Jump to content



Photo

State v. Camm

Floyd County going broke

  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

#21 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:27 PM

Pesty is familiar with a lawyer that tried a murder case three times in Clark County. The evidence can come in..however, the jury is not informed about the whys and hows of the fact there were previous trials.... or why they didn't work out. So, in Camm 3... everyone is basically instructed to look at the evidence and not consider what happened in the courts before.

#22 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:30 PM

http://www.wdrb.com/...2013-trial-blog

#23 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:31 AM

Today's cross examination of Boney should be interesting, if the prosecution is allowed to ask about his many lies told to police.

I was reading a blog about the case and this comment I found really interesting... (can a prosecution be allowed to change the motive for every trial)


Preston Trigg · Washington and Lee UniversityI have been following this trial for a couple of years from Florida and I guess I'm as dumb as a sack of hammers 'cause I just don't get it.

The motive thing is baffling. In the first trial, the motive was adultery. So, he butchered his family - including two kids - so he could pursue affairs. OK, I guess I could see that, although he seemed awful successful at it without having to resort to slaughtering his family and risking the death penalty or whatever you have up there.

In the second trial, the motive was molestation. Okay, he killed his family so he could over up the molestation, for which evidence seemed weak at best. A serial adulterer with a taste for middle-aged, married women also has a thing for little girls? I don't see that one. Plus, I think his wife would have been acting a whole lot differently than taking the kids for swim lessons and McNuggets.

No, that doesn't work, so we come to ol' fall back - life insurance. Let me understand this: I figure about 75 percent of all married couples with kids have some sort of life insurance, whether through work or whatever. Plus, they use both incomes to pay the bills.

So, how long are we supposed to wait before we inquire about it?

I mean take my situation. My wife contributes about a third of our income to bills. So, about a week after her burial, I am going to be confronted with a $15,000 funeral home and burial bill. About two weeks after that, I got a mortgage and two car payments due. And today, I probably have a grand total of $1,500 in my account. So how long am I supposed to wait before asking about the insurance. One week? Two weeks? A month?

And this Stan Faith thing. Is anyone else bothered by this? Is it true that Stan Faith knew Boney's mom and probably - although not a certainty - knew her son by the nickname "Backbone?"

And let me ask you smarter people something: Are you really allow to fish for motives like this? In one trial, you present this motive. If that doesn't work, you try another motive in the second trial. And if that doesn't work, you try a third motive? Are you really allowed to just keep throwing stuff against the wall until it sticks?

To make matter worse, the prosecutors changed their whole premise when Boney's identity showed up.

Is this about politics? Why on earth wouldn't a judge just put a stop to this? To Kimberly's family, I am heart-broken at your loss. And that man is a slug for cheating on her like that.

But I do not believe that man killed your daughter or your grandchildren. Take solace in the fact that the man who did it is behind bars.


  • Tina likes this

#24 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:56 PM

Interesting day today: http://www.wdrb.com/...ouse-informants
  • Ray Lawrence Parker likes this

#25 Ray Lawrence Parker

Ray Lawrence Parker

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:46 AM

Interesting day today: http://www.wdrb.com/...ouse-informants



Very interesting day indeed. This blogger for WDRB is doing a truly outstanding job. His reporting is, by far, the best source that I have found for information about what is happening in the trial.

#26 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 05:58 PM

http://wrongfulconvi...e-camm-murders/

I’ve been researching questionable convictions for the past couple of years and most of them are filled with some level of official misconduct, but the Camm case ….. this is by far the worst I have ever seen and believe me, there are many tragic cases out there with innocent people suffering in prison. As I write this, his 3rd trial is set to begin. The State of Indiana is trying this man again despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that Charles Boney committed the murders on his own, or with help of his girlfriend, Mala Singh Mattingly. I understand that prosecutors hate to be wrong for various reasons – political, financial, ego, etc., but typically when confronted with an overwhelming amount of evidence that they prosecuted the wrong person, most accept it and deal with it. Not in this case – and the way they mishandled everything is shocking and appalling and should be embarrassing. They should be ashamed!



#27 Details Matter

Details Matter

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 07:37 AM

It seems that I am the only one here that felt that he was guilty because they found blood splatter on his shirt that was shown by checking the dna to be blood spatter from one of his victims.
  • karen, masey and Donna like this

#28 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:13 AM

It seems that I am the only one here that felt that he was guilty because they found blood splatter on his shirt that was shown by checking the dna to be blood spatter from one of his victims.


yeah that is the only evidence, of all the other evidence that's just plain bogus, that is the only thing that sounds negative for camm... and i've listened to other experts weighing in on that and they believe it's junk science that the guy was using...

i dunno if it was or not... to me a few splatters of blood don't add up to murder. this will sound gruesome, but i'm gonna say it anyway... i don't know if you've ever shot big game but there are times that moving big game around after it is dead, the arteries are still pliable and blood can squirt out... i've seen it before and, i can imagine this could have happened as he was touching his family... ugh, sorry about the visuals there... that's why i can't use that evidence. and nothing else adds up for me.
  • Tina likes this

#29 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:20 AM

It seems that I am the only one here that felt that he was guilty because they found blood splatter on his shirt that was shown by checking the dna to be blood spatter from one of his victims.


If that was HVS, (on his shirt and,now, his shoes) how did he get back in his vehicle and drive back to the game without getting blood inside his vehicle?
  • Tina and Ray Lawrence Parker like this

#30 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:21 PM

It seems that I am the only one here that felt that he was guilty because they found blood splatter on his shirt that was shown by checking the dna to be blood spatter from one of his victims.


Do you know that the so called "expert" that Stan Faith hired is not even a certified forensic scientist?

Attached Files



#31 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:22 PM

This note was from a previous trial that Englert testified in, and was from 1994. Notice it says he had had at least 4 other lawyers contact him and it's been almost 20 years since then. Wonder how many other cases he's been an "expert" for hire and put innocent people in prison?

#32 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:37 PM

For me, the largest miscarriage of justice has came from the missing shower curtain and condoms.

Another is the Dept of Corrections sweatshirt (Boney's) that had his nickname on it. The fact that NO ONE ran the "unknown DNA" through the system or asked about the inmate nickname until 5 years after the murder is just too much for me. How do you just IGNORE that piece of evidence? And the bloody handprint on the Bronco was BONEY'S.

How much you want to bet the missing condoms and shower curtain also contained Boney DNA?


It's a travesty of justice and in my opinion Stan Faith deserves jail time himself for putting an innocent man behind bars for 13 years.

Edited by Tina, 14 September 2013 - 06:39 PM.

  • snowman and Pesty Version 2 like this

#33 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:23 AM

http://www.wdrb.com/...friend-problems

So if it were a conspiracy or Boney was a patsy... why wasn't Boney's name on the list Camm gave the police?


Gibson testified that at the time, Camm had two notepads containing sketches and notes. He said Camm also gave him a list of about eight names of possible suspects to check out. None of them, Gibson said, were found to be tied to the murders.

Defense attorney Stacy Uliana rose to question Gibson moments later.

Uliana pointed out that in the two weeks following the murders, Gibson spoke with Camm four times, and each time he always answered all questions, consented to all searches and continued to maintain his innocence.

"He even gave you his clothes," she said.

"Yes ma'am," Gibson replied.

She then changed the subject.

"Would you admit that random violence does occur?" she asked.

"If you're asking if random violence occurs between strangers, then yes," Gibson replied.

Uliana then referenced the list of names Camm gave Gibson.

"But what isn't on that list is Charles Boney," Uliana said.

"Correct, ma'am," Gibson replied.

Just before Gibson left the stand, one of the jurors asked if he knew why David Camm left the Indiana State Police four months prior to the murders.

"What I know is he left because he received another job opportunity," Gibson replied. "That's my opinion."



#34 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 06:29 PM

http://newsandtribun...ersion-of-story

#35 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:03 PM

http://newsandtribun...ersion-of-story


besides the basketball game and how precise he would have had to be in order to carry out this murder... the blood evidence i always thought was to his favor. if you shoot someone at point blank range there is gonna be more blood spatter than 8 tiny dots. i hope he gets justice and his freedom very soon, he's been in prison for a crime he did not commit.
  • Tina likes this

#36 cyrusthegreat

cyrusthegreat

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:37 AM

If Camm is found not guilty, and I think this is a very real possibility this trial, the civil aftermath, ie federal court litigation, which Camm will file in the event of an acquittal (and rightfully so), will ultimately cost Floyd County much, much more than all the money spent on Camm's defense. Faith could have some real problems (as could Henderson) but more so Faith in the event of an acquittal. Floyd County's insurance company, if it has the proper coverage, and its taxpayers will not be happy in this event.
  • snowman and Tina like this

#37 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 09:43 AM

If Camm is found not guilty, and I think this is a very real possibility this trial, the civil aftermath, ie federal court litigation, which Camm will file in the event of an acquittal (and rightfully so), will ultimately cost Floyd County much, much more than all the money spent on Camm's defense. Faith could have some real problems (as could Henderson) but more so Faith in the event of an acquittal. Floyd County's insurance company, if it has the proper coverage, and its taxpayers will not be happy in this event.


those 2 need to be disbarred for starters.
  • Tina likes this

#38 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 835 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:47 AM

People,

You have hit on subject that needs to be examined more closely. I am enjoying watching Floyd County debating on how they can approach Judge Dartt about the amount of money being spent by the defense of David Camm. Have they looked at their own house?

Let’s remember that the prosecutor in this matter is not a salaried employee of the county. He wouldn’t be there but for the problems created by their own prosecutor in trying to profit from writing a book to tell us what a wonderful job he did. Then he took some serious egg on the face when the conviction was overturned and the Court of Appeals ruled him ineligible to continue individually pursuing this matter do his impartiality shown by pursuing the book deal.

Let’s not also forget that, but for his (or his office’s) error, in bringing up matters at the second trial they were specifically told to stay away from by the Court of Appeals (unsubstantiated allegation of possible molestation of Jill Camm by David). Or, in the first trial, all the female witnesses that said they were mistresses of David Camm. Yes, it painted Camm as a scumbag. But, being a philandering scumbag doesn’t make you a murderer.

Stan Faith’s mistakes created trial number 2. Keith Henderson’s (and/or his office’s) mistakes created trial number 3. And, Henderson’s further bungling in wanting to become an author created the need for the expense of an appointed prosecutor at additional cost to the County. Strange, in the story detailing the costs of the defense attorney, I didn’t see any reference to the costs of Stan Levco. One other thing, have you noticed the tremendous difference in "press conferences" at the end of the day between Henderson and Levco. Henderson's was daily, Levco's is just every now and then.

To me, it’s just throwing good money after bad. Neither conviction against Camm stood a chance. Those that have been close to the ground on it knew the convictions were in trouble just after the trial because of the actions, or inaction, of the prosecution. I’m still baffled on how 12 people could listen to a couple of unchanging facts that exist in that case and say he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I guess what I’m reaching for is, can the county council sue it’s own prosecutor for malpractice? Unfortunately, in Floyd County’s case, the statute of limitations (one year in legal malpractice) has probably passed.
  • Tina likes this

#39 Ray Lawrence Parker

Ray Lawrence Parker

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 12:39 AM

People,

You have hit on subject that needs to be examined more closely. I am enjoying watching Floyd County debating on how they can approach Judge Dartt about the amount of money being spent by the defense of David Camm. Have they looked at their own house?

Let’s remember that the prosecutor in this matter is not a salaried employee of the county. He wouldn’t be there but for the problems created by their own prosecutor in trying to profit from writing a book to tell us what a wonderful job he did. Then he took some serious egg on the face when the conviction was overturned and the Court of Appeals ruled him ineligible to continue individually pursuing this matter do his impartiality shown by pursuing the book deal.

Let’s not also forget that, but for his (or his office’s) error, in bringing up matters at the second trial they were specifically told to stay away from by the Court of Appeals (unsubstantiated allegation of possible molestation of Jill Camm by David). Or, in the first trial, all the female witnesses that said they were mistresses of David Camm. Yes, it painted Camm as a scumbag. But, being a philandering scumbag doesn’t make you a murderer.

Stan Faith’s mistakes created trial number 2. Keith Henderson’s (and/or his office’s) mistakes created trial number 3. And, Henderson’s further bungling in wanting to become an author created the need for the expense of an appointed prosecutor at additional cost to the County. Strange, in the story detailing the costs of the defense attorney, I didn’t see any reference to the costs of Stan Levco. One other thing, have you noticed the tremendous difference in "press conferences" at the end of the day between Henderson and Levco. Henderson's was daily, Levco's is just every now and then.

To me, it’s just throwing good money after bad. Neither conviction against Camm stood a chance. Those that have been close to the ground on it knew the convictions were in trouble just after the trial because of the actions, or inaction, of the prosecution. I’m still baffled on how 12 people could listen to a couple of unchanging facts that exist in that case and say he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I guess what I’m reaching for is, can the county council sue it’s own prosecutor for malpractice? Unfortunately, in Floyd County’s case, the statute of limitations (one year in legal malpractice) has probably passed.


I don't believe that such litigation would be possible. Prosecutors in Indiana (and elsewhere) enjoy wide immunity. They also are granted broad prosecutorial discretion... As a point of clarification,I would note that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions in Indiana is actually two years, rather than one.

#40 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:11 AM

Let's see... no weapon... no motive... many witnesses saying that Camm was with them... blood spatter evidence questionable... etc...

I can't see how any thinking person can vote for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • Tina likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users