Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: nugnug on August 13, 2018, 05:44:PM

Title: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2018, 05:44:PM
did she do it.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august032014/diane-downs-ll.php
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 13, 2018, 06:18:PM
did she do it.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august032014/diane-downs-ll.php
She's guilty. https://youtu.be/xYQWfHzLGeQ
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2018, 06:29:PM
what about the proscuter adopting her children isn't that a bit strange.

and why did they never find the gun.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 13, 2018, 07:26:PM
what about the proscuter adopting her children isn't that a bit strange.

and why did they never find the gun.
Well it was probably the best thing for them.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2018, 07:43:PM
yes but isn't a bit of conflict ive never heard of a proscuter doing that.

the sherrif was very saying they never looked for anybody else.

r looked for the man she described.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2018, 08:06:PM
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november182013/diane-downs-cc.php
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 13, 2018, 09:40:PM
did she do it.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august032014/diane-downs-ll.php



Yes she did.

Her boyfiend was splitting up with her because of he didnt want to be her childrens step father. So killing them all was her way of solving that problem. One kid survived and testified at the trial. "Who shot you" the prosecutor asked. The witness answered "My mum"
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 13, 2018, 09:54:PM


Yes she did.

Her boyfiend was splitting up with her because of he didnt want to be her childrens step father. So killing them all was her way of solving that problem. One kid survived and testified at the trial. "Who shot you" the prosecutor asked. The witness answered "My mum"

I think the suggestion might be that she was confused and had been led by the psychiatrists to say such a thing but after all this time she surely would have retracted had she had any doubts. Do you think she had an accomplice, which would explain not finding the murder weapon and lack of gun residue on her hands?
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 10:41:AM
I think the suggestion might be that she was confused and had been led by the psychiatrists to say such a thing but after all this time she surely would have retracted had she had any doubts. Do you think she had an accomplice, which would explain not finding the murder weapon and lack of gun residue on her hands?

The surviving witness leaves little room for speculation
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 11:37:AM


Yes she did.

Her boyfiend was splitting up with her because of he didnt want to be her childrens step father. So killing them all was her way of solving that problem. One kid survived and testified at the trial. "Who shot you" the prosecutor asked. The witness answered "My mum"


i wouldent give much weiht to to testimony of aa child in shock child especaily who is now in the custody of the day thats dodgy as hell.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 11:49:AM
Anyone with half an eye could see that the woman was lying. Who did she think she was kidding ?  ::)
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 11:53:AM
how come they never found the gun and never produced any proof she owned one.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 12:05:PM
Anyone with half an eye could see that the woman was lying. Who did she think she was kidding ?  ::)

but they never pruduced ay psycall evdence to sayshe had shot anybody.

lookout as a nurse you must know the effect that shock has on peoples memory.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 12:23:PM
but they never pruduced ay psycall evdence to sayshe had shot anybody.

lookout as a nurse you must know the effect that shock has on peoples memory.







After only watching the first part of the video and her very " odd reaction " in that her car/children were blood-soaked ( she wasn't ) as well as her overall demeanour at presenting what allegedly happened I concluded that it must have been her. She also spoke precisely about what had happened.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 12:26:PM






After only watching the first part of the video and her very " odd reaction " in that her car/children were blood-soaked ( she wasn't ) as well as her overall demeanour at presenting what allegedly happened I concluded that it must have been her. She also spoke precisely about what had happened.

if somone goes through a trauma like that you cant expect 20 20 recolection thins like that effect your mentall state.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 12:31:PM
if somone goes through a trauma like that you cant expect 20 20 recolection thins like that effect your mentall state.






Anyone seeing their children get shot would give an immediate reaction.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 12:39:PM





Anyone seeing their children get shot would give an immediate reaction.

shock couses people to react in all sorts of different ways.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 01:37:PM
shock couses people to react in all sorts of different ways.






Yes I'm fully aware of that but a mother's reaction would be children first no matter what even if it meant her being shot in the process. A mother will throw her child from a burning building if it meant saving them, it's the natural thing which kicks in.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 01:42:PM
This was a woman who only thought about herself and her own future. A deadly combination when there were others to consider---------her young children who were sadly in the way of her pursuant happiness.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 02:20:PM
This is stupid

A surviving victim witnessed Diane Downs attempting to kill them. End of story.

Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 02:34:PM
It's the same old story of the children who are left to suffer during disputes.
This is why we as a country have so many " mis-placed " children who suffer severe separation problems when either parent finds a new partner and find themselves ignored or worse, not wanted.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 03:00:PM
This is stupid

A surviving victim witnessed Diane Downs attempting to kill them. End of story.
I agree with the substance but I think we'd just like to tie up loose ends like what happened to the murder weapon and the gun residue.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 03:02:PM
This is stupid

A surviving victim witnessed Diane Downs attempting to kill them. End of story.

and surivig victems never name the wrong person like it hasnt happend in hundreds of wrongfull convictions many of them proven to be wrongfull convictions.

Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 03:06:PM
I agree with the substance but I think we'd just like to tie up loose ends like what happened to the murder weapon and the gun residue.

well she was supposed to have washed off the gunshot resdiue in the hospitall.

but that is a hard thing to do when you have been shot in the arm.

as for the gun i saw no evdence presnted that she evr owned so were would she have got it from in the first place.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2018, 03:47:PM
well she was supposed to have washed off the gunshot resdiue in the hospitall.

but that is a hard thing to do when you have been shot in the arm.

as for the gun i saw no evdence presnted that she evr owned so were would she have got it from in the first place.





There are such shots where the gases etc remain inside the wound itself.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Caroline on August 15, 2018, 07:27:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUbirKQR62U
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 07:42:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUbirKQR62U
I remember this when it came out on television in 1989. To be fair to nugnug it's based on Ann Rule's book, which the Defence argued at trial was riddled with inaccuracies.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 08:55:PM
and surivig victems never name the wrong person like it hasnt happend in hundreds of wrongfull convictions many of them proven to be wrongfull convictions.

This was their own mother ffs. How they can mistake the "real killer" for their mum?  ???
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Caroline on August 15, 2018, 08:56:PM
I remember this when it came out on television in 1989. To be fair to nugnug it's based on Ann Rule's book, which the Defence argued at trial was riddled with inaccuracies.

No idea Steve.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 09:17:PM
No idea Steve.
I'm watching it now, recalling some scenes and forgetting others. I suppose she threw the gun into the Willamette river and it's lodged to this day in the sediment maybe.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 09:22:PM
This was their own mother ffs. How they can mistake the "real killer" for their mum?  ???

thers a famous case were a child dalsely acused her own uncle of atacking her down to the stress of the atack and manipuliation by the da.
 many kids in the 80s acused the parents of being members of ssatinic cults that practicid human sacrfice.

how could she get it wrong well the stress of the atack and presure and manipulation from the da.

it was explianed in the link i posted.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Caroline on August 15, 2018, 09:30:PM
thers a famous case were a child dalsely acused her own uncle of atacking her down to the stress of the atack and manipuliation by the da.
 many kids in the 80s acused the parents of being members of ssatinic cults that practicid human sacrfice.

how could she get it wrong well the stress of the atack and presure and manipulation from the da.

it was explianed in the link i posted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32357195
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 09:57:PM
"Much of the case against Downs rested on the testimony of surviving daughter Christie, who, once she recovered her ability to speak, described how her mother shot all three children while parked at the side of the road and then shot herself in the arm. "


Furthermore. She managed to get pregnant while in prison to postpone the trial. Then she managed to break out of prison and was on the run for 10 days.

Not the behaviour of an innocent person IMO.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 10:01:PM
"Much of the case against Downs rested on the testimony of surviving daughter Christie, who, once she recovered her ability to speak, described how her mother shot all three children while parked at the side of the road and then shot herself in the arm. "


Furthermore. She managed to get pregnant while in prison to postpone the trial. Then she managed to break out of prison and was on the run for 10 days.

Not the behaviour of an innocent person IMO.

what so sating geting pregnant makes you guilty i dont see the logic threre.

escaping just means you  think your going to be convicted and you might think that becouse your defence atorney told that.

Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2018, 10:05:PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32357195
[/quote

a good read thnkyou
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 11:08:PM
For those who want to watch the complete film there's another link here: https://youtu.be/BZRUh2tUv08
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 11:33:PM
..and the real Diane Downs here: https://youtu.be/fsV1u25eXR4
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2018, 11:43:PM
..and the child she had in prison. https://youtu.be/NNydAeEWSQo
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 11:56:PM
what so sating geting pregnant makes you guilty i dont see the logic threre.


I never said it did make you guilty. To see the logic you need to be able to take a hint from people's actions.


escaping just means you  think your going to be convicted and you might think that becouse your defence atorney told that.


She escaped three years after she was found guilty.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 15, 2018, 11:58:PM
..and the child she had in prison. https://youtu.be/NNydAeEWSQo

The fact she has a kid in prison shows how little she cares about her children.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 12:14:AM
The Defence is struggling here: https://youtu.be/QCsC2Foj8T0
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 12:15:AM
The fact she has a kid in prison shows how little she cares about her children.
Yes she blames everyone but herself. Remind you of anyone..
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 16, 2018, 08:23:AM
Yes she blames everyone but herself. Remind you of anyone..

A few  8)
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: lookout on August 16, 2018, 11:53:AM
The Defence is struggling here: https://youtu.be/QCsC2Foj8T0






Not surprising. It was a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Caroline on August 16, 2018, 12:40:PM
Yes she blames everyone but herself. Remind you of anyone..

Completely!  8)
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2018, 12:53:PM
how did she make a gun appear and dispear was it by magic.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 01:08:PM
how did she make a gun appear and dispear was it by magic.
She could have thrown it into the river or buried it, mailed it to an unknown address or had an accomplice take it away.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2018, 01:19:PM
She could have thrown it into the river or buried it, mailed it to an unknown address or had an accomplice take it away.

but theres no record of her ever owning a gun or buying a gun

where did she get this gun that nobody rembered seling to her nobody had ever seen before.

whos adress wuld of she have mailed it to.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 01:33:PM
but theres no record of her ever owning a gun or buying a gun

where did she get this gun that nobody rembered seling to her nobody had ever seen before.

whos adress wuld of she have mailed it to.
But they found bullets in her bedroom which had been fired with the same gun as the tragedy. Didn't you watch the Farrah Fawcett film?
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2018, 02:07:PM
But they found bullets in her bedroom which had been fired with the same gun as the tragedy. Didn't you watch the Farrah Fawcett film?

its a film steve ie a work of fictin loosely based on a reall event.

so she gets rid of the gun so well that nobody ever sees it again but  keeps the used shell casings is that likely.

why you want to keep used shell casings.

and could they say it was fired rom that gun if they never found the gun.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november182013/diane-downs-cc.php
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 04:00:PM
its a film steve ie a work of fictin loosely based on a reall event.

so she gets rid of the gun so well that nobody ever sees it again but  keeps the used shell casings is that likely.

why you want to keep used shell casings.

and could they say it was fired rom that gun if they never found the gun.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november182013/diane-downs-cc.php
I suppose she could have worn gloves and buried the weapon. Police often don't search thoroughly enough; there are many examples.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2018, 04:42:PM
I suppose she could have worn gloves and buried the weapon. Police often don't search thoroughly enough; there are many examples.

but how can the bullets were fired from the gun if they havent found the gun there statments are missleading at best.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2018, 06:08:PM
https://youtu.be/F6bTpzfC6mg
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 on August 16, 2018, 06:17:PM
how did she make a gun appear and dispear was it by magic.


She obtained the weapon illegally, discarded it and the police failed to recover it.

The only way this women can be exonerated is if two things happen. 1. Her daughter recants her testimony and 2. The "real killer" comes forward and admits to the crime.

We cant make any of this happen while chatting on a forum. So its a waste of time IMO.

To me no1 wont happen because its truthfull and no2 wont happen because the real killer is Diane Downs.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2018, 06:20:PM

She obtained the weapon illegally, discarded it and the police failed to recover it.

The only way this women can be exonerated is if two things happen. 1. Her daughter recants her testimony and 2. The "real killer" comes forward and admits to the crime.

We cant make any of this happen while chatting on a forum. So its a waste of time IMO.

To me no1 wont happen because its truthfull and no2 wont happen because the real killer is Diane Downs.

couldent the same thing be said about jeremy bamber.

or in fact any other case by that logic why does this forum even exit and why do we discuss any case.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on August 30, 2018, 02:30:PM
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salem-news.com%2Farticles%2Fmay202013%2Fdiane-downs-series-tk.php&h=AT0BpPOhSmL214g1xe8wKErgJ9_lqR2UwvHzqlAkdMHSPtN0TxZi9jv4VYlkWcXxNc8XiOfdm8uGLrOkEGzwHfok9C-UGZFFOqaS31K5AJ29Er7NegpJSFLCmWHYTATAw-4b7hX4G287jAH_HeQTaaZBKRvwq_skeWnk04dLjwWWVpgydQA-1GtkibTWFfQARlrJ-JK6bAw6IB2UuSctOjPnDBgjckY6Ks-T1V4cjC2WpgsSuK01YO_QlVQzGGxRN72gjOpF69521yywMUVgczF06Zyg8g3iAoWR-abJaFpGU8QKpsPNMZN4wHm7zUJfaHMk63IOJQHFLshZpEIIY6CK0v2GrNZX9mo
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on September 24, 2018, 11:20:AM
https://youtu.be/Z3G0cQXmD2c
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on September 24, 2018, 10:45:PM
https://youtu.be/Z3G0cQXmD2c
Her family are spinning a story about James Haynes killing her family in retaliation against her spying as a drug informant. It could explain why there was no gun residue on her hands. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may202013/diane-downs-series-tk.php


https://youtu.be/EyubbY8HZzY
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on October 08, 2018, 03:10:PM
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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk on October 10, 2018, 10:26:PM
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.
Maybe he got emotionally involved with them after the ordeal they had endured.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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?" 

Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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."
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 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)
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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
 
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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!
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 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? 
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Harry 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. 
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Diane downs.
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2018, 11:43:AM
so shes clever enough to get rid of the gun but for some reason shell casings in her bedroom for them to find.

well the hell would shell casings be in her bedrooom anyway had she been doing target practice in her bedroom.