DWM TALKS III
The Daily finished with the BOBCAT DRIVER.
The article implied Mr. Lang changed his story of a person matching DWM's
description stopping him in the yard that day and asking him if Mrs. Tipton was home.
They implied he only came up with the story in court. They didn't mention his story
had been perfectly consistent from the beginning, and that he made written, signed
statements and passed a polygraph examination 3 1/2 years before...
The article implied Mr. Lang changed his story of a person matching DWM's
description stopping him in the yard that day and asking him if Mrs. Tipton was home.
They implied he only came up with the story in court. They didn't mention his story
had been perfectly consistent from the beginning, and that he made written, signed
statements and passed a polygraph examination 3 1/2 years before...
So the day in court was summed up with DWM saying he was innocent four times,
without mentioning he was an admitted frequent liar. That was followed by a computer
"expert" (in his first ever court appearance?) agreeing with his father-in-law about what
Catherine Halbrooks said about those computer things. And a shady character from
"way up in Illinois" with no credibility. So how did they end it?
"Powell and Halbrooks say their aim is to show that SOMEONE OTHER THAN
MOORE killed Karen Tipton." It seems ironic to me that with two years, a blank
check, a reign of terror allowed by the judge, and three weeks of testimony, the best
they could come up with was SOMEONE OTHER THAN MOORE must have done
this. After all, DWM says he didn't. So it MUST be SOMEONE ELSE.
without mentioning he was an admitted frequent liar. That was followed by a computer
"expert" (in his first ever court appearance?) agreeing with his father-in-law about what
Catherine Halbrooks said about those computer things. And a shady character from
"way up in Illinois" with no credibility. So how did they end it?
"Powell and Halbrooks say their aim is to show that SOMEONE OTHER THAN
MOORE killed Karen Tipton." It seems ironic to me that with two years, a blank
check, a reign of terror allowed by the judge, and three weeks of testimony, the best
they could come up with was SOMEONE OTHER THAN MOORE must have done
this. After all, DWM says he didn't. So it MUST be SOMEONE ELSE.
It is highly unusual for someone in DWM's position to testify in court, because it so
often backfires on the defense. It's an indication of how desperate the defense lawyers
were. They hoped a good performance would buy them sympathy from the jury in the
verdicts and sentencing. It didn't work, at least on the verdicts. He was more damaging
to himself than Uncle Sparky could ever have been. Because we ALL got to hear him
talk. For the first time.
often backfires on the defense. It's an indication of how desperate the defense lawyers
were. They hoped a good performance would buy them sympathy from the jury in the
verdicts and sentencing. It didn't work, at least on the verdicts. He was more damaging
to himself than Uncle Sparky could ever have been. Because we ALL got to hear him
talk. For the first time.
And I was thinking:
He didn't mind giving Karen a closed casket.
And "it wasn't a very pleasant situation" the first time I met Mike Pettey, either.
He didn't mind giving Karen a closed casket.
And "it wasn't a very pleasant situation" the first time I met Mike Pettey, either.