|
Links:
|
A number of quotes were stated on the programme which they said were made by Diane Downs and which I would like to comment upon. One such quote claimed that when informed by doctors that two of her children would survive, Diane supposedly remarked, "the bullet missed Danny's heart?". To my knowledge I cannot recall ever seeing that being said and certainly have not seen such a statement in any document. It is not claimed in Ann Rule's book about the case, nor have I seen it documented by the Prosecution during trial. And these are two individuals that would not miss such an opportunity with this kind of a statement. And even if it was ever said, I cannot believe for a moment that it would have been said in the context in which it was quoted by the programme. It's intention was obviously to give the impression that Diane was a heartless killer by suggesting that she was in some way, 'disappointed'. Dramatic licence at it's most insidious is my guess. The programme also claimed that Diane 'attempted suicide' when she was thirteen years old. That is news to her parents and to many other people, including Diane. A few lines, selected, they claimed, from one of Diane's letter's to her lover at the time, Nick. It would be interesting first of all to know just 'who' gave them access to such letter's because the owner, Diane Downs, certainly did not. The lines quoted however said, "I love you so very much and know that you should be with me. One day you will come around". Excuse me for not being alarmist but does that sound like the kind of sentiment that harbours the pathology to kill your children? I think not. Nevertheless I feel compelled to expand a little on this and put such things into perspective which obviously the programme does not. The reality was that Diane got fed up with waiting for Nick to 'come around' and he became her 'ex' lover. So much of an 'ex' in fact that Diane took her children and moved 1.500 miles away to Oregon to start a new life because she was tired of Nick's demands and she was fully aware that he had no intention of leaving his wife. Such quotes are completely meaningless and misrepresentative. It simply illustrates a media mentality that often sees the inmate as 'fair game'. In a reference to Diane's daughter Christie, testifying against her mother. The programme stated that she (Christie), "finally spoke up about that night". At the time of the trial Christie was a nine year old child and had spent a long time in hospital and was not fully recovered when, more out of expediency than any pursuit of the truth or, welfare of the child, she was intimidated and manipulated into attending the trial by the Prosecutor. Regardless that she was still under medication and suffering partial paralysis. Medication it must be said that was not just administered above the prescribed dosage, but with side effects that can interfere with the brains mental processes (see). A further omission was the fact that later when attending school and asked by a close friend about her ordeal at trial when she accused her Mom. Christie replied, "I only said it so they would leave me alone". 'They', meaning 'the authorities', (see pages,'Coercion' & 'Children'). Following one of his interviews with an inmate featured in Most Evil. Dr Stone in part of his of assessment of the inmate commented that, "but she has been found guilty of murder". Let us for a moment then take what appears to be Dr Stone's, as well as the programmes, absolute position of a courts outcome and apply it to the following inmates whilst they are incarcerated in their respective prisons. We can also (hypothetically) feature them in Most Evil. Perhaps they may even be fortunate enough to receive a visit from Dr Stone: Robert Cruz, convicted and sentenced to death for hiring three men to kill another man; Sonia Jacobs, and Jesse Tafero, convicted and sentenced to death for murdering two policemen; Alan Crotzer, convicted and sentenced to 130 years for rape and armed robbery; Clarence Brandley, convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder. There are many more, far too many to mention here. Nevertheless the few mentioned above display heinous crimes, committed by equally heinous people. The fact is that all those above are now 'free' people. The reason being that although the courts found them 'guilty'. They were in fact 'innocent'. Before their innocence was discovered however, some had spent many years in prison. Some have been released as recently as 2006 and 2004 (for Jesse Tafero the evidence that exonerated her of the crime came too late, she was executed in 1990). Many such prisoners have been released from a possible life behind bars or worse, execution. And not necessarily the result of DNA evidence. It is well documented that many in authority, law agencies and the judicial system itself have themselves faced the courts for illegal or corrupt practices. And it is worth noting with the few above, that 'scientific facts' played a part in their wrongful convictions. The point I am making is that the above ex-inmates would no doubt have appropriated labels of an abnormal mind by Most Evil. Labels that had their cases been highlighted or featured would have been a gross distortion of the truth because court outcomes are not infallible nor absolute. And that appears to be the premise on which Most Evil bases it's programme that, 'if found guilty by the courts, then you must be guilty'. I find it a false premise in the case of Diane Downs. Her claim that her conviction was the result of bad science, and a rogue authority and led by a naive judiciary, is not one of mere fantasy but one of a not unknown possibility. Wrong outcomes in the courts are not just the monopoly of insignificant or petty crimes. It has been witnessed in the most serious cases, many times over. And I do not subscribe to the naive and nonsense view that 'all' prisoners are innocent. I have tried to show in this response, my belief in the innocence of Diane Downs only. I appreciate that Dr Stone's task is to attempt to explain the mental disorders associated with crime and criminal presented to him by the programme and not to examine points of law or investigation. He deals with his subjects retrospectively of course following a courts outcome. Therefore he is not personally expected to look into the cases he presents in a thorough way. Although more than a mere cursory knowledge of the case would be needed to serve his purposes. Thorough examination is the work of the company's researches and in the case of Diane Downs I have found them badly wonting. And for this reason I have corresponded my deep concerns to the executive producer of the programme, Most Evil. I only hope they can reciprocate my willingness to assist them in their research when it was requested and, provide for me the evidence and sources for which they make some of their claims. So far however, I have received no response.
|