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.

Patience

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

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.

Trial by Media

Tag Archives: Judge Dartt

David Camm – Excluded Evidence and Judge Dartt