By Lisa Hurt Kozarovich
Contributing Writer
February 17, 2006 03:09 pm
—
BOONVILLE — Some of the country’s top blood-stain-pattern analysts are facing off in court in the David Camm triple murder trial, and their polar opposite opinions could very well be the deciding factor in the jury’s decision.
On Thursday, defense expert Bart Epstein took the stand and told the jury the blood spots on Camm’s T-shirt and on top of his shoe were transfer stains, caused when he brushed against blood at the crime scene.
Epstein — formerly director of the Minnesota state crime lab and now a forensics consultant — was the second of the defense’s blood-stain experts to testify that the stains were caused by contact.
Five other experts — including nationally-renowned experts Tom Bevel and Rod Englert — disagree. Each of those state witnesses told the jury the blood on the shirt and shoe are high-velocity blood stains, or back spatter, the blood that blows back toward the shooter when the bullet impacts the body.
Prosecutors have reiterated throughout the trial that high-velocity stains travel very short distances, proving that Camm was within 4 feet of his family when they were shot.
Camm is being retried for fatally shooting his 36-year-old wife Kim and children, Brad, 7, and Jill, 5, at their Georgetown home 5 1/2 years ago. His first conviction for the crimes was overturned and the retrial was moved to Warrick County because of publicity about the crime in Floyd County.
Thursday morning, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson got his chance to cross-examine Paul Kish, the first blood stain expert called by the defense. If the blood stains were caused by contact, Henderson wanted to know, what did the shirt touch that created that blood pattern.
Kish said he couldn’t “narrow it down exactly where the transfer occurred,” but he theorized it came from Jill Camm’s hair.
Later, Henderson dismissed that idea saying, “These stains are small, no bigger than the end of a pen ... There nothing on little Jill that would leave a transfer stain of 1 millimeter in size. (Kish) just said ‘trust me,’... that’s not good enough.”
The prosecutor also took issue with how Kish became involved in the case, suggesting that the defense was “shopping for an expert” and came up with Kish at the last minute.
Defense attorney Stacy Uliana said she didn’t think Kish’s inability to pinpoint what caused the blood to transfer from Jill to her father’s shirt was an issue with the jury.
“It shows his credibility,” she said, “and that if you’re working within the confines of science you can’t tell us exactly what happened at the crime scene.”
Blood-stain testimony continued all day Thursday. At one point Epstein told the jury he believed a good foundation in the sciences and experience in crime reconstruction are necessary to be able to properly analyze blood stain evidence.
The comments were a swipe at state witness Englert, who testified previously that understanding the hard sciences wasn’t necessary for the job.
Englert is suing Epstein and five other experts for libeling him. That matter is being handled in an Oregon court; Camm’s jury will have no knowledge of the lawsuit.
Epstein and his colleagues, Stuart James and Paulette Sutton, may all be testifying for the same side this time, but in other cases they’ve had different opinions of the evidence. Epstein said he’s been on the opposing side of Kish, James and Sutton, in other trials.
That’s just another indication that blood stain pattern analysis is more opinion than fact, Uliana said.
“We can’t base a murder conviction on something with this much subjectivity.”
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK
There’s no doubt David Camm’s murder trial — and all the events leading up to it — are prime for primetime. Or Lifetime at least.
A discussion of the made-for-TV case turned to a set of “who would play ...” who questions in the media room.
Although Wayne Kessinger, an investigator with the prosecutor’s office, joked that maybe Mel Gibson could play his part, a reporter suggested someone “maybe more like Sean Connery” was appropriate.
“Hey, am I that old? He doesn’t have any hair,” Kessinger quipped. “I do like him though.”
Someone mentioned Shirley MacLaine might make a good (older) version of defense attorney Kitty Liell, and one of the cameramen said he could see Julia Roberts playing defense attorney Stacy Uliana.
And the Emmy goes to ...
•••
Today marks the end of the sixth week of the David Camm triple-murder trial, which is expected to last about two more weeks. Camm’s first trial lasted nine weeks.
As of Thursday, 56 witnesses had been called, 44 by the prosecution and 12, so far, by the defense.
Wondering who was in court today?
Eleven of David Camm’s family members and friends — including his father, sister and several aunts and uncles — sat in their usual spot behind the defense table.
On the opposite side, behind prosecutors, sat about a half dozen family members and friends of Kim Renn Camm’s, including her parents and sister.
Spread out through the courtroom, as always, were the reporters — eight of us, five from Louisville media outlets, two from “48 Hours” and myself.
Then there were the ever-changing faces of the observers, about 15 on Thursday, mostly from the Floyd County area.
— Lisa Hurt Kozarovich
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.