State of Indiana vs. David Camm — a look at both sides » Clark County

Clark County

Related Photos

Discussion

June 26, 2009

State of Indiana vs. David Camm — a look at both sides

By Lisa Hurt Kozarovich The News and Tribune Fri Jun 26, 2009, 01:54 PM EDT

Originally published in The Tribune in 2006

BOONVILLE — More than six weeks after David Camm’s triple murder trial began, the jury is expected to begin deliberating his guilt or innocence this week.

The 41-year-old former Indiana State Trooper is accused of fatally shooting his wife, Kim, 36, and children, Brad, 7, and Jill, 5, at their Georgetown home 5 1/2 years ago. He was convicted of the charges in 2002, but two years later the state court of appeals reversed that decision saying he didn’t receive a fair trial.

Did David Camm have the motive, opportunity and means, to commit the murders? Here’s what both sides have to say:

MOM is a basis of crime investigation, but it is not a principle of law. The prosecution is not required, for example, to present a motive, but without one the state’s case is weakened.

Prosecution Motive:

Camm had been molesting his 5-year-old daughter Jill and when his wife Kim found out, she was going to divorce him. He killed the family to cover up the crime and prevent a divorce.

The state’s experts have testified that the bruising and tear in Jill’s genital area were consistent with sexual abuse that had occurred within two days of her murder.

Kim’s friends testified that she was not herself in the weeks before the murders. Her best friend said Kim planned to take the children out of school and drive down to visit her in Florida. Two men who had been in jail with Camm said he told them his wife wanted a divorce, they argued and he shot her.

Defense Answers:

There is no evidence that Camm was molesting his daughter or that his wife planned to divorce him.

The day of the murders, Jill was normal and happy at school and dance class, witnesses testified. She was not complaining of any pain, as she would have if the injuries had occurred before the murders, and performed her usual dance activities. Kim had not told anyone of problems with her husband, and had just remodeled the couple’s bedroom.

Prosecution Opportunity:

Camm planned to kill his family on the night of his regular basketball game in order to establish an alibi. During one of the several pickup games of the night, he sat out to let his uncle play. Then he snuck out, drove 5-minutes to his home, shot his wife and children in the home’s garage when they returned from swim and dance practice, manipulated the crime scene, and drove back to the gym to play more basketball.

The medical examiner estimated the family was killed about 8 p.m., around the time Camm sat out a game.

One of the basketball players testified for the state saying he couldn’t account for Camm’s whereabouts all evening and believes others playing ball that night would not have noticed if Camm had been gone for 15 or 20 minutes.

Between the highly competitive games, the unorganized nature of the games — no referees, no time schedules, etc. — and the fact that the modern, two-story gym had nine entrances and exits, Camm could have left and returned without being noticed.

Defense Answers:

Eleven people were in the gym with Camm on the night of the murders, able to say he was there from 7 to 9 p.m.

Nine of the 10 basketball players testified they never saw Camm leave or return to the gym, in which all the doors except the front one are self-locking. The players said they would have noticed Camm’s absence if they hadn’t seen him every few minutes. Several players said they noticed Camm stretching on the sidelines and sitting in a chair talking to a spectator during the game he sat out.

The defense said the unorganized nature of the games only strengthens their contention that the former state trooper would not have depended on such an alibi. Because there is no start or finish time, some games lasting much longer than others, he would not have been able to plan to be home when his family arrived at their usual time.

Prosecution Means:

The murder weapon was never found, but the state’s expert testified the shots were fired from a .380 Lorcin semi-automatic weapon. Ammunition for a semi-automatic weapon, which Camm said he did not own, were found in Camm’s home.

One witness testified that Charles Boney, Camm’s recently convicted co-defendant, showed her a semi-automatic handgun wrapped in a shirt on the night of the murders.

Defense Answers:

There is no evidence Camm owned any handguns at the time of the murders. He had turned in his State Police-issued guns when he resigned four months earlier to take a position with his uncle’s company. The ammunition was a different brand than shell casings found at the scene.

The witness who testified to seeing Boney’s gun, had earlier testified the weapon was a revolver — a different type and caliber of gun.