Tag Archives: Charles Boney

More Closing Arguments

General point that due to the publicity, some witnesses doubted David, leading to arguments.
( Scott Shrank )

One of the core principles of the scientific method is the ability to reproduce results via validly conducted experiments. And notably, since we know have confirmation of blood on the bottom of David’s shoe . . . as many here have postulated, why wasn’t at least some of that “transferred” to his truck IF he “returned” to the gym to continue his B-Ball deception?


Note: is the adverse press coverage from 3rd October in evidence?

Boney’s Parole Officer , will he be a witness? ( see DKE )

We and the jury now know how unfairly David was portrayed in the press on October 3 2000, with David’s aunt (Deborah Van Tee)’s statement about three gunshots being completely reversed.

Michael West, incarcerated with #DavidCamm & Jeremy Bullock–inmate who testified Camm confessed to him.

West is serving life sentence. Tells jury Jeremy Bullock had cell next to him and told him he planned to lie in testimony against #DavidCamm

West: Bullock said he was a cop. He didn’t like cops. “I’ve got 10 more yrs to do. I’ll try anything to get out.”
West denies expecting anything. Says testifying because what Bullock did “isn’t right.” Says lies are reason he’s behind bars.


external image 885226_10202155099668934_1367036613_o.jpg



There is a significant fact that the prosecution simply ignored – why I’m not sure other than to hypothesize that (a) it was a fact that was inconsistent with David’s guilt; (b) it was a fact that supported Bonehead’s guilt; and more telling, (c) it would have opened the door to Bonehead’s foot fetish even more. BUT, the fact remains, just as the gorilla video is in evidence, so is this.
From the autopsy and ME’s testimony, injuries to Kim’s feet:

• top of right 3rd toe

• top of right 4th toe
• top of right foot
• top of left 5th toe
• top of left 2nd toe
• top of left great toe
• top of left foot
“Of particular interest was the fact that the tops of both feet had bruising and cuts worse then any other injury other than the gunshot wound itself. It was as though her feet and toes, which had chipped, partial nail polish, had themselves been a target of the assailant’s attack, possibly by being stomped with a hard sole shoe. As with a lot of other evidence, however, the attacks on her feet were ignored and the injuries were dismissed as irrelevant.”
And I’m quite sure that there are plenty of photos in evidence that show Kim’s bare feet.
So, Mr. Levco:
– Where are her socks?
– How did her feet get so injured?
– Aren’t those injuries consistent with a large, bulky man such as Bonehead standing on her feet to keep her from kneeing him in the balls as he’s trying to pull off her panties?
– Are we supposed to believe that Bonehead’s crazy story that he heard David and Kim arguing and then, Bam, Bam and Bam as he executed his wife and two kids and THEN went and stomped on Kim’s feet?
– But, how could he do that with her feet under the Bronco?
– You can’t make those injuries go away and you can’t expect this jury to ignore an obvious and undisputed fact!
– Those injuries are the pink elephant here!
– You can run from that elephant, but you can’t hide – your own witnesses, your own photographic evidence gave that elephant to this jury.
– You examined David’s shoes in microscopic detail.
– You examined David’s shoes in molecular detail!
– You expect this jury to believe that David’s gym shoes caused those injuries when all the investigators had to do was look at the soles of those shoes – rubber basketball shoes!
– No, those injuries were caused by shoes worn by a large heavy pink elephant whose name is Charles D. Bonehead – that’s the ONLY conclusion YOUR evidence can lead any rational juror to conclude.

To rebut any suggestion that Boney acting alone is puzzling

“You do not have to understand how or why Charles Boney acted as he did. There are aspects of his past, and his past crimes, that you may not be aware of. There are aspects of human behaviour you may not be fully familiar with. But you do know that Charles Boney is a liar and a criminal. Please apply what you do know about violent criminals.”

Good Closing Arguments


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 evidence against David

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.”

Why would you believe Charles Boney?

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.

Back on the streets?

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).

What proof is there that his stories are true?

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!

Changing stories

( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201943644742693&set=gm.10151634819122135&type=1&theater )
external image 996011_10201943644742693_1207124164_n.jpg

How could they have met that night

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?

Patsy theory – just suppose

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.

Why would Charles lie, why the difficulty concocting the story?

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.

At the scene : brave Charles

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!

Hard evidence contradicts Charles story

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.

The snitches

ToDo : but Bullock was clearly a boost to the defense : his testimony is not consistent with the prosecution case and Boney’s testimony.

Three trials

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.

When you are deliberating

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.

A version of this article was published at GroundReport

See also More closing arguments

Further Observations

Recent news:


Adam Lane wrote:

“Hard science (touch DNA) and a church full of eyewitnesses vs. junk science (BPA) and prison snitches. The David Camm case in a nutshell.”

Closing arguments

Please see Good closing arguments for my collection of defense arguments.

More nonsense

The prosecution case is senseless. It has 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.


Chatting to a reporter about phones in court:


Did Charles Boney know Kim Camm?


To be investigated:
“Didn’t Charles live less than a block from Kim from the time he was 10 or so? The name Darnell is reserved for only Charles Boney’s closest of friends, according to him, and then Frank calls him Darnell, how convenient”

*He lived off Gary Drive near Kim they rode the school bus together growing up.”

from http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=2224&p=110707#p110701

Charles Boney and domestic violence

I don’t believe in “monsters”, every human has a history that accounts for behaviour, almost every human has the capacity for redemption.
But on September 28 2000, Charles Boney, at that moment in time, was a monster.
He abused his own partner1, he abused many women2, he abused and murdered David Camm’s family.

1 “Boney beat her, threatened her life, and used a stun gun on her” Wikipedia
2 Boney violently attacked five young women, stealing shoes. He took young women hostage on three occasions, in two cases, he used a gun.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130731/NEWS02/307310174 1 Aug 2013
Richard Eikelenboom, who owns Independent Forensic Services, said that 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.


Ask yourself this. Even supposing David Camm had some motive to kill his family (incredibly unlikely – no evidence of depression – and in marriage break-up murder cases, there is always a long escalation of stalking). Would he risk involving a known criminal, such as Charles Boney and come up with such a hare-brained, risky scheme of trying to sneak out of a gym session, and hope not to be observed? This makes absolutely no sense, it’s nonsense. The case is simple: Charles Boney murdered David Camm’s family, the police botched the investigation.

Other views

“Enough is enough in my view, and it is time to move on.” Attorney Patrick Renn represented Camm’s co-defendant Charles Boney, so his take on what should happen might surprise you: “My personal hope is that the prosecutor, Mr. Henderson, will not re-try the case, will go ahead and dismiss the charges and that David Camm then would be released.”


http://www.whas11.com/video?id=220294341&sec=1676321&ref=rcvidmod Posted August 19.
Interview with Frank, Janice Remm. I’m so sad they have been taken in by prosecutors. I hope they will come to see the truth in this trial.
The consequences of prosecutorial misconduct, incompetent investigations are so awful.


Observing events from a distance, I see a very familiar pattern. Investigators making mistakes, use of evidence that has no objective value, “professional” expert witnesses over-stating the strength of evidence with no scientific basis.

Boney Autobiography

File: BoneyAutoBiography ( Note: pages 3,4 and 5 appear to have been redacted )

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.

More quotes at : http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4532800


The story of Donna Kopp Ennis posted recently on Facebook :

Many sleepless, haunting nights this week, but I have finally mustered the courage to talk about it. Charles Boney is an evil monster and there is no doubt in my mind that he killed the Camm family, and David Camm is innocent. I have a personal experience with Charles Boney that has haunted me for the last 20 years.

In October 1992, I was a college student at Indiana University in Bloomington and lived in the Varsity Villas apartment complex. One Thursday evening I was on my couch studying with my roommate and someone entered our apartment through the unlocked front door. At first, I didn’t even look up because one of our roommates had literally just left and I thought it was her coming back in to get something that she may have forgot. After a few moments, I felt like someone was staring at me and I turned around to see a black man who I did not know standing there with a duffle bag on his shoulder. I looked at him and said “Can I help you?” He pulled out a gun and said, “this is a robbery.” My roommate is saying nothing she is just staring in disbelief. At first, I thought this was a mean joke that our friends were playing on us. Then my roommate says to me, “Donna I can see the bullets in the gun.” He heard our other roommate on the phone upstairs so he ordered us to go upstairs at gun point. He was behind me as I was going up the stairs and I was so nervous I slipped and he poked the gun into my top of my neck/bottom of my head and started cussing. Reality set in at that moment.

Throughout the whole ordeal (which lasted I would say about 20 minutes), he called us “rich, white, honky b—–s” and told us he was going to kill us if we did anything stupid. I believed him. During this whole ordeal, our phone was ringing off the hook. Our neighbor in the apartment behind us had walked out on to his balcony and saw what was going on in our apartment and he called 911.

He took us out of our apartment to my roommate’s car and loaded us in the car as we were pulling out of the lot, the car was surrounded by police with guns drawn. I threw the door open and ran out of the car into the arms of a police officer. I owe my life to my neighbor who made that 911 call and the BPD who rescued us.

The one thing that has haunted me the most is the visit that we received from his parole officer sometime before his sentencing. At that meeting his Parole Officer told us, “Charles Boney is a career criminal. The only life he has ever known is prison and he will do whatever it takes to get back there,including murder.”

When I was notified that he had applied for a sentence modification in the spring of 2000, I flipped. He had only served 7 years of a 20 year sentence and we were told at the time of crime, that since he had violated his parole only 5 days after leaving prison that he would have to serve the rest of that sentence as well. I wrote a statement to Monroe County stating that I was adamantly against him being released and I wanted him to serve his full sentence. That statement also included the statement that his parole officer made to us back in 1992, and they still let him out!

I carry a tremendous guilt, feeling that I didn’t do enough to keep him in prison.

I am so sorry to the Camm and Renn families for everything that they have been through because of this monster. I wish people would take the time to really look at all of the evidence, and they will see that David Camm did not do this.

See also Charles Boney a Psychopath?

Charles Boney a Psychopath?

Or more scientifically, can he be diagnosed as ASPD ( Anti-Social Personality Disorder )

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#DSM-IV-TR

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), defines ASPD (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[8]
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

  1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
  2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
  3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
  4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
  5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
  6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
  7. 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.

My amateur assessment, based on the evidence.

1. Yes, long criminal record.
2. Yes, see for example Boney autobiography
3. Yes, his crimes seem to be unplanned or poorly planned ( there is limited evidence of planning, use of “layers”, changing clothes ).
4. Yes : fights in prison, admitted physical abuse of partners ( domestic violence – Boney autobiography )
5. Yes ( his crimes are reckless in the extreme, see for example DKE )
6. Not so clear, perhaps indicated in Boney autobiography
7. Yes, see Charles Boney Interview with Gary Dunn and Boney autobiography

B) Yes.
C) Not sure, again see Boney autobiography
D) Yes.

See also

“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.”

Autobiography sample

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.

From Boney autobiography

See also

David Camm – Excluded Evidence and Judge Dartt

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.

Kammen interjected.

“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.

The appeal ruling

From http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06260901bd.pdf , Foot of Page 18:

“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.”

( Note: the indefatigable Jane has copies of the referenced and another ruling here: http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php… )

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 ).

Additional facts

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

High Rise

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.

See also

“In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution