Camm Trial – October 15, 2013: Rebuttal: Camm prosecutors attack validity of Touch DNA

LEBANON, IN (WAVE) - Touch DNA findings, critical to David Camm's defense, are among the worst and most unreliable examples of analyses she's seen in almost a quarter century, a forensic DNA consultant told jurors in Camm's third murder trial Tuesday.

"I've never met David Camm in my life," Dr. Norah Rudin testified. And I hadn't heard of (Richard) Eichelenboom or his firm. But to see his findings was quite a shock."

Rudin's degree is in Molecular Biology and Genetics, but she specializes in verifying whether a DNA lab's procedures and precautions are scientifically solid enough to justify its findings. Prosecutors called her as a rebuttal witness to refute claims from Dutch DNA specialist Richard Eichelenboom, whose tests concluded that Charles Boney left DNA on Kim Camm's sweater-blouse and underwear, and Jill Camm's shirt.

The defense has argued Charles Boney alone is responsible for killing Camm's wife Kim, son Bradley, 7, and daughter Jill, 5, more than 13 years ago. Boney is serving a 225-year sentence for the murders, but he was arrested only after Camm's first conviction was overturned on appeal. DNA testing linked him to a sweatshirt left at the murder scene.

Boney has claimed he did nothing more than deliver the murder weapon and heard Camm fire the fatal shots. But Eichelenboom testified last week that his findings suggest Kim Camm may have struggled or fought with Boney before she and her children were killed.

Earlier testing had concluded that the DNA samples in question didn't yield enough information to tie them to a specific person. Rudin told jurors Eichelenboom's sampling was so large it created noisy data that made his results unreliable.

"Most of his samples were-crime scene samples, which does not substitute for using known samples," Dr. Rudin said. "He doesn't take into account this missing information, he just pretends it doesn't exist."

Eichelenboom testified that an associate conducted the actual tests; the same associate found to have given wrong answers on profiency tests in 2011 and 2012. Eichelenboom blamed the testing kits themselves.

Rudin described the tests as a fairly easy way to determine basic competency. But Camm's team had fought allowing jurors to hear that.

Before Rudin took the stand, lead counsel Richard Kammen called her anticipated testimony hearsay, because it relied upon email correspondence between the testing company and another DNA consultant. He interrupted her when she broached the subject, and asked that the jury be excused.

More:
Camm Trial - October 15, 2013: Rebuttal: Camm prosecutors attack validity of Touch DNA