ALLEGED EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD
In the defense lawyers' "everybody's cheating against us" defense, they have shown just
how desperate, and irrational they really are. I've already addressed a number of these,
but the following deserve your attention, too, I think.
Here are the rest of the allegations of allegedly new evidence that was allegedly withheld:
1. Copies of statements from workers who paved the Tiptons and their neighbor's
The statements from the paving crew the night of the murder were verbal, not written,
and so no such document ever existed. The members of the paving crew were actually
in court to give their own statements under oath, and subject to cross-examination.
2. A lie detector test of Martin Lane, one of the workers who paved the driveways.
Mr. Martin took a polygraph very soon after the murder, and the defense had a copy.
They read from it in court. How can they say it was withheld from them? It wasn't
even admissible, without them bringing it up, and it hurt their case badly, especially
when this same man testified to someone matching DWM's description coming to our
house the afternoon of the murder, asking if Karen was home. He PASSED the
polygraph, incidentally. And he was in court, and testified under oath and subject to
3. Statement from Michael Ezell, a friend of the Tiptons whom they said
admitted suggesting to Tipton that they swap mates.
Michael Ezell provided a written statement and the defense had it. They read from it in
court, and entered it into "evidence," although the defense could never show it was
pertinent to the murder in any way. The defense subpoenaed him, harassed him, and
kept him from attending the trial, but never called him as a witness. Just like fifty to a
hundred other people they subpoenaed and harassed but never called as witnesses.
Because they had no evidence pertinent to the trial.
4. Information from the hard drive of the Tipton's computer. Police gave the
hard drive back to Dr. Tipton "and he destroyed it, the motion states." This claim
was made at least a dozen times in pretrial hearings and in court. It's simply a lie that I
destroyed the hard drive, and this was testified to in court, at least three times I can
recall. The story is that I gave the whole computer to the police voluntarily. They had
copies made of TIF's and emails to floppies, and sent the computer off immediately to
the FBI for forensic analysis. The FBI kept the computer for 16 months, until after the
arraignment, and then returned it to me (BY THE FBI--the police had nothing to do
with it). When I booted it up, it literally burned up, probably as a result of sitting in a
dusty warehouse for 16 months. There was no connection ever made between anything
on the computer and the murder. The defense was never able to prove the wild
accusations they made in their opening statements, and are still making now. Our
computer had absolutely nothing to do with the murder, and certainly had nothing to do
with defending Daniel Moore. All those things the paper printed as fact were nothing
but lies that fell flat in court. Neither of the defense attorneys are computer literate, and
neither is the judge. They literally didn't know what a hard drive was... they didn't
know what TIF's were, much less how they are created, they didn't know what a
pop-up or spam mail was, and I could go on. And the only computer "expert" Brother
could find to testify in court was his SON-IN-LAW, a fact also brought out in court but
not fit for public consumption. And all HE could say was that it was POSSIBLE these
TIF's were from sites that were FAVORITES, but there was no way to know with just
a TIF... All of this was testified to in court, repeatedly, under oath, with opportunity
for cross-examination (unlike their alleged new witnesses with alleged new evidence
allegedly withheld)....WHY did (and does) this judge give it credibility? Where is the