We the jury find David Camm...

[DragonGunner]

Never heard of the case....just read the OP article....so did the guy convicted for 225 yrs. sell him a gun on that day? What was the shooters motive for killing the family then?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean that he's innocent. Just because you've read up on the cases, doesn't mean that you know a thing about him personally.

That is kind of like saying you are guilty of something and we just have not caught you yet, so what are you guilty of?

 

[JMoses]

That is kind of like saying you are guilty of something and we just have not caught you yet, so what are you guilty of?

OJ was found not guilty, was he innocent?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean that he's innocent. Just because you've read up on the cases, doesn't mean that you know a thing about him personally.

So, it is personality that is driving this hate train against Camm, not the evidence? The trial was a way to settle scores?

What was it? Small town jealousy? Envy of his family? Help me understand.

 

[DragonGunner]

I am wondering if he didn't pay Boney to shoot them...but just wound my son, don't kill him. Son had shoulder wound and think they said he bled to death but took some time....and what about the daughter....was she or was she not molested and who did it then? As a father you got to be asking that, and you should know who has been around her.....all I saw so far is grieving for the son. I just watched the first trial on that link from cbs...trying to find the 2nd trial.

 

[HoughMade]

Based upon the various appellate decisions, it would seem that the accusation of molestation was a cynical, unsupportable smear job. Conviction by any means necessary? Is that what anyone wants to endorse? "I don't care about the evidence- I think he's guilty 'cause he seems like an a-hole." really?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It appears so, really. I want to know why. What is driving the bus here? Has to be a motive to prosecute a man without evidence?

What was the motive here?

 

[Fargo]

It appears so, really. I want to know why. What is driving the bus here? Has to be a motive to prosecute a man without evidence?

What was the motive here?

Me too. Like I said, I'm a pure outsider on this case and had never heard of it until the 2nd conviction got tossed. There has to be something driving the level of hate that much of southern Indiana seems to have for this guy. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I were to go back and find the MSM coverage from the time of the incident, it might make more sense...

Best,

Joe

 

[KLB]

I am wondering if he didn't pay Boney to shoot them...but just wound my son, don't kill him. Son had shoulder wound and think they said he bled to death but took some time....and what about the daughter....was she or was she not molested and who did it then? As a father you got to be asking that, and you should know who has been around her.....all I saw so far is grieving for the son. I just watched the first trial on that link from cbs...trying to find the 2nd trial.

Because no one has ever been wrongly accused of molesting a child either, right?

 

[Fargo]

Because no one has ever been wrongly accused of molesting a child either, right?

Yeah, especially several years after the event when you are desperately trying to create a motive for murder after it is shown that someone else was there and the initial trial has been tossed because of terrible misconduct of a similar nature...

What is really telling to me is that the alleged molestation was apparently never brought up or even alleged at the first trial. If there was any real evidence of it, I simply cannot see why.

Something is rotten in Denmark...

Best,


Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm a pure outsider on this case and had never heard of it until the 2nd conviction got tossed.

I have known Stacey for a long time. I have been following it since 2000.

Everytime she has discussed it, or what she could talk about, (usually at IPDC conferences) I just sat there with my mouth agape. Terrifying to think that this could happen. It truly is a professional nightmare of mine.

 

[Lammchop93]

Why do you think he is guilty? What evidence even suggests his guilt?

Please see my previous posts as to why I think he is guilty.

 

[E'villeGunner]

All in all this thread has been a pretty good read! A few posts were hard to follow/understand, and I won't mention any names because I don't want to embarrass anyone's education or lack thereof.
On a side note I did read an article that the deceased wife's parents are following on with their civil suit against him, which has been in the works for some years now but had been put on hold due to all the appeals.

 

[88GT]

Interesting how he was found not guilty in a court of law but some people still want to see him hanged. The fact is only God knows if he is guilty or innocent but if he is not proven to be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT then he is free to go; even if he did do it. That's how our justice system works and its a good thing.

I see nothing wrong with wanting a legal consequence despite the law's inability to prove the case (assuming his guilt for the sake of argument, I have no opinion and no dog in the fight).

What worries should we have of David Camm, an innocent man unjustly prosecuted?

Well, this is interesting. The man who makes his living (and argues on the internet) based on legal definitions can't/didn't take the time to distinguish between an acquittal and actual innocence.

It appears so, really. I want to know why. What is driving the bus here? Has to be a motive to prosecute a man without evidence?

Would that be legal evidence or actual physical evidence that supports proof of his actions?

What was the motive here?

I'll be honest, the few times I have seen the man in photos or television, I have not received very good vibes from him. There always seems to be a cockiness about him. An indignation that he is even being charged, let alone tried (and not in the "I'm innocent why is this happening?" indignation, but the "Who the hell are you to do this to me?" indignation. And steely resolved that doesn't quite fit the innocent man trying to exonerate himself but rather reeks of the guilty man who is pissed as hell he's on the hook for what he did.

IF, and I grant that it's a big if, I am even close, the level of depravity in that man is all that is necessary for a motive. He may have simply woke up one day and decided he didn't want to be married or have the responsibility of children anymore. He may have been angered by his wife's nagging comment, his children's disobedience, who knows? (Was a psych test ever done on him?) We live in a world where people admit to killing for no better reason than they want to know what it's like. Is it really that hard to believe that a man with a particular psychological profile (whatever it may be) could do what was done?

Again, I have no dog in the fight, no opinion either way when it comes to his actual guilty/innocence. I don't remember the incident, the first trial , the second trial, and didn't bother with the final one. Which probably makes me one of the least biased persons to post in this thread. I simply don't care. (Prosecutorial misconduct and other legal fubars notwithstanding.) But I would think an innocent man going on a third trial would be exhausted, and not defiant. Even the **** and vinegar in me would have worn out after the second trial I would think.

 

[E'villeGunner]

Well, this is interesting. The man who makes his living (and argues on the internet) based on legal definitions can't/didn't take the time to distinguish between an acquittal and actual innocence.

AcquittalThe legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with a crime.
Acquittals in fact take place when a jury finds a verdict of not guilty. Acquittals in law take place by operation of law such as when a person has been charged as an Accessory to the crime of Robbery and the principal has been acquitted.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty. (See: acquit)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
If your found not guilty of a crime doesn't that mean your innocent??

 

[Rhoadmar]

AcquittalThe legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with a crime.
Acquittals in fact take place when a jury finds a verdict of not guilty. Acquittals in law take place by operation of law such as when a person has been charged as an Accessory to the crime of Robbery and the principal has been acquitted.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty. (See: acquit)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
If your found not guilty of a crime doesn't that mean your innocent??

My take is it continues the presumption of innocence, innocence hasn't necessarily been proven.

 

[88GT]

AcquittalThe legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with a crime.
Acquittals in fact take place when a jury finds a verdict of not guilty. Acquittals in law take place by operation of law such as when a person has been charged as an Accessory to the crime of Robbery and the principal has been acquitted.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty. (See: acquit)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
If your found not guilty of a crime doesn't that mean your innocent??

No, it doesn't. Guilty people are acquitted.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am not wading into a debate on the case itself, but will stand by the notion that we are all safer with the guilty people being acquitted than with innocent people being convicted which leads into an upside-down system of 'justice' in which we essentially stand guilty until proven innocent. This principle is easy to forget when one is convinced of the guilt of the acquitted person, lack of evidence or incompetent jury notwithstanding. Never forget that what can be done to someone else can be done to any of us.

 

[Fargo]

No, it doesn't. Guilty people are acquitted.

I don't believe you are framing Kirk's position correctly. As I read it, he is not saying that he is innocent because he was acquitted. You are correct that acquittal does not necessarily equal actual innocence.

Kirk is saying far more than that he is legally innocent, he is saying that he believes him to be factually innocent as well. From where I sit, I think Kirk is probably correct.

I think that even if he was convicted, Kirk would maintain that he is innocent. His belief is not premised upon a jury verdict.

My personal belief is not controlled by the determinations of others.

Best,

Joe

 

[HoughMade]

....was she or was she not molested and who did it then?...

There was never any definitive proof that she was molested by anyone at all. That theory was simply consistent with some of the evidence. However, other theories were consistent with the evidence as well. There was absolutely no evidence that Camm molested her. Why was he not out looking for the "molester"? Likely because he did not believe there was one:

The medical examiner who conducted Jill's autopsy testified that there was trauma to her genital region consistent with either molestation or a straddle fall; there was no penetration of the hymen, however.

Camm v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1127, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)

The first ground requiring reversal is the State's repeated emphasis upon speculation that the defendant molested his daughter....

At trial, the State introduced autopsy evidence revealing blunt force trauma to the daughter's external genital region. Dr. Corey, a medical examiner, testified for the State that these injuries were consistent with either sexual molestation or a "straddle fall."...

...In this case, relevance of the molestation as motive was conditioned upon proof of two premises: (1) the daughter's groin injuries resulted from molestation, and (2) the defendant was the molester.... As explained, the State introduced expert testimony that the daughter's groin injuries were consistent with sexual abuse, and although some testimony suggested otherwise,... (Dr. Nichols: very low possibility of molestation), the record evidence adequately supported an inference that the daughter was molested. Yet that expressed opinion makes it no more likely that the defendant was blameworthy. Missing from this record is any competent evidence of the premise that the defendant molested the child, a hole in proof the State admits.

...The erroneous admission of speculative evidence and argument that the defendant molested his daughter, combined with the State's use of this evidence as the foundation of its case, requires that the convictions be reversed.

Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 221-225 (Ind. 2009)