Reports on blood evidence testimony

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:19 am

IXSatanXI wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:
1) Everyone here contradicting the "experts" with their own "expert" opinion is funny.

2) David Camm wore a paint suit when he killed them. Anyone who restores old cars has those handy

3) Don't believe everything you see on TV

4) I am Satan. Nice to meet you :wink:



The evidence showed that Camm attempted to clean his shoes, and did in fact remove blood from the soles, so I have no doubt he was mindful of keeping himself clean. Too bad for him he didn't count on getting hit with some microscopic HV mist.

What does a paint suit look like? Is it full body? If so how did some of the blood get through?


Edit- nice to see you over here!




Where is the evidence that showed Camm attempted to clean his shoes and did in “fact” remove blood from the soles? There is no such evidence. So now the fact that something doesn’t exist is evidence that it was intentionally removed? You have made the point on numerous occasions that Camm was an ex-cop and would know how to stage the murders, so how is it that he wouldn’t know that shooting his family at close range would produce HVIS? I doubt very seriously that Camm had a “paint suit” but even if he did, all of the ones I have ever seen are one-piece jump suites. If he were wearing one, it would be virtually impossible for him to get blood on the bottom of his t-shirt.



Hmmmm, good point, unless he was taking it off in a hurry. I can't imagine that. What's wrong Just a Guess? It's ok for you to play the "what if" game, but no one else can???? LMAO You are an idiot. I am sorry I haven't reminded you of that lately. I have been a little busy.


Unless he was taking it off in a hurry? If he took a “paint suit” off in a hurry it might cause him to get HVIS on the bottom of his t-shirt? You can play the what if game all you want but your “what ifs” should at least make sense. You’ve been posting on the Camm site for years; surely you can do better than this.


Wait!!! Haven't you idiots been saying that it was transfer, NOT HVIS????? Come on JTF, you can, no wait, nevermind.


So now you think the stains are transfer from Camm's "paint suit"? It's good to see that you finally admit that these stains are from transfer. You may get there yet..
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:27 am

You have made the point on numerous occasions that Camm was an ex-cop and would know how to stage the murders, so how is it that he wouldn’t know that shooting his family at close range would produce HVIS?


He did know, imo, and took measures to avoid it, he just didn't do a perfect job and some got on him anyway.

When he removed Brad from the truck I think that was for two reasons-- to have an excuse for any forensics that he may have missed on his clothing and to also have an excuse for any incriminating forensics in the truck. That same truck he tried to have cleaned the day after the murders.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby IXSatanXI » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:53 am

JustTheFacts wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:
1) Everyone here contradicting the "experts" with their own "expert" opinion is funny.

2) David Camm wore a paint suit when he killed them. Anyone who restores old cars has those handy

3) Don't believe everything you see on TV

4) I am Satan. Nice to meet you :wink:



The evidence showed that Camm attempted to clean his shoes, and did in fact remove blood from the soles, so I have no doubt he was mindful of keeping himself clean. Too bad for him he didn't count on getting hit with some microscopic HV mist.

What does a paint suit look like? Is it full body? If so how did some of the blood get through?


Edit- nice to see you over here!




Where is the evidence that showed Camm attempted to clean his shoes and did in “fact” remove blood from the soles? There is no such evidence. So now the fact that something doesn’t exist is evidence that it was intentionally removed? You have made the point on numerous occasions that Camm was an ex-cop and would know how to stage the murders, so how is it that he wouldn’t know that shooting his family at close range would produce HVIS? I doubt very seriously that Camm had a “paint suit” but even if he did, all of the ones I have ever seen are one-piece jump suites. If he were wearing one, it would be virtually impossible for him to get blood on the bottom of his t-shirt.



Hmmmm, good point, unless he was taking it off in a hurry. I can't imagine that. What's wrong Just a Guess? It's ok for you to play the "what if" game, but no one else can???? LMAO You are an idiot. I am sorry I haven't reminded you of that lately. I have been a little busy.


Unless he was taking it off in a hurry? If he took a “paint suit” off in a hurry it might cause him to get HVIS on the bottom of his t-shirt? You can play the what if game all you want but your “what ifs” should at least make sense. You’ve been posting on the Camm site for years; surely you can do better than this.


Wait!!! Haven't you idiots been saying that it was transfer, NOT HVIS????? Come on JTF, you can, no wait, nevermind.


So now you think the stains are transfer from Camm's "paint suit"? It's good to see that you finally admit that these stains are from transfer. You may get there yet..



So now you think you know what I think? I said that was YOUR opinion dummy. Try keeping up or you might just bore me on two different sites.
All your posts are your opinion only!
User avatar
IXSatanXI
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:14 am
Location: Hadarash, Pa

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby IXSatanXI » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:57 am

Hey, what do you know? There IS a report button lol.
All your posts are your opinion only!
User avatar
IXSatanXI
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:14 am
Location: Hadarash, Pa

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby IXSatanXI » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:15 pm

Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.
All your posts are your opinion only!
User avatar
IXSatanXI
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:14 am
Location: Hadarash, Pa

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:30 pm

IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.


Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:42 pm

BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.



Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Because they looked dead? He clearly screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly. What tells you the CPR was fake, have you seen a vidio of it?

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.
It seems a lot of people are too busy falling for Boney's BS.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.
Again, Camm screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....

Maybe making the call to the ISP was more important at the time than worrying about the killer.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:48 pm

JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.



Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Because they looked dead? He clearly screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly. What tells you the CPR was fake, have you seen a vidio of it?

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.
It seems a lot of people are too busy falling for Boney's BS.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.
Again, Camm screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....

Maybe making the call to the ISP was more important at the time than worrying about the killer.


Facts he could have called the local 911 on his cell phone, or the ISP on his cell phone. Why didn't he? IMO he had to go into the home to get that backbone sweatshirt from his bedroom and needed an excuse as to why he went inside so he came up with the idea of using the phone.

No EMT's responded to the scene, why is that?

Oh yeah the CPR was definitely fake. Nobody starts CPR, then stops to run next door for non-emergency help after calling LE, to then return and resume CPR.

No fear of a killer at large is because Camm knew there was no killer at large. Any other person would have fear, it's human nature, especially for a trained police officer!
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby IXSatanXI » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:04 pm

JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.



Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Because they looked dead? He clearly screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly. What tells you the CPR was fake, have you seen a vidio of it?

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.
It seems a lot of people are too busy falling for Boney's BS.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.
Again, Camm screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....

Maybe making the call to the ISP was more important at the time than worrying about the killer.



I will take "Poor Excuses" for $600 Alex. if it was that important why not call 911? It bought him time. That's why.
All your posts are your opinion only!
User avatar
IXSatanXI
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:14 am
Location: Hadarash, Pa

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 pm

BeeBee wrote:Facts he could have called the local 911 on his cell phone, or the ISP on his cell phone. Why didn't he? IMO he had to go into the home to get that backbone sweatshirt from his bedroom and needed an excuse as to why he went inside so he came up with the idea of using the phone.


Think about what you're saying!! So he murders his family....he has no way of knowing if any of the neighbor would walk into the garage.. find his family dead and call 911 before he returns. If he wanted to plant the sweatshirt..he would have done that before returning to the church..
In addition..he didn't need an excuse..he could have used his cellphone and walked into the house.
Then after all this trouble..he never pointed out the sweatshirt to anyone. In fact, he was asked about him wearing a sweatshirt the day of the murder..he kept saying "I wasn't wearing a sweatshirt". He had no clue! Then he let himself be convicted before the prosecution or the defense identifies the owner of the sweatshirt! yep! great strategy!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:51 pm

BeeBee wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.



Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Because they looked dead? He clearly screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly. What tells you the CPR was fake, have you seen a vidio of it?

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.
It seems a lot of people are too busy falling for Boney's BS.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.
Again, Camm screamed "Get everyone out here" repeatedly.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....

Maybe making the call to the ISP was more important at the time than worrying about the killer.


Facts he could have called the local 911 on his cell phone, or the ISP on his cell phone. Why didn't he? IMO he had to go into the home to get that backbone sweatshirt from his bedroom and needed an excuse as to why he went inside so he came up with the idea of using the phone.
He just found his wife and two little children murdered, maybe he was in a panic and wasn't thinking clearly. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Do you have any experience or training that qualifies you to know that someone in this situation wouldn't do exactly what Camm did?

No EMT's responded to the scene, why is that?
I'm not sure there weren't any EMT's at the scene. If there weren't, why did the ISP not send some when they were repeatedly asked to send "everbody" and they knew there were injured people at the scene?

Oh yeah the CPR was definitely fake. Nobody starts CPR, then stops to run next door for non-emergency help after calling LE, to then return and resume CPR. You know for a fact that nobody has ever done this? What do you base this on?

No fear of a killer at large is because Camm knew there was no killer at large. Any other person would have fear, it's human nature, especially for a trained police officer!

People have fear but overcome it to do things they consider important at the time. In Camm's frame of mind, it may have been a minor consideration.

I don't disagree that what you say is possible, but you state these "opinions" as if they're fact. If they are "facts" prove it.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:18 pm

Camm was (supposedly) unarmed. For him to have zero consideration of a killer at large is very telling IMO... I will never change my mind on that one. It's a primal human response, and this guy had police training. Nope, not buying Camm's BS.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:40 pm

BeeBee wrote:Camm was (supposedly) unarmed. For him to have zero consideration of a killer at large is very telling IMO... I will never change my mind on that one. It's a primal human response, and this guy had police training. Nope, not buying Camm's BS.


I didn’t suggest that he had zero consideration of a killer at large. I said that in his emotional and panic state, he may have considered the phone call more important than the possible presence of a killer. You may not buy it and that’s your prerogative, but you have presented no personal experience or training that would give your opinion any weight. It’s just your opinion.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby IXSatanXI » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:57 pm

JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:Camm was (supposedly) unarmed. For him to have zero consideration of a killer at large is very telling IMO... I will never change my mind on that one. It's a primal human response, and this guy had police training. Nope, not buying Camm's BS.


I didn’t suggest that he had zero consideration of a killer at large. I said that in his emotional and panic state, he may have considered the phone call more important than the possible presence of a killer. You may not buy it and that’s your prerogative, but you have presented no personal experience or training that would give your opinion any weight. It’s just your opinion.



BS!!! He was a trained state trooper. I can tell you FROM EXPERIENCE and no I am not going over my resume with you, but I can tell you that his first thought should have been, where is the shooter? He was trained to maintain his composure. You seem to think that his police experience wouldn't effect him at all and he would react like anyone else. In fact, I think a normal person would wonder where the hell the shooter was and are you next.
All your posts are your opinion only!
User avatar
IXSatanXI
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:14 am
Location: Hadarash, Pa

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:29 pm

IXSatanXI wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
BeeBee wrote:Camm was (supposedly) unarmed. For him to have zero consideration of a killer at large is very telling IMO... I will never change my mind on that one. It's a primal human response, and this guy had police training. Nope, not buying Camm's BS.


I didn’t suggest that he had zero consideration of a killer at large. I said that in his emotional and panic state, he may have considered the phone call more important than the possible presence of a killer. You may not buy it and that’s your prerogative, but you have presented no personal experience or training that would give your opinion any weight. It’s just your opinion.



BS!!! He was a trained state trooper. I can tell you FROM EXPERIENCE and no I am not going over my resume with you, but I can tell you that his first thought should have been, where is the shooter? He was trained to maintain his composure. You seem to think that his police experience wouldn't effect him at all and he would react like anyone else. In fact, I think a normal person would wonder where the hell the shooter was and are you next.



Maybe his training as a state trooper should have made his first thought be ‘where is the shooter”. That doesn’t mean it did. I think his training would affect him to some degree but I don’t know how much under the circumstances. I don’t know what a trained police officer would do or think upon finding their wife and children murdered. I can’t imagine that you do either, unless you’ve had a similar experience. I can’t think of anything more devastating than finding my wife and children dead and I have no idea how I would react.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Julia » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:26 pm

BeeBee wrote:
IXSatanXI wrote:Why would a murderer place his entire hand on a vehicle that he just killed 3 people in?

Why would a murderer leave a sweatshirt behind?

Why would a murderer leave his calling card (the shoes)?

Did David ever drive Kim's Bronco/Blazer, whatever it was?

Why would a murderer drive his own vehicle to that location, knowing there were neighbors that would spot him from a mile away?

Why would Camm call the state police post before calling 911?

That's all I have time for right now.


Why would Camm tell the ISP his wife and kids were dead, never mention their wounds or ask for help, then do the fake display of CPR on Brad and scream breath Brad breath for uncle Lockhart..... after allegedly quitting CPR to run next door and then back to resume and yell breath Brad breath??

Camm thought everyone would fall for his lying BS. He was wrong.

Funny how Camm never asked for help for his family, but immediately tried to establish his alibi for the ISP.

Also funny how when Camm came up on the scene of his family executed in the garage he had no fear that the killer was still at large somewhere close by....


I don't think it's funny at all, but talk about avoiding questions..how about you tell us how this happened BeeBee explain how Boney and David carried out this crime with the timeline and evidence. Go ahead, I've asked you to do it several times, now you have troll satan to help you so you two should be able to put your heads together and come uyp with something. Use the evidence not rumors and gossip and stuff you read in a book, evidence. Put this story together and make it make SENSE.
Julia
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:09 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:01 am

AW2B wrote:
Think about what you're saying!! So he murders his family....he has no way of knowing if any of the neighbor would walk into the garage.. find his family dead and call 911 before he returns. If he wanted to plant the sweatshirt..he would have done that before returning to the church..
In addition..he didn't need an excuse..he could have used his cellphone and walked into the house.
Then after all this trouble..he never pointed out the sweatshirt to anyone. In fact, he was asked about him wearing a sweatshirt the day of the murder..he kept saying "I wasn't wearing a sweatshirt". He had no clue! Then he let himself be convicted before the prosecution or the defense identifies the owner of the sweatshirt! yep! great strategy!


We are back to you believing that Camm didn't notice the sweatshirt that was under Brad. Maybe you believe he wouldn't notice a DOC sweatshirt under his son, but I don't buy it all, I fully believe he put it there.

A dark private road out in the middle of nowhere.... imo there was no risk that anyone else would show up before Camm got back from the gym. In fact the close neighbors were at the gym.

Camm couldn't plant the sweatshirt immediately because Boney was there and would have seen his own sweatshirt!

When the detectives from the ISP lied to Camm, do you think Camm didn't know they were lying??? He was a cop for ten years!! He knew what they were doing, he had done it himself. He knew what sweatshirt they were talking about. He knew it was Boney's shirt and he was just going to let it play out, imo. Camm knew they were lying about the murder weapon too, he knew it wasn't in the drain or wherever they said they were digging.

Camm knew they were mixing truth and lies, I have no doubt about it.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:50 am

BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:
Think about what you're saying!! So he murders his family....he has no way of knowing if any of the neighbor would walk into the garage.. find his family dead and call 911 before he returns. If he wanted to plant the sweatshirt..he would have done that before returning to the church..
In addition..he didn't need an excuse..he could have used his cellphone and walked into the house.
Then after all this trouble..he never pointed out the sweatshirt to anyone. In fact, he was asked about him wearing a sweatshirt the day of the murder..he kept saying "I wasn't wearing a sweatshirt". He had no clue! Then he let himself be convicted before the prosecution or the defense identifies the owner of the sweatshirt! yep! great strategy!


We are back to you believing that Camm didn't notice the sweatshirt that was under Brad. Maybe you believe he wouldn't notice a DOC sweatshirt under his son, but I don't buy it all, I fully believe he put it there.

A dark private road out in the middle of nowhere.... imo there was no risk that anyone else would show up before Camm got back from the gym. In fact the close neighbors were at the gym.

Why do you say that the close neighbors were at the gym? That is incorrect. His father lived across the road and an Aunt lived behind him on the same drive. Jill and Brad’s cousin was with the Aunt that evening when they drove past the Camm house at about 7:30. The Cousin wanted to stop and play with Jill and Brad but they didn’t because it didn’t look like Kim and the kids were home yet. There are several neighbors (mostly family) that could have stopped by at any time between 7:45 and 9:25 and found Kim and the kids dead.

Camm couldn't plant the sweatshirt immediately because Boney was there and would have seen his own sweatshirt!

When the detectives from the ISP lied to Camm, do you think Camm didn't know they were lying??? He was a cop for ten years!! He knew what they were doing, he had done it himself. He knew what sweatshirt they were talking about. He knew it was Boney's shirt and he was just going to let it play out, imo. Camm knew they were lying about the murder weapon too, he knew it wasn't in the drain or wherever they said they were digging.

Camm knew they were mixing truth and lies, I have no doubt about it.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:02 pm

BeeBee wrote:
We are back to you believing that Camm didn't notice the sweatshirt that was under Brad. Maybe you believe he wouldn't notice a DOC sweatshirt under his son, but I don't buy it all, I fully believe he put it there.


It's not a matter of me believing what Camm said about the sweatshirt..it's a matter of common sense..logic! No one would go thru the trouble of planting evidence to frame someone ..only to let it go without investigation..only to let it go until he is convicted of the crime he wanted to frame someone else for! It makes absolutely no sense. We know that once convicted it is an uphill battle to reverse the conviction..it is extremely difficult..
What you are suggesting and have suggested about this sweatshirt is totally illogical.. IMO. In addition, his DNA was not on the sweatshirt..and there was no fiber from his truck on that sweatshirt..

BeeBee wrote:imo there was no risk that anyone else would show up before Camm got back from the gym. In fact the close neighbors were at the gym.


What's your source of info that all his close neighbors were at the gym?? His Aunt lived behind his house..they use the same driveway..how about the neighbor who was walking her dog and heard the screaming..how about the neighbor who saw the Bronco making a turn as Kim was returning home..the neighborhood was not dead or deserted as you make it to be.. it's ridiculous to suggest that there was no risk anyone else would show up before Camm..IMO, you are putting commonsense aside to continue to believe in his guilt!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:31 pm

BeeBee wrote:
Camm couldn't plant the sweatshirt immediately because Boney was there and would have seen his own sweatshirt!


According to Boney's BS story..he left before Camm did! Or do you not believe that part of his story?!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:35 pm

JTF..do you know if there is any exhibit or testimony showing where the blood spatter was found on the back of the front seat..and where the brain tissue/blood was found on the back of his shirt? TIA
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Jane » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:30 pm

BeeBee wrote:......
We are back to you believing that Camm didn't notice the sweatshirt that was under Brad. Maybe you believe he wouldn't notice a DOC sweatshirt under his son, but I don't buy it all, I fully believe he put it there.
................


The sweatshirt found in the garage had only had Boney's nickname written in the back of the collar. It didn't have his DOC number, or anything else as far as I know that identified it as a DOC sweatshirt. (See Sweatshirt thread.)

I don't see why Camm should have noticed that it was a DOC sweatshirt. The police didn't notice that when they put it in the body bag with Brad. In fact, they didn't acknowledge that they knew that it was a DOC sweatshirt during the next 5 years.
Jane
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:51 pm

AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
Camm couldn't plant the sweatshirt immediately because Boney was there and would have seen his own sweatshirt!


According to Boney's BS story..he left before Camm did! Or do you not believe that part of his story?!


No, I do not believe it.

Boney was rightly convicted.

Do you think I feel otherwise? confused
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:45 pm

BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
Camm couldn't plant the sweatshirt immediately because Boney was there and would have seen his own sweatshirt!


According to Boney's BS story..he left before Camm did! Or do you not believe that part of his story?!


No, I do not believe it.

Boney was rightly convicted.

Do you think I feel otherwise? confused


My point was and is that you believe part of Boney's story that supports your view..and you do not believe the part that doesn't support your view...so you end up reaching the wrong conclusion..IMO
It's crystal clear that every single statement Boney made in his story "screams fabrication". It cannot be more obvious!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:16 am

janiegh wrote:I don't see why Camm should have noticed that it was a DOC sweatshirt. The police didn't notice that when they put it in the body bag with Brad. In fact, they didn't acknowledge that they knew that it was a DOC sweatshirt during the next 5 years.


IIRC..the police didn't even remember how/who collected that sweatshirt..it was bagged with Brad's body...unbelievable! The police whose job was to investigate the crime scene didn't pay attention to that sweatshirt until later. And we have Camm who walked in on a horrific murder scene of his family being questioned on every single word he uttered and every single action he took that night without any consideration!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:35 pm

This is very interesting testimony that has nothing to do with the HVBS from Jill. As I keep saying there is a mountain of evidence on Camm.

February 1st, 2006 - Day 19: A Cop With A Magnifying Glass

By James Zambroski

February 1st, 2006 - Day 19
A Cop With A Magnifying Glass

Tom Bevel's books sell for hundreds of dollars on the Internet. He's recognized as a crime expert in 30 states, the federal court system and he's testified under oath more than 100 times.

He's got a master's degree in police administration; he's an associate university professor in Oklahoma and teaches crime scene analysis all over the country. He gets a pension as a retired cop.

Nevertheless, the David Ray Camm defense team believes he's full of crap; it'll be up to the jury to decide if they're right.

Bevel's testimony is critical to the state's case against Camm because if his interpretation of blood stains found at the crime scene are right (and believed beyond a reasonable doubt), they prove Camm was present not only when his daughter Jill was murdered, but also when his wife, Kimberly Camm, was shot to death.

During a day long stint on the witness stand in Camm's re-trial for murdering his family more than five years ago, Bevel used photographs and his expertise to show the jury that a small line of blood on Camm's tennis shoe not only came from Kim Camm, but was deposited almost immediately after she was mortally struck by gunfire.

It means Camm either shot his wife or was present and close by when she was slain, Bevel testified.

Bevel gave the jury (and anyone else like me, trying to pay attention) a short primer on how blood and tissue are dispersed after a human being is struck by a speeding bullet.

Apparently a trained expert can tell the origin and direction of blood flow by looking at the outline of a blood stain. The defense, incidentally, disagrees that those conclusions are all that obvious and Bevel readily admits there are several influencing factors.

Some, he said, are clear cut. A blood stain that shows spiky protrusions along its edge has been struck by something. The points are called 'skeletonizing' and come after the blood is deposited, but before it dries.

There are two small stains on the concrete floor of the Georgetown, Indiana garage near where Kim's body was found that drew Bevel's attention. One is almost perfectly round, with the outside circumference showing the spiking, the jagged points that look like the outer shell from a nut on a horse chestnut tree.

Bevel claims these jagged points radiating from the center of the blood drop were caused by low velocity impact spatter. He testified he believes that a second drop of Kimberly's blood fell from several feet straight down into the center of the first drop, before either had dried. 'Drop on drop,' he called it.

The energy of the second, smaller drop falling into the center of the first drop caused the spiked points seen rather clearly in the first drop. His belief is that both of these blood drops came from Kim's head wound almost at the moment she was hit by the gunshot that killed her.

A second blood stain on the floor underneath her wrist shows a dagger like point coming out of one end of it. Bevel says this particular signature is medium velocity impact spatter derived from the weight of Kim's arm falling on it as she died.

When velocity (force) hits blood, the analysts say it is propelled at a 90 degree angle from that force. For example, if you were looking straight at the barrel of a gun and a bullet hit you right between the eyes above your nose, high velocity impact spatter would be propelled back out through the entry wound, at a 90 degree angle to your forehead and eyebrows.

The same thing happened, albeit at lower velocity, to the blood stain under Mrs. Camm's wrist, Bevel said. When she fell, the energy of her arm striking the blood stain beneath it caused medium velocity impact spatter, sending the dagger-like projection seen at one end of the stain AND depositing blood on David Camm's left tennis shoe.

Bevel says there is additional evidence on the shoe to support this -- principally the shape of the stain. It is somewhat elipitical, with one end fatter and the other, toward the heel, more pointed, meaning the direction in which it was projected was toe to heel.

The Oklahoma native (who charges around $250 an hour for his work) said he believes that stain could not have been deposited on David Camm's shoe from him walking on blood in the garage. For one thing, there are no bloody footprints and for another, the angle is wrong, he testified.

If Camm had stepped into the blood flow that emanated from Kim's head wound, the force of the shoe going down into the blood (medium velocity impact) would have caused the spatter to move out at 90 degrees away from the point of contact between blood and the sole of the shoe, thus making it impossible for the stain to wind up near the laces.

Bevel testified that there was one other force that could have projected the stain onto Camm's shoe, and that is if someone ELSE had stepped into Mrs. Camm's blood. But owing to the lack of disruption of the stain (no shoe prints), that scenario is highly unlikely, he said.

Complex? You bet, but at the same time, is it convincing? Bevel was a good witness; he performed well on the stand, but isn't that part of what he's paid to be?

What's a defense lawyer to do? The Camm strategy: attack the whole notion that anyone, no matter how smart, can interpret blood stains with scientific consistency.

"It's not DNA, it's not fingerprints. Not even GSR, where they have standards," said Stacy Uliana, Camm's co-counsel. "It is extremely subjective interpretation. It's his opinion."

I guess the rub with that logic is the defense has a stable of the same kind of horses coming in later this month.

http://www.wave3.com/story/4455863/febr ... ying-glass
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby VoiceOfSanity » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:28 pm

"It's not DNA, it's not fingerprints. Not even GSR, where they have standards," said Stacy Uliana, Camm's co-counsel. "It is extremely subjective interpretation. It's his opinion."

All you can conclude is that at best this small part of the evidence doesn't exclude Camm. It certainly doesn't convict him.
Image
User avatar
VoiceOfSanity
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:19 am
Location: PNW

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:57 pm

VoiceOfSanity wrote:
"It's not DNA, it's not fingerprints. Not even GSR, where they have standards," said Stacy Uliana, Camm's co-counsel. "It is extremely subjective interpretation. It's his opinion."

All you can conclude is that at best this small part of the evidence doesn't exclude Camm. It certainly doesn't convict him.


It's powerful evidence based on science, and it does a lot more than "doesn't exclude" Camm. What are the chances that he would get a "contact transfer" stain 90 minutes after the fact that would look like a drop flowing in the right direction in the lace area of his shoe??

You need to think about this evidence on Camm. It is solid.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby VoiceOfSanity » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:47 pm

BeeBee wrote:You need to think about this evidence on Camm. It is solid.

Nowhere near as solid as his alibi.
Image
User avatar
VoiceOfSanity
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:19 am
Location: PNW

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:03 am

VoiceOfSanity wrote:
BeeBee wrote:You need to think about this evidence on Camm. It is solid.

Nowhere near as solid as his alibi.


If I actually have to tell you the flaws in eye-witness testimony vs science, when the actual players in this case can't say anything with certainty except that Camm did indeed "sit out a game" games that lasted up to 40 mins... then what is the point?

:nay:
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:58 am

BeeBee wrote:
VoiceOfSanity wrote:
BeeBee wrote:You need to think about this evidence on Camm. It is solid.

Nowhere near as solid as his alibi.


If I actually have to tell you the flaws in eye-witness testimony vs science, when the actual players in this case can't say anything with certainty except that Camm did indeed "sit out a game" games that lasted up to 40 mins... then what is the point?

:nay:


Actually, many of the players stated with complete certainty that they observed Camm on the sidelines talking to Mr. Jolly and shooting baskets etc. Mr. Jolly testified with certainty that he talked to Camm for 15 to 20 minutes and observed him on the sidelines for the remainder of the time he sat out. He stated emphatically that Camm could not have been gone even 10 minutes. After being told that someone they were playing basketball with left and killed their family, I’m sure they replayed the evening over in their minds repeatedly and remembered if Camm could have been gone long enough to kill his family. I’m curious, what scientific testing vs. observation was used in this case. It seems that blood stain analysis is based on scientific principles but comes down to an opinion based on observation, not scientific testing. If I am wrong, what scientific tests were run on the stains that told the experts what caused them?
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:03 am

Camm's family was already dead and Camm was back at the gym when Jolly arrived.

These threads are getting jumbled up as far as the subject matter so I would ask that we try to stay on the right topic, myself included... so when the third trial gets here we'll be better organized.

Facts will you be able to attend the third trial?
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby JustTheFacts » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:09 am

BeeBee wrote:Camm's family was already dead and Camm was back at the gym when Jolly arrived.

These threads are getting jumbled up as far as the subject matter so I would ask that we try to stay on the right topic, myself included... so when the third trial gets here we'll be better organized.

Facts will you be able to attend the third trial?


Many of the players testified that Camm only sat out one 5 on 5 game. If this is true, it had to be the game that Mr. Jolly was prsent for at approximately 8:15, long after the estimated time of the murders. If you believe the players are incorrect, what are you basing your belief on. They were there after all and you weren't.

I will not attend the trial.
JustTheFacts
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Jane » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:47 pm

Does anyone have more information about this pair of socks?

January 10th, 2006 - Day 2: DNA Technology: Salvation Or Wild Goose Chase?
The David Camm defense team says DNA testing of a garment found near where Kimberly, Jill and Bradley Camm were brutally gunned down five-and-a-half years ago could turn the case against their client upside down.

The Floyd County prosecutor's office says that's nonsense and that such testing is just "another wild goose chase."

Warrick Superior Court Judge Robert Aylsworth granted the defense request for testing, but termed his permission "routine," and said it will in no way slow the jury selection process nor the start of Camm's second murder trial.

Welcome to Days of Our Judicial Lives, Boonville.

The re-testing of a pair of socks found at the crime scene adds another twist to the labyrinth that's become routine on the road toward justice in this triple murder case that has at once held the region spellbound and horrified since September 2000.

Jury selection in David Camm's second trial for murdering his family was in it's second day when the old socks dropped into the pot. Camm is accused, along with Charles Boney, of slaying the family; Camm's first guilty verdict was thrown out after an appeals court ruled the prosecution made too many errors in his trial. A do-over was ordered by the court and picked up by Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson on November 15, 2004.

Boney was added to the investigation after Camm's original conviction and subsequent successful appeal. His trial is underway now in Floyd County.

The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.

But analysis by a defense-hired company called Cell Mark indicated that advances in technology could lead to DNA extraction.

Shortly after lunch on Tuesday, and before a new group of potential jurors were brought into court, defense lawyer Kitty Liell, an entirely competent, charming and self assured advocate of the criminally charged who can turn into a puffed up banty rooster with a pit bull's personality in a New York minute, approached Aylsworth along with co-counsel Stacy Uliana, a Tonto-like sidekick in horn-rimmed glasses.

Aylsworth listened to their arguments for about five minutes. Steve Owen, the chief deputy Floyd County prosecutor who has turned the aw-shucks-good ole boy routine into a fine art, seemed to fray around the edges a bit at the request.

"We've been down this road before," he told the judge in a raspy semi-whisper, reminding Aylsworth of another dry hole the defense insisted was their ticket to Camm's freedom a few months ago.

In October, Camm and Company were hot to get testing done on DNA and fingerprints belonging to one Victor Ernest Nugent, a former co-worker of Charles Boney. As soon as he saw his name and face on TV, Nugent readily agreed to the procedure and promptly exonerated himself.

"Yeah, but that wasn't found at the crime scene," Liell shot back.

Owen, who has put bad guys away for more than 20 years, is one of those lawyers people tend to underestimate, even as they're being led away to life imprisonment. He plays that bit like the pro that he is.

All of this was done in open court, albeit at the edge of the judge's bench, while the rest of us strained and looked at each other, trying to figure out what was up.

I may be old and a little hard of hearing, but this was a bit much.

Right after he ruled, I stood and asked Aylsworth if he would bend his gag order a bit and allow the lawyers to merely explain--on camera--what they'd asked for and detail his ruling.

The judge replied that he would, in the future, speak a little louder when conducting this type of business. Fine and well for my colleagues in the print media, I said, but it denies my viewers the opportunity to get the skinny directly from the parties, especially since Indiana law prohibits TV cameras in the courtroom.

Aylsworth, a square guy but one who plays it strictly by the book, said he couldn't allow that since it would require the opposing lawyer to have their chance in front of the Big Lens, something he was "trying to avoid."

Owen was just plain pee-oed over the whole thing, asking Aylsworth to require such business in the future to be done in the privacy of his office, away from us working stiffs who are just trying to let YOU know what's happening in the courtrooms you're paying for, and, incidentally, what's being done about a family brutally slain in a Georgetown garage.

"This is just an attempt to generate a news story," Owen said, glaring at me. "These guys will make a big deal out of this."

"Hey Steve," I shot back, "I'm just reporting what's going on in open court." Excuusssseee me.

Oh, by the way, did I mention, we're getting closer to a jury? Six folks from the original 14 who were questioned Monday have made the final cut. They're not in yet--they can still be struck on the last day--but so far, Owen, Liell, Uliana and supporting minions have agreed on this much.

Welcome to As the Gavel Turns, Boonville.

http://www.wave3.com/story/4360451/janu ... =printable
Jane
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Jane » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:31 pm

Strange that this article refers to the pair of socks as belonging to Camm, when according to the article posted above, they obviously do not belong to Camm.

*******
January 11, 2006

Camm’s socks to be DNA tested
Six potential jurors selected trial
From staff reports
The News and Tribune Wed Jan 11, 2006, 12:47 PM EST

The Warrick County judge in the triple-murder trial of David Camm will allow new evidence to be entered into the case.

Indiana State Police had maintained a pair of Camm’s socks could not be tested because the DNA sample size was too small, WLKY-TV reported. Warrick County Superior Court Judge Robert Aylsworth ordered the socks to be tested through an evidence lab called Cell Mark, used by Camm’s defense team.

The blood-stained socks were found in the garbage at a murder scene at Camm’s Georgetown home in 2000.

Camm is a former Indiana State Police trooper who, in 2002, was convicted in Floyd County of killing his wife, Kim, and two children, Brad and Jill. That conviction was overturned in 2004 by an appeals court. The retrial was moved to Boonville in Warrick County because of the media coverage the first trial garnered.

Jury selection continued Tuesday in Camm’s murder trial. Six tentative jurors were picked, but all have the chance to be excused, WLKY reported. More than 30 possible jurors have been struck from a pool of around 300.

“At this point in time, no official jurors have been selected,” Floyd County Deputy Prosecutor Steve Owen told WLKY. “We’re still in the process, and we won’t know until the last and final day who’s in the jury. It might take a while.”

Stacy Uliana, from Camm’s defense team, said publicity surrounding the case is not as bad as expected and she told WLKY she expected to seat a jury “fast.”

Jury selection for the retrial is being done differently than for most trials. Potential jurors are being interviewed and attorneys will call back the 12 they intend to seat on the final day. In most cases, a juror is notified on the spot when he or she is selected.

The trial is scheduled to begin once the 12-person jury is seated. Charles Boney is on trial in Floyd County and also accused of killing Camm’s wife and their two children. Testimony about Camm dominated Tuesday’s Boney trial.

http://newsandtribune.com/davidcamm/x51 ... DNA-tested
Jane
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:46 pm

This is totally new to me!! Were those socks tested? The prosecution claimed that they couldn't extract DNA in 2000!! GMAB! :rolleyes: :flamemad:

JTF..Julia..where are you? What's the info you have about those socks?
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Julia » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:24 pm

AW2B wrote:This is totally new to me!! Were those socks tested? The prosecution claimed that they couldn't extract DNA in 2000!! GMAB! :rolleyes: :flamemad:

JTF..Julia..where are you? What's the info you have about those socks?



This sounds like another pair of socks!!!! Camm had his socks on. What, they didn't test those socks because he had his on and so they weren't relevant! They couldn't extract DNA from the socks he was wearing??????? I'm confussed and like you :flamemad: this is UnF-ingbelievable!!!!
Julia
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:09 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:21 pm

Julia wrote:
AW2B wrote:This is totally new to me!! Were those socks tested? The prosecution claimed that they couldn't extract DNA in 2000!! GMAB! :rolleyes: :flamemad:

JTF..Julia..where are you? What's the info you have about those socks?



This sounds like another pair of socks!!!! Camm had his socks on. What, they didn't test those socks because he had his on and so they weren't relevant! They couldn't extract DNA from the socks he was wearing??????? I'm confussed and like you :flamemad: this is UnF-ingbelievable!!!!


I have been trying to find more info about those socks that were found in the garbage!! Obviously they weren't Camm's. I wonder if they were Kim's?! I remember reading that Kim had no socks or pantyhose on her!

According to the article Janiegh posted, the police crime lab deemed those stains to be blood and seminal fluids!! I'm simply stunned that this was not pursued!! :flamemad:
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:40 pm

It was pursued. Didn't you just read that Camm's defense was having them tested at Cell Mark? Also back in 2000 the state did a presumptive test, which as you well know needs further testing to see if the material is even biological in nature. There are many, many false positives on early presumptive tests. Also note that an analysis by Cell Mark also said there have been advances in technology (since 2000) that could lead to DNA extraction.There is no misconduct here as you are trying to allege.

The MAIN thing here is apparently Cell Mark didn't find anything. In other words it means nothing.

The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.

But analysis by a defense-hired company called Cell Mark indicated that advances in technology could lead to DNA extraction.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:12 pm

I'm wondering if those socks did indeed have seminal fluids on them..

Quote:

"A former wife also acknowledged that on several occasions when they were married in the early 1990's she awoke from sleeping to find that Boney had put a knee high stocking onto her leg and was ejaculating over her."

http://www.justicefordavidcamm.com/faq.shtml
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Jane » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:47 pm

BeeBee wrote:It was pursued. Didn't you just read that Camm's defense was having them tested at Cell Mark? Also back in 2000 the state did a presumptive test, which as you well know needs further testing to see if the material is even biological in nature. There are many, many false positives on early presumptive tests. Also note that an analysis by Cell Mark also said there have been advances in technology (since 2000) that could lead to DNA extraction.There is no misconduct here as you are trying to allege.

The MAIN thing here is apparently Cell Mark didn't find anything. In other words it means nothing.

The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.

But analysis by a defense-hired company called Cell Mark indicated that advances in technology could lead to DNA extraction.


Aylsworth didn't make the ruling allowing Cellmark to test the socks until the 2nd day of jury selection in 2006. It's possible that Cellmark found nothing. But it's also possible that the process wasn't completed until after Camm had been convicted for the second time.
Jane
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby VoiceOfSanity » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:13 pm

janiegh wrote:Aylsworth didn't make the ruling allowing Cellmark to test the socks until the 2nd day of jury selection in 2006. It's possible that Cellmark found nothing. But it's also possible that the process wasn't completed until after Camm had been convicted for the second time.

There's also the Dutch lab that found the unknown DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Image
User avatar
VoiceOfSanity
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:19 am
Location: PNW

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:42 am

janiegh wrote:
BeeBee wrote:It was pursued. Didn't you just read that Camm's defense was having them tested at Cell Mark? Also back in 2000 the state did a presumptive test, which as you well know needs further testing to see if the material is even biological in nature. There are many, many false positives on early presumptive tests. Also note that an analysis by Cell Mark also said there have been advances in technology (since 2000) that could lead to DNA extraction.There is no misconduct here as you are trying to allege.

The MAIN thing here is apparently Cell Mark didn't find anything. In other words it means nothing.

The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.

But analysis by a defense-hired company called Cell Mark indicated that advances in technology could lead to DNA extraction.


Aylsworth didn't make the ruling allowing Cellmark to test the socks until the 2nd day of jury selection in 2006. It's possible that Cellmark found nothing. But it's also possible that the process wasn't completed until after Camm had been convicted for the second time.


And it is also possible the prosecution objected that the results couldn't be admitted until they do their own testing!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:49 am

BeeBee wrote:
The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.



And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Jane » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:14 am

And how about these bloodstains on the garage floor that were never tested? Englert says he can tell just by looking at them who they came from; and the judge allows him to do that. :rolleyes:

Friday, February 3, 2006

Expert ties Camm to murders
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbc ... /NEWS02/60
(Original link doesn't work)
...............................
>>>>>
Englert also testified this morning that a group of bloodstains on the floor
of the Camms' garage also tie David Camm to the murders.

He said the stains were largely covered by Kimberly Camm's arm and pants,
which were found near her head, and Bradley Camm's shoes. Kimberly and
Bradley Camm's bodies were lying on the floor of the garage when
investigators arrived.

Englert testified that several of the stains were caused by the impact of a
bullet on Kimberly Camm's head as she was standing near the door of her Ford
Bronco in the garage.

Katharine Liell, one of Camm's lawyers, objected, saying there was no
testing of the blood Englert was referring to that proved it was from
Kimberly Camm.


Henderson replied that Englert, with 43 years of training and experience,
should be able to give his expert opinion to the jury. Warrick County
Supeior Court Judge Robert Aylsworth ruled that Englert could give his
opinion.

The analyst then testified that he believes a small stain on Camm's left
tennis shoe, which was tested and shown to be Kimberly Camm's blood, was
made by the same series of blood spatters he identified on the garage floor.

He believes the bloodstains on the garage floor were Kimberly Camm's,
Englert said, because by the "process of elimination" they could belong to
no one else, unless another, unknown person was bleeding at the murder
scene.


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fore ... ssage/9607
Jane
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:35 am

AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
The socks were found during the original crime scene investigation. The Indiana State Police crime lab deemed stains on them to be blood and seminal fluids, but said that technology available in the year 2000 prevented them from confirming that or extracting any DNA.



And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!


Yes, I believe that in 2000 the ISP did not have the technology to confirm the presumptive test on whatever it was that they tested, and the analysis done by Cell Mark for the defense confirms that, imo... this is what was said:

But analysis by a defense-hired company called Cell Mark indicated that advances in technology could lead to DNA extraction.


You should read all the statements instead of just the defense sound bites. Multiple, multiple substances can cause false positives on presumptive tests. It could have been kool aid for all we know.

A pair of socks in the garbage doesn't mean anything. A family of four with two little kids lived in the home. Nowhere does it say the socks belonged to Kim Camm, and had that been the case I feel certain the defense would have brought that up.... but the bottom line as I said before is Cell Mark did testing and obviously it was NOT confirmed that the stains were blood or seminal fluid. If it had been you know full well that info would have been in Camm's appeal.

It was nothing.
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:11 pm

BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:

And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!


Yes, I believe that in 2000 the ISP did not have the technology to confirm the presumptive test on whatever it was that they tested, and the analysis done by Cell Mark for the defense confirms that, imo...


Let me get that straight..you believe that in year 2000 the police crime lab didn't have the technology to determine if it was blood and seminal fluids???? Is that what you're saying?! We are not talking about extracting DNA..we are simply talking about them determining if it was blood and seminal fluids..we are talking in year 2000 not 1800!! LOL!
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby BeeBee » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:23 pm

AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:

And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!


Yes, I believe that in 2000 the ISP did not have the technology to confirm the presumptive test on whatever it was that they tested, and the analysis done by Cell Mark for the defense confirms that, imo...


Let me get that straight..you believe that in year 2000 the police crime lab didn't have the technology to determine if it was blood and seminal fluids???? Is that what you're saying?! We are not talking about extracting DNA..we are simply talking about them determining if it was blood and seminal fluids..we are talking in year 2000 not 1800!! LOL!



So are you saying Camm was framed by LE and the ISP lab? Is that what you are saying?
User avatar
BeeBee
 
Posts: 11114
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby Julia » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:06 pm

BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:

And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!


Yes, I believe that in 2000 the ISP did not have the technology to confirm the presumptive test on whatever it was that they tested, and the analysis done by Cell Mark for the defense confirms that, imo...


Let me get that straight..you believe that in year 2000 the police crime lab didn't have the technology to determine if it was blood and seminal fluids???? Is that what you're saying?! We are not talking about extracting DNA..we are simply talking about them determining if it was blood and seminal fluids..we are talking in year 2000 not 1800!! LOL!



So are you saying Camm was framed by LE and the ISP lab? Is that what you are saying?


I don't see anywhere in that post that it says LE and the ISP lab framed Camm. Maybe the stuff was tested and it didn't match Camm so it was put off to the side, much like a lot of the other evidence that didn't fit him. Camm was made a suspect almost immediately the evening of the murders with little to no investigation done. Let's remember, the sweatshirt and the palm print were not discovered for 5 YEARS. Obviously, this investigation was not done correctly from day 1. This new trial needs to tell the entire story not just bits and pieces like some would like to do.
Julia
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:09 pm

Re: Reports on blood evidence testimony

Postby AW2B » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:33 pm

BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:
BeeBee wrote:
AW2B wrote:

And do you believe what you highlighted in red---> "confirming"??

Do you believe the Indiana State Police crime lab didn't have the technology to confirm it was blood and seminal fluids?
They already said it was blood and seminal fluids!!


Yes, I believe that in 2000 the ISP did not have the technology to confirm the presumptive test on whatever it was that they tested, and the analysis done by Cell Mark for the defense confirms that, imo...


Let me get that straight..you believe that in year 2000 the police crime lab didn't have the technology to determine if it was blood and seminal fluids???? Is that what you're saying?! We are not talking about extracting DNA..we are simply talking about them determining if it was blood and seminal fluids..we are talking in year 2000 not 1800!! LOL!



So are you saying Camm was framed by LE and the ISP lab? Is that what you are saying?


As usual..when you know you don't have a valid argument..you change the subject! Where in my post did I say anything about the ISP lab framing Camm..

The crime lab already deemed it to be blood and seminal fluids..

You highlighted the word "Confirming" making a point that they didn't have the technology to confirm if it was blood and seminal fluids..I asked you if you believe that..you replied that you do believe that..

So my question was and still is..do you REALLY believe that in year 2000 they didn't have the technology to determine if it was blood and seminal fluids?
All my posts are my opinion only!
User avatar
AW2B
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to David Camm

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron