Q.   How many theories has the prosecution had about when and who committed the murders of Kim, Brad and Jill?

At least four.

The first theory was that Dave left the gym around 9:00PM and that three sounds interpreted (by Sgt. Clemons) as gunshots were heard by a neighbor between 9:15-9:30PM, indicating that he committed the murders during that 15 minute window. He was the sole perpetrator. After a myriad of evidence (time needed for blood/serum separation; children still in the Bronco; Brad still in swim trunks; etc.) was finally weighed, including conclusive evidence that Dave didn't even leave the gym until the alarm was set at 9:22PM that theory changed.

The second theory was based upon telephone records obtained by the State regarding a call that occurred from the Camm residence at 7:19PM. That telephone call was to a prospective client of Camm's. That's one pretty cool guy…he sneaks out of basketball after only a few minutes (not to mention there's only 10 players, meaning that he leaves a 5 on 5 game in progress in which he is playing), is not missed, drives home, waits at home to murder his family (again, by himself), places an unanswered call to a client, (the Bronco driven by Kim according to a neighbor/eyewitness doesn't even enter the road to the house until around 7:35PM), and he then murders the family, drives back to the gym, returns to the game (from which he had to have been gone for at least 20-25 minutes) without anyone noticing the blood on his shirt or shoes, and has the same demeanor throughout the night. The only problem with that theory is that the call occurred at 6:19PM, or an hour prior to when the prosecution claimed it occurred. The State was off by an hour on the phone call. Nonetheless, the basketball players, who didn't play a role in the first theory, are now labeled as liars who are covering for Camm when their stories don't change that he never left the gym.

The third theory is that David Camm, somehow or another, at some time or another, snuck out of the gymnasium, wasn't missed, drove home, was lucky enough to know when the family was going to arrive, murders the family (he being the lone perpetrator), drives back to the game, is cool and calm, and no one notices the blood on his shirt or shoes. Oh, and all three of the first three theories include the allegation that Camm also manipulated or cleaned up the crime scene, including adding bleach to the blood, throwing the used bleach over the back porch, and placing the shoes on top of the Bronco. Several minutes must be added to the time it took to commit the crime.

The fourth theory is that Camm and Boney were together during the commission of the crime, somehow or another, at some time or another and that Camm did something and Boney did something. The State never did actually make any type of specific assertion as to who did what, other than David Camm shot and killed Jill, his daughter, while squatting directly in front of her, or between her and the back of the front passenger seat, which resulted in 8 tiny dots of blood being deposited on the lower left of his T-shirt (does that even pass the common sense smell test? However, that's the only way that they can get the blood on his T-shirt to be blowback from Jill's gunshot wound). The State never specifically said what time the crime occurred, who killed Kim or Brad, or what role Charles Boney had in the murders. They did allege that Dave and Boney conspired with one another to commit murder, but there was no evidence of that ever presented and that charge was summarily dismissed by Camm's trial judge.

The glue that held all four theories together, however, was the heinous and completely unsubstantiated allegation that Dave had molested his daughter. That trumped any need to provide specific evidence about who, what, when, where, and how the crimes were committed. Once a person, and indeed, a jury, is told that a father violated his daughter, the die has been irrevocably cast.

Q.  What is the connection between Charles Boney and David Camm?

There is absolutely no connection other than the unsupported allegation of an 11 time convicted felon, Charles Boney. Charles Boney alleged that he first met David Camm at New Albany's Community Park in July, 2000 playing five on five full-court basketball. This assertion was made only after the unknown palm print on the left side of the Bronco was identified as Boney's and only after Boney was finally arrested.

Prior to his final interview when he claimed that he sold Camm a gun and made other incredible claims, Boney had repeatedly stated that he didn't know nor had ever met Camm. His claim was made only after Detective Myron Wilkerson had interrogated Boney after repeated interviews and interrogations by other detectives failed to convince him to incriminate Camm. An excerpt from that March 7, 2005 interview:

WILKERSON:
Thank you. You need to weigh into that real heavy. This is not a feather in my cap. This is not a promotion. I'm over the hill. This is not anything monetary gain. My motive right now whether you want to believe it or not you need to quit being so damn stubborn…is to keep you alive. I can be a man and look you in your eyes and tell you that's what I'm intending to do. You understand Charles? I've told you off the record but now I'll tell you on the record you're gonna have a hell of a time getting around with what's already there. Your best scenario is to be a witness. No matter what it is Charles it needs to be put to rest. No matter how deep it is, no matter who's involved in it or who is not involved in it. You need this, this is ridiculous you need to tell the truth. No more games, I told you downstairs no more diversions okay. The attorney is no longer a diversion I mean we're legal you understand, there is nothing here that it's your decision to move forward. There's nothing I can add to or remove from your statement it's on the record. You understand, I've laid every bit of this out Charles. Okay. I'm reaching a little tired okay, because what I really think is going on here Charles is, your stubborn, your scared and you're an opportunist. Know what I mean by that Charles? Any opportunity you get to not talk about this your gonna use and I think its time to quit the shit. You understand? You need to let go. Do you know David Camm?

Charles Boney is not a stupid person and he knew what Wilkerson meant when he said that Boney was an opportunist and that his best scenario was to be a witness. The other option was to be the perpetrator who would face the death penalty. He didn't like that option. He very quickly realized that all he had to do was to incriminate David Camm in order to avoid being executed. Wilkerson immediately introduced Camm into the conversation rather than having Boney attempt to explain how his property, DNA, palm print, and criminal signature was at the scene of the crime. That was Boney's cue, and Boney gave them what they wanted, even though he couldn't give them any evidence to support his story because none existed.

Previously, during several interviews with the media and other detectives, Boney repeatedly denied any association whatsoever with David Camm. During Boney's taped interview with the defense investigator on February 28, he made the following comments:

Boney: The next thing that I'm looking at is, if it was warm that day, why would a person have a sweatshirt anyway? Another theory, if me and David Camm, which we don't know each other, and I'm making that known on tape right now.

Dunn: Right.

Boney: We don't know each other. I'm sure he can say, man, I don't know that guy, and I know I don't know this gentleman. Ok. If someone theorizes that we were in cahoots with one another. Why would he leave my sweatshirt at the scene of the crime knowing that ultimately my DOC number and my DNA would lead right back to him?

Dunn: That doesn't make any sense does it?

Boney: It doesn't make any sense at all. So there goes out the theory that we know each other. That doesn't make sense.

None of the other supposed eight basketball players in that Community Park game have ever verified the game nor has anyone ever placed Boney or David playing at the Community Park courts either with or without one another. No witnesses exist that place the two together anywhere. Additionally, the police subpoenaed many telephone records and there were never any phone calls between the two men. In short, the only "evidence" that the two ever met was Boney's assertion and only after he was arrested and understood that he would face the death penalty if he didn't incriminate David Camm.

Q.  If there was no evidence that the two ever knew each other or associated with each other then why was David Camm charged with conspiring with Boney to kill his family? Don't you have to have two or more people involved in the planning in order to have a conspiracy?

Remember that David Camm was convicted first in the court of public opinion prior to any evidence being presented in an actual court of law. Prior to the second trial of Camm it was necessary to link him with Boney. That was accomplished in Boney's trial which was over well before the Camm trial.

The first several days of Boney's trial, which occurred in New Albany in January, 2006 focused on David Camm. The witnesses were allowed to preach hearsay from the witness stand about Dave's character and the unsupported allegations about molestation. Boney's attorney was giddy because the prosecution was focused on Camm and not his client. That attorney surely wasn't going to object to Dave being slammed. After all, David Camm didn't have any rights in Boney's trial and no one, including the judge, was about to stop the prosecution from using hearsay, innuendo, and unsupported allegations about David Camm. The prosecutor had timed his trials well and knew that Camm was once again being tried in the court of public opinion.

Boney was a secondary character to Camm in his own trial. No evidence, of course, existed about any connection between the two other than Boney's last ditch effort to put the blame on Camm. The prosecution used what little they had about such a relationship (all claimed by Boney), claiming that Boney was a liar about practically everything but wasn't lying about his connection with Camm. They cherry-picked Boney's statements to include only those parts which could be molded into fitting with their conspiracy theory.

Boney was never on the stand and was never challenged about his story. The defense wouldn't allow Boney on the stand and the prosecution sure didn't want him on the stand to mess up their hearsay and unsubstantiated case against Camm. All of the allegations against Camm went unanswered.

During Dave's trial, most of which came after Boney's trial, no evidence at all was presented about any connection between Camm and Boney. Although the prosecution claimed a connection and a conspiracy between the two, they failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in that regard.

After the prosecution rested in Dave's trial, the judge issued a directed verdict, dismissing the conspiracy charge. That is most unusual in a criminal trial and meant that there was nothing to substantiate the conspiracy charge. David Camm can never again be charged with conspiring with Boney because there was absolutely no evidence presented that linked in any way Charles Boney with David Camm and the judge made a definitive ruling as to that.

Q.   What did Boney actually say about his involvement and the involvement of David Camm in the murders?

This is impossible to briefly answer because of Boney's continuing and ever-changing stories. In order to adequately answer this question, one must wade through over 30 hours of interviews and interrogations of Boney. After Boney would be confronted with yet another piece of evidence, he would modify his story and eventually, after being informed that his palm print was found on the right side door jamb of the Bronco, and after being threatened with the death penalty if he didn't become a witness, he finally "confessed." Only his confession was that David Camm was responsible. The only thing consistent with Boney's ever-changing stories, and finally, his last unbelievable and incredible story, is that he always minimized his involvement. It is suggested that the section on the police investigation of Boney be read in its entirety in order to fully comprehend just how Boney, the inveterate liar, incriminated Camm with a story that not only didn't make sense, but was finally labeled as a "crock of shit" by one of the investigators and as a "story of convenience" by another investigator.

Q.   Why would Boney leave his sweatshirt at the scene of the crime?

People often confuse a premeditated crime with a crime that was committed without any problems. Don't confuse those two. Criminals often plan a crime and think that they're smart enough that the plan will be executed well and without any issues.

Before answering this question, you must first answer the question of why did Boney even have a sweatshirt at the crime scene? That question is answered by Boney himself. During his attacks on Indiana University coeds in 1988-89, he often wore disguises. After he was apprehended, he made several stark admissions, including one that he had an "escape plan" (his words). He would wear a sweatshirt to the scene of the crime and then later take it off and place it into his backpack in order to not have on the same clothes as the perpetrator should anyone have seen him. He had an escape plan and Boney's escape plan was his sweatshirt!

Don't overlook the fact that Boney also said during his 1989 interview that he had a backpack with him during the commission of his crimes. At the Camm crime scene, there was a clear impediment in the flow of blood from Kim's head wound. That impediment also had a straight edge, much like the bottom of a backpack would have.

Remember also that several people saw Boney with a backpack, including several individuals at Anderson Woods, where Boney was working on the night shift in September, 2000 (he was absent from work on September 28th) Boney was seen by at least one co-worker with a handgun in that same backpack. That co-worker also knew that Ernest Nugent, a co-worker, had sold Boney a gun.

After answering the question of why he had a sweatshirt, we can then answer why would Boney leave it at the crime scene? The answer is probably quite easy. He panicked. He panicked just like most criminals do when things don't go right.

As noted, most criminals talk a good game before or after a crime but how they act during the crime is a different story. Adrenaline is pumping and things aren't going the way they were planned. The female victim is fighting for the lives of her children and herself and isn't being compliant, as witnessed by Kim's wounds to her fingernail, knees, elbows, and feet. Perhaps the original intent was only to satisfy the foot/shoe/leg fetish that obsessed Boney and when things got way out of hand in the darkened garage his plan literally blew apart.

Q.   I'm confused about the DNA which was found on 'BACKBONE" sweatshirt. Who found the DNA, when did they find it, and why wasn't it important to try and match that DNA with the DNA database?

In October, 2000 the sweatshirt was taken to the ISP laboratory in Evansville where DNA analyst Lynn Scamahorn took swabs of areas on the sweatshirt which contained stains visible to the naked eye. Several months later the results revealed that there was unknown female DNA on the front of the sweatshirt. Not only was there female DNA on the sweatshirt, but it was mixed with DNA from Kim and Brad.

The ISP laboratory didn't discover any male DNA on the sweatshirt.

After the ISP lab spent months examining the sweatshirt, in October, 2001 the original defense team had the sweatshirt tested at a certified independent laboratory and that laboratory took swabs from the collar (in order to determine if DNA was present from an individual who had worn the sweatshirt) and subsequently was able to determine that the cellular DNA was male DNA. That unknown DNA did not match David Camm's DNA profile.

The FBI maintains a national database containing the DNA profiles of violent felons. Most states, including Indiana, have collected profiles from violent incarcerated felons in order to assist in the identification of the source of unknown DNA found at crime scenes. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) was perfectly suited to identify the unknown male DNA found on the "BACKBONE" sweatshirt.

Q.   Was CODIS ever queried in an attempt to identify the unknown male DNA found on the "BACKBONE" sweatshirt?

Sergeant Sean Clemons said he never knew about the unknown DNA on the sweatshirt until 2005 and that Prosecutor Faith never told him about it and never asked him to run any DNA profile through the CODIS database. Prosecutor Faith, however, said he asked the ISP to run the unknown DNA profile through CODIS and that someone with the ISP had dropped the ball.

Complicating these stories, however, is the information provided by former defense attorney Mike McDaniels that he asked Faith to run the unknown DNA through CODIS and that Faith told him that he did run it but that there was no match.

It wasn't until the second defense team advised Prosecutor Henderson of the intended filing of a motion to compel to have that unknown DNA profile checked through CODIS did he and the ISP attempt to find its true source. It was only in February, 2005 or four and a half years after the murders was Charles Darnell Boney's DNA matched to the unknown male DNA found on the "BACKBONE" sweatshirt. Boney's DNA profile had been in the CODIS database since 1997 or four years prior to the unknown male DNA's discovery on the sweatshirt.

(Note: Prosecutor Henderson later bragged that the ISP was diligent about finding that Charles Boney was the donor of the unknown DNA on the sweatshirt. What he didn't brag about was the fact that the Camm/Lockhart family had literally begged the ISP to have the profile run through CODIS and the ISP refused to do so. He also didn't brag about the fact that no such profile would ever have been run unless David Camm's appeal was successful. Indeed, it took the knowledge of an impending defense motion to compel the ISP to run the DNA before they did so. It is an absolute fact that Charles Boney would never have been discovered without the persistent efforts of Camm's family and defense teams.)

In short, determining the source of the unknown male DNA found on the sweatshirt was critical to solving this crime. However, the initial investigator called the sweatshirt an artifact which wasn't important. The former prosecutor also tried to get the DNA analyst to misrepresent her findings in order to associate the sweatshirt with David Camm and the last "fresh eyes" investigation only attempted to match the DNA after the prosecutor was told of an impending motion by the defense to compel them to do so.

DNA Analyst Scamahorn testified in the second trial that she was threatened by Faith during the first trial after she refused to testify that Dave Camm couldn't be excluded as the donor of the unknown male DNA profile on the sweatshirt. She was asked to testify about scientific data that wasn't accurate.

During the first trial, analyst Scamahorn testified under direct examination by Stan Faith that she had examined the ''BACKBONE" sweatshirt and that David Camm was eliminated as the individual whose DNA was on the sweatshirt. Ms. Scamahorn, like the rest of the ISP's laboratory technicians and examiners, testified according to the results which were obtained scientifically. In short, she and the other technicians have only testified as to the facts known to them. Ms. Scamahorn isn't perfect but she is a scientist and a professional.

While still on the witness stand in the first trial, the court took a recess and she and Faith went into his office where he berated her about her testimony, reducing her to tears. It was only after the trial and during her cross-examination in the second trial that it was publicly disclosed that Faith had threatened her job if she didn't change her testimony to include Camm as a possible donor of the unknown DNA on the sweatshirt. Ms. Scamahorn also testified that she wrote a memorandum to her supervisor, Joe Vetter, that she was threatened by Faith to be charged with a Class D felony of obstructing justice.

Still more incredible is Ms. Scamahorn's allegation that Faith also told her that he wanted her to testify that Jill Camm's vaginal fluid was found on the master bedroom bed of Dave and Kim Camm rather than DNA from any other possible body fluid, such as saliva. Ms. Scamahorn refused to testify according to his threats, however.

(Note: David Camm acknowledged that he and Kim like many parents and grandparents would have their kids join them in bed, watching television, reading to them or simply being a family. Using Faith's criteria that Dave molested Jill because her DNA was found in the bed shared by he and Kim would mean that there should be molestation investigations conducted of the vast majority of parents and many grandparents in the United States.)

Faith made good on his threats, however, and "reported" her to her superiors. Incredibly enough, no one at the State Police responded to him threatening one of their own for simply doing her job but rather hid the entire sordid affair. The State Police didn't support their own employee who was doing the right thing. The ISP also didn't report Faith to the Indiana Disciplinary Commission for his conduct.

It doesn't stop there, however. Jon Singleton, a veteran ISP Sergeant and fingerprint expert examined the unknown palm print found on the passenger side door of the Bronco and eliminated Dave Camm as the donor for that print. Singleton testified in the second trial that Faith wanted him to say that he, Singleton, couldn't eliminate Dave Camm as the donor of that print. Singleton refused to do so and he wasn't called by Faith to be a witness during the first trial. As we know, Singleton was the expert who later positively matched that previously unknown palm print on the Bronco to the left palm print of Charles Boney.

How egregious is it for an officer of the court to threaten a person if she didn't change her testimony? Is that a technicality or does it undercut the very basic fabric of fairness and due process? What does it say about a prosecutor who demanded that testimony be slanted in order to support allegations of molest? What does it say about Stan Faith who later represented Charles Boney in a Monroe County, Indiana courtroom in 2004 where Boney was released from custody after violating his parole from the Department of Corrections?

Q.   Kim's blood was actually found on the ''BACKBONE"" sweatshirt? Was there any other blood found on the sweatshirt?

Yes, DNA from her blood was found on the left sleeve of the sweatshirt. The autopsy revealed that the only open wounds on her body were the massive head wound, her index finger which was missing part of its fingernail and the wounds to her feet. The only source of her blood would therefore have had to have been one or more of those three sources.

In addition to Kim's blood on the sweatshirt, Brad's blood was found (which makes sense inasmuch as he was laid on the sweatshirt by his father).

In September, 2000, Boney was dating Mala Singh and her blood was also found on the sweatshirt, mixed with Kim's blood.

Q.   Is it true that the prosecutors still believed Boney even after his DNA was matched to the ''BACKBONE"" sweatshirt and he also failed a polygraph examination about him killing the Camm family?

Either they believed this prolific liar or their agenda was to get him to give them the story they needed. On the afternoon of February 28, 2005 or after the public became aware that Boney was the owner of the ''BACKBONE" sweatshirt, the prosecutors held a news conference and they claimed that Boney's story checked out. Apparently what was meant when they supported this 11 time convicted felon was that his story about dropping his sweatshirt at the Salvation Army drop box could have been truthful but there was no way to verify that claim. The Salvation Army had no records, no receipts, no video, no witnesses and no other means to verify Boney's claim. Simply because it couldn't be discounted doesn't mean that it checks out, however.

At that same news conference, nothing was said that Boney had already failed a polygraph test when it was given to him ten days before. They knew for ten days that he had failed a polygraph test and that his DNA was at the murder scene. Ten days and still Boney was giving interviews in the media while the prosecutor stood by him and told the public that Boney's story checked out. Indeed, the prosecutor could have and should have arrested Charles Boney and he should have been the recipient of an appropriate interrogation that demanded rather than gave suggested answers. Instead, the prosecutors told him to stay around the area.

Q.   Boney took and failed a polygraph?

Absolutely. It was bad enough that the prosecutor and police took almost four and a half years in finally matching the unknown DNA at the scene with the CODIS database but it also took them over two weeks to match the palm print at the scene with Boney's print. How long does it take for a fingerprint examiner to match fingerprints? The obvious answer is minutes if the examiner has the prints and not weeks. The ISP fingerprint examiner wasn't provided Boney's palm prints until March 4, 2005 or over two weeks after they were first taken.

Regarding Boney's polygraph, it was a stipulated polygraph. What is that? Simply put, a stipulated polygraph is one where both the state and the suspect agree that "the results of said examination may be introduced into evidence, without objection by either the State of Indiana or Charles D. Boney at the time of the examiner's testimony at any trial or hearing."

Officer Doug Inghram of the Louisville Metro Police was the original polygrapher who examined Boney on February 17, 2005. Detective Inghram, who was sick when he began the examination, had to stop midway through it and called retired Jefferson County Police polygrapher Robert Ennis for help.

Mr. Ennis spent a period of time with Boney prior to testing him during which he went over all of the questions, relevant and otherwise. He posed the following three relevant questions to Boney:

1. Did you shoot any of those people in Indiana?
2. Were you there when they were shot?
3. Did you see who shot them?

Mr. Ennis has noted on many different occasions that he is a "seeker of the truth" and doesn't have a preconceived opinion of the involvement or non-involvement in a crime of a suspect. As with most professional polygraphers, he gave the examinee the benefit of the doubt. He did that with Boney and after running three tests, came to the solid conclusion that Boney was deceptive about being involved with the murders of Kim, Brad, and Jill when he answered no to each of the three relevant questions.

(Note: Although polygraphers score each question and don't separate the individual questions, they weigh the exam as a whole and not the individual questions before coming to any opinion as to whether the subject is deceptive or non-deceptive.)

Ennis talked about the reaction of the two investigators (Kessinger and Gilbert) when he told them that Boney was deceptive when deposed by defense attorney Liell in October, 2005:

Ennis: "They were surprised."

Liell: "Even shocked?"

Ennis: "Yes, ma'am."

Even more amazing is the fact that Ennis gave Boney a peak of tension test, the goal of which was to determine if he had knowledge of the type of weapon that was used to murder the Camm family. Boney claimed he didn't have a clue, but yet responded to the question involving a .380, indicating further deception. A .380 Lorcin was used to kill the family.

Could Boney have been given another test which would have further defined his denials that he had been responsible for the murders of Kim, Brad and Jill? Absolutely. How about these questions:

1. Did you personally shoot Kim Camm?
2. Did you personally shoot Jill Camm?
3. Were you responsible for Kim Camm removing her shoes?
4. Were you attempting to steal Kim Camm's shoes?
5. Did you leave your "BACKBONE" sweatshirt at the scene?

And if they believed that David Camm was the murderer, why didn't they simply ask him questions such as these:

1. Was David Camm present in the garage?
2. Did David Camm shoot his wife?
3. Did David Camm shoot his daughter?
4. Did David Camm shoot his son?

Why wasn't Boney given another test with any of these questions? Another test which would have further pinpointed him as the killer? Remember that Boney was giving interviews to the press and was free to roam the metropolitan Louisville area for weeks after his initial polygraph. He claimed that he was being cooperative with the prosecution and police. Okay, cooperate and take another polygraph that further refines the original questions.

Remember also of the two investigators reaction when first told by the polygraph examiner that Boney was lying about his involvement. Perhaps they simply didn't want to face the fact that the whole scenario that David Camm was involved was wrong and they didn't want to face the fact that the Indiana State Police had been egregiously wrong for almost five years.

Q.   Why were the prosecutors and police so anxious to believe Charles Boney?

Place yourself as the prosecutor who has already assured his electorate (through dozens of television appearances and news articles whenever possible) that he had things well in hand. If you had already recharged David Camm and claimed that David Camm was the only perpetrator in this horrible crime, what would your reaction be? Would you acknowledge that you didn't get it right and that there had been a triple-murderer on the streets for well over four years? Or would you claim that poor Mr. Boney, without acknowledging that he was an 11 time convicted felon who had violently attacked women on the streets, had violently attacked them in their own homes, had abducted three women and had threatened to kill them, as well as having his property and DNA at the crime scene and had failed a polygraph, was telling the truth?

Unfortunately, the prosecutors and the police effectively made an unspoken deal with Mr. Boney who was spared the death penalty when such a penalty should have been aggressively pursued.

Q.   What is the role of the prosecutor in the State of Indiana?

The role of the prosecutor is to be a seeker of the truth. The prosecutor's primary role is not to "keep score" with convictions and sentences, but rather to be a seeker of the truth. Unfortunately, as events have unfolded in the recent past throughout the United States, there are some prosecutors who believe otherwise.

The prosecutor has more power than literally anyone in the State of Indiana. With the simple stroke of a pen a prosecutor can deprive a person of his freedom and literally make life intolerable. Such power should only be used with the greatest discretion and the soundest of judgment and based solely on the evidence and not on emotion or politics.

Q.   If the result of Boney's stipulated polygraph could be introduced into evidence at any trial or hearing, why weren't they introduced at Camm's trial?

The defense tried to get those results introduced but the prosecution vigorously opposed that evidence, claiming that the results could only be introduced in Boney's trial. Unfortunately, the trial judge didn't allow the introduction of those results and he again failed to allow David Camm's 6th Amendment right to present a defense. This was yet another example of an ongoing failure by the court to allow a fundamentally fair trial.

Q.   Why didn't David Camm take a polygraph?

Dave was asked to take a polygraph by one of the detectives prior to his arrest and he readily agreed. The ISP didn't follow up on that, however, because as testimony later revealed, they only wanted to see his reaction to being asked, believing that he would not accept their offer. Their offer was bogus and only a test to see how he reacted.

Q.   Boney claimed to have alibi witnesses for his whereabouts on September 28, 2000. Did the police interview those alibi witnesses?

During one of his first interviews Boney not only claimed that he dropped his sweatshirt into the Salvation Army drop box but that he also recalled his whereabouts on the afternoon and evening of September 28, 2000 or well over four years later. While that supposed recollection is incredible in and of itself (where and what were you doing four years ago?) also is the fact that the police didn't interview all of those alibi witnesses but accepted Boney's assertions as truthful.

Those "witnesses" were interviewed immediately, however, after the defense found out about them and all denied having any interaction with Boney in the manner he claimed or on the date he claimed. For example, Boney claimed that he appeared at the home of a minister and asked for a loan in the presence of the minister and his wife and that both could confirm his story. The minister responded that his wife had dementia at the time and further that Boney's story wasn't truthful inasmuch as he wouldn't have entertained any such request because the church elders were responsible for hearing any loan requests.

Boney also claimed to have accompanied his girlfriend, Mala Singh, to the place of her employment the night of the 28th (conveniently at or about the same time the family was being slaughtered) where she received money for Boney to use to make a car payment. The employer denied ever lending any money to Singh, stating that the story was false.

False alibis are generally indicative of someone who has something to hide. The fact that Boney lied about his alibis is significant. Significant, that is, to all except the police and prosecutors who not only didn't interview those alibi witnesses but said that Boney's story had checked out.

Q.   Were the basketball players relatives of David and did they lie?

Several players were, in fact, relatives of David, including two cousins and his uncle. Others included the husband of his cousin, as well as friends and players with whom he had played previously. One person accompanied his brother to the game and it was his first ball game that he played with David. Their brother was a local police officer.

During the initial telephone interviews of the players by the ISP, their words were accepted without question. Not one player has ever stated or inferred that David Camm left the church gym that evening. The fact that he sat out one game so his uncle, Sam Lockhart, could play is also without question. However, he sat along the baseline with a church elder and they talked. He sat at the end of the court where the other ten players saw him as they would run towards that basket. Near the end of that game, David got up and began stretching in order to play again.

During the time of the prosecution's first theory that David had murdered his family after he returned home, the basketball players weren't important to the prosecution. It was only after the forensic evidence indicated that it was impossible for the murders to have occurred after 9:22PM (the time that the church alarm was set and David left the gym) did the basketball players become critical.

Indeed, during David's last interrogation before he was arrested on October 1, 2000, Detective Neal told David that the basketball players are "not trying to hide anything."

The prosecution's subsequent theories that the family was killed after they returned home and before David came home around 9:27PM meant that the basketball player's credibility had to be attacked. Although the players had never changed their stories, nonetheless they were painted as either lying or mistaken because the prosecution had to "get David out of the gym" in order to kill his family.

All of the basketball players vehemently deny that they have lied or shaded the truth for David Camm. As one said, "David was at the gym for the entire time I was there. He didn't leave, nor did he come back. I wouldn't lie for him or anyone." The other players expressed very similar comments and have told their stories repeatedly and under oath several times.

The basketball players were honest and not mistaken on October 1, 2000 but were liars and mistaken only after the prosecution changed their theory as to when the family was murdered. They have never been inconsistent but rather any inconsistencies lie with the prosecution.

It is indeed ironic that ten basketball players (with one additional spectator) who were present with David Camm during the entire evening of September 28, 2000 are considered liars or mistaken but yet the eight other basketball players who supposedly played with Boney and David have never been identified nor come forward. The police and prosecution chose to embrace Boney's fictitious story without any corroboration and cast aside the stories of eleven solid citizens but only after their theory changed.

Q.  Much has been made of the fact that two different prosecutors from two different political parties and two different investigations were conducted with the same conclusion that Camm killed his family. How do you account for that?

The first investigation lasted less than 70 hours prior to an arrest probable cause affidavit, filled with erroneous assertions, being filed and David arrested. At that time, there were no DNA results, no matching of any fingerprints, and an assertion that the murders occurred after David came home from playing basketball.

Throughout the first investigation, the "BACKBONE" sweatshirt was ignored and labeled as a simple "artifact" by the police that meant nothing. The prosecution made the proclamation that there was but a single person who was present who committed the crime: David Camm.

Susan Orth was the former chief deputy for Stan Faith and she is now a Floyd County Judge. She told the press, echoing Faith's comments, that the investigation resulting in Dave's arrest was "very, very thorough." She was wrong, of course, but she still moved on to the next level, first being appointed and then elected judge.

The second investigation was supposedly a new one with "Fresh Eyes." What did they do? They were headed by a prosecutor, Keith Henderson, who was a former ISP trooper. In November, 2004 Prosecutor Henderson told the press that he was re-charging Camm and further that his new investigation had conducted "probably conducted 20 interviews." Twenty interviews? That's it? Twenty interviews over three months? That isn't a lot of interviews to conduct while claiming that the investigation was exhaustive.

Of those 20 people who were interviewed, several were Camm family members who pleaded to be interviewed by the police and then pleaded with them to run the unknown DNA. They were ignored and so was their simple request.

One of the twenty who was interviewed was former prosecutor Stanley O. Faith who provided the police with a lead that he had uncovered. It was a hearsay story about a woman who supposedly had hard evidence against David Camm. It proved to be nothing. The ISP quickly followed up on that lead which proved to be worthless but didn't do anything about the pleadings of the family to check the unknown DNA.

Additionally, of all the forensic evidence that had been collected, no additional examinations or comparisons was conducted from the time the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned David Camm's first conviction until he was recharged by Henderson.

Three months after Camm was recharged, the lead investigator complained about the large number of boxes that he had to go through in order to try and find the unknown male DNA profile on the sweatshirt, claiming that he had never seen the paperwork before. Wouldn't you be aware of such a possibly significant piece of evidence before a person was recharged? If he was only going through the boxes after Camm was recharged, what does that say about the thoroughness of the "Fresh Eyes" investigation?

If only routine police work had been conducted…..if only routine police work had been conducted the police and prosecutor would have discovered that the unknown DNA belonged to an 11 time convicted violent felon. But then again Henderson also told the press after recharging David Camm and prior to the DNA eventually being compared to the CODIS database that, "most of the detective work has been done."

Q.   Did the prosecutor use prison informants in his "Fresh Eyes" investigation? How reliable are they?

Among those twenty (20) interviews conducted before Prosecutor Henderson re-charged David, the police conducted one with a prison inmate who claimed that David had confessed to him.

That inmate, J.B. Hatton, claimed that David told him that he had killed his family as the Bronco sat outside the garage and that Kim was killed inside the car. The evidence, all have agreed, is that Kim and the children were killed inside the garage with Kim outside the car. Nonetheless, the prosecutor still used Hatton in the new affidavit and later at trial. J.B. Hatton simply lied (you're probably asking if Hatton took a polygraph; he refused to do so).

One might ask why Hatton and two other inmates, both of whom were admitted murderers, were eventually used by Henderson even though their testimony wasn't truthful or didn't even fit the forensic evidence. That's simple. It provided the opportunity to introduce to the jury the fact that David Camm had associated with three despicable men in prison (although it's not an option as to where or with whom you're incarcerated); i.e. he was in prison and had already been convicted.

(After his testimony in the Camm trial, J.B. Hatton, previously convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and escape, was successful in having his sentence of 25 years modified. He was granted house arrest pending the imposition of his new sentence. He simply walked away from his house arrest in December, 2006 and his whereabouts are unknown. Hatton knew how the system worked and he traded his perjured testimony for his freedom to make and distribute more methamphetamine).

The "Fresh Eyes" didn't conduct any new investigation nor have any forensic tests conducted from the time of the reversal of David's conviction until he was recharged in November, 2004 other than accepting a bogus story of a prison informant.

Q.   How do you account for the fact that David Camm was convicted twice of killing his wife and children?

Innocent people are convicted in the United States. That is irrefutable. Recently, a man from Terre Haute, Indiana was released after spending 24 years in prison for murder. He was innocent and innocent people are convicted. When the State, which has immense power, makes unsubstantiated allegations against a defendant and is allowed to do so by an elected judge who fails to follow the U.S. Constitution, a fundamentally fair trial is impossible. That can and does happen in a highly emotional case when children are victims.

Juries don't always hear all of the evidence and sometimes are prejudiced with unfounded allegations against a defendant.

During the first investigation, David Camm was first convicted in the court of public opinion. David's conviction at trial was a simple matter after that. After all, who wouldn't despise a father after the community had come to believe that he molested his daughter and then murdered his entire family?

During the first trial, the two major pieces of "evidence" against David were his previous affairs and the allegation without any supporting evidence that he molested his daughter.

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in reversing the first conviction made the following comments:

"We are left with the definite possibility that the jury might have found Camm not guilty…if it had not been exposed to a substantial amount of improperly admitted and unfairly prejudicial evidence…"

The Court of Appeals left no doubt that should Camm be tried again that there would be no evidence allowed of his previous affairs and further that (of the molestation issue):

"(T)he trial court will need to carefully consider whether the highly inflammatory nature of this evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of any evidence that Camm molested Jill."

In the second trial prosecutor Henderson was also allowed to argue that the injuries to Jill's genitalia were also sexual in nature and that Dave was responsible. And the evidence that supported this unfounded allegation? Nothing. The prosecutor had no evidence but was allowed to argue that Dave was not only responsible for the injuries but that they were also the result of molestation.

Members of both juries, in interviews after convicting David, stated that the issue of molestation was very instrumental in coming to their guilty votes.

Additionally, the defense was prohibited by the judge in the second trial from introducing any evidence that Charles Boney was responsible for the murders. The Defense attempted to introduce Boney's property, DNA, his girlfriend's DNA at the crime scene, his criminal signature, his confession to the defense investigator, his confession to a friend that he had "three under his belt" and his past violent crimes against women, as well as his sexual fetish for women's legs, feet, and shoes. Every attempt was denied by Judge Aylsworth.

During Dave's initial interviews the investigators asked him who did it if it wasn't him? He didn't know who did it and told them it was their job to find out. When the answers were given to them in the form of forensic evidence and confessions to others, they didn't listen…and neither did the court.

In the end, it's easy to see why David Camm was convicted twice. Simply put, he was denied simple fundamental fairness in both of his trials. Contrary to what some believe, that isn't a technicality but rather an abomination of our justice system.

Q.   What evidence existed that David molested Jill?

The answer is nothing. The last day of Jill's life was an active one. She attended school, played at recess, attended dance class and was active for an hour, and then, within less than an hour or two of her death, was frolicking like the normal five year old she was at a volleyball game while her brother was at a nearby swim practice.

The prosecution provided nothing, other than their unsupported and highly inflammatory allegation, that David was responsible for injuries to her genitalia and that those injuries were the result of molestation. There was absolutely no evidence that Dave molested the little girl that he loved so dearly or that he was the source of her injuries, yet both judges allowed the prosecutor to make those highly prejudicial arguments before the juries.

Also, answer this very important question: If either Stan Faith or Keith Henderson had evidence, any evidence whatsoever, of David molesting Jill wouldn't David have been charged? The answer is an obvious yes but no molestation charges have ever been filed against him.

Members of both juries, in interviews after convicting David, stated that the issue of molestation was very instrumental in coming to their guilty votes.

Jill did have blunt force trauma to her external genitalia. The cause of that is still unexplained, but Charles Boney's comments to a former friend perhaps explained it all:

(of his anger)…"he told me that he was sorry that happened but he thought he took control of that, that it happened with his first wife or something, that he wished that, he thought he took control of it, but he didn't. He said that he's got a rage that roars inside of him, that's what he told me. He said, and then he told me that that same night, he said, (name of friend) buddy, he said, man, I've done some things you wouldn't even believe, like that. And I said, yeah? He said, yeah. He said, I'm telling you things that you or nobody else could even conceive that I've done. I said, mmm, but he never went into detail." This witness was never interviewed by the police.

Charles Boney's violent attitude towards females was well-established. Little Jill was shot in the head by him and it shouldn't surprise anyone that he was capable of violating her prior to her death.

Q.   Did Boney actually admit to killing three people?

When Boney was working for a used car dealer in Jeffersonville, Indiana he was trying to sell a big screen television on which he was making payments to a new friend. When they were driving to Louisville Boneytalked to his wife on his cell phone and told her that he was bringing by a prospective buyer. She got angry and told him they couldn't sell a TV they didn't own. After yelling at her he hung up and told the prospective buyer, "I'll kill that bitch. I'll leave her where I see her…I can kill her, my conscience already hold three murs, three deaths, one more is not going to bother any more."

If you think that Boney was kidding about killing his wife, a few months later he solicited his best friend to build him a silencer for his handgun so he could kill his wife.

Q.   Is there also a video tape interview of Boney where he confessed to killing Kim and the kids?

After being told on Friday evening, February 25, 2005 that the unknown DNA was finally checked and that it belonged to Charles Boney (and right before the story broke as a major exclusive on a Louisville television station) the defense team arranged with Boney to interview him. He agreed to meet with the defense investigator but only in the Floyd County City-County Building. When he showed up he also had one of the ISP investigators with him. He needed their support because, after all, he was only a witness whose story about dropping off his "BACKBONE" sweatshirt had "checked out."

During the interview Boney lied numerous times about never possessing a handgun after his release from prison (the defense quickly located five people who saw him in possession of a gun; the prosecution didn't pursue those witnesses and only later charged Boney with being in possession of a gun after he admitted having one but only for the purpose of selling it to Camm). He also lied about his prison record, his violent treatment of women, his previous violent crimes and, of course, his alibis regarding his whereabouts on the day of the murders. Many of those alibi witnesses weren't interviewed by the police nor did they know of all of his previous violent crimes.

When asked about his involvement in the Camm murders, Boney responded (Boney Video) in the following manner to the questions posed to him:

Boney: And are you aware that there are possibly more that just my DNA and the DNA of an unknown female on the sweatshirt?

Dunn: There's a lot, and yeah, see that is one of the contentions that the defense has had, is that for years this DNA was not ran through any database, CODIS or other databases to try and determine as to whose identity that DNA belonged, ok? And there is other things there. There is a multitude of physical evidence that was found at that crime scene

which hasn't been, i.e. or a. either tested, or b. tested against any to see if there is any matches or database. There is certainly fingerprints, there is blood found at the scene that hasn't been identified yet and that's the reason I asked you, and I ask you again, if any of that belongs to you, then that would put you at the scene, would you agree?

Boney: That's, that is correct. If, if something of mine was there at the scene that means that I would have been there.

Dunn: Right.

Boney: And that's why, and that's why I have no problem speaking with you, and that's why I have no problem meeting with you. That's why I have been forthright and honest with the prosecution team.

Dunn: So, and let me ask you this, in the next extension Charles, would be, if you were at the scene, then you would have been the individual committing that crime then?

Boney: That would be pretty obvious.

So, if Boney's prints were at the scene, it would be "pretty obvious" that he had committed the crimes. Obvious to everyone except the police and the prosecution.

Incredibly, Boney's numerous self-serving lies and his admission that he was the murderer if his fingerprints would be found at the scene of the crime were not allowed by the judge in David Camm's trial. This was a major deprivation of Dave's right to present to the jury critical evidence about the man who slaughtered his family.

Q.  Did Charles Boney actually have a fetish for women's legs, shoes, or feet?

We'll let him answer that himself in his comments to the police after his apprehension in 1989 for attacking women and stealing their shoes, actions with his former wife, comments to fellow inmates and to a close friend. During his 1989 interrogation he spoke very freely and offered the following comments: "This may seem strange, but I have a thing for ladies' legs and feet." "I collect shoes and stuff like that." He targeted his victims as those "whoever has nice legs." He never assaulted any woman with a dress or a shirt, but only those who wore pants (and yes, Kim was wearing pants when she was attacked) and he could tell if a woman had nice legs even if she wore pants. Assaulting women for their shoe was "just my hobby…I made it my own hobby."

A former wife also acknowledged that on several occasions when they were married in the early 1990's she awoke from sleeping to find that Boney had put a knee high stocking onto her leg and was ejaculating over her.

Inmates who knew Boney during his Indiana prison incarceration from 1993 to 2000 told of his fascination with feet, shoes and legs and how Boney retained photographs of those "objects."

Mala Singh, Boney's girlfriend at the time of the murders and whose blood was also found on his "BACKBONE" sweatshirt also told of his obsession with feet. She related the fact that he "romanced" feet and that he liked to kiss her feet and paint her toenails. Her feet aroused him sexually and he also had a fascination with pantyhose and stockings.

Singh also provided a possible clue as to the motive for the trauma to Kim's feet and her death. She said that ugly feet were a turn off for him. For a person who obsessed with pretty painted toenails it is possible that he became irate when seeing Kim's chipped toenail polish and his fascination was overcome with anger.

Additionally, Trevor Smith, a friend of Boney's, stated that Boney told him, after his release from prison on June 19, 2000 that he had a foot fetish. Specifically, Smith said, "He told me he liked to smell them, lick them, kiss them, suck them. He was into feet." (Boney apparently felt very confident in confiding his thoughts to Smith because he also asked Smith to make him a silencer in order for Boney to kill his estranged wife).

Within weeks after the Camm murders, Smith was celebrating his birthday with Boney in a topless club in Louisville when Boney made other comments about his foot fetish. It was also at that time that Boney bought a used hose from one of the topless dancers for $50.00.

Smith was also told by Boney that some feet were ugly and some were pretty. The pretty ones were the ones that Boney smelled, licked, kissed and sucked.

A neighbor of Boney's (not interviewed by the police) at the time of his arrest said that Boney had told him that he had found his "dream job" of being a distributor for a pantyhose manufacturer. That assertion was, of course, a lie, but about which Boney apparently did dream. Incredibly, Boney also told the police that he had such a job, but they never attempted to verify such a claim. It was a lie.

Based upon Boney's own comments and his behavior, most would agree that it has been firmly established that Boney did have a fetish in 1988-early 90's, during his almost eight year incarceration, after his release from prison and after the Camm murders. That sexual obsession has continued for at least 18 years and the fact that Kim's shoes were removed and placed neatly on top of the Bronco (to which Boney admitted) is very relevant to the crime.

Q.   Was Boney's sexual fetish a motive for killing the Camm family?

Establishing a motive for a crime is not always easy. Additionally, the end result of a crime may not have been the original intent. For example, a bank robber may want money from a robbery in order to buy drugs. During the robbery a plainclothes police officer is in the bank, interrupts the robbery, and is shot. The robber didn't intend to shoot anyone but nonetheless it happened and the result is a wounded police officer. Nonetheless, the robber is held accountable for all crimes committed whether intended or not.

Did Boney intend to kill Kim Camm and her children? Only he can answer that question. What is clear is that the crime scene clearly reflected Boney's presence not only through the presence of his sweatshirt, his DNA and palm print being left at the scene but also his criminal signature.

Regarding the presence of a person who obsessed over feet, let's examine the crime scene. Kim had been wearing pants. According to Boney's own admission, he targeted women who wore pants and not those who wore skirts or dresses. Kim's pants had been removed.

Kim's feet were brutalized by her assailant. There could be several reasons for that. The murderer could have been trying to control her and the feet are vulnerable, particularly if stomped upon by someone wearing hard sole prison shoes like those worn by Boney while incarcerated. The feet may have appeared to have been "ugly" in the eyes of the beholder and weren't what they should have been. Was Boney angry upon seeing them?

Kim's shoes were placed neatly on the top of the Bronco by someone who was taller than her. Look at the photograph of the shoes on top of the Bronco. At a crime scene of enormous violence, the shoes were placed neatly on top of the Bronco and they themselves were away from the violence but clearly significant to the crime itself. The placing of those shoes was dismissed by the police, however, as an attempt to rearrange the crime scene.

Remember also what Boney confided to a friend about the rage that roared inside him. Was Kim initially compliant and did she remove her pants only at the point of a gun? When she thought that she was about to be raped and/or her children harmed did she then fight like the mother lion she was? What was Boney's reaction? As the rage ensued, did Boney begin seeing the white that he described?

Many different people commit crimes. There are murderers who are carpenters, painters, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, black, white, short, tall, fat, skinny, or whatever. A skinny, white painter isn't automatically a murderer but that doesn't mean that you eliminate such a person because of those three identifiers. Why, then, would a person get a pass on being a murderer simply for having a sexual fetish for feet, particularly when so much evidence of such a fetish puts Boney at the scene?

Q.   Was Charles Boney a devil worshipper?

During one of Boney's interviews with the defense investigator, he claimed, "The Father in Heaven that I serve is of the Trinity, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Did his actions and words support this fundamental Christian belief?

Boney's wife, girlfriend, former co-worker and others stated that he was a Satan worshipper. According to them, Boney routinely blasphemed God with perverse sexual comments and claimed that Satan was his "higher power" as well as his "father" and "he talked to him all the time." He also conducted séances with black candles and chants at midnight.

Boney additionally has a tattoo on his chest of a pentagram with the number 5 inside. On the cover page of his autobiography, he sketched his nickname of "BACKBONE" having two horns, a pointed tail, and a pitchfork.

We'll let you decide if Charles Boney worshipped the Devil.

Q.   Why did David Camm leave the Indiana State Police?

Dave had been with the ISP for ten years when his uncle, Sam Lockhart, offered him a full-time job with his basement water proofing company. Dave had previously worked part-time and loved meeting the public and presenting the company's products.

Dave was also tired of the irregular shifts. Nights and weekends were never consistent and the job didn't lend itself to spending quality time with his wife and children.

The pay was also an issue, as most police officers will attest. Dave was working part-time for his uncle and doing doing well. He contrasted the pay with the ISP with the possibility of making as much as twice that with his uncle and having nights and weekends off. When it came down to the final analysis, there was no question as to what he should do.

Dave left the ISP on good terms in March, 2000 and within six months he had earned almost what he would have made in a year with the ISP. The decision had been a good one.

When Dave told the investigators that his life was perfect, he meant it in every sense. As he said, his wife loved him "unconditionally" and his children were angels. He and Kim were also making more money than they ever had. Life indeed was perfect.

Q.   Did David Camm inquire about Kim's insurance the day after the murders and why was the insurance coverage on the Camm family raised just months before the murders?

In the aftermath of the murders of his wife and children, one of David's siblings offered to call Kim's employer and tell them the horrible news. David said that he should be the one to do so and as a result, telephoned Aegon in the early morning hours of September 29, 2000. The operator on duty directed his call to the president, Rudy Gernert, and David told him of the murders and asked him to tell Kim's co-workers as well. David was merely doing what any other spouse would have done under the circumstances.

David also told him that he, David, was a former trooper and requested that Kim's e-mails and voice mails be saved. Gernert said that he would attend to that and also said that the Human Resources (HR) department would do whatever they could for Dave. Gernert was emphatic that it was he who told Camm that he would have the HR department call David.

As to increasing insurance, in July, 2000 Kim was the force behind updating the family's insurance policies. She was the one who handled literally everything financial in the family. It was Kim who arranged with David's brother, Danny, to have their life insurance policies updated. After all, David had recently terminated one job, lost group life insurance, and Kim saw to the need to have his insurance enhanced. It was David's insurance that was greatly increased while Kim's insurance was raised very little. Kim was the one responsible for doing so, not David.

Q.   I've heard that Danny Camm, the brother of Dave, forged the signature of Kim Camm on the insurance policy. Is this true?

This is another falsehood which has made its way into the public, but only with the help of the ISP. The answer is absolutely no. The prosecution and police initially made this allegation without any proof whatsoever and when pressed to prove it, finally admitted that it wasn't true.

Incredibly enough however, when David was recharged on March 9, 2005, the probable cause affidavit signed by Detective Gilbert claimed once again that Danny Camm had signed Kim's name to the insurance policy. That claim was made without any proof whatsoever. When pressed about this while under oath in a hearing on June 29, 2005 Detective Gilbert said that he had been told of the forgery by someone but admitted that there was no evidence to support the claim. It was never pursued after that.

Q.  Were there lies told during any of Camm's interviews?

Yes, the investigators told several lies to David during his interview on October 1, 2000, including one where Sergeant Neal claimed that the other basketball players said that David was wearing a sweatshirt that evening. In fact, no one ever said that. Once they couldn't tie David to the sweatshirt, it became a mere "artifact" that was unimportant.

They also claimed that neighbors heard shots around 9:15PM, or the time that they thought that David would have gotten home. No neighbor ever claimed to hear any shots at that time.

They further claimed that a neighbor saw Dave on his back deck dressed in a sweatshirt…at about 9:15PM. Another lie.

They claimed that they found blood on a jacket of his in the garage and that David had tried to clean up the blood and that he was also in the laundry room. That fit with their first theory of him getting home, killing his family, and then calling the police…all after 9:15PM. The prosecution didn't pursue those false assumptions after they needed to get David out of the gym, into his house, and back into the gym while the games were still ongoing because they didn't have enough time.

They also said that they would check every avenue available to them but they didn't. Once they arrested David, they didn't conduct any investigation outside of that which would support their case against David. They got their man within 70 hours and the unknown palm print, "artifact" of a sweatshirt with both unknown male and female DNA, and other critical evidence was ignored completely.

As for David, he told his interrogators more than once that he was "trying to do the best that I can" to answer their questions and further that "I can't remember everything." He was a husband and a father whose family had been slaughtered and who was being subjected to the severest emotional stress imaginable, but he didn't lie about anything, unlike his interrogators.

Q.   Was Kim Camm contemplating leaving David Camm at the time of her death?

David Camm had previously committed affairs in his marriage. David and Kim briefly separated in the 1994 but later reconciled. After Dave resigned from the Indiana State Police and began a new career, his life had changed and he was able to spend more time with his family, even coaching Jill in a church T-Ball league in the summer of 2000. Kim was very pleased that he was no longer with the ISP and shared those thoughts with others, including church members.

Four days prior to her murder, Kim and David went to a movie together and left the kids to be with their grandparents. In David's first interview he acknowledged that he and Kim were intimate after the movie and physical evidence supporting that was found in the laundry room.

Within three weeks of the murders, Kim hired a friend and fellow church member to redecorate her master bed room. According to that friend, "who's going to be painting your bedroom if you're going to leave your husband?"

Additionally, the night before her murder, Kim made a comment to another church member that she and David only recently had talked about having another child. Those actions and thoughts don't reflect the intentions of a wife and mother who was intent on leaving her husband.

A few weeks prior to her murder, Kim had spoken with one of Dave's cousins, Karla, who was pregnant for the first time. Kim had agreed to host a baby shower at her house and asked the cousin while at church to drop off the list of invitees to her. She agreed to do and said she would drop by either Wednesday, September 27th or Thursday, September 28th.

Karla stopped by the house after 8:00PM on Wednesday and Dave invited her into the house, telling her that Kim was giving the kids a bath. She heard the kids in the bathroom and sat and talked with Dave while Kim finished bathing the kids.

Kim subsequently came out and accepted the list of invitees and was very pleasant. Brad came walking into the living room wearing his pajamas and Jill was heard still splashing in the bathtub.

The two talked for a while longer and then Karla left. The visit was pleasant, routine, and Kim acted very much like the caring mother that she was. Nothing of any note was out of the ordinary and there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Dave or Kim were having any marital problems at all.

Talk of the future, of having another child, redecorating her home and intimacy with her husband, planning for a baby shower and all of those actions and comments within days of her murder. Those are not indicators of Kim leaving David but rather of a person looking towards the future with her husband and family.

Q.   Did Kim know that David was molesting Jill but refused to leave him as some people have claimed?

Kim Camm was quiet and demure. That doesn't mean that she was weak and compliant. Anyone making the spurious claim that she would have tolerated anyone harming her children, much less molesting her precious daughter surely didn't know Kimberly Camm. She was a very warm, caring and loving mother who placed her children's safety and needs above anything else in her life. If she thought that anyone, anyone at all, had imperiled her children, she would have immediately and furiously responded like a mother lion. In fact, she did respond like a mother lion on the evening she was murdered. Her numerous injuries suggest that she fought tenaciously before she was shot to death.

Additionally, just weeks before the murders, Kim had taken Jill to their family doctor for a pre-school examination of Jill. The doctor noted, "She is doing very well according to her mother and is having no problems at this time." After a complete examination of Jill, the doctor concluded that she was a normal five year old.

The prosecution needed a theory to justify their story that Dave had killed his wife and children. In coming up with the molestation motive, they also suggested that the loving mother and protector of her children was knowledgeable about her daughter being harmed. That is much more than a disservice to Kim, and it is patently untrue.

Q.   Is it possible that Kim only found out about Jill being molested the same day of her murder?

In order to determine any validity to that it is important to find out what Kim did on the day she was murdered.

Kim dropped the kids at Graceland School and then headed to work at Aegon where it was a normal workday. She twice telephoned the family dentist that afternoon and made an appointment for the kids' annual checkup.

At approximately 4:00PM Kim left Aegon and drove to her mother's house where she picked up Jill and took her to dance practice, arriving there at approximately 4:30PM. Jill was as active and as engaged as she normally was at dance for the entire practice session.

At approximately 5:30PM Kim and Jill drove back to Kim's mother's house where they picked up Brad and took him to Hazelwood Junior High School where he engaged in swimming practice from 6:00PM to 7:00PM. During the time that Brad was swimming, Jill was running up and down the bleachers at the nearby volleyball game.

The three of them left the parking lot of Hazelwood Junior High School at approximately 7:05PM. One of the parents and her child walked with Kim and the kids to the parking lot and chatted along the way. It was a normal conversation and there was no urgency in Kim's demeanor. In short, she was normal.

Shortly thereafter, her Bronco was seen by a neighbor pulling onto Lockhart Road at approximately 7:35PM.

During Kim's last day, she spoke with many different people, but most importantly she personally spoke with her mother on at least two occasions. Janice Renn has repeatedly testified that her conversations with Kim were normal in nature and that Kim offered no hints or thoughts that anything was amiss.

The unfounded claim by some that somehow or another Kim Camm discovered injuries to Jill's genitalia on her last day of life and didn't do anything about that is absurd. Kim was an outstanding mother who would have given her life for her two children and in fact probably did.

Q.   Did David Camm act "funny" after the murders of his wife and kids? Did he also ask questions of the police about the status of the investigation and what they had found in the house?

If you mean by acting "funny" that his range of emotions went from crying uncontrollably to trying to comprehend not only what happened but why it happened then David Camm did act funny.

The police accused Dave of asking questions about the interior of the house and what was found inside as though that was somehow or another an indication that he was being overly inquisitive to see if they had found anything incriminating him. He indeed was asking such questions but it was when he was trying to get into the house to pick out the clothes that Kim, Brad and Jill would wear for eternity. He acknowledged to the police that he could understand him not being allowed inside if there was evidence and the house itself was a crime scene but he wasn't told about any of that.

Remember, also, that Dave was a 10 year law enforcement veteran. It's normal and very natural for people, particularly cops, to want to know about what's going on. For goodness sakes, his family had been slaughtered! Place yourself in such a position. Wouldn't you be asking the police if they had any leads? If they had a suspect? If they had a motive? Why were three innocent people murdered? Dave was being asked those questions by the police. Isn't it natural that he would ask them, in return, the same questions?

Regarding the police treating the house with such due diligence and caution because it was a crime scene, a video taken on less than 18 hours after the murders revealed that over a half dozen policemen were sitting around the kitchen table holding a meeting as the videographer was taping the inside. It was not what one would expect of the police trying to maintain some type of security or preservation while the house was being held for eight days as a crime scene.

Also, Sergeant Sarkisian, during a taped telephone call with Dave on October 1st told Dave that he, Sarkisian, had only a few hours sleep during the past four days and that he was "soup silly." Dave responded that he also had very few hours sleep and that he was experiencing a wide range of emotions. If it was okay for Sergeant Sarkisian who hadn't had his wife and kids slaughtered to be "soup silly," wasn't it to be expected that David Camm might also be acting less than normal?

When Dave responded to Sarkisian that he had also only had a few hours sleep he also told him that he had gone to church that morning. One of the slams against Dave is that he didn't act appropriate in a television interview outside of church. Some people have claimed that he wasn't crying enough or that his grief was faked.

How do you respond to such accusations? How do different people react to the death of a loved one? Ten people may react very differently and to one person another person's reaction may not seem appropriate or correct. That surely doesn't mean that people can't grieve and be angry in their own way.

Q.   What do you think really happened? Did Boney randomly pick Kim and or the house? Why were Kim and the kids targeted?

People never want to contemplate that a seemingly random yet very violent act can occur, particularly in the sanctity of their house and away from high crime areas. The fact of the matter, however, is that such crimes do occur.

The only person who knows why Kim and/or her children and/or the house were targeted is Charles Boney. In the opinion of many, Boney is a classic psychopath because he is a prolific liar, manipulator, deceiver, and has absolutely no conscience.

Let's look at what we do know. Just weeks before the murders Boney was at the Louisville residence of the brother of his girlfriend, Mala Singh. It was there that Boney solicited him to help in a robbery which Boney had planned for Indiana. According to the brother, Boney wanted him to be the driver and the lookout while Boney committed the crime. According to the brother, Boney told him that he would have everything set up and that he was confident in what he was doing. All the brother had to do was drive Boney's car, an older dark Cadillac, and be the lookout while Boney committed the crime.

The brother recalled that Boney told him that it was going to be a Kroger or a bank but no such unsolved robbery occurred at or near that time. Was Boney, the classic liar, only telling the brother about part of the plan? Was it in fact a residence rather than a business?

Incredibly enough, when the brother's interview by the defense investigator was provided to the police and prosecution they never followed up on his story or interviewed others who could verify the story. The defense wanted to allow him to testify but the prosecution argued against that and the judge refused to allow his testimony. Again, another fundamental violation of Dave's 6th Amendment right.