Routier case is the first for David Camm

Discussion in 'Darlie Routier' started by TellTheTruth, Jan 9, 2014.

  1. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. Loading...


  3. Val830

    Val830 New Member

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think David Camm is probably a little bit biased against Tom Bevel and blood spatter evidence.
     
  4. chlban

    chlban Active Member

    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.:scared:
     
  5. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. chlban

    chlban Active Member

    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    36
    TellTheTruth;10118060]
    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.

    It has been

    .

    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

    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.
     
  8. cluciano63

    cluciano63 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    37,936
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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
     
  9. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Paysee

    Paysee New Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    David Camm was found guilty by two juries.
     
  11. cluciano63

    cluciano63 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    37,936
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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".
     
  12. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  13. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Short space of time = 13 years? That's the amount of time in total that Camm was in prison.

    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.
     
  15. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  16. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "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.
     
  17. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I respectfully disagree.
    Henderson falsely attributed sexual abuse to Camm in respect to Camm's daughter (Jill). Henderson also signed a pretty lucrative book deal in the interim.

    Henderson isn't the type of guy I'd want to prove guilt, even if Camm was guilty (which he isn't).
     
  18. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The M.E. who did Jill's autopsy stated that in her medical opinion Jill Camm had injuries consistent with sexual assault and in her opinion these injuries occurred within the 24 hr period prior to Jill's murder.

    Those facts do not change just because some defense attorneys were able to successfully argue that there's no conclusive link to Camm and got the evidence excluded. And Camm's defense is not that there was no sexual assault on Jill -- only that no link could be proven to Camm himself and therefore it would be in error for the state to try and link that evidence to him.

    Jill Camm had vaginal injuries. And that fact doesn't change regardless of what legal maneuverings accomplished. Thus, the 3rd jury did not have all the facts about one of the victim's bodies. And a body is considered evidence.
     
  19. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you saying Camm over Charles Boney committed those injuries?
     
  20. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    But enough about David Camm's case.

    Will David Camm be able to bring any light to Darlie Routier's case?

    I say no, he won't.

    First, because in 15 years no one has been able to prove anything different and there have been hundreds of people studying the case, along with many defense attorneys.

    Second, because the only evidence that exists in that house is evidence that points to Darlie Routier and an inside job. There is no evidence of an intruder. No footprints, no hand prints, no blood, no fibers, no external weapon, no robbery, no proof of sexual assault, and the scene simply doesn't match the story (or should I say multiple stories) told by the killer.
     
  21. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But it's not one of those cases that is concrete in proof and beyond reasonable doubt.
    There are far too many elements that ignite the intrigue of those viewing the case - such as Darin's participation (if any).

    If you were to stage an intruder murder, would you do it in that way? That's what I ask myself.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice