Boney's Story "Checks Out"

Between February 18 and February 28, 2005, there were no reports generated by the police which supplied any additional information provided by Boney. The investigators admitted later, however, that he was in daily contact with them. Boney was asked to call in each day and he complied with that request. On at least one day, however, Boney personally visited Kessinger in his office at the prosecutor's office. What he told the police and the prosecutors during those ten days of telephone calls and one personal visit one can only guess, since there were no reports detailing those phone calls and only a cursory mention of his visit with Kessinger.

Another critical question, particularly since he had already been given a plethora of information, is what Boney was told by the investigator and prosecution during those ten days. He had already been given ideas in the form of "clean" and untraceable guns, a weapon wrapped in his sweatshirt and information that nothing was taken from the crime scene.

The investigators did speak with the Salvation Army people about the outside drop site where Boney claimed to have left his "BACKBONE" sweatshirt. There were no records, no video surveillance tapes, and since Boney claimed that he was alone when he gave the sweatshirt away, there were no witnesses whatsoever of his claim. Consequently, there was no way to verify Boney's claim about having donated his sweatshirt. Nonetheless, after the identification of Boney's DNA on the sweatshirt and his penchant for giving interviews had dominated the news throughout the weekend, the prosecutors held a press conference on Monday, February 28th and said that Boney's story had checked out.

One of the television reporters claimed that she had an inside source with the prosecutor's office when she offered this comment, "Sources close to the prosecution say Boney's story checks out. Prosecutors questioned him recently for more than 22 hours and found no loopholes." There was no mention, of course, that Boney had flunked a polygraph, because that information wasn't leaked to the press.

How can a story check out if there is no corroboration of how the sweatshirt was disposed and his alibi witnesses aren't even interviewed? How can a story check out if a polygraph examination, administered by a veteran police examiner, finds the examinee is lying about his involvement in three murders? How can a story check out if no one conducts a simple background investigation about the new suspect, such as interviewing his past wife, estranged wife, girlfriends, friends, previous victims and other associates?

Indeed, Boney's fiancée, even though he was still married, was a lady with whom he had lived for several months. There is no police report of any interview of her other than a comment that there was a "brief" conversation with her. If they would have interviewed her, they would have quickly determined, for example, that Boney, who claimed that he didn't have any fetishes, routinely ordered adult films that featured fetishes involving the feet and legs; additionally, if they had interviewed his estranged wife they would have found out not only about his obsession with feet, but also that he kept a "kit" consisting of a handgun, duct tape and gloves hidden in their closet and that he had shoved that gun into her mouth and threatened to kill her; if they had interviewed his former best friend, they would have discovered that Boney had repeatedly solicited him to build him a silencer for his handgun; if they would have interviewed others, they would have found that he wanted to kill his estranged wife; if they had interviewed any of the five women that he robbed at gunpoint and three that he kidnapped at gunpoint and with a gun to their head, they would have determined that he was a very violent person who hated cops; if they would have done a simple routine background investigation of Boney, they might have changed their minds about Boney being a non-violent person whose story had checked out.

If your position is that David Camm and only David Camm was responsible for the murders, however, it's easy to understand why they disregarded Boney even though so much evidence pointed to him.

Indeed, during that press conference, Henderson made the following comments, "Either David Camm acted alone or David Camm acted in concert." Although he said he wasn't ruling out Charles Boney, the laser beam continued to be aimed directly at Camm in spite of the mounting evidence against Boney.

Henderson's chief aide, Steve Owen, made this startling comment, ""Mr. Boney's going to come out of jail, go to somebody's house in Georgetown, brutally murder three people and then say 'Oh, I think I'll take off my sweatshirt that I got from DOC and lay it down here by the boy.'" Owen was confused, of course, because Brad was murdered in the Bronco and stayed there until Dave arrived home, removed him from the vehicle and gave him CPR. The killer, therefore, wouldn't be laying his sweatshirt next to Brad where it was even overlooked by the State Police evidence technicians.

Nonetheless, Owen then followed up his own rhetorical question by answering it himself, "Because it doesn't make sense to me. Does that make sense to anyone?" The answer, of course, is that it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people that a very violent felon would commit such an act.

(Note: As noted, the true answer to Boney leaving his sweatshirt at the scene is quite simple. In the darkened garage, in the aftermath of a violent death struggle with a protective mother, and after he's shot and killed three people, his "escape plan" in the form of a sweatshirt may be lost in his panic-stricken mind. Boney who told a friend that he only sees white spots when inflicted with rage, also had previously left evidence at other crimes. He was a self-described bad criminal and the fact that he did leave his sweatshirt at a crime scene can and does make sense, particularly moreso when other evidence of his was left at the scene.)

Henderson also made this incredible statement, "The shoes aren't missing. Kim's pants are off. That's not been (Boney's) M.O. in the past." Once again, if they had only interviewed any number of people who had been victims of Boney's assaults, gun violence and threats to kill, they would have discovered a distinctly different Charles Boney than what they chose to see. He was anything but a simple thief.