— Reader wants answers on Camm trial
In regards to the article published Oct. 4 in the News and Tribune, the jury in David Camm’s current murder trial won’t hear from Camm’s former attorney. I would again like to thank Maureen Hayden for her unbiased journalism. The truth is all I need to form an opinion, not the insight of another to base it upon.
I would also like to thank Mike McDaniel for coming forward with very important information, which may not be told to the jurors, but as a taxpayer and voter, I have every right to know. Coming forward with this information is in no way beneficial to him, and in a small town of good ol’ boy politics could, in fact, be very detrimental to Mr. McDaniel.
I have always found it very odd that among all of the evidence available in this case the focus was placed on eight specks of blood not even visible to the naked eye, and a man who had lived his life for the most part as an average citizen. And out of those eight spots of blood only three or four may have been viewed as possible hypervelocity impact, when it is known that in this situation there would be thousands of drops. And, why was a $300,000 blood pattern analyst brought in versus using the crime lab we already on the State of Indiana’s payroll?
I believe that it is very important for former Floyd County Prosecutor Stan Faith to come forward and clarify to the public exactly how it came about that he was able to overlook a bloody sweatshirt with a convicted felon’s DNA on it along with his prison nickname — that being Charles Boney? I could maybe understand one thing being overlooked, but Boney also left his entire handprint on the side of the Camm’s Bronco, which no one involved in the investigation seemed concerned with. I would also like to know if it was commonplace for Faith to show up at crime scenes and take over investigations?
And then for Prosecutor Keith Henderson, why wasn’t there a more thorough follow-up investigation since Boney’s DNA and fingerprints were found to be contained in a computer database since 1997?
When I have answers to these questions, perhaps I can begin to understand why $4.5 million and still counting has been spent to imprison David Camm. Until that day comes, I will continue to ask whomever will listen.
— Kathy J Heil, Elizabeth