Murder On Lockhart Road

Bizarre Twists And Evidence Keep Turning Case On Its Head

By Daniel Schorn - CBSNews.com

July 12, 2008

On the evening of Sept. 28, 2000, former Indiana state trooper David Camm came home to find his 35-year-old wife Kim and his five-year-old daughter Jill murdered, both shot execution-style in the head; his seven-year old-son Brad died after being shot in the chest.

Just three days later, Camm, 36, was arrested and charged with the murders. Camm has adamantly denied any involvement in the murders.

Correspondent Richard Schlesinger has spent years investigating the case, one with bizarre evidence and many unusual twists that would lead to an ending that no one expected.

*****

David Camm spoke to 48 Hours shortly after his 2000 arrest, recalling what he saw when he drove up to the garage of his home.

"I started to pull my truck in, I get up to the threshold and that’s when I saw the first stream of blood," Camm told Schlesinger. "I get down in her face and yell 'Kim, Kim!' And her eyes - I could tell she was gone."

His children, Brad and Jill, were still inside the family SUV. "I looked in the back and I looked to the right, that’s when I saw Brad, kind of like he was stretched over the seat and his little eyes-I could just barely see his little eyes," Camm recalled. "I could see little Jill, she was still sittin’ there in her seat and her head, her little head was down in her lap."

Up until four months before the murders, Camm had been a trooper with the Indiana State Police and a lot of people were stunned when he was charged with the murders.

It's basic police work to look at the surviving spouse as the number one suspect, but to those who knew Camm, it seemed like a rush to judgment. He is from a large and influential family and had no obvious motive. And there was one other thing: he had what appeared to be an airtight alibi.

"David was at the gym at the time his family was killed. He was at the Georgetown Community Church playing basketball," says Camm's uncle Sam Lockhart, who from day one has insisted his nephew did not do it.

Lockhart says he was at the same gym at the same time, watching his nephew play. Ten other people say they can prove it too; they say they were all at the basketball game that night with Camm.

All of the men said they saw Camm at the gym and that he sat out the second game that night at approximately 7:30, around the same time police believe the murders occurred. Several players said they remembered seeing Camm on the sidelines. Another man at the gym that night also says he spoke with Camm.

If Camm snuck out of a basketball game at the gym, raced home, killed his family and raced back there without anyone noticing, he’s either very clever or very lucky. Did he have time to do it? To find out, 48 Hours drove the exact same route prosecutors believe Camm took that night.

It took all of 15 minutes, investigators say, for Camm to commit the crime. It took Schlesinger eight minutes to make the round trip which means, if you believe the prosecution's theory, Camm had roughly seven minutes to kill Kim, Brad and Jill.

But to this day, investigators are still not sure what happened inside the garage that night. There are all sorts of strange things about the crime scene. For one, it seemed much too clean. And on top of the Ford Bronco, Kim's shoes had been neatly positioned.

So was the murderer tidy? A little compulsive? And there was more: an unidentified palm print on the Bronco door and a grey sweatshirt tucked neatly next to Brad’s body.

Camm has always insisted that he could never have killed his wife and kids, and that he was a happy family man from the moment he met Kim. It all started out beautifully when they married in 1989. It wasn’t long before Bradley was born.

But Kim and David were headed for trouble. When Kim was pregnant with Jill, he had an affair. "It’s sheer stupidity on my part, I allowed myself to get caught into something that you know, that never should have happened. And you know I take full responsibility for that," Camm admits.

The couple eventually reconciled and a few years later, just months before the murders, things seemed to get even better. Camm quit his job with the police and began work at the family business. The new job gave Camm what he said he wanted most: more time with his family and more money.

But as this case unfolded, police said they started learning about more dark secrets. It looked like Camm had been leading a double life. As one woman put it, Camm was "very flirty with the women," and Camm acknowledges "there had been a few incidents over the ten-year-period."

One woman, who asked not to be named, met Camm in the early 1990s. She says their relationship lasted for about six months, and ended abruptly when she learned Camm was married.

But Camm, she says, was persistent and there was one phone call she’ll never forget. "It was more or less screaming at me. You know, 'Who told you!'" she recalls.

Prosecutor Stan Faith believes Camm’s adultery was a motive for murder. "If you are wanting to lead a lifestyle that he seemed to want to lead, you may want to get rid of your spouse. This happens all the time."

In Jan. 2002, a little more than a year after the murders, Camm’s trial began. Prosecutors planned to present dozens of witnesses, including a parade of women saying Camm propositioned them for sex

In addition to the women, there was a pile of forensic evidence including that grey sweatshirt, which he insists was left there by the real killer.

On that point, prosecutors had to admit that Camm was right: the DNA on the sweatshirt was not his. And they didn't know whose palm print it was on the Bronco, either. But they still had plenty of plenty of powerful evidence to throw at Camm, including an explosive autopsy report that would turn the trial on its head.

Dr. Tracy Corey performed the autopsy on five-year-old Jill Camm. "When we began to remove her clothes, we immediately noticed blood," she remembers.

It was where they found blood that alarmed Dr. Corey and her colleagues. "Personally I think that Jill Camm was the victim of sexual abuse. What I can say as far as professionally, when asked what my professional opinion is, I can say that she has blunt trauma, that that blunt trauma is consistent with sexual abuse, but it might be consistent with something else. It’s just, I haven’t been presented with a scenario that explains that to me," she says.

Dr. Corey's discovery stunned and sickened Kim’s family. If Jill had been molested then who did it? Prosecutors thought they knew: David Camm.

But Camm denies molesting his daughter and says he didn't know anything about a sexual assault.

The most important question for Camm’s defense was: when was Jill molested? Dr. Corey believes it was within hours of her death, between 12 and 24 hours.

By all accounts, Camm didn’t see Jill after 7 a.m. on the day she died. So if she was molested within 12 hours of her death, Camm didn’t have access to her and couldn’t have done it. But, if it was within 24 hours, that’s another story.

It is very tough to prove Camm molested his daughter and he has never been charged with it.

While Kim and Jill had been shot in the head, Brad had been shot in the chest and Dr. Corey says the little boy bled to death internally. Before he died, Corey says Brad would have been able to hear, see and speak. And she believes the pattern of his injuries shows Bradley was likely face-to-face with his killer.

On Camm's T-shirt, investigators found eight tiny blood drops, which prosecutors claim got there when he pulled the trigger.

Investigators hoped blood stain expert Rod Englert could connect the dots. Using stage blood and a piece of paper, Englert shot a blank at the blood, demonstrating how it would splatter.

"You cannot create that pattern. This is very indicative of high velocity mist," explains Englert, who was hired by the prosecution.

Englert examined Camm’s shirt and identified the stains as what’s called "high velocity impact spatter," caused by a bullet hitting a body. But that’s just one theory. The defense says those drops of blood actually back up Camm's version of what he did when he discovered the bodies.

"I grabbed Brad, picked him up," Camm explains. "I was gonna try to do CPR on him."

Bart Epstein, a blood stain expert for more than 30 years, was hired by the defense and believes those eight droplets on David’s shirt got there when he leaned over to remove his son's body from the SUV.

Epstein says those tiny drops of blood were made when Camm‘s shirt brushed against the tips of Jill’s bloody hair. Using a wig and some stage blood, Epstein demonstrated how these blood stains could have gotten on the shirt.

He believes these stains can look like high velocity impact spatter to some people. But in this case, the number of blood stains could be as important as their size.

"Gunshot will produce hundreds of stains coming back. I’ve never seen, I believe the other experts for both the prosecution and the defense have indicated that they’ve never seen just seven small or eight small stains from a gunshot. I’ve never seen that," says Epstein.

Camm’s lawyers believe if he had pulled the trigger at point blank range, his clothes would have been covered in blood.

After roughly two months of arguments and testimony, the jury finally got the case. On a Sunday night, three days after they began deliberating, jurors reached a verdict: guilty.

Jurors believed Camm molested his daughter and murdered his family at least partly to cover that up. They believed the forensic evidence more than the 11 men at the gym, who said they were with Camm the night of the murders.

He was sentenced to 195 years in prison.

Kim's father Frank Renn says he felt relieved by the verdict, but not better. "I think he did it. I want him behind bars. I guess it makes me feel comfortable that he’s behind bars," Kim's mother Janice added.

The Renns thought Camm would be in prison for the rest of his life, but this story turned out to be far from over: a new defense attorney was determined to uncover the truth about some old evidence, including the grey sweatshirt.

David Camm has always insisted he had nothing to do with the murders and spoke exclusively with 48 Hours about being convicted.

Camm says he didn't expect to be acquitted and that he saw it coming; he says he knew early on that his defense team never had a chance. "We were outmanned," he says,

Nobody expected what came next: the Indiana Court of Appeals made a bombshell decision, throwing out the convictions and slamming the judge in the Camm trial for allowing in evidence of adultery. The court said all those women could have unfairly persuaded the jury to turn against Camm. It was a stinging opinion. The court called the case against Camm "far from overwhelming."

Prosecutor Stan Faith knew the case was controversial but he never expected such a harsh ruling.

The court also strongly warned prosecutors that if they tried Camm again, and presented evidence that Jill was molested, they would have to prove that it was Camm who molested her.

Camm soon learned that he would face trial again. Both he and his new attorney Kitty Liell braced for an uphill battle, vowing to keep the molestation evidence out of the new trial.

"In reality, they were never able and still have not been able to come up with any evidence that the blunt force trauma suffered by Jill was caused by David Camm," Liell says.

Camm’s new defense team would face a new prosecutor, Keith Henderson. His first priority was to take a closer look at Camm’s alibi, those 11 men who say they were with him at the time of the murders. They looked at the story each man in the gym that night told.

Prosecutors started to believe Camm’s alibi might not be so strong after all.

"They don’t know how many games they played, they don’t know what they were wearing, they don’t know just lots of things, I think that’s where our cross examination could be built - their inability to remember things," a prosecutor said during a strategy session, which 48 Hours was allowed to attend.

Henderson’s case was starting to take shape, even though he would not be permitted to present large chunks of evidence the jury in the first trial heard.

From the beginning Camm always insisted that the grey sweatshirt, which never was fully investigated, could answer a lot of questions. "That was one of the primary elements of our defense was that sweatshirt," Camm explains. "And the state simply dismissed it."

The sweatshirt held two important clues: there were blood stains on it that contained DNA; and the word "Backbone" was written inside the collar.

DNA analyst Lynn Skamerhorn, from the Indiana State Police lab, tested the sweatshirt before Camm's first trial. Besides Bradley's blood, Skamerhorn says she was able to identify other blood stains, most yielding "very good results as far as DNA was concerned."

In fact, there was a lot of DNA on that sweatshirt. Some of it matched Brad and his mother, Kim, but the rest of it belonged to at least two unidentified people, a man and a woman. None of it matched Camm.

Amazingly, that mystery DNA was never run through the federal data bank of known felons before Camm’s first trial. Faith did ask to have the profile run through the DNA database but that didn't happen. "I think somebody dropped the ball," he says.

It was a huge error and Kitty Liell believes the mystery DNA would reveal the truth about what happened on the night of the murder. She was right: the results would eventually blow the case wide open.

David Camm hoped, after five years in prison, that he would finally go free. With the help of an angry appeals court and his attorneys, Camm’s case was transferred to another county, where the judge set bond at $20,000.

Sam Lockhart wasted no time and went straight to the bank to get the money he needed to get his nephew out and take him home to await his next trial.

The key to finding the killer, or killers, could be that mysterious grey sweatshirt.

Prosecutor Keith Henderson pushed to finally get some answers and ordered the lab to look at everything. What they found changed just about everything.

Five years after the murders the DNA found on that sweatshirt was run through a data bank of convicted felons; almost immediately there was a hit.

The DNA matched to a man named Charles Darnell Boney, a convicted felon who was recently released from prison. It turns out Boney has a nickname, "Backbone," the same name written on the collar of that sweatshirt.

But there was one more mystery. Investigators were unable to identify the female DNA found on the sweatshirt. Who was this mystery woman?

Camm thought this would be the end of his legal trouble. "We got the killer. That’s the guy who killed Kim, Brad and Jill. That’s the guy," he said

Boney grew up in the same town as Camm. Once police knew who to look for they found him right away, just across the Ohio River in Louisville, Ky.

Boney wasn’t officially a suspect, yet, but he was a person of interest to the police and the media. He had no problem talking - in fact, it was hard to shut him up.

"I will be on every station. I don’t have anything to hide. I stand true to my word," he said during an interview.

Just four months before the murders, Boney had been released from prison, where he had served time for armed robbery.

Boney never tried to deny his nickname, Backbone. He was proud of it. "As you know my nickname’s Backbone, all it means is I’m not spineless," he said during a TV interview.

Boney denied any involvement in the murders and seemed especially eager to help defense investigators, who were videotaping their interviews. He appeared relaxed, and at times even chatty.

It quickly became obvious that Boney had what could only be described as an odd fascination if not an obsession: he really liked shoes and feet. His interests had gotten him into trouble with the law.

In the late 1980’s, when he was a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Boney was known to authorities by another name, "The Shoe Bandit." It's a fact he doesn't deny. "I mean. I’m guilty. I did it," he told police during an interview.

Boney’s dramatic entrance into the Camm case seemed to answer a lot of questions about the crime scene, especially the bizarre placement of Kim’s shoes on top of the Bronco.

But Boney denied being the killer. "I would rather kill myself than kill kids," he told investigators.

Camm’s defense attorney immediately checked into Boney’s background. "Well I learned he has a history of violent crimes against women," Liell says. "Like tackling women and punching them in the face and stealing one shoe."

Donna Ennis knows first hand Boney is a dangerous man. In Oct. 1992, she and her college roommates were robbed at gunpoint by him.

She says his demeanor quickly changed from calm to angry and agitated. "He told us if we did anything he was going to kill us. If we tried to run, if we tried to scream he was going to kill us," Ennis remembers.

Luckily, a neighbor saw the commotion and called the police; Boney was arrested.

Five years after David Camm’s family had been murdered, the pieces of the puzzle were beginning to fall into place. And Boney was a man with a lot of explaining to do, starting with that sweatshirt.

Boney claims he got rid it shortly after he was released from prison, saying he threw it into a Salvation Army drop box.

He was quick to point out his DNA wasn’t the only DNA on the sweatshirt, saying that, "There’s also unidentified female. Everyone knows that. Everyone that’s followed the case."

He insists he doesn’t know how his sweatshirt got to the crime scene and he insists he didn’t even know David Camm. Boney wasn’t doing himself any favors by continuing to talk, especially when the subject turned to fingerprints.

"My fingerprints would not appear at that crime scene, because first and foremost, once again, I would have to have been there in for my finger prints to appear at the crime scene," he told police.

But Henderson says the palm print on the outside of the Bronco matched Boney's fingerprints.

The more Boney talked, the more he implicated himself. "If something of mine was there at the scene, that means that I would have been there," he told police.

And police could not have agreed more. His sweatshirt, his DNA and his palm print at the scene of the murders made their case. Boney was arrested and charged with murdering Kim, Brad and Jill.

Shortly after Boney’s arrest Camm and his father Don could hardly believe what happened next: the murder charges against David had been dropped. David’s father had never seen his son so happy. "Oh gracious, he was nervous, he was shakin’, he was beside himself," he remembers.

But the euphoria didn't last. For the first time in years there were no charges against David Camm. That changed about 60 minutes later.

Armed with warrants, officers arrested Camm, telling him he was being re-charged and would face an additional charge of conspiracy.

After a tiny taste of freedom, Camm was whisked back to jail. Keith Henderson had a new theory: Camm and Boney were partners and he couldn’t let Camm remain free, fearing he might flee.

Henderson said Boney made this an entirely new case, so now Camm and Boney would face not just murder charges but also the new conspiracy charge.

"After discovering Charles Boney my belief now is that that this was planned well in advance," Henderson says.

But Camm says he never met or knew Boney, even though they both grew up in the small town of New Albany.

Prosecutors suspected Boney stayed behind to clean up after the murders so that Camm could race back to the basketball game.

Boney couldn’t very well deny being at the murder scene anymore, with the sweatshirt, his DNA and the palm print putting him there. So he started cooperating up to a point; he always denied firing any shots that night.

Just days after Boney was arrested, he told police an almost entirely different story. He now said he knew Camm. He said he had met him at a basketball game and that he had told Camm he was an ex-con who dealt in drugs and guns. Once again, Boney was talking and investigators tape recorded every word.

Boney told prosecutors that Camm approached him with a special request. "He asked me specifically 'Do you still deal with getting firearms,'" Boney told police.

Henderson says Boney claimed Camm had approached him to obtain a clean, untraceable gun for $250.

Boney’s attorney Patrick Renn, who is no relation to Kim’s family, argues his client had no idea why Camm wanted the gun. "Charles Boney sold a weapon to David Camm. He did it for financial gain. Period. He never asked David Camm what he was gonna do with the weapon," he says.

And while Renn says Boney was at the murder scene, he says his client is a witness, and not a co-conspirator.

"He hears an altercation," Renn says. "And then he hears the female voice say, 'No' and then there’s a shot and then he hears a young male voice saying 'Daddy' and then there’s a second shot."

And, according to Renn, Camm turned the gun on Boney and tried to kill him. But the way Boney tells it, the gun jammed, and he pursued Camm back into the garage.

"After tripping over the shoes, he picked up the shoes, placed those shoes on top of the Bronco and then looked inside the vehicle. Saw the children. Saw they had been killed and then he left," Renn says.

Camm insists Boney’s story is fiction. "He just makes this stuff up on the fly, trying to put things together, what he knows and what he doesn’t know to make it fit to give them what they want," he says.

The murder investigation would lead authorities from rural Indiana to the Carribean island of Trinidad and a young lady named Mala Singh Mattingly.

She was Boney's girlfriend at the time of the killings. Their "romance" was short, so Mala was surprised when the police came looking for her five years later, trying to match that unknown female DNA on Boney’s sweatshirt.

It turned out Boney still remembered her. "She would be the perfect, second perfect alibi," he told police.

Boney may have believed Mala would help his case, but he was very wrong. She tells Schlesinger she saw Boney leave on the night of the murder. "He told me he was going to help a buddy," she says.

Investigators say that "buddy" was David Camm.

At the time, Mala didn’t think much of it. But a few hours later, Boney came home and woke her. Asked to describe what he was like on his return, Mala says, "Excited trying to catch his breath and panting … I see the scrape on his knee."

She was still sleepy, but she says Boney insisted on showing her a gun. Detectives aren’t sure if Mala saw the murder weapon, which they have never found, but she is the only witness who will say she saw Boney night of the killing.

Boney and Camm would be tried for the same crime at the same time but on different sides of the state: Boney in New Albany, Camm 100 miles away in Boonville.

As the trial began, Boney’s attorney faced every defense attorney’s worst nightmare - a smorgasboard of forensic evidence, not to mention his client’s own words taped and written.

Prosecutor Henderson laid out a devastating case: Mala Singh Mattingly’s testimony about seeing Boney with a gun on the night of the murder, Boney’s DNA and palm print at the crime scene, topped off with his own words, including some he thought he could take back.

After agreeing to write a statement for the police, Boney apparently had second thoughts about a few lines and crossed them out.

Unfortunately for Boney, the prosecution had a powerful weapon: forensic document examiner Diane Tolliver. She has been uncovering hidden messages for 30 years.

Tolliver had low expectations for deciphering the crossed out words but using a high tech gizmo, called the Video Spectral Comparator 2000, she was able to reveal the message.

"The original text was 'David Camm asked me to follow him to a secluded area. He wanted to talk to me about something that could help me financially he said,'" Tolliver read.

It was very strong evidence, even though David Camm says it’s all a lie. "He was writing on the fly. He was making it up as he went along," he insists.

But Boney’s attorney believes the statement helps prove Boney’s claim that all he did was sell David Camm a gun.

It’s was a tough defense to sell to a jury. After three days of deliberations, jurors found Charles Boney guilty on all counts.

Jurors quickly decided that Boney was guilty of Kim’s murder; that decision took less than an hour. But the jury still had to decide about Brad and Jill’s murders. Did Boney know the kids would also be killed that night? That’s what troubled Kristy Litch, who was the last hold out.

"I don't know if it was the fact that I knew we was gonna have to find a man guilty of murder. Or if it was the fact I didn't want to convict 'em of the kids murders when I didn't have enough proof that he knew that they were gonna be murdered," she explains.

Camm’s uncle Sam Lockhart saw the Boney verdict as a victory for David. "We’re ecstatic that they finally got the killer. Our next deal is get Dave Camm free," he said.

And Kim’s family worried that there was not nearly as much evidence against Camm as there was against Boney. "David Camm murdered these three people and he’s the one we got to get," her father said,

With Boney behind bars, all eyes focused on Camm’s re-trial. Camm’s legal team believed when jurors would hear about Boney’s violent past they would be convinced that Boney killed Kim, Brad, and Jill, not David Camm.

But the jury would hear very little about Boney - the judge ruled jurors could only be told that his DNA and palm print were found at the scene. But they would not hear about his recent conviction in this case, his previous crimes against women, or his foot fetish.

It was huge a blow to the defense and left Camm "extremely frustrated."

Still, Camm had the appeals court decision working for him. The ruling said all those women who testified about his adultery in the first trial would not be allowed in this one.

But the appeals court left the heart of prosecution’s case untouched: the eight tiny blood stains on Camm’s T-shirt, which prosecutors insist got there when Camm shot his family.

Asked why the blood stains don't implicate David Camm, Stacy Uliana, a member of the defense team says, "They fit perfectly with what Dave has said from the very beginning. He reached over his daughter when he pulled his son out of the car."

For weeks, Camm had had to sit through all the evidence a second time. He watched the blood experts tangle again and watched the gruesome crime scene photos, again.

It got more difficult. The judge decided prosecutors would be allowed to present some evidence that David’s daughter Jill was molested, even though the appeals court set limits.

At the first trial, experts said Jill’s injuries told them she was molested within 12 to 24 hours of her death. But at this trial, a new prosecution witness widened that window of opportunity in which David could have abused his daughter.

"The jury has learned that Jill Camm was sexually abused, two days prior to her murder," Henderson said.

But with almost every setback in this trial, Camm got some good news. After the prosecution rested, the judge ruled there was too little proof of a connection between Camm and Boney. There was no evidence of phone calls or meetings, hardly any evidence the men had a plan. The conspiracy charge was dismissed.

Camm’s defense team hammered away at every prosecution witness, trying to raise as much doubt as possible.

A big part of the defense's case rested on the testimony of the basketball players, including Camm's uncle, who say they saw David on the night of the murders.

But prosecutor Keith Henderson thought he could punch a big hole in Camm’s supposedly air-tight alibi. One of the basketball players who swore at the first trial that he saw Camm in the church gym for the entire evening, now said he wasn't sure.

How damaging is the testimony? It’s hard to say because 10 other men still insist David was at the gym all the time.

"What’s relevant here is was Dave Camm in that gym or not. The evidence shows that Dave Camm was in that gym that night when Charles Boney was murdering his family. And that’s what counts," says Kitty Liell.

During closing arguments, Henderson argued Camm not only had the opportunity to kill his family, he had a motive. "Well the motive was Kimberly was leaving David Camm and she was leaving him because of the child molesting," he said.

"What they want to do is throw anything they can up against the wall," Liell argues. "It's character assassination. If they had any evidence of it they would have charged him."

But Camm's lawyers pointed the finger at Boney, whose DNA and palm print were at the crime scene; they said police botched the investigation and from the outset were determined to get Camm, despite his alibi.

Jurors got the case. On the fourth day of deliberations, the jury found David Camm guilty of murder, again

Camm says he was "dumbfounded" and "shocked" by the verdict.

Jurors meticulously went through all the evidence and decided the defense didn’t add up, for the same reasons as the jury in the first trial. They believed those blood stains proved Camm was the killer.

Camm was sentenced to life without parole.

"Another thing that makes it more difficult is the fact that I did have that taste of being back with you know my brothers, sisters, cousins nieces nephews and being back with my family," Camm says of his brief taste of freedom. "And the bottom line is, one of the things that makes it the most difficult is the fact that I’m doing Charles Boney’s time."

But Camm has had two chances to prove his innocence and has never been able to persuade a single juror that he’s not a murderer.

"People have formulated an opinion, and they either believe in me or they don't. The people that believe in me are the same people that have always believed in me, and they require no convincing," he says. "There's one group of individuals that I'm concerned with right now, and that is the Indiana Supreme Court."

Camm’s lawyers are asking for a third trial but even he knows that’s a long shot.

For the Renn family the latest victory provides little comfort. They’ve always known who killed Kim, Brad, and Jill. They’ve never been sure why and even after six years and three trials, they still don’t. They still have trouble understanding what happened in the garage that bloody night.

"You always wonder, you want the whole puzzle put together," says Kim's father Frank Renn. "There’s a part missing and I’m not sure we’ll ever know the whole truth."

*****

David Camm is awaiting a decision on his appeal.

Charles Boney was sentenced to 225 years. His appeal was denied.

It has cost more than $2 million to prosecute the Camm murders.

Overview

JusticeforDavidCamm.com

It is impossible to adequately explain everything that has happened in almost eight years since Kimberly, Bradley and Jill Camm were slaughtered in the garage of their Georgetown, Indiana home in the evening of September 28, 2000. That incomprehensible crime shook the entire metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky area. Perhaps equally as earth shattering, however, was the subsequent arrest of David Camm, the husband and father of the slain family, less than 70 hours later.

This overview, as well as a more thorough review of other areas, will hopefully provide the reader with an understanding and appreciation of many things. Chief among those should be the stark realization that there was a rush to judgment and subsequent denial of justice for Kim, Bradley, Jill, David Camm, their families, the community in which they lived, and, of course, those that perpetrated this most heinous of all acts.

In early 2000, David Camm resigned from the Indiana State Police after spending 10 years as a road trooper. He was well respected, had been on the Emergency Rescue Team (ERT) and had been awarded the department's medal of valor for his efforts in risking his life in an effort to try and save the life of a drowning man.

Dave's successful uncle, an American entrepreneur, had built a basement waterproofing business from a one man operation into a successful and well-respected business employing over forty workers. Dave made a positive career change and went to work for his Uncle Sam and quickly became a successful salesman and supervisor, earning in six months almost a year's ISP salary.

On September 28, 2000, Dave had been married to Kimberly for over 11 years and had two beautiful children, Bradley, age seven and Jill, age five. At the time, Kim had a well-paying and highly regarded position as a financial analyst at a major insurance carrier in nearby Louisville, Kentucky, and their two children were happy and well-adjusted children who attended a Christian school in New Albany, Indiana.

On September 28, 2000, after a busy day at work, Dave played basketball at the Georgetown Community Church with ten other players. The one game he didn't play he sat on the baseline talking with a church elder. Dave was at the gym from 6:59PM, when the alarm was disengaged, until the security alarm was set at 9:22PM, when he and the seven other remaining players left. Dave's presence in the gym was accounted for by the other players and the church elder with whom he was talking. He never left the gym.

After he left the basketball games, Dave drove the two and a half miles to his residence and then pulled onto the driveway. The garage door was raised and he was presented with a horrific nightmare that was impossible to comprehend. His wife, missing her pants, lay on the garage floor with a massive head wound with a blood trail streaming from her head. His two children were both in the back seat of the family Bronco.

Dave tried to gauge what had happened and in the confusing course of a few moments had frantically climbed into the two-door Bronco and between the two front seats to the rear seat where his son and daughter were located. He removed his son from the Bronco and laid him on the concrete floor and gave him CPR in an attempt to revive him (Jill had a massive head wound; Brad was shot through the chest), ran into the house to call the State Police, ran across the road to his grandfather's house yelling for his uncle for help and then ran back to the garage.

Less than 70 hours later, David Camm was arrested and charged with the murders of his wife Kim, son Brad, and daughter Jill. The date was October 1, 2000. The probable cause affidavit which was the document used to charge Dave was inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, and based in large part upon the false deductions and speculations of the lead detective who significantly relied upon the conclusions provided by a supposed blood stain expert and crime scene re-constructionist.

Robert Stites was that supposed crime scene re-constructionist and was also supposedly a blood expert who was the source of much of the information in the probable cause affidavit. The ISP relied upon Stites for his expert opinion on blood pattern analysis and for his assessment and evaluation of the crime scene. The crux of the arrest warrant was based upon Stites' opinion that eight tiny dots of blood on the lower left front of Camm's T-shirt, known as Area 30, was high velocity, meaning blowback from a gunshot wound. Years later and under oath, Stites admitted that when he rendered his opinion that he hadn't even taken the basic elementary course on blood stain analysis and had never before independently rendered an opinion on blood stains.

Stites further admitted during Camm's second trial that his previous testimony that he was working on his PhD in fluid dynamics wasn't accurate, for he hadn't taken any college courses in the nine years prior to when he first testified. Additionally, his previous testimony under oath in the first Camm trial that he had testified in other venues about blood stains in other cases wasn't accurate either, for he had never done so.

As to being a crime scene re-constructionist, Stites had never before processed a homicide scene. He later admitted that, contrary to the sworn probable cause affidavit, he wasn't a crime scene re-constructionist when he offered his conclusions about the Camm crime scene.

Stites was neither a crime scene re-constructionist nor a blood stain expert, but yet he was allowed free rein at the crime scene and held out by the ISP as a man who had a national reputation and was relied upon for his “expert” opinions and conclusions to support the probable cause affidavit which authorized the arrest of David Camm.

Prosecutor Stanley Faith had taken over the crime scene, according to several investigators. He also had politically appointed investigators who were intimately involved at the crime scene and in later critical interviews. They also were instrumental in helping the crime scene re-construction efforts but yet didn't have any police training or police experience. They collected possibly crucial evidence without maintaining any chain of custody. What they collected, who collected what, and when they collected it and where it was retained was unclear or unknown. Potentially critical evidence was lost and untrained, inexperienced, and politically appointed investigators were intimately involved in the most horrific crime ever to occur in Floyd County, Indiana. (Recently added condoms to the septic system were collected but lost. Kim and David didn't use condoms. A shower curtain which appeared to have blood stains was also collected and lost. The prosecutor's investigators possibly collected them but they didn't have any record. Regardless, no one knew what happened to the evidence. Somebody lost those items, but no one admitted responsibility.)

The same probable cause affidavit which relied upon the conclusions of Stites, also claimed that Jill had a recent tear in the vaginal area consistent with sexual intercourse. The inference was deadly. Her father was the one responsible and had violated her. There was absolutely nothing which corroborated any sexual abuse much less anything which supported the contention that Dave was responsible for his little girl's injuries.

The injuries were deemed to be so painful that Jill would have had trouble urinating, and according to one doctor, they would have "hurt like hell" when she urinated. The day of her murder, however, Jill had been active at school, had been energetic at her dance practice, was dressed by her grandmother (Kim's mother), and was running around during Brad's swim practice just hours before her murder. She never said a word about nor exhibited any symptom of any pain. Her autopsy also reflected very little urine in her bladder, indicating that she had urinated not long before her murder.

Indeed, the Chief Medical Examiner in Kentucky who performed the autopsy on little Jill later testified that Jill's injuries were the result of blunt force trauma which had many possible causes. She further stated that her official report didn't even use the term sexual intercourse and at trial stated, "In fact, it doesn't even say sexual abuse, it says trauma."

The horrific allegation that Jill was molested and that Dave was responsible was never to be dropped, however, and carries with it the same odorous and indelible stain that it did when it was first alleged on October 1, 2000.

Nonetheless, the prosecution of David Camm marched forward. He was first convicted in the court of public opinion, greatly aided by the spurious allegation that he had molested his precious daughter and then with the revelations of his previous infidelities while with the ISP. Indeed, during the trial, the prosecutor called several very reluctant women to testify about their relationships with Camm. Their testimony was lurid and sensational but had no bearing on the crimes.

Before and during the trial, prosecutor Faith changed theories three times about when the crime occurred. The first probable cause affidavit alleged that Dave killed his family between 9:15-9:30PM, or after he returned from the basketball games around 9:00PM. At the time that allegation was made, the ten players and the church elder weren't important and had told the truth. It was only after the prosecution changed their theory as to the timing of the murders did the prosecutor refer to those same truthful people as liars.

The second theory proffered by deputy prosecutor Susan Orth in her opening comments to the first jury claimed that after arriving at the gym, Dave snuck out of the basketball games, drove to his home, tried to make a phone call to a customer at 7:19PM, then slaughtered his family, cleaned and manipulated the crime scene, returned to the games, had blood on his shirts and shoes, and continued playing with a calm and carefree manner.

After a phone company billing representative testified that the call actually occurred at 6:19PM, or when Kim, Brad and Jill were still at Brad's swim practice, the prosecution then changed their theory once again. Theory three said that Dave still snuck out of the games, but at some time or another, murdered his family, cleaned and manipulated the crime scene, and returned with a bloody shirt and shoes to the gym. All three theories had him acting alone.

What about the other 11 people present at the games who said he never left and never saw any bloody clothing or change in demeanor? According to prosecutor Faith they were either lying or mistaken about not seeing him leave or return. All 11 of them. Again, of course, they only were liars after the prosecution changed the timing of when the murders occurred.

During the trial testimony of Stites, he testified that after he examined the T-shirt and prior to Camm's arrest, he telephonically spoke with his mentor Rod Englert. In that phone call, Stites described the eight stains in Area 30 as being a result of high velocity. Englert, according to Stites, then told Stites that he was doing a good job. According to Stites, Englert then, over the phone, and without seeing the T-shirt, agreed that the eight tiny stains were high velocity.

Stites testimony was naturally buttressed by the later testimony of Englert who had originally dispatched Stites to the crime scene. The well-known Englert first provided the jury with his personalized tutorial on blood stains. Englert then testified that Stites had based his Camm opinion on high velocity being the cause of the eight tiny stains on a previous case the two had just worked, as well as on "his (Stites) experience and knowledge and having experience in many other cases also."

Terry Laber, the highly-respected blood expert and State of Minnesota forensic laboratory scientist, countered Englert's testimony that the eight tiny stains originated from contact and not from projected blood. The lower portion and hem of Dave's T-shirt had simply come in contact with Jill's bloody hair as he removed Brad from the back seat and then gave him CPR in a desperate attempt to save him. Indeed, if the eight tiny stains were blowback, then one would expect additional blood misting on the shorts that Dave was wearing. There was no blood on his shorts, further indicating that the T-shirt, which was hanging loosely from Dave’s body, was the only garment that came in contact with Jill’s bloody hair.

(It should be noted at this juncture that Blood Stain Pattern Analysis, or BSPA, is not a science. It is simply an opinion rendered by someone who purportedly knows what he or she is talking about. On the other hand, matching fingerprints or DNA profiles is a science and not an opinion. Of the eleven BSPA "experts" who were eventually deposed or testified in the Camm cases, five claimed that the eight tiny blood spots on area 30 of Dave's T-shirt was high velocity misting, or the result of blowback from a bullet striking Jill; five said it was transfer consistent with Dave removing his son from the backseat of the Bronco and his shirt touching his daughter's bloody hair; and one, a former FBI Agent, said he didn't know. The five who claimed that it was high velocity didn't agree with one another as to the basis of their opinions, however, with one person simply claiming that he knew it when he saw it.)

Several key pieces of evidence were either ignored as "artifacts" or not pursued. The most critical "artifact" was a sweatshirt found at the crime scene that bore the hand-printed name of BACKBONE in the collar. That sweatshirt, which also had the DNA of an unknown male and unknown female, as well as the blood of Kim and Bradley Camm, was ignored by the police and prosecution after they failed to connect David Camm to it. Indeed, one of the interrogators of Camm lied when he told Camm that the other basketball players had seen him wearing the sweatshirt the night of the murders. When that lie failed, the prosecution simply claimed that the sweatshirt was part of the crime scene manipulation and didn’t pursue any attempt at finding the true owner.

Because the judge allowed testimony about Dave's infidelities and because of the molestation allegation, the actual conviction in his first trial was but a mere formality. Jury members acknowledged that the argument about him molesting his little girl was critical to their decision. He was sentenced to 195 years in the Indiana State Prison in March, 2002.

The case was over and many of the parties moved on. Faith, the prosecutor who later claimed that an unexplained sweatshirt at the crime scene bearing the hand printed name of BACKBONE on the collar was "much ado about nothing," used his notoriety to run for office again. His chief deputy, Susan Orth, who claimed that the investigation was "very, very thorough," used the publicity to run for and be elected judge, replacing the retiring judge who presided over the Camm trial.

Sean Clemons was the lead ISP detective who made numerous false assertions or assumptions in the probable cause affidavit:

1. the crime scene being manipulated (Kim's shoes were on top of the Bronco)

2. the blood of Kim having a foreign substance added to it (it was the natural phenomena of serum separation);

3. witnesses claiming that Dave left the basketball game around 9:00PM (rather than at 9:22PM)

4. his (erroneous) interpretation of three sounds as gunshots which occurred between 9:15-9:30PM. Clemons testified at length in the trial and was later promoted to Sergeant.

David Camm moved on as well...to the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana, where he began serving his sentence in the Protective Custody Unit. He was a former Indiana State Trooper who was at distinct risk of being physically harmed or killed if incarcerated with the general prison population.

Members of Dave's family didn't move on. They stayed true not to their belief that Dave was innocent but their conviction that he was innocent. Family members were present with Dave playing basketball at the church gym when Kim and the children were brutally slaughtered. Those family members as well as the other ball players, many of whom were not relatives, have never wavered that Dave never left the gym. They know that he couldn't have killed his family...he was with them playing basketball.

Sam Lockhart was one of the basketball players who was playing ball on September 28, 2000. Sam is the uncle of Dave and he and his family have expended whatever savings they have accumulated in their lives to seek and secure justice for Dave. Dave's parents, Susie and Don Camm, now in their 70's, have mortgaged practically everything they own in their quest for justice. Dave's brothers and sister and their families, as well as a host of other family members and other individuals have continued to be unwavering in their support of Dave.

After the conviction, Sam and the family secured the appellate services of two attorneys who, after reading the transcript and speaking with witnesses, knew that justice had been denied for Dave. They also reached a startling conclusion that is rare among defense attorneys. Dave not only had been denied justice, but he was also innocent.

Those lawyers used their legal acumen to author an appeal which was eventually heard by the Indiana Court of Appeals. In an opinion handed down on August 10, 2004, the conviction of David Camm was reversed. The reversal was based upon the court noting that Camm's conviction was based in part upon the prosecution painting Dave as a bad character for his previous infidelities. There would be no such “evidence” allowed in any retrial according to the Appellate Court.

As to the argument allowed by the judge that Dave had molested his daughter, the Court also stated that "the trial court will need to carefully consider whether the highly inflammatory nature of this evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of any evidence that Camm molested Jill." In short, the court said that evidence needed to be presented that linked Dave to the injuries of his little girl in order for such an allegation to be made. No such evidence had ever been presented.

That Appellate Court also noted that the basketball players "all agreed that Camm was there the entire time and that even though he sat out at least one game, he did not leave the gym." The court also made a comment rarely seen in such decisions, "(W)e are left with the definite possibility that the jury might have found Camm not guilty of murdering his wife and two children if it had not been exposed to a substantial amount of improperly admitted and unfairly prejudicial evidence..."

Many people think that David Camm's conviction was reversed because of a technicality. It isn't a technicality when false allegations abound. It isn't a technicality when the prosecutor, with the consent of the judge, is allowed to argue that a person committed the heinous crime of molestation without a shred of evidence. The whole process went against the very grain of our system of justice, the basic foundation of which is due process and fundamental fairness.

The new Floyd County prosecutor was Keith Henderson, who was also a former Indiana State Trooper. He took the Appeals Court decision under advisement and then later stated that he had organized a "Fresh Eyes" investigation, also headed by the ISP, to look into the case. There are those who couldn’t understand how the new investigation could be “fresh” and unbiased if the same agency which was involved in the first investigation were also involved in the second investigation. Nonetheless, the ISP began their new investigation on September 3, 2004. Nothing had been done since Dave’s conviction in March, 2002, because, of course, the ISP and the prosecutor had solved the case.

After the "Fresh Eyes" investigated the case for a little over two months, on November 16, 2004, Henderson, who said that almost 20 interviews had been conducted in the new investigation, re-charged Dave with the murders of his wife and children, using a probable cause affidavit sworn to by ISP Detective Gary Gilbert. Twenty interviews was the extent of their new investigation.

Included in that new affidavit was yet the same refuted allegation that a telephone call had been made from the Camm residence at 7:19PM. Detective Gilbert also saw fit to include information from Detective Sam Sarkisian that there had been sexual devices taken from the Camm residence and that “the trauma to Jill Camm's vaginal area is consistent with a sexual device and/or a penis.” Nothing was said about those devices being tested negatively for Jill’s DNA or that the injuries suffered by Jill were the result of non-specific blunt force trauma.

What forensic evidence was tested, analyzed or matched? Nothing. The "Fresh Eyes" investigation didn't conduct any tests or attempt to secure any matches of unknown fingerprints or DNA with known prints or profiles. No one tried to determine the owner of the BACKBONE sweatshirt nor did anyone try to find the answers to the many unanswered questions that lay in the forensic evidence. The forensic evidence was ignored, other than the previously purchased blood spatter opinion of the state's two primary witnesses, the cost of which was borne by Floyd County in the amount of $280,000.

The "Fresh Eyes" didn’t interview any of the basketball players other than Sam Lockhart, who requested a meeting with the new investigators and who literally begged them to attempt to find the owner of the BACKBONE sweatshirt by running a DNA check. The investigators met with other Camm family members and they, too, requested that the police try and find the owner of the BACKBONE sweatshirt and the DNA on it. The “Fresh Eyes” ignored these earnest, simple, and very legitimate requests.

There was a bombshell in the new affidavit, however, and that was the revelation that Dave had confessed to someone. That person turned out to be a prison inmate who was a prolific drug dealer and escape artist. He was a career informant who had also claimed that two other inmates had confessed their murders to him. His story was that Dave said that he had shot and killed Kim in the car as it sat outside the garage. There was no denying that the evidence was that Kim was outside the car and in the garage when she was murdered. That didn't stop the prosecution from using his story, however. A story sold by a serial informant that didn"t comport with the agreed-upon facts was the complete extent of their new evidence prior to David Camm being recharged.

That source of that new information, career criminal James B. Hatton, was later allowed to petition his trial court for a sentence modification after he testified in Camm's second trial. The judge allowed him to also be freed on an ankle bracelet on home detention, pending the resolution of his modification, even though he had served less than six years of a 25 year sentence for methamphetamine production and for escape. Hatton was released from prison and then simply walked away from his home detention in December, 2006. He is currently a fugitive.

The new defense attorneys were, however, successful in having the case transferred from Floyd County to Warrick County, just east of Evansville, where Judge Robert Aylsworth was to be the presiding judge. It was a given that David Camm couldn't get a fair trial in Floyd County. That would hopefully change in Warrick County.

On January 26, 2005, the defense argued in Warrick County that David Camm should be released on bond pending his trial. Much of the argument dealt with the fact that Dave had been convicted on blood stain evidence which the Appellate Court called the "battle of the experts."

In order to agree to such a reduction in bond, from no bond to one of only $20,000, the case had to have been seen as very weak. When the judge ordered Camm released on a $20,000 bond, Prosecutor Henderson and the citizens of Floyd County were shocked and angered.

At that same bond hearing on January 26, 2005, the defense advised the prosecution of the intent to file a motion which would compel them to act on much of the forensic evidence. A critical part of that motion was that the unknown DNA profiles be run through the national DNA database in order to attempt to find the owner of the BACKBONE sweatshirt.

Only when faced with the defense motion to compel testing did the police finally attempt to match the unknown DNA with the national DNA database in February, 2005. They were shocked to find out that the DNA belonged to Charles Darnell Boney, an 11-time convicted felon who had a history of violently attacking and kidnapping women. Boney, known as BACKBONE in prison, was also a shoe freak, having previously attacked women for their shoes. That quickly explained why Kim's shoes had been neatly placed on top of her Bronco at the crime scene. Boney had been released from prison just three months prior to the murders after serving only eight years of a 20 year sentence for two armed robberies and the kidnapping of three women.

Boney had made a startling admission when arrested previously for his assaults on women in order to steal their shoes. He said that he had an escape plan and that plan was to wear a sweatshirt to the scene of the crime and to later remove it so he wouldn't match any possible witness descriptions.

(It was only months later, and after the defense was attempting to possibly link the unknown female DNA found on the sweatshirt with that of Boney’s girlfriend, did the ISP finally match that unknown female DNA with Mala Singh, Boney's girlfriend at the time of the murders. It was mixed with blood from Kim. Rather than pursue the possibility that she was with Boney at the crime scene, however, they used a story (that changed significantly over time) from her that allowed her to retain her freedom.)

An incredible aspect of the sweatshirt and the unknown male DNA was that the first prosecutor, Stan Faith, not only knew about the DNA but claimed that he told the ISP to run it in the national database. The ISP didn't run the DNA and later claimed that the prosecutor didn't tell them about it. As a result, the DNA was ignored for years, both by the initial investigators and by the “Fresh Eyes” investigators until the defense mandated that the DNA profile be run in the database.

Three days after his sweatshirt and DNA was identified, Boney was found to be living in Louisville, less than 25 minutes from the Camm residence. At the time of the murders, he was living with his mother, who later admitted that she had sent him on errands to a nearby meat store which also happened to be owned by Kim's sister and brother-in-law and which Kim and the kids frequented on a routine basis.

Boney was soon interviewed by the police and claimed that he had numerous people who could alibi him for the afternoon and evening of September 28, 2000. The police accepted his story even though the critical alibi witnesses weren't interviewed and even though Boney had failed a stipulated polygraph examination as to his involvement in the murders. The polygraph examiner who administered the polygraph to Boney acknowledged that the "Fresh Eyes" investigators were both surprised and shocked at the results.

What happened next will astonish many people. At a press conference on February 28, 2005, Boney was defended by the prosecutors. They claimed that his story about giving the BACKBONE sweatshirt to the Salvation Army after his release from prison had checked out. They insisted that David Camm was still the one who was responsible for the murders of his family. As to an 11-time convicted felon who assaulted women, robbed women, kidnapped women at gunpoint and who threatened to blow their brains out, he was regarded by the prosecutors as simply having his sweatshirt show up at the crime scene through no fault of his own. Nothing was said to the public about Boney’s failed polygraph or the failure to verify his false alibi witnesses.

Deputy prosecutor Steve Owen asked this question at the same press conference, "What do you think? Mr. Boney's going to come out of jail, go to somebody's house in Georgetown, brutally murder three people and say, 'Oh, I think I'll take off my sweatshirt that I got from (the Department Of Corrections) and lay it down here by the blood (boy). Does that make sense to anybody?" Owen said it didn’t make sense to him, but it sure made sense to a lot of people that an enraged, violent person, engaged in a sexual assault of a woman, who then shot and killed her and her two children, just might leave evidence at the scene of a crime. After all, Boney had left his property and fingerprints at previous crime scenes.

The defense tried to get the prosecutors to act and filed a motion for Judge Aylsworth to authorize an arrest warrant for Boney. That failed. Boney's identity and the fact that his sweatshirt had been linked to the crime scene (and prior to the defense being advised that his DNA had been identified) was leaked to the press, presumably by someone in the prosecutor's office, and Boney was in the process of giving an exclusive interview to a Louisville television station.

Boney was found and then quickly interviewed by a retired FBI Agent who was working for the defense. During the videotaped interview of Boney, he was caught in numerous lies and he claimed that nothing more of his would be found at the crime scene, including other DNA or his fingerprints. In fact, he stated that if anything else of his other than his sweatshirt was found at the scene it would be "obvious" that he murdered the family.

Weeks after Boney was first interviewed and when the police took his finger and palm prints, the unknown palm print was finally compared to that of Boney. It was a match. It was therefore "obvious" that he was the murderer. Only the police still thought that David Camm was involved, due to the "compelling" evidence of blood spatter, according to Detective Gilbert. The prosecution and the investigators weren’t giving up on Camm being involved.

The "Fresh Eyes," however, were compelled to arrest Boney. After his arrest and initial interview, he was allowed to be alone for several hours in order to compile a written statement. His assertions quickly changed, however, and at the end of the post-arrest interviews, the investigators told Boney that his story was a "crock of shit."

After that first round of interviews, ISP Detective Myron Wilkerson, a distant relative of the Boney's, found Boney's mother and sister and, according to them, told them that they needed Boney to sign a "conspiracy note." Boney's sister was allowed to meet twice with her brother, including a contact visit, prior to his next interview. It was obvious that the ISP and the prosecutor needed to link Boney and Camm together and they were trying to get Boney to provide information of a "conspiracy" between he and Camm.

It took over 30 hours of interrogations and changing and contradictory stories for Boney to finally provide a story that was the stuff of fairy tales, saying that he only sold a gun to David Camm which was used in the murders. Nothing of what Boney said, including when and how he supposedly met Dave, where he obtained the gun, and other aspects of his story have ever been corroborated. Nothing of what he said could be construed as the two conspiring with one another. Boney put the murders all on Camm.

Parts of the interrogations of Boney are chilling, however. He was told by Wilkerson that he was an "opportunist" whose"best scenario is to be a witness." He was further told that David Camm had an alibi which was "gonna be a problem." Wilkerson told Boney that his goal was to keep Boney alive. Boney was given a stark choice. He could be a witness or face the death penalty. Incriminate Camm or die were his options. He chose the option that kept him alive. It was clear to many that the death penalty was spared in exchange for Boney incriminating Camm.

Another astounding facet to the Boney interviews is the fact that critical parts of Boney's written statement and later his stories were first provided by the authorities. It was Wayne Kessinger, one of Henderson’s investigators, who first suggested to Boney that the gun was “dirty” or “untraceable” and that he might have had it wrapped in his sweatshirt. Boney later incorporated those two aspects with his story that after he bought the untraceable gun, he wrapped it in his sweatshirt prior to giving it to Camm.

What else did Boney claim? He said that he first met Dave in July, 2000, at a local park where they were playing full-court basketball. In addition to the ten players there were several others present as onlookers. How many witnesses were found that saw the two together? None. There were no witnesses.

Boney also claimed that he and Dave never spoke on the telephone but met in front of a convenience store immediately adjacent to Karem’s Meat Market owned by Kim's sister. It was there that Dave spoke to him about getting a gun and later where the gun was provided. That's smart. Meet and talk with a convicted felon and obtain a gun in a busy parking lot of a business owned by your sister-in-law where you're well-known. As one might guess, there were no witnesses.

Boney also said that he knew that Dave was a former ISP trooper but that Dave trusted him enough, after ten minutes of conversation, to ask him to find him a gun. That contradicts Boney’s other statements to many others, including the defense investigator, that he would never trust a cop.

Dave agreed to a price of $250, but there was no discussion as to what make, model, caliber or type of gun. Boney claimed that he went to his long-time acquaintance, Larry Gerkin, who lived in Louisville, and purchased a .380. Wayne Kessinger, who spent 30 years with the Louisville Metro Police, was unsuccessful in finding Gerkin, much less identifying him. Gerkin was probably just a quick figment of Boney's imagination. (One should ask why he would lie about the identify of the real source of the gun, however.)

After claiming that he sold Dave one gun on the afternoon of the murders, which was delivered in the same Karem's parking lot, Boney claimed that he followed Dave to his house. For 15 or more minutes, he followed Dave home, but he couldn't remember the vehicle that Dave was driving, thinking that it was a LeSabre. Dave, of course, drove a white pickup truck. Boney did recall, in the span only seeing Kim’s Bronco for mere moments, that her car had an FOP sticker on the license. Boney then said that he was outside the garage next to his car when Kim and the kids pulled into the driveway. He said he then heard three pops and Dave walked outside the garage and confronted him.

Incredibly, Boney also claimed that Dave then tried to kill him but that the gun jammed. Boney said Dave then ran into the house from the garage, presumably, according to Boney, to get another gun to kill him. Dave, a former SWAT member, panicked when a gun jammed and ran away was Boney's story. Ask any law enforcement officer, or better yet, a SWAT member, how long it takes to remove a jam in a semi-automatic handgun. Mere seconds will be the answer.

Rather than fleeing the scene after Camm tried to kill him, Boney then said he followed behind Camm and walked into the garage. He said that he then tripped over Kim's shoes and that he leaned down, picked them up and placed them neatly on top of the car. He then leaned into the vehicle and looked to see what was inside because of "curiosity." That's when his palm print was deposited on the door jamb, as he was looking in at Jill and Brad.

It was only then that he decided that it was time to leave. As he was driving away, however, he saw in his rear-view mirror a woman in a vehicle that looked like a state owned Crown Victoria. Boney was trying to incriminate a female trooper associate of Dave's. She had previously been eliminated as a suspect because when the crimes had occurred, she was with friends eating a late dinner. (The new investigators suggested that she take a polygraph as to her possible involvement. She passed the polygraph.)

Boney's story is not supported by any witnesses, any records, any documents, or any other corroboration at all. It is his unsupported story, fostered by the need to have him incriminate David Camm, which he finally provided. The story is that of a person who knew he had to incriminate David Camm in order to escape the death penalty, which he did. His stories were labeled by the police investigators as a "crock of shit" and as a "story of convenience" but they finally had him incriminating Camm.

After several interviews the police finally had Boney incriminating Camm. What happened next? Prosecutor Henderson dropped the charges against Dave which were pending in Warrick County. For a little over an hour the Camm and Lockhart families thought that justice finally had been achieved. They didn't know that Henderson had already drafted another new probable cause affidavit, the third one, against Dave.

On March 9, 2005, David Camm was, for the third time, charged with the murder of his family. This was the prosecution's fourth theory. Lead "Fresh Eyes" investigator Gary Gilbert swore under oath that Dave not only committed the murders but that he and Boney conspired with one another to commit murder. Boney didn't provide any "evidence" of such a conspiracy. There were no witnesses, no documents, no records, and no connection whatsoever between the two.

The new affidavit also alleged that Dave's brother, Danny Camm, had forged Kim's signature on a life insurance policy which had been obtained only months before the murders. That affidavit didn't say anything about Kim being the one responsible for the family's financial affairs and also the one responsible for securing life insurance. Indeed, when she obtained the new life insurance, through Danny, most of the increases were on Dave, who had lost his group policy after leaving the ISP.

The allegation of fraud by Danny Camm was later dropped. In a bond hearing in June, 2005, Detective Gilbert said that he had been told by someone that Danny Camm had forged Kim's signature but that the information wasn't correct. Detective Gilbert had sworn, under oath, to the authenticity of that allegation and then simply dismissed it months later.

The third affidavit also followed in the same manner as the two preceding it. Pertinent parts of the story were left out. For example, there was no mention of the ever-changing, inconsistent and contradictory stories told by Boney. Neither did the affidavit tell of Boney's violent criminal background other than to simply note that he had been released from the Indiana State Prison (not accurate) in June, 2000 for armed robbery. Nothing was said about his previous convictions for assaulting women for their shoes, his threats to shoot women in the head or his armed abduction of three women.

The new charges now afforded Henderson the ability to charge David Camm, which he did, in Floyd County. Only a few months before, Henderson had agreed with the defense argument that Dave couldn't get a fair trial in Floyd County and had been intimately involved in selecting Warrick County as the new venue for the second Camm trial. Henderson was now claiming that there wouldn't be a problem in securing a fair trial in Floyd County.

The defense team refused to recognize that the old venue of Floyd County was legitimate and subsequently filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Indiana Supreme Court challenging the change of venue. Such writs are rarely heard by the Supreme Court (less than 2%) but it did agree to hear the arguments in the Camm case. Three months passed but the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 5-0 ruling, ordered Dave's trial back to Warrick County. During those three months the prosecutor refused to provide discovery to the Camm defense team.

In the months leading up to the second trial the defense team continued to interview many possible witnesses and develop promising leads. One witness, Victor Nugent, was found by the defense in mid-March, 2005. Nugent was a co-worker of Boney’s at Anderson Woods in Louisville who also missed work, as did Boney, on the evening of September 28, 2000. Nugent lied repeatedly to the defense and then later to the “Fresh Eyes” investigators about the source of a gun that he reluctantly admitted selling to Boney. Nugent claimed that the gun was a .38 revolver that he simply found in a tire in a van that he had purchased.

Nugent denied selling a .380 to Boney, although other co-workers heard Nugent complaining that Boney hadn’t paid him for a gun he had sold to him. One of those co-workers saw Boney with a semi-automatic in his backpack at work near the same time of Nugent's complaint.

The defense also located a friend of Nugent's who said that Nugent admitted to him that he did sell a .380 to Boney. That information was provided to the “Fresh Eyes” investigators but they said that they didn’t read much of the discovery provided to them by the defense. They dismissed Nugent as insignificant and didn’t pursue him as the source of the weapon.

The prosecution was approached by the mother of yet another inmate who wanted to help them. He also claimed that Dave also confessed to him that he had murdered his wife and children. The second inmate, Jeremy Bullock, claimed that Dave told him that he played basketball very hard while he was at the gym so that he would be noticed by the other players but that he left in the middle of the games. Does that make any sense? If someone is playing hard and then goes missing, wouldn't he be missed all the more? How does that account for the fact that the one game he did sit out it was with a church elder and that the two spoke during the entire time Dave didn't play ball?

Bullock, who confessed at age 16 to planning and then murdering his drug dealer, also said that Dave said that he committed the murders because Kim was leaving him. Was there evidence of that? There is no such evidence and on the contrary, Kim and Dave were talking about buying a bigger house with a swimming pool which would be closer to the kids' school. The two were making more money than they ever had and Dave's new job was not only affording him more money but also a better schedule to be with his family.

The prosecution was relying on two prison informants to buttress their case. David Camm, who has never wavered in the fact that he didn't kill his family, supposedly picked two inmates, at random, to confess that he killed his family. Those two informants were able to testify, however, thus allowing the jury to hear that Dave was incarcerated with two felons in the Indiana State Prison. Allowing the jury to hear that Dave was incarcerated meant that they therefore knew that he had been previously convicted. That was as important as the two stories.

Remember also that each one of the informants came forward and told of Dave's "confessions" prior to Boney's DNA being matched to the BACKBONE sweatshirt. What did the two informants say about Dave's co-conspirator? Nothing. Their stories didn't involve anyone who supposedly helped Dave. The fact that the inmates' stories didn't comport with the prosecution's theory that Dave and Boney acted together didn't stop the prosecution from using them at trial.

The defense found and interviewed several other inmates who were incarcerated with Dave and the two informants. Those other inmates, who had not been interviewed by the police or prosecution, refuted the claims of the two informants that Dave had confessed. Hatton was a well-known informant who wasn't trusted, not only by other inmates, but by police officers who knew him well. Bullock had bragged that he hated cops and was going to lie against Camm.

Prior to Camm’s trial, at least two other inmates in the Floyd County jail also attempted to gain favor with the prosecution in exchange for their stories. One inmate was telling other inmates that the prosecution needed someone to connect Boney and Camm together and that they would get a good deal if they did so. Their stories were so jumbled that they weren't used but only after the defense found other witnesses who told of their plans to sell their testimony in exchange for reduced sentences.

Hatton and Bullock, however, both benefited after their testimony for the state. As noted, Hatton, after his release on house arrest, fled and he is now a fugitive. Bullock was allowed to move from the prison at Michigan City to the Pendleton Reformatory where his family, residing nearby, could visit him more frequently.

During the second trial, which began on January 9, 2006, the judge refused to allow the defense to use Dave's 6th Amendment right to present evidence that Charles Boney was responsible for the murders. Boney's confession to the defense investigator as well as another confession, "I've got three (murders) under my belt" wasn't allowed, nor was any of his improbable story of being at the crime scene and looking into the car out of "curiosity" sake. His placement of the shoes on top of the car along with the rest of his story wasn't allowed.

Boney's criminal signature, his foot and shoe fetish, his violence towards women, his “escape plan” using a sweatshirt, and the fact that he was given a clear alternative to the death penalty in return for him incriminating David Camm was not allowed.

The judge, upon a motion filed by the defense, was required by law to dismiss the conspiracy charge against Dave because there was absolutely no evidence submitted by the prosecution that there had been any such conspiracy. The prosecutors never placed any witness on the stand that ever placed Boney with David Camm. The only "witness" was Charles Boney. The judge acquitted Dave of the conspiracy charge, but only after effectively apologizing to the prosecution for doing so.

During the second trial, there were a total of eight experts who testified about the blood on Area 30 of Dave's T-shirt which contained the blood of his daughter. The four prosecution experts all came to the same conclusion that the eight tiny drops of blood in Area 30 was deposited as a result of high velocity impact spray (HVIS) but they couldn't agree as to what made the blood on the shirt HVIS.

The State’s prime expert, Rodney Englert admitted during cross-examination that he didn't know that blood wasn't on the periodic table of elements. He also claimed that a basic knowledge of chemistry, physics, and blood viscosity wasn’t important when it came to identifying the source of blood stains.

Rod Englert, however, is admired by many as an individual who does a great sales job with juries. It was Englert, another crime scene re-constructionist, who claimed that Dave was squatted down in front of Jill in the backseat of the Bronco when he shot and killed her and Brad. The basis of that testimony stemmed from Englert’s assertion that blood on the back of Dave’s T-shirt was the result of contact with the rear of the front passenger seat which had been deposited there by high velocity misting. Englert had never proffered that opinion before, not in the first trial or in his depositions. That was new testimony. None of the other seven experts thought that the stain on the rear of the shirt was high velocity blood that was transferred to the shirt, but rather they all considered it to be a simple transfer of blood. Rod Englert was able to testify to something that seven others could not.

The four defense blood experts testified that the eight blood stains on Area 30 were a result of transfer or contact with blood from Jill. Those experts were Bart Epstein, the former forensic chief of the Minnesota State Crime Laboratory; Paulette Sutton, the Assistant Director of Forensic Services at the Regional Forensic Center in Memphis, Tennessee; Paul Kish, textbook author and recognized blood expert who was on the Executive Board of the FBI’s Scientific Working Group on Blood Stain Pattern Analysis (SWGSTAIN); and Stuart James, a forensic scientist, former chief toxicologist, clinical chemist, SWGSTAIN member, and author of textbooks on blood stains.

The jury was greatly aided, however, in their deliberations by what Judge Aylsworth allowed the prosecution to argue in their final argument. The judge ruled that the prosecution could argue that Jill was molested by her father. Incredibly enough, the Judge said that he couldn't prevent the prosecution from making such an argument, stating, "I don't believe it's my prerogative to restrict the argument as to any matters of evidence or in evidence, and I'll let you argue those as you please, and the jury can determine whether or not it has any merit."

The judge, whose job is to make definitive determinations on whether it is permissible to even admit certain "evidence," completely ignored, in the opinion of many people, the Court of Appeals ruling. He even contradicted his previous rulings during the trial. The prosecution was allowed to argue that Dave molested his child even though not one scintilla of evidence existed that he had done so.

Later, in another ruling after the trial, Judge Aylsworth also acknowledged that, "the evidence allowed to be admitted at trial did not in and of itself indicate such propensities (molestation) on the part of the defendant, or the existence at least on the surface of anything other than a natural father and daughter relationship between the defendant and his daughter."

To put it mildly, that's illogical. The judge said that Dave and Jill had a natural father and daughter relationship but there could have been something that wasn't “on the surface.” A judge who is supposed to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process are the foundations of his court allowed allegations of molestation without any evidence. An allegation, without any evidence whatsoever, was allowed to be argued as fact.

The judge justified his decision by claiming that both sides had the opportunity to litigate the "existence of and time of molestation" but ignored the Appellate Court's strict warning to "carefully consider whether the highly inflammatory nature of this evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of any evidence that Camm molested Jill." Many of the courtroom observers also thought that the judge also ignored the testimony of the pathologist who conducted Jill's autopsy who said that the injuries were non-specific and could have resulted from a myriad of other reasons other than molestation.

(On February 11, 2008, the Indiana Attorney General filed a response to the appeal filed by Camm's attorneys after his second conviction. In that response, the Attorney General acknowledged that the State had presented no evidence that David Camm was the source of the genitalia injuries suffered by Jill, yet still argued that it was permissible to allege that he molested his daughter. )

Judge Aylsworth refused to admit the two confessions of Charles Boney and refused to allow the defense to introduce other critical evidence against Boney, including his flunked polygraph, his criminal signature, and his ever-changing and totally unbelievable stories, yet he allowed prosecutor Henderson to claim that Dave not only molested Jill but that Kim had confronted Dave about that and was going to leave him. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever or any confrontation or that Kim was going to leave Dave.

With the final words that Henderson uttered to the jury, he was able to have the most poisonous words that the jury heard prior to their being given their instructions from the judge. Those final words, "molested his daughter" tainted every other aspect of the trial and were instrumental in the jury finding Dave guilty.

Robert Crowell, the jury foreman, was later quoted as saying, "I think there are a number of things that were strong, but that timeline, I think, on the molestation is critical," he said. "We were convinced that what happened to Jill could not have happened anytime after 7:30 PM that night." Crowell further added, "If it had been only the impact spatter, I think we would have had a much longer discussion."

There was no evidence whatsoever of any molestation by Dave, but the jury came to that conclusion. The harsh words of Prosecutor Henderson resonated in the jury room and the need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt vanished with the allegation that Dave had molested his precious little daughter. That heinous allegation trumped 11 eyewitnesses and simple common sense.

The jury later recommended a sentence of life without parole and less than a month after the guilty verdicts, Judge Aylsworth sentenced Dave to that mandatory life sentence.

In obtaining the two convictions, the police and prosecutors relied upon an expert who wasn't, ignored mountains of evidence, came up with four different theories of when and how David Camm committed murder, labeled 11 eyewitnesses as mistaken or liars, publicly supported a kidnapper and armed robber, relied upon drug dealers/murderers for witnesses, dismissed the possible source of the murder weapon, and spent literally millions of dollars in public funds.

The prosecutor, whose claims of a conspiracy between Boney and Camm secured headlines and lead stories, nonetheless fought vigorously to prevent any of Boney's statements or confessions from being allowed in the Camm trial. Sadly, the State of Indiana obtained two convictions through character assassination, speculation, and the failure of a judge to allow the defense to present critical evidence.

The two trials and two appeals, in addition to the cost of the experts and other associated costs have, to date, cost the taxpayers of Floyd County over $2 million. That doesn't include the costs associated with conducting the investigation and prosecution of the most investigated crime ever by the Indiana State Police. It also, of course, doesn't include the enormous costs, financial and emotional, borne by the families of the slain.

Many people, after learning of the events that have occurred in this case, have righteously asked the question, "What aren't you telling me?" This website will hopefully answer that question and more. Many will rightfully have a difficult time believing that this monumental injustice occurred and that it is still being perpetuated by the State of Indiana. They will fail to comprehend why David Camm was convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

David Camm is currently imprisoned at the Pendleton, Indiana Reformatory and his family, supporters and defense team are still seeking justice for him and his slain family.

BARNES, Judge

David R. Camm appeals his three convictions for the murder of his wife and two children. We reverse.

The dispositive issue we address today is whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to present extensive evidence of extramarital sexual activity by Camm. For retrial purposes, we also address other issues that Camm has raised.

The evidence most favorable to the convictions is that on the evening of September 28, 2000, Camm shot and killed his wife Kim and their children, seven-year-old Brad and five-year-old Jill, at their home in Georgetown. The shooting took place in the Camms’ garage, apparently sometime after 7:30 p.m., when Kim and the children would have been due to arrive home from Brad’s swimming practice.

Camm’s version of events was that he was playing basketball at a nearby church from 7:00 p.m. until approximately 9:20 p.m., after which he drove home and found Kim, whom he immediately thought was dead, lying on the ground next to her Bronco. He then claimed to have looked inside the vehicle and found Jill and Brad. Camm thought Brad might still be alive, so he reached in over Jill, removed him from the Bronco, placed him on the garage floor next to Kim, and began performing CPR. When this proved futile, Camm said he called the Sellersburg Indiana State Police post for help, then ran across the street to his grandfather’s house to tell his uncle, who was staying there, what had happened. Camm had been a State Police trooper for many years, but had quit the force several months earlier to work for a family business that, among other things, waterproofed basements.

Police showed the t-shirt Camm was wearing on the night of the 28th to a blood spatter expert. The expert believed certain blood droplets, which were later confirmed to be from Jill, found on one corner of the shirt were high velocity impact spatter resulting from a gunshot. Based in part on this evidence, on October 1, 2000, the State charged Camm with three counts of murder. See footnote

On January 7, 2002, a jury trial began with the selection of jurors from Johnson County because of the extensive media coverage of the crime in the Louisville area. The trial continued in Floyd County until March 15, 2002, when the jury retired to deliberate. The key physical evidence against Camm was the purported high velocity blood spatter on his t-shirt, which was challenged by Camm’s forensic expert. The State also presented extensive evidence of Camm’s personal life, specifically, evidence that he had had several sexual encounters with or propositioned women other than Kim during his time with the State Police. On March 17, 2002, the jury informed the trial court that it was deadlocked; the trial court instructed the jury to continue deliberating. Later that day, the jury returned with guilty verdicts on all three counts. Camm was sentenced to a total of 195 years, and he now appeals.

During the State’s case-in-chief, it presented the testimony of twelve women who had had various types of relationships with Camm since 1991. At one end of the romantic spectrum were three women with whom Camm had had prolonged sexual relationships, the most recent of which occurred in 1997. Camm had a relationship with one of these women, Stephanie Neely, while he was separated from Kim in 1994 and had moved out of the family home and into an apartment. On the other end of the spectrum were two women to whom Camm apparently made implied sexual advances, such as offering to take care of one woman’s basement waterproofing bill in “other ways.” Tr. p. 2848.

Two other women testified as to more overt sexual overtures that they had rebuffed. The remaining five women, who had varying levels of acquaintanceship with Camm, had had at least one instance of sexual contact with Camm, including kissing, fondling and, in some instances, intercourse, but little else besides what the women described as extensive flirting. Some of the women were asked during their testimony to divulge details of their relationships with Camm, such as when, where, and how they engaged in sexual activities, including such details as the shaving of pubic hair. Camm filed a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of this evidence and repeated his objection at trial. He argues that the admission of this evidence was an attack on his character not admissible for any proper purpose under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b).

A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will disturb its rulings only where it is shown that the court abused that discretion. Griffith v. State, 788 N.E.2d 835, 839 (Ind. 2003). Evidence Rule 404(b) provides in pertinent part:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .

“This rule prevents the State from punishing people for their character . . . .” Bassett v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (Ind. 2003). Evidence of other wrongs or acts poses the danger that a jury may convict a defendant because his or her “general character” is bad. Id. (quoting Gibbs v. State, 538 N.E.2d 937, 939 (Ind. 1989)). In determining the admissibility of extrinsic act evidence under Evidence Rule 404(b), courts must: (1) determine whether the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the person’s propensity to engage in a wrongful act; and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect pursuant to Evidence Rule 403. Id. Otherwise admissible evidence may be rendered inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” Ind. Evidence Rule 403.

The State asserts that this evidence was offered to establish motive. With respect to the motive “exception” in Evidence Rule 404(b), our supreme court has said that motive is “always relevant” when proving a crime. Ross v. State, 676 N.E.2d 339, 346 (Ind. 1996). It is clear, however, that just because motive is “always relevant,” this does not mean the State can introduce questionable character evidence simply by labeling it evidence of “motive.” If the State’s claim of relevance to motive is too strained and remote to be reasonable, then the extrinsic act evidence is inadmissible. See Bassett, 795 N.E.2d at 1053.

Our supreme court has also said that evidence of extrinsic acts may be relevant as proof of motive if the acts “show the relationship between the defendant and the victim.” Ross, 676 N.E.2d at 346. This rationale has been used to uphold the introduction of evidence of prior violence or threats by the defendant against the victim in a trial alleging the battery or homicide of the victim. See id.; Price v. State, 619 N.E.2d 582, 584 (Ind. 1993). Specifically, “where a relationship between parties is characterized by frequent conflict, evidence of the defendant’s prior assaults and confrontations with the victim may be admitted to show the relationship between the parties and motive for committing the crime—‘hostility.’” Spencer v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053, 1056 (Ind. 1999).

Neither party has cited to this court, nor has our own research revealed, any Indiana case that has discussed the admissibility, as evidence of motive, of a defendant’s adulterous affairs in a trial where the defendant is accused of killing his or her spouse. The Indiana case closest to being on point appears to be Henson v. State, 530 N.E.2d 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied. In that case, a wife was charged with the voluntary manslaughter of her husband. On cross-examination of the wife, the State questioned her regarding several alleged instances of adultery; her answers to the questions were equivocal.

Thereafter, on rebuttal the State presented four witnesses to the affairs. We reversed the wife’s conviction, holding (1) that the State’s cross-examination regarding adultery was outside the scope of the wife’s direct examination and (2) that the rebuttal evidence of the affairs was immaterial and “had no relevance to [the wife’s] guilt or innocence.” Id. at 770. We further stated, “We can find no basis for the State’s introduction of the rebuttal testimony other than to prejudice the jury against [the wife].” Id. The opinion does not address, however, whether the adultery evidence could have been relevant to establishing motive, presumably because that was not argued by the State. Nevertheless, Henson does evidence healthy skepticism about the relevance and admissibility of evidence of extramarital affairs by a defendant charged with killing his or her spouse.

There is a general paucity of cases throughout the country discussing the issue of adultery as evidence of motive to kill one’s spouse. See footnote However, we have discovered that the Supreme Court of Mississippi has addressed precisely this issue in detail and in a manner that appears to us entirely consistent with Indiana case law and Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). In Lesley v. State, 606 So. 2d 1084 (Miss. 1992), a wife was convicted of conspiring with a lover to murder her husband. The wife admitted to the affair with the accused lover. However, the husband was also allowed to testify as to two other men with whom his wife allegedly had had extramarital affairs in previous years. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the wife’s conviction based upon its application of Mississippi Evidence Rule 404(b), which is virtually identical to Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). See footnote Id. at 1089-90. First, it noted that the other two alleged affairs had occurred years before the conspiracy to commit murder arose and thus were too chronologically remote. Id. at 1090. It also noted that the husband had failed to prove that the alleged affairs had actually taken place. Id. Finally, and most relevant to this case, the court stated:

Any extramarital affairs of Loretta Lesley other than the affair with Hood [the current lover and alleged co-conspirator] were not part of any chain of events leading to the planned murder of Dale Lesley. Additionally, proof of previous extramarital affairs lacked relevance into the murder conspiracy and was so prejudicial as to fail any balancing test under Rule 403. Her alleged prior adultery did not make it more likely than not that she committed conspiracy to commit murder, and it did inflame any listener.

Id. The court held it was improper to use this evidence “only to show that she had a motive for killing her husband because she was unhappy in her marriage and had a reason for wanting to ‘get rid’ of her husband. The only effect of such testimony was to show the jury that she was a ‘bad woman.’” Id. The court also distinguished the case before it from cases in other jurisdictions that had allowed evidence of extramarital affairs to be introduced, noting among other things that in the other cases the “evidence of adultery was introduced in combination with evidence of violence or current conduct [an ongoing affair at the time of the murder] to show motive.” Id. at 1090-91 (citing State v. Green, 652 P.2d 697 (Kan. 1982) and Commonwealth v. Heller, 87 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1952)). We, too, have discovered that insofar as evidence of adultery has sometimes been admitted as evidence of motive in a murder trial in other jurisdictions, such evidence has been that the defendant was engaged in an affair at the time of the murder. See United States v. Stapleton, 730 F. Supp. 1375, 1378-79 (W.D. Va. 1990); Givens v. State, 546 S.E.2d 509, 512 (Ga. 2001).

In another case, the Seventh Circuit addressed the admission into evidence of a defendant’s extramarital affair in a trial for solicitation to murder the defendant’s wife. Cramer v. Fahner, 683 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016, 103 S. Ct. 376. The court held that although the prosecution failed to make a tie between adultery and motive as it had claimed it would, the mention of the affair by the defendant’s co-conspirator was relevant to explain the relationship between the defendant and co-conspirator and why the murder plot was delayed: the defendant, an attorney, had explained to the co-conspirator that he might have to order additional murders if the mother-in-law of the woman with whom he had had an affair, and who was the wife of one of his clients, continued to press an ethical complaint with the bar. Id. at 1384. However, the court went on to state that the trial court “should not have allowed prolonged questioning on cross-examination of petitioner’s wife on her knowledge of petitioner’s adultery and bar association problems . . . .” Id. The court did not find this error to warrant habeas corpus relief because the trial court had given a proper limiting instruction regarding the evidence, the error did not deprive the defendant of fundamental due process of law, and the evidence against the defendant was strong. Id. at 1385.

We conclude it is clear from the above authorities and Indiana law that evidence of a defendant’s marital infidelity is not automatically admissible as proof of motive in a trial for murder or attempted murder of the defendant’s spouse. Instead, to be admissible as proof of motive, the State must do more than argue that the defendant must have been unhappily married or was a poor husband or wife, ergo he or she had a motive to murder his or her spouse. This court has previously discussed and acknowledged the high rate of marital infidelity in this country, with some studies estimating that between thirty to fifty percent of women and fifty to seventy percent of men have been unfaithful to their spouses. Jaunese v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

Rather, to be admissible, evidence of a defendant’s extramarital affairs should be accompanied by evidence that such activities had precipitated violence or threats between the defendant and victim in the past, or that the defendant was involved in an extramarital relationship at the time of the completed or contemplated homicide. The admissibility of such evidence may be further constrained by concerns of chronological remoteness, insufficient proof of the extrinsic act, or the general concern that the unfair prejudicial effect of certain evidence might substantially outweigh its probative value in a particular case.

There was clearly sufficient proof of Camm’s philandering, and at least some of his activities took place relatively near in time to Kim’s murder. However, there was no evidence of a violent or hostile relationship between Camm and his wife, nor any evidence that he ever threatened her with harm. Camm did apparently lose his temper in 1994 following a conflict over an affair at a time when he and Kim apparently were separated. The only evidence in the record with respect to this incident, which we will discuss in more detail, was that Kim was not even present when Camm caused some minor property damage in his home. There is no evidence that Camm ever battered Kim or issued any threats, either to her directly or to others. See footnote

There was no evidence that Camm was involved in an extramarital relationship at the time of Kim’s murder. Ten days before the murder, Camm had apparently asked a woman with whom he had had a relationship in 1992 and 1993 whether she would be interested in having sex again, and she declined. Camm evidently had asked the same or similar question of this woman on previous occasions. There is no evidence that Camm and this woman, or any other woman, were involved in a romantic relationship at the time of Kim’s murder.

Nonetheless, the State argues in its brief, “Under the State’s theory, the Defendant did have a defect in his character to allow him to engage in these acts. He did not act as a proper husband and father.” Appellee’s Br. p. 23. This amounts to a virtual concession that the evidence of Camm’s extramarital sexual escapades was introduced to establish that he was a person of poor character who was more likely to commit murder because of that character. This is precisely what Evidence Rule 404(b) and volumes of case law prohibit. The law simply does not allow the State to pursue conviction of a defendant on the basis that his character is “defective.” This principle has been recognized for many years. It represents the cumulative wisdom and knowledge gleaned from hundreds, if not thousands, of trials conducted over the years as to the inherent unfairness of such evidence. Professor Wigmore observed 100 years ago:

The deep tendency of human nature is to punish, not because our victim is guilty this time, but because he is a bad man and may as well be condemned now that he is caught, is a tendency which cannot help operating with any jury, in or out of court. . . . Our rule, then, firmly and universally established in policy and tradition, is that the prosecution may not initially attack the defendant’s character.

John H. Wigmore, A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law 1:126-27 (1904). See also Foreman v. State, 203 Ind. 324, 327, 180 N.E. 291, 292 (1932) (stating “general moral character cannot be established on direct or redirect examination by proof of particular acts or of remote extraneous crimes.”). We see no indication that our supreme court wishes to discard Evidence Rule 404(b) and overrule numerous cases regarding the general inadmissibility of bad character evidence. See, e.g., Bassett, 795 N.E.2d at 1053. Nor, in our view, would such a momentous change in the law, which would conflict with well-settled law throughout the country, be appropriate. We therefore conclude the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce evidence of Camm’s adulterous conduct in its case-in-chief because the tie between such evidence and motive, or anything other than simply portraying Camm as “bad,” is too strained and remote to be reasonable. See id. Even if this evidence had minimal probative value as proof of motive, its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed such value under Evidence Rule 403, particularly given the extent to which the State emphasized this evidence.

Closely related to the issue of the twelve women who testified as to Camm’s adulterous nature during the State’s case-in-chief, is the rebuttal testimony of a female guard at the jail where Camm was awaiting trial, who testified that Camm said to her shortly before her upcoming wedding “that I still had time for one last fling.” Tr. p. 6984. Clearly, this evidence is along the same lines as the inadmissible testimony of the twelve women who testified during the State’s case-in-chief regarding Camm sexually propositioning them. The State contends that Camm opened the door to this evidence during his cross-examination by the prosecutor; it offers no other basis for its admissibility.

During cross-examination, after the prosecutor accused Camm of being self-centered, Camm said, “Right now it’s all about Brad and Jill and Kim.” Tr. p. 6723. The prosecutor then asked Camm whether he had propositioned the jail guard in November 2001; Camm said that he could not recall doing so. The State points to nothing on Camm’s direct examination that might have opened the door to the guard’s testimony. Statements made by a defendant that are elicited by the State on cross-examination cannot be relied upon to “open the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence. Newman v. State, 719 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000); see also Kien v. State, 782 N.E.2d 398, 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that although a party may inquire into a collateral matter on cross-examination, “the questioner is bound by the answer received and may not impeach the witness with extrinsic evidence unless the evidence would be independently admissible.”), trans. denied; Rhodes v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1246, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; Roth v. State, 550 N.E.2d 104, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied. Thus, the guard’s rebuttal testimony was improper.

The State argues that the admission of the evidence of Camm’s sexual affairs and propositioning during its case-in-chief and on rebuttal does not constitute reversible error because the trial court gave admonishments and a limiting instruction regarding it. At first, the trial court told the jury that the adultery evidence “has been received on the issue of motive and for impeachment purposes” and that the jury should only consider it for those purposes. Tr. p. 2755. After the jury expressed confusion over how impeachment applied in the case, the trial court modified the admonishment to “[t]his evidence has been received on the issues of motive and credibility.” Tr. p. 2832. The trial court also gave a final instruction containing identical language. See Tr. p. 7126.

It is true that a timely and accurate admonishment is presumed to cure any error in the admission of evidence. Kirby v. State, 774 N.E.2d 523, 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. The trial court’s admonishments and limiting instruction in this case did not cure the error in the admission of evidence of Camm’s adultery. First, the admonishments and instruction allowed the jury to consider such evidence as proof of motive. We have held that the evidence was not admissible for that purpose.

Second, the trial court originally admonished the jury that it could consider the extramarital affair evidence for impeachment purposes. This reference to impeachment undoubtedly was confusing, because Camm had not testified to the contrary regarding any of the incidents presented during the State’s case-in-chief. The jury, in fact, expressed to the court its confusion over this admonishment. To the extent the trial court then altered its admonishment to say that the extramarital affair evidence could be used for “credibility” purposes, without any limitation or definition as to “credibility,” it allowed for the possibility that the jury would have felt free to use the fact that Camm regularly cheated or attempted to cheat on his wife to discount his testimony on any matter, including his account of the events of September 28, 2000. Clearly, this is the very thing that Evidence Rule 404(b), not to mention Evidence Rule 608 governing and limiting “credibility” evidence, See footnote are designed to prevent: judging a defendant based upon evidence of poor character and not upon evidence related to the present charges.

The State also argues briefly and without citation to authority that it was allowed to introduce the testimony of the women in order to “impeach” out-of-court statements Camm had made to others, including police interrogators, regarding the overall good state of his marriage to Kim at the time of the murders that the State introduced into evidence during its case-in-chief. The failure to cite authority waives this argument for our review. Bartley v. State, 800 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). This is especially true given that “impeachment” is understood to refer to challenging a witness’ credibility with respect to testimony, not the credibility of unsworn pretrial statements. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 578 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “impeachment evidence” as “Evidence used to undermine a witness’s credibility”).

Additionally, it was the State, not Camm, that injected the issue of his relationship with Kim into the trial. Clearly, the State here attempted to “bootstrap” otherwise inadmissible evidence regarding Camm’s affairs into the trial by arguing about it during opening statements and introducing out-of-court statements made by Camm wherein he had discussed his relationship with Kim. This is impermissible. See Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444 (Ind. 1999) (holding State could not “bootstrap” introduction of hearsay statements regarding murder victim’s fear of defendant by reading during opening argument defendant’s statement to the police saying he had threatened the victim, and where defendant did not attempt to portray relationship with victim as harmonious during his opening statement). We have reviewed the opening statement of Camm’s attorney and have found that, as in Willey, he did not place the issue of Camm’s relationship with Kim into the trial or attempt to portray their relationship as harmonious. Therefore, pursuant to Willey, the State was not given carte blanche to delve into otherwise inadmissible details of Camm’s personal life merely because he mentioned his relationship with Kim in out-of-court statements. See footnote See also Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. 2001) (“Trials should principally proceed on the basis of testimony given in court, not statements or affidavits obtained before trial.”).

Finally, the State argues that the admission of this evidence was harmless. We disregard errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence as harmless unless the errors affect the substantial rights of the party. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 802 (Ind. 2002) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 61). To determine whether an error in the introduction of evidence affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we must consider the probable impact of that evidence upon the jury. Id. The question is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction absent the erroneously admitted evidence, but whether the evidence was likely to have had a prejudicial impact on the jury. Currie v. State, 512 N.E.2d 882, 883-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), trans. denied (1989). Here, although we cannot say the evidence is insufficient to sustain Camm’s convictions as a matter of law on appeal, we are left with the definite possibility that the jury might have found Camm not guilty of murdering his wife and two children if it had not been exposed to a substantial amount of improperly admitted and unfairly prejudicial evidence concerning his extramarital affairs and the State’s use of that evidence to portray Camm as a person of poor character who was more likely to commit murder because of his indiscretions.

Eleven witnesses with varying degrees of familiarity with Camm See footnote testified that he was playing basketball at a church at the time his wife and children most likely were murdered; although not all eleven were on precisely the same page as to the details of basketball games played one and a half years earlier, they all agreed that Camm was there the entire time and that even though he sat out at least one game, he did not leave the gym.

The State’s claim in opening argument that Camm made a phone call from his house at 7:19 p.m., which would have refuted the alibi witnesses’ testimony that he was at the gym at that time, was found to be incorrect upon examination of a Verizon employee who testified that due to a software error concerning Indiana’s unusual time zones, the call was placed instead at 6:19 p.m., when Camm said he was at home and before he left to play basketball. The State’s gunshot residue expert, who found some gunshot residue particles on Camm’s clothing, clearly testified, “you can’t . . . make that judgment” that such evidence meant Camm was present when the gun was fired. Tr. p. 4590. There was some unexplained evidence found at the scene of the crime, such as the presence of unidentified DNA found on Kim’s and Brad’s pants, and a sweatshirt found underneath Brad that had the word “Backbone” written on the tag that also had unidentified DNA on it. The determination of Camm’s guilt essentially came down to a “battle of the experts,” with the State’s blood spatter experts claiming certain blood spots on Camm’s shirt that came from Jill were high velocity spatter and Camm’s claiming it most likely was transferred by contact.

The possibility clearly exists in this case that the improper admission of evidence may have consciously or subconsciously influenced which expert or experts the jury chose to believe and the weight it assigned to the testimony of Camm’s alibi witnesses, not to mention Camm’s own testimony.

Additionally, the State’s attempt to minimize the impact of this evidence, by noting that “only” thirteen witnesses testified about sexual advances by Camm out of eighty total witnesses for the State, is unavailing. Appellee’s Br. p. 23. As Camm points out, in addition to the testimony of the thirteen women, the State devoted the first approximately one-quarter of its lengthy cross-examination of Camm to exploring his marital infidelity. During opening argument, the State dwelled at length upon this evidence, stating in part:

You will hear the Defendant was a predator of women. Their marriage was plagued by the Defendant’s continuous affairs. And these aren’t affairs based upon admiration and love. These were sexual encounters that were disrespectful and humiliating. . . . He collected and devoured women. . . . And you will hear that while married to Kim those eleven years there were at least fifteen other women. . . . From strippers, to co-workers, to professional women, married or unmarried, the Defendant collected them just the same.

Tr. pp. 1216-17. The State began its closing argument by again referring to this evidence extensively:

In November of 1994, the Defendant set himself upon a journey that would end in a hail of gunfire, destroying not only his family, but ultimately himself in an orgy of annihilation. In November of 1994 the Defendant looked upon the surface charms of Stephanie Neely, and having no ability to refute his whims, betrayed his wife and kids. . . . The Defendant went back to Kim where he betrayed her repeatedly and deliberately. He betrayed not only the honor of his family, but the trust of his badge and the honor of his profession. He used his power to prey upon vulnerable women, the ones they met, the ones that he stopped. The Defendant cared for no one. He sought only his pleasures and it pleased him to invite his secret lover into the very presence of Kim. . . . He preyed upon woman after woman over the years. The Defendant is a devourer of women. He cares nothing for his immediate family, or extended family. He is willing to bring down upon their heads a holocaust of extermination and destruction.

Tr. pp. 7065-67. We need say no more. Clearly, the State’s portrayal of Camm as an immoral, self-centered individual of poor character because of his philandering was central to its case.

We need not address any more issues in this case in detail. However, we do trust that some of the claimed instances of prosecutorial misconduct were unintentional and will not be repeated in any retrial, such as (1) questioning the defense blood spatter expert as to why his opinion conflicted with five other experts, when only two experts had testified for the State; (2) asking Camm why he did not think domestic violence was “a big deal” when there was no evidence that Camm had ever battered Kim, Tr. p. 6750; and (3) representing that a certain witness would be called later and could be questioned directly by defense counsel, then failing in fact to call that witness and protesting when defense counsel sought to do so. See footnote