The third trial of David Camm has seen undisputed evidence that Charles Boney had a foot and panty fetish kept from the jury.
In opening arguments,Richard Kammen brought the subject up, to protests from the prosecution, who asked for a mistrial , which was denied by the judge.
However, the ruling by the appeal court with hindsight is demonstrably erroneous.
From http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06260901bd.pdf , Foot of Page 18:
“We begin our inquiry as to the admissibility of Boney’s criminal history and alleged foot and shoe fetish with Rule 404(b) and this Court’s decision in Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 2003). In Garland, the defendant contended that testimony about a third party’s prior bad acts was admissible for the same purpose advanced by the defendant here: to show the third party’s identity as the perpetrator of the charged crime and motive to commit the crime.”
The appeal court states “The prior crime of a third party must be “strikingly similar” to the current crime to be probative of identity.”
However, the IDENTIFICATION of Charles Boney is not at issue, since other evidence proves he was at the scene, what is at issue is whether he had a motive (based on his character) to remove Kim Camm’s trousers and place her shoe on the Bronco.
Thus the appeal court committed a horrible mistake here, this is an irrelevance.
The appeal court continues:
“The defendant’s claim that Boney’s alleged foot and shoe fetish was the motive for these crimes fails because there is no evidence connecting these crimes to a foot or shoe fetish beyond the wife’s shoes being off and her feet being bruised. In these circumstances, the defendant’s contention is really that we should infer guilt on Boney’s part because of his sexual compulsion for feet and shoes.”
Well, given Boney’s undisputed presence at the crime scene, this is just ridiculous. And it is not simply Boney’s sexual compulsion, it is the evidence that he previously committed criminal acts related to this sexual compulsion. Moreover this statement is simply FALSE, the court has conveniently overlooked the shoe not only being off, but also placed on the roof of the Bronco. And what about the condoms?
The appeal ruling goes on:
“This is the “forbidden inference” prohibited by Evidence Rule 404—that evidence of a person’s character or character trait, such as crimes, wrongs, or acts, cannot be used to show action in conformity with that character or character trait—and by this Court’s jurisprudence. Evidence regarding Boney’s criminal history and alleged foot and shoe fetish was properly excluded under the Rules of Evidence.”
There is no “forbidden inference” here, or evidence that is unduly prejudicial. It is circumstantial evidence very well connected to the crime, that allows the defense to paint a complete picture and present a complete defense ( a constitutional right, see foot of page ).
And what about the removal of Kim’s trousers?
What about Boney’s DNA in Kim’s underwear?
What about Boney’s cable bill (which links Boney’s multiple fetishes)?
Serial Killing 101
Panthose Passion 1
Foot Teasers 1
Panty Frenzy 2
Foot Teasers 2
Foot Teasers 2
Against The Ropes
The inference of guilt is not based SOLELY on this evidence, but also on his undisputed presence at the crime, and there being no other plausible explanation for the otherwise puzzling facts observed at the scene of the crime.
Any reasonable person can see that the jury should have full knowledge of Charles Boney’s criminal history, his demonstrable lies, and his psychopathy.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”
David Camm’s rights have been violated thus far in the trial. Additional evidence has come to light which more closely connects Charles Boney’s criminal activities with the murder of David Camm’s family. Judge Dartt should reverse his position, and let in the true facts for the jury to consider.
A longer version of this article was first published at http://david-camm.wikispaces.com/Excluded+evidence+and+Judge+Dartt