Follow the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
Tweets from the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
NEW ALBANY, Ind. (WDRB) -- More than a decade since the Indiana man accused of killing his wife and children received his first trial, those involved in past proceedings are weighing in on the third trial.
For former Floyd County Prosecutor, Stan Faith, Camm's involvement in his family's murder is unquestionable. "Well obviously I think he did it," said Faith. In 2002, Faith was able to present a case that convinced a jury of Camm's guilt. Despite the court of appeals overturning that conviction, he stands by his case. "The evidence that I know of says he is guilty of murder. I have no reason to believe anything else."
But according to a man who played a key role in the Indiana Supreme Court's overturning of the second trial, the prosecution grasped at unsubstantial evidence and testimony.
Professor Emeritus at the Indiana School of Law Tom Schornhorst prepared an amicus curiae that suggested that the prosecution presented a claim that had no evidence. He told a judge that the prosecution's claim that Camm had molested his daughter was without evidence and hence should have never been presented.
The professor of evidence law even thinks Charles Boney's recent testimony won't play a large role in the jury's decision due to Boney's constantly changing story. He says a guilty conviction will have to come from physical evidence. " I think the jury is likely to discount his testimony, and it is going to be the scientific evidence that will make or break this case."
Faith says a conviction is dependent on blood spatter. "If it was high velocity impact spatter he was there at the time, and if it was transfer, you can't say where he was at the time," he said.
Despite their different views of Camm's involvement, both players can agree that it may be a blood stained t-shirt that sways the jury's ultimate decision.