|
Links:
|
Detective
Jon Peckles conducted the gunshot residue test at the hospital on
Diane, he also photographed the results, (see rpt.)
At midnight, her face, arms, hands, and chest were photographed and preserved for
evidentiary purposes. The photographs proved beyond doubt that
Diane did not wash her hands the night of the shooting. Transfer
blood from her own wound was dried on her hands and between her fingers, as
evidenced by the blood her hand had transferred to the collar of her
T-shirt. If she had washed her
hands of gunshot residue that blood would have been washed away with it.
This evidence was extremely important in light of the fact that the gunshot
residue test proved Diane had not fired a gun. At such close range the shooter would have received a significant amount of ‘blow back’ spatter on their person. This is blood and possibly tissue (forming as ‘spatter’) that ‘rebounds’ from where it impacts, back towards the vicinity of the force that delivered it. The muzzle of the gun was within 0 - 9 inches of each of the five wounds. Photographs reveal blood spatter on the ceiling, windows and seat. Everywhere except on Diane. It is impossible for her to have come out of the maelstrom clean. There was no such spatter found on her clothing, hair or anywhere else. To have cleansed herself of it between the incident and arrival at the hospital is totally absurd. The only blood that was discovered on her was on her jeans and this was shown to have 'dripped' onto them, confirmed by their shape or form. The above hospital photograph, which was subsequently destroyed by the State, showed Diane's tear-streaked face, puffed-eyes, and distraught condition. A total contradiction of the State's claim that Diane was apathetic to the plight of her dying children, (App; 20; 23 and p. 81). Hospital staff described Diane's demeanor in a variety of ways, from flat to bizarre. This from a few minutes of contact with Diane, here and there, but they all agreed her behavior was out of the norm. So what behavior is expected of someone who's children and they themselves have been involved in such a brutal attack ?. Shock is as much a phenomenon of human behavior as other responses to traumatic events. Not necessarily predictable and can manifest itself in a number of ways. Some of the hospital staff's observations merely increased the importance of the police officer's testimony that Diane was laughing and apathetic. Those testimonies were blatant lies and the photograph taken of Diane that night in the hospital proved that she was crying, heart-broken, and suffering. Hospital staff described Diane's demeanor in a variety of ways, from flat to bizarre. This from a few minutes of contact with Diane, here and there, but they all agreed her behavior was out of the norm. So what behavior is expected of someone who's children and they themselves have been involved in such a brutal attack ?. Shock is as much a phenomenon of human behavior as other responses to traumatic events. Not necessarily predictable and can manifest itself in a number of ways. Some of the hospital staff's observations merely increased the importance of the police officer's testimony that Diane was laughing and apathetic. Some of these assessments were borne out of ignorance and lack of training. However a more professional assessment of Diane's mental state/behaviour was recorded by nursing staff in a report as follows: Hospital Admission Data PATIENT'S NAME: Elizabeth Diane Downs DATE: 5-20-83 TIME: 0305 INITIAL SYSTEM ASSESSMENT: Psych/Soc: " In shock - unable to comprehend enormity of child's death & other children's injuries." PATIENT'S UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITION: "Not comprehending injury or circumstances..." NURSING CARE PLAN: " 1 child murdered, 2 injured in unknown circumstances....she will need lots of support. Does not realize extent of tragedy as yet. Parents very supportive.", (Form # 12-601.002). The photograph was also the only one of more than 200 taken by the State at the hospital not given to the Defense. In May,1984 when Defense Attorney Jagger asked Detective Peckles where the photograph was, the Detective told him the negative was being retained by the police department and he could pick it up himself. He never did. Jagger later admitted that the photograph... "would have aided my Defense of Ms. Downs", (App, 18; 88 and 100, p. 420, line 8), as he later testified:
Q:
(Gorham) "How would you throw in the fact that the State at least
appeared to make a big deal about her
A:
(Jagger) "Well that was a sword that cut both
directions....So you try and make those things a non-issue as
Q: "One way to do that would have been... is if you had had a picture of
her crying at the hospital, correct "?
A: "Well, I guess if we had a picture of her crying at the hospital...She
was in fact just like a...like the In June,1991, with the aid of another Attorney, Diane again attempted to lay hold of the photograph to prove once and for all she did not wash her hands the night of the shooting and that she was distressed and crying. The State then claimed the photograph had 'never' been developed!!. Mr Peckle's testified that the roll of film that didn't develop.... "was the roll of film that was taken inside the emergency room of Cheryl Downs and of Miss Downs arm", (App102, p. 503). So how come all photographs of Cheryl taken before midnight and all photographs of the car taken after midnight developed without a problem ?. The importance of that anomaly was not lost on Mr. Jagger in 1991, (App100, p.149, lines 21-24) when he said that it could have...."been used to set up that officers could make mistakes. Sometimes, that can be used to sort of talk about they might have made mistakes in other areas". Mr Jagger is being far too generous in my view or far too naive to accord such events as 'mistakes'. But why wasn't he thinking that way in 1984 when Detective Peckles told him to come get the negative? There is no better way to exculpate a Defendant than to use an incontrovertible photograph that (as a bonus) proves the State's witnesses to be liars. It is reasonable to believe that the photograph vindicating Diane existed in 1984 because Detective Peckles said it was there. Defense counsel's refusal to claim it, left the jury with the mistaken belief that Diane washed her hands of gunshot residue and that she didn't care about her children. It also gave the State ample opportunity to decide how best to deal with that troublesome evidence. They destroyed it so Diane would never be able to use it in appeal or retrial. Mr. Jagger could have, and should have claimed that photograph and used it to defend his client, but he did not. Police Report-Judy Patterson Nurse, Judy Patterson was the witness the State produced to convince the jury Diane washed her hands of gunshot residue before she was tested and photographed. In May,1984, Ms. Patterson told the jury Diane went into the emergency room bathroom, left the door open, and ran the water in the sink (App 87). Another blatant lie. One year earlier, just days after Diane and her children arrived at the ER the night of the shooting. Ms. Patterson told Detective Pond that Diane went nowhere near the bathroom (App 62). When asked again a week later, she was certain Diane had not washed her hands. The day after Ms. Patterson lied to the jury, Diane put that police report into Defense counsel's hands and asked Jagger to make the witness tell the jury the truth. Mr. Jagger refused, and in fact never called Ms. Patterson to make the truth known to the jury.
X-rays
|