The rape shield law says past sexual behavior of the victim is
not admissible in a rape case. It is private and confidential--a
protection guaranteed victims of violent crime in the Constitution
of the State of Alabama and in the Alabama Code, Section
12-21-203. Judge Thompson refuses to protect Karen and her
loved ones, as he is sworn to do under the law. He can tolerate
that, evidently. What he can't tolerate is DWM being convicted
consistent with the law and the weight of the evidence. That IS
what his ruling said, anyway.
to attack and
invade Karen in
direct violation of
the rape shield
DWM: "I didn't mean to kill her."
"I was there, on the second floor..."
"I didn't kill her."
"Yes, sir, I'm a liar."
WAKE UP, JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!
HAVE YOU AWARDED DWM A NEW
TRIAL BECAUSE OF "EVIDENCE"
THAT IS INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
WHY ARE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT
KAREN'S "PAST" SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
IN THE HEADLINES, WHEN THEY
SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN COURT?
DO YOU JUST NOT BELIEVE
VICTIMS OF RAPE DESERVE
CONSIDERATION UNDER THE LAW?
THAT RAPE IS OK?
OR WAS KAREN JUST A SPECIAL
CASE, SO HEINOUS A VICTIM THAT
SHE IS UNDESERVING OF ANY
Rape shield law as applied to The State of Alabama vs. Daniel Wade
Moore. What Glenn Thompson doesn't want you to know.
Rape Shield Law, the Alabama Code
RAPE SHIELD LAW