November, 2003
Today, November 18, the Decatur Daily dedicated much of their front page to
Catherine Halbrooks' update on The State of Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore. They
announced the "245-page FBI report" was "made public" by the defense lawyers in the
form of a motion to dismiss five capital murder charges against their client.
Alabama's rape shield law makes anything regarding the past sexual behavior of the
victim strictly confidential--a point I've made repeatedly on this site. The law, which
is written in simple English, outlines the procedures required before a defense attorney
can enter such evidence in trial. The intent of the law is clearly to avoid publicly
divulging facts, allegations, or rumors that do damage to the victim. It is state law in
all 50 states, and has been so for three decades now. Without the rape shield law, a
rapist could simply hire a sleazy lawyer (who continues the rapist's attack) by blaming
the victim for being raped. It was never a particularly effective defense tactic, but it
was profoundly successful in ruining the private lives of victims. And it certainly
convinced many women to not report being raped, because they feared further
vicious attacks and invasions on their privacy. In other words, to report a rape put you
in great danger, and absolutely nothing in the legal system protected you. Women still
have this perception; it is the primary reason half of all sexual assaults are never
reported. And based on my experience, it's the system that's crazy--not the women
who believe the legal system considers them fair game.
When Kobe Bryant's lawyer accidentally gave the victim's name to the public six
times, legitimate (ethical) news sources didn't publish it. But one of the national
tabloids actually had the victim's name and photograph on their cover last week. In
The State of Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore, Catherine Halbrooks blatantly violates
the rape shield law, the judge lets her, and the press loves it. I submit there is not one
legitimate news source in the whole of north Alabama--they're all tabloids, worshiping
the almighty dollar.
In The State of Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore, Karen Tipton is inconsequential.
Judge Glenn Thompson isn't sure Karen was really victimized by the 28 stab wounds
and having her throat cut. Halbrooks and Powell are still stabbing her, and the inept,
opportunistic local press have published absolutely everything they could to maximize
damage to Karen and her survivors. A capital murder trial is supposed to be based on
facts and the law; in north Alabama it is trial by headline. And the headlines are
propaganda to further bias a jury pool against the victim--and to protect Judge Glenn
Thompson from the consequences of setting Daniel Wade Moore free.
When Karen was killed, the headline said she was "opinionated." When Daniel
Wade Moore was arrested for killing her, the headline said he was "so nice." When he
was linked to the crime on the basis of his bloody pubic hair DNA, the paper covered
another hair instead, and used Catherine Halbrooks as their only source. When
Bonnie Kidd said she noticed an occasional visitor, the newspaper quoted Halbrooks
instead--5 times--that Karen had a daily male visitor. When he was convicted on four
counts of capital murder, they wrote editorials against capital punishment and
selectively published letters to the editor supporting the convicted killer. This website,
voicing my point of view, has never been mentioned in the press, except for Catherine
Halbrooks' criticism of it. When the Court of Criminal Appeals made Thompson
explain his ruling for a second trial, they gave it minimal coverage a week later.
The three documents submitted by the State of Alabama since trial have received
no coverage at all, except for editorials criticizing them. In contrast, each of the
documents submitted by the defense lawyers since trial have received multiple
headline news stories, with their only source of information being the defense lawyers.
Within the past two weeks, the 45-page "cert petition" to the Alabama Supreme Court
was filed--and there has been not one word dedicated to it in the press. But in the
same two weeks, Halbrooks and Powell have filed suit against the City of Decatur,
and it was a headline. Now they've filed again for Judge Thompson to set Moore free,
and it gets two same-day front-page stories, absent any dissenting opinion. Whatever
Halbrooks says is a major news event, complete with defense lawyer "spin."
Whatever anyone else says is not newsworthy. It's party-line, good old boy politics.
The defense lawyers, the local press, and the judge are all working to set Daniel
Wade Moore free--the man who did this to Karen, and is matched to the crime with
DNA by his bloody pubic hair in our bed. His pubic hair, matched by DNA. Karen's
blood, matched by DNA. Bloody washcloth. Our bed. Remember?