OPr2

I replied saying that it can take a number of weeks for my correspondence to reach Diane because of the Facility's incoming mail procedures. I informed them that I was willing, nevertheless, to talk with them. They replied to me saying...."we are still heavy in research but I will be in contact beginning of next week". I never heard from the company again.

In my view there was sufficient evidence for them to at least give the story the dignity of further enquiry or discussion with myself, colleagues, attorney's, family, or Diane herself. To my knowledge they did not consult with any of these. And I am left wondering about the ethos of their programme that claims they want to produce... 'the most truthful story possible'. Perhaps further inquiry by the company into what we have to say got in the way of a tight schedule, I don't know. Since being contacted by Optomen Productions more evidence has arisen that gives even further weight to Diane's claim of innocence in the crime. Including taped interviews and affidavits by witnesses regarding the person who we believe was the real shooter.

As stated earlier, Dr Stone often invites guest 'experts' onto his show to explain their particular diagnostic tools, theories, even what they claim are 'scientific facts' regarding human behaviour or responses. Some of these I found interesting, some very dubious, and some quite frankly, amusing.

Take Dr Mark Frank for example, a Social Psychologist from the University of New York, Buffalo. Dr Frank claims to have identified no less than '44' tiny facial movements that reveal 'deceit'!. Using a video of Diane Downs being interviewed shortly after the shooting. Dr Frank pointed out for Most Evil some of these 'deceitful' facial, or muscular movements exhibited by Diane. What I personally saw however was someone who was ashen faced and in deep shock having just been confronted by a madman with fatal consequences. But Dr Frank appears to be indifferent to the fact that shock can affect different people in different ways. Diane was observed by Dr Frank as she talked about the attack. This of course meant that she had to relive the experience of which 'fear' played a major part. But in order to support his theory he sees only negative responses. Whereas I see 'obvious' ones. The word 'obvious' of course has no place in such a 'science', in fact it is strictly taboo in explanations of human behaviour, unacceptably too simplistic. What is simplistic, is to accord whatever judgement or theory you care to on this kind of subject 'after' they have already been judged with the finality of judicial process. And that's partly why I found Dr Frank's claims utter nonsense.

Dr Stone's analysis and labelling of Diane Downs however wasn't the first. Psychologist, Dr Polly Jamison carried out a more 'formal' diagnosis. Dr Jamison provided therapy for Diane Downs to help her cope with the stress of the shooting and the investigation prior to any charges ever being brought. When eventually she subjected Diane to a psychological 'personality test'. Unlike Dr Stone's own 'personal' scale. Dr Jamison applied one of the most frequently used personality tests in the mental health fields, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) which is a serious and comprehensive personality test that is used to detect psychiatric problems. The results of her tests showed that Diane was within the range of what is considered 'normal personality'. 'Normal' people do not kill. She did not find a 'deviant sociopath' as the Prosecutor was to tell the jury at her trial (such a disorder in fact doesn't even exist). When Dr Jamison learned that the Prosecutor had lied by misrepresenting her results of Diane Downs she vigorously protested to both Counsel's and the presiding, Judge Foote. Her protests were ignored however and the Prosecutor would not allow Dr Jamison to give evidence at trial, (see, Trial).

"She buried the evidence" Dr Stone went on to say. As to whether this indicates mental suppression or simply physical, I know not. What I do know is that shortly after the shooting Diane passed a gun residue test on her hands (see). Tests on her person found no evidence whatsoever that could link her to the crime, including having 'buried' anything. This was supported by the time scale alone between the crime and her arrival at the hospital. Had she been the shooter, it would have taken at minimum, a bath or shower and a complete change of clothing to escape any trace evidence. A massive search carried out in the vicinity of the crime found nothing that could link Diane Downs to the crime in this way. On the other hand if Dr Stone is suggestion that Diane thought that she could simply 'bluff' her way out of the crime. Then I think he is giving her intelligence too much credit. Yes, she is a bright girl and clever enough to realise probably that she would not get away with such a heinous crime. Her ex-husband said she 'would never harm the kids'. She also told Nick when they were in the relationship that she, and she alone, would attend the kids upbringing. That apart, there is the simple matter of the great love she had for her children.

Following Diane Downs most recent Board of Parole (BOP) petition for early release consideration. A psychiatrists report presented to the Board on Diane's behalf attributed 'no' personality disorders to her. In fact in his report the psychiatrist remarked on her exemplary behaviour during the many years she has been incarcerated at the Facility. A letter also presented on Diane's behalf by a senior member of the prison staff, similarly agreed. The BOP however chose a cynical and negative approach to this support. Following this Diane's father engaged another psychiatrist and she was again subjected to a personality test after which the psychiatrist came to the same conclusion as the first (State) psychiatrist. He reported no 'personality disorders'.