consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.
“The researchers interviewed 52 convicted murderers, 14 of them ranked as psychopaths according to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, a 20-item assessment, and asked them to describe their crimes in detail. Using computer programs to analyze what the men said, the researchers found that those with psychopathic scores showed a lack of emotion, spoke in terms of cause-and-effect when describing their crimes, and focused their attention on basic needs, such as food, drink and money.”
Moreover, my mother may no longer be on the chessboard, but I have the enemy in check and the next move is mate! David Camm has to realise that the lies he has told and the deception he has created will backfire on his ass! As I am writing this chapter, I’m confident that I will be found not guilty and I will become the “thirteen million dollar man.”
You have to be careful what you ask for, because I can remember all too well what I had asked for during my resolution hour before the new year. I asked myself to commit to a weight loss regime and I had a goal to make more money than I ever had before. Imagine that! I’m in jail and I have lost forty pounds so far and this book is my meal ticket for the rest of my life.
I have nothing, except my name and that has been center of ridicule, critical review, and a rush to judgment. Once trial is over, what could I possibly do with my life? I have two options; I could go back to crime and be a real ruthless bastard, or I can market myself and be professional with all of my business decisions.
I have been thinking about why judge Dartt is wrong about not allowing the testimony of Mike McDaniel.
It comes down to this : the jury are entitled to know how it was that David Camm was wrongly accused of murder, and how Charles Boney was protected from justice by Stan O. Faith. This is fundamental to understanding the case, and denying the jury this evidence has the potential to cause a miscarriage of justice.
Foot and panty sexual fetish evidence
It is also wrong to exclude evidence on Charles Boney’s sexual fetishes, because there is a clear link between his earlier behaviour (stealing shoes), his other violent crimes against women (hostage taking with a gun), the pornographic movies he watched in the weeks leading up to the murder, the fact that Kim Camm’s trousers were removed, the fact that she had changed her panties (she would not have worn black panties under the dress she wore that day), the fact that her shoe was placed on the roof of the Bronco, the fact that her foot was bruised, the fact that condoms were found, the fact that Charles Boney’s DNA was found in Kim Camm’s underwear. All these elements are consistent only with Charles Boney committing the crime.
The facts are very clear, how hiding relevant facts from the jury can possibly help ensure a just verdict is incomprehensible.
This shows the US justice system in a very poor light. I speak as an independent observer living in Gloucester, UK, with no political or other axe to grind.
According to this report the following exchange took place in court, Friday 4th October 2013:
“We are not going to re-try Trial One,” Judge Dartt said.
“That’s enough, Mr. Kammen.” Judge Dartt said. “My patience is running thin.”
Judge Dartt is talking nonsense here. It is not a question of “retrying trial one”, it is a matter of putting relevant evidence and facts before the jury.
He should get off his high horse, and set about ensuring justice, before David Camm jumps out of the dock and gives him a lecture on patience.
“We begin our inquiry as to the admissibility of Boney’s criminal history and alleged foot and shoe fetish with Rule 404(b) and this Court’s decision in Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 2003). In Garland, the defendant contended that testimony about a third party’s prior bad acts was admissible for the same purpose advanced by the defendant here: to show the third party’s identity as the perpetrator of the charged crime and motive to commit the crime.”
The appeal court has erred by not taking into account the CUMULATIVE effect of the evidence. It is undisputed that Boney was at the scene and his fingerprints were discovered on the Bronco.
The appeal court states “The prior crime of a third party must be “strikingly similar” to the current crime to be probative of identity.”
However, the IDENTIFICATION of Charles Boney is not at issue, since other evidence proves he was at the scene, what is at issue is whether he had a motive (based on his character) to remove Kim Camm’s trousers and place her shoe on the Bronco.
Thus the appeal court committed a horrible mistake here, this is an irrelevance.
The appeal court then goes on to tie itself in some logical knots… the overall effect is nonsense of the kind that can only be produced by judges. They have failed to consider ALL the evidence cumulatively.
“The defendant’s claim that Boney’s alleged foot and shoe fetish was the motive for these crimes fails because there is no evidence connecting these crimes to a foot or shoe fetish beyond the wife’s shoes being off and her feet being bruised. In these circumstances, the defendant’s contention is really that we should infer guilt on Boney’s part because of his sexual compulsion for feet and shoes.”
Well, given Boney’s undisputed presence at the crime scene, this is just ridiculous. And it is not simply Boney’s sexual compulsion, it is the evidence that he previously committed criminal acts related to this sexual compulsion. Moreover this statement is simply FALSE, the court has conveniently overlooked the shoe not only being off, but also placed on the roof of the Bronco. And what about the condoms?
Then the appeal court continues:
“This is the “forbidden inference” prohibited by Evidence Rule 404—that evidence of a person’s character or character trait, such as crimes, wrongs, or acts, cannot be used to show action in conformity with that character or character trait—and by this Court’s jurisprudence. Evidence regarding Boney’s criminal history and alleged foot and shoe fetish was properly excluded under the Rules of Evidence.”
There is no “forbidden inference” here, or evidence that is unduly prejudicial. It is circumstantial evidence very well connected to the crime, that allows the defense to paint a complete picture and present a complete defense ( a constitutional right, see foot of page ).
And what about the removal of Kim’s trousers?
What about Boney’s DNA in Kim’s underwear?
What about Boney’s cable bill (which links Boney’s multiple fetishes)?
Serial Killing 101
Panthose Passion 1
Foot Teasers 1
Panty Frenzy 2
Foot Teasers 2
Foot Teasers 2
Against The Ropes
The inference of guilt is not based SOLELY on this evidence, but also on his undisputed presence at the crime, and there being no other plausible explanation for the otherwise puzzling facts observed at the scene of the crime.
Judge Dartt convicted
Judge Dartt has arrived at an indefensible position, and he certainly knows it. Any jury in full possession of the facts would surely convict him of presiding over an unfair trial in which relevant evidence has been hidden from the jury. The defense that he is “only following orders” fails, since further facts unknown to the appeal court have come to light.
Now Judge Dartt, the patience of independent observers of the trial over which you preside is wearing very thin indeed. You are desperately trying to defend earlier bad decisions to save face. But justice is not about saving face, it is about examining all of the evidence and reaching a just conclusion. You appear to be ignorant of this obvious truth.
You had better come clean, own up to the misdeeds of the appeal court and reverse your own misdeeds, or the full force of comment from independent observers will soon come to bear. Faith in the rule of law is based on trust that judges act fairly, you are undermining that trust, and by your acts are showing that you are not worthy of the position you hold.
Single event – not “worst of the worst” – financial motive
Karla Faye Tucker – joint felony murder under influence of drugs, did not strike initial blows. Model prisoner, international clemency appeals ignored.
Marilyn Kay Plantz – drug addict, killed husband for money in conspiracy with boyfriend
Teresa Lewis – low IQ – single incident (husband+stepson), alcohol and painkillers, did not carry out murders herself, financial motive
Suzanne Basso – one of six co-defendants convicted in the August 1998 murder of Louis “Buddy” Musso, a mentally retarded man, who was tortured and murdered for his life insurance money
Aileen Wuornos – prostitute – multiple killings ( claimed self-defense ). Possibly a case of mental illness, she apparently hated and was paranoid about men, but also was criminal, and then remorseful ( she fired her lawyers so execution was not delayed ).
Over many centuries, women have been put on trial, accused of “witch-craft“, or in more recent times of being a “Femme Fatale” – having the ability to control men and to commit heinous crimes for no plausible reason. Debra Milke has spent 23 years on death row in Arizona. On the flimsiest evidence, people are still readily convinced that an instance of this elusive woman has been found. A woman who leads a blameless life, but then one day turns into a savage, calculating murderer for no good reason. The evidence is just some vague suspicion : the actual killer makes a suggestion, not repeated in court. A burglary with nothing taken, a gun is stolen.
Let’s be clear : “Femme Fatale” is simply the modern word for “Witch”. It serves to make discussion more plausible, but no less irrational. How many billions of women have lived on the planet? Not one “Femme Fatale” or “Witch” has ever been identified with certainty. It is extraordinary that the myth lives on. Harry Potter is fiction not fact. Every child knows this.
In a witch-hunt trial, the prosecution focus on tiny details, remote from the scene of the crime – a missing mark on a receipt, a telephone call placed at an odd hour, a mobile phone switched off, a mobile phone switched on. These tiny signs are interpreted as evidence of the accused’s guilt. If something does not fit, it is because the accused has cunningly manipulated or cleaned the crime scene, with infinite foresight.The accused is cunning and intelligent one moment, but makes stupid mistakes the next. A single phrase is picked out from thousands of pages of writing, taken out of context. If no mark can be found, an expert is brought in to find what is not there using some contaminated source. Detectives and Doctors are called by the prosecution to give any testimony that is needed.
No expense is spared. When evidence is disproven, a search for fresh evidence is conducted. Above all, the witch is required to prove her innocence beyond every doubt, an impossible task. She is thought to be a great liar, somehow she has an answer to everything, but every explanation is deemed to be pure invention. A hundred reasons for suspicion are laid against her, if a single one cannot be innocently explained, in that instant, she is doomed. The more she struggles, the more she explains, the more scorn is placed on her efforts, the more she incriminates herself in the mind of the mob. The burden of proof is reversed, the woman is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. A succession of trials may be held. The general public become prejudiced, because they only have to believe in one bogus piece of evidence to become convinced of guilt, and often the innocent explanation is never heard – suppressed in the general condemnation “why would anyone want to defend this woman”.
The demeanour of the accused is confirmation, looking into the eyes allows a diagnosis to be made. If she cries, these are tears of self-pity, guilt, or an act. If she doesn’t cry, she is cold-hearted. These gentle women are often described as frightened rabbits, caught in the headlights of a rampaging lynch mob. No mercy is to be shown, the lack of a criminal record counts for nothing. The mob insists on the maximum penalty available – solitary confinement, life imprisonment with no parole, execution. Some even call for the woman to be executed then brought back to life, to be killed again and again, subjected to every imaginable torture.
In fact these cases can and should be easily resolved by simply checking that the woman is non-violent and gentle with no criminal record. That should be sufficient proof of innocence. It cannot be stressed too much – a woman of this type does not, cannot, never has and never will commit heinous murder for some implausible reason, such as “freedom from parental responsibility”, “revenge” or “jealousy”. If a woman of this type is alleged to have killed someone, it is either an accident, self-defense or simply not true, it is never murder.
The witch-hunters are quite sincere in their mistaken beliefs. They are consumed by the fear that the accused might escape punishment, even as they are aware of her charming appearance. I believe it is some kind of psychological imbalance – they know they must not be influenced by the pretty girl, but over-compensate, and ignore the obvious evidence in front of them. They genuinely do not want to believe, but they feel it is some civic or religious duty, and they really do believe. They are locked into a state of confirmation bias, oblivious to the lack of decisive evidence.
Any witness who might support the accused is attacked, threatened with death, perjury and slander charges, until nobody will testify for her out of fear. Anything can be twisted, because the end justifies the means, her guilt is never doubted.That is the tragedy. Once can forgive the family of the person who has died, grief clouds judgement. But people who administer justice should know better. In the internet age, the odds against the accused are even more staggering, with social media used to manipulate thousands of dedicated haters in an instant.
All the parties are losers – especially the accusing family, their faces twisted with mistaken hate, as they dedicate their lives to the futile hunt, refusing to even hear the accused. The prosecutor storms and rants, displaying any gruesome photographs available. He argues maybe this, perhaps that. The jury is cowed into the fear of error, openly weeping with horror, confusion, stress and exhaustion as they reach their verdict. Even the judge may weep openly in court, her face twisted with conflict, convinced of the witch’s guilt, but determined not to allow any avenue of escape.
You may not believe that the search for the Femme Fatale is still pursued using Witch-hunts in the Western world, but consider the following quotes:
“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator, November 2007.
“Raffaele Sollecito had probably given her that knife for reasons of self-defense, a knife which she could transport in her capacious purse.” Motivations report, Giancarlo Massei, March 2010.
“She was a diabolical, satanic, demonic she-devil. She was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one you see before you and the other.”Carlo Pacelli, September, 2011.
“The word “probable” (or “improbable”) occurs some 39 times in the course of the motivation.” Presiding Judge Dr. Hellman, Motivation report, December 2011.
“I really hate to be saying that she is guilty but sadly, she is as guilty as it gets.” Donald Trump, May 3, 2013.
“Alyce LaViolette, she had a motive to lie. I mean, um, maybe perhaps it was her reputation that she was interested in, or things like that.” Juan Martinez, closing argument, May 3, 2013.
“If you believe what the defendant is telling you, then all of these arguments then do begin to make sense.” Juan Martinez, closing rebuttal, May 4, 2013.
“I don’t have all the information, but I think she’s guilty.” Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, May 7, 2013.
“God gives us big warning signs that something is very wrong with people. That witchcraft thing was it.” – Nancy Grace
On 8th May 2013, Jodi Arias was found guilty of premeditated first degree murder. The jury was not sequestered.The televised show trial broadcast nightly to millions of Americans was nothing less than pornography, thrilling the audience with the possible execution of an innocent Christian woman, the modern day version of the Christian martyrs slaughtered in the Colosseum. There was no attempt at fair, balanced coverage, the defense case was never fairly discussed in the live coverage. Cheerleaders for the prosecution were feted, the occasional supporter was mocked mercilessly, after showing just a few hand-picked seconds, while jurors followed the public mood on twitter in the jury room.