1081 users online (203 members and 878 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 106
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75

    Routier case is the first for David Camm

    David Camm has chosen the Routier case as his first investigation since being appointed case coordinator for Investigating Innocence (www.facebook.com/InvestigatingInnocence).

    David Camm is a former Indiana State Trooper acquitted after three trials for the murder of his wife and two children at their Georgetown, Indiana home on September 28, 2000. Camm was in custody from October 2000 until his acquittal on October 24, 2013.

    Should be interesting to see what his thoughts on the case are.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    78
    I think David Camm is probably a little bit biased against Tom Bevel and blood spatter evidence.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,103
    TellTheTruth;10115275]
    David Camm has chosen the Routier case as his first investigation since being appointed case coordinator for Investigating Innocence (www.facebook.com/InvestigatingInnocence).

    David Camm is a former Indiana State Trooper acquitted after three trials for the murder of his wife and two children at their Georgetown, Indiana home on September 28, 2000. Camm was in custody from October 2000 until his acquittal on October 24, 2013.

    Should be interesting to see what his thoughts on the case are

    Good Lord, if this case wasn't so tragic that would be downright laughable.
    Kind of like having OJ Simpson investigate Casey Anthony's case.

    No bias there, just one murderer investigating another.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by chlban View Post
    TellTheTruth;10115275]


    Good Lord, if this case wasn't so tragic that would be downright laughable.
    Kind of like having OJ Simpson investigate Casey Anthony's case.

    No bias there, just one murderer investigating another.
    He's not a murderer though. He was, until he got found not guilty. No he is innocent.

    I have an open mind to the Routier case. One day I am convinced she is an evil narcissist, then next day I think she is an innocent on death row.

    If nothing else, her case needs to be investigated to the full.

    It's not acceptable to have Texas denying their errors and putting people to death.

    If she's guilty, lets see it proven beyond doubt.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Val830 View Post
    I think David Camm is probably a little bit biased against Tom Bevel and blood spatter evidence.
    I thought the same thing. It maybe the fact that Camm picked up on this because of the splatter on Darlie's back. He can certainly relate to that.

    Either way, he won't be doing himself any favours if it's proven Darlie did it.

    It's a pretty risky first case in my humble opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,103
    TellTheTruth;10118060]
    He's not a murderer though. He was, until he got found not guilty. No he is innocent.
    I wasn't aware you could stop being a murderer, my bad. However, OJ and Casey Anthony were also acquitted so i will grant you that Camm is every bit as "innocent" as they are.

    IIf nothing else, her case needs to be investigated to the full.
    It has been

    It's not acceptable to have Texas denying their errors and putting people to death
    .

    Actually it is. The Death penalt is legal in Texas and no one has proven there were any errors. Even if there were, with the wealth of evidence in this case,
    an error would not change the end result

    If she's guilty, lets see it proven beyond doubt.
    It has been. The murdering witch is almost exactly where she needs to be. Death row is close, but until they put the needle in her arm she won't quite
    be right where she belongs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    37,781
    I agree that an acquittal does not make one innocent...only shown to be "not guilty" based on evidence presented to jury. Deep down, I am convinced Camm is guilty. As another poster said, an acquittal sure didn't prove "innocence" in Casey Anthony's case. JMO
    Just my opinion, of course.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    We can all have our own opinions on cases but I suggest we abide by that the state decides. By that, I mean that it seems strange that Camm was found guilty by a court of law and yet yet the same court of law found him not guilty (3 times actually). It grinds me that people are happy to accept the guilty verdict but not the not guilty ones.

    He's been found not guilty. He didn't do the crime. End of.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by TellTheTruth View Post
    We can all have our own opinions on cases but I suggest we abide by that the state decides. By that, I mean that it seems strange that Camm was found guilty by a court of law and yet yet the same court of law found him not guilty (3 times actually). It grinds me that people are happy to accept the guilty verdict but not the not guilty ones.

    He's been found not guilty. He didn't do the crime. End of.
    David Camm was found guilty by two juries.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    37,781
    Quote Originally Posted by TellTheTruth View Post
    We can all have our own opinions on cases but I suggest we abide by that the state decides. By that, I mean that it seems strange that Camm was found guilty by a court of law and yet yet the same court of law found him not guilty (3 times actually). It grinds me that people are happy to accept the guilty verdict but not the not guilty ones.

    He's been found not guilty. He didn't do the crime. End of.
    Verdicts have little to do with it.
    Do you also feel Casey "did not do" the crime? Or OJ?

    Also, a verdict of NG simply means a case was not proved to the jury. Does NOT mean the person "didn't do it".
    Just my opinion, of course.


  11. #11
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,274
    Yes this is often misunderstood. The jury is basically voting on whether the state met their burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges. The jury is not answering the question, "is the defendant innocent?" Only "did the state meet their burden?"

    Guilty = State met their burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Not Guilty = State did not meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    I think you guys are missing the point here.

    The case of Camm had sufficient evidence to warrant three separate trials in a very short space of time - it was on the prosecutor (Henderson) who seemed hell bent on getting Camm convicted. A down right rejection of being wrong (which isn't really new in America now is it).

    Camm was finally found to be innocent of the crime he was said to have committed.

    I don't live in America, so excuse me of my ignorance, but are people still perceived to be guilty even after they've been found to be innocent?

    That sound rather odd.

  13. #13
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,274
    The case of Camm had sufficient evidence to warrant three separate trials in a very short space of time
    Short space of time = 13 years? That's the amount of time in total that Camm was in prison.

    Camm was finally found to be innocent of the crime he was said to have committed.
    That's false. You are not understanding the legal language and legal concepts of the U.S. One can be only declared by a jury "guilty" or "not guilty," and that's it. There is no declaration of "innocent" by a jury, ever. And the reason is that absolute innocence (i.e. factual innocence) is not something any jury can know for certain. This is an important distinction. However, the US Constitution protects defendants from being tried twice for the same crime and once a "not guilty" verdict is reached, that's it, game over. The person can never again be tried by the state for that same crime.

    There are many people who a jury acquits with a "not guilty" verdict (like OJ Simpson) but that doesn't mean the person did not actually commit the crime. It means the state, who always has the burden of proof in every criminal case, did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to that jury. And the reverse is true as well--there have been people who were actually innocent and yet convicted by their jury. Fortunately, most of the time, juries get it right.

    In the Camm case 2 different juries, under 2 different prosecutors, years apart, came to the same conclusion -- guilty. The convictions in each of those two cases were ultimately overturned on appeal. In the final and 3rd trial, evidence that was available to the juries in the first 2 trials was not part of the last trial (due to defense measures on appeal and motions), and a 3rd jury made a different decision.

    Many people believe Camm is factually innocent. And many people believe Camm was involved or committed the murders himself and now managed to get away with it. But Camm is free and that's that. He could still be held responsible in a U.S. civil court and he is facing that in the future. But his penalty there would be financial, not imprisonment, and civil cases are brought forth by private parties, not the government.

    And...

    In Darlie's case, there has not been any overturn on appeal of her conviction. It's been 15+ years now and Darlie's appellate defense attorneys have taken her case through the various courts. She's running out of options for appeals.
    Last edited by Madeleine74; 01-11-2014 at 09:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Short space of time = 13 years? That's the amount of time in total that Camm was in prison.


    You are not understanding the legal language and legal concepts of the U.S. One can be only declared by a jury "guilty" or "not guilty," and that's it. There is no declaration of "innocent" by a jury, ever. And the reason is that absolute innocence (i.e. factual innocence) is not something any jury can know for certain. Camm was not found to be "innocent" of the crime. This is an important distinction. However, the US Constitution protects defendants from being tried twice for the same crime and once a "not guilty" verdict is reached, that's it, game over. The person can never again be tried by the state for that same crime.

    There are many people who a jury acquits with a "not guilty" verdict (like OJ Simpson) but that doesn't mean the person did not actually commit the crime. It means the state (who always has the burden of proof in every criminal case) did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to that jury. And the reverse is true as well--there have been people who were actually innocent and yet convicted by their jury. Fortunately, most of the time, juries get it right.

    In the Camm case 2 different juries, under 2 different prosecutors, years apart, came to the same conclusion -- guilty. The convictions in each of those two cases were ultimately overturned on appeal. In the final and 3rd trial, evidence that was available to the juries in the first 2 trials was not part of the last trial (due to defense measures on appeal and motions), and the jury made a different decision.

    Many people believe Camm is factually innocent. And many people believe Camm was involved or committed the murders himself.
    Understood - however my point is that without the hedonistic attitude of Henderson, Camm would have walked free after the first appeal.

    My point remains. If someone is found to be innocent of a crime (not guilty) then why are they still liable to be persecuted as they seem to be in America?

  15. #15
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,274
    without the hedonistic attitude of Henderson, Camm would have walked free after the first appeal
    "hedonistic attitude?" What a crock. There's either enough evidence or not enough evidence. In the Camm case there was enough evidence to take the case forward. That doesn't mean an outcome is guaranteed.

    Once again,

    Not Guilty /= "innocent"

    And with that I'm done debating this. Either an unwillingness or an inability to understand basic legal concepts nets the same results.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. NOT GUILTY IN - Kimberly Camm, 35, & 2 children murdered, Georgetown, 28 Sept 2000
    By smellsarat in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 537
    Last Post: 02-20-2017, 11:38 AM
  2. Hi new to this forum.....my thoughts on the Routier case
    By misspriss26 in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 03:06 PM
  3. A novelist's take on the Routier case.
    By JimPence in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-26-2005, 09:30 AM
  4. The Case Of Darlie Routier!!
    By CW in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 09:51 AM

Tags for this Thread