| I would like to thank Dr. Bonnie Kidd for responding to my anger about her testimony. I thought her letter was quite good, because it showed (at least me) how her innocent observations had been twisted by Catherine Halbrooks. I want to clarify several points made on the website. First, the police report didn't quote Dr. Kidd as saying "drastic change in appearance." That was their terminology, referring to the change in hairstyle, not Dr. Kidd's. Just like the newspaper reporting that I had called 911 and reported the "possible death of a white female." It wasn't what I said; it was what the dispatcher said, but it was attributed to me, as if I'd used those very words. Most importantly, the phrase "drastic change in appearance" was made by the defense lawyers, as if they were quoting Dr. Kidd, when she had never said it. The police also said Dr. Kidd had seen our dog before, but never said she'd seen it recently. It was the defense lawyers who implied Dr. Kidd had seen our dog just before the murder--trying to further imply the dead dog found later was somehow connected to the murder. In Halbrooks' opening statement, she made several wild claims that were related solely to Dr. Kidd, and every one of them were purposeful misrepresentations of Dr. Kidd's previous statements and her subsequent testimony. Dr. Kidd couldn't have been clearer when she says, "I never told anyone Karen had a "daily male visitor": it is a fiction maintained by Catherine Halbrooks." In addition, she was inappropriately forced into giving an identification of Mr. Nowlin that she, herself, didn't consider credible. It's presenting evidence known to be false, which is a serious ethics violation--not to mention "engineering" testimony and abusiveness towards witnesses. Dr. Kidd was never asked to testify about the dog, or the change in appearance, because she'd never made the statements attributed to her in the opening statement, and would have surely told the truth. It was all secondary to "identifying" Mr. Nowlin as a "daily male visitor" to our home. It was a defense that created its "evidence" to match widely-held rumors--rumors the defense lawyers knew to be false. As it turned out, Dr. Kidd had no testimony pertinent to the State of Alabama v Daniel Wade Moore, but that's no reflection on Dr. Kidd. However, lies about her were half of the defense given in their opening statement. It defamed Karen's memory; it defamed me. It defamed our friends and our families. It defamed Mr. Nowlin, his family, and his friends. It even defamed Dr. Kidd--who was directly misquoted four times on the front page of the Decatur Daily, despite her protests. The defense team violated professional ethics at every level to produce their fictitious "daily male visitor" and by involving Mr. Nowlin in this case at all. And while it turned out Dr. Kidd had no evidence in this case, her letter is strong evidence in the case against Ms. Halbrooks and Mr. Powell. |