Why would anyone murder their own children? This can happen at the end of a long, bitter divorce as a final insane act of revenge due to feelings of betrayal, “If I cannot have you, nobody will”. It does not happen with normal sane people leading a happy family life. Do you have children? Is it possible that you would kill your own children? Of course not, that is the act of someone driven mad by betrayal. And consider that this act cannot have been the result of a sudden argument or fit of temper, the state alleges that the act was planned some considerable time in advance. David was earning good money, enjoying life after leaving police, spending more time with his family, having the best days of his life.
Ask yourself, who might have committed this terrible crime?
- David Camm, a hard working family man, an honest, trusted member of the community, an ex State Trooper?
- Charles Boney, a career criminal, used to taking women hostage using a gun, with a string of felonies and time in jail behind him?
Who is the more likely suspect here? Who might be capable of shooting a mother and two children?
Surely Charles Boney. To conclude otherwise, there must be incontrovertible evidence.
Blood spatter analysis is mostly common sense, and elementary physics. But be careful! Don’t trust experts too much.
RIchard Feynmann, the greatest US scientist who ever lived, said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Ladies and gentlemen, THAT is true science!
Do not take the expert’s word as gospel truth, consider for yourself how sure an expert can be of his opinion.
Different theories may be consistent with the evidence, do not consider just one theory to the exclusion of others.
When experts disagree, you may wish to consider their credibility, their academic record and education.
When experts disagree, you must consider the alternative possibilities.
The tiny collection of dots of blood, alleged to be high velocity blood spatter by the prosecution, and transfer by the defense.
But in fact
“presumptive tests used to detect whether the dots could have been blood could have pushed the dried droplets deeper into the T-shirt.”
This cannot be ruled out, so we must treat the HVIS hypothesis as just one possibility.
The man at the scene initially (Stites) said he was “90% sure it was HVIS”. Well, there are other possibilities.
Later Mr Stites said he was 100% certain. Anyone who says they are 100% sure of the interpretation on the basis of no clear reasoning, should be regarded as suspect.
Recall the testimony of Mr Englert: “I remember telling Mr. Stites, ‘Do not give any opinions, just keep your mouth shut!'”
Recall that Mr. Englert testified that Mr. Stites “went overboard.”
He is a serial liar, his story was coached, he is a career criminal, he has a long criminal record.
Every time his story proved false, he changed it, with help from prosecutors intent on maintaining David’s conviction.
Mr. Boney’s tale has been cooked up over a long period of time, and it still makes no sense, as you will soon see.
Charles Boney was trying to avoid the death penalty, now he has delusions that you will believe his story and he will get a retrial.
Do you want to see Mr Boney back on streets again? Will your wives and daughters be safe?
Carrying on his trade in guns, with his backpack full of them (assuming he even told the truth about being a gun dealer).
Charles Boney claims to have met David on several occasions, in public places.
But not one shred of evidence has been advanced to substantiate these improbable claims.
Not one player at the alleged basketball game has testified to David or Charles’ presence.
The prosecution have not even established Charles Boney ever played basketball at all.
Not one witness has been produced who ever saw Charles play basketball, arranged a game, or participated in any way.
Not one person saw either of them meeting.
Contrast that to David Camm’s alibi!
Mr Boney testified to you that he ‘couldn’t remember’ how he agreed to meet David, when and where, as they never talked by phone.
Is this credible? Did David and Mr Boney communicate by telepathy?
If David was going to frame Charles Boney as a Patsy:
(1) He would invite Charles into the garage.
(2) He would then use his own legal weapon to shoot Charles ( or kill him in some other way )
(3) He would then shoot his family with the gun Charles had, and place it in his hand.
(4) Then call the cops, saying he caught Boney murdering his family and shot him ( or killed him in some other way ).
However David never had his own legal gun (ToDo:is that in evidence), so he could never have entertained a “Patsy” plot using a gun to kill Boney.
Killing Boney with an illegal gun could not be explained : how or why could David explain his possession of an illegal gun?
The Patsy theory is not compatible with Charles Boney’s testimony.
Or could David not have intended to kill Charles Boney? No : that would be David Camm inviting Boney to witness him executing his family, and then hoping that Charles Boney will accept the death penalty and keep quiet about what he witnessed. That makes no sense at all.
If we suppose Charles Boney only supplied the gun, or two guns, the moment Charles admitted his involvement, his sole aim would be to place the blame on David as the shooter.
All he has to do is to tell the truth, and he is saved.
But instead he tells an impossible story that cannot be the truth.
And he has to keep changing his story.
The conclusion is that his story is an invention, Charles Boney murdered David Camm’s family, David was playing basketball.
Returning to Charles’s story, when Charles Boney hears David shooting his family why does he not run away?
Even more so after David has tried to shoot him?
And what is the chance of the gun jamming? Really?
Boney gave testimony that either “it jammed or he ran out of bullets”.
He supposedly heard the shots. Boney says he loaded the weapon…so why doesn’t he know if it ran out of bullets?
It takes seconds to fix a gun that jams–hence no reason to run back in the house to get another gun.
And then when he runs, he says he trips, stops, and places Kim Camm’s shoes on top of the Bronco.
Why? Is this credible? Surely it is not.
It is surely a concoction devised to get Charles out of a hole, or rather a noose.
And why would David want a second gun anyway?
Why isn’t Charles Boney suspicious about this?
None of this makes sense!
69 particles of gunshot residue on the gray sweatshirt (tied to Charles Boney), strongly suggests Charles Boney fired the gun.
Boney’s DNA was found near the cuff of Kimberly Camm’s shirt, on the stomach area of 5-year-old Jill Camm, Kimberly and David Camm’s daughter, and on two places on Kim Camm’s underwear.
ToDo : but Bullock was clearly a boost to the defense : his testimony is not consistent with the prosecution case and Boney’s testimony.
The defense case is that the investigation was bungled from the start, with a rush to judgement.
Again, recall the testimony of Mr Englert: “I remember telling Mr. Stites, ‘Do not give any opinions, just keep your mouth shut!'”
Recall that Mr. Englert testified that Mr. Stites “went overboard.”
Important evidence was destroyed, not tested properly or when tested, not processed to see if it matched database records.
Any element that did not support the prosecution of David Camm was ignored.
Improper arguments by the state, desperate to obtain a conviction, have resulted in reversed convictions.
Ever since David was arrested, the prosecution has attempted to defend an untenable and improbable position, against all reason.
Use your common sense, do not put too much weight on any single piece of evidence.
Consider ALL the evidence. Consider whether the state’s theory makes sense, does it have logical flaws, improbabilities.
Also consider the defense case. Has the defense given a plausible alternative account of events?
Which case is compatible with ALL the evidence, is the defense case possible?
Consider whether the suggested actions of David Camm and Charles Boney are logical or even possible.
If you do not understand, think again, use your collective reason to understand the evidence, and form a coherent consistent explanation.
If there is no explanation, or you feel puzzled, that constitutes doubt.
If after deliberating with care, and considering ALL the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that David murdered his own family, you MUST acquit.
See also More closing arguments