Coroner, Bob Cambell

This idyllic little community that is praised frequently, unconditionally, and without reservation on national television by Jerry Spence is about to bust wide open. My bet is that it will be skillfully contained unless someone looks into it, exposes it, and writes about it.



How could Mr. Campbell report the details of the cause of Ollie's death ("...it just tore a big hole in his heart, and he bled to death internally...") following the autopsy? Why did he not know that Ollie's gut (as logic would imply) would be full of enough alcohol to make him as drunk as the blood work apparently indicated he was?

Why was there no mention in the autopsy report of alcohol as a factor, or a condition in Ollie's death? Caffeine was mentioned, but not alcohol: why not? 


Why were all of Conley & Ollie's clothes destroyed? Is it customary to destroy a victim's belongings? When Jim Lane arrived in Jackson he went straight to the Coroner's office and spoke with Bob Cambell. He asked for Conley's belongings and Bob Cambell told him they had been destroyed. This seems a very suspicious act on the part of the coroner. All Jim Lane received from authorities was Conley's boots & belt buckle. Forensic scientists could have determined whether the victims were struck as pedestrians with a vehicle or were inside the vehicle when the collision occurred.


Bob Cambell misrepresented the truth when he stated that the blood samples were sent directly to the lab in Cheyenne when in fact the samples were delivered by Trooper Delane Baldwin, to the office of Asst. Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Steve Weichman?


What was his point in telling us there had "been five other fatalities on "Brown's curve" in recent years and that the highway patrol routinely lowers the speed limit to forty five miles per hour in that area in winter months?
There have never been five fatalities on Brown's curve!!
Fact is that the speed limit is lowered in that area due to wildlife vehicle collisions.


Ollie's father was told by the Coroner, Bob Cambell and by the Deputy Sheriff Gene Ferrin that an "older couple" had driven the other vehicle when, in fact, they were four drinking "young" people involved.


Why did Bob Campbell report to the parents of Ollie that the accident victims in the other vehicle were an older couple. He described the injuries to those victims {crushed foot) facial injuries) scalp injuries, concussion, etc.,) in some detail, but misrepresented the ages and the number 'of people in the Yearsley vehicle. We find it curious behavior of an elected official to uncover, analyze, document, and report such details.


Why was Ollie's father told "Oh, God! You don't want to do that!" when he mentioned he wanted to visit the people who had been injured in the other vehicle to express his regret for the accident and to let them know he was concerned. (From the Deputy Sheriff Gene Ferrin and the Coroner Bob Cambell, separately, at different times)


Deputy Sheriff Gene Ferrin treated Ollie's parents very kindly and humanely in his Jackson office while seeking information shortly after arriving in town. His demeanor cooled considerably and both his voice and body language took a threatened and anxious quality later in their conversation when they asked how to find the hospital where the surviving victims were located. He seemed so alarmed by their inquiry that they explained to him that they wanted to visit the "older couple" who had been hospitalized for the purposes of expressing their concern and determining what assistance they might be able to offer, and to define their role in the matter as Ollie's parents. The deputy turned pale and told them, to the effect, that that's the last thing in the world they wanted to do and to drop that idea. They asked for his reasoning and he just said that would be a very inadvisable thing to do. He abruptly changed the subject and began redirecting my attention to other matters. Upon reflection, We found that to be a very curious response and we can think of no logical (or innocent) reason for it. Perhaps someone could explain it to us if asked again under more formal conditions.



Why the coroner Bob Cambell, deputy sheriff Gene Ferrin, mortician, and highway patrol officers(Delane Baldwin) VOLUNTEERED in the first 48 hours after the collision that there was no alcohol involved in the accident--that Ollie did not appear to have been drinking.


On the morning following the accident, why were my wife and I told, specifically, and directly by Bob Cambell (who volunteered the information) that there was no evidence of alcohol as a factor in the accident? Why did he tell us specifically, directly, and voluntarily that there were no alcohol containers found in neither the Bronco nor other evidence of drinking by the driver or passenger? Why did he make a point of telling us this during our initial long distance telephone contact with him following the accident? Was he, or was he not aware that each member of the Yearsley party had been drinking, and that Yearsley's drinking was a suspected factor in the accident? In his role as County Coroner, and as the county's official point of contact for us, did he have any sort of statutory responsibility to provide us with all the information he had, or was he allowed to withhold apparently damaging information about either party in the accident?


On what basis did Bob Cambell tell us in our initial telephone contact with him that the accident occurred on "black ice," because tires on the Bronco were not winter-rated tires, and that Ollie was an inexperienced driver in such hazardous conditions?


How could Bob Cambell tell Ollie's parents in the mortician's office in Jackson two days following the accident, the same account of the accident? If Ollie was intoxicated, speeding, and driving recklessly, why was the coroner not informed of the circumstances? If he had been informed, why did he withhold this information from the families? Certainly he must have known by that time, that the driver of the other vehicle was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Why did he with hold that information? Further, it was obvious from his subsequent testimony in court that Mr. Cambell had found liquor bottles, beer cans, and other "evidence'" of drinking when he searched Ollie's room the night of the accident a full day before he told them by phone, Ollie had not been drinking and just three days before he told the same thing in person. Would you disagree that the grieving families appear to have been intentionally misled by Mr. Cambell?



Immediately following Ollie's fathers meeting with Mr. Cambell, he met with Officer Delane Baldwin and another highway patrol officer, who told him essentially the same story Mr. Cambell told him. They emphasized black ice, inappropriate equipment, and uncommon bad luck--but they volunteered to him that alcohol did not seem to be a factor. They did not indicate to him that Ollie had been operating his vehicle unsafely, inappropriately, or recklessly and they certainly did not state, or suggest, or speculate that Ollie was rounding that curve, on black ice, at nearly 70 mph as Mr. Dailey's reconstruction would have it.



From coroner Bob Cambell's subsequent testimony in court, he stated he had found liquor bottles, beer cans, and other "evidence'" of drinking when he searched Ollie's room the night of the accident a full day before he told Ollie's parents by phone, that Ollie had not been drinking and just three days before he told them the same thing in person.

Is this legal for the County Coroner to search someone's motel room?

Would you disagree that we appear to have been intentionally misled by Mr. Cambell?