DNA expert disputes source of blood

LEBANON, Ind. - A forensics expert says blood on the clothing of a former state trooper accused of killing his wife, son and daughter 13 years ago could not have gotten there when the trooper found the boy's body, as the trooper insists.

Sgt. Dean Marks told jurors Thursday that DNA analysis revealed that eight blood dots on David Camm's T-shirt belong to his 5-year-old daughter Jill, not his 7-year-old son Bradley. Camm's lawyers have maintained throughout Camm's two previous murder trials that the blood got onto his shirt when Camm attempted CPR on his son.

Camm has been convicted twice of killing his wife, Kimberly and their two children, whose bodies were found in the family's garage. But both convictions were overturned on appeal. Because of the heavy publicity surrounding the case in and around Georgetown, the southern Indiana suburb of Louisville where the family lived, Camm's third trial was about 125 miles north to Lebanon.

Marks told the jury he studied more than 140 photographs of the blood patterns and cutout sections from the shirt worn by Camm. Where the spatters of blood came from and how they got there are key to prosecutors' case.

"This is consistent with gunshot spatter," Marks testified.

Defense attorneys argue the initial blood tests were made by an inexperienced scientist who had never been trained in blood spatter analysis and never before worked at a crime scene. They also say police rushed to judgment and overlooked key evidence.

Jurors on Thursday also watched video of a two-hour interview in which Camm tells his state police colleagues that he had nothing to do with killing his family.

"What's going to happen, you guys are going to get so focused on me that the guy who did this is going to walk away," Camm said.

Under questioning by defense attorney Stacy Uliana, Detective Robert Neal acknowledged that police lied when they told Camm that investigators had found blood on his jacket and other pieces of evidence against him.

He said such lies are considered an acceptable strategy to "get at the truth" when interrogating a prime suspect.

Read the original here:
DNA expert disputes source of blood