David Ray Camm is
a former trooper of the Indiana State
Police who spent 13 years in prison after being twice wrongfully convicted
of the murders of his wife, Kimberly,
and his children, Brad (7) and Jill (5), at their home in Georgetown,
Indiana, on September 28, 2000. He was released from custody in 2013 after his
third trial resulted in an acquittal.
Camm became a suspect because of an interpretation of
bloodstain patterns on his clothing, as well as a number of leads and pieces of
evidence that were later found to be unreliable or outright false. He was tried
and found guilty of the murder, but his conviction was overturned in 2004 on
the grounds that testimony about his marital infidelity had been prejudicial.
In 2005, forensic evidence identified a career criminal
named Charles Boney as having been
at the crime scene. Boney's modus operandi in previous crimes showed
similarities to aspects of the murders. Boney had a history of stalking and
attacking women, often stealing their shoes; Kim's shoes had been removed and
placed neatly on top of her vehicle and she had a series of bruises and
abrasions to her feet. The prosecution was widely criticized for the failure to
find Boney prior to the first trial. They told the defense team in 2001 that
the DNA had been run through CODIS and returned no matches. It was later
discovered that Boney's DNA was entered into the system prior to the murders
and would have returned a match if it had been run.
Boney gave a number of conflicting confessions, but
eventually accused Camm of the murders, claiming he witnessed Camm shoot his
family while he was at the home selling Camm a handgun. Camm was charged along
with Boney as a co-conspirator, Boney was tried first and separately. Boney was
convicted of the murders and sentenced to 225 years in prison. In 2006, Camm
was found guilty on the murder charges at his retrial. Camm appealed, and the
verdict was overturned on the grounds that the prosecution at the second trial
had accused Camm of sexually molesting his 5-year-old daughter Jill, without
producing evidence for the allegation.
Boney testified against Camm for the first time at the third
trial, although his credibility was called into question when he was unable to
describe the car Camm drove and also incorrectly described Camm's clothing on
the night of the murder. Evidence was presented that Charles Boney's DNA was
found on Kim's underpants, shirt, and broken-off fingernail; and on Jill's
shirt, suggesting he physically attacked the family himself. Defense witnesses
also testified that prosecution assertions about the stains were not widely
accepted by others in the field of bloodstain analysis. It was also discovered
that the blood spatter analyst Rob
Stites, whose analysis had triggered the arrest, had falsified his
credentials and did not work in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis at
all. He had previously testified that he was a professor at Portland State University; it was
discovered that he had no affiliation with the university. He testified in the
third trial that he had perjured himself during the first two. Dr. Robert Shaler, who served on a committee
for The National Academy of Sciences
to evaluate forensic methods, testified that blood spatter pattern analysis was
found to be unreliable in their studies. Another expert demonstrated that the
pattern could be produced through transfer.
The defense presented suspicious behavior on the part of
Boney, such as visiting the graves of the victims, speaking on the phone to the
prosecutor’s office on 33 occasions in the two-week period before his arrest,
and hiring Stan Faith, the
prosecutor, as his defense attorney and discussing the case with him prior to
becoming a suspect. They also presented a number of instances of alleged
misconduct by the police and prosecutors in the case.
The case was covered extensively by the media in the
southern Indiana and Louisville, Kentucky, area, and by national news programs
including Nancy Grace, 48 Hours, and Dateline NBC. The case is noted for the extensive allegations of
prosecutorial misconduct, including witness tampering, evidence tampering,
perjury and an overall shoddy investigation and has been detailed in numerous
forensic textbooks.
Initial investigation
Police were summoned to the Camm residence shortly after
9:30pm on September 28, 2000, to find Kim, Brad, and Jill Camm shot to death in
the garage of their home. Camm told police that he returned home from playing
basketball at a nearby church and found his wife shot to death on the floor of
the garage. He then saw his children sitting in the backseat. Camm stated that
he thought his son may still be alive, so he pulled him out and attempted CPR. Bradley Camm was found lying on the floor on
top of a prison issue sweatshirt with DNA from two unknown persons on it as well
as other forensic evidence.
First theory of the
crime
The investigation of the murders was hampered from the
beginning by several false leads. The theory of the crime at the time of the
arrest was that Camm returned home from playing basketball, shot his family,
attempted a clean-up, before abandoning the clean-up attempt and calling the
Sellersburg State Police post for help. Rob Stites, a crime scene photographer who was
believed by the police to be a blood spatter analyst, told police there was a
clean-up at the crime scene and high velocity impact spatter on the shirt Camm
was wearing. Another piece of seemingly
incriminating evidence was a phone bill seeming to indicate Camm had made a
phone call from the residence at 7:19pm on the evening of the murder. He
claimed to be playing basketball at the church from 7pm to approximately 9:30pm
that evening. Camm also had had a history of infidelity, which police believed
was the motive for the murders.
Before long, the erroneous nature of several pieces of
evidence was revealed. While the infidelity accusations were credible, it was
discovered that most of the rest of the evidence on the probable cause
affidavit was either inaccurate or unreliable. Based on the autopsies and other evidence, the
time of death was determined to be around 8 pm, far earlier than the original
estimate of 9:30 pm giving Camm an alibi. The phone call that seemed to prove Camm was
lying about his alibi was disproven. The phone company discovered the
inaccuracy stemmed from the confusion regarding Indiana's complicated time
zones. The call actually was made an hour earlier, at 6:19 pm.
The clean-up at the crime scene and the blood spatter on
David's shirt were also called into question. It was discovered that there was
not in fact a crime scene clean-up, but the normal separation of blood when
exposed to air for a period of time. Several other areas that Stites had
claimed to be high velocity impact spatter found at the crime scene were found
to be inaccurate interpretations, calling into question Stites' abilities.
Investigators stated that they investigated the foreign DNA
on the sweatshirt found at the crime scene, but there were no matches when it
was run through CODIS.
Second theory of the
crime
The discovery that the time of the murder was over an hour
earlier than previously thought meant that David now had an alibi. Eleven
witnesses told police he was with them playing basketball from 7 pm until after
9pm. The police changed their theory of
the crime from a murder following the basketball game to one in which he
sneaked out of the basketball game, committed the murders, and then slipped back
in without being noticed.
Trials and appeals
First trial
The case went to trial in the spring of 2002 with the blood
spatter as the main forensic evidence and the affairs listed as the motive. The
prosecution argued that the bloodstains on Camm's shirt were the result of high
velocity impact spatter, proving he was the shooter. Defense experts assert
that the pattern was caused by transfer when his shirt came in contact with
Jill's hair as he was removing his son from the vehicle. Bart
Epstein, a bloodstain analyst for the defense, stated that there is some overlap
between the appearances of different types of stains so blood spatter analysts
need to consider other aspects of the stain to determine the cause. In this
case, the number of blood stains is as relevant as their size and shape. "Gunshot will produce hundreds of
stains coming back. I've never seen, I believe the other experts for both the
prosecution and the defense have indicated that they've never seen just seven
small or eight small stains from a gunshot. I've never seen that,"
said Epstein.
During the trials, Epstein and another blood analyst
demonstrated how the blood stains could have gotten on the shirt by running
T-shirts over wigs containing blood. Similar patterns to the one on Camm's
shirt were produced. Nevertheless, he was convicted.
In August 2004, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the
conviction. The court cited the trial judge's decision to allow testimony from
a dozen women who claimed they had affairs with Camm or had been propositioned
by him, which unfairly biased the jury because the prosecutor did not
adequately connect those relationships with the murders. In November 2004, prosecutor Keith Henderson refiled
charges against Camm.
Discovery of a second
suspect
In early 2005, the defense asked that DNA from two unknown
persons found on the sweatshirt at the crime scene be run through CODIS again.
Defense lawyers claim the prosecution refused until they were finally compelled
to by a court order. A match was found
for the male DNA and it was discovered that that particular DNA sample was
never run prior to the first trial despite assurances from the prosecutor that
the sample had been analyzed and returned no matches. Charles Boney, a
convicted felon from nearby New Albany was identified as the owner of the
sweatshirt. He was out on parole at the time of the crime, having been
convicted of committing a series of armed attacks on women, several of them involving
the theft of shoes. The most recent attack was the armed robbery and attempted
abduction of three women at gunpoint.
In some cases, there was evidence of stalking as well; some
of Boney's previous victims had reported receiving harassing phone calls for a
couple months prior to the attacks asking them what they were wearing and if
they were wearing high heeled shoes. He had previously admitted to police that
he had a foot fetish, a detail he later discussed with numerous news outlets.
This detail was suspicious to the defense: Kim Camm's shoes were removed and
lined up neatly on top of the vehicle in the midst of a messy crime scene. Kim
had a series of bruises and abrasions to the top of both of her feet. Boney was interviewed and took a polygraph, in
which he was determined to be deceptive. He denied any involvement, claiming that
he donated the sweatshirt to charity and was cleared as a suspect. Two weeks later, his palm print was discovered
on Kim's vehicle and he was arrested.
The other DNA sample was later identified as belonging to Mala Singh Mattingly, Boney's then
girlfriend.
It was discovered after his arrest that Stan Faith, the
prosecutor in Camm's first trial, was Charles Boney's attorney. During
questioning, Boney asked to be represented by Faith but was told it was a
conflict of interest. Boney admits to
having discussed the case with Faith prior to becoming a suspect in the case. When asked about the failure of his office to
identify Boney, Faith denied any intentional wrongdoing stating: "I regret it. I deeply regret it, but
the myth that's growing out of this is false."
Third theory of the
crime
Boney gave a number of conflicting confessions before he
finally settled on one in which he was lured to the Camm residence under the
guise of selling a gun to David Camm. He admits to placing the shoes on the
vehicle, but claims he did it only coincidentally and not related to his foot
fetish. Boney claims that Sept 28 he arrived at 7 pm to meet David at the Camm
residence to sell him a weapon—a meeting they arranged through chance meetings
and without the use of a telephone. He hands Camm the weapon wrapped in his
gray sweatshirt that was later found at the crime scene. Within seconds, Kim
arrives home in her Bronco, Camm follows the Bronco into the garage and Boney
hears three shots fired. Boney alleges that Camm then attempted to shoot him
and stated "you did this". He claims that the gun either jammed or
ran out of bullets. With Camm holding a now non-functioning weapon, Boney ran
after Camm, chasing him back into the garage. Camm entered the house while
Boney tripped and fell over Kim's shoes, which were off of her feet and on the
garage floor. Boney stated that he picked up the shoes and placed them atop the
Bronco. He then leaned against the vehicle to look at Brad and Jill, who were inside
the vehicle, deceased. He explains that this is why his hand print was found on
the vehicle. (note: based on testimony from other prosecution witnesses, Kim, Brad,
and Jill were still alive and at the pool until 7:15pm. The timeline given by Boney
of a shooting shortly after 7pm also conflicts with the prosecution's timeline,
which aligns with the medical examiner's estimation of an 8pm time of death.)
Aside from Boney's story, no additional
evidence has been recovered to connect David Camm and Charles Boney.
Mala Singh Mattingly
After Mattingly's DNA was identified, she was interviewed
regarding her knowledge of the crime. She told police that Charles Boney
returned home after midnight on the night of the murders. "He was breathing really hard -- excited somewhat," Mattingly
said. She said that he showed her a gun, had a bloody scraped knee and was
sweating profusely. The next morning, she says, Boney asked her and his mother
to watch news coverage regarding the murders. She testified that she left the
room to shower while he and his mother began arguing. Her blood was found mixed with Brad and Kim
Camm's blood on the sweatshirt at the crime scene.
Second trial
Following Boney's arrest in 2005, Camm and Boney were charged
as co-conspirators in the murder of Kim and her children. Boney was tried first, convicted, and
sentenced to 225 years in prison.
Camm's trial began on January 17, 2006. With the affairs now
inadmissible, prosecutor Keith Henderson argued that Camm was molesting their
daughter and he killed his family to cover up the crime. Their evidence was a
single blunt force trauma injury to Jill's genitals. A medical examiner who testified for the
defense disagreed with the state's theory that it was the result of sexual
abuse, arguing the child's hymen was intact and it was just one of many blunt
force trauma injuries sustained by being struck during the fatal attack. The prosecution presented Boney's story that
Camm was the shooter but Boney was there to sell Camm a gun. Camm was convicted a second time on March 3,
2006, and was sentenced to life without parole.
Camm appealed the conviction, citing the prejudicial nature
of the molestation allegations and the lack of evidence linking the injuries to
him. The Indiana Supreme Court granted a second reversal, stating "Missing from this record is any
competent evidence of the premise that the defendant molested the child."
Third trial
The motive alleged by the prosecution in the third trial was
the life insurance policies purchased by Kim Camm.
Charles Boney testified against David Camm for the first
time, accusing him of luring him out to the home before shooting his own family
and then turning the gun on him.
The third trial saw the introduction of new DNA evidence
that wasn't presented in the first two trials. Dr. Richard Eikelenboom testified that he found touch DNA
consistent with Boney in several places on the clothing of both Kim and Jill
Camm. Boney's DNA was found on Kim Camm's panties, the arm of her shirt (above an abrasion on her arm thought to be
the result of the struggle with her killer), on Kim's broken off
fingernail, and on the stomach of Jill Camm's shirt. These results seem to
discredit Boney's assertion that he never touched the victims. Defense
co-counsel Stacy Uliana argued that if Boney physically attacked the family,
which the DNA seems to suggest, it is unlikely that David is the shooter.
Fourth theory of the
crime
With the touch DNA evidence placing Boney in a more active
role in the crime, the prosecution introduced yet another theory of the crime
near the end of the third trial when Judge
Dartt made a controversial ruling that the jury instructions could include
an instruction allowing the jury to find Camm guilty if they believe he
"aided and abetted" Boney during the murders. This instruction
applied if the jury believed Camm had involvement in the murders, but was not
the shooter. The defense strenuously objected to the inclusion of this
instruction, citing not only the complete lack of evidence that Camm had ever
even met Boney, but that the instruction violated the law against double
jeopardy; Camm had been acquitted on conspiracy charges during the second
trial.
Louisville defense attorney Steve Romines criticized the move stating: "This aiding and abetting: they don't have any evidence to support
it. It's really inconsistent with their proof." Camm's defense attorneys argued this new
theory of the crime essentially throws out the blood spatter evidence—the only
major piece of forensic evidence tying Camm to the crime. Following the
verdict, Richard Kammen stated: "All the sudden to say 'well if all our
evidence is wrong, go ahead and convict him anyway' this jury was a smart jury,
they clearly saw through that."
Acquittal
On October 24, 2013, a jury found Camm not guilty of all
charges. Camm's attorneys described it
as "vindication". By then, NBC
News reported that costs had reached an "estimated $4.5 million."
Response to the case
Verdict
The public reaction to the verdict has been mixed. Many
Louisville and Southern Indiana residents who lived through the extensive media
coverage were surprised by the not guilty verdict in the third trial. In
reaction to the verdict, a local resident stated “A lot of people are — just like I am — completely shocked, and a lot of
people think that he should not be out." Nationally, the Camm case has garnered a lot
of attention from wrongful conviction advocacy groups who believe that the
previous convictions were miscarriages of justice. Bill Lamb, President and General Manager of
WDRB, the Fox affiliate in Louisville, Kentucky, issued a public apology to
David Camm stating: "Seven years
ago, I did a Point of View criticizing David Camm's attorneys for seeking yet
another appeal right after his second conviction for the murder of his family.
I wondered when Indiana taxpayers would get to stop paying fortunes in trial
expenses, and why any accused killer could possibly deserve so many 'do-overs'.
Well, now we have the answer: When they're not guilty." After the third trial, a juror, in
response to the question "Do you think that they intentionally wanted to
convict an innocent man?" responded "I
would hope not but…I sense that the State Police had a hard time admitting that
they had made a mistake."
Media coverage
The case has been covered widely in the media. In January
2014, Dateline on NBC aired a
two-hour special entitled Mystery on
Lockart Road and has been covered three times on 48 Hours on CBS. Two books have been written about the case: One Deadly Night was published in 2005,
and Searching For Justice in 2013, as well as a chapter in Jane Velez-Mitchell's book Secrets
Can Be Murder: The killer next door.
Blood spatter
The heavy reliance on blood spatter evidence in this case
was widely criticized. In his review of the case, former federal prosecutor Kent Wicker said "Blood spatter evidence has come under a lot of criticism in the
past few years. In 2009 The National Academy of Sciences issued a report
criticizing the scientific foundation of that." The report released by
The National Academy of Sciences
calls for more standardization within a number of forensic fields including
blood spatter analysis. The report highlights the tendency of blood spatter
analysts to overstate the reliability of their methods in the court room. Dr.
Robert Shaler, Founding Director of
the Penn State Forensic Science Program, decried blood spatter analysis as
unreliable in the Camm case. "The
problem in this case is the number of stains is minimal," he said. "I think you're really on the edge of
reliability." Dr. Shaler said blood stain pattern analysis as a
science is "essentially guesswork". The problem with blood spatter
analysis is that "you do not have
the supporting underlying science" to back up your conclusions. The
entire blood spatter analysts involved in the case from the start (aside from
Rob Stites) has been "experts" in the traditional sense. The problem
is "We have two opinions in this case. That, in essence, is a 50 percent
error rate." An unacceptable level of reliability in a court case when the
perception of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required.
Evidence of misconduct regarding the blood spatter was
uncovered when, in the third trial, crime scene photographer Rob Stites
testified for the defense, admitting he had perjured himself in the first two
trials. Stites' assertion that the spots on David Camm's shirt were high
velocity impact spray (HVIS) was the cornerstone of the probable cause
affidavit that led to Camm's arrest and his testimony at the first two trials
helped the prosecution win Camm's convictions. He had previously testified that
he was an expert blood spatter pattern analyst and a professor at Portland
State University who was in the process of attaining a Ph.D. — credentials
which were fabrications. He asserts that Floyd County prosecutor Stan Faith
helped create those fraudulent credentials. During the third trial, he outlined
how he was sent to the crime scene by Rod
Englert to photograph and take notes. Despite his lack of formal training
in the field or work experience as a crime scene analyst, his notes ended up
being used in the probable cause affidavit, with him being listed as a "crime scene reconstructionist,"
a title that did not apply to him. The defense pointed out several aspects of
Stites' notes that were later proven to be false including "HVIS" on
the garage door, later proven to be a petroleum based-product and not blood.
Stites' opinion that there was a clean-up at the crime scene involving bleach
was also incorrect. The confusion came from the unfamiliar look of the blood
after the serum had separated from the blood cells. Regarding his actions, he
commented, "It was a dumb thing...In
hindsight, I would have kept my mouth shut." Stites was not charged
with perjury for his testimony in the previous two trials.
Criticism of the
prosecution
A number of legal experts have criticized the way the case
was handled. Thomas Schornhorst, a
professor emeritus of the Indiana University School of Law, said the case has
been overturned repeatedly because they have pushed the envelope with other
evidence fearing that they would not get a conviction on bloodstain evidence
alone. Law professor Shawn Boyne highlighted the Camm trials
as an example of the problems within the American justice system. Boyne stated
that the judges in these trials allowed the prosecutors to present "specious claims of motive designed to
paint the defendant with a broad stroke of guilt and moral condemnation and
overcome a lack of physical evidence." Boyne stated "the state overreached and that overreaching did not serve the
cause of justice." Louisville
defense attorney Steve Romines criticized the prosecution's decision to change
the theory of the crime numerous times instead of dropping the charges: "The problem is, in the first trial,
David Camm's the shooter and acted alone. The second trial, David Camm's the
shooter and Boney aided and abetted him. And now in this trial, Charles Boney
is the shooter and David Camm aided and abetted him. In three trials, with the
same proof, they've had three different theories", adding "Proof doesn't change. If you have
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you argue the same thing throughout. You don't
have to constantly shift your theory to fit your proof."
Camm's defense team has long been critical of their
inability to present evidence of Charles Boney's involvement, particularly when
the prosecution was allowed to speculate about Camm's motives. Despite Boney's
history of stalking and armed violence against women, his past crimes were ruled
inadmissible. Local criticism was
expressed during the trial in Boonville Indiana . National news reported that
an act of vandalism was carried out by suspected local people. The vandals
spray painted "fry Camm make bacon" in the area outside of the
Warrick county judicial center.
Errors in evidence
collection
By the third trial, the backbone of the defense's case was
the evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct in the case. The defense
argued that the investigation was riddled by critical mistakes, both in the
collection of evidence and the investigation of Boney as a suspect. The
sweatshirt found at the crime scene revealed Charles Boney's DNA, his
girlfriend's DNA, his prison nickname, and his department of corrections
number. Kim Camm's shoes were also lined
up on the top of the vehicle; Boney has a long history of fetish driven
assaults that included the theft of shoes. It is unclear how the investigative
team missed these pieces of evidence during the initial investigation. The
defense team was told that the evidence had been thoroughly investigated.
Errors in the
investigation of Charles Boney
The defense argued that the police should have also taken
notice when Boney's story went through so many revisions. They noted that many
details of his story were first suggested by police detectives in recorded
interviews, notably the detail regarding the gun wrapped in the sweatshirt.
Other details of his story were changed following discussions with detectives
who pointed out the discrepancies. Defense
witness Dr. Kim Rossmo, a criminal
justice professor at Texas State University, testified that Boney was never
investigated properly and that his claims were never independently verified.
Instead of treating Boney like a suspect,
"They treated him as an anomaly to their theory, that somehow had to be
explained away", adding, "I
think there were six different confessions from Mr. Boney. I don't think Boney
ever told the truth about what happened... he's only telling the police enough
to get around the last particular contradiction." He testified that
the majority of the oversights during the investigation were caused by
confirmation bias: a tendency to believe information that confirms your
preconceived notions and place less weight on information that doesn't. Rossmo
argued that the police were swayed by the early misleading evidence and came to
the conclusion that Camm was guilty before any of the forensic evidence was
examined. He believes this phenomenon caused the investigators to ignore the
DNA on the sweatshirt and when Boney was finally identified, they downplayed
the significance and attempted to make it fit within their established theory
of the crime. Ultimately, the jurors in
the third trial believed the defense's criticisms of the investigation: "They tried to make the evidence fit
their theory of the case," a juror said in interview.
Lead defense attorney Richard Kammen accused police of
feeding Boney a false story designed to implicate Camm and coercing him to
testify against Camm by playing on his fear of racial prejudice within the
criminal justice system by telling him that a black man accused of killing a
white family would get the death penalty if he didn't cooperate. During interrogations,
he was reminded on several occasions of the likelihood of getting the death
penalty on the basis of his race and that the best way to avoid the death
penalty was to testify against David Camm. The defense cited a suspicious
series of undocumented and unrecorded phone calls—33 in all—between Boney and
the Floyd County Prosecutor's office in the two-week span between his DNA being
identified and his arrest.
Evidence tampering
allegations
Another allegation that surfaced involved a distant relative
of Charles Boney named Myron Wilkerson.
Wilkerson was a police officer but was not assigned to the case. He met with
Boney privately at the station following his arrest. Two months later, it was
learned that Wilkerson had removed Kim Camm's phone from the evidence room
without signing it out and taken it to his residence.
Witness tampering
allegations
In addition to testimony by Rob Stites alleging subornation
of perjury, several other allegations of witness tampering surfaced during the
case. Lynn Scamahorn, a DNA analyst
from the Indiana State Police claimed
that during the first trial former Floyd County Prosecutor Stan Faith threatened her when she
refused to perjure herself that she found Camm's DNA on Charles Boney's sweatshirt. Fingerprint analyst John Singleton reported a similar encounter. He claims Faith wanted
him to "shade the truth" while testifying regarding the then
unidentified palm print on Kim Camm's Bronco later determined to belong to
Charles Boney.
The defense also accused the state of witness tampering and
presenting false and misleading testimony regarding the molestation
allegations. During the first trial, the prosecution alleged that the injuries
Jill sustained happened during the attack, as testified to by the state medical
examiner. During the second trial, they altered their timeline to implicate
Camm instead of Boney on the basis of testimony by a single witness who changed
their theory at the last minute. "Dr.
Spivack, before in her deposition, told us that the injuries occurred near the
time of death due to the painful nature of them. Today, on the stand, she
backtracked to fit the state's theory." said Defense attorney Stacy Uliana. Following the verdict, the jurors explained
that they made their decision largely on the molestation allegations,
specifically, the testimony of Spivack, who testified that the child was
molested several hours prior to her death instead of during the attack. DNA analyst Lynn Scamahorn also claimed the prosecutor
also attempted to get her to commit perjury by testifying that lab results
indicate the comforter from the master bedroom in the Camm household contained
vaginal secretions or saliva from Jill to help bolster their claims that Jill
had been molested; no such test exists.
The fraudulent testimony of Rob Stites and the attempted coercion of Lynne Scamahorne were featured in a forensic textbook called Forensic Fraud: Evaluating Law Enforcement
and Forensic Science Cultures in the Context of Examiner Misconduct.
Personal life
In December 2013, Camm gave his first local media interview
following the verdict. Camm attempted to
clear up the misconceptions regarding Boney's criminal history: "The thing that people need to know
about Boney ... 11 previous felony convictions for assaulting women. That's
what he's done his whole adult life: assault women. The three girls that he
took hostage in Bloomington, Indiana. He held a gun to the girl's head and
threatened to blow her head off. It's exactly what he did to Kim. He just went
one step further."
Camm also announced that he had been hired as a case
coordinator for Investigating Innocence,
a national nonprofit that provides criminal-defense investigations for inmates.
Camm reports that he has forged a
friendship with the third-trial jurors. In early December 2013, he met with jurors
from the third trial over dinner at a cafe in Lebanon, Indiana.
Lawsuits
David Camm is facing a civil suit filed by his late wife's
parents over the estimated $625,000 Camm is set to collect from life insurance
and Kim Camm's 401K fund. Frank and
Janice Renn steadfastly maintain their belief in Camm's guilt.
In May 2014, Camm served notice of his intention to sue Floyd County and the State of Indiana for $30 million. In January 2018, Camm's civil rights lawsuit
against members of the Indiana State
Police, prosecutors, and other officials, was dismissed by a US District Court. In explaining the
ruling, the court explained it believed there was probable cause to charge Camm
with murder and because of Indiana's Tort
Claims Act; some of the defendants were immune to liability.
On September 10, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
District Court in part stating, "In sum, we reverse and remand for
trial on Camm’s Fourth Amendment claim against Stites, Englert, Faith, and
Clemons to the extent that the claim rests on the first probable-cause
affidavit. Trial is also warranted on the Brady claim against the same four
defendants for suppression of Stites’s lack of qualifications and against Faith
and Clemons for suppression of the facts surrounding their handling of the DNA
profile on Boney’s sweatshirt. In all other respects, we affirm the
judgment."
In 2005, prosecution witness Rod Englert filed a lawsuit against several of the defense
witnesses in the libel case. The lawsuit accused the defendants of saying Englert
embellished his credentials, misrepresented his qualifications and experience,
and provided false testimony in court. Englert had testified for the
prosecution that Camm had high velocity blood spatter on the shirt he was
wearing the night of the murders.
No comments:
Post a Comment