By SAM LOCKHART
In the nine years that our family has fought the conviction of my nephew David Camm, we’ve heard a lot of questions and a lot of criticism.
If David’s innocent, some have asked, how could he have been arrested so quickly in the first place?
Three days after David’s wife Kim and two young children, Brad and Jill, were murdered at their Georgetown home, Indiana State Police arrested David.
Prosecutor Stan Faith’s office was pleased with the quick resolution to this high-profile crime, and his chief deputy Susan Orth declared the investigation had been “very thorough.”
How thorough could the investigation have been when at the time David was arrested, the crime scene was still being processed and the majority of the forensic evidence hadn’t been collected or analyzed?
In this ‘thorough’ investigation, the police and prosecutors quickly got several key elements wrong: the time David left the gym where he was playing ball when the murders were committed, the mistaken interpretation that three gunshots had been fired (the neighbor reported hearing a loud noise, but not a gunshot sound) and the time the murders were committed.
It’s no wonder such mistakes were made considering Faith sent in politically-appointed “investigators” with no police experience to help state police search the house and conduct critical interviews.
The most disturbing fact is that the case against David was built primarily within 72 hours based on what was said by Rob Stites, a so-called blood stain expert who later admitted to lying on the stand about his background, education and abilities and whose initial theories, which helped lead to David’s arrest, were later proven incorrect.
Stites became involved in the case at the request of Faith. A day after the murders, Faith called Oregon bloodstain expert Rod Englert and asked for his help. Englert sent his protégé Stites, who arrived the following day and was given carte blanche access to the crime scene and all the evidence. Stites was described as a “man who does (blood stain interpretation) for a living” and in the probable cause affidavit, a “crime scene re-constructionist.”
Stites later admitted that shortly after he arrived on the scene, David had been identified to him as the suspect and he had been given a T-shirt and told that it belonged to “the shooter.” One police officer had already concluded Camm was responsible because the surviving family member almost always is the perpetrator.
The blood on the garage door was determined to be oil and there was no silhouette of David. Blood reported to be ‘transfer blood’ on another area was the blood of an insect, according to testimony in the second trial of David.
When Stites examined David’s T-shirt, he disagreed with the other investigators who would believe the blood on David’s shirt was transferred there when he went through the front passenger seat and through the two front seats to retrieve Brad from the back seat on the driver’s side.
Instead, Stites focused on eight tiny stains on or near the hem, telling Detective Mickey Neal he was 95 percent sure the eight stains were high velocity blood mist, caused when blood from a victim due to gunshot is propelled through the air. It is also called spatter or blowback and normally creates literally thousands of small mist-like droplets. When Neal said 95 percent wasn’t good enough, Stites called his mentor Englert and described the stains to him over the phone. Englert, without seeing the shirt or even a photograph, agreed with Stites’ deduction and then complimented his protégé for doing a good job. Stites then told Neal he was positive the stains were blowback.
Several other blood experts, including the head of the Minnesota State Crime Lab, testified the stains were consistent with strands of Jill’s bloody hair touching David’s loose shirt.
Months later, Englert finally did review the evidence for himself, and declared, just like he did without even seeing them the first time, that the bloodstains were blowback. His own credentials were brought into question by the man who trained him, Herb MacDonell, noted forensic scientist and acknowledged grandfather of bloodstain interpretations. He has labeled Englert as a “liar for hire” and a “charlatan.”
Stites and Englert have charged Floyd County $350 per hour, a total of almost $300,000 for their “expert” testimonies, and will undoubtedly add to that figure in a third trial.
Detective Clemons later credited Stites with helping provide the “great evidence” which formed the basis of the murder charges against David.
Sam Lockhart is a Floyd County resident and uncle of David Camm, a former local law enforcement official accused of murdering his family in 2000.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
David Camm discovered his family fatally shot in the garage of their Georgetown home in September 2000 and was arrested for the murders three days later. Two juries have convicted him, but each conviction has been overturned. Authorities are currently deciding whether to try him for the murders for a third time. His family, which has publicly fought for his freedom for nine years, includes his uncle and family spokesman Sam Lockhart. The following is part four of a series of opinion pieces he has written to explain why the family vehemently believes Camm is innocent and how they believe the investigation and trial went wrong.
