|
Links:
|
Optomen Productions Optomen Productions are a UK based, independent television production company who make documentaries for various television networks. They also have an office in New York where they produce or co-produce programmes for US networks. One such programme made by the company for the Discovery Channel is the forensic documentary, 'Most Evil', a programme that highlights notorious murder cases. The programme is hosted by forensic psychiatrist and Florida businessman, Dr Michael Stone. Dr Stone endeavours to 'decode' the 'minds' of the criminals by looking into their motive and method. Following his examination Dr Stone then quantifies their 'evil' using a scale that he has developed and which has a range of 1-22. The greater the number indicates the greater degree of evil. These behaviours are also defined by psychological definitions of mental disorder. Prior to some of these evaluations Dr Stone sometimes gains access to the individuals convicted of the crime. He can then personally question the subjects about their crime and in doing so obtain a greater insight into his subject and the crime they were convicted for. One subject featured in the recent series that Dr Stone did not meet however was Diane Downs. And whilst heinous crimes may be deserving of this kind of recognition, I do not believe that Diane Downs should have been included. My reason for that and, my reason for the comments below, is simply that I do not believe that Diane Downs committed the crime in the first place. Therefore any such analyses regarding Diane Downs in my view is purely hypothetical. Having watched the programme in which Most Evil featured the Downs case I will therefore respond to certain claims that were made in the programme. And I wish to emphasise that I refer only to the Diane Downs case in the programme and no other. And what comments I do have to say, is not to be construed as an attack on the honesty, nor the integrity of Dr Stone. Those featured in the programme (with the exception of the Black Dahlia case and it's theory) have all been found 'guilty' and convicted by the courts of course. As such we have a population that can appropriate a kind of 'open season' on the 'causes and effects' of their behaviour from any number of opinions and professions. And many have. Along with his own views Dr Stone also parades a varied field of 'experts' or professionals in the programme who also seek to gain a greater understanding of abnormal behaviour. Each with claims of discovery, new methods or tools that can reveal, and even predict, abnormal behaviour. For those unaware of 'scientific method', no doubt it may all appear very convincing. For those who are aware of scientific method however, what is claimed as 'scientific fact' can often invite debate, not least of all because of the unforgiving flaws of scientific method, but also 'how' and, by 'whom' were the 'scientific facts' achieved. 'Scientific fact' can sometimes be no more than mere ambitious or arrogant dogma or at worst, bad or corrupt practice. That does not mean that I reject claims of scientific fact per se. On the 9th of May, 2007 I was contacted by a researcher (who shall remain anonymous) working for Optomen Productions. It was sent to me in the form of an e-mail and which read as follows: Dear Oregon Trial, "I am working on a documentary series for the Discovery Channel, and we would like to profile Diane Downs in relation to some other cases. We try our best to present facts and science as a basis for our show. The show is heavy in psychology and forensics. To this end, in profiling Diane, we want to tell the most truthful story possible. In reading your site, I found several new facts, interviews, as well as supporting hospital documents. I wanted to ask you if you have any leads as far as access to these documents. Is there anyone I should definitely speak to in my research? I have been in touch with the D.A.s office and the courts, but if you know of anyone who may still hold these original documents, I would really appreciate their information or you passing on my email. Most helpful in revisiting these stories visually are things like, photos, audio tapes, and original documents like the hospital reports you show on your site. If you have any information about getting access to these, it may aid in getting a more correct story out to the public". I was pleased of course that the company had contacted me considering that this was a very important issue in the light of Diane's denial of the crime and her continuing fight for justice. I informed the researcher that I only possessed copies of the original documents and that releasing them would require Diane's approval because they were her property, not mine. I also told them that what documentation I have is basically what is published on the website. Two weeks later another researcher and colleague of the first, sent me the following e-mail: "My name is ......... and I am a colleague of .........., she contacted you regarding the Diane Downs original documentation. I am following up on possible access to these documents. I have come across trouble finding any archived materials from the trial and was wondering what you have access to. Would it be best for me to give you or your associate a ring in the next few days so we can discuss this? You mentioned that you spoke with Ms. Downs concerning this, and I was just following up".
|