When a loved one is murdered, and there is a killer on the loose, police investigators ask
you, your friends, your neighbors, and even strangers to tell them absolutely anything
public, private, and secret you think you might know about the victim, hoping it might
be helpful to the investigation.  Under these circumstances, you will happily bare your
soul for the sake of the investigation, and you expect the information gathered to be
confidential, according to law.  Even rumors and speculation are considered when it's
all you have to work with.  All too often, however, unscrupulous defense lawyers
release such information to the press, as has happened again and again in the State of
Alabama vs. Daniel Wade Moore.

When Karen was murdered, the police immediately centered their investigation on me.  
Within three days of the murder, they had verified my alibi, and they knew I could not
have killed Karen--it's impossible when you're somewhere else at the time, and can
prove it.  Knowing it would be months to years before forensics would test the trace
evidence, the investigators moved to the theory that the sexual torture murder was
committed by an intimate other than her husband, such as by a lover.  They gathered
the most private information regarding our private lives, particularly our sex life, and
passed it on the FBI to do a profile--not of the killer(??!!)--but of the VICTIM.  Mixed
in with the facts were rumors and speculation, all of which were subsequently disproved.
So over four years ago, a hastily-prepared list of Karen's secrets--true and untrue--turned
into an
FBI victomology report saying Karen was "high risk."  Having never seen the
report, I don't know what this actually means.  Surely it does not imply Karen, or anyone
else, is at high risk to be tortured to death in their own home.  Rather, I think it means,
based on the list of Karen's secrets, both true and untrue, and in the absence of anything
at all positive about her, they concluded she was greater risk than average to have been
killed in an
"intimate" murder--by someone she had been intimate with.  But,
remember, of women killed in America,
only 1/3 are "intimate murders."  1/3 are
killed by people they have met, but don't know intimately, and 1/3 are killed by
total strangers.
And the overwhelming reason for all murder is MONEY.  So the
"profile" of the odds of who killed Karen in the absence of any actual investigation may
say the police should consider an intimate murder in their investigation.  Of course, they
were already doing just that, or they wouldn't have asked for a victim profile in the first

And if you're talking about statistics here of "risk," then the likelihood of Karen's murder
being committed by an intimate was 2 to 1 against.
It was far more likely, from the
beginning, based on Department of Justice statistics, that she was killed for money
by someone she barely knew, or knew not at all.
I understand the newspaper (and Hollywood) would have you believe ALL murdered
women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and that sex is always the motive.  
It's just not reality, and wasn't the reality in Karen's murder, either.  The truth in this
case doesn't seem to be as
profitable to the press as the sideshow of lies accompanying
it, and the defense lawyers have exploited these Hollywood delusions for the benefit of
their cold-blooded client.

What is most bothersome to me is that
Karen's secrets, my secrets, and my friends'
secrets--both true and untrue--have become headline news courtesy of an
unethical defense team and an unethical Decatur Daily.
We are now to the absurd
point of having the local newspaper accuse Karen and me of untoward behavior in our
home, in our bed, when it is not one soul's business on the face of this earth.  My bed
has been invaded enough already.  Daniel Moore sexually tortured Karen in my bed,
and left his pubic hair there with Karen's blood on it, matched by DNA.  I have no
tolerance for lawyers and a press that carry on Daniel Moore's attack on Karen and all
who loved her.