Author Topic: Diane downs.  (Read 782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14091
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2018, 11:39:AM »
Maybe he got emotionally involved with them after the ordeal they had endured.

but they had relatives on both sides of thre family who were willing to te care of them.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #61 on: October 20, 2018, 09:41:AM »

Ballistics experts testified that bullets taken from Downs's home had extractor marks identical to cartridge casings found at the crime scene. The marks were from a.22 caliber Ruger semiautomatic pistol, the same make of a firearm which Downs had possessed and used previously.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #62 on: October 21, 2018, 05:27:AM »
Ballistics experts testified that bullets taken from Downs's home had extractor marks identical to cartridge casings found at the crime scene. The marks were from a.22 caliber Ruger semiautomatic pistol, the same make of a firearm which Downs had possessed and used previously.

Diane Downs was convicted on fabricated evidence. Your views on this case are poorly informed.
 
The police ballistics expert, a man called Murdock, lied when he said that the extractor marks matched and it should seem clear that he lied at the request of prosecutor Fred Hugi. The truth of the matter is that they did not match. Hugi himself lied when he said he had the bill of sale for the gun. The fact is the gun used in the killings was not the weapon in the possession of Diane Downs.

There are some links where you can find out the real truth about the case. I will provide some lengthy quotes to try to combat all the dishonest crap that is written in support of the prosecutor. Not that I think that it will do much good. You can't argue with ignorance. It is self maintaining.

Focusing on the ballistics evidence. It is notable that there is a link at the following site which does not work.
http://thetroublewithjustice.com/2014/07/22/the-diane-downs-case-was-no-small-sacrifice-2/

"The gun

Ruger

According to the State, ballistics evidence proved that Diane Downs was guilty.

They claimed to have found two lead cartridges in Diane’s rifle at home that supposedly matched the ones used during the crime. But there were discrepancies; the tool marks did not match and the detective lied on the stand about it.

Click here to read about faulty ballistics. (The link is dead but I believe I have found the site it lead to. See below.)

During closing arguments, Fred Hugi said that the murder weapon used by Diane was a Ruger, and the state had the model number and the bill of sale. That same gun turned up at a police raid years later in Perris, California, and it did not match the ballistics from the shooting site.

Ruger #14-76187; described as the gun used by Diane and belonging to Steve Downs, was not the murder weapon. They came up with an explanation as to why this was the wrong gun but the jig was up.

Steve Downs had allegedly stolen this gun from a friend named Billy Proctor, but after it was found and the ballistics did not match, Bill suddenly remembered keeping it only for a day before exchanging it for another Ruger automatic at a gun show in Mesa; which now meant that the gun that Diane allegedly used to shoot herself and the children, was still apparently nowhere to be found.

Considering that the marks on the lethal bullets did not fit the bullet fingerprinting found in the rifle, this gun switcheroo was a good save for the state, but did not support the theory presented at trial either.

The very suspicious aspect of this ballistic saga is that Hugi said they had the bill of sale and serial number for the first Ruger and it was definitely the murder weapon. If, as Proctor said, it was exchanged right away, and the other Ruger was subsequently stolen by Steven, how was it remotely possible for him to have this info? Are we to believe that Proctor’s second gun was stolen with the bill and ID from the first gun that remained listed at the gun store?" 

« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 08:49:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #63 on: October 21, 2018, 05:34:AM »

I believe that the dead link is meant to take you to this site. 
http://www.manipulatedtrial.de/DD_I_start.htm

"Letter 4:

Oregon Criminal Justice System
885 Summer Street NE
Salem, OR  97301

To Whom It May Concern

If you read this and don't wonder why Diane Downs was convicted of shooting her children, then you haven't read the material with an open heart.

My daughter, Elizabeth Diane Downs has been in prison over 30 years for a crime she didn't commit.  Please take the time to look at the enclosed facts.  When my daughter and her children were shot, there were four casings found in the car and two casings were found in the road.  As a reminder, all the casings from the car and the road had to come from the same weapon.   E14A and E14B were taken from a rifle at my daughter's residence and were labeled as cartridges.

Casings:                                                                          Cartridges:

Car     Car     Car       Car     Road     Road                  Rifle     Rifle
 E3      E4A    E4B      E5       E6A        E6B                    E14A    E14B
Now, look at the comparisons of these empty casings to the cartridges from Mr. Murdock's notes:  Remember E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B all came from the shooting site. They have to match.

E3      E4A     E4B     E5       E6A         E6B                    E14A   E14B
E5      E14B   E14B   E14B   E14B       E14B                   E3        E3
No     Yes     Yes      Yes     Yes          Yes                     Yes      No

They used falsified evidence to convict her.  It sounds like the old switcheroo.   E3 and E5 don't match, they're both out of the car,  they have to match!   In Mr. Murdock's notes he labels each casing taken from the car and the road with identical markings: "One ejector mark at 7-8 o'clock one extractor mark at 3 o'clock."  In those same notes, the two bullets allegedly taken from Diane's apartment are labeled: "E-14A one extractor mark (no location) E-14B  one well defined extractor mark - - one fairly well defined ejector mark - close to extractor mark (no location)."  Ejector marks at 7-8 o'clock is not close to 3 o'clock.  They don't compare.

E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A, and E6B all have to match because they are empty casings that were found on the road or inside the car and all came from the same weapon.

If you look at Mr. Murdock's comparisons above, you will see that E3 and E5 don't match.  They have to match.  They were both found in the car.  E14A and E14B must also match because they were from the rifle.  Now let's switch E14B with E3 and see what happens.  All of the casings from the car and the road match.
E14B     E4A     E4B     E5     E6A     E6B                        E14A     E3
E5         E3         E3       E3      E3       E3                           E14B     E14B
No        Yes       Yes     Yes    Yes     Yes                         Yes        No

Makes a little more sense doesn't it? There is definitely a problem with Mr. Murdock's comparisons.  However if you look further, you will find that Mr. Murdock didn't work alone.  If these were blunders, there were at least two people making the mistakes or one person making deliberate mistakes and not telling the other.  NO comparisons were made between the lead cartridges, E14A and E14B and distinctive markings made by the rifle itself. Making the comparison in this way, the ballistics from the car and the road do not match the ballistics of Diane's rifle.

E3 and E5 must match, they are from the same weapon, and the marks they carry are deep enough to compare. They don't. E 14A and E14B must match, they are from the same weapon. They don't. E3 and E14A (E14B) carry marks the rest don't have, "Unique marks"! This comes directly from Murdock's report, "A reason has caused me to reconsider the ID, (between E3 and E14B) it seems to fall apart at 4 times the object. I told Jim Pex that this possible association could be studied further...". (June 28, 1983)  "No photo. No time." A day earlier, "On E14B, no extractor mark deep in the rim and not able to identify extractor mark present with E3." Yet a day later, every single comparison was made with E14B. What happened in the Lab overnight that caused this man to change his mind? Was there a double switch? E14A becomes E14B and vice-versa, then  E14B becomes E3.

In court, Mr. Murdock testified: "I made a rather detailed series of notes." (Transcript page 1348, lines 16-17).  For this reason I find it easier and more dependable referring to the notes he took at the time of the examination of the casings and cartridges, rather than to his memory of two months or even a year later.
Mr. Murdock swore under oath, "Exhibit No. 14 does contain two cartridges with plain lead bullets, and I did examine those, Yes, these appear to be items 14-A and B."

(Transcript pages 1347-1348). The problem with that memory is that on page 933 of Mr. Murdock s detailed written report, he noted that one of the lead cartridges was taken apart to retrieve the gun powder inside for tests. There is no possible way E14B could be in cartridge form one year later for Mr. Murdock to identify. One of those cartridges should be a casing.

Again, Mr. Murdock swore, "And I found extractor marks on these two unfired cartridges which were found to agree with the extractor marks on the six cartridge cases that I've just described, and the agreement was sufficient to allow me to conclude that the same extractor made the mark on all six cartridge cases and the two unfired cartridges from the tubular magazine of the rifle." (Transcript Page 1350, lines 11-17) There are two VERY serious problems with that statement. First, as you just read, E14B did not match E3, E3 did not match E6B and E3 did not match E5 with respect to extractor marks. (Mr. Murdock's notes, page 948) How could Mr. Murdock swear before the jury that every extractor mark on every cartridge and casing matched all the others?  They didn't.  Tell him what you want and he will get it for you."

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2018, 05:54:AM »
what i have never understood about this cas is why frd hugi wanted to adopt her children i mean there must of kids in the state who he could of adopted why did he want to adpt hers.

Diane Downs's close relatives have always been convinced she is innocent. If the children were put into the care of relatives who believed their mother was innocent the prosecutor Fred Hugi would not have been able to control Christie Downs's mind the way he did. While recovering from her injuries, she was worked on by psychiatric personnel hired by the prosecutor. They brainwashed her into thinking that her mother was the killer, The intention being to produce a dramatic moment in court.

A lot of time and effort went into getting the eight year old child to say the word "Mom" on the stand.

Christie later admitted in a recorded telephone call that she had no memory of the incident, but that she had been told to say her mother did it.

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/2014/07/22/the-diane-downs-case-was-no-small-sacrifice-2/

"A group of ladies formed a group called HELDD which stands for Help Exonerate & Liberate Diane Downs.  One of them named Angel, called 15-year-old Christie on the phone.  There were a few calls and on one occasion, Christie said “They just, they knew that, you know, that she did it and I should say that she did it.”  When asked if she thought her mother did it or someone else did it, she replied, “”I don’t know if she did it or someone else did, cause I don’t know.”  Then “Angel” says:  “They told you that was the right thing to do, huh?”  Christie responds, “But like the person, my attorney, and that’s who Fred is, that I’m living with, he’s the guy, he works for me.“

To listen to Christie’s taped conversation, click below.

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Christie-Angel-Talk-2.wma
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 05:18:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #65 on: October 21, 2018, 06:29:AM »
The real shooter was James Claire Haynes who admitted responsibility for the crime to several people. There are signed affidavits, the most interesting being that of Haynes's former partner Clayton Nysten. To dismiss evidence like this is not reasonable. It just doesn't add up that a guy would confess to six people. Further, Nyston's account is detailed and has rationality given an understanding of the culture of organized crime.

http://www.manipulatedtrial.de/DD_I_page_7.htm

Exhibit 1_: Affidavit of Clayton Nysten (February 24, 1998):
(p. 1) I am a former acquaintance of James Claire Haynes.

(p. 2)  In around 1983, Haynes and I were at a drug house for Haynes to pick up some dope.  While Haynes and I were waiting for the deal to happen, a blond woman came into the house with another woman, and walked straight to a back room where the deals were taking place.  The blond woman seemed brash and full of herself.  Haynes and I waited and then heard a loud argument between the drug dealer and the woman.  The woman was being told in very strong words that she should not have gone waltzing into that room.  I later realized, after I heard about the Downs case on television and in the paper that the blond woman I had seen was Diane Downs.
Then in the summer of 1983, I heard on the television about the Downs family being shot.  The newspaper also had a story about the shooting and a composite picture of the man that Downs said had done it.  My first thought after seeing the paper was that the composite looked very much like Jim Haynes.  The day after the shooting, in the morning, I went to see Jim at his place in Springfield.  When I arrived at the house, I met with Jim in the bedroom he liked to call his “office” He was sitting there with the Eugene Register Guard folded on his bed with the composite picture face up.  The composite looked just like Mr. Haynes.  Jim was dressed in clean clothes and was clean shaven.  It was very unusual to see Haynes like that because normally he wore grubby clothes and went unshaven.

(p. 3) The day after that, I saw Haynes again and he then told me he was the one who had shot the Downs family. Jim said that Downs had been to another place where she where had seen drug payoffs taking place and it was because of that, and the fact that she had been warned before.  I think he was talking about the earlier time when I saw her at Lionel Johnson’s house and she went into the back room.  Haynes never told me about the exact details of it but I understand that Jim had arranged with Downs for her to stop the car on that road and buy drugs from him.  Jim told me the kids had been shot so as to teach her a lesson, and make her suffer for the rest of her life.  There was some talk among people in “protection” back then that if you wanted to teach a person a lesson you hurt their family rather than them.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 07:57:AM by Harry »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2018, 02:31:PM »
Interesting. It all seems very convincing. Yet none of this is mentioned in her appeal applications.


How can that audio tape that's alleged to be Christie Downs be verified? Either Diane has the most incompetent appellate lawyers on the planet or that tape is bogus. I know what I think  8)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 02:31:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #67 on: October 22, 2018, 04:16:AM »
Interesting. It all seems very convincing. Yet none of this is mentioned in her appeal applications.


How can that audio tape that's alleged to be Christie Downs be verified? Either Diane has the most incompetent appellate lawyers on the planet or that tape is bogus. I know what I think  8)

The tape is definitely authentic, but probably was not admissible as evidence. The people who made it were threatened and warned not to try to contact Christie again. Prosecutor Fred Hugi tried to make excuses for what Christie said and dismissed it out of hand, so there can be no doubt it is Christie you hear talking.

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Christie-Angel-Talk-2.wma
 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 05:03:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #68 on: October 22, 2018, 04:32:AM »
I believe that the dead link is meant to take you to this site. 
http://www.manipulatedtrial.de/DD_I_start.htm

"Letter 4:

Oregon Criminal Justice System
885 Summer Street NE
Salem, OR  97301

To Whom It May Concern

If you read this and don't wonder why Diane Downs was convicted of shooting her children, then you haven't read the material with an open heart.

My daughter, Elizabeth Diane Downs has been in prison over 30 years for a crime she didn't commit.  Please take the time to look at the enclosed facts.  When my daughter and her children were shot, there were four casings found in the car and two casings were found in the road.  As a reminder, all the casings from the car and the road had to come from the same weapon.   E14A and E14B were taken from a rifle at my daughter's residence and were labeled as cartridges.

Casings:                                                                          Cartridges:

Car     Car     Car       Car     Road     Road                  Rifle     Rifle
 E3      E4A    E4B      E5       E6A        E6B                    E14A    E14B
Now, look at the comparisons of these empty casings to the cartridges from Mr. Murdock's notes:  Remember E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B all came from the shooting site. They have to match.

E3      E4A     E4B     E5       E6A         E6B                    E14A   E14B
E5      E14B   E14B   E14B   E14B       E14B                   E3        E3
No     Yes     Yes      Yes     Yes          Yes                     Yes      No

They used falsified evidence to convict her.  It sounds like the old switcheroo.   E3 and E5 don't match, they're both out of the car,  they have to match!   In Mr. Murdock's notes he labels each casing taken from the car and the road with identical markings: "One ejector mark at 7-8 o'clock one extractor mark at 3 o'clock."  In those same notes, the two bullets allegedly taken from Diane's apartment are labeled: "E-14A one extractor mark (no location) E-14B  one well defined extractor mark - - one fairly well defined ejector mark - close to extractor mark (no location)."  Ejector marks at 7-8 o'clock is not close to 3 o'clock.  They don't compare.

E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A, and E6B all have to match because they are empty casings that were found on the road or inside the car and all came from the same weapon.

If you look at Mr. Murdock's comparisons above, you will see that E3 and E5 don't match.  They have to match.  They were both found in the car.  E14A and E14B must also match because they were from the rifle.  Now let's switch E14B with E3 and see what happens.  All of the casings from the car and the road match.
E14B     E4A     E4B     E5     E6A     E6B                        E14A     E3
E5         E3         E3       E3      E3       E3                           E14B     E14B
No        Yes       Yes     Yes    Yes     Yes                         Yes        No

Makes a little more sense doesn't it? There is definitely a problem with Mr. Murdock's comparisons.  However if you look further, you will find that Mr. Murdock didn't work alone.  If these were blunders, there were at least two people making the mistakes or one person making deliberate mistakes and not telling the other.  NO comparisons were made between the lead cartridges, E14A and E14B and distinctive markings made by the rifle itself. Making the comparison in this way, the ballistics from the car and the road do not match the ballistics of Diane's rifle.

E3 and E5 must match, they are from the same weapon, and the marks they carry are deep enough to compare. They don't. E 14A and E14B must match, they are from the same weapon. They don't. E3 and E14A (E14B) carry marks the rest don't have, "Unique marks"! This comes directly from Murdock's report, "A reason has caused me to reconsider the ID, (between E3 and E14B) it seems to fall apart at 4 times the object. I told Jim Pex that this possible association could be studied further...". (June 28, 1983)  "No photo. No time." A day earlier, "On E14B, no extractor mark deep in the rim and not able to identify extractor mark present with E3." Yet a day later, every single comparison was made with E14B. What happened in the Lab overnight that caused this man to change his mind? Was there a double switch? E14A becomes E14B and vice-versa, then  E14B becomes E3.

In court, Mr. Murdock testified: "I made a rather detailed series of notes." (Transcript page 1348, lines 16-17).  For this reason I find it easier and more dependable referring to the notes he took at the time of the examination of the casings and cartridges, rather than to his memory of two months or even a year later.
Mr. Murdock swore under oath, "Exhibit No. 14 does contain two cartridges with plain lead bullets, and I did examine those, Yes, these appear to be items 14-A and B."

(Transcript pages 1347-1348). The problem with that memory is that on page 933 of Mr. Murdock s detailed written report, he noted that one of the lead cartridges was taken apart to retrieve the gun powder inside for tests. There is no possible way E14B could be in cartridge form one year later for Mr. Murdock to identify. One of those cartridges should be a casing.

Again, Mr. Murdock swore, "And I found extractor marks on these two unfired cartridges which were found to agree with the extractor marks on the six cartridge cases that I've just described, and the agreement was sufficient to allow me to conclude that the same extractor made the mark on all six cartridge cases and the two unfired cartridges from the tubular magazine of the rifle." (Transcript Page 1350, lines 11-17) There are two VERY serious problems with that statement. First, as you just read, E14B did not match E3, E3 did not match E6B and E3 did not match E5 with respect to extractor marks. (Mr. Murdock's notes, page 948) How could Mr. Murdock swear before the jury that every extractor mark on every cartridge and casing matched all the others?  They didn't.  Tell him what you want and he will get it for you."


Some supporters of Diane think that the District Attorney Pat Horton was connected with the people responsible for the shooting. The basic theory is that Horton knew who was behind the crime and that Diane Downs was innocent. Diane Downs was framed to protect Horton who it is alleged had friendly contacts with drug dealers. Horton was Fred Hugi's boss and gave Hugi the case.

Ann Rule was an ex-policewoman and in her book Small Sacrifices portrays these guys as noble seekers of truth and justice. But the perjury of the ballistics expert and Christie's admission of being told to say her mother did it tells a different story.

Ann Rule gives it away that there was a conspiracy by mentioning several names in connection with the lie that the extractor marks matched when the truth is they did not.

From Small Sacrifices

  Chuck Vaughn had just called him with astoundingly good news. Vaughn had discovered a most curious match during ballistics tests. Hugi excitedly marked his notes of the conversation with seven red stars and heavy underlining, ending, “No doubt!”

Vaughn and Jim Pex had discovered that some of the cartridges Dick Tracy had removed from the .22 Glenfield rifle in Diane’s bedroom closet had, at one time, been worked through the action of the very gun that fired the bullets into Christie, Cheryl, and Danny!

The tool marks left by the extractor were microscopically identical —the same marks on cartridges in Diane’s possession as those on the casings found next to the river! The .22 rifle wasn’t the death weapon, but the cartridges inside had once been in the clip of the missing Ruger!

Hugi was elated. This ballistics finding ruled out the possibility of a random shooting. It would take great suspension of disbelief to think a stranger could have gained access to both Diane’s rifle and the Ruger pistol. What was she going to say? That somebody had sneaked into her apartment and put those cartridges in her rifle—cartridges that had been worked through the action of the death gun?

The .22 rounds fit both weapons. The tool marks showed that the cartridges had been mechanically manipulated through the receiver of the same weapon. Not fired, only loaded and unloaded...

Fred Hugi felt he had a breakthrough in physical evidence, enough to more than make up for the disappointing news from Arizona. But Vaughn cautioned the assistant DA that explaining the findings to a jury would be difficult because photographs wouldn’t really show the three dimensional aspects of the marks left by the extractor and ejector of the Ruger. Pex and Vaughn and Hugi might see those marks as clear as neon, but would a lay jury? Even so Hugi was still up. The case had begun, finally, to unfold in an orderly way.


All of it lies. The extractor marks did not match. The evil that men do!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 03:21:AM by Harry »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #69 on: October 23, 2018, 02:59:AM »
The tape is definitely authentic, but probably was not admissible as evidence. The people who made it were threatened and warned not to try to contact Christie again. Prosecutor Fred Hugi tried to make excuses for what Christie said and dismissed it out of hand, so there can be no doubt it is Christie you hear talking.

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Christie-Angel-Talk-2.wma


You need a statement from Christie to establish its authenticity.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #70 on: October 23, 2018, 03:00:AM »
Some supporters of Diane think that the District Attorney Pat Horton was connected with the people responsible for the shooting. The basic theory is that Horton knew who was behind the crime and that Diane Downs was innocent. Diane Downs was framed to protect Horton who it is alleged had friendly contacts with drug dealers. Horton was Fred Hugi's boss and gave Hugi the case. Horton authorised the examination of bullet cases found at Diane's trailor which led to the perjury of Mr Murdock the ballistics expert.

Ann Rule was an ex-policewoman and in her book Small Sacrifices portrays these guys as noble seekers of truth and justice. But the perjury of the ballistics expert and Christie's admission of being told to say her mother did it tells a different story.

Ann Rule gives it away that there was a conspiracy by mentioning several names in connection with the lie that the extractor marks matched when the truth is they did not.

From Small Sacrifices

  Chuck Vaughn had just called him with astoundingly good news. Vaughn had discovered a most curious match during ballistics tests. Hugi excitedly marked his notes of the conversation with seven red stars and heavy underlining, ending, “No doubt!”

Vaughn and Jim Pex had discovered that some of the cartridges Dick Tracy had removed from the .22 Glenfield rifle in Diane’s bedroom closet had, at one time, been worked through the action of the very gun that fired the bullets into Christie, Cheryl, and Danny!

The tool marks left by the extractor were microscopically identical —the same marks on cartridges in Diane’s possession as those on the casings found next to the river! The .22 rifle wasn’t the death weapon, but the cartridges inside had once been in the clip of the missing Ruger!

Hugi was elated. This ballistics finding ruled out the possibility of a random shooting. It would take great suspension of disbelief to think a stranger could have gained access to both Diane’s rifle and the Ruger pistol. What was she going to say? That somebody had sneaked into her apartment and put those cartridges in her rifle—cartridges that had been worked through the action of the death gun?

The .22 rounds fit both weapons. The tool marks showed that the cartridges had been mechanically manipulated through the receiver of the same weapon. Not fired, only loaded and unloaded...

Fred Hugi felt he had a breakthrough in physical evidence, enough to more than make up for the disappointing news from Arizona. But Vaughn cautioned the assistant DA that explaining the findings to a jury would be difficult because photographs wouldn’t really show the three dimensional aspects of the marks left by the extractor and ejector of the Ruger. Pex and Vaughn and Hugi might see those marks as clear as neon, but would a lay jury? Even so Hugi was still up. The case had begun, finally, to unfold in an orderly way.


All of it lies. The extractor marks did not match. The evil that men do!

Has a counter expert in ballistics verified this? 
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #71 on: October 23, 2018, 03:58:AM »
Has a counter expert in ballistics verified this?


At first I thought that that was a puzzling aspect of the case. I just thought why don't they get a ballistics expert to state categorically that the cartridges which allegedly match do not match. But as you know things are not so simple. Such testimony might well be inadmissible on some technicality.

All the same I think that it would be worthwhile to try to establish the truth by consulting expert witnesses. Diane Downs has few supporters and few experts would want to get involved. It would be smart to show the evidence to a canadian ballistics expert with no axe to grind rather than some guy who works in in Oregon, USA and who wants to keep on working there.


The are indications that shills for the prosecution know that the cartridges did not match. It is notable that there has never been a counter argument put in support Hugi and Murdock on that issue. If that evidence were genuine they could easily make supporters of Diane shut up. If it was genuine it would indeed be conclusive proof of guilt. But it was a lie, so they think it's better just to keep on repeating the lie. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 04:02:AM by Harry »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14091
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #72 on: October 23, 2018, 08:15:PM »
surely they should of been able to tel how close the shoter was to the victem up close rane points to daine longer range points to somebody else.

but ive never heard that used as evdence for aginst her.

my feeling is the fact 2 of them survived points to somone else why dident she finish them off there was nothing to stop her.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10701
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #73 on: October 23, 2018, 08:33:PM »
surely they should of been able to tel how close the shoter was to the victem up close rane points to daine longer range points to somebody else.

but ive never heard that used as evdence for aginst her.

my feeling is the fact 2 of them survived points to somone else why dident she finish them off there was nothing to stop her.
I don't know what evidence has been withheld or misrepresented but Diane Downs is claiming she is innocent of the crime. If another individual was the shooter it would explain why the weapon was never found but would make her complicit along with the cock and bull story she told.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Diane downs.
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2018, 10:00:AM »

At first I thought that that was a puzzling aspect of the case. I just thought why don't they get a ballistics expert to state categorically that the cartridges which allegedly match do not match. But as you know things are not so simple. Such testimony might well be inadmissible on some technicality.

All the same I think that it would be worthwhile to try to establish the truth by consulting expert witnesses. Diane Downs has few supporters and few experts would want to get involved. It would be smart to show the evidence to a canadian ballistics expert with no axe to grind rather than some guy who works in in Oregon, USA and who wants to keep on working there.


The are indications that shills for the prosecution know that the cartridges did not match. It is notable that there has never been a counter argument put in support Hugi and Murdock on that issue. If that evidence were genuine they could easily make supporters of Diane shut up. If it was genuine it would indeed be conclusive proof of guilt. But it was a lie, so they think it's better just to keep on repeating the lie.


We don't know that the cases do not match. Its simply an assertion made by Diane and a supporter running that website and how they wish to interpret that evidence. We need a second opinion from a ballistic expert.

From what I understand this type of evidence is established via repetitive marks with sufficient correspondence. Its does not have to be identical.

My interpetation of Murdocks notes is that there was enought repetitive marks and sufficient correspondence to conclude a match. Even the five cases at the scene do not match 100% and nobody is suggesting two weapons were used.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 10:01:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"