Home » The Causes » Misconduct » The Corrupt Investigation Of The Camm Murders

The Corrupt Investigation Of The 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!

I would like to describe as simply as possible some of the evidence and the way the investigators handled the investigation. This will one day be an example of “what not to do”.

backbone_sweatshirt_1The facts about the sweatshirt:

  • The sweatshirt was found at the crime scene, on the garage floor
  • Unidentified DNA was on the item
  • Prosecutor Stan Faith told the defense that the DNA was run through CODIS but there was no match – this was a lie. It was never tested at all.
  • Boney’s DNA was entered into CODIS in 1997. The Camm murders occurred in 2000, so therefore Boney should have been identified and investigated shortly after the crime!
  • David Camm was tried and convicted in 2002 with the sweatshirt having not been tested. The prosecutors referenced it as “just an artifact”.

boney 2Defense prepares for Second Trial:

  • The defense requested that the State test the unidentified DNA on the sweatshirt. They were finally compelled to do so and the DNA was found to be Charles Boney’s – February, 2005.
  • Investigators brought Boney in for questioning and informed him that his sweatshirt was found at the crime scene.
  • Boney agreed to take a stipulated polygraph – agreeing that the results could be used in court.
  • Boney failed the polygraph when asked questions about the shootings in Indiana – “Did you shoot them?” “Did you see who shot them” ” Were you there when the shooting occurred”.
  • What did investigators do then?  They let him go!  They simply told him to call and check in every day.

kim's shoesBoney’s criminal background:

  • He attacked 5 female college students on a campus. He would wear a mask or make-up and a sweatshirt and gloves. He would then tackle them and steal one of their shoes.
  • He finally got caught and said it was a fraternity prank (but he wasn’t in a fraternity).
  • This is what he shared with police after admitting to the assaults.

During his post-arrest interview with an officer and detective of the Bloomington Police Department he also made some startling admissions, including the following:

  1. “This may seem strange, but I have a thing for ladies legs and feet.”
  2. “I never thought I would be caught…”
  3. He never assaulted a woman with a dress.
  4. He didn’t know any of his victims.
  5. He chose his victims by attacking those with nice legs.
  6. All of his victims who wore pants had nice legs…he could tell they had nice legs even if he couldn’t see their legs.
  7. He acknowledged that he “creeped around and scared” some of his victims before he attacked them.
  8. The intent of all five attacks was to steal a shoe.
  9. He always wore sweats during his attacks.
  10. He had an “escape plan”: he was going to take off his sweatshirt and sweatpants and put them into his backpack in order to not match the description of the assailant which would be given by the victim.
  • He served only a few months for these attacks

Boney’s crimes escalated:

  • Boney wrote some bad checks and violated his probation so he had to serve 2 years in prison.
  • When he got out he committed armed robbery of two employees at an apartment complex.
  • Then he held 3 college students at gunpoint at an apartment complex, forced them into their rooms, rifled through their belongings and demanded money.

He became particularly incensed after he saw the photograph of the uniformed Indiana State Trooper father of one of the victim’s roommates which was sitting on an entertainment center in the living room, telling the three that he hated cops as he slammed the photograph onto the top of the structure.

  • Then he took them at gunpoint to one of the victim’s car and demanded they get in and they were told they would be taken to an ATM machine and then released. Luckily the police arrived then.
  • From the website: Boney’s three violent crimes, all committed within five weeks after his release from prison, also had two striking commonalities. They all involved the use of a loaded handgun and the commandeered use of a vehicle.Additionally, for the period October, 1988 through October, 1992, Boney exhibited a distinctive pattern of behavior when committing his crimes:
  1. His crime sprees began in early Fall.
  2. He committed his crimes in or adjacent to vehicles and/or parking lots.
  3. Boney walked to the crime scene.
  4. His victims were white females, close in age to Boney.
  5. He tackled some of his victims and drove them to the ground, injuring their ankles, knees, wrists, and/or hands.
  6. His victims were often assaulted in the face or head.
  7. Only one victim was ever interviewed by investigators involved in the Camm case.
  8. In total, Boney had assaulted 13 women.

Of greater concern, however, was the fact that Boney’s violence had escalated and his concern for anonymity had declined during the same four-year period:

  1. After initially wearing disguises, he later failed to try and hide his identity.
  2. He no longer wore a mask or facial makeup to disguise himself.
  3. Witnesses were present during Boney’s last crimes.
  4. He did not wear gloves after losing one glove at the scene of his first crime.
  5. He touched items during the robberies with his bare hands, apparently not caring if he left fingerprints.
  6. He progressed from physical assaults to using a loaded gun.
  7. His threats grew more and more violent during the crimes and he became more and more agitated the longer the crimes took.
  8. He threatened to shoot his victims in the head.
  9. He tried to abduct five women.
  10. The number of victims during each crime grew from one during his initial shoe theft to three during his last armed robbery.
  • Boney was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 1993, wrote an apologetic letter to a judge and he was released in 2000.
  • Just months later, the Camm murders took place.

hendersonInvestigators “cleared” Boney

  • Boney supplied investigators with a list of alibis for the day in question – they failed to verify them.
  • Boney told them that the sweatshirt found at the crime scene had been placed in a Goodwill bin – this was impossible to verify as there were no surveillance cameras present.
  • He failed a polygraph – this was not publicly reported
  • There is no police report of an interview with his fiancee, though there is mention of a brief meeting.
  • They failed to thoroughly interview all of the people closest to him.

palm printFour days later

  • The palm print on Kim’s Bronco was identified as Boney’s.
  • Investigators brought Boney in for questioning again and worded their questions in such a way that it gave him an out – gave him the ability to blame Camm to clear himself.
  • Example – Investigators said “What did Boney see?”
  • Prior to this in previous “interrogations” they supplied him with tidbits that would later be used – they suggested that a “dirty” or “untraceable” gun was obtained and that possibly it was “wrapped” in the sweatshirt – investigators words, not Boneys.
  • At one point, Boney said he wanted to speak to a lawyer – he asked to see Faith.
  • The recording device was shut off for 90 minutes
  • After that, it was turned back on and Boney had agreed to write a statement about what happened.

Conveniently, his statement covered all the loose ends for investigators – such as how the palm print got on the Bronco, how the sweatshirt made it to the crime scene, etc.

This is what Boney told the defense investigator 4 days prior to writing the statement:

boney basketball defense

This is what he included in his statement just after the palm print match was identified:

boney statement

He also had this to say in his defense interview, but the prosecutors didn’t think it was significant.

Boney at the scene confession

Camm flowchartIt is inconceivable how all of this was able to play out this way over the course of the past 13 years. No one stepped in and investigated them.  No one put a stop to it.  David Camm has been stuck in the system, going through lengthy appeal after appeal to try to prove his innocence.  All the while the information is there for all to see, staring us right in the face. Yet the prosecution continues to obstruct justice by attempting to bar new DNA evidence placing Boney in physical contact now with the victims?  It’s time for them to stop this insanity and let David Camm go.  Save the taxpayers money, admit that they made many costly mistakes and be done with it.