LEBANON Jurors in the third murder trial of David Camm sat through another day of complex scientific testimony in a case that continues to pit forensic experts against each other. <\/p>\n
On Tuesday, a private DNA analyst called by the prosecution as a rebuttal witness, said the defense teams touch DNA expert who testified last week was practicing bad science when he concluded he found evidence that pointed away from Camm as the prime suspect in the killings of Camms wife and children. <\/p>\n
Norah Rudin, who specializes in DNA analysis, said she was shocked by the conclusions reached by defense expert Richard Eikelenboom because his methods were inherently unreliable. <\/p>\n
Eikelenboom, a touch DNA expert from Holland, testified last week that he found partial DNA profiles of another man, Charles Boney, on clothing found at the crime scene, including on the underwear of Camms wife, Kimberly. Eikelenbooms testimony is seen by the defense as critical to proving their clients innocence. <\/p>\n
Camm is on trial for the third time in the September 2000 murders of his wife and children, Brad, 7, and Jill, 5, who were found shot to death in the garage of their Floyd County home. Camms two previous convictions were overturned. <\/p>\n
Prosecutors contend Camm shot his family while Boney a serial felon whod Camm met playing basketball before the murders stood nearby. The defense argues that Boney, in prison on a 225-year sentence for his role in the killings, acted alone. <\/p>\n
Rudin was scornful of Eikelenbooms testing methods, at one point saying that Eikelenbooms previous experiences testifying as a forensic scientist in other cases didnt make him an expert. She said he failed to meet testing standards set by other forensic science authorities in the U.S. <\/p>\n
Rudin was particularly critical of the small amount of trace DNA skin cells left behind by touch that Eikelenboom used in his tests. And she said the DNA probability statistics that Eikelenboom used to point to Boney as the perpetrator were faulty. <\/p>\n
Among the issues that arose Tuesday were questions about how clothing found at the crime scene was later handled by court personnel. Its significant because several prosecution experts have raised the possibility that the clothing could have been inadvertently contaminated with Boneys DNA during or the after the initial investigation that lead to Camms arrest 13 years ago. On the stand Tuesday, Rudin said DNA was easily transferable from one item to another simply though a persons touch. <\/p>\n
The prosecution called a Floyd County court reporter, Dianna Borden, to testify about how she handled the crime scene exhibits, including the clothing, during Camms first murder trial in 2002. She said followed court procedures at the time by wearing gloves when she removed the clothing from evidence bags to lay out on tables for the jury to review in private while it was deliberating a verdict. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the rest here: LEBANON Jurors in the third murder trial of David Camm sat through another day of complex scientific testimony in a case that continues to pit forensic experts against each other. Continue reading
\nDNA analyst dispute\u2019s testimony of Camm witness<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"