Wednesday, October 30, 2013

David Camm: Aftermath 6: "Free in Kentucky," Louisville criminal defence lawyer Greg Simms gives his explanation of the not guilty verdicts. While acknowledging the controversy over the so-called "blood-splatter" evidence, he says "the fact that Charles Bonay was already convicted of the killings was enough evidence, alone, to provide reasonable doubt to the Camm murder case."

COMMENTARY: "Free in Kentucky: This is why David Camm is not guilty" by Louisville criminal defence lawyer Greg Simms, published on October 27, 2013.

GIST: "Part of the reason he was arrested (three days after the family was murdered) was because Camm had blood on his clothing.  However, Camm’s story was consistent with having some blood on his clothing.  Which conveniently brings us to blood spatter evidence - which happens to be my next numerical paragraph (this is called a transition sentence). Blood Spatter Evidence doesn’t help anyone.  On either side.  Aside from the testomy of Boney, the other big piece of evidence was blood spatter analysis.  In fact, some people following the third Camm trial believed that the entire result would hinge on blood stain pattern analysis.  If you looked at the stains on Camm’s clothing and believed that they were “high velocity impact spatter” then you would believe that it was the result of blood “mist” that is present after a victim is shot with a gun.  Supposedly, this type of blood spatter travels up to about four feet.  But if you believed the blood on Camm was the result of “contact stains” then you would believe that the blood pattern is consistent with Camm’s statements that he made contact with the bodies themselves.  Or you could just believe that blood spatter analysis is hokum, and that the “experts” just make it up as they go along.  Either way it isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt.........The fact that Charles Boney was already convicted of the killings was enough evidence, alone, to provide reasonable doubt in the Camm Murder case."

The entire commentary can be found at:

For a  somewhat contrary point of view, see the Colorado Independent story in which the new "touch DNA' technique developed  Dutch DNA experts Richard and Selma Eikelenboom are presented as playing a significant role in the acquittal. (It is hard to know exactly what influenced the jury in the absence of post-trial statements by jurors. HL). "Indiana’s state lab had found “inconclusive” the results of DNA traces scraped from Camm’s wife Kim’s fingernails. The Eikelenbooms, who are pioneers in the field of touch DNA, linked the traces to a man named Charles Boney, who was at the family’s home the day of the killings and testified that he sold David Camm the gun used in the shootings. The Eikelenbooms also found Boney’s DNA on Kim’s shirt and underwear and on the clothing of the children. Boney claims he never touched them. The couple’s analysis of the 13-year-old evidence was key to overturning Camm’s conviction. “It’s very likely that this was one of the major parts that got him off,” Selma Eikelenboom said."


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:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

I look forward to hearing from readers at:;