PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (EDITORIAL); One of the most significant moments in the trial, my view, as a former criminal lawyer, was the prosecution's request to the jury to disregard the so-called "expert" testimony given for the prosecution by photographer Robert Stites. Journalist Travis Kircher honed in on this in his "David Camm Blog, as follows: "Defence lawyer Stacy Uliana's closing argument: "She said the State of Indiana's decision to arrest David Camm was based on the findings of Rob Stites, a photographer who visited the crime scene, whom she said was posing as a blood stain expert and was "nothing short of a fraud." Special prosecutor Stan Levco: On rebuttal; "As for Robert Stites, the "fraud" the defense team said was posing as a blood stain pattern analyst, Levco said the jury should disregard his findings, as the prosecution's case wasn't dependent on them." It must have been very painful for Levco to have to repudiate the evidence of the key witness, whose so-called "expert" findings had allowed the prosecution to make an arrest - especially when this has to be done on rebuttal to the defence lawyer's allegation that Stites was "nothing short of a fraud." The fact that the police and prosecution had stood behind this allegedly fraudulent expert until the State was backed into a corner during the closing arguments - at the very end of the trial - shows how desperate the State was to get a conviction in the absence of compelling factual evidence - and provides an example of how the police investigation had been bungled from the outset - and kept going down hill thereafter. The following post from "Justice for David Camm" sheds more light on the manner in which the police and prosecutors transformed Robert Stites from crime scene photographer to renowned blood splatter expert in order to ensnare David Camm.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
POST: "Original blood splatter expert," published by "Justice for David Camm."
GIST: "Nonetheless, at the Camm residence Stites was accepted at the crime scene as the expert he was held out to be. Indeed, Sammy Sarkisian referred to Stites as the "expert from Oregon" and Mickey Neal later told Dave that Stites was a "man who does this for a living" and also that he was "renowned as far as his expertise." Neal also added, prophetically, "This is not something he just started to do yesterday" when he confronted Dave on October 1st about Stites' expert findings. While Stites was at the crime scene, so was Evidence Technician Jim Niemeyer. Niemeyer was also told that Stites was a blood spatter expert and saw firsthand that Stites was taking control of the crime scene on that Saturday. Also at the crime scene were the prosecutor's investigators who were there at Stan Faith's direction. Niemeyer didn't particularly care for the fact that Prosecutor Faith was taking control of the crime scene, but as he later testified, he "assumed that it was his (Faith's) procedure." He also added that he had never seen an outside expert brought in to a case as quickly as Stites. Niemeyer also made an astute statement during Dave's second trial. Niemeyer, as an Evidence Technician, only had the 40 hour introductory, elementary course on blood stain pattern interpretation. He didn't hold himself out to be any type of analyst and didn't engage in providing any blood stain interpretation. Why? Because, Niemeyer explained, to do so would be "enough to make me dangerous." Niemeyer knew the limits of his expertise and it didn't include blood stain interpretation. Nonetheless, Stites quickly took center stage and began taking a voluminous amount of photographs......... If Robert Stites, who was the primary source of the first three and then two other paragraphs of the probable cause affidavit (paragraphs 1-5 above) and also was the individual whom he claimed to be, then his observations and assertions would be of immense importance. The reverse would also be true, however. If Stites wasn't whom he claimed to be, and he wasn't a renowned blood spatter and crime re-constructionist expert, then his observations and assertions should be meaningless. In fact, Stites wasn't a blood stain pattern analyst. He had never even taken the 40 hour elementary course that Jim Niemeyer said would be enough to make him "dangerous." Stites was from Oregon but he wasn't an expert and he wasn't "renowned as far as his expertise." He had no BSPA expertise. As to him being a crime scene re-constructionist as claimed in the probable cause affidavit? That too was bogus. Stites had never before investigated a homicide or even collected evidence at a homicide scene. Stites had no experience as an evidence technician and had never testified as an expert in either blood stain pattern analysis or as a crime scene re-constructionist. He later claimed that his only assignment at the Camm crime scene was to take notes and photographs in preparation for Englert. He also claimed that he didn't know that his observations and conclusions would form a major part of the probable cause affidavit which resulted in the arrest of David Camm......... Stites made some other startling admissions years later and under oath. He wasn't enrolled in a PhD program in fluid dynamics as he had previously testified and wasn't even enrolled in any type of master's program. In fact, he hadn't taken any college classes in the nine years before his first testimony in 2002. He also had flunked general chemistry and hadn't taken any physics classes even though he taught physics. Stites also claimed that he and Clemons were merely "brainstorming" prior to Dave's arrest and that he was later surprised when he found out that his observations were in the affidavit. Robert Stites, who was at the scene to just document and photograph nonetheless charged $250.00 per hour for his expert opinions. The prosecutor's office paid him almost $25,000 and yet he was a fraud when it came to being a blood stain expert and crime scene re-constructionist. In other cases the prosecution might bring forth charges, but with Stites, they brought him forth for his testimony. It was only years later when the truth about his "credentials" was finally discovered by the defense during a deposition of Stites in Portland, Oregon. Robert Stites. He was the blood spatter expert who wasn't. He was the crime scene re-constructionist who wasn't. He was the man whose opinions and observations formed a major part of a probable cause affidavit which formed the basis for the arrest of David Camm which charged him with the murder of his family. Sean Clemons, in later testimony, acknowledged that he later found out that Stites hadn't taken the basic 40 hour course in analyzing blood stains, had never processed a homicide scene and had never testified as an expert before. After finding out those facts about Stites, what was Detective Clemons' reaction? He said that he would still have relied upon him.""
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.justicefordavidcamm.com/pages/original_investigation/spatter_expert.shtml
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
