Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean that he's innocent. Just because you've read up on the cases, doesn't mean that you know a thing about him personally.
That is kind of like saying you are guilty of something and we just have not caught you yet, so what are you guilty of?
Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean that he's innocent. Just because you've read up on the cases, doesn't mean that you know a thing about him personally.
It appears so, really. I want to know why. What is driving the bus here? Has to be a motive to prosecute a man without evidence?
What was the motive here?
Because no one has ever been wrongly accused of molesting a child either, right?I am wondering if he didn't pay Boney to shoot them...but just wound my son, don't kill him. Son had shoulder wound and think they said he bled to death but took some time....and what about the daughter....was she or was she not molested and who did it then? As a father you got to be asking that, and you should know who has been around her.....all I saw so far is grieving for the son. I just watched the first trial on that link from cbs...trying to find the 2nd trial.
Because no one has ever been wrongly accused of molesting a child either, right?
I'm a pure outsider on this case and had never heard of it until the 2nd conviction got tossed.
Please see my previous posts as to why I think he is guilty.Why do you think he is guilty? What evidence even suggests his guilt?
Interesting how he was found not guilty in a court of law but some people still want to see him hanged. The fact is only God knows if he is guilty or innocent but if he is not proven to be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT then he is free to go; even if he did do it. That's how our justice system works and its a good thing.
Well, this is interesting. The man who makes his living (and argues on the internet) based on legal definitions can't/didn't take the time to distinguish between an acquittal and actual innocence.What worries should we have of David Camm, an innocent man unjustly prosecuted?
Would that be legal evidence or actual physical evidence that supports proof of his actions?It appears so, really. I want to know why. What is driving the bus here? Has to be a motive to prosecute a man without evidence?
I'll be honest, the few times I have seen the man in photos or television, I have not received very good vibes from him. There always seems to be a cockiness about him. An indignation that he is even being charged, let alone tried (and not in the "I'm innocent why is this happening?" indignation, but the "Who the hell are you to do this to me?" indignation. And steely resolved that doesn't quite fit the innocent man trying to exonerate himself but rather reeks of the guilty man who is pissed as hell he's on the hook for what he did.What was the motive here?
Well, this is interesting. The man who makes his living (and argues on the internet) based on legal definitions can't/didn't take the time to distinguish between an acquittal and actual innocence.
AcquittalThe legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with a crime.
Acquittals in fact take place when a jury finds a verdict of not guilty. Acquittals in law take place by operation of law such as when a person has been charged as an Accessory to the crime of Robbery and the principal has been acquitted.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty. (See: acquit)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
If your found not guilty of a crime doesn't that mean your innocent??
No, it doesn't. Guilty people are acquitted.AcquittalThe legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with a crime.
Acquittals in fact take place when a jury finds a verdict of not guilty. Acquittals in law take place by operation of law such as when a person has been charged as an Accessory to the crime of Robbery and the principal has been acquitted.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
acquittal n. what an accused criminal defendant receives if he/she is found not guilty. It is a verdict (a judgment in a criminal case) of not guilty. (See: acquit)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
If your found not guilty of a crime doesn't that mean your innocent??
No, it doesn't. Guilty people are acquitted.
....was she or was she not molested and who did it then?...
The medical examiner who conducted Jill's autopsy testified that there was trauma to her genital region consistent with either molestation or a straddle fall; there was no penetration of the hymen, however.
Camm v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1127, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
The first ground requiring reversal is the State's repeated emphasis upon speculation that the defendant molested his daughter....
At trial, the State introduced autopsy evidence revealing blunt force trauma to the daughter's external genital region. Dr. Corey, a medical examiner, testified for the State that these injuries were consistent with either sexual molestation or a "straddle fall."...
...In this case, relevance of the molestation as motive was conditioned upon proof of two premises: (1) the daughter's groin injuries resulted from molestation, and (2) the defendant was the molester.... As explained, the State introduced expert testimony that the daughter's groin injuries were consistent with sexual abuse, and although some testimony suggested otherwise,... (Dr. Nichols: very low possibility of molestation), the record evidence adequately supported an inference that the daughter was molested. Yet that expressed opinion makes it no more likely that the defendant was blameworthy. Missing from this record is any competent evidence of the premise that the defendant molested the child, a hole in proof the State admits.
...The erroneous admission of speculative evidence and argument that the defendant molested his daughter, combined with the State's use of this evidence as the foundation of its case, requires that the convictions be reversed.
Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 221-225 (Ind. 2009)