Broderick

This is classic brainwashing technique. This 8-year old child was led from 'not knowing', to 'wondering', to 'imagining', to 'supposing'. All the while being guided by State agents and still Christie did not say her mom shot her. Only that everyone else did. So Prosecutor Hugi sent his Investigator, Ray Broderick to Christie to wrap things up. Mr. Hugi testified Broderick went to Christie after she told the doctor her mom shot her and that he was surprised by that information (App 32, p.p. 123, 132). But the truth is Christie told Dr. Peterson "my mom did it" January 9, 1984, because of her meeting with Broderick. And Dr. Peterson immediately reported the events to the Attorney's that day (App 50, p. 2057). Had Christie named her mom as the shooter before Broderick's clandestine visit, Mr. Hugi would not have been surprised to hear it from Broderick, nor would he have felt compelled to send Broderick in the first place.

There is no question that Dr. Peterson, Ray Broderick, Susan Staffel and Paula Krogdahl played an important role in coercing Christie to lie in court to name her mom as the shooter. And Prosecutor Hugi clearly knew of the coercion of Christie but allowed his instruments to lie in court in order to support his demonizing of Diane Downs and gain a conviction. He devised strategy with Dr. Peterson to get Christie on their team. And gave him a deadline to accomplish the deed. He knew Ray Broderick went to collect on the concerted effort when the deadline came due. Prosecutor Hugi knew Christie's testimony was coerced because he was the director of the entire production. He has the audacity of a man who operates without conscience which explains his propensity for lying and coercing witnesses.

There is evidence however, recovered from Christie's unconscious responses that she did see the shooter. And it wasn't her mom. This was revealed when she made sketch’s with Dr Peterson. While Christie's reclining or prone position at the time of the shooting would have prevented her gaining a view of the attacker it would seem she has some recollection of him. Her sketch shows a male shooter with the gun in his 'left' hand, ( Diane is right handed). He is wearing a long-sleeved, solid coloured jacket (Diane was wearing a plaid, flannel shirt, with the sleeves rolled up at the time of the incident). Examination of Christie's other sketches shows she pays particular attention to the detail of stripes and plaids. Her omission of stripes and plaids on the murderer's long sleeve’s, proves Diane's arm was not holding the gun that shot her.

This independent recollection forced from her unconscious mind by Dr. Peterson on March 5, 1984 depicted the physical visage of James Clair Haynes (discussed below) in 1983. This revelation is especially telling in the light of the fact that Christie was denied ALL contact with her mom (who was probably the only person to see their attacker’s face). Christie admitted two months after creating her sketch that she didn't even know her mom reported a male stranger as their attacker. She had never seen her mom's composite of the man who shot them. And yet, both Christie's sketch and her mom's composite identify James Haynes as their attacker.

Prosecutor Hugi commanded Dr. Peterson to make Christie draw a composite of her attacker to seal his case. And Christie drew a left-handed gunman with a short-shag haircut, wearing a long-sleeved Levi jacket. Exactly as Diane described their attacker nine months earlier. (see page).

back Top next