Video Interviews of David Camm
David Camm was interviewed, interrogated and spoke freely with many different policemen and investigators before his arrest and even after his arrest voluntarily gave information to the Indiana State Police. Official police reports were generated eight times, and that doesn't include numerous other occasions when he spoke with the police which were not made a part of any official report.
The information that he provided was in response to questions at the crime scene, during "official" tape-recorded interviews and interrogations at the State Police post in Sellersburg, at the Floyd County Hospital where a "suspect" kit was being obtained from him, over the telephone during tape-recorded conversations with him, in an interview with one of the investigators in the Floyd County Jail after his arrest (at his request) and in a letter written by him to the Superintendent of the State Police.
At no time did Dave refuse to answer any questions nor did he seek the advice of an attorney or demand to see an attorney until after he was arrested. Even then, and over a week after his arrest, he still voluntarily met with Detective Darrell Gibson. In short, David Camm answered every question put to him.
During the many hours that Dave met with the many different investigators, many lies were told. Those lies weren't his, however, but were told to him by some of the investigators. That isn't speculation or assumption but rather the acknowledgement of those investigators under oath that they in fact lied to him and/or mislead him in an effort to have him contradict himself, make admissions or else just simply to keep him talking.
Detective Mickey Neal, for example, told Dave that all of the basketball players had been interviewed and that they all said that Dave was wearing a sweatshirt while he was playing ball. Dave denied that he was wearing a sweatshirt. In fact, none of the basketball players ever said anything about Dave wearing a sweatshirt and at the time Neal told that lie to Dave not all of the basketball players had been interviewed.
Dave was also told that people (more than one) in the Camm neighborhood had heard gunfire-like sounds. That wasn't true. No one heard gunshots or what they thought might have been gunshots.
Dave was further asked why people saw him on the back deck of his house the night his family was murdered. He wasn't on the back deck and told the investigators that. They asked him why he was in the laundry room that night. He responded that he hadn't been in the laundry room.
The lies and misrepresentations told to Dave were all in an attempt to get him to confess to the murders or at least to admit to something that would incriminate him. He didn't confess to a crime he didn't commit and he also didn't admit to anything that wasn't accurate.
Later, when the many different people who had spoken with or interviewed David Camm were asked to articulate the lies that Dave had told them during those interviews, the response was that he had lied when he denied killing his family. There was nothing specifically delineated about anything that Dave said which anyone claimed was a lie.
The police claimed that his one and only lie was when Dave claimed he had not killed his family. The justifications that they used at the time to support their contention that he lied were delineated in a probable cause affidavit that not only had no probable cause but which contained misrepresentations, errors, faulty speculation and outright distortions. The result is that there was no foundation to base their claims that he lied.
A very basic tenet of interviewing is to attempt to secure as complete a story from a witness or a suspect as possible, to include the names of other people who can corroborate or verify the story as well as records such as ATM or store receipts, telephone bills, or other records, which will also verify one's story. Conversely, if a story cannot he corroborated or verified, or more egregiously, is refuted by other witnesses or documents, then the witness or suspect may be lying.
(Note: As noted previously, a timeline may be invaluable in helping to determine the reliability of a person's story. Individuals with whom a person spoke, telephone records, store receipts, and other records can not only help to determine the whereabouts of a person, but also the opportunity to commit a crime. The timeline for Dave on September 28, 2000 wasn't completed and didn't even include the basketball players with whom he played during the evening of September 28th. The police didn't even attempt to construct a timeline for Charles Boney; they didn't even conduct basic interviews of the critical alibi witnesses he claimed he had for the evening of the murders.)
There was another issue with Dave answering questions, however, and according to the police, that was his strange demeanor during the many hours that he spoke with the police and with others. It was claimed that his demeanor wasn't appropriate or that he "didn't act right." Police officers, after all, are assumed to be experts in "reading" a person and they can use their experience and expertise to determine if a person answers questions in the "right" manner.
Probably one of the most powerful representations of a person "not acting right" was Susan Smith. Susan Smith was the South Carolina mother of two little boys who were left in the family car by her that she then steered into a lake where they both drowned. During nationally televised pleas for help, Susan Smith came across to many observers as a person who wasn't acting right. Her sadness and crying didn't seem genuine and when she was later arrested for the murder of her children many people weren't surprised.
While many people congratulated themselves for correctly reading her, the police were doing more than just analyzing her behavior. They secured a very detailed story from her and that story didn't fit the evidence or the facts of the case. Her improbable story wasn't corroborated, but rather was contradicted by a detailed investigation of her story and her background. When confronted with the issues in her story, she initially changed her story, eventually provided at least three different stories, and also failed polygraph examinations which asked her the question, 'Do you know where your children are?
Smith's recent past also provided an insight into a possible motive for killing her children. She had only recently, before the disappearance of her children and while separated from her husband, bemoaned the fact that her new lover wouldn't marry her because she had children. Additionally, she also had been suicidal for years.
When Smith responded to the possibility that she had harmed her children, she said that her children "were her life." Speaking of her children, who were still missing, in the past tense, was significant. That's also appreciably more than odd or strange demeanor.
While Smith's comments lead the police to certainly suspect her of killing her children, they nonetheless did the work they needed to do in order to not only solve the case but to prove the case. Susan Smith did betray her secret by her public persona and her comments, but it was a police investigation that was fundamental and solid that resulted in the charges being brought against her.
There are potential major flaws in engaging in behavioral symptom analysis, which is the more correct investigative term for "reading a person" The first is that a person's strange behavior, if indeed it is that, may be due to something entirely different than having a guilty mind. "Not acting right" can and is normal for a person who is emotionally affected by a crime and certainly finding your entire family slaughtered is the epitome of emotional distress.
Indeed, what can be more distressful than finding your family murdered? Add to that a profound lack of sleep, being on physician-prescribed medication (for helping to induce sleep but wasn't working) and then engaging in shopping for caskets and burial sites for your wife and children. Dave Camm was probably functioning on pure adrenaline at the time.
The murders of Kim, Brad, and Jill not only affected David Camm and his immediate family but also affected an entire community. The reaction by many people in the Louisville metropolitan area was one of profound shock ("Why would anyone murder two little defenseless children?"), denial ('That can't happen here.") and anger ("If I caught the bastard who did it, I'd kill him."). If such diverse human reactions can be felt by the collective community, can't they also be felt by the father and husband?
Even Sammy Sarkisian, the Sellersburg Evidence Technician, told Dave that he was "soup silly" after having very little sleep for three days. Dave, who was under medication and whose family had been slaughtered, however, wasn't acting right and his responses were considered "odd" or not that of a normal person according to some police personnel.
The second flaw in "reading people" is that contrary to what many believe, police are often not skilled in determining what is or isn't appropriate behavior, particularly in a situation that literally no one has previously experienced, even as a bystander.
Shortly after Trooper Josh Banet arrived at the Camm residence, Dave began striking the tailgate of his truck with his balled-up fist and screaming a primeval scream and then throwing himself on the ground. Was that normal? Trooper Banet, however, told Sam and Nelson Lockhart to let him "get it out of his system." Banet at least understood Dave's grief but how does one get the murders of your wife and children "out of your system?"
Prior to Dave going to the Sellersburg State Police Post in the early morning hours of Friday, September 29th, some officers found it strange that he didn't want to leave his dead family in the garage before he was interviewed at the ISP post. Was that strange? What did that mean? Some thought that Dave was trying to buy time in order to get his story straight. Perhaps the truthful answer is also the simplest: Dave was in shock and didn't want to leave his family even though they were dead.
Some officers also thought that Dave's behavior was unusual when, after some coaxing, he agreed to go to the ISP post only in the company of one particular officer. They thought that Dave wanted to be able to be with a friend who wouldn't ask him probative questions and he would therefore be put on a spot and have to answer those questions. That one particular officer, however, in addition to being a friend, had himself lost a child in an earlier tragedy. Again, perhaps the truthful answer is also the simplest: Dave wanted to be in the company of a close friend.
Lieutenant James Biddle, who was called by Dave at the State Police post after Dave became upset and angry when Biddle told Dave that, "I know how you feel" (and at the time that he wasn't allowed to pick out his family's burial clothes and after seeing the trash dumped on his front lawn) testified under oath that Dave's crying was "imitation" crying. That's a unique ability to determine over the telephone if crying is "imitation."
Shock, grief, denial and anger are all part of a person's emotional response, and indeed, a person's emotional defense mechanisms in dealing with egregious emotional distress. Dave experienced all of those emotions and at a time when he was also being tasked (and rightfully so) by the police to recall as many details as possible about literally everything and then being asked to come up with a suspect list.
When Dave did give the police the names of a few people who had either threatened him while he was a Trooper or others who might possibly harbor a grudge against him, he was later accused of trying to lead the police astray and away from him as the suspect. It's difficult to comprehend the logic behind such an argument, particularly when the police were repeatedly asking Dave for any ideas as to who might have been responsible and he was being responsive to their questions.
Anyone who had their family slaughtered would obviously try and figure out who was responsible and the motive behind the crime. If Dave didn't engage in such thinking, he would be the truly odd and unusual person and not someone who was desperately trying to figure out a crime that seemingly had no logic or rationale behind it.
And then, after two days of such tumult and emotion, add to all of that the fact that the police are suspecting you of the crime (not to mention that he became a suspect based upon faulty evidence). How does one react? How are you supposed to act?
When you are confronted with the incomprehensible conclusion that you are the suspect, what do you then do? What do you do to respond to that? Whatever you do, whatever you say and how you say it will be examined in minute detail and preconceived beliefs will then be reinforced by a person's supposed ability to "read" behavior and responses.
One of the prosecution's main points about Dave making unusual comments was at the Floyd County Hospital on Saturday, September 30th. Dave had been asked earlier in the day to provide a "suspect kit". His initial reaction was anger. Was that a normal reaction? As a former police officer, he knew that the "suspect kit" was just that: he was being asked to provide blood and pubic hair samples because he was now a suspect.
Even though Dave was very frustrated with the police, he did agree, however, to meet Detectives Clemons and Gibson at the hospital and there he voluntarily provided the body standards asked of him. At the time, he told both of the detectives that providing the items was something you had to do if "you kill your wife and kids." Clemons later claimed that was a confession.
Gibson, who acknowledged that providing a suspect kit was "humiliating" (a female nurse whom Dave knew was also present and securing the blood) viewed the comment not as a confession, but rather stated that it was inappropriate.
(Note: If Clemons truly deemed it to be a confession, one should then ask if it was included in the probable cause affidavit signed the next day by Clemons. It wasn't, but the affidavit did include Clemons observing a mop in a bucket in the laundry room of the Camm house. Putting that in perspective, Clemons obviously believed that the mop and the bucket and not the "confession" were more important.)
Dave, now fully aware that he was being considered a suspect after his treatment earlier in the day by his former colleagues and being tasked to provide a suspect kit, as well as after the confrontation with Biddle, was then told that an expert was in town.
A very frustrated Dave Camm who knew that the police were not attempting to find the true killer of his family (even though he was told repeatedly the next afternoon that the police were doing everything possible) sarcastically told Gibson and Clemons if the expert caused him to be arrested that he would come after the two of them.
Clemons claimed that he was frightened and later claimed that he wanted his wife to take their kids and to leave town. Gibson noted that the expression that Dave had at the time he made that comment was an expression that he had seen previously and that he didn't feel threatened.
Dave also said that his wife and kids were looking down from heaven and shaking their heads. That comment perhaps puts more perspective into his other comments than Clemons' assertions that Dave confessed and was threatening.
The conclusion that Dave was guilty was reached within 48 hours of the crimes and was based upon several factors. First, he was the surviving father and husband. Second, an "expert" provided opinions for which he wasn't qualified and which have since been either refuted entirely or discounted by other experts. Next, the lead detective came to faulty conclusions about the crime scene and the timing of the murders. Add to that the twisting of the medical examiner's words about injuries to Jill's genitalia as coming from "non-specific blunt force trauma" to a "recent tear in the vaginal area consistent with sexual intercourse" and it's very easy to see that the next step is to buttress the conclusion by claiming odd or strange behavior on the part of the suspect.
After reaching the conclusion, it is only human nature that people will then judge the actions of a suspect and begin to see strange or odd behavior that is attributable to committing the crime rather than to other reasons.
The first interview of Dave on September 29th wasn't videotaped by the ISP. Their video in the interrogation room wasn't working. That interview was audio taped as was his initial telephone call to the ISP after finding his family murdered, his telephone call to Lt. Biddle and his telephone call to Sergeant Sarkisian. The only time Dave was videotaped was during the final interrogation on October 1st.
The videotape quality is poor and the volume is sometimes weak. Prior to looking at the video clips, remember what David Camm had gone through in the previous three days: David Camm:
- Discovered his wife and family slaughtered.
- Endured having to pick out caskets, burial sites, and burial clothing for his family.
- Was treated as a suspect.
- Was humiliated by having to give blood and pubic hair samples.
- Had his former friends and colleagues turn against him.
- Saw his residence trashed by the very people who were supposed to be helping him.
- Had little sleep.
- Was on sleep medication which wasn't working.
- Was lied to repeatedly by people he thought were his friends.
- Was confronted that he had shot and killed his family.
- Was told that his precious daughter had been molested.
- Had to relive the horrific scene innumerable times and had to demonstrate giving CPR to his son.
Darrell Gibson even admitted during Dave's interrogation, "This is the worst damn thing I've ever had to deal with". If it was the worst thing that Gibson ever had to deal with, if Sammy Sarkisian was "soup silly" and the entire community was outraged, shocked, in denial and vengeful, then one can only imagine how Dave was dealing with the worst nightmare anyone could possibly have.
These video clips deal with the following, and other, content:
- You tried to clean this up; What about bleach; No, no, no, no, no...I didn't clean up shit; going on the facts left at the scene"
- High velocity blood splatter; Sweatshirt Lie; You're wrong,. wrong, wrong...this is not right
- (re: green jacket) I didn't clean anything up; I didn't move anything
- There is high velocity blood spray; you're way off base; Jill was sexuaIly molested; you're so wrong
- My life was perfect; my wife loved me through thick and thin; I worshipped my children
- There is a perverted sick individual; we're going to be thorough; if something points to someone else; this is a man who does this for a living; scientific study; he's re-known as far as his expertise; it's not something he started to do yesterday
- Did somebody rape my little girl? perverted motherfucker that's done this to my family
- I wasn't on the deck; explain why you were in the laundry room; I don't understand; the problem is "so much of the evidence"
- Things were good; I've got faith in you; you'll solve it
- Somebody out there who has done this; what do we do when we've got experts; the evidence shows different; I'm doing the best can; your time is off
- I've tried to do my best; I've been as honest as l possibly can; my wife and my kids are looking down; I didn't do it
- This is wrong; if you arrest me, you'll be putting an innocent person in jail
- You're going to get so focused on me
- During the CPR, I'll live with this; I didn't do this
What were the consistencies in the interrogation?
The detectives were consistent in telling Dave that they were basing their confrontation of him on the "facts" and the "evidence" and that the experts were basing their results on scientific study and that the expert was renowned. Amazingly enough, Detective Neal told Dave that the expert (Stites) didn't just start (analyzing blood) the day before. In fact, the day before was the first blood stain opinion that he had ever independently rendered.
With David Camm, he never wavered in his adamant and incessant denials that that he killed his wife and children. He repeatedly told the detectives that they were "wrong, wrong, wrong" and that there was a perverted and sick individual still on the loose. He consistently urged them to get on the right track and to find the right person. Their sights had been irrevocably set on Dave, however, and he was arrested at the conclusion of his last interrogation.
David Camm has never wavered about his innocence. He has never wavered because he is an innocent person.
|
