Text        

Text Diane1404

               Diane Downs 2004                   2011                  2014

Diane Downs' case resuming

Albi Chapel

>      T H E  O R E G O N  T R I A L      <

highlighting the conspiracy within investigation, trial, and conviction

Page 1: The account for TV movie "Small Sacrifices"

Page 2: MANIPULATED WITNESS

Page 3: FABRICATED EVIDENCE

Page 4: Oregons Special Code of Professional Conduct

Page 5: INHUMAN IMPRISONMENT

Page 6: OREGON's TRIO NOIR
               
State’s Accuser
                State’s Judge
                Defender

Page 7: WITHHELD DOCUMENTS

FINIS:   Summary of Oregons ethics: Institutional Blackmailing

 

text

           

We rededicate


Four letters may explain

Letter 1

The Governor Ted Kulongoski

160 State Capitol
900 Court Street

Salem, Oregon 97301-4047

5th February, 2009

RE: Oregon's Honorable Society by way of example Diane Downs' case, SID 6546106

Dear Governor Kulongoski:

            In a letter dated September 9, 1993, I already approached your predecessor, Governor Barbara Roberts, in the matter of Ms. Diane Downs. This is a widely known case that has raised considerable concern about Oregon’s justice system, going as far as corruption in connection with drugs and drug use by the lead district attorney. This has not changed in the 26 years since the event that took place in 1983, and the extremely dubious trial that followed. On the contrary! The conclusion presents itself that the governor is protecting the state authorities.

            According to Article IV of the Oregon Constitution, the Governor appoints vacancies in Circuit Court Judges, Court of Appeals Judges, Supreme Court Justices, Justices of the Peace, and District Attorneys.

As early as three weeks after the crime in which one child died and Ms. Downs, although having been shot herself, took her injured children to the hospital, Juvenile Court Judge Gregory Foote took these children from Diane Downs and their grandparents and placed them in questionable state care. There they stayed until a year later that self-same Judge Foote had been transferred to the Criminal Court and thereupon took on that criminal case as his first case on his new job, although it represented a conflict of interest, and a violation of the legal integrity of a civilized country.

            A further incredible facet of this case was the consequent adoption of these children by Attorney Fred Hugi, who was prosecuting this case, and whose wife could not have children. Moreover, this involves the only eye witness to the crime, Christie Downs, who at the time of the crime was eight years old, and who testified against her mother after what must be assumed to have been brainwashing by the authorities. Psychologist Deborah Frisch commented on this as follows:

 “The only non-circumstantial evidence in support of the allegation that Ms. Downs shot her children was the testimony of Christie Downs, who was coached for almost a year by former Lane County District Attorney Fred Hugi. [Note: It is not clear why Mr. Hugi continued to prosecute Ms. Downs on behalf of Lane County District Attorney Harcleroad after he decided he wanted to adopt Christie and Danny Downs. The unbelievable conflict of interest that existed when former Lane County Deputy District Attorney Hugi prosecuted the mother of the children he wanted to adopt is beyond the scope of this letter.]

            “The unreliability of children’s testimony has been documented by cognitive psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington, Stephen Ceci of Cornell, and others… The harm done to families by unscrupulous district attorneys who bully children into falsely testifying against their parents has recently been documented in a documentary called “Witch Hunt” by Sean Penn about Kern County, CA District Attorney Ed Jagels. There is no way that a jury would convict Ms. Downs today, based on the clearly coached testimony of Christie Downs (by a man who wanted to adopt her). http://www.bakersfield.com/142/story/593106.html

            All concerns have been presented earlier to the administration and the judicial authorities by the late Thomas A. Billings Ph.D. and me. Even when in 1994, several witnesses presented affidavits that someone else, a certain James Claire Haynes, was publicly boasting of the crime, and when at last documents turned up that had been kept from the defense, the State of Oregon made no move to reopen the case in order to rehabilitate the credibility of the judicial system and bring the real murderer to justice. LCDA Pat Horton, Fred Hugi’s boss, known in the [drug] scene as “Snortin’ Horton” had an obvious interest in eliminating Diane Downs and had found out about it: “James Claire Haynes was paid $25,000 by then LCDA Horton to shoot the Downs family.” This was an event that originated in the drug scene and ended in criminal behavior on the part of state jurists.

            When in December 2008, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision publicly entered the case, it caused renewed astonishment. “The board’s decisions are based on applicable laws, victims’ interests, public safety, and the recognized principles of offender behavioral change.” This is what the regulations say; but once again, the State of Oregon did not abide by its own rules! And after all, “The governor appoints the members for four-year terms and also appoints the chair and vice-chair.”

            What else could happen? As early as 2007, there was an unsuccessful attempt at blackmail by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh, who stated: “Notably, Downs has not accepted responsibility for her crimes of conviction, and maintains to this day that the state authorities framed her.” But as if this were not enough, in his letter of November 14, 2008, to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Lane County District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad added his mite. He intentionally confused the board members with jurors, and ignored that no summary plea was necessary. In addition to pages of arguments on the fear of the former prosecutor Fred Hugi, who had stolen the children through juridical tricks, he pleaded in total disregard of the functions of the Board appointed by you: “Downs continues to fail to demonstrate any honest insight into her criminal behavior.” “She continues to blame others for the commission of her crimes, and blames her attorney, the police officers, the prosecutor, and others for her convictions. Even after her convictions, she continues to fabricate new versions of the events under which the crimes occurred.”

            The demand for an admission of guilt is illegal, be it before or after conviction! Otherwise we would be finding ourselves transported back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition and torture. I am sure that Oregon’s BOARDS & COMMISSIONS – ETHICS LAW SUMMARY of the September 9, 2008 Agenda has made clear: “Prohibition on using public office for financial gain – Conflict of interest declarations: When and how to declare conflicts” is fully applicable also to district attorneys and judges.

            Diane Downs in EXHIBIT O, Administrative Review Request Form, Jan. 21, 09, shows a clear understanding of the purposes of the Board:

- “There is no substantial evidence to support a finding of DANGEROUSNESS because Dr. Williams (Board-appointed psychiatrist) DETERMINED the above-named (Downs) was not a danger to herself or to society.”

- “The Board action is inconsistent with its rules or policies and the inconsistency was not adequately explained in that ORS 1444 228 and OAR 255-38-005 rely ONLY on the PSYCH EVALUATION to determine DANGEROUSNESS. Mr. Powers said in his opinion, the Board had the authority to override the Psych. Eval. and retain the prisoner. This is incorrect. The law says the Board SHALL RELEASE the prisoner when the psych. determines the prisoner to be not dangerous.”

- “The Board action is in violation of statutes and/or constitutions because all prisoners under ORS  161.725 shall be heard by the full 5-Members Panel. Only 3 Parole Board Members heard Downs on 12/9/08.”

The Board hearing was conducted by video transmission and not in direct contact like Dr. Williams’ Evaluation.

            Please understand that I want to make sure by this letter that you are formally aware of this incredible case – for the benefit of the people of Oregon.

 

Very sincerely yours,

Franz Kurz

Member of Registered Society for the Support of Offenders

within the Association for Probation and Offenders' Assistance.

Letter 2:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

to governor kulongoski re: diane downs

Dear Governor Kulongoski,

As you know, you were Oregon attorney general during at least one of the half dozen habeas corpus petitions/other civil suits filed by Elizabeth Diane Downs in the United States District Court of Oregon. As you know, you actively engaged in behaviors intended to deny Ms. Downs her right to due process.

As you know, Ms. Downs has been wrongfully imprisoned for 25 years for a crime financed by former Lane County District Attorney J. Patrick Horton and committed by James Claire Haynes, Mr. Horton's colleague in the Free Souls motorcycle gang/Lane County drug cartel. You, former USDC-OR Chief Judge Ancer Haggerty, USDC-OR Judge Malcolm Marsh, USDC-OR Magistrate Thomas Coffin, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex "boner4bovines" Kozinski and dozens of other taxpayer-financed lawyers (Greg Foote, Fred Hugi, Alex Gardner, Doug Harcleroad, Wendy Willis, Steve Wax, Renee Manes, Steve Gorham, Jim Jagger, etc.) have colluded to repeatedly and intentionally violate the fourteenth amendment and other constitutionally protected civil rights of Ms. Downs.

As you know, USDC-Chief Judge Ann Aiken was a Lane County Circuit Court Judge at the time that LCCC Judge Greg Foote, Deputy LCDA Fred Hugi and defense attorney Jim Jagger (husband of LCCC Judge Lauren Holland) conspired to wrongfully convict and sentence Ms. Downs for the crimes financed by former LCDA Horton and committed by Haynes. Ms. Aiken chose to procreate five times with Jim Klonoski. Ms. Holland chose to procreate four times with Jim Jagger. Between the two of them, LCCC Judge Holland and USDC-OR Chief Judge Aiken have borne enough progeny of Jims to field an entire baseball team. These two prolific mothers have knowingly allowed a mother whose children were viciously assaulted to be incarcerated for a quarter of a fucking century. Ms. Downs has been forced to represent herself and has been forced to repeatedly relive the day (May 19, 1983) when her daughter Cheryl was murdered, her son Dan was paralyzed and her daughter Christie was brain-damaged. She has been forced to relive the trial where Christie was brainwashed to testify against her mother and her lawyer Jim Jagger repeatedly and intentionally acted in ways to assist the prosecution. If the guy in the sky hallucinated by many of y'all exists, James Jagger Holland will burn for eternity, as will Gregory Faggot Foote.

I find it unbelievable that former LCCC Judge/USDC-OR Chief Aiken and LCCC Judge Holland continue to allow a mother whose children were assaulted BY THE LANE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY to be incarcerated for the crimes against them. I am outraged that Ann and Lauren have chosen and continue to choose to force Diane to relive the trauma of the day that her children were assaulted for a quarter of a century.

The Eugene Register Guard, Eugene Weekly, Willamette Week and Portland Oregonian have chosen not to investigate the allegations made by me, Wesley Frederickson and Franz Kurz for the last six months. At some point, the truth will come out and the non-evidence-based Oregon media will be mocked in the national media along with the non-evidence-based Oregon criminal injustice system.

It is not a question of if this story becomes national news, Ted, it's a question of when. I'm hoping soon because I am tired of thinking about it. I want to take the picture drawn by 8 year old Christie of a left-handed man holding a gun and the drawing of the crime scene by Diane showing that the shooter HAD to be left-handed and all the rest of it and put it away. I want to watch X-files reruns and stop thinking about you and Tommy Coffin and Annie Aiken and all the rest of you.

I am writing to plead with you and to cajole you and to coax you into asking Oregon Board of Parole Chair Vicki Walker (who like you, was inspired to go into politics by Dr. Klonoski-Aiken) to exercise her Oregon Revised Statutes given right to reconsider a parole request at any time.

I promise, you do not want to hear my next round of jokes about Jim Klonoski, Ancer Haggerty and Tommy Coffin. Ann was achin' for an A from Dr. Klonoski but instead she got....Please, please, please ask Ms. Walker to publicly announce that she is exercising her ORS-given right to reconsider the parole request from Ms. Downs, this time, perhaps, providing Ms. Downs with legal representation other than herself.

Sincerely,

Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
Eugene, OR

Letter 3:

4 March 2014

John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4047

Dear Governor Kitzhaber:

              I am the mother of Diane Downs.  My husband has written three letters to you and has never been given the decency of a reply.  I'm wondering if that is the policy for the state of Oregon or just your own policy.

              I have a few questions that I would like answered, if you don't mind.  The first has bothered me for many years.  Why was Prosecutor Fred Hugi given the option of adopting my two grandchildren with no consideration given to me or some other member of my family?  When I asked for visitation rights, to visit my grandchildren, I received a letter from Fred Hugi's  attorney telling me that I was a complete stranger to my grandchildren.  That hurt me deeply.  My grandchildren were especially close to me.  They stayed with me when my daughter Elizabeth Diane Downs worked as a letter carrier in the Eugene Post Office and my husband was the Postmaster of the Springfield Post Office.  Why wasn't I given the right to adopt them or at least give their father, Steve Downs, the right to adopt them so we could visit with them?  What Mr. Hugi did was inexcusable  and I can never get over it.

              If you look carefully at the evidence that was presented to convict my daughter, you will find it to be flawed in several places.

              1. The shooter had to be well within the car. The states own investigation revealed that the shooter held the gun from 0 to 6 inches from each child.  Antimony and Barium, better known as Gun Shot Residue should have covered the shooter, but Diane had none.

              2.  When you hold a gun, it leaves a color on your hands.  Detective Antoine testified, "I didn't find any discoloration."  There was no evidence she held a gun.

              3.  Blood Spatter was evident in the car, but there was none on Diane.   You can't wash it out of your clothes if you are driving to the hospital.  

              4.  There is another thing about the blood spatter.  Diane said that Christie was lying down on the back seat with her head toward the passenger side of the vehicle.  Christie testified she was sitting up behind the driver's seat when she was shot yet there was no blood spatter on the seat back.  When you look at the rear headliner of the vehicle you will find the headliner is covered with blood spatter.  If she had been sitting up, the bullet trajectory would have been downward.  It was not.  It was upward.  Christie was lying down like her mother said.  Yet, Christie testified that she was sitting up.  She was asleep on the back seat like her mother said.  She wasn't a witness, yet she testified what they taught her.

              5.  HELDD. Three ladies formed a pact to try and get Diane free.  It consisted of Vicki, Sally and Dena.  Dena lived in Las Vegas, but she tried something different.  She called the Hugi residence and much to her surprise, Christie answered the telephone.    Dena recorded the conversation. Christie who was 15 years old, in high school contributed to the conversation.  One thing she said when she was asked about her testimony in Court was, "I didn't know I would be able to see her again, but they just, they knew that she did it and I should say that she did it."  Then when asked if she thought her mother shot her, she answered, "I couldn't tell you, I don't know if she did or if someone else did it."  Then Dena remarks, "That's exactly what you should say you really don't know.  They forced you to testify when you were a little girl.  They told you it was the right thing to do and  you wanted to do the right thing."  Then Christie remarks,  " Like the person, my attorney,  and that's who Fred is, I'm living with, he's the guy.  He works for me."

It seems wrong that someone should record a 15 year old girl's conversation without telling her, but it's just as wrong to take an 8 year old girl and brainwash her into saying things she doesn't know.

I want my family back together and you have the power to do that.  Diane has been in Prison for too many years and now I can't even receive phone calls from her.  Someone has blocked her phone calls and it even gets worse.  An attorney called here last week and asked where they have moved Diane to.  I told him she was still at CCWF in Chowchilla.  He said he called that prison and they have no record of Diane Downs.

Diane has no record in prison, but I have a more reasonable offer.  Release her and let her come home.  30 years for a crime she didn't commit is too much.  If you have a heart, let her come home.

If you want proof for the statements I have made, go to www.dianedowns.com  and you will find all of it except the recording.  If you want the recording of Christie and Dena (birth name Angel) I can send that to you too.

Sincerely yours,  a mother who grieves for her family.

Willadene R. Frederickson
141 Quarter Mile Road
Denison, Texas  75020-8859
Phone # 903-786-8764

Letter 4:

Oregon Criminal Justice System
885 Summer Street NE
Salem, OR  97301

To Whom It May Concern

If you read this and don't wonder why Diane Downs was convicted of shooting her children, then you haven't read the material with an open heart.

My daughter, Elizabeth Diane Downs has been in prison over 30 years for a crime she didn't commit.  Please take the time to look at the enclosed facts.  When my daughter and her children were shot, there were four casings found in the car and two casings were found in the road.  As a reminder, all the casings from the car and the road had to come from the same weapon.   E14A and E14B were taken from a rifle at my daughter's residence and were labeled as cartridges.

Casings:                                                                          Cartridges:

Car     Car     Car       Car     Road     Road                  Rifle     Rifle
 E3      E4A    E4B      E5       E6A        E6B                    E14A    E14B
Now, look at the comparisons of these empty casings to the cartridges from Mr. Murdock's notes:  Remember E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B all came from the shooting site. They have to match.

E3      E4A     E4B     E5       E6A         E6B                    E14A   E14B
E5      E14B   E14B   E14B   E14B       E14B                   E3        E3
No     Yes     Yes      Yes     Yes          Yes                     Yes      No

They used falsified evidence to convict her.  It sounds like the old switcheroo.   E3 and E5 don't match, they're both out of the car,  they have to match!   In Mr. Murdock's notes he labels each casing taken from the car and the road with identical markings: "One ejector mark at 7-8 o'clock one extractor mark at 3 o'clock."  In those same notes, the two bullets allegedly taken from Diane's apartment are labeled: "E-14A one extractor mark (no location) E-14B  one well defined extractor mark - - one fairly well defined ejector mark - close to extractor mark (no location)."  Ejector marks at 7-8 o'clock is not close to 3 o'clock.  They don't compare.

E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A, and E6B all have to match because they are empty casings that were found on the road or inside the car and all came from the same weapon.

If you look at Mr. Murdock's comparisons above, you will see that E3 and E5 don't match.  They have to match.  They were both found in the car.  E14A and E14B must also match because they were from the rifle.  Now let's switch E14B with E3 and see what happens.  All of the casings from the car and the road match.
E14B     E4A     E4B     E5     E6A     E6B                        E14A     E3
E5         E3         E3       E3      E3       E3                           E14B     E14B
No        Yes       Yes     Yes    Yes     Yes                         Yes        No

Makes a little more sense doesn't it? There is definitely a problem with Mr. Murdock's comparisons.  However if you look further, you will find that Mr. Murdock didn't work alone.  If these were blunders, there were at least two people making the mistakes or one person making deliberate mistakes and not telling the other.  NO comparisons were made between the lead cartridges, E14A and E14B and distinctive markings made by the rifle itself. Making the comparison in this way, the ballistics from the car and the road do not match the ballistics of Diane's rifle.

E3 and E5 must match, they are from the same weapon, and the marks they carry are deep enough to compare. They don't. E 14A and E14B must match, they are from the same weapon. They don't. E3 and E14A (E14B) carry marks the rest don't have, "Unique marks"! This comes directly from Murdock's report, "A reason has caused me to reconsider the ID, (between E3 and E14B) it seems to fall apart at 4 times the object. I told Jim Pex that this possible association could be studied further...". (June 28, 1983)  "No photo. No time." A day earlier, "On E14B, no extractor mark deep in the rim and not able to identify extractor mark present with E3." Yet a day later, every single comparison was made with E14B. What happened in the Lab overnight that caused this man to change his mind? Was there a double switch? E14A becomes E14B and vice-versa, then  E14B becomes E3.

In court, Mr. Murdock testified: "I made a rather detailed series of notes." (Transcript page 1348, lines 16-17).  For this reason I find it easier and more dependable referring to the notes he took at the time of the examination of the casings and cartridges, rather than to his memory of two months or even a year later.
Mr. Murdock swore under oath, "Exhibit No. 14 does contain two cartridges with plain lead bullets, and I did examine those, Yes, these appear to be items 14-A and B."

(Transcript pages 1347-1348). The problem with that memory is that on page 933 of Mr. Murdock s detailed written report, he noted that one of the lead cartridges was taken apart to retrieve the gun powder inside for tests. There is no possible way E14B could be in cartridge form one year later for Mr. Murdock to identify. One of those cartridges should be a casing.

Again, Mr. Murdock swore, "And I found extractor marks on these two unfired cartridges which were found to agree with the extractor marks on the six cartridge cases that I've just described, and the agreement was sufficient to allow me to conclude that the same extractor made the mark on all six cartridge cases and the two unfired cartridges from the tubular magazine of the rifle." (Transcript Page 1350, lines 11-17) There are two VERY serious problems with that statement. First, as you just read, E14B did not match E3, E3 did not match E6B and E3 did not match E5 with respect to extractor marks. (Mr. Murdock's notes, page 948) How could Mr. Murdock swear before the jury that every extractor mark on every cartridge and casing matched all the others?  They didn't.  Tell him what you want and he will get it for you.
I thought I should throw this in for good measure:

1.  Trace Metal Test:

This test is to determine if anyone has held a gun.  Records show the Trace Metal Test came back negative.  Diane didn't hold a gun.  It's impossible to shoot a gun if you don't hold one.

2.  Gun Shot Residue Test:

This is a test to determine if a person has fired a gun.  It's standard procedure to check for gunshot residue (GSR) in a shooting case.  This test also came back negative.  It's  impossible to fire a weapon and come away with no GSR.  Diane tested negative for GSR.

3.  Blood Spatter:

Under cross examination, Criminalist James Pex went to great length in his testimony.  On page 1247 lines 1-23 he goes into detail where the blood spatter would go.  If Christie had been sitting up the blood spatter would have come back toward the shooter and on the back of the driver's seat.  It didn't.  the blood spatter covered the rear headliner of the car.  There was no blood spatter on the back of the driver's seat.  The truth is, Christie was lying down on the rear seat with her head toward the passenger side of the vehicle like her mother said.  Yet, they programmed Christie to say she witnessed the shooting and they called her as a witness to give false testimony. The blood spatter that covered the rear headliner of the car declares that they programmed  Christie with false information.  She wasn't a witness yet she testified in Court.  "False testimony".


4.  Christie's Testimony in Court:

A Questionable Witness

Under cross examination, Christie testified that she was sitting up behind the driver's seat when she was shot (page 671 line 18).  If Christie had been sitting behind the driver's seat, the back of the driver's seat would have been covered with blood spatter.  There was no blood spatter on the back of the driver's seat.  Christie was lying down in the back seat with her head toward the passenger window like her mother said.  She wasn't a witness, yet she testified against her mother.

5.  Why did Fred Hugi adopt our Grandchildren?

After the trial that convicted Diane Downs, Fred Hugi, the Prosecutor adopted Christie and Danny, the two surviving children.  That hurt our family deeply.  Why was no one in the family given the right to adopt them.  This was very stressful.  Nevertheless, what was done seemed out of our hands and we could have no contact with them at all.  That didn't seem right so we wrote a letter to Mr Hugi with a request for visitation rights. He had an attorney, Fred G. Campbell Jr., send us a letter denying our request and telling us:  "You are legally, as well as factually, a stranger to them."  Who does he think he is?  Wasn't he the stranger?  I felt there was something that should be done, but I was at a loss in how to cope with the Court that had given the children to the prosecutor and allowed false testimony to seal her fate.  My opinion of why Mr. Hugi adopted Christie and Danny was to seal their lips.  Danny asked the nurse in Sacred Heart,  "Why that man shot me?"  It's in the records, but no one seems to care.

6.  Angel From Nevada:

A group of ladies got together and decided that Diane had been convicted in error.  They formed a group called HELDD which stands for Help Exonerate & Liberate Diane Downs.  One of the group was Angel (her birth name) and she got the wild notion that Christie (who was now 15) might answer the phone.  The very first time she called, Christie did answer the phone and she responded in a very courteous manner.  There were a few calls and I'm not sure how many, but on one occasion it got very enlightening.  In one of the conversations Christie said "They just, they knew that, you know, that she did it and I should say that she did it."  When asked if she thought her mother did it or someone else did it, she replied, ""I don't know if she did it or someone else did, cause I don't know."  Then "Angel" says:  "They told you that was the right thing to do, huh?"  Christie responds, "But like the person, my attorney, and that's who Fred is, that I'm living with, he's the guy, he works for me."

We made an attempt to change the attorney for the defense before the trial started and were told we had our attorney.  We had already contacted Melvin Belli from the San Francisco and he sent his representative to Oregon to tell the Court he would be a couple of weeks before he could be there.  Judge Gregory Foote denied him the right, but sent his representative packing.  We weren't happy with James Jagger, but Foote seemed to rule over our wish to drop him.  If you look at the transcript, he was a do nothing attorney.

We just want to get our daughter out of prison from a crime she didn't commit.  We think you have the power or have access to someone who has the power to set her free.  Over 30 years for a crime she didn't commit is totally wrong.  If the truth is told, you will be glad you set her free.  Just do it.  At least talk to me.  If you ask me, a few people should be sent to prison in her place, like the judge, the prosecutor and of course the confessed murderer would have been a good choice, but he's dead now.

Sincerely,

Wesley L. Frederickson
141 Quarter Mile Road
Denison, TX  75020-8859

> > >                                                                                     Case of report>>