MURDERED: The Camm Family

[00:00] This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. For some of us, summer means more juggling, which can lead to overwhelm and worry. BetterHelp makes it easy to get the support you need. Having served over 6 million people globally, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform. They'll match you with a quality licensed therapist, so you can focus on your therapy goals. You don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash crimejunkie. That's betterhelp.com slash crimejunkie. [00:29] Hi, Crime Junkies. It's Britt, and I have big news. One of my favorite seasonal shows, CounterClock, is back with a brand new season, and it is wild. Host Delia D'Ambra is digging into the 2008 Lane Bryant murders. I mean, this isn't just a recap. It is a reinvestigation. She's talking to law enforcement, people from the community, even sources who have never spoken publicly until now. And you know I love a show that asks all the questions. Listen to CounterClock [00:59] Hi Crime Junkies, I'm your host Ashley Flowers and... I'm Brett! Yes! [01:07] I'm here! You're back! You're back! [01:11] So we decided to commemorate Britt's return with a story that is local to us. A crazy case that took over a decade to work its way through the judicial system. Are you ready, Britt? Let's go. [01:24] Yes. [01:25] All right, let's do this. [01:26] *music*

[01:56] Our story starts on September 28th of 2000 in a very small town near southern Indiana. That evening, a man named David Cam was playing basketball with nine to ten other buddies in a gym that was just minutes from his home. David was living a pretty normal life, like at least in the 2000s. [02:26] He had worked for the state police for some time, but in the months before this, he had actually finally left to pursue a career in his family's business. He had more time at home, he had better hours, and he had more money. It seemed like everything was working out for him. But on this night, just before 920, David leaves and heads home, expecting that when he gets there, he's going to see his wife, Kim, who's 35, their son, Brad, who's seven, and his daughter, Jill, who's five. But he's going to be a little bit more than he's going to be a little bit more than he [02:55] But. [02:56] When Dave pulls into the driveway, he immediately knows everything is wrong. And from that moment on, his entire world is turned upside down. When David pulls into the driveway, he sees the garage door open and a body... [03:12] laying on the floor with a stream of blood coming from that direction. Oh my God. And that's when he sees his wife, Kim. Right away, he hops out of his truck and just starts yelling for her, Kim, Kim. But he said that he could tell as soon as he got to her that she was gone. And that's when it hits him.

[03:32] the kids where are the kids oh my god i'm so oh this is hitting close to home now at this point well yeah i mean you now are a mother of two and so he gets home he sees his wife dead he looks around and realizes that brad and jill are still inside the suv [03:52] Brad is in the back, almost stretched over the seat, and Jill is still sitting there, as if she never even had a chance to move, with her head slumped over into her lap. David reaches over Jill and tries to see if Brad is alive, but he isn't. His entire family is non-responsive. [04:12] This is when David's expertise as an officer kicks in, and he phones into police asking to speak directly to the command post. [04:20] Hey, Nasty, police radio. Patrice, can I help you? Patrice, it's Dave Cam. Let me talk to Post Command right now. Okay, he's on another one. Right now, let me talk to Post Command. Hold on. You're my only truth. I need you like the Lord. I like the Lord. Dave? Get everybody out here to my house now. Okay, all right. Our wife and my kids are dead. [04:50] Here's my house. Go to Dave Cam's house now. Okay, David, we got people on the way, okay? Get everybody out here. Come here. Everything's going to be okay, all right? We're going to get people out here. Remember, everything's not okay. Get everybody out here now. They're coming. Go to Dave Cam's house now. Okay. I'm working at home. Do you know what happened, David? No. I'm dead. I just got home and played back. 45-48 Phillipsburg.

[05:16] Oh, my God. What am I going to do? [05:20] David, they're on their way right now, okay? I got everybody coming. [05:26] Listen, I'm going to let you talk to Patrice while I get people coming. I got to get some help. Okay, David, do you need an ambulance? Do you need an ambulance? Get everybody out. I'm going. Do you need an ambulance? I got to go! Dave, he hung up. [05:41] What? [05:42] I mean, you can hear how he's definitely distraught, but... [05:46] What he says doesn't make a ton of sense based off of a lot of the other... [05:52] 9-1-1 tapes we've heard, right? [05:55] So I kind of have a different reaction. I'm glad that we don't agree. I think, I mean, he just sounds to me like totally panicked. [06:06] I know you are actually, like, I know you don't know anything about this case, but I sent you a link that I wanted you to look at because you have an obsession with this guy who has a statement analysis blog who, like, [06:18] breaks down every like 911 call like media statements and this guy actually broke down this 911 call and from his point of view but do you want to like break down what I guess you heard and what he heard as well that you thought was wrong with this call [06:34] Yeah, so like you said, I'm kind of obsessed with this like [06:38] anonymous guy who blogs [06:40] Literally just breaking down... [06:43] statements from... [06:45] People who are in question, basically. Is that a good way to put it?

[06:49] Not even in question. I always feel like it's the husband. Like, I just feel like it's everyone's husband. Okay, but also, like... [06:56] That's usually the person in question. Fair. But he breaks down a lot of statements for people who are even like closely associated with a case. [07:04] Right. So he broke down a couple things that I thought was really... [07:09] interesting. So [07:12] In this call, [07:14] He... David... [07:16] says, [07:17] uses I a lot in a way that like I didn't, I don't, I don't. [07:25] Like, it's just very odd, okay? [07:28] And he also doesn't necessarily say, like, this is what's happening. Help me. This is what's happening. He says... [07:36] His name... [07:38] Let me talk to whoever is in charge. [07:41] Which is immediately calling upon his authority, right? I mean, I get what you're saying. Go on. Yeah. [07:46] *laughs* [07:48] And again, he never asks for help. He never says, like, this is what I'm seeing. This is what I'm observing. You know, so-and-so doesn't have a pulse. So-and-so isn't breathing. He just keeps saying, everyone, you need to get everyone out here. Everyone. Everyone. Which you assume is, like, emergency personnel, everyone. [08:06] the entire force, who knows? And just [08:10] very broad in my opinion. Okay. So yeah. And the, the way, at least I read the statement analysis is it comes off as like very guilty ish. And,

[08:21] It's the one thing that I kind of find interesting about those statement analysis. [08:25] I always find them very interesting and I can't lie. I always read them, but I think they're a little bit biased because I've never read one that points to anyone making a statement being innocent. Like I feel these statements are like the poster child for every reason you shouldn't talk to the media. If someone you know is missing or murdered, they're always picking the statements apart and like looking for the things to point to saying that you're lying. Have you ever read one where it's like, yeah, this person's totally on the up and up thumbs up. [08:52] I, to a certain extent, agree with what you're saying. [08:58] But... [08:59] I also... [09:00] - Ash. [09:02] You know me [09:03] Am I not Defense Trinity at heart? Yeah, no, I get it. But like, I just feel like... [09:11] it's a great example of [09:13] of ways that [09:15] possibly guilty people. [09:18] in many ways, whether it's criminally or not, can expose themselves without even realizing it. [09:25] I get it, but I'm saying at least I just don't think this is like, I don't think this one does a really good job because in a... No, this is a very weak case. I'll give you that. In a 911 call, like was his call awesome? No. But was it close to other calls that maybe another trooper would have made? Is it a confession? No. No, but what I'm saying is I feel like other people in the same situation might even make a similar call. Like you and I, how many 911 calls have we seen where the operator has no idea what they're doing? If something actually bad happens to me,

[09:55] believe I'm getting on the phone and being like, let me talk to the supervisor now. I don't have time for you to not understand that I'm not the social worker. I mean, I think in general, what we can say, it's what we've said about everything. And what I especially lean on for this case is I totally understand the way he's reacting. You obviously don't, but I think that's like the beauty of this is nobody understands how anybody is going to react. Nobody has the same background. So I personally am not taking that 911 call to be anything wrong. [10:24] but legitimate. And that's kind of like the mindset I have moving forward. But it'll be interesting for you to hear the story knowing that you think something different. Definitely. So it was clear when police arrived that David was right. His entire family was dead. But as they looked more, the crime scene was... [10:43] strange to say the least. It was very clean and the murders were almost execution style. Kim and Jill had each been shot once in the head and Brad had been shot in the abdomen. And [10:56] Then there were Kim's shoes, not on her feet, but placed neatly side by side on the top of the car. You know... [11:06] Where they're supposed to be. Right. And nobody seemed to know why. This is not something she normally did. The kids were still in the car. You don't get out of the car and take off your shoes. As they processed the scene more, and for as clean as it was, they did find two very important pieces of evidence. The first was a palm print on the SUV door. And the second was a gray sweatshirt tucked away near Brad's body. And the sweatshirt had multiple bloodstains on it.

[11:36] And in the collar was written the nickname Puddle. [11:40] backbone. Now police didn't know what it meant right away, but they collected all the evidence and put their investigators to work. And it will be no surprise to anyone that the first person they look at is David Cam himself. David insists that he could not have done this. Not only could he like not have physically done it because according to him, there were 11 other witnesses that he was at the gym with and every one of those people say that they saw him. But besides that, [12:10] of physics and be in two places at once he said he could never ever hurt his family he said I loved them so much and we were so happy [12:20] But investigators learn a couple of things that he left out. Police learned that when Kim was pregnant with their second child, Jill, David had had an affair. Now, David says this was just him being stupid. It never meant anything. It shouldn't have happened. But it also wasn't the one and only time that it happened. David was very flirty, and they found a number of women who said they had some type of inappropriate relationship with David while he was married. [12:48] And all of these affairs, this is what police and prosecution believe to be his motive going into the first trial. And shortly after the Cam family is murdered, David was charged. And at first, Kim's family was shocked. They couldn't even believe that David would have done this. They knew him. They spent time with him. And it didn't seem possible.

[13:09] Okay, but he has a super solid alibi. There's what, 10 or 11 people who can say he was there at that time? Yeah, it's crazy to me because the theory that they come up with is that they played a series of games that night in the gym. And they say, we know for sure that David played the first game and the last game. And the prosecution is saying, oh, he was just being really strategic and making an alibi for himself. So they think that... [13:34] He played the first, then left, killed his family, came back, and played the last. Oh, that's dark. It is really dark, but everybody says that he was there the whole time. There was even a guy who said that he talked to David while the other guys were playing. But police believe that... [13:51] Dave was either really sneaky or his friends were covering for him. [13:56] Okay, so... [13:57] Ash, if this were you, 100%. [14:01] I would cover. [14:02] We're ride or die, right? Oh, yeah. Police can never believe us ever. I mean, I don't need to even know what you did. Like, yeah, you were with me. But... [14:12] I'm not sure I even know 11 people, let alone could convince 11 people to cover for me. [14:19] So I totally agree. That's the crazy part to me too. Like getting 11 people to have the exact same story. And over the course, you'll see, like I said in the beginning, this plays out over a decade. And nobody changes their story. That's a long time for a lot of people. I agree. But police were confident that they knew what happened and all of these 11 people were lying. They were confident because they thought they had something else besides motive. They felt like they had physical evidence. What?

[14:49] When they processed everything at the scene fully, that included David's clothes that he was wearing the night when he said he found his family and called police. When they tested his sweatshirt, they found eight microscopic splatters of blood. And it was Jill's blood. An expert, later hired by the prosecution, said this was clearly the pattern made by high-velocity blood spatter. And this was proof that he was the one who pulled the trigger that night. Now, they also found something else when doing the autopsies. [15:19] when the medical examiner was undressing Jill, she said that she was taking off her underwear and saw blood. And she said she knew immediately that the case was going to be so much more complicated than she originally anticipated. She said the exam showed that Jill had suffered blunt force trauma to her genitals, which is consistent with molestation. So not only did police believe David had motive for murder because of his infidelity, [15:49] trial, they also had a theory that he'd been molesting Jill. I'm kind of surprised by that. Those theories seem completely different. I agree. I don't know if they were just trying to overwhelm the jury or it was like a double whammy or they're just trying to come up with [16:05] Every little piece of evidence that kind of mounts into this bigger case. But they fully believed both. They had evidence. They had women testifying that they were having affairs with him in the past. And then they had this speculation of molestation, which they felt just kind of compiled on top of it. Could they tell if this blunt force trauma was recent and...

[16:26] Was that the only trauma her body had endured? And was it... [16:30] Something they could maybe put a timeline on? Yeah, you know, I think it's actually an important point to hit on. The medical examiner said in her personal opinion, it couldn't be anything else. It had to have been sexual assault. But she said in her professional opinion, she can't rule out other forms of trauma. She just didn't know what they could have been. Also, this medical examiner says that the window of when this trauma could have happened was anywhere between 12 and 24 hours. [17:00] Now, this is really important because if it happened within 24 hours, David would have been around Jill at the time and could have been the one to have molested her. But if it happened within just those 12 hours, David hadn't been around the kids for over 12 hours because he left the house for work around 7 in the morning and wasn't back home until after 9 p.m. when they found the bodies. So... [17:24] Either way, yes, this was the only sign of Jill having been molested. They never found any physical evidence like underwear or bedsheets that would support this. And no one said they ever suspected anything or even heard Jill say anything that would make them suspicious of David or anybody. Nobody even thought this was like something going on. [17:43] So there was no chance that this was like... [17:46] systematic abuse? Well, yeah. So normally if you were in David Cam's shoes, I think you might be saying, okay, good. Everybody is going to think this is a crazy accusation and realize I had nothing to do with this, but kind of the opposite thing happens. What? By now, Kim's family is on board thinking that David did it. After all, police have arrested him. He's gone to trial. Now presumed innocent isn't a real thing, unfortunately, because everyone assumes you're

[18:16] because they have something against you. At least in the U.S., other countries have other standards. [18:21] Yeah, maybe they're better at it. But a lot of the times, we had the idea of presumed innocent, but... [18:26] A lot of people think like the police must have something if you're in this position. So Kim's family has kind of turned and they now believe when he goes to trial that he has done it and is the murderer. So their family actually kind of takes all of this evidence that, you know, never heard anything from Jill or never suspected it because they said, you know, Jill was a fighter. She never would let someone do this to her. She was really tough. She would never not say anything. [18:56] this happening and somebody getting away with it is if it were David because he was her dad and she trusted him. Yeah. [19:04] I know it doesn't seem fair, but at some point you're going to stop being surprised with this case because not fair seems to be the theme. So in 2002, the case against David Cam goes to trial. The prosecution parades a number of women in front of the jury testifying to their affairs with David. They bring in their blood spatter expert who says he has done a recreation. [19:34] Nothing else could have caused it. Nothing but being within four feet of a victim when they are shot and you are the shooter. Oh, wow. That's specific. Let's point out that if you are four feet from a gunshot victim, whether you are the shooter or not, you would have...

[19:52] more than like [19:54] Microscopic. [19:56] evidence on you, right? Right. So that is all they have on his sweatshirt. Eight tiny microscopic splatter marks of Jill's blood. And I think you are so on the right page. The defense actually called their own expert to the stand who said a lot of the same stuff. He said he's never ever in the history of ever seen someone shoot a gun within four feet of another person and just get eight drops of blood on them. He said a gunshot would produce hundreds of these tiny little [20:26] batters and he also said the eight drops that are there are totally consistent with david's story that he actually leaned over jill to check on brad this expert says that when he was leaning over his sweatshirt likely dabbed against her bloody hair and that's what caused the tiny little speckles that makes so much sense though so much more sense than i shot them and only got eight drops of blood on me [20:52] After two months of trial, the jury deliberated for only three days, and they found him guilty of murdering his family. They believed that he wanted to get out of being a family man. They believed that he molested his daughter, and maybe people were about to find out. And they believed that the blood on his sweatshirt was from the shot when he shot his own daughter, point-blank range. [21:22] in prison, but the story is far from over. What? What?

[21:27] Starting a new business can be intimidating. I mean, the amount of tasks you have to juggle can get overwhelming quickly. And it's like you have to be an expert in everything all at once. I mean, you think when I started Crime Junkie, I thought I would be running a merch store one day? I know. But when that day came, before I could even hire help, I had to expertly run a merch store. [21:48] And I did it with Shopify. [21:50] And you know what? It doesn't matter how big we've grown, how many team members we have who are actual experts now. We still use Shopify. Shopify drives e-commerce whether you're a household name like AudioCheckNow or if you're a creator just getting started like I was eight years ago. The platform acts as your built-in business partner and simplifies all your tasks. [22:20] seconds. You can even create email and social campaigns with ease. So start your business today with the industry's best partner, Shopify, and start hearing. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com slash crimejunkie. Go to shopify.com slash crimejunkie. That's shopify.com slash crimejunkie. [22:42] Two and a half years after his conviction and after working with an attorney who specializes in appeals, David Kam got his conviction reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals. Oh my god, please explain to me how that even happened. So they ended up throwing out the conviction because of all of this stuff about infidelity that was allowed into the trial. They basically said this was totally unfair. It biased the jury.

[23:12] Like none of them were active from everything that they presented. None of them could be like tied to the murder. So they just said, you basically prejudiced the jury and you just made them not like him for being a bad guy. And it really had nothing to do with the deaths of his family. So they couldn't use this information about the affairs. [23:30] They went in, the prosecution, just twice as hard saying now, this next time, when they want to go back and try him again, that the motivation was Jill's molestation. And so then they decide to try David again. There's a new prosecutor who says they're going to take a fresh look at the case and start from scratch. But as soon as David is put on trial again, it's clear they are using the exact same tactics and no real reinvestigation was ever done. [24:00] to build their case, they immediately placed their focus on the basketball players and trying to break down their alibis for David. They didn't put a lot of effort into trying to investigate the physical evidence, the physical clues that they had that maybe there was another killer, that palm print on the SUV, that sweatshirt with the name backbone written in the collar. Yeah, none of that came up in the first trial, right? Well, it didn't fit into the David Cam theory. The palm print didn't [24:30] him's blood on it, but it also had... [24:32] DNA from an unknown male and an unknown female, neither of which was David Cam. The defense was told that, you're going to love this, that the DNA was collected and submitted to CODIS. And when nothing was disclosed in the documents that they got for trial, they assumed there wasn't a hit. But wouldn't you know it, the OG prosecutor said, you know, I made the request, but it must have just never gotten submitted. Yeah.

[24:58] Oops. [24:58] Oops. [25:02] So... [25:02] Obviously, this is high priority for the defense as they're planning for their second trial. Get this DNA into the system. While they're preparing for the second trial and the DNA is actually getting run, they actually have some more good fortune and David's case is moved to another county and he's actually let out on bond. Now, we are five years out from the murders at this point. The DNA finally gets run through the system and boom. [25:30] Almost immediately, there is a match. Who is it? The DNA comes back to a convicted felon who had been released shortly before the murders, a man named Charles Bonet. [25:44] And Brit, do you want to guess what his nickname was? I don't even know. [25:49] Backbone. The hoodie! Yes. So what they learn about Charles Bonet, or Backbone, is from his record. He actually grew up in the same town as David, and he started his criminal career in the late 80s at Indiana State University. He was a sophomore there in 1989, studying education, when he was arrested for three counts of robbery, attempted robbery, resisting law enforcement, and four counts of battery. [26:20] Now... I'm sorry. He was sending education, like, to be a teacher? Yeah, like, don't put him near your kids. Oh, my God. Now, when he was finally caught, the story of him being caught is he was arrested after three women at IU, who were all students, were basically attacked as they were leaving one of the local bars at, like, 1.30 in the morning.

[26:49] appeared and [26:51] and tried to take a shoe from one of the women who had just gotten in the car. [26:57] Like guys want to do. Right. And so this guy was wearing a mask. And when they go and report this to police, this mask matched to the description from several other women who had been attacked in the same way by this shoe thief. And when he was arrested... This is so creepy. Well, it is. When he's arrested, he became known as the shoe bandit. But... [27:20] If you piece it all together, this explains the shoes on the hood of the car. No, definitely. They're right there on display. Yes. So... [27:33] He basically, what we learn about Charles Bonet is he has this weird shoe fetish. He's literally going around just stealing shoes from women. Like not foot fetish. [27:43] It's a shoe fetish. Yeah. And it starts pretty, I mean, not innocently. Like, he obviously got in big trouble for it. And he's scaring women. But it starts where he's just stealing the shoes. But over his career as a criminal, I mean, he's attacking women. He's assaulting women. It's a very clear pattern of him. Well, and if we know anything from, like, SVU, criminals... [28:05] who have fetishes... [28:07] usually escalate. I mean, I hope SVU is real. We have actual law enforcement people who listen to this podcast and I can see them just shaking their head like, oh, SVU. Okay, but they might also agree. They might agree. I mean, I believe they escalate, but I literally have nothing to base them on. SVU is ripped from the headlines. Ripped from the headlines.

[28:26] So... [28:27] If all of this weren't enough, his palm print also matched the palm print on the SUV. So we have his prints. We have his DNA on the sweatshirt, the sweatshirt that's at the crime scene underneath Brad's body. His nickname is written inside the sweatshirt. And now we have an explanation for the shoes being found on top of the car. Some kind of weird foot fetish, shoe fetish. This is enough that they bring Charles in to talk to the prosecutors. [28:57] the border from Indiana in Kentucky. And he said he knew right away why they were there and what murders they were talking about. Not because he was involved, he said, but because he was from that town and everybody in that town knew about this family that was murdered. Mm-hmm. [29:14] When police got him talking, they almost couldn't get him to stop. He went on and on and said he had nothing to hide, absolutely no involvement in the case. And that sweatshirt? Oh, he just said, no big deal. Of course it has my DNA on it. It was my sweatshirt from prison. That's why it has my name on it. I had just recently gotten out. But after I got out, I donated it to the Salvation Army. And he said, that's also why there's another person's DNA on it. There's that woman's DNA that's unidentified. [29:44] Maybe someone else picked it up and that person committed the murder. Well, I've stopped thrifting clothes. How about you? Yeah. [29:54] Charles said he never knew David Cam, never knew his family, was never at the crime scene, and there's no way evidence would show up proving otherwise. Well, of course, Charles was just digging himself a hole because he was definitely there. We already have his palm prints there. We know he was there. We have evidence. So they arrest Charles Bonet for the murders and end up dropping the charges against David before he could go back for a second trial.

[30:22] But... [30:22] The story isn't over again. There was a huge twist nobody saw coming. [30:29] For decades, some cold cases have been reduced to files in a cabinet, but not anymore. I'm Ashley Flowers, and me and my team on the deck have been traveling across the country to report on these forgotten cases. And in some instances, it's resulted in these cases being solved after decades. So [30:48] Join me every Wednesday as we revive these stories one card at a time. Listen to the deck now. [30:55] wherever you get your podcasts. [30:58] Literally minutes after David is told they're dropping charges, [31:04] He is charged again. This time, the prosecution has a whole new theory. They say that David and Charles conspired together... [31:15] to kill his family. What? By now, Charles has changed his story and is trying to help the prosecution. So he's stopped trying to say that he had nothing to do with it. The evidence is overwhelming. Now, he says he met David at a basketball game and when he told him he was a convicted felon, you know, like you do when having a conversation with an ex-state trooper, David wanted to hire him to get a gun or hire him to help him kill his family. So, he's... [31:44] Charles had like a number of conflicting confessions. Eventually, the one that he came down to, like the one he stuck with when he went to trial, was that he basically witnessed David Cam shoot his family while he was at the home. He came to the home to sell him the gun. And when he was there, David basically says, you're going to go down for this. Shoots his family, tries to shoot Charles, but the gun jams. Yeah, it is the craziest theory I've ever heard.

[32:14] one he sticks with. [32:15] Now, Charles says that he... [32:18] When the gun jams, he kind of tries to run, and he trips over... [32:22] Kim's shoes. And that's when he takes them and places them on top of the hood of the car, which to me is such a weird thing to try to explain. Like you're already there. You're admitting you're there. Yeah. [32:34] And you're a weird shoe guy. Just admit you're a weird shoe guy. Like, why is that the part that you're like being weird about? [32:41] And, like, I've never, like, outside of things that are, like... [32:44] in my own home where I'm like, oh, this is not where it's supposed to be. [32:48] I don't necessarily move anything that I trip over. Like, at work, [32:52] anywhere else [32:53] Literally anywhere else. [32:56] Or you'd be like, oh, well, [32:57] I took over these shoes. I should put them here. [33:00] - Especially if you're like in a rush, like running from a guy who's trying to kill you too, who just killed a 12th. Like again, none of it makes sense. - I can't fathom where I'm like, this is the next step. [33:11] I might die, but these shoes are really in the way of everyone. It was just such a weird thing for him to try and explain. Definitely. So David ends up being tried as a co-conspirator this time with Charles Bonet, but they're tried separately. [33:26] In 2006, David is found guilty again. This time when they went to trial, they couldn't talk about the affairs. So the motive that they honed in on was Jill being molested. And the prosecution basically said, we have proof that she'd been molested. He had been molesting her and somehow it was going to come out or he was afraid that it was going to come out. So instead of that shame and, you know, fearing prosecution, he just decided to take out his entire family. Okay.

[33:56] When he gets convicted, David appeals again and again. His conviction was overturned because the court said, you can't talk about Jill being molested without actual proof of her being molested. Because remember, the medical examiner said her professional opinion is that, yeah, it could have been caused by something else. And what the court said is that basically, if you're going to go in with this being his primary motive, we need more proof that not only was she for sure molested, some kind of corroborating evidence, [34:26] prove that David was the one to do it. [34:28] Oh, and when they go back, do you want to know what else they found that gave me total staircase flashbacks? Ugh, do I? The guy who was the original, like, prosecution blood expert who swore up and down that those eight little stains they found could only be from a gunshot. Wait. [34:47] Let me guess. [34:48] That's not what actually happened. Oh, how did you know? Well, so it turns out, actually, that this guy had falsified [34:58] all of his credentials or most of his credentials. And every other person that they get to come into this courtroom... [35:06] It's like, hey, [35:07] that's not right at all. Right. Multiple experts are siding with the defense and saying like, this guy is Looney Tunes. He's like making up his own stuff. And this is like... [35:17] something that I always think about [35:19] where I know it's such a conflict, I think, if I was ever a juror, because I know as a juror, you are supposed to take the people on the stand...

[35:27] It's like the Bible. What they're saying is supposed to be real. They're supposed to have been vetted. It's a vow. Like it's perjury to lie, right? Right. But like what's so crazy to me and something that I obviously have noticed. [35:39] from doing so many of these cases is you can find somebody pretty much to say anything if you're paying them. And I, and you know, I think they believe it and I don't think they're perjuring themselves. I think they're going up there saying what they believe is the God's honest truth, but you can find... [35:54] two totally separate people who can look at the same evidence and find something completely different. No, totally. Yeah. What are you supposed to do? How are you supposed to judge that? [36:04] You and I both served on a mock jury one time. Oh my God, it was awful. [36:10] It was. It was traumatic. Like, one, you're putting yourself... [36:15] in the hands of [36:17] Technically, it appears, but not really. And also, their interpretation of whatever is presented. And it's very, very conflicting sometimes. It is. And so, David goes in front of these people. And even though the second time, like, everything gets overturned, you would think by now, you know, he's had two convictions. Right. [36:37] overturned twice. You would think maybe at some point the prosecution takes a step back and was like, wow, our evidence was whack. We have this other guy now who we didn't have before. [36:48] But, they decide to go after him a third time. No! [36:55] Yes. Okay, so at this point...

[36:58] The affairs are off. Mm-hmm. The molestation of the daughter is off. Mm-hmm. [37:06] So... [37:07] What's the motive? So now they're going with like the most basic motive. They're saying that he wanted her life insurance, which I think the life insurance in the 401k was like $600,000. I mean, okay. [37:22] So, [37:22] A lot of money. Don't get me wrong. But not like... Kill your two children kind of money? Yeah. So in this third trial, Charles even testifies this time, sticking to his last story that David basically lured him out there to buy the gun from him. He killed his family, tried to kill Charles, tried to make it look like Charles did it, but the gun jammed and the plan went awry. This third trial... [37:47] is the only time everyone got to hear... [37:51] all of the DNA evidence, which wasn't just the sweatshirt. It turns out that Charles' DNA was also on Kim's underwear, it was also on the arm of her shirt, and it was on a broken fingernail, and on the stomach of Jill's shirt. This again... [38:09] shows that Charles was lying up and down. Even after he said he was there, his story in both trials is that David did everything and was trying to set him up. But this evidence... [38:21] clearly shows that he had contact with the victims. This guy cannot stop lying. And the defense said, look, there is no story anyone has presented that matches Charles attacking the family, which is clearly what happened because the DNA proves that, and then David shooting them. Like, none of this makes sense. None of this fits into, you know, you had three times to present this case and this still doesn't fit. So the trials seem to be going in their favor.

[38:51] at the last minute [38:53] the judge made a shocking ruling. Before the jurors deliberated, the judge said, listen, I'll give you guys another option. It's not all or nothing. Maybe if you think David just helped Charles in some way, but wasn't like actually the shooter, I'll let you have that option. And David's defense team is fuming because this is insane. The prosecution still had no evidence that the two ever even met. [39:23] that they did and we know Charles is a liar. So now the judge is giving them out of nowhere this third option like yeah they didn't do a really great job of like proving their case but if you want to say that like you just don't feel good about him. [39:35] I'll give you that option too. So out of curiosity, so [39:39] If they think Charles did it, which seems very possible, [39:45] and they want to connect David to it, how would that happen? Like, what would that charge look like? [39:51] Are they both on trial? So at this point... [39:54] Charles has already been convicted. Remember, they had two separate trials. Charles was convicted to 225 years in prison, and David's trial is going on after that. So they would basically try him as a co-conspirator, which is what he was on trial for before, but kind of a lesser charge because he wasn't the one that actually pulled the trigger. He would, in this new theory, just have assisted him. [40:17] Charles. [40:18] So it still doesn't really answer the question of now Charles doing all of the killing...

[40:23] Like [40:23] I don't know, none of it really fits, right? Yeah, it's... [40:28] It's like a puzzle that's very close. [40:31] But it's not [40:32] all of the pieces that make sense. [40:35] Does that make sense? [40:36] It does. Well, and luckily, this jury ate their Wheaties that morning and they were sharp. [40:42] Finally, on October 24th, 2013, after only 10 hours of deliberation, they found David Cam not guilty. And for the first time in over 13 years, David was a free man. And this case has come under some insane scrutiny for prosecutorial misconduct. And rightfully so, I think. The prosecution was accused of errors in investigating, witness tampering, evidence [41:12] poor evidence collection just like right bad stuff like for an example something we couldn't even get into because i can't get into like all of the details between every single trial and how they kind of manipulated everything it actually kind of reminds me of the adnan sayed trial because a lot of people believe that the prosecution kind of fed this story to charles bonet they think he actually did it but they the prosecution kind of led him in this like well [41:38] to you kind of thing. Well, one thing that they did that I can tell you about is there's this allegation that surfaced about a distant relative of Charles named Myron Wilkerson, who was actually a police officer, but wasn't actually assigned to this case specifically. Apparently he met with Charles privately at the police station following his arrest. Two months later, people found out

[42:08] removed Kim Cam's phone from the evidence room without signing it out, and he took it back to his personal residence. [42:17] Totally cool, right? [42:18] Totally sketchy, right? So I have to wonder if maybe Charles met Kim and followed her or maybe set this up because that's something I can't shake. I don't think David did it at all. No part of me thinks he like even conspired. At least that's just what I believe. But I know Charles did. We like we have the evidence, but why? His MO back in the days when he was younger with like [42:48] He's like getting older. He's assaulting women. I'm kind of shocked. He would just spontaneously attack a woman with her two children. So I don't know if he saw her somewhere. A lot of people believe he saw her, followed her. [43:02] because he wanted her shoes or something. And I don't know if he even knew the two kids were there, but it seems like such an escalation, even from attacking women to then executing two children. Right. Right. [43:14] In December of 2013, David gave his first interview following the verdict. And he even had stuff to say about... [43:23] Charles Bonet's criminal history. He said, quote, the thing that people need to know about Bonet, 11 previous felony convictions for assaulting women. That's what he's done his whole life, assault women. These three girls that he took hostage in Bloomington, Indiana, he had a gun to the girl's head and threatened to blow their heads off. It's exactly what he did to Kim. He just went one step further. So I think he's even pointing out like,

[43:48] It's not even that surprising to him. Like there was clear signs of what was coming. And unfortunately, David Cam's family was just there when it escalated. [43:57] to the point of murder. Now, David actually ended up suing Floyd County and the state of Indiana for $30 million, but his lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. court districts because they said there was actual probable cause to charge him. So they're saying he didn't have a case. After his release, he did end up collecting a little over half a million from Kim's life insurance and her 401k, but I heard the family was suing him for it, which makes me think that her family still thinks he's [44:27] of stuff in 2013 after the conviction of them coming out and saying, "Hey, [44:33] that they 100% believed that he got away with it and they still thought he did it. They thought he was doing something in conjunction with Charles Bonet. They didn't really know why. But... [44:42] At least in 2013, they thought he was very guilty. I don't know where they stand today in 2018. Charles is still sticking to his story like a freaking crazy person. He's serving 225 years in prison, but just still saying that all he did was buy the gun. Even when he was confronted, 48 Hours did like a follow-up, and they're like, your DNA was in her fingernails. And he's like, I haven't heard that. And Richard, whatever his face is, is like, no, I'm telling you that. You're hearing it right now. [45:12] there. So like, what do you want to say to me? This is actually true. So there's that. And he's just like looking ahead like a crazy person. So, I mean, I a hundred percent think he did it. And

[45:21] he's crazy, he's lying through his teeth, and... [45:25] I mean, that's just who he is. He tries to be very charming, but he's totally not. David is finally getting to move on with his life and live his life. And the last I heard, he was working with the Investigating Innocence Group to help other wrongfully convicted people like him. [45:40] if you guys want to connect with us you can always go to our website crimejunkiepodcast.com or connect with us on social media you can follow us on twitter at crimejunkiepod or on instagram at crimejunkiepodcast and we will be back next week with a brand new episode [46:10] This week's episode of Crime Junkie was written and hosted by me. All of our editing and sound production was done by David Flowers. [46:39] And all of our music, including our theme, comes from Justin Daniel. Crime Junkie is an AudioChuck production. So what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve? [46:50] Okay, crime junkies, you know I absolutely love a twist and a turn, especially when it comes to people who turn out to be someone they're not. That's why I have been obsessed with the podcast Chameleon. Every Thursday, host Josh Dean deep dives into a scam so bizarre, it will leave you wondering, how did they get away with that?

[47:09] It is truly one of my favorite podcasts right now and I've been listening for years. [47:12] I think you'll love it too. [47:14] Listen to Chameleon wherever you get your podcasts.