EIGHT DROPS of BLOOD

Several members of the Indiana State Police testified that they believed David Camm was guilty when they first arrived at the crime scene.  As David Camm sobbed nearby, one trooper said to another, "He did this, didn't he?"

 

Police are human beings, and like the rest of us , they rely on previous experience to inform them of current and future events.  More than 80 percent of all murders are committed by someone familiar with the victim.  So, while it was human nature to assume that the husband and father of the victims was the prime suspect, common sense and good police work should tell you when that initial hunch is wrong.  

 

As more and more evidence mounted that David Camm was playing basketball at the time his family was shot, the police should have reexamined their initial conclusions.  The problem was that by the time the police established the time of death, they had already arrested David Camm for the murders.  The arrest was based on the novice opinions of an office assistant masquerading as a forensics expert.  When the case started falling apart, police and prosecutors did whatever they could to keep David Camm in jail.  

 

Leads were not pursued.  Evidence was ignored, and the theory of the crime evolved into something that was an affront to common sense.  

 

Why was there an extra large gray sweatshirt lying on the garage floor next to the victims that didn't belong to anyone in the family?  Why was the word "BACKBONE" written on the collar?

 

Where was the murder weapon?

 

Why were Kim Camm's shoes placed neatly on top of her car?

 

How could 11 men be mistaken about whether David Camm was playing basketball with them at the time determined to be the time of death of Kim, Brad, and Jill?  

 

Read Eight Drops of Blood to find the answers to these questions and many, many more.