STORY: "Camm trial 9/5: Blood analyst disputes Camm's murder defence," published by WAVE News on September 5, 2013.
GIST: "David
Camm may have suffered a major setback in his third murder trial, now
that Indiana State Police have served up their most experienced
technician in stain pattern analysis to dispute his claim that he got
blood on his t-shirt by trying to save his son. Late Thursday afternoon, Sgt. Dean Marks told jurors that expirated
blood, coughed up or spewed, could explain the size and spacing of eight
blood dots. But DNA analysis reveals the blood to belongs to Camm's
daughter Jill, age 5, rather than his son Bradley, age 7. "In order to force blood out of the mouth, nose or a (gunshot) wound, the person would have to be alive," Marks testified. An autopsy found no blood in Bradley Camm's mouth. During testimony
last week medical examiner Dr. Tracey Corey determined that Bradley died
within minutes of being shot. Marks told the jury his findings came after analyzed more than 140
photographs of the blood patterns, and cut-out sections from the shirt
itself. Marks said he received the material in October 2001, three
months before Camm's first trial. His conclusions bolster the most
critical evidence used to charge Camm with killing his wife, Kim, and
their children on September 28, 2000. In 2006, Charles Darnell Boney, a serial felon, was convicted of the
killings and is serving a 225-year sentence. But prosecutors maintain
that Jill Camm's blood pattern proves that her father shot her at close
range. "You have a better chance for back-spatter with a bullet striking the
skull," Marks said. "This is consistent with gunshot spatter."......... But Camm's attorneys argue that the case against him relies solely on
the spatter theory - coming not with Dean Marks, but from an
administrator who they claim misrepresented his training and expertise;
crime scene reconstructionist Robert Stites. "That's why you got up in the middle of that interrogation, to go consult with him," attorney Stacey Uliana told Neal. "He (Stites) said 90-95 percent (sure)," Neal responded.
"You said, that's not good enough, I need 100 percent," Uliana said. "At some point, he informed us he was 100 percent certain," Neal answered. Neal told jurors he was unaware that the Camm murders were Stites'
first homicide case, that Stites hadn't been trained in blood spatter
analysis, nor that he Stites never had testified in a criminal case. "And you never were told that spatter analysis is more subjective than science?" Uliana asked. "No," Neal responded."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.wave3.com/story/23354941/camm-trail-95-blood-analyst-disputes-camms-murder-defense
Wikipedia report: (Excellent background):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Camm.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.
The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty
incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology
system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent
stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to:
hlevy15@gmail.com
Sent from my iPad
