Talk:Diane Downs

The song Hungry Like The Wolf by British band Duran Duran

The 1982 song was cited by the prosecution but I not sure what the judge's verdict on it was. I think it was played to the jury though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Sacrifices — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Diane Downs was pregnant with her fourth child at the time of the crime and her trial. [1] What happened to her fourth child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 27:52, December 10, 2008

She gave birth shortly after being convicted. Downs named the girl Amy. She was given up for adoption and has since changed her name. Google for: Diane+Downs+pregnant for plenty of references. This info should be added to the article at some point, I just haven't had the time. Katr67 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See June 2010 Issue of Glamour Magazine - Real Stories "I found out my mother was a killer". Rebecca Babcock discusses her life with adoptive parents who supported her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.45.73 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Which child died?

The article says that one died but does not state which child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.45.206 (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The article lists which two children survived, so a reader could figure out that is the seven-year-old girl Cheryl who died, but it should be written up a little better. Also, we should add whether or not the poor girl died instantly or lingered in a coma before succumbing to her injuries. --ErinHowarth (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ann Rule

In regard to Christie Downs' testimony, according to Ann Rule's book, which contains the verbatim testimony, Christie did not testify that she saw her mother shoot herself in the arm. Thoughts? Maybe that section needs to be reworked. Sdsures (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Ann Rule's book considered to be an adequate reference material suitable for wikipedia? Where else should we look for resources? Sdsures (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

there are two statements in the article I do not understand. First,

Downs was found guilty on all charges on June 17, 1984, and was sentenced to life in prison plus 50 years. Most of the sentence is to be served consecutively. The judge made it clear that he did not wish Downs ever to regain her freedom. (Rule, 446)

What does it mean that most of her sentence is to be served consecutively? Second,

Investigators later found she'd bought the handgun in Arizona, and some unfired casings had been worked through the same gun that shot the children (though the actual gun was never found).

What does it mean that some unfired casings had been worked through the gun that shot the children? --ErinHowarth (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. For the first, it's my understanding that when a person is convicted of multiple crimes, it's (sometimes?) at the judge's discretion whether the sentences are served concurrently or consecutively. So, if Bob commits kidnapping and assault, and gets 5 years for the first and 3 years for the second, he might spend either 5 years (concurrent) or 8 years (consecutive) depending on which the judge thinks is appropriate to the case. (Maybe somebody with more legal background than I have will weigh in?)

On the second, I suspect it means that some casings in Downs' possession matched the ones that shot the children, meaning that she had possessed that gun at some time...even though they didn't find the actual gun. But I haven't read the source documents, so I can't say with any certainty. You're right, the phrasing is confusing. -Pete (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So she has different sentences for each of the different charges. I wonder what they are. You think they found casings in Downs' possession? I thought it would have been the casing from the crime scene, and they could just tell that the gun had been tampered with, but is that tampering evidence of something? --ErinHowarth (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete's reply to the first question is correct. There might be a guideline for a judge to follow to decide whether consecutive or concurrent sentences are appropriate, but it usually makes sense if the separate charges/sentences are essentially for the same act or something disconnected. Last I checked (1985?), a "life sentence" in Oregon was about 17 years due to prison crowding.

Shells put into a gun—whether fired or not—scratch each casing. But there are several chambers, each with its own pattern, so this is less conclusive than a fired bullet. Criminals are expected to "tamper" with evidence after they commit a crime. There's nothing unusual about that, unless you're referring to someone after Diane Downs. —EncMstr (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Escape

I found some really interesting details on the escape.

Authorities said she scaled two, 18-foot fences surrounding the prison, climbed under a pick-up truck, and waited several minutes before calmly walking away. Prison officials later said they believe Downs wore several layers of clothing to avoid puncture wounds from the barbed wire atop the fences. A tattered striped shirt was found under the pick-up truck where Downs reportedly hid after scaling the prison fences.

An alarm hooked to the outside fence rang briefly at 8:40 a.m. that morning, but prison officials didn't think anything of it, saying the sensitive alarm went off accidentally at least once a day due to anything from a strong wind to a bird. However, when a nurse arriving at the prison 15 minutes later reported seeing a suspicious woman climb out from under a pickup truck and walk away, saying she believed the woman was Diane Downs, prison guards did a quick emergency roll call and discovered Downs missing.

A massive search of the Salem area was launched. Ironically, Downs, wearing civilian-type clothing, was picked up hitchhiking, virtually right across the street from the women's prison and adjacent to Division 2 headquarters of the Oregon State Police. The unwitting couple that picked up Downs drove her to the site of a restaurant at State and 24th streets, three blocks from the prison, where Downs got out.

The couple would later tell authorities Downs said she needed to get to a phone quickly because her boyfriend had just been injured in an automobile accident.

Downs' escape triggered a multi-state search which surprisingly ended 10 days later back in Salem -- less than a half mile from the prison. Indentations on a piece of paper found in Downs' cell were analyzed by the FBI. Using an electrostatic process, the FBI was able to enhance the indentations on the paper, which included an address of a house and a map showing its location.

Oregon State Police conducted a drive by surveillance of the run-down house for two days. Then, state and local police served a search warrant on the house and found Downs and four men inside. The four men were charged with hindering prosecution. http://gesswhoto.com/sheriff-lane4.html

Neutral Point of View

Diane Downs still maintains that she is innocent, and claiming that her daughter was afraid of her is subjective and unverifiable. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. ~~Exaybachay~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaybachay (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) User:Exaybachay Diane Downs was found guilty in a court of law. All the reliable sources show her guilt and her daughters reactions when she saw her mother. We depend on reliable sources and in this matter the sources are described correctly thus no WP:BLP problems. I hope this helps. Happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Upon reflection I agree that adding "alleged" is not appropriate, though I think "convicted" should be added in its place. As for the other edit, that her heart rate jumped is an objective and verifiable thing -- that "her eyes glazed over with fear" is editorial. If that is a quote from a source, it should be referenced. If it is not a quote, the language should be changed to remove something that could only be inferred. Exaybachay (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?

Not sure what the deal is here and don't really care to know. Can ANY material being added, please just include a citation, or better yet, bring it here first and discuss? Thank you in advance. --Tom (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ps, a bunch of material is cited to a dead link, can this be improved or removed? TIA --Tom (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If a dead link is present, be sure to check if http://archive.org has it. If it does, link through that, otherwise delete the URL. —EncMstr (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never done/use that before, I am so dam lazy, but I guess this old dog could learn a new trick :) thanks, --Tom (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The information about Danny and Kristie that was removed in the aftermath can be returned through using Ann Rule's book Small Sacrifices. The adults (kid's) were permanently damaged and the statement was correct per Ann Rule. I'm sure there are other information out there for this, I just am not sure if it should stay or not. Also, the information being removed that you mention is an adopted child that Down's gave birth to while in jail. Someone keeps adding the girls name back in, first with no ref., then with a references but it was being removed per WP:BLP. I too would have removed this info for lack of notability plus we just shouldn't being outing an adopted child's name to a convicted murder with notability and privacy issues. Thoughts on that? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, wouldn't the book be a primary source which should be avoided if possible? I am only here because I saw an edit war dispute, so I know zippo about this article. If names of living persons are involved, we/you/I should take great care in making sure ANY material that is added going forward, or currently in the article, is from 2ndary, reliable sources, and complies with BLP. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the book from Ann Rule would be considered a secondary source. The Ted Bundy article uses another of Ann Rules books to give information about him there. Ann Rule is a former police officer turned crime writer who is very notable in her own rights as you can see by her article. There shouldn't be a problem using her writings for verification of facts about this case IMO. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A widely printed book with an ISBN (like Small Sacrifices). How is this not a reliable source? I believe it is... Doc9871 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The book Small Sacrifices wasn't written by Diane Downs so it wouldn't be a primary source. It is acceptable, what I belief is not acceptable is outing the name of the daughter she gave up for adoption. Despite the fact that the girl was interviewed for television doesn't relieve us of our obligation to conform to WP:BLP. There is nothing furthered by outing the name of a child she gave up for adoption, nor is this article best served by doing so. I don't believe that Small Sacrifices actually even gives the daughter's name, I have it and I will look, but I don't think it is in there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about MY confusion over primary vs secondary sourcing. Anyways, unless the name of any person involved with this case is widely covered by RS and is notable and is needed to improve the article, I would leave it out....anyways...--Tom (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem Tom. I also agree that the name of the adopted child, now an adult, doesn't add anything to the article. It's not notable about the child since she wasn't there when Down's was murdering and attempting to murder her children. She happened after the facts and it's just not important. It's more like trivia in my opinion. Thanks everyone, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of molestation

Diane Downs made allegations of molestation against her father when she was an infant but does anyone know if she was. (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

Steve Downs

The article states that attornies adopted the surviving children. Where did their father Steve Downs go to? Why did he not take his children home with him? Also who is the father of Amy or now Becky and why did he not have first rights to having his child? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.250.62.193 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the movie Small Sacrifices It says that Steve didn't seek custody because as a single father he couldn't give them the care they needed and also Becky's father identity is unknown the only person who knows his identity is Ann Rule. (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Glamour Article written by Lisa Grace Lednicer and Eric Mason

There was an article published in Glamour Magazine June 2010 Real Stories. Very positive story about the 4th child who has had struggles and coming to term with the knowledge of her birth mother. Rebecca Babcock was unaware of the details of her birth mother's situation until she was 16, though she knew Diane was in prison. Interesting article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.45.73 (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Regardless of how convincing the evidence is, unless they confess, I don't think it's appropriate to present things as objectively true. So like, saying "She murdered her daughter" should be phrased "the state alleges that she killed her daughter". I realize she has been convicted, but I can also list a couple hundred people who were convicted and it later turned out they were wrongly convicted. Just because someone is convicted, doesn't make it objectively so. We should only state facts that we can really objectively know, especially if she is asserting her innocence. Also, things like "Christie's eyes glazed over with apparent fear". What exactly does that mean? Is there a medical term for "eyes glazing over"? How do we know this? There needs to be a quote associated with it. Bali88 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia policy is settled on this matter -- that unless there is reason to believe there is a wrong conviction in a particular case, that a conviction can and should generally be presented as fact. I'd need to dig through policy docs a bit, but I'm sure this has been covered. If she is actively and verifiably asserting her innocence, that should be expressed in the article too; but it doesn't mean we can't say, for instance, in the lead sentence, that she is a "convicted murderer." Are there specific changes related to this point that you suggest? -Pete (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you find any specific policy on the matter. Most of it looks pretty neutral, but the part about the eyes glazed over and the fear...it just doesn't seem like something you can verify. You can't objectively state what another person is feeling at any given minute and I think the eye thing needs to be attributed to a specific nurse who witnessed it and described it that way. I realize not everyone would agree with me on this, but the problem with saying "She killed her daughter"...every conviction has prosecutors who believe the person to be guilty as well as 12 jurors. If we post that they killed someone and then the conviction comes under suspicion in the future and we find evidence 10 years down the road that proves someone's innocence, we've just had an inaccurate article for 10 years. The way that I look at it, we should only state what we can really know for sure. We can only really know that she was convicted of it.

"unless there is reason to believe there is a wrong conviction in a particular case"...how do we determine that? I know there are a decent number of wrongful conviction people who question the conviction, if that is what it takes. What does a case need to qualify for having reason to believe the conviction is wrong? I don't know enough about the case to really say, but I feel that it's reasonable to be conservative in what we are asserting to be true in these articles. Bali88 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- from your followup comment and your recent edits, I think I originally misinterpreted what you were saying. Your edits look very good to me, with two possible exceptions:

• In one place you introduced the text "prosecutors contended that..." I think this should reflect that her actions were not merely alleged by prosecutors, but that the outcome of the case upheld what was alleged. I.e., that she was convicted, not merely charged.
• As to the "eyes glazed over" I share your concern; however, since this is cited to a newspaper article, I wonder if it's referencing a quote. If somebody (especially an expert) asserted that the reactions were indicative of fear, that assertion should be mentioned -- not as fact (as you say), but attributed to whoever said it. Since it appears that newspaper article isn't online, that might not be so easy to check, but it's probably worth doing. -Pete (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, allege isn't the correct word. If you can think of another way to phrase it, go right ahead. I'm fine with quoting someone on saying that, but to state it as fact is not appropriate. Personally, I would rather get rid of all of the Ann Rule citations, but I don't really have the time or the interest to research the case. She is well known for writing for entertainment and not to give the reader a neutral look at the info. I worry presenting her writing as truth is not the most unbiased look at this. I have no personal opinion on this particular case, in terms of guilt or innocence, but the way I look at it, if the evidence is solid enough, the reader will see that. We don't need to tell them how guilty we think she is. :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Build the section from reliable sources, if they're available. No sources, no section. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no option but to file a report if you reintroduce this material. It's a poorly supported fringe viewpoint. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Downs is actually being supported quite thoroughly by wrongful conviction advocacy groups. So this isn't really a fringe viewpoint. I removed all language that was not neutral from the article, including that section and attributed all viewpoints to their originators. There is absolutely no agenda being pushed here, and a small paragraph at the bottom that documents that aspect does not constitute a NPOV violation. In fact, not including it, would be a NPOV violation. Clearly we need more viewpoints than you and I represent. Let's take this to dispute resolution or ask for outside viewpoints. Bali88 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this dispute but I will point out that salem-news.com was not considered a reliable source in the past per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem-News.com. I don't think matters have improved since then. Valfontis (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Valfontis. I will agree not to add the salem news sources, but it's really inappropriate to try to undo the modifications to the lead. It is not neutral language. If that is a sticking point, take it to dispute resolution. Bali88 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content

@Phieuxghazzieh: and @Bali88:: I have unencumbered you from WP:3RR and WP:WAR remedies by protecting the article. Please take the opportunity to find points of agreement and achieve consensus. I (or any admin) will lift the protection once the disagreement is resolved. —EncMstr (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead dispute

I posted this on the teahouse:

I need some additional opinions on the Diane Downs article. Currently, the lead reads:

Elizabeth Diane Frederickson Downs (born August 7, 1955) is an American woman convicted of the May 1983 murder of her daughter.[1] She is convicted of shooting her three children, killing one and seriously wounding two. Following the shooting, Downs told police a stranger had attempted to carjack her and had shot the children. She was convicted in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison.

Another editor believe it should read:

Elizabeth Diane Frederickson Downs (born August 7, 1955) is an American child murderer.[1] In May 1983 she shot her three children, killing one and seriously wounding two. She was convicted in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison.

This is an issue I've discussed before on other articles and I believe the current wording is the most neutral wording for a number of reasons. We can't truly know whether or not someone is ever truly guilty, so stating that someone is objectively a "murderer" is potentially wrong information. However, if we take a step back and write what they are convicted of, we will have an accurate article no matter what. Secondly, there are often people who have an opinion on the subject of the article and they can use the subtle wording to convey how they feel about the topic. Take a look at the Amanda Knox article for a good example of dueling sides. Having standard, neutral language like what I believe is currently in the lead disallows both sides from imparting their opinions into the article. The Downs article is a good example of an article where wrongful conviction advocates have dueled in the past with the guilters. It makes it very difficult to have a good article. I believe this is a good compromise that will lead to the least amount of edit wars.

I think this type of language should be used in all crime articles, regardless of how certain we are of their guilt, because it is most neutral and can lend a uniformity to crime articles. There are many crime articles where a person has been convicted but their guilt is seriously in doubt (like WM3) as well as many crime articles where the person is widely considered to be guilty. If we were to go by conviction as to whether we say "This person is objectively a murderer", we have an inaccurate encyclopedia because a certain percentage have been wrongfully convicted. There are also some, Wm3 for example, are not considered by most to be guilty. Certainly no one would say "These three guys murdered the kids". That's an inaccurate look at the case because it's not common belief. If we were to go by "how most people feel", then we have an encyclopedia based on opinion. Neither are what Wikipedia should be. It should be unbiased and factual.

The other editor feels that she's definitely guilty, so saying anything aside from that is apologetics. Bali88 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We simply call Ed Gein a murderer. Ditto Ted Bundy, et al. Diane Downs was convicted of murder, has been written about extensively as a murderer, and is widely held by the public as a murderer. Therefore she's most notable as a murderer, and Wikipedia is founded on notability. There are no parallels between Amanda Knox and Downs, about whom public consensus is glaring, and who by the way was unequivocally described in the lede as a murderer for well over five years, until you came along last year and changed the wording. Therefore you're the one who should be trying to gain consensus, not me. Based on your unfailing support of an innocence-promoting apology section supported by a single non-notable source, which you restored ad nauseum until it was finally banished, it's becoming difficult to assume WP:GF. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Stick with the existing lead. I cannot see how the existing lead can be called "an innocence-promoting apology section". I have re-read it many times and nothing there at all supports a notion that she is innocent. Instead, the lead accurately summarizes the facts of the matter without introducing any prejudicial wording. On the contrary, starting the article by refetring to her as a "child murderer" would unduly color the rest of the article in conflict with WP:IMPARTIAL, and it would also lose pertinent information on the way. Deciding her guilt or innocence is not Wikipedia's job: that was the jury's job and they have done that; Wikipedia's job now is to report on that situation accurately, without adding individuals' bias.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To try and get away from individual editors' opinions, I looked at the Featured Articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. I selected the ones that were comparable to this: articles about the person (rather than the crime or the court case), individual crimes (not serial killers etc), which occurred after 1800. That did not leave much; I found the following, with a brief extract from the lead of each:

• Ronnie Lee Gardner "was an American criminal who received the death penalty for murder in 1985, and was executed by a firing squad by the state of Utah in 2010."
• Horatio Bottomley "was convicted of fraud and sentenced to seven years imprisonment."
• William Henry Bury "was suspected of being the notorious serial killer "Jack the Ripper". He was hanged for the murder of his wife Ellen in 1889..."

They all focus what the person did and what happened, and only the first one (Gardner) tries to describe what the person was based on that. I hope this helps in your deliberations.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did I call the lede an "innocence-promoting apology section"; I'm talking about the miserably supported section that was removed yesterday, thus restoring some respect to this article. As for the lede, your claim that referring to a child murderer as a child murderer constitutes "bias" is absurd, particularly in the case of a woman who was found guilty largely because her own child testified against her. The Ronnie Lee Gardner article says he "was an American criminal"; Bali88 doesn't want Downs to be referred to even as that. She's an innocent little fairy who sits under waterfalls, I've recently learned. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You said that public consensus is "glaring" between Amanda Knox and Diane Downs...I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is, it's a dangerous precent to decide that the best way to settle this is to sit on a talk page and go point by point, the guilters taking a side and the innocence people taking a side and debating whether the evidence points to guilt or debating "how the public feels" about the case. There is no way that that is a reasonable or efficient way to do things.The way it's currently phrased, it's neutral, and it's accurate, and leads to the least amount of disagreement among differing viewpoints. I realize other articles use loaded terms like murderer or criminal, and I disagree on the use of those terms as well. If we stick with terms like "convicted", we can have an accurate and neutral encyclopedia, no matter where public consensus falls or what happens with the conviction in the future.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do do wrongful conviction advocacy, which is how I heard about the case, but I have no strong feelings about Downs. For anyone who is curious, it's one that is brought up frequently in wrongful conviction circles, basically because the main evidence against her, the testimony of her daughter, was gleaned through memory recovery therapy (basically the same process they used during the satanic child abuse sex cases that turned out to be hooey). And there is a recording of the girl a few years later saying she really didn't remember the event at all and they just told her they knew Diane did it so she should testify against her. But again, that has nothing to do with anything. The detail of the case, how "certain" people are about the conviction, whether there is an innocence push by wrongful conviction groups...the article should be worded in a way that these things don't have to be debated. Bali88 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This opinion was posted on the teahouse, I'll put it here:

I'm not familiar with any of these cases (and I have no idea what the heck "WM3" or "Wm3" is supposed to mean, though maybe it's obvious to people in your part of the world). But I agree with you completely about the need for neutral language and about which of the blockquoted paragraphs should be used (the first). :--Thnidu (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I am thnidu and I affirm that the above is what I wrote on the Teahouse page in question. --Thnidu (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Another opinion:

Bali88, I agree that the proper wording is that an individual was convicted of a crime, not that they are a "child murderer". The relevant Wikipedia policies are:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIM
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event

...but these primarily concerned how to write about a person who is accused but not convicted of a crime or criminal act. But they might help a little with your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I hesitated to participate in this discussion because approximately 20 years ago Christie Hugi, Downs’ surviving daughter, was a freshman at the University of Oregon, and a student in one of my courses. Though I never discussed her mother’s trial and conviction with Christie, I disclose this relationship because it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

On one hand, Phieuxghazzieh has a point that the denotation of the phrase “child murderer” accurately describes the crime of which Downs was convicted, in the most literal sense, notwithstanding her professions of innocence. On the other hand, Bali88 points out the phrase is not neutral. It connotes more negative, sensationalist, and accusatory associations than the phrase “convicted of the May 1983 murder of her daughter”.

When we seek to achieve a neutral, encyclopedic tone, we have to consider the semantic nuances of the words we choose, and “child murderer” is neither neutral nor encyclopedic in tone. I would not be surprised to see this phrase in tabloid newspapers that sensationalize every story, but it doesn’t belong in this encyclopedia article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This whole argument is reading like Political Correctness. I'm sorry, but my opinion, and the Jury's opinion is that Diane Downs is a Child Murderer period. The phrase Child Murderer may not sound nice, but it is true. Diane Downs was found Guilty. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper or Magazine that that prints stories to let the Reader decide Guilt or Innocence. Wikipedia is an Online Encyclopedia, that reports facts. Everything was fine until Someone who works with an Innocence Project started trying to change the Article. And the Editor that started these changes, first stated on this page that they didn't know anything about Diane Downs and had no opinion on her Guilt or innocence, and then admitted they work on an Innocence Project. The Editor also wrote that Diane's surviving Daughter's testimony against her Mother shouldn't be believed, because it was the same type of Memory Recovery used in People that had supposedly been involved in Satanic Rituals. The Editor that started all the changes has a Conflict Of Interest. The Article need to be written that Diane Downs is a Child Murderer, since she was convicted of that charge. 76.123.200.158 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Downs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309053522/http://www.annrules.com/news3.htm to http://www.annrules.com/news3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for improvement

Downs changed her story about who shot her children and herself several times-there has to be plenty of Reliable Sources on this. Changing her tune so many times was one of the reasons detectives zeroed in on her. This info is not currently in the article.50.111.50.240 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hugi?

Who or what is Hugi? Found that name in the section about Downs' escape but no further explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:4239:8800:99C8:CEF3:DB36:C4C9 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, that is her maiden name. Prior to marriage, her name was Diane Hugi. See the infobox.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Hugi is the lawyer Fred Hugi, who was the lead prosecutor on the case (Diane's maiden name is Frederickson). Hugi and his wife adopted Christie and Danny Downs in 1986. The article states this at the top of the aftermath section. 86.128.225.64 (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Seminar I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2022 and 10 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryanmullaneygt (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Doorleym1.

— Assignment last updated by Doorleym1 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional References

OREGON's Juridical Small Sacrifices US Top Model Case of Professional

Judicial Ethics regarding (Elizabeth) Diane Downs Synopsis by Franz Kurz
(March 2016)
http://www.manipulatedtrial.de/oregon_s_small_sacrifices_1603.pdf

http://www.manipulatedtrial.de/

*- Diane Downs: Child Killer or Victim of Injustice?* By Tim King
Aug-17-2012
Incarcerated for nearly 30 years, Downs maintains her innocence and a look
at the case explains why.

- Apr-17-2013 Midnight Meditations: Diane Downs Murder Case in Oregon; By
Dr. Thomas Arthur Billings

http://salem-news.com/articles/august032014/diane-downs-ll.php

*http://salem-news.com/articles/may202013/diane-downs-series-tk.php
<http://salem-news.com/articles/may202013/diane-downs-series-tk.php*

*http://www.midnightmeditations.com/* <http://www.midnightmeditations.com/

*- EXCLUSIVE:* Diane Downs Never Held a Weapon, How Could She Have Shot Her
Kids?

*http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may202013/diane-downs-series-tk.php*
<http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may202013/diane-downs-series-tk.php

*References:*

[1] *DIANE DOWNS: MURDERER OR VICTIM* <http://www.dianedowns.com/

{2} *A MIDNIGHT MEDITATION The Tragedy of Diane Downs -
midnightmeditations.com*
<http://www.midnightmeditations.com/A_Midnight_Meditation.html

{3} *Former DA takes on jobs he loves - Pat Horton has retired from a
variety of positions*
<http://www.projects.registerguard.com/web/updates/26720234-55/horton-county-attorney-goes-case.html.csp

{4} *Former deputy district attorney's conduct reviewed in four cases*
<http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Former+deputy+district+attorney's+conduct+reviewed+in+four+cases.-a0110171526

[5] *Letter to Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski - peopleagainstprisonabuse.com*
<http://www.peopleagainstprisonabuse.com/STATES/oregon/ddownstory.html

[6] *Diane Downs: Child Killer or Victim of Injustice? - Tim King
Salem-News.com*
<http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august172012/diane-downs-1-tk.php SherrySwiney12 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)