongue.

Spitz earlier testified that he had absolutely no experience with Cobra Colt .38′s and in fact called his local police department to have them provide him with the same kind of gun so Spitz could shoot it and educate himself on the recoil and amount of pressure it discharged – and he didn’t even do that with the same type of ammunition – Plus P is not available anymore. Despite this testimony, the defense decides that this witness, by virtue of his extensive experience with “deaths by gunshot”, must also be a ballistics expert, too, and they begin to question him about back spatter, and how far this could reasonably be expected to travel.

Spitz testifies that he has seen cases where back spatter has traveled in excess of 6 feet, but the defense does not ask what types of guns these scenes were associated with, or what kinds of ammunition.

Spitz then imparts to the jury that after the discharge of the gun, Lana was immediately brain dead. She was unresponsive, essentially dead, as it relates to the brain. He also says, though, that her heart was still working and that respiration would likely still be functional for a short period. Plourd asks what the difference in time would be between brain death and somatic death (Spitz explains that “Soma” is either Greek or Latin for “body”), was she able to move once she was brain dead?

Spitz explains that while she wasn’t able to *want* to move, her body was capable of movement.

Plourd then asks him to consider if her body was in the same position when the gun was discharged as the position she was in when she was found. And Spitz says no, that she wasn’t. He explains that after brain death all the muscles would go limp and that her body would slump down in the chair – and in fact, he can tell that this happened in this case because the hem and end of her dress is pulled up somewhat and it’s in a rumpled state. That is most certainly from her body going limp and slumping down in the chair after brain death.

Spitz then goes on (as he is wont to do after a question – he starts rambling a lot and relating strange stories about his experiences)…that the head can move quite a bit after death – it can go straight, then wobble, then move over to one side – which probably happened in this case, as well, and that since no spatter was found on her shoes or her lower legs, this indicates to him that her legs were not in this position when the gun was discharged. And those funky head movements? Form side to side, wobbling, back and forth? Spitz says that this can go on for 29 seconds – it’s documented and indisputable.

Spitz then goes on to explain how the body can expirate air after brain death. He testifies that in the absence of CPR you can look at autopsy for evidence of blood in the air sacs of the lungs. Dr. Pena wrote in his autopsy report that Lana had such blood in her air sacs, and Dr. Lynne Herold testified that Lana’s lungs were very heavy from the accumulated blood. Spitz contends that this is evidence that Lana had an intake and out take (he would not use the words breathe or inhale and exhale, as this would imply a voluntary action, which she did not have, being brain dead ), but she had an in take and out take of air several times – more than one, for sure, he said, judging by the amount of blood in the lungs.

This is where the prosecution *finally* objected to the snarky little trick Plourd had been pulling all day. Every time he referred to Lana’s gunshot wound or the actions of the gun or in any reference to Lana he would say “when she shot herself” – “when she pulled the trigger”, “when she killed herself”. And it wasn’t subtle – it was quite overt. The prosecution never objected to the use of this language, and it was really starting to bug me.

FINALLY, when Plourd said “so, after she shot herself, she took air into her lungs” Alan Jackson FINALLY objected. The judge was quick to agree with him and sustain the objection, and you could tell he was thinking “About fucking time, Mr. Jackson…” Or maybe that’s just what *I* was thinking and I project….

But Spitz answers the question on the table with “Breathing in is an active process, breathing out is a passive process, if you breathe in, you will breathe out.” Plourd asks that if there was blood in the mouth after brain death, and Lana had taken in and put out air, would that blood come out of her mouth? And Spitz answers yes, that there are muscles in the cheek and they go limp, later on they become rigid, but at the time of death, when she puts air out, tissue and blood will be expelled. The heart will continue to pump after death, and there would be blood in the mouth from the site of the wound.

Spitz explains that we have “centers” in the brain, and that there is a special center for the intake of air and another center for temperature control, and another for the heart, and another for other bodily responses,  and that the center that controls our intake of air is situated in the medulla, which is located a little higher than this gunshot wound, which was situated through the upper cervical spine – between c1 & c 2 – first cervical vertebra of the neck by the skull. The center that controls the air intake will therefore continue to emit impulses even after brain death.

Plourd asks if the heart continues to beat after death and Spitz says yes, it does, because the heart has it’s own power plant, independent of the brain. Spitz, in one of his long rambling modes again, relates a story in which he used to kill rabbits and take their heart out to put in a saline solution, and sometimes the heart would continue beating even 20 minutes after putting them in the saline solution. I am going to assume that this was some legitimate experiment or study, but I am not sure.

Spitz then goes on to explain the coagulation process of blood. He tells the jury that there is a certain amount of time in which blood outside of the body will clot. Pure blood in a test tube will take about 2 minutes to clot with no preservatives. If you take blood from a wound in an area where there is crushed tissue, and the “juices” from that tissue enter the blood, it will clot much faster, this is a self protecting mechanism that we have. So the spinal tissue that was mixed with the blood from Lana might have clotted faster than normal blood.

Plourd then asks about the location of the blood and tissue and where it ended up at the scene and asks if the placement of these materials helped Spitz to evaluate what occurred. Spitz agreed that yes, these things helped, and he said that since the overwhelming amount of material and blood available ended up on the deceased as opposed to the other person, as well as the majority of the gunpowder at the scene which ended up on the deceased, and the location of the blood and GSR, as well as the fact that this was an intra oral wound – he took all of this into consideration, although he does concede that the GSR itself is not a determination of who pulled the trigger.

Spitz then goes on to opine that in his determination Lana was holding the gun in both hands when she shot herself, with one hand on top and one on the bottom, probably steadying the grip. This is his opinion and the physical evidence supports this, he says. especially the Lintemoot report that describes small bloodstains on the back of Lana’s wrists.

Plourd then gets into the artificial nail material, and whether, in Spitz’s experience, he has ever seen this nail material get broken off in a self inflicted gunshot wound. Spitz says that yes, he has seen this happen, as well as natural nail being broken in a self inflicted wounds. He says that if you are going to push the trigger, not pull, the thumb is subjected to terrific force when the gun recoils or moves, and if it hits the nail, the nail can be broken, especially artificial nail material. He says that natural nails are much more elastic than acrylic nails, which is why the artificial nail was broken in this case, but the natural nail was intact.

Spitz then gets into the toxicological evidence and samples collected at the autopsy of Lana Clarkson, both in her blood samples, heart and femoral, and her bile sample. He also relates that he read a report of the investigator’s which said that certain medications were found in her purse – and that one of these medicines might cause a person to bleed more easily – this was the cyclivir she was taking. Spitz said that there is a lower number of thrombocytes found in people taking this medication and that these are the elements in the blood that are intimately involved in the clotting mechanism, so you could expect a person taking this medicine to spontaneously bleed without being subjected to traumatic force and they could also bleed longer than normal. This medicine can also cause bruising, since it is basically a blood thinner.

Spitz also mentions that Dr. Pena noted in his autopsy report that he found a slight inflammation in the portal triads of the liver, and that this is associated with long term abuse of drugs. Spitz can’t say *what* drugs, exactly, but it’s not prescription drugs, although it could be a chronic and prolonged period of using vicodin.

Plourd then asks Spitz about intra oral wounds specifically, and how many Spitz has personally seen in his 54 years of practice that were not self inflicted wounds. Spitz says that he can’t name one. He says he keeps up with the relevant literature and periodicals, both domestic and ones generated abroad, and that 99% of intra oral wounds are self inflicted.

Spitz then talks about the lips and says that the lips were neither shut tight nor was the mouth wide open. Spitz says the evidence supports this because the total amount of gunpowder that emanated was not that huge, and the amount of blood was not that great, either, and there is no laceration and tearing of the edges of the lips and the mouth as there would be if the mouth was completely closed and the gasses don’t’ have any means of escape and blast open the face. There would be more damage on the inside of the mouth if the mouth had been completely closed.

Spitz then tells the jury how he gets from cause of death to manner of death, and explains the way his practice would normally work. Not every death involves an autopsy, those are only done when the situation warrants. In the case of a trauma death where it needs to be determined whether the wound was self inflicted or not, he would look at the background of the individual, how they interacted with other people, who they knew and what those people could tell him, their medical history and the toxicology report, anything that could shed light on why that person may have done what they did.

In this case, he did the same thing, looking at Lana’s computer, reports and testimony from the people who knew her, Punkin Pie, Greg Sims, Jennifer Hayes, David Shapiro, he read her emails and investigated her medical records.

Plourd asks Spitz what his ultimate conclusions were about Lana’s state of mind and Spitz says that “Lana stuck me as many times what I consider imbalanced, with ups and downs in her moods and in her utterings, and she indicated from time to time that she had had enough, and many people did not see this side of her, but I see that so often, a person takes his own life and we inquire and it becomes evident that he was depressed and had he lived till tomorrow he wouldn’t have killed himself. Depression has ups and downs. I don’t think that this incident was a planned and contemplated situation, I think it was not. Here you have a young lady who has not been successful in her endeavors and she’s been taking some drugs – by her own admission – and now she has consumed alcohol and she has drugs in her system and she’s careless – she has no inhibitions, she doesn’t understand the finality of the action – I have no real choice in making  a determination other than to say this is a suicide – but was it really a suicide in that sense of the word or that she did it with no thought?”

Spitz also testifies that guns are pretty common as the weapon of choice for women who commit suicide, that there are other methods they choose, but guns are common. He says he understands that women may consider that they could destroy their face with a head wound, but that an intra oral wound does not mess up the face. He says it isn’t even noticeable. He also says that over 50% of suicide deaths have some percentage of alcohol in their system at the time of death.

Plourd ends his direct examination by asking about Lana’s large bruise under her left eye – Spitz says that this was not a black eye, but that the bruising was attributable to the bony structure damage and the fractures of the eye socket.

Plourd also asks him to repeat his opinion on whether or not blood came out of her mouth after her brain death, and Spitz says yes, he believes that this happened.

He then asks if it was possible that this blood that came out of her mouth was possibly the source of the blood on Spector’s jacket. Spitz says it could be, he cannot say definitely that it is, but it could be.

Plourd’s last question is an expected one: “Dr, in your opinion, was this a self inflicted gunshot wound.”

And of course, Spitz responds with “In my opinion, in light of all the physical evidence, yes it was.”

Jackson immediately springs to his feet and says to the doctor: “And you’re getting paid a lot of money for that opinion, aren’t you?”

Which tongue ties the doctor, and he sputters “Well, I am getting paid to come to California, and for being away from my office!”

Jackson asks him “How much are you getting paid, Dr. Spitz” And Spitz answers with “$5000 per day.”

Jackson acts shocked and incredulous, and says “$5,000 a DAY! And how many days have you been here?”

To which Spitz responds “This time?”

And Jackson asks “In total, sir, how many times have you been here?” And Spitz says “3 times”, so Jackson says to the doctor “So you have earned $15 THOUSAND DOLLARS?”

Inexplicably, Dr. Spitz says to Jackson “Oh, now you’re being mean”

And Jackson says “No, I’m trying to do basic math”.

You testified that Spector pays you $5,000 to come here, right?” And Spitz says, “I work at the behest of Mr. Plourd and Ms. Baden, I do not work for Mr. Spector”, and Jackson interjects with “But he’s the one paying you, ultimately, right? And I’m not trying to be mean here, but you are getting $5,000 a day, right? And you’ve been here three times, right? And that’s $15, 000.”

“No, No, No,” says Spitz, ” I don’t come to California and then turn around and go back in the same day, sir, That’s why I said you were being Mean – I get MORE than that for each trip – it’s MORE than $15 thousand dollars.”

After the laughter in the courtroom dies down, he tells Jackson that the last bill he sent to Spector was for $45K.

Jackson then gets to Spitz’s direct examination testimony, and asks him about his statement that *MOST* intra oral wounds are suicides. He gets Spitz to concede that *most* does not mean *all* and that there *are* intra oral wounds that are homicides. Jackson points out to Spitz that if Spitz received a case back in Wayne county that was an intra oral wound, he wouldn’t simply rubber stamp it as a suicide, that he would need to investigate it, investigate the circumstances and then and only then would he be able to determine the exact manner of death.

Spitz agrees wholeheartedly, that of course he would have to investigate.

Jackson then says to Spitz, “So, in the course of the investigation you made into *this* case, did you happen to take into consideration that there was *another* person in that room? And isn’t it important to look at *his* history as well?”

Spitz then says something that *really* fires Jackson up – we haven’t seen him this animated since the whole “Bring on the Baloney, Hold De Mayo” thing. Spitz says that he didn’t concern himself with Mr. Spector, since he was  a PASSIVE INDIVIDUAL here. Spitz says that he would have to LOOK how to tie him into the scenario, and would have to look into his part of it via the police report and look at his clothes and stuff, and then look at the deceaseds clothes, and then do remaining work as it pertains to the body…”

And as soon as he takes a breath in his ramble, Jackson comes out of the gate. Jackson is incredulous as he asks Spitz “PASSIVE? What do you mean, sir, that Mr. Spector is a PASSIVE individual in this case?”

Spitz says “That means, that he is not directly tied to events here until we have PROVED that to be wrong, and up to now, I fail to see how…”

And Jackson cannot even wait for the breath this time. He cuts Spitz off like he thinks he’s going to explode all over the podium if he doesn’t.

“Dr. Spitz, do you know that Lana Clarkson was killed in Phillip Spector’s house? In his foyer? With his gun? With his bullets? That the gun came out of a holster that he owned? In his dresser drawer? That she was a complete stranger to this house? A complete stranger to this foyer area? That she did not know the contents of that dresser drawer? That she came to this house at the invitation of Phillip Spector? That at the time of her death she was completely clothed? That she was sitting by the back door? That her purse was over her shoulder? That 15 to 20 feet away was a Mercedes that was ready to take her home? That she is not partying, that she is ready to leave? Do you know all this Dr. Spitz?”

And Spitz starts arguing with Jackson about “reasonable interpretation”. Spitz does not think that the fact that she was by the door, with her purse over her shoulder, that it is a “reasonable interpretation” that she was ready to leave. He says that it’s just as reasonable to assume she had left and come back! He accuses Jackson of “speculating” and representing “interpretations” as facts.

Jackson asks Spitz if he realizes that there was blood on the doorknob, placed there by Phillip Spector. Spitz concedes that yes, Spector must have deposited it there.

Jackson asks if Spitz realizes there was blood on the banister – placed there by Phillip Spector. If he realizes there was blood on Spector’s jacket, that the jacket had been taken off, that there was a rag retrieved by Phillip Spector, that the gun was found on Lana’s left side, that there was clotted blood on the rag, that the clotted blood was placed there by Spector?”

To each of these inquiries Spitz can only answer “yes, yes I know this”.

Sp Jackson then asks him “After all of that, all of these FACTS that you agree with, your opinion is that Phillip Spector was a PASSIVE player?”

And Spitz says, “Yes, based on the physical evidence, he was a passive player. What you have just illustrated as fact is actually borderline facts – and I don’t know what this has to do with the physical findings. Yes, these are all facts, that the house belonged to Phillip, that she didn’t know where the dresser was or the gun was, but you don’t know what really happened – and I don’t either, therefore, I have to go with the facts – the facts don’t lie to me.”

Again Jackson interrupts the doctor to point out to him “These facts that do not lie to you, sir, these facts include that Phillip Spector’s gun was IN HER FACE, in Phillip Spector’s foyer, in his bureau, his gun loaded with his bullets, that gun was IN HER FACE when it was fired, and she died in Phillip Spector’s chair in his foyer, correct? These are the facts and when you say the facts don’t lie , then these facts don’t lie to you, do they?”

Spitz continues to argue with him, and says, more loudly this time, “But you do not know what transpired between the parties here! Or what circumstances led to Lana picking up that gun and holding it in her mouth – you don’t know anything other than that and that maybe Phillip Spector was on his way to her when she fired the gun. I can’t interpret anything other than that from the evidence”

Jackson jumps on this statement and says “So, these facts that don’t lie to you – you need a little help interpreting those facts that don’t lie to you.”

Then Spitz says something really odd: He tells Jackson that Yes, he needs help interpreting the facts, that he needs to “Think long and hard about it”.

Jackson seems a little taken aback by this statement, as well, but I think he’s saving it for later. He instead asks Spitz “Based on the physical findings alone you can’t, as a medical expert, make a determination as to whose finger was on that trigger, can you.”

Spitz refuses to be roped into this conclusion, and he says “Phillip Spector doesn’t meet the qualifications of having his finger on the trigger. He wasn’t close enough”.

So Jackson asks him to assume a hypothetical – that if the physical evidence concluded that he *was* close enough, then Spitz would have to consider that, wouldn’t he?

Spitz says “Would you kindly share where you got that?”

Jackson says “Would you kindly answer my question?”

Spitz, after much prodding, even form the judge, to take the facts as given as a hypothetical situation, finally admits that if the facts were to show that Spector was closer than the 6 feet that Spitz believes him to be at at the time of the shooting, then “You are talking about a different case” and “I would have to reconsider my opinion”.

Jackson then moves to “In the course of that reconsideration, you would then have to take in the history of Phillip Spector, would you not?”

Spitz doesn’t like being cornered into the position of talking about this, either, and he says “Spector’s history is less important because of the elements of this case. And the facts of February 3, 2003 are not being considered – when you take the physical evidence emanated from that day – they tell you a story all on their own – you don’t *NEED* to know what he did 10 years before – that does not feature in these events – we all did stupid things 10 or 20 years ago.”

Jackson asks him “Dr Spitz, did you ever get drunk and get a woman alone, and then get angry when she wanted to leave and then pull out a handgun and stick it in her face and force your will on her?”

“No, I have not, but then, I’m married…I haven’t had time for that.”

“So if you weren’t married, you would pull guns on women?”

“no, no…..I don’t have that kind of atmosphere….”

“But, in this case, if this case was such that a woman was found dead with a single gunshot wound in the mouth and it was Phillip Spector’s gun and Phillip Spector’s house and Phillip Spector’s foyer, and the gun had been in Phillip Spector’s holster, in his dresser, and he had again invited a woman to his home, and he was drinking, and she was trying to leave, and you know that these are the circumstances  – is it your medical opinion that it’s unimportant that over and over and over and over again he does this, that he threatens women with guns when they try to leave and he is drinking – is that unimportant to you?”

“It is my opinion that I would hate to consider those elements to prove a case – with the physical evidence that exists – you want me to just throw all this physical evidence out the window and consider only that he has a history of this – so therefore I am going to convict him now? That’s the country I live in?”

“But if the physical evidence said that he could have been close enough – you would consider thinking that way?”

Spitz hemmed and hawed and didn’t really answer, and court is adjourned for the day.

Unfortunately a short day tomorrow (again), but fortunately we are starting 1/2 hour early.

I am half thinking Spitz is on a plane to China to join Henry Lee.