By Mike Weland
Bonners Ferry chiropractor Dr. Dan Moore, 63, facing trial in April on a charge of second degree murder, submitted an answer to a civil suit December 9, denying the allegations against him and leveling his own at both the victim and the plaintiff.
Dr. Moore is free on $500,000 bond after being arrested August 27 and charged for the March 12 shooting death of fellow chiropractor Dr. Brian Drake.
He contends that several people, at the time of Dr. Drake’s death, had motive, including his wife.
Drake’s wife Jennifer filed civil suit November 11 on behalf of she and their four children.
In his answer to complaint and counterclaim, Dr. Moore discounted contentions that pointed to business competition as possible motive.
“The Defendant admits that Moore Chiropractic was in the same business as Drake Chiropractic and therefore the two were ‘essentially business competitors,’ but affirmatively avers that they practiced in different specializations,” the answer reads. “The Defendant has no reason to believe that he ‘lost at least 30 patients to Drake Chiropractic” and therefore denies this allegation.'”
In his counterclaim, Dr. Moore writes that he has been in practice in Bonners Ferry since 2001 and that he “was well-established and well-respected as a Chiropractor in the small community of Bonners Ferry, Idaho and enjoyed a very busy practice before and after Brian Drake began practicing as a chiropractor in Bonners Ferry. Moore Chiropractic was a thriving and profitable business before and after Brian Drake began practicing as a chiropractor in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Brian Drake and Drake Chiropractic never presented any threat to Dr. Moore and Moore Chiropractic’s business success nor cut into their client base in any economically significant way. Indeed, Dr. Moore and Moore Chiropractic had as much work as desired and often more work than desired.”
Point by point he states, “Dr. Daniel Moore never met Brian Drake. Dr. Daniel Moore did not kill Brian Drake. Dr. Daniel Moore had no motive to kill Brian Drake.”
“At the time of Brian Drake’s death, as Plaintiff well knew, there were multiple people, including herself, with a motive to kill Brian Drake, yet Plaintiff has persisted for her financial, pecuniary and other selfish motives to create a publicly false persona of herself and her late husband,” the answer reads. “As Plaintiff well knew, our laws and system of justice provide that all citizens charged with state crimes are presumed innocent and entitled to that presumption of law until their guilt has been proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.”
He goes on to contend that Jennifer Drake “pursued an unrelenting effort to establish Dr. Moore’s guilt in the eyes of the public prior to any proof of his guilty being established in a court of law in order to garner sympathy for herself, raise money and influence potential jurors in Dr. Moore’s criminal case,” saying she’s made materially false statements, given false testimony to investigators and “maliciously persisted in her public portrayal of Dr. Daniel
Moore as a murderer requiring punishment and not entitled to his presumption of innocence or his day in court as guaranteed to all citizens of the United States and Idaho who stand accused of a crime.”
“Since Brian Drake’s killing,” the answer reads, “Plaintiff has published a false narrative about herself and her marriage and family as one of a good ‘Christian’ family, free of any shortcomings or moral failures in an effort to portray herself as a victim of Dr. Moore and to collect more money for herself than she already obtained through the million-dollar life insurance policy she took out prior to Brian Drake’s murder, payable to her upon his death.”
Dr. Moore goes on to contend that, “Contrary to her public portrayals of her husband as a good Christian and family man, as Plaintiff well knew, Brian Drake was a philanderer, addicted to pornography, and had sexually abused her and other women.”
Drake had, Moore alleges, drugged his wife and took pornographic pictures of her while she was unconscious, sexually abused his patients, engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with members of his staff and “likely had extra-marital affairs.”
“As Plaintiff well knew, Brian Drake left his practice in Austin, Texas, and moved their entire family and his practice to Idaho after he had been sexually inappropriate with a female patient there who pursued legal action against him for violating her rights to privacy and publishing sexually charged comments to others about the attributes of her female anatomy which he learned from treating her,” the answer reads. “At the time of Brian Drake’s death, Plaintiff had a motive to kill her own husband for his ongoing shortcomings and his inability to meet their family’s financial needs, requiring them to seek financial support from their Church.”
He contends Jennifer Drake had secured a million-dollar life insurance policy payable to her on her husband’s death, and that, as she was on the phone with Dr. Drake at the time he was killed, she “knew his location, knew that his patients who would be witnesses were gone, and was capable of relaying this information to the shooter.”
He contends that Dr. Drake had a blood/alcohol level of .08-percent at time of death and that his wife tried to cover a drinking problem while during questioning, that she failed to disclose knowledge that her husband had been having problems he “had been sexually inappropriate with” as his having an addiction to pornography.
“With every motive to commit the killing herself and knowledge of the numbers of others with motives to do so, Plaintiff has maliciously undertaken to instead smear and discredit Dr. Moore,” the answer reads, “to publicly defame him to fit the narrative she hopes will influence public opinion against Dr. Moore, prevent the public from knowing the truth about her husband and to obstruct the administration of justice in the pursuit of finding Brian Drake’s true killer.”
His countersuit alleges defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, saying that Jennifer Drake had deliberately undertook to damage his business by publishing derogatory commentary about his return to work after his release on bail and that she had contacted the Idaho Chiropractic Board in an attempt to have his license to practice revoked, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
He is seeking damages “in an amount to be proven at trial and exceeding $100,000” plus attorneys fees and costs.
A motion hearing is set before Judger Barbara Buchanan in Boundary County First District Court at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, December 23.