Dinner at Grandparents

Dinner at Grandparents - the mnemonic of a lie

What about the part played by Court-appointed Attorney, Bill Furtick ? He got so tired of waiting for Dr. Peterson to mould Christie, that he made a list of things that the doctor was to help Christie remember, November 23, 1983, (App 50, p.p. 2043 - 4). Dr. Peterson needed time to get his ducks all in a row. He needed time incognito to see if he'd be able to move Christie in the direction prescribed by Mr. Furtick, so he worked on the girl for three weeks without making any notes about what took place during the sessions (App 89, p.p. 782 - 4). The very first words noted in the next session were, .."I want my mom to tell the truth," Christie cries, and adds, "then I won't have to try to remember anymore" (App 89, p. 785). Then Dr. Peterson took Christie through 'dinner at grandparents the day of the incident', (App 50, p. 2046). What had Dr. Peterson and Mr. Furtick been doing to Christie for a month to provoke that outburst and scenario?. That's the sort of gut-wrenching, case-clenching little detail that 'proves' a witness is telling the truth. This poor little girl remembers dinner with her grandma and grandpa and then minutes later, POW.

It was such moving detail that Dr. Peterson taught Christie to remember it along with all the other things he taught her to remember (App 50, p.p. 2046, 2048 and App 89, p.p. 785, 788). In fact, every time he rehearsed Christie on the events of the day of the incident he'd taught her to remember, he'd take her up to or through 'dinner at her grandparents'. Dinner was pivotal to the girl's memory. Investigators would have learned from neighbours that Diane and her children regularly shared the dinner table with the grandparents. Mr. Furtick probably thought that detail could be safely used to hook and anchor the memories Dr. Peterson would teach Christie to embrace.

But the reality was, Christie DID NOT have dinner with her grandparents the evening of the shooting.

The grandparents left for a community/function-dinner around 4: 30 pm. Christie had Ravioli at home with her siblings and mom. But neither Mr. Furtick nor Dr. Peterson could know that....and Christie couldn't remember it! She was 'taught' to remember events that NEVER took place.

Her entire 'memory' pivots around a dinner that never happened. Dr. Peterson drew a picture of the Palmer residence the family visited prior to the incident, complete with the horse in the 'front' pasture, (App 89, p. 754). In fact Dr. Peterson drew several pictures to try to teach Christie what to remember. Then when she successfully 'remembered' the horse in the front pasture, that was more proof that Christie remembers the attack...at least, that's what Dr. Peterson would have people believe. But the truth is, the horse was in the BACK pasture that night, as testified to by State witness Carolyn Palmer (App 91, p. 413). But what degree of integrity can be expected behind closed doors from a man who admittedly perjured himself in Court to damage Diane (App 89, p.p. 741-742).

Christie and Cheryl adopted a kitten five hours before the attack but Christie had no memory of it. Dr. Peterson didn't know to teach Christie to remember that. And her own mind was unable to recall things that 'really' happened. Now Christie's mind is so confused between fact and fiction that only Diane can help her gain reality. But reality and Christie's sanity were of little interest to Prosecutor Hugi. It is reported that Christie, even now, still wants to know what happened to her. Mr. Hugi testified he had no involvement with the psychological counseling process Christie was subjected to. He did recall talking to Dr. Peterson once (App 32, p.p.152-3) :

(Hugi): "I recall talking to Dr. Peterson once (9-27-83 AND 9-28-83., ref, App 50, p. 2032) when I needed to prepare an affidavit. This was after the unauthorized contact between Diane Downs and Christie Downs (10-2-83, of which Mr. Hugi had no knowledge of until 10-24- 83, ref, App 50, p. 2036)....I think I put it in a motion to postpone. ..the juvenile court proceeding (10-6-83...'THREE weeks before Mr. Hugi knew of the visit'!).

Mr Hugi (verbatim), "Dr Peterson informed me that it is his professional opinion that Christie will be able to describe that person and events surrounding the shooting in the future. Dr Peterson informed me he believes Christie should be able to do this within a period of four to six months. Dr Peterson is not in a position to know whether Christie's recollection will corroborate or contradict Elizabeth Diane Downs' recollection of the events", (App 50, p.2032).

Of course Dr. Peterson won't know yet, his rehearsal's with Christie weren't complete. This is Mr. Hugi being a little more explicit in his dealing's with Dr Peterson and the prize tool that he has control over in his deviant machinery (Christie). He is informing us that Christie 'will' testify and at the same time confirming the deadline to Dr. Peterson. And he knows full well that Christie will contradict her mom. She will be totally rehearsed by then. How is it possible to tell what a traumatized child will elicit in four to six months time?.......by looking into Mr. Hugi's crystal ball it would seem.

Prosecutor Hugi doesn't simply lie. He re-writes history to satisfy his own version of reality. He admits being interested in Christie's progress with Dr. Peterson, but denies asking the doctor about it. He denies telling the doctor they were running out of time and that they need something from Christie (App 32, p.p. 154-5). But Dr. Peterson documents his meetings with Mr. Hugi on the 9-27-83 and the 9-28-83 (meetings Mr. Hugi had just admitted to before he denied them). Meetings in which Prosecutor Hugi gave Dr. Peterson 4-6 months to get Christie online (App 50, p. 2032). There was a lot of public and media pressure to conclude the case, (App 32, p. 155). And from that point on Dr. Peterson ceased to be a Mental Health care-giver and became Mr. Hugi's instrument in Christie's destruction.

back Top next