Psychological Autopsy: The case of Kippy Joe Hill

7 min readMar 27, 2019

By: Ashley Mathieu

Abstract

The State of Montana Vs. Kippy Joe Hill is a case involving the death of one Laurel Elaine Camper, 54, from Missoula, and mother to then girlfriend. Hill was found guilty of deliberate homicide as judged by a jury of his peers on January 29, 1998. Sentenced to 100 years in prison with eligibility for parole after 25 years served. In this review the Forensic evaluation will go over the court case, appeals, and various news accounts that had taken place at time of incident.

Introduction to Section One:

The Crime in Question

On the morning in question, June 30, 1996, Scott Camper son of Laurel Camper (deceased victim) discovered his mother’s body at 322 Doran Lane in Hamilton Montana, badly beaten and lifeless and in her bedroom. Immediately notifying Ravalli County Sheriff’s Department. There was no question from the medical examiner that she had died of suspicious causes while the scene was still being processed and witnesses being questioned. Their first break came from Scott who reported to police that his sister Christine and her boyfriend Kippy Joe Hill had been living with his mother until December when things began “to become too tense” and see had kicked them out of her home. Scott also accused Hill of the probability of coming of and getting into a verbal altercation with his mother that ultimately led to her death.

Hill’s Account

When questioned by the sheriff’s Hill did admit to being over to Laurel’s home on the night of the incident. However, he also attests that he was not alone as Christine and Laurel’s ex-husband Dave Camper were also at the residence and that all parties had stayed the night. Later in the interviewing process though, Hill recants have seen Laurel that evening at all. When hair samples were taken from all parties and proved that he had been there, he was questioned as to why he lied. His response “he was scared it might sound bad”.

The Evidence

The medical examiner/pathologist with whom had taken the hair samples and preformed the forensic autopsy of Laurel Camper, was able to make a positive ID match to one of the hair samples collected. Pubic hairs found upon Laurel Camper’s body were a match to one Kippy Joe Hill. He was promptly picked up and read his Miranda Rights before being taken in for his videotaped interview process on July 16, 1996. It was noted that Hill voluntarily signed the Miranda waiver provided to him by Detective Zerbst. At no time did he ever ask for an attorney or his wish to terminate the interview process, however he did request to see his children and Christine and multiple attempts to walk around and “need some air”. Hill was then placed under arrest for deliberate homicide and handcuffed. Sheriff Printz then continued the interview process where upon Hill finally confessed to a physical altercation with Laurel Camper but claimed, however, that when he left the home Laurel- was still alive.

Court Proceedings.

On April 25, 1997 the Ravalli Attorney amended to the charges sexual assault, and or alternatively attempted sexual assault. And again, on “June 26, 1997 The Second Amended Information added an alternative deliberate homicide charge pursuant to § 45–5–102(1)(b), MCA, alleging that the homicide occurred during a sexual or attempted sexual assault; both felonies” (“FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Montana case and opinions,” n.d.). Hill tried to file suit that prosecution violated his rights by leaking evidence to the press and filed for a gag order to try and get his case thrown out. However, “In a “special concurrence and dissent,” Judge James Nelson agreed with the majority’s holding, but stated that the gag order did constitute an “indirect prior restraint” because restrictions on the sources of information from which the media traditionally gather information effectively precludes the press from “knowing” and therefore from publishing “much of anything.” The judge further noted that a gag order was not warranted in Hill’s case, because it did not involve a “media circus” like more highly publicized criminal cases. (Montana ex rel. The Missoulian v. Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court; Media Counsel: Steven Carey, Missoula)” (“Gag order, seal unconstitutional without factual findings | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,” n.d.).

Introduction to Section Three:

Motions Filed per Defendant.

On November 12, 1996 Hill filed for a Motion for State Funds for Psychological Evaluation and a Motion for State Funds to Employ Expert for Post-Mortem Psychological Autopsy. He then moved to poll for a motion to move his trial to a different venue fearing jury prejudice as well as suppression of his videotaped confession. The District court denied every motion.

Deliberation of the Jury

Hill was ultimately found guilty of deliberate homicide, but all sexual assault charges were dropped. He was sentenced to 100 years in prison with the possibility of parole in 25 years leaving him to be 55 years of age when he is eligible for possible release. He plead not guilty to all charges.

Final Review of Case:

Psychological Findings, Theories, Etc.…

There is a strong possibility that the court err when they denied Hill his right to a Psychological evaluation. Even though this was a “prima facie case, with sufficient evidence to justify going forward with the criminal prosecution” (Melton, 2007, p. 33). As much as Hill tried to appeal all his routes, there just was no habeas corpus that he could use for his defense toward his case.

“Hill concludes that the quoted language entitled him to a psychological evaluation as part of the affirmative defense of mitigated deliberate homicide pursuant to § 45–5–103(1), MCA, which permits the defendant to introduce evidence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” (“FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Montana case and opinions,” n.d.). However, any defense lawyer competent in their criminal law and theories would have clearly advised their client against this motion as generally constraints associated with scheduled depositions or court proceedings may affect forensic evaluations adversely.

My theory in the case of The State of Montana Vs. Kippy J. Hill is that had he won the right to a forensic evaluation he would have no doubt tried, and failed, Feigned of Thought Disorder to get himself a lighter sentence for being psychologically inept. He would have no doubt overplayed and been dramatic, deliberateness and carefulness too much, suddenly without a histrionic series of case came down with inconsistent or clinically consistent psychiatric diagnosis, contradict his self-report, and the endorsement of overtly obvious symptoms.

Secondary finding and theory is the had Hill been granted his appeal for Psychological Autopsy of Laurel Camper, what would it have proven? They may have bickered and argued in the past, but what parent who allows their daughter to move back in unmarried with her children and boyfriend does not argue at some point? It would have done more damage than good to his case as one might have asked him, “if it were that bad why did you not just move out?” or “why could you not get along, what was it about you that made her mad specifically?”. These types of questions would have hindered his defense. Further proving that Hill may not have been mentally inept, but he certainly was not highly educated, but not to the capacity of mental defect.

Furthermore, it could be questioned if the court did err when they refused to change venue due to possible jury prejudice? I do not believe so. All the evidence and mention of the crime was public record before the motion was set into place. Ver batim audio was not leaked to the public but his confession was common knowledge as well as his arrest record and what he was being charged for. “Hill does not present an issue subject to review by this Court because he did not request relief on this basis in the District Court. Furthermore, no prejudice from the prosecutor’s disclosures has been demonstrated since Hill was acquitted of the amended charges in support of which the additional facts were provided” (“FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Montana case and opinions,” n.d.).

It is with these findings along with the court proceedings that one can say that all terms in this case were met to the best of his ability and that having a Psychological Autopsy performed in his case would have no doubt made it worse on him instead of helping him. One could also firmly believe that a Forensic Evaluation would not have done Hill more damage than good in his case as he had previously shown a history of lying in his interview with the police department. Therefore, getting a forth coming and accurate evaluation out of him would have not been accurate in any way. Without being able to delve into his records which are sealed one may not accurately say that this was a predictive pattern of progression or perhaps truly an accident. The only true predictor of this will be if he repeat offends when he gets out on parole at age 55.

Explanation of Attached Figure:

Posted below is a current photo along with his DOC # and his charges in the labeled Figures 1. I have attached as much public record knowledge as I possibly can. As of today, he works with the new operating systems within the prison to print out Montana’s new License plates on their new press. He has even earned a degree for this position within the prison system.

References

FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Montana case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1217135.html
Gag order, seal unconstitutional without factual findings | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/gag-order-seal-unconstitutional-without-factual-findings
Melton, G. B. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York [etc.: The Guilford Press.