Friday, October 4, 2013

David Camm: Indiana; Reporter Travis Kircher's highly readable and comprehensive account of the trial proceedings on Thursday October 3, 2013. He tells readers of his "David Camm Blog" that the blood splatter expert evidence is getting a lot of attention from forensic scientists outside the courtroom; WDRB News. (Must Read. HL);

POST: "David Camm Blog:  "Our own little experiment," by reporter Travis Kircher, published by WDRB News on October 3, 2013. (Travis K. Kircher is a Web Producer for WDRB News.)

GIST: "We have our own little experiment here." That's how defense attorney Stacy Uliana described the third David Camm triple murder trial Thursday afternoon -- an experiment. She was trying to score a point with the jury at the time. Defense witness Dr. Robert Shaler was on the stand, and Uliana had been questioning him about the differences in opinion between various blood stain pattern analysts who have reviewed evidence in this case. Her point -- more or less -- was that the outcome of this trial would speak to whether there's anything thing to blood stain pattern analysis, or whether it's just a form of "junk science." Not a big deal. Unless you're a blood stain pattern analyst. The truth is, witnesses on both sides of this case have testified that blood stain pattern analysts worldwide are watching this trial very closely. Why? Because many believe David Camm's innocence or guilt hinges on how you interpret a handful -- there are differences of opinions as to how many -- of microscopic dots that appear on his t-shirt. And blood stain pattern analysts are the ones who get to interpret those dots. If you think they're what's called "high velocity impact spatter" -- that would be a form of blood "mist" that is present in the seconds after a victim is shot with a gun, and can only travel four feet or less -- then David Camm murdered his family. Or at least his daughter, Jill Camm. But if you believe the microscopic dots are what's called "contact stains," Camm may have simply got them when he brushed up against Jill's bloody hair as he tried to pull the body of his son Bradley out of the Ford Bronco. Or, the defense postulates, you could fit into a third camp. That would be the camp that says that blood stain pattern analysis isn't scientific. It's subjective. They're making it up as they go, and there's no possible way to determine where those stains came from. A lot is riding on this case for a lot of professionals. If legal opinion turns against blood stain pattern analysis as a science, that means a lot less work -- and income -- for a lot of expert witnesses, who make a living teaching, analyzing and testifying in trials. I suppose it could also mean fewer convictions. A lot more is riding on this case than just the fate of David Camm. And we're getting the feedback to prove it. Since this blog has launched, we've received e-mails from forensic scientists. We've also seen our Web stories linked to by blogs, Yahoo groups and Web sites related to forensic science. What will be the outcome for blood stain pattern analysts? I started to say "the jury's still out on that." But we haven't had closing arguments yet."

The entire post can be found at:


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: