dbsherri seems mistaken in thinking that Mr Camm could have been gone half hour? My understanding is that the witnesses swore Mr Camm could have been gone up to 15 mins some time between 7pm and 9:22pm that night, but the time frame for the Murder has now been narrowed. 15 mins as far as each individual is concerned, but surely they might all be expected have to agree on a fairly specific 15 mins? According to the evidence in the public domain, Mr Camm would have to have left for no more than about 15 mins between 7:30pm, the end of the first game and 8:10pm, when he was chatting with Mr Jolly about his children. Before the next game started really? The witnesses apparently do not think this possible. Also, I do not see how Mr Camm and Boney knew when the family would arrive home exactly. For instance, how did he allow for Kim stopping to talk in the car park briefly before returning home?

Another question is how could he know his absence would not be noticed. If it had been, there could have been 9 or 10 reliable witnesses to that absence. Maybe, he would have risked being seen in transit from someone outside the gym too?

Authorities initially felt certain Mr Camm was present at the crime for three reasons. Firstly, the phone call from the house was recorded as 7:19pm, but Verison confirmed during the first trial that Mr Camm made it at 6:19, as Camm said. Time zone error. Secondly, two well-respected forensic experts, Messrs Stites and Englert, assured them they had proof he was present during the crime. Thirdly, these experts said the blood in Area 30 of Camms t shirt proved he must have been within 4 feet of victim Jill when she was killed. Now, I think these experts are less respected and their proof is discredited.

It is hard to remember now how convincing those reasons seemed in late 2000. Why think he nipped home for 15 mins to kill his whole family now? How could he?

Apparently, Mr Camm had told the truth from the start. He certainly cooperated fully, even offering to take a polygraph when he was told he was a suspect. Boney seems to have committed the murders due to the usual deterioration of such criminals. He does seem to have had some history of attacking women somewhat similar to Kim.

Boney may have acted alone. I think there was physical evidence to suggest Ms Mala Singh Mattingly (Boney?s girlfriend) may have been at the crime.

Rhonda

http://groups.msn.com/Friends4DavidCamm/welcome.msnw

2)The prosecution in the second trial violated the Appeals Court order that the molestation accusation could NOT be brought up Unless they could Prove it, they couldn't, but brought it up anyway. Why? Because they were very aware that this allegation was the only reason he was found guilty in the first trial. So, in desperation of a win, they Had to bring it up right or wrong.

3) Those microscopic, can't be seen by the human eye, blood drops on his shirt could most definitely have gotten there when he reached over his daughter to get his son out. High velocity blow back from that kind of killing would have produced a whole lot more blood than that.

4) Ten, count them, 10 people testified that they all saw or talked to him during the time of the killing while he was at the gym. As for the 11th guy changing his testimony, that also brings a Hmmm? to my mind. But memory does fade I guess.

5) Also this was a bloody bloody crime scene, when did he have time to clean up? much less wash his clothes dry them and put them back on again and get back to the gym with NOONE even seeing or noticing he had left?

6) Other than those microscopic blood drops, there was absolutely no evidence in all that bloody mess that indicated he was even there when it happened. Was it his DNA? No it was Boney's. Was it HIS palm print, NO it was Boney's. Was it his sweatshirt? No it was Boney's. A man with a violet criminal past.

7) Boney was convicted for the killing, conspiracy never proven, heck they couldn't even prove these two men had ever had ANY type of contact, much less a meet or even knowing each other. I may have this one wrong, but I can't help but wonder. For the second trial they called a NEW trial because of the conspiracy charged added, which was thrown out before the case went to trial. It just seems like it may even be a Double Jeopardy scenario. Like I said, I could be misunderstanding that as Double Jeopardy can be a little tricky.

8) Sorry,I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories, but this had all the hallmarks of a man targeted by a political machine. Remember, he left the State Police 4 months previously.

9) Even the jurors interviewed afterward stated the ONLY reasons they found him guilty were: a) The Child Molestation which was never proven and b) those 8 little blood spots. One of the actually said the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. "I believe the police were getting ready to charge him with the molestation and this was the only way he could think of to make it go away? WHAT????? It couldn't be proven, and there was NO arrest pending. This is an example of an emotional decision.

10) When prosecutors couldn't prove molestation with their original professionals, what did they do? For the second trial they paid someone to say what they wanted him to say. Come on everyone, really look at this, the window at the time of the original crime was 12-24 hours with the 24 being a stretch. She even admitted that her PROFESSIONAL opinion (which is all that counts) rules him out, just her PERSONAL opinion makes him guilty (once again, emotionalism). Then years later, they hire someone who widens the window to 2 days, just by reviewing the evidence, not exhuming the body. That doesn't make you go Hmmm? I wonder? Because if this doesn't then nothing will.(IMO)

No, by our very own laws, this man was NOT PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution overstepped their bounds just so they could arrest somebody, anybody, so they could close the case and gain the opportunity for a big career trial win for the prosecution. They HAD to win to get the mud off their faces from the ruling handed down from the Appeals Court. During the original police investigation they did not EVEN TRY to find the person who actually did it. Not to mention, all the mistakes done with what evidence they had.

Oh yea and I just loved the prosecuter's little remark to the reporters stating that "Camm's wife was leaving him because he was molesting his daughter" We don't know that, there was no real evidence of that, that statement was pure conjecture and should never have been made.

I have never seen such a miscarriage of justice in my recent memory. Did he actually do it? I Do not know, I wasn't there. All I DO know is that the prosecution did not PROVE it. These decisions cannot and should not be made by emotionalism, yet this one was. All I have to do is read this message board to see that. All of the messages I have read (and I know I missed some)that state he is guilty were not backed up by actual proven facts.

Please remember, ALL families who have lost loved ones in violent crime Want/MUST have someone to blame. In the very beginning her family did not believe he could have done it. It was only after the prosecutor was done manipulating their "theories" (of which they had plenty and kept changing) that the family decided he did it.

Also I have to say, put yourself in this man's shoes, because believe me, if it could happen to him, it can happen to you. Also remember, or should I say let's try to get back to: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Today a person is guilty first and must prove their innocence. Have we forgotten our history, there were many reasons this law came about.

Why do we, as Americans, go along with whatever we are told whether it makes sense of not? We judge people via the media NOT the facts of the case, that is why the prosecutor made that outrageous statement. The power. and misuse of, the press is a dangerous weapon. We must realise that we can only believe half of what we hear, some of what we see, and very very little of what we are told via the media.

If the ENTIRE transcript ever becomes availabe, perhaps that will answer the questions plagueing us all in this case. Until then, I stand by my words. REASONABLE DOUBT everyone, remember that. Reasonable Doubt is key.

I could go on but this is long enough, and I know a lot of you will disagree, but that's okay. The facts are the facts, remember statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics manipulated to their own advantage.

Could he have done it? Hell, yes. He could have. Have they proved it? Hell no, they haven't.

best wishes,steve56