Prosecutor's crime reconstructionist in the Eggleston trials
Englert was paid $350/hour
Englert's testimony described a detailed scenario of the gun battle, claiming to have knowledge of the timing and movements of Bananola and Eggleston around the 900 square foot house. He testified that blood stains prove that Eggleston stood in the living room and shot Bananola in the head three times, even though none of Eggleston's blood was found on the living room floor. Eggleston was shot in the hallway and was swimming in a pool of his own blood with bullet wounds in his testical, chest, stomach and knee. Photos show the bloody hallway.
Englert was hired by the prosecution as the State of Indiana's expert on crime scene reconstruction in the case against former Indiana state trooper David Camm, who was charged with murdering his wife and two children. Englert testified that Camm had high velocity blood spatter on the shirt he was wearing the night of the murders.
WLKY.com on Sep 12, 2013 referred to Englert as a “Liar for Hire.”
Camm had three trials and was acquitted on October 24, 2013.
Before Camm's second trial, new DNA evidence linked former convict Charles Boney to the murder; Boney was convicted and sentenced to 225 years in prison.
According to WDRB.com on May 1, 2014, Camm served notice of his intention to sue Floyd county and the state of Indiana for wrongful conviction. Englert and his “protégé” Robert Stites are named in the $30 million lawsuit, along with the Floyd County prosecutor Stan Faith, who hired Englert and Stites.
Stites admitting he had perjured himself in the first two trials and his credentials were fabricated; he had no training in blood splatter analysis. Stites' assertion that the spots on David Camm's shirt were high velocity impact splatter (HVIS) was the cornerstone of the probable cause affidavit that led to Camm's arrest and his testimony at the first two trials helped the prosecution win Camm's convictions.
According to Wikipedia: The heavy reliance on blood spatter evidence in this case was widely criticized. In his review of the case, former federal prosecutor Kent Wicker said "Blood spatter evidence has come under a lot of criticism in the past few years. In 2009 The National Academy of Sciences issued a report criticizing the scientific foundation of that." The report released by The National Academy of Sciences calls for more standardization within a number of forensic fields including blood spatter analysis. The report highlights the ability of blood spatter analysts to overstate the reliability of their methods in the court room.
The case is noted for the extensive allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, including witness tampering, evidence tampering, perjury and an overall shoddy investigation and has been detailed in numerous forensic textbooks.
According to Jim FisherTrue Crime Blog on May 3, 2016, “Sometimes prosecutors just don't know when to quit. Moreover, the David Camm case, featuring dueling experts in blood spatter interpretation, is an embarrassment to forensic science. Blood spatter analysis, while perhaps an investigative tool, is not a science and shouldn't be presented as such in a court of law.”