Scribd
Upload
68 views1 page

David Camm Case - A Reaction Paper

David Camm, a former Indiana State Police trooper, was wrongly convicted twice of murdering his wife and two children based on flawed forensic evidence and spent 13 years in prison. New evidence emerged implicating another man and linking his DNA to the crime scene. Despite this, Camm was convicted again at his second trial. However, his conviction was overturned when it was found he had been denied a fair trial. At his third trial in 2013, Camm was acquitted, finally securing his freedom after 13 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Uploaded by

jomari lacubtan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views1 page

David Camm Case - A Reaction Paper

David Camm, a former Indiana State Police trooper, was wrongly convicted twice of murdering his wife and two children based on flawed forensic evidence and spent 13 years in prison. New evidence emerged implicating another man and linking his DNA to the crime scene. Despite this, Camm was convicted again at his second trial. However, his conviction was overturned when it was found he had been denied a fair trial. At his third trial in 2013, Camm was acquitted, finally securing his freedom after 13 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Uploaded by

jomari lacubtan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LACUBTAN, JOMARI S.

BSC 3-2

David Camm case

The David Camm case is all about David Ray Camm, a former trooper of the Indiana
State Police (ISP) who spent 13 years in prison after being twice wrongfully convicted of
murdering his own wife and two young children at their house in Georgetown, Indiana,
on September 28, 2000. But eventually he was released from custody in 2013 after his
third trial resulted in an acquittal.

During the first trial, the prosecution presented a theory that Camm killed his family due
to alleged financial and marital issues and in order to pursue a more carefree lifestyle.
They relied on forensic evidence, including blood spatter analysis and DNA found on
Camm’s clothing, to make their case. However, there were various issues with the
evidence and its interpretation.

Camm was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he always maintained his
innocence. He launched an appeal and was granted a retrial in 2004 due to multiple
errors in the first trial, including flawed forensic evidence.

In the second trial, new evidence came to light that challenged the prosecution’s theory.
It emerged that another man, Charles Boney, had been at the crime scene, and DNA
evidence linked him to the murders. Boney was subsequently arrested, convicted, and
sentenced to life imprisonment.

Despite the new evidence, the second trial still ended in a conviction for Camm.
However, a miscarriage of justice was revealed years later when the Indiana Court of
Appeals overturned his conviction in 2013. The court found that Camm had been denied
a fair trial due to the introduction of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence.

In the third trial held in 2013, Camm was acquitted, finally securing his freedom after
spending 13 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Reading this case made me realize how hard the job of a forensic science expert,
especially a blood analyst, a blood spatter analyst, or whatever we called it, is because
one small mistake may lead to a wrongful interpretation, just like what happened in the
David Camm case that resulted in his wrongful conviction. It also convinced me that a
blood pattern analysis is really not an infallible means of evidence, as it depends on the
interpretation of a forensic expert. In fact, according to the recent study published in
Forensic Science International, the conclusions made by bloodstain pattern analysts
were often incorrect and contradictory. What I mean is that the conclusion of a
bloodstain analysis is only based on what a forensic expert thinks and believes, not on a
scientific basis. Though bloodstain analysis can help improve the case as circumstantial
evidence, it’s still not strong evidence to convict a person. I mean, you have to provide
another piece of evidence that will prove the circumstantial evidence in order to convict
a person.

You might also like