Original Blood Spatter "Expert"

In a previous murder case in Floyd County, Prosecutor Stanley Faith had utilized the services of Rodney Englert, a Portland, Oregon blood stain pattern analyst (BSPA). Englert had spent a career in law enforcement, first in the Los Angeles area and then as a Sheriff's Deputy in Oregon. Along the way he took a BSPA course from the acknowledged "grandfather" of blood stain interpretation, Dr. Herbert MacDonell, founder of the Bloodstain Evidence Institute in Corning, New York. MacDonell is acknowledged as the foremost pioneer in analyzing blood patterns and has been internationally acclaimed for over five decades for his forensic expertise. After Englert took his first course from MacDonnell, he began a very lucrative career as an analyst of blood stains, almost always for the prosecution.

(Note: On November 7, 2005, Englert filed a civil suit against MacDonell and five other BSPA experts claiming that he was defamed by their comments about him. Written comments allegedly attributed to MacDonell, as claimed in Englert's civil suit, contained the following: "(Englert) is a forensic whore;" "(Englert) is a liar-for-hire;" "(Englert) is dishonest and should not be trusted.")

It is important to note that the analysis of blood stains is just that. It is an art or analysis and therefore an interpretation by one who is supposedly an expert in the field. All the experts don't necessary see the same thing, for as one BSPA expert commented, "It's like looking at clouds. We all see something different."

The interpretation of blood stains is totally unlike matching DNA profiles which have an astronomical probability of accuracy, sometimes as high as two billion or more to one. The individual who can match known with unknown DNA profiles is a scientist who is relying not only on scientific principles but also on established genetic absolutes.

The analysis of blood stains is also totally unlike matching fingerprints. No two fingerprints are identical and when an unknown print is matched with a known print, it is absolute. There is no need to parade three, four, five or more fingerprint experts in front of a jury in order to convince them by the numbers of experts that two fingerprints are identical.

According to some investigators Prosecutor had taken over control of the investigation of the Camm murders. Faith knew that there was blood at the crime scene and also on the clothing of Dave Camm. He also was pleased that Rod Englert had previously helped secure a conviction for him in a case that rested heavily upon the interpretation of blood stains.

Although the ISP had a trained BSPA in Sergeant Dean Marks, he wasn't called, and it was almost by accident that he even observed the photographs of Dave's T-Shirt almost two weeks after Dave's arrest. Sergeant Marks was on the payroll of the ISP and therefore wouldn't cost the Floyd County taxpayer the $350.00 per hour that Englert charged.

Faith didn't call for Marks on September 29th but called for a man who had previously helped him obtain a conviction. That person was Rod Englert. It was also Faith, representing the taxpayers of Floyd County, who would fund what would turn out to be the enormous expense of not only that expert but later others.

(Note: The billings by Robert Stites and Rodney Englert have exceeded $280,000 to date; a third trial will certainly raise that figure. A total of ten BSPA experts have been consulted and have either been deposed and/or testified, resulting in costs to the taxpayers of Floyd County exceeding $504,000; the costs associated with Dean Marks have totaled $176.96.)

In his conversation with Faith, Englert told him that he was at a convention in Arizona and that he personally couldn't help in the investigation. He did have a solution for Faith, however. His young associate and protégé, Robert Stites, was available. Stites only cost $250.00 per hour. Faith got a bargain when he agreed that Stites would be acceptable.

Stites was alerted by Englert and he made immediate plans to fly to Louisville. He traveled via first class, of course, inasmuch as Englert and he rarely traveled by coach or business class. The taxpayers of Floyd County also paid for Stites' and later Englert's first class travel.

Rob Stites is the son of a former partner of Englert's and is himself a former police officer, having served two years in a small Oregon town. By most accounts, Stites is a likeable person and ingratiated himself with almost all of the officers involved in the Camm investigation after arriving in Louisville on Saturday, September 30th.

After he arrived in Louisville, Stites was told that Dave was "the suspect." Apparently the fact that Dave, as the surviving father and husband, and the belief that Jill had been sexually molested had been enough to now cast him as being "the suspect." Only later did Stites also reveal that he was told some additional information that was very significant.

Stites later was under oath and dropped a bombshell. He testified that at the time of his examination of Dave's T-shirt, he was told that the shirt was that of the shooter. Stites testified that he was told that the shirt belonged to the shooter. And who told him that? He thought it was Stan Faith.

The outside expert was told that the T-shirt which was Dave's T-shirt also belonged to the shooter. Less than 36 hours after the murders, a determination had already been made that Dave was the shooter, even though there was not a shred of evidence to support that. Additionally, most investigators wouldn't tell an expert what he would expect to find in order to have an expectation of independent analysis. The shooter comment certainly tainted any such expectation, however.

Nonetheless, at the Camm residence Stites was accepted at the crime scene as the expert he was held out to be. Indeed, Sammy Sarkisian referred to Stites as the "expert from Oregon" and Mickey Neal later told Dave that Stites was a "man who does this for a living" and also that he was "renowned as far as his expertise." Neal also added, prophetically, "This is not something he just started to do yesterday" when he confronted Dave on October 1st about Stites' expert findings.

While Stites was at the crime scene, so was Evidence Technician Jim Niemeyer. Niemeyer was also told that Stites was a blood spatter expert and saw firsthand that Stites was taking control of the crime scene on that Saturday. Also at the crime scene were the prosecutor's investigators who were there at Stan Faith's direction.

Niemeyer didn't particularly care for the fact that Prosecutor Faith was taking control of the crime scene, but as he later testified, he "assumed that it was his (Faith's) procedure." He also added that he had never seen an outside expert brought in to a case as quickly as Stites.

Niemeyer also made an astute statement during Dave's second trial. Niemeyer, as an Evidence Technician, only had the 40 hour introductory, elementary course on blood stain pattern interpretation. He didn't hold himself out to be any type of analyst and didn't engage in providing any blood stain interpretation. Why? Because, Niemeyer explained, to do so would be "enough to make me dangerous." Niemeyer knew the limits of his expertise and it didn't include blood stain interpretation.

Nonetheless, Stites quickly took center stage and began taking a voluminous amount of photographs. One such photograph captured the blood and the grass on the garage floor. It also captured his unprotected shoe standing on the garage floor and adjacent to the blood. The ISP evidence personnel had been wearing protective booties in the garage but Mr. Stites apparently thought they weren't needed for his shoes.

Stites was also afforded the opportunity to view the bodies of Kim, Brad and Jill and to take numerous photographs of the three victims at the Kentucky Medical Examiner's office. In fact, Stites spent three hours with the bodies.

The fact that Stites was allowed to observe the wounds to the bodies was to be expected, however, inasmuch as Stites was also a crime scene re-constructionist. It would be important for such an expert to be able to view the bodies and their injuries and to begin to formulate educated and experienced opinions about the condition of the bodies in relation to where and how they were found at the crime scene.

Among the other photographs secured by Stites at the Camm residence were of the laundry room where a mop was observed in a bucket in the sink and also of the back deck. Mr. Stites was going to use his crime scene re-constructionist expertise in the house, the laundry room and on the back deck. Those areas didn't have any blood stains to examine or analyze and therefore he would need to draw upon his other expertise of being a crime scene re-constructionist.

In fact, Rob Stites would provide the answers to a lot of critical questions that were perplexing to the ISP detectives and his findings would be a large part of the probable cause affidavit filed by Clemons. That probable cause affidavit was written less than 36 hours after Stites' arrival.

At the ISP post in Sellersburg, Stites, in front of two evidence technicians and two prosecutor investigators, also examined and took photographs of Dave's gym shorts and T-shirt that he had worn while playing basketball and which he was wearing when he discovered his murdered family.

High Velocity Impact Spray or HVIS is a term used in blood stain interpretation. HVIS is also commonly called blowback or spatter and results when a high speed object, such as a bullet, strikes a person and blood is literally blown back (or forward) to the source of the object or bullet. If a person is holding a gun, for example, the blowback could be expected to be deposited on the shooter if he or she is within a certain distance of the victim.

Theoretically the HVIS normally consists of droplets that somewhat resemble a three-dimensional conical or cone shape, like that of paint from a spray can. The droplets become smaller in size or mist-like the farther they travel from the victim. The spray or mist also becomes more widely dispersed the farther it travels from the source of the blood until it reaches a certain distance wherein no misting will fall on the shooter or other objects.

Stites had been with Englert on another case in Michigan just weeks before the Camm case and Englert had rendered an opinion that the blood that he had observed on an article of clothing was the result of HVIS. Stites, after examining Dave's T-shirt, offered the opinion that the blood on his T-shirt was also HVIS and called Englert on the phone to consult with him.

According to Englert's later testimony in Dave's first trial, he also confirmed that Stites called him on the phone, telling him that after he had arrived in New Albany that he had gone to "many different places and the processing he was doing." Englert talked of a 30 minute telephone call that he and Stites had after Stites had arrived in New Albany wherein "we went over everything that he had done."

Englert also confirmed that they had a later conversation and that Stites told him that Dave's shirt had the same pattern of high velocity mist and the same color as the shirt in Michigan. When Englert asked Stites if he had advised Faith, Stites responded that "Stan knows everything as well as the investigators."

When Faith in the first Camm trial asked Englert if Stites was basing his HVIS opinion on the case in Michigan, Englert responded, "Well, not only that, his experience and knowledge and having experience in many other cases also, uh, it was based upon that."

Englert vouched for Stites as having experience and knowledge in many other cases. Stites also later testified that his mentor, Rod Englert complimented him during the call for doing a "good job." Stites was pleased at the compliment.

It is interesting that Sergeant Mickey Neal spoke with Stites after Stites examined Dave's T-shirt and after his proclamation that the blood was HVIS. Neal wanted to know how confident that Stites was about the stains on the lower left edge being HVIS. Stites told Neal that he was 90-95% certain. Neal told him that wasn't good enough.

Stites left Neal, went into the ISP laboratory and made what Neal thought was a phone call. After coming out of the lab, he told Neal that he was 100% certain that the stains were HVIS. Neal commented later that he was then "more comfortable" with Stites' opinion.

At that time, however, there had been no DNA testing of Dave's clothing and therefore the source of the blood on his T-shirt was unidentified. Dave had acknowledged, of course, carrying Brad from the Bronco and so the blood which had soaked his hoodie must have been on Dave's shirt.

Brad's blood on Dave's shirt was contact or transferred blood, however, and the blood that Stites saw was HVIS. If the HVIS that Stites saw on Dave's shirt wasn't Brad's blood, whose blood could it have been?

An answer lay in the fact that Stites had also observed what he thought was blood on the overhead garage door in the vacant bay. The dark dots and misting on the interior of the door contained what appeared to be HVIS, according to Stites. He also claimed that the stains had directionality and high energy, two indications of HVIS.

Stites, the blood expert, had failed to bring with him in his evidence kit any phenolphthalein, a chemical that is used to perform a presumptive test for the presence of blood. Stites therefore didn't presumptively test the suspected blood on the interior of the garage door, however, but rather instructed the ISP technicians to disassemble the door, which they did, and to retain it as evidence, which they also did. The expert was in charge of the crime scene.

The garage door was incredibly important to their case against David Camm as Sergeant Clemons later explained to Sam Lockhart within days after Dave's arrest. Clemons told Lockhart that the interior of the door not only had blood stains, but a silhouette of David could be seen outlined on the door. According to Clemons, Dave's body had received the blowback of the blood and had stopped all but the outline of the blood from reaching the door.

The only victim outside the Bronco, of course, was Kim. That meant that Stites had determined that the blowback on the garage door had to have come from Kim and therefore the blood on Dave's T-shirt and on the interior of the garage door had to have been her blood as well. The case was coming together.

Clemons also later testified that the blood flow from Kim had changed significantly and quickly. Stites had an answer for that, too, however, and it was his considered opinion, as a crime scene re-constructionist, that something had been added to the blood flow. That something, according to the probable cause affidavit, was "water and a cleaning substance."

Why was something added to the blood flow? The answer was that the perpetrator was manipulating the crime scene. What other evidence was supportive of that manipulation? The cleaning substance that was used was "thrown over the back deck of (the Camm residence) also leaving a trail from the garage area, along with a transfer of blood on the house."

As noted also, Stites had noted that there was a mop in a bucket in the laundry room. That bucket was presumably the source of the cleaning substance added to the blood flow and also to the crime scene. Clemons himself also noted the smell of bleach in the laundry room as he and Stites walked through the house.

Stites also noted that a septic cleanout in the rear of the house also had red spots, and a phenolphthalein test was positive, indicating to him that blood had been deposited on the cleanout and that something, possibly the murder weapon, had been dropped in the cleanout. As a result of his observation, the septic lid was removed and the cesspool was searched.

No weapon was discovered in the septic tank but two condoms, apparently recent additions to the tank were discovered. David and Kim Camm didn't use condoms. Did that mean that someone had been in the house? Was that someone who could have gotten sexually excited over articles of clothing? Did the perpetrator actually take Kim into the house and sexually assault her while using a condom and also while a partner kept the kids in the Bronco?

If the condoms, which were readily visible to the investigating personnel, were relatively recent additions to the septic tank they could possibly be tested for semen or DNA depending on their condition. The condoms, although collected for evidence, were never tested for DNA and the prosecution and police claimed they simply disappeared. They have never been found.

Stites also observed in the master bedroom a shower curtain which had a reddish-brown color. According to Niemeyer, he conducted a presumptive test for blood on one of the stains which was negative. That shower curtain disappeared, however, and was never sent to the ISP laboratory and was never tested in the laboratory for blood or DNA. Did the prosecutor's investigators collect it? No one knew and just like the condoms, the shower curtain was lost.

After Stites had spent numerous hours at the Medical Examiner's office, at the crime scene, and at the ISP Post on September 30th he delivered the results. Due to his expertise and experience the prosecutor and police had the answers they needed. In fact, Stites and Clemons conferred with one another and came up with the following critical information which formed a significant portion of the arrest probable cause affidavit:

1. "The crime scene was manipulated by use of a high Ph cleaning substance" (although there was no reason or indication as to why the scene was allegedly manipulated).
2. "The tee shirt worn by David R. Camm (on September 28th) had high velocity blood mist which occurs in the presence of gunshot at the time of the shooting" (and there was HVIS on the interior of the vacant bay garage door meaning that Kim had to be the source of the blood on Dave's T-shirt).
3. "The cleaning substance was thrown over the back deck (of the Camm residence) also leaving a trail from the garage area" (no tests were conducted but visual observation sufficed to come to this conclusion) "along with a transfer of blood on the house" (meaning that the bloody perpetrator left a trail of blood).
4. "There is a wet mop in a bucket in the utility room of the house (at the Camm residence) with the strong odor of bleach" (meaning that Dave used the mop, bucket and bleach to clean up the crime scene).
5. "There was a flow of blood from the garage that is inconsistent with the viscosity of blood and was aided in its flow by the presence of water and cleaning substance" (meaning that someone tried to alter Kim's blood flow; again, there was no reason or indication as to why the blood flow was manipulated).

What about the shoes on top of the Bronco and the fact that Kim's pants had been removed? What was the conclusion of Stites and Clemons about those items? They were also part of the manipulation of the crime scene. Those items were staged to throw off investigators. They weren't mentioned in the affidavit.

How about Kim's injuries, including those injuries which were clearly defensive in nature? Those weren't addressed or mentioned by Stites or Clemons or in any of the subsequent probable cause affidavits.

(Note: Dave's body was examined by the ISP detectives within hours after the murders and there were no bruises, scratches, cuts or wounds. Mala Singh later testified that Charles Boney was complaining of knee injuries late in the evening of September 28, 2000. Boney, who often tackled his female victims, could certainly have banged his own knees when bringing Kim down to the hard concrete floor of the garage, resulting in bruising to both of her elbows, chin and one knee.)

How about the impediment to the blood flow from Kim? The blood clearly had some type of blockage. Whatever it was, it wasn't pursued as being significant.

What about the "BACKBONE" sweatshirt? Since it had no explanation (meaning it couldn't be linked to Camm), Clemons would later claim that it was an "artifact."

And years later, what did Stites have to say about the 'BACKBONE" sweatshirt? The sweatshirt which had the blood of Kim, Brad, and that of an unknown female? The sweatshirt that belonged to and had the DNA of an 11 time convicted violent felon? Stites said that the sweatshirt still didn't "have any significance for me."

The "BACKBONE" sweatshirt wasn't even mentioned in the affidavit.

What about the unknown prints on the Bronco? Those hadn't been identified when Stites came to his startling conclusions. To whom did they belong? According to Clemons, those too were an artifact and therefore were unimportant. Whether Stites even knew about those prints is unknown. Regardless, the unknown prints weren't mentioned in the affidavit.

What about any other forensic evidence at the scene, particularly anything that contained DNA? Any such items weren't needed in order to form the conclusions of Stites and the joint conclusions of him and Clemons. No laboratory forensic testing had been conducted when Dave was arrested.

What about the fact that Dave's gym shorts had no blood on them? Did the HVIS which appeared on the lower left front of the shirt magically stop at the hemline? Again, no answer was provided.

What about the fact that there was a massive amount of HVIS from Jill's wound located on the overhead bar inside the Bronco in front of where Jill was still sitting? How could it be explained that Jill's blood was sprayed in the interior of the Bronco but Dave's shirt only received eight stains associated with the back spatter that simply stopped at the hem of his shirt and weren't anywhere else on the shirt? No answer.

Stites didn't address any questions relating to the lack of blood on Dave's shorts or the massive amount of blood from Jill's wound inside the Bronco. That fell into the same category as the insignificant sweatshirt, the unknown fingerprints, the shoes on top of the Bronco, the removal of Kim's pants, her numerous injuries, the impediment in the flow of blood from Kim's wound, the lack of forensic testing and other unknowns. They weren't addressed.

If Robert Stites, who was the primary source of the first three and then two other paragraphs of the probable cause affidavit (paragraphs 1-5 above) and also was the individual whom he claimed to be, then his observations and assertions would be of immense importance.

The reverse would also be true, however. If Stites wasn't whom he claimed to be, and he wasn't a renowned blood spatter and crime re-constructionist expert, then his observations and assertions should be meaningless.

In fact, Stites wasn't a blood stain pattern analyst. He had never even taken the 40 hour elementary course that Jim Niemeyer said would be enough to make him "dangerous." Stites was from Oregon but he wasn't an expert and he wasn't "renowned as far as his expertise." He had no BSPA expertise.

As to him being a crime scene re-constructionist as claimed in the probable cause affidavit? That too was bogus. Stites had never before investigated a homicide or even collected evidence at a homicide scene.

Stites had no experience as an evidence technician and had never testified as an expert in either blood stain pattern analysis or as a crime scene re-constructionist. He later claimed that his only assignment at the Camm crime scene was to take notes and photographs in preparation for Englert. He also claimed that he didn't know that his observations and conclusions would form a major part of the probable cause affidavit which resulted in the arrest of David Camm.

What about Stites' other findings? Those garage door stains that appeared to be the result of "high energy" and "directionality" as observed by Stites? That was simply oil. Stites thought that oil was blood. There was no silhouetting of Dave on the garage door and the blood on Dave's T-shirt was both Brad and Jill's. Dave didn't have Kim's blood on his shirt.

What about the allegation that there was a transfer of blood on the house? It wasn't human blood but rather according to Clemons' later testimony the blood was that from an insect.

Although tests were later conducted, no bleach or chemicals were ever found on the garage floor and the white spots on the deck had been there for months after Dave had cleaned his house and deck.

What about the mop in the bucket in the utility room? It was there alright. Clemons and Stites got that right. They recognized a mop in a bucket in the sink in the utility room. What did it mean, however? How unusual is it that a mop and bucket are in a utility room? Is it enough to make it to a probable cause affidavit charging a man with murder?

Incredibly enough, a mop in a bucket in a utility room made it to a probable cause affidavit seeking charges against a man for the murder of three individuals but unknown fingerprints, the appearance of an unidentified sweatshirt and the removal of the adult female's pants didn't make it to the affidavit.

Stites made some other startling admissions years later and under oath. He wasn't enrolled in a PhD program in fluid dynamics as he had previously testified and wasn't even enrolled in any type of master's program. In fact, he hadn't taken any college classes in the nine years before his first testimony in 2002. He also had flunked general chemistry and hadn't taken any physics classes even though he taught physics.

Stites also claimed that he and Clemons were merely "brainstorming" prior to Dave's arrest and that he was later surprised when he found out that his observations were in the affidavit.

Robert Stites, who was at the scene to just document and photograph nonetheless charged $250.00 per hour for his expert opinions. The prosecutor's office paid him almost $25,000 and yet he was a fraud when it came to being a blood stain expert and crime scene re-constructionist. In other cases the prosecution might bring forth charges, but with Stites, they brought him forth for his testimony. It was only years later when the truth about his "credentials" was finally discovered by the defense during a deposition of Stites in Portland, Oregon.

Robert Stites. He was the blood spatter expert who wasn't. He was the crime scene re-constructionist who wasn't. He was the man whose opinions and observations formed a major part of a probable cause affidavit which formed the basis for the arrest of David Camm which charged him with the murder of his family.

Sean Clemons, in later testimony, acknowledged that he later found out that Stites hadn't taken the basic 40 hour course in analyzing blood stains, had never processed a homicide scene and had never testified as an expert before. After finding out those facts about Stites, what was Detective Clemons' reaction? He said that he would still have relied upon him.