The duty of a Grand Jury is to examine whether probable cause exists that the defendant committed a crime. It is actually the first obstacle of a prosecutor in order to accomplish a rightful indictment. Usually only the prosecutor presents the "evidence" in front of the Grand Jury. In The Debra Jean Milke Case prosecutor Noel Levy took advantage of the falsehoods and questionable tactics of former police detective Armando Saldate in order to ensure the indictment of Debra Milke. As you will see, despite those falsehoods, reasonable questions came up from the members of the Grand Jury and - as with other documents - "debbiemilke.com" uncovered the inaccuracies and discrepancies which unraveled in these proceedings.

An effective defense lawyer would have had the possibility of filing a Motion for Remand, in order to get into a case in greater detail and to ensure that his client's rights are considered. That would've led to quashing the indictment and postponing a new Grand Jury until the defense has the opportunity to raise its points, and possibly even avoid an indictment. On December 8th, 1989, the day of the Grand Jury, Debra Milke's public defender, Kenneth Ray, talked to Debra only for the first time - therefore, he had no chance to attempt such an action and thus avoid the spreading of falsehoods as described hereafter. Any possibility to protect the rights of his client, Debra Milke, was thus undermined from early on.

As you read on, please also keep in mind that the transcript of this Grand Jury Hearing not only describes the proceedings that led to the indictment of Debra, but that it was also a part of the court documents, and it was therefore used in the further proceedings against Debra.

This is 116 Grand Jury 83.

This is the investigation of Debra Jean Milke, M I L K E; James Lynn Styers, S T Y E R S; and Roger Mark Scott.

This investigation involves an alleged homicide, an alleged conspiracy to commit homicide, an alleged child abuse, alleged kidnapping.

The alleged offenses having occurred on December 2, 1989, in Phoenix, Maricopa County.

To assist you in determining whether or not probable cause exists, the following statutes may be applicable: A.R.S. 13-1101, 1105, 13-1301, 1304, 13-3623, 13-1003, 13-301 through 304 and 13-105, subsection 6.

My records indicate that the homicide statutes, 13-1101 and 1105 have not been previously read to this Grand Jury; is that correct?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, that's correct.

13-1101 is the definition section. It reads as follows:

"In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. Premeditation means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by a length of time to permit reflection. An act is not done with premeditation if it is in the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
2. Homicide means first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
3. Person means a human being.
4. Adequate provocation means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self-control."

13-1105 is entitled "First degree murder.
A. A person commits first degree murder if:

1. Intending or knowing that his conduct will cause death, such person causes the death of another with premeditation; or,
2. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons such person commits or attempts to commit sexual conduct with a minor under Section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, molestation of a child under section 13-1410, narcotics offenses under section 13-3408, subsection A, paragraph 7, or section 13-3409 kidnapping under section 13-1304, burglary under section 13-1506, 1507 or 1508, arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, robbery under section 13-1902, 1903 or 1904, escape under section 13-2503 or 2504, or child abuse under section 13-3623, Subsection B, Paragraph 1, and in the course of and in furtherance of such offense or immediate flight from such offense, such person or another person causes the death of any person.

B. Homicide, as defined in subsection A, Paragraph 2 of this section, requires no specific mental state other than what is required for the commission of any of the enumerated felonies.

C. First degree murder is a felony."

13-1301, 13-1304, kidnapping and the definition sections were read to you on November 15, all members present.

13-3523, child abuse has not been previously read; is that correct?

MR. BENNETT: Correct.

Let me read 13-3623.

"A. In this section unless the context otherwise requires :

1. Child, youth or juvenile means an individual who is under the age of 18 years of age.
2. Physical injury means the impairment of physical condition and includes but shall not be limited to any skin bruising, bleeding, failure to thrive, malnutrition, burns, fracture of any bones, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling injury to any internal organ or any physical condition which imperils a child's health or welfare.
3. Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a reasonable risk of death or which causes serious or permanent disfigurement, or serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb.

B. Under circumstances likely to produce death or serious physical injury, any person who causes a child to suffer physical injury or, having the care or custody of such child, causes or permits the person or health of such child to be injured or causes or permits such child to be placed in a situation where its person or health is endangered is guilty of an offense as follows:

1. If done intentionally or knowingly, the offense is a class 2 felony and if the victim is under 15 years of age it is punishable pursuant to 13-604.01.
2. If done recklessly, the offense is a class 3 felony.
3. If done with criminal negligence, the offense is a class 4 felony.

C. Under circumstances other than those likely to produce death or serious physical injury to a child, any person who causes a child to suffer physical injury or abuse as defined in section 8-546, subsection A, Paragraph 2, except for those acts in the definition which are declared unlawful by another statute of this title or, having the care or custody of such child, causes or permits the person or health of such child to be injured or causes or permits such child to be placed in situation where its person or health is endangered is guilty of an offense as follows :

1. If done intentionally or knowingly the offense is a class 4 felony.
2. If done recklessly, the offense is a class 5 felony.
3. If done with criminal negligence, the offense is a class 6 felony."

13-1003, conspiracy, was read to you on November 22 with jurors Bennett and Kurt absent, and it was reread again on December 6 with Juror Kurt absent; is that correct?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. NELSON: Juror Curtis present today?

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON :

Let me read the conspiracy statute.

"A. A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon the person of another, or to commit an offense under section 13-1508 or 13-1704.

B. If a person guilty of conspiracy defined in subsection A of this section, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offense with such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.

C. A person who conspires to commit a number of offenses is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple offenses are the object of the same agreement or relationship and the degree of the conspiracy shall be determined by the most serious offense conspired to.

D. Conspiracy is an offense of the same class as the most serious offense which is the object of or result of a conspiracy."

13-301 through 304, the aiding and abetting statutes, were read to you on November 15 with all present.

13-105, Subsection 6, defining culpable mental state, read to you on November 13, with all members present; is that correct?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. NELSON :

Is there anyone who would like to have any of these statutes reread or clarified?

I take it from your silence that none of you do.

The name of the alleged victim of this investigation is Christopher Milke, M I L K E. The witness to testify will be Detective Armando Saldate.

He is with the Phoenix Police Department.

The record should reflect that the entire Grand Jury is present with the exception of jurors Johnson and Ottwell.

The record should also reflect the presence of Catherine Kmiec and Noel Levy, both Deputy County Attorneys authorized to present evidence to the Grand Jury.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you have been instructed on prior occasions you are, in conducting investigations as a Grand Jury, required to make a decision in that investigation based solely and exclusively on the evidence presented to you during the course of that investigation.

In light of that statement, in this particular investigation there has been media coverage with respect to the death of Christopher Milke.

Is there anyone in here this afternoon who has heard, read or seen anything with respect to this investigation that would in any way interfere or prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror during the course of this investigation?

I take it from your silence then that each of you believe that you would be able to act fairly and impartially in reaching a decision in this investigation.

I also assume from your silence that each of you would be able to make a decision in this investigation based solely and exclusively on the evidence presented to you during the course of this hearing.

Do the admonitions which were read to you earlier this morning concerning your disqualifications apply to any of you?

I take it from your silence they do not.

MR. BENNETT:

We are about to consider the matter of 116 Grand Jury No. 83 and the investigation regarding the individuals named.

The usual admonition applies.

ARMANDO SALDATE, JR.

having been first duly sworn by the foreman, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. LEVY:

Noel Levy: Please tell the Grand Jurors your name, for whom you are employed and what capacity?
Armando Saldate: My name is Armando Saldate, Junior. I'm employed by the City of Phoenix, on the Phoenix Police Department for approximately 20 years. I'm currently assigned to the Homicide Detail and have been for the last four years.
Noel Levy: Have you been assigned as the case agent involving the death of Christopher Milke, a four-year-old male child in report 89-179406 that occurred on or about 12-2-89 between approximately 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. in the vicinity of 99th Avenue north of Jomax or near Happy Valley Road, Maricopa County?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: Have you had the opportunity to read the entire reports under both 89-179406 and A?
Armando Saldate: Yes, I've read the entire -- yes, I have.
Noel Levy: And have you also had the opportunity to interview one Debra Jean Milke, James Styers and Roger Scott in part of the investigation?
Armando Saldate: Yes, I have.
Noel Levy: When were you first called to participate in the investigation?
Armando Saldate: I was at my home Sunday morning on the 3rd. At approximately 8:45 I received a call from my supervisor directing me to the main station to assist in this investigation.
Noel Levy: Prior to that time, had Phoenix Police Department Missing Persons been called and initiated effort regarding Christopher Milke on a purported missing child call from one James Styers on 12-2-89 shortly after 2:30 p.m. hours?
Armando Saldate: That's correct. At that time, the Phoenix Police Department became aware that a child was missing and that Mr. Styers indicated that the child had disappeared from the Sears store at Metrocenter while he was still in the bathroom, or going to the bathroom.
At that time, uniformed officers became involved. Later Missing Persons detectives became involved. In the area of probably 40, 50 officers became involved in this case prior to my involvement.
Noel Levy: And now, did James Styers and Roger -- well, principally, did James Styers agree to provide information regarding the child, description and what they did and so forth and so on?
Armando Saldate: Yes, he did.
Noel Levy: And did he essentially describe that -- well, why don't you just briefly go over it?
Armando Saldate: Mr. Styers contacted, initially, security at Sears. They looked for the child, and then police were called.
Mr. Styers helped police try to look for the child. Looked in -- after Sears closed that night, he helped one officer look through refrigerators, under furniture, in different rooms.
Mr. Styers just stood by and said he would help police. He volunteered to come down to the main station to be interviewed, to be there in case we found the child.
Later on a Roger Mark Scott, who was a friend of Mr. Styers and had been with him earlier, also agreed to come down to the police station, assist police in trying to find this child during the point when we had information that he was only missing or had disappeared.
Noel Levy: And did Styers give a description of the boy as about four years of age and his height and weight and so forth and wearing Levi's, gray sweatshirt with a dinosaur on the front, snake skin cowboy boots?
Armando Saldate: That is the description he gave us.
Noel Levy: Did he essentially state that he had taken the boy to --
Armando Saldate: Metrocenter.
Noel Levy: No pizza parlor earlier?
Armando Saldate: Yes. He said he had left with the child earlier that morning. He had left from the home where he and the child's mother share an apartment.
He indicated that he had left with the child to take the child to see Santa Claus and that he then went to his friend's who he identified as Roger Mark Scott, picked him up, they did a couple of errands. Roger had to pick up some medicine for himself. They went several other locations.
He also indicated they went to a pizza place. They all ate pizza. The child ate pizza. They drank soft drinks, and after that, he then went back and dropped off Roger because Roger had to be at home per his statement. And that he and the child went to Metrocenter to see Santa Claus.
They had gone into the Sears store because that's where they parked, near that store. They went in. He decided that he had to use the bathroom.
He took Chris inside the bathroom. No one else was inside the bathroom. He sat at the far stall.
He told Chris to wait, and was there for several minutes. When he came out, Christopher had disappeared.
He then went and contacted, or tried to find the child himself and then later contacted security, and then of course, the police.
Noel Levy: And then, did he then agree to assist the police by, among other things, coming down to the police station downtown and having mentioned Roger Scott, then, was Roger Scott contacted that evening? Did he then agree to come downtown and assist in the investigation and the search for, alleged search for the alleged missing child?
Armando Saldate: That's correct. Both agreed to come downtown voluntarily, assist in the search.
Noel Levy: Now, later the morning of 12-3, Sunday morning, '89 -- well, at all times, were they free to leave if they so desired?
Armando Saldate: Certainly. They were there as assistance to us. They were there trying to assist us, see if they can -- they were being interviewed, asked several questions in an attempt to try to locate the child, basically.
Noel Levy: And did they ever -- at one point, Mr. Styers was allowed to leave; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And prior to that he never requested to leave as such; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: No, he didn't.
Noel Levy: How about Scott?
Armando Saldate: No, he did not at all.
Noel Levy: However, as the early Sunday afternoon came up, was he reinterviewed by yourself with regard to certain differences between his statement and that of Styers?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And could you briefly relate how that went and what came up then?
Armando Saldate: I arrived approximately quarter to 10:00 or at 10:00, somewhere in that area. I interviewed several people, became aware of the investigation or what had taken place the previous night, was briefed on all of that information.
I then contacted him at approximately 12:50 p.m. inside an interview room.
I removed a Miranda rights card that is issued by our Phoenix Police Department; I read those rights to him verbatim. He told me that he understood those rights, and we then went over the story as he had told other officers.
I talked to him for a short period of time, and he indicated that he had not told us the truth initially. He indicated that Mr. Styers had dropped him off initially and that Mr. Styers and the child went back to Metrocenter, and that he had gone to Metro sometime later with a person who he identified as Phil; could not further identify him. In my interview with him, he corrected that. He told me that was not the true truth.
He indicated there was no Phil; that he had gone to the Metrocenter with Mr. Styers and the child, and that he had gone in there to Sears and then later lost contact with them.
Later in our interview, he indicated that he knew where the child's body was at, he would take me to that child's body.
He also indicated that Mr. Styers had shot the child three times in the head.

Discrepancy #1: Not true. When SCOTT told Saldate that JIM STYERS had killed Christopher Milke, he did not say that STYERS shot him three times in the head. SCOTT only mentioned where the boy's body could be found (referring to Saldate's own report).

Noel Levy: Okay.
You gave him his rights. You brought up the discrepancies. I think at one point he said that Phil took him to Metrocenter, but he didn't know any last name, so forth, lost contact?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: I believe, did he tell you that he then later saw, according to this story, later saw Styers there, and so forth, and then you said -- left him alone. Didn't you tell him, well, you didn't feel he was telling the truth, something to that effect, left him alone, you came back, and then he started telling you the facts of the -- that the child was dead and where the body was?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
I interviewed him beginning at approximately 12:58 when the interview took place, when I took over the interview.
I left him alone on two occasions.
During the entire interview, we were conversing back and forth, and finally, he did tell me the statement with regards to where the child was at; that he could take me to the child, what had happened to the child, and who had done this to the child. Indicated that he was only the driver, and that he had gone with Mr. Styers as previously arranged several weeks before.

Comment: Please note that at this time there is no mention by Detective Saldate about the alleged involvement of Chris' mother, Debra Milke. According to Saldate's own police report about his interview with SCOTT, ROGER allegedly incriminated Debra after he had confessed and during their drive to the murder-scene. Saldate talks about a previous arrangement, but he does not mention the alleged involvement of Debra Milke.

Noel Levy: Okay.
Did he then take you to the vicinity of the body of the child?
Armando Saldate: Yes. After some more interview, then we went to the location where the child was at. He pointed to the direction of a desert wash. We parked on 99th Avenue just north of Happy Valley Road where a wash meets the street.
He pointed at, in the direction of the west side of the street and told me that the body should be not too far away.
He indicated that it should not be too far away because they had wanted the child found within two or three days.
Noel Levy: They or Styers?
Armando Saldate: Styers wanted -- I'm sorry, that's correct. Styers wanted the body found within two or three days so he could collect the $ 5,000 life insurance policy.
And after that, I got out of the police vehicle, followed by my partner, Bob Mills and two other detectives who were helping us to secure the scene.
I then entered the wash, walked approximately 30 yards, 40 yards west in the wash and found the child lying on his left side. He was dressed in snake skin boots, newish Levi's, a gray sweatshirt with a dinosaur on the front of it. He was blonde haired. He had some injuries to the back of his head. Some lividity was present and constant with that position he was in. He was cold to the touch and obviously dead.
Noel Levy: And you insured that the scene was preserved for any footprints and so forth?
Armando Saldate: That's correct. The scene was preserved. Other detectives were left there, and then I left with Roger, myself and my partner to continue the investigation.
Noel Levy: Did -- in regard to the vicinity there, did Scott tell you that he drove Styers and Chris there, they got out, went to the wash, then he drove back and forth and finally he heard -- back and forth by the wash, finally heard three shots and saw Styers come out without Chris, get in the car?
Did he tell you that so far?
Armando Saldate: Yes, he did.
Noel Levy: And then did he also tell you something in addition to -- well, you mentioned something between what's picked up in the report and what he actually told you per your notes; what was that?

Comment: "You mentioned something between what's picked up in your report and what he actually told you per your notes" - in other words, Levy notices that Saldate is adding things not in his report (as in Discrepancy #1); Levy points it out here, because it is useful; he ignores Saldate's inconsistencies at other points in the case, when that serves his purpose. And ... why does Levy know about Saldate's notes (which were allegedly destroyed, according to Levy's statements to the press) other than the official police records?

Armando Saldate: That Styers had shot him three times in the back of the head.
Noel Levy: So Scott both heard the shots, and when Styers gets in the car he told Scott?
Armando Saldate: He shot him three times in the head.
Noel Levy: Now, did he mention anything about cartridges or shells on the drive back?
Armando Saldate: Yes. The interview, of course, was pretty lengthy, but as we continued back from the initial area where that occurred, he indicated that from the area of 99th Avenue to the area of 83rd Avenue as they were proceeding eastbound headed for Metrocenter where they would claim that the child was missing, on Union Hills Drive, he said that Jim Styers was a passenger at that time, then removed the bullets which were, there were six in a small .22 caliber revolver, removed the bullets and threw them out the window on the south side of Union Hills as they were headed for Metrocenter.
Noel Levy: Were those shells later recovered?
Armando Saldate: Yes. A search of that area by approximately 21 police officers, we found the three expended shells.
Noel Levy: Well, actually, you found three expended .22 caliber casings; is that correct?

Comment: Again, Levy notices an inaccuracy in Saldate's testimony (they found casings, not shells); he is good at noticing or ignoring Saldate's discrepancies as convenient.

Armando Saldate: That's correct, and a live round, which is right now being analyzed.
Noel Levy: So the analysis isn't complete, but does it fit with at least the area that Scott told you about?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And then did he also tell you something about shoes and was there also something about the weapon?
Armando Saldate: Yes.
During our interview, not only at the main station, but while we were en route to find the body, Roger told me that Mr. Styers had got off the car with Chris, and that he was wearing tennis shoes at that time. They were worn. And when they arrived at Metrocenter, he gave him the tennis shoes and told him to get rid of the tennis shoes while he went inside Metrocenter.
He said that he was also given the gun and six bullets, and that he put the shoes in a planter nearby where they had parked the car initially.
I asked him if he could locate that planter. He said he could.
After locating the body, we stopped by Metrocenter and located those shoes which he identified as placing in that location.
Noel Levy: And did you do a search warrant on Scott's home, and did you find a .22 caliber weapon?
Armando Saldate: Yes.
Noel Levy: Where he said it was?
Armando Saldate: Yes. During the interview he also said that the weapon that was used was given him by Mr. Styers and told to him by Mr. Styers to get rid of it. But then he also told him he could keep it if he wanted it. He decided to keep it.
He put it in his closet in a box, and a search warrant was later drawn up at his home, and a R.G. .22 Caliber revolver found inside a box in his closet.
Noel Levy: And then on the next day, Monday morning, was an autopsy done on the body of the child, Christopher Milke, by Dr. Bolduc?
Armando Saldate: Yes. On December 4, 1989, about 9:30 in the morning, Dr. Bolduc who is the deputy county medical examiner for Maricopa County, performed an autopsy on Chris Milke.
At that time, he determined that Chris suffered three gunshot wounds to the back of the head and died as a result of those gunshot wounds and determined it was a homicide.
Noel Levy: Were bullets and bullet fragments removed from the victim's head for analysis, and did the fragments appear to be consistent with a .22 caliber-type of lead bullet?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: Were there any other signs, according to Dr. Bolduc, of any other trauma or injuries to the child?
Armando Saldate: There was no signs of any serious injury to the child. There was a bruise on the bottom chin of the child, which could have been resulted in him when he fell to the ground after being shot. Could have struck a rock or something like that, but nothing serious.
Noel Levy: Now, with reference to the allegation of a conspiracy, did you have further discussion with Roger Scott concerning whether this had been a pre-planned event, and if so, with whom and when and from whom did it originate?
Armando Saldate: During, again, during the course of my interview with Roger, he indicated that not only was he and Jim Styers involved in this murder, but that he and Jim Styers had conspired with the mother of the child, Debra Milke.
He indicated that he had been approached by Jim Styers several weeks before, had asked him to help him kill this child, and that Debra Milke wanted it done.
He indicated that at first Jim did not want Debra to know that he was involved in it, but later he, with Jim Styers, met with Debra at least on several occasions to plan this murder out.
He indicated that Debra was disappointed, in fact, angry at them on several occasions because they had taken the child out on several occasions to do the murder but had brought him back for several reasons. The reasons basically because there were too many people around or the plan could not be carried out as they wished.
Debra -- he said Debra got angry at times because of that and insisted that they do it.

Comment: According to Saldate's own report SCOTT never experienced Debra being disappointed or angry personally, but that "ROGER said that JIM had told him that Debbie was pressuring him into doing it quick", which is a two-time hearsay allegation.

And as he indicated, conspired at least on several occasions to do this with all three of them, or all two.

Discrepancy #2: This is a very interesting point about the entire issue of incriminating Debra Milke. Not only did ROGER SCOTT make various conflicting statements about an alleged direct involvement of Debra Milke in attempt to kill Chris together with JIM STYERS, but Detective Saldate also contradicts himself, because during the recorded interview SCOTT said only that Debra and JIM STYERS were together on one occasion "to do it", later SCOTT alleged that all three were together at another occasion. Police never cleaned up that point properly.

Noel Levy: Was the plan to kill the child and then go to Metrocenter and report the child missing?
Armando Saldate: That's correct. The plan was to take the child to this location where they had already been. They had been to this location previously, checked out the location, found that it was a good location, checked out the time element from that location to Metrocenter to see if they would have enough time to get there while the stores were still open, while the stores were still busy, and the plan was to take the child to that location, kill it and then go to Metrocenter and claim that the child had disappeared as they did.

Discrepancy #3: Oh, that's interesting ! Saldate's story sounds very good with his elaboration and painting in of all the details. Just a small problem here: no record contains a statement from anyone about an earlier visit to the actual murder-scene, that that location had been checked out previously, that a decision was made that this was an appropriate location, or that the time element had been checked out. This entire paragraph is completely made up. Comment: And Levy, who knew all the details from the police records, didn't object to it with one word. The prosecutor thus allows completely fabricated details to be used to secure the indictment of Debra Milke. Therefore he sanctioned the incrimination of Debra Milke based on completely fabricated details.

Noel Levy: Was there even a run through done on the timing per his explanation?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.

Comment: Levy even had SALDATE confirm one of the fabricated details ...

Noel Levy: Did he explain whether or not there was any money aspect involved or an insurance policy with reference to murdering the child as discussed?
Armando Saldate: Yes. He indicated that the child, as told to them by Debra, that the child had a $ 5000 life insurance policy and that Debra would give them money after the child was dead.

Discrepancy #4: Another of Saldate's falsehoods. According to the pertinent records ROGER SCOTT never mentioned those $ 5,000 "as told to them by Debra", but only stated - according to Saldate's own report - "... and that JIM told him that he would give him $250.00 if he was to help him." Also, neither Saldate nor Levy cared to clarify that the insurance was no policy, but Debra Milke's participation to a group plan which was a part of her social benefits, offered by her employer. To view the original application, please click here. Also, the insurance conditions explicitly exclude any payments, since they read : "A Benefit will not be payable under this Certificate if any loss results directly or indirectly from: ( ... )(e) participating in or attempting to commit an assault or felony". Debra herself later explained her suspicions about this point in a letter: "But in order to convince Roger to go along, Jim entices him with money. Jim knew Roger needed $ 250 because he heard Roger ask me. Jim also made himself privy to the contents of my benefit booklet and realized I had insurance on both Chris and me. Only Jim would call it a policy because that's what he thinks it is. I know it's not a policy because it wasn't a separate purchase. It was merely a benefit which I always had everywhere I worked. I did nothing out of the ordinary. So, Jim further entices Roger to help him by mentioning I had a $ 5,000 ins. policy and he tells Roger I know all about it. This is all told to Roger just so he would agree to go along."

He said he needed money because he was involved in some litigation with Social Security and wanted $250 and that's the amount of money that was promised to him.
Noel Levy: Have you subsequently discovered whether there is a $ 5000 insurance policy?
Armando Saldate: That's correct. Through her employer, John Alden Insurance Company, she does have a $5000 life insurance policy where she is the beneficiary.

Comment: Saldate didn't resolve in greater detail that by law only a parent can be the beneficiary as to the death of the child covered with insurance. But this way it sounds even more damaging to the members of the Grand Jury ... . As for her (Debra's) own life, it was her sister Sandra Pickinpaugh and later on her own father, Richard Sadeik, who were listed as beneficiaries.

Noel Levy: With reference to the child abuse charge, who had custody of the child?
Armando Saldate: The child was -- the mother, Debra Milke, had sole custody of the child. She was divorced from her husband, Mark Milke.

Comment: Again, Saldate didn't mention that Debra was divorced for one year and had fought hard to get sole custody of Chris.

The child was also in care of Jim Styers who lived at the residence and babysat the child when Debra was at work.
Noel Levy: Debra lived with Styers at his place?
Armando Saldate: Yes, that's correct.

Comment: ... and no mention why they were roommates. The police records already clarified the issue about why Debra moved into JIM's apartment - it was because of increasing threats and harassment from her former husband, Mark Milke, which led up to a terrible fight in July of that year. But to keep silent about this point strengthens the "conspiracy" theory in front of the jury. Also neither Saldate nor Levy mentioned that Debra had just received sole custody, as later confirmed by her own sister, Sandra Pickinpaugh, in regards to a telephone talk made on November 11, 1989. Why would Debra seek sole custody, be suicidal (as claimed later on) and wanted her child killed, all at the same time? Neither Saldate nor Levy wanted the Grand Jury to raise all these questions.

Noel Levy: And with further reference to that particular charge, did Scott explain whether or not, at least from time to time, that he attempted to talk Styers out of killing the child?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
They had taken the child out several times. Scott said that, Roger Scott that is, said that they had not killed the child because of several reasons, that being there's too many people around. But he also indicated that he also talked Styers out of it on several occasions and took him back and used the excuse that there was too many people around so they wouldn't have to kill the child at that time.
Noel Levy: And on the particular occasion of the Saturday afternoon, December 2, did he indicate, Scott, that he merely drove, let them out, drove back and forth, then heard shots, so forth?
In other words, he wasn't actually present at the site of killing per se?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: Now, with reference to the charge of kidnapping, based upon your explanation, then, the child was driven out to that site?
Armando Saldate: Yes, he was taken to that site initially to go see Santa Claus at Metrocenter, but was taken to that site and from that site he was told to got out of the car and that he was going to go look for snakes, go hunting, and took him out to that wash, and that's when he was killed.
Noel Levy: Now, fortified with the information from Mr. Scott and having gone through, found the body and also items, did you then have an opportunity to interview Debra Milke?
Armando Saldate: Yes, I did. Shortly after arriving back from locating the body, I was -- I went to Florence, Arizona and contacted Debra.
Noel Levy: And did you -- why was she in Florence at the time?
Armando Saldate: She was visiting her father.
Noel Levy: And this was Sunday evening?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: Did she come down to the station voluntarily and wait until you arrived?
Armando Saldate: Yes, she did.
Noel Levy: And when you arrived, did you give her her Miranda rights?
Armando Saldate: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: And what did you tell her, and what was her reaction?
Armando Saldate: I told her that her son had been found, he was shot, and told her -- she immediately began to yell and cry and scream. I told her I wouldn't tolerate that. I told her she was under arrest for murder, and she again began to yell and scream and again told her I would not tolerate that and would want to speak to her and interview her in regards to her involvement in the murder, which we did.
Noel Levy: And so did she voluntarily agree to discuss the situation with you?
Armando Saldate: Yes, she did.
Noel Levy: What did she tell you, in essence?
Armando Saldate: She told me that she had gotten the idea at approximately one month ago about killing the child.

Discrepancy #5: But this is not stated in Saldate's report about his interrogation of Debra. The report just says: "Approximately one month ago, DEBRA said that she had contemplated suicide." and continues "Because of that, she then spoke to her friend JIM about helping her figure out a way for her child CHRIS to die." There is no mention in his report that the idea originated one month ago.

She said that at first she thought about suicide, but had decided not to because the child would then be released to her husband.
She said that she wanted the child killed because he was starting to act like her husband, would be just like her husband. She said she loved the child and wanted him to go up with God and not have to live in the house that her husband did.

Discrepancy #6: That's another interesting statement. She didn't want her child to live in the house that her husband did? Debra was divorced for more than one year at that time and didn't live with Mark, even prior to moving into JIM'S. Again Saldate started fabricating his own truth.

She indicated that she talked to Jim Styers, her roommate, told him about it, and that he agreed to do it.
She said that he later got in touch with Roger Scott, his friend and that they discussed, all three of them discussed doing this, and she indicated that she was never angry that they had not done it. She was disappointed on several occasions that they did take him out and hadn't done it, but was not angry.
She said her motivation was that she wanted her child not to grow up like his father and wanted him killed, but she did not want to collect the insurance, but that may have been their motivation.
Noel Levy: On the day of Saturday, was she aware that James Styers was taking the child and was she aware that the plan was to kill him that day?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: According to her statements to you?
Armando Saldate: Yes. That morning she woke up, she dressed the child; she knew that they were going to do it that day or were planning to do it that day.
They told him that he was going to go see Santa Claus and that's why he went with Jim Styers.
They took him, and she knew that the plan was to take him out to the location, kill him and then go back to the Sears, Metrocenter mall and claim that the child had disappeared.
She -- at approximately 3:20 that day, she said she received a call from Jim Styers, and he told her, "I'm at the mall."
At that point she realized that the child was dead and it had been done, because she knew they would not have gone to the mall unless the child had been killed.
Jim then told her that the child was missing and they were looking for him, and she said that she told Jim to call her back.
Noel Levy: And in that regard, I take it she was aware the child would be driven or transported to a distant location?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And whose vehicle was utilized?
Armando Saldate: Her vehicle was utilized. She lent Jim her vehicle.

MR NELSON: Does the Grand Jury have any questions?

MR. SABOURIN: Were there footprints found where the body was located?

Armando Saldate: There were.

MR. SABOURIN: Did they match the tennis shoes?

Armando Saldate: That analysis is being completed at this time.

Comment: It's true that Detective Saldate couldn't possibly give another answer to this question at this time. But it should also be mentioned that in a report about the scientific analysis of those tennis shoes which is dated 01/08/1990 it reads : "The two pairs of white athletic shoes (Items 4 & 5 Inv. #176-369-5) are excluded as having made the partial shoe print impressions depicted in the photographs." "The pair of black athletic shoes (Item 3 Inv. 176-369-5) could not be identified or excluded as having made partial shoe impressions depicted in the photographs." Therefore the shoes that had been found couldn't serve as physical evidence at all.

MS. KURT: I have a question of the tennis shoe things. It seems that you originally testified that the child when found was wearing snake skin boots?

Armando Saldate: He was wearing snake skin boots, yes, Ma'am.

MS. KURT: So what was with the tennis shoes?

Armando Saldate: The tennis shoes were worn by Jim Styers when he walked him into the wash.

Noel Levy: Wait a minute, Detective Saldate. We don't know that as a fact. That's what Mr. Scott said?
Armando Saldate: That is a statement from Mr. Scott.
Noel Levy: I mean he took you to the shoes, correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: So you're checking out sizes and other types of analysis?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: To attempt to insure precisely to whom the shoes belong; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.

Comment: Why should it be more important whose shoes these were, other than to investigate if those shoes had been out at the murder scene?

Noel Levy: But the child was just wearing children's boots?
Armando Saldate: Yes.
Noel Levy: As a matter of fact, were any tracks or prints found reatching a little child's boot prints?
Armando Saldate: At this point not that we can determine.

MS. KURT: I misunderstood who the tennis shoes belonged to.

MR. MC AULIFFE: Has Mr. Styers been questioned?

Armando Saldate: Yes, he has.

Comment: Now watch this ... Saldate is getting close to be caught in a lie ...

MR. LEVY: He was asked questions in regards to the search of the child a missing child; is that correct?

Comment: ... but Levy solves the situation with his interfering question. A great team.

Armando Saldate: That's correct.

MR. NELSON: Other than those statements that you've already presented to the Grand Jury, you obtained no additional statements from Mr. Styers; is that correct?

Armando Saldate: That's correct.

Comment: At this point, let's summarize the facts: STYERS had not made any statement in regards to the murder, (and as found out later) no physical evidence against him materialized and neither Saldate nor Levy have presented a creditable motive, other than STYERS allegedly intending to collect insurance money.

MR. MC AULIFFE: The tennis shoes you found are the same size as Mr. Styers wears, do you know?

Comment: The Grand Jury was obviously becoming nervous whether the prosecution and the Phoenix police were able to present any results of decent investigative work.

Armando Saldate: That's trying to be determined at this point.

Comment: It takes 30 min. to accomplish a confession of a person who has always denied that in twelve years after that, but it's impossible to determine the shoe size of an arrested defendant within four days? In fact, STYERS' footprints and shoesize were only taken on Saturday, July 7, 1990 upon request of Det. R. Mills #2781 at the M.C.S.D. jail.

MS. LOWE: It says Roger Scott had the gun. Was there anyway you could, when a person finds a gun, he have -- did you check that out?

Armando Saldate: No, ma'am. The reason for that is that test is only good or can only be used within an hour after the gun is fired.

MS. KURT: So am I to understand, then, Mr. Styers then has not been arrested on this charge, if he hasn't been --

NR. NELSON: The question as to whether he's been arrested would not be relevant to your determination whether there's probable cause.

MS. KURT: Well, let me rephrase it then. He then has not been asked questions about the child's murder, just the fact that the child is still missing, am I understanding that correctly?

Noel Levy: Let me ask the detective this way. Has what you've gone through, is that what Mr. Styers explained to you about the missing child?
Armando Saldate: Regarding the missing child?
Noel Levy: Yes.
Armando Saldate: Yes, that's correct.
Noel Levy: And that is the extent of his explanations to you; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: Yes.

MS. KURT: May I, just to get this straight in my own mind then, we have Debra Jean has been, or is in custody and knows that the child has been murdered through you by Scott's testimony to you; is that correct?

MR. NELSON: Is this a question you're asking the detective?

MS. KURT: I'm trying to get in my mind here a situation, because when Debra was summoned to the police station and was told of the death of the child by Officer Saldate here, so she is aware that the child is dead?

MR. NELSON: You can answer that question.

Armando Saldate: Yes.

MS. KURT: Right. And she knows that Styers is the one, or she knows that you know that Styers is the one that shot the child from what Roger Scott told you?

Comment: Isn't it interesting to see how jury member MS. KURT desperately tried to picture the situation which obviously left her with a lot of question marks?

MR. LEVY: Detective Saldate, that calls for an opinion.

MR. NELSON: Let me put it this way.
Detective, can you answer that question?

MR. LEVY: In a factual setting with reference to --

Armando Saldate: No.

MR. LEVY: -- persons making statements?

MR. NELSON: You don't know what she knows then?

Armando Saldate: I don't know what she knows until she tells me.

MS. KURT: I thought you told me you had told her that the child had been murdered?

Armando Saldate: Yes, I did tell her that.

MS. KURT: And there was some discussion about not tolerating her behavior or something, and I was under the impression that she was aware of the premeditation. I mean she related the story to you, that yes, they had planned this, she had gone about it a month ago and all these things?

Comment: Did MS. KURT have doubts as to the story fabricated by Detective Saldate? Did she have a hard time picturing what was said, believe what she was led to believe?

Armando Saldate: That's correct.

MS. KURT: So I'm a little confused I'm trying to put this into simple terms in my mind. Basically, in layman's terms here, Styers is the only one that doesn't know that you folks know that he's the one that killed him?

MR. LEVY: What he knows would be calling for speculation. I don't think Detective Saldate can answer what's in his mind.

MS. KURT: In other words, he has not been informed --  I mean -- is life going on as normal here? I mean, Milke and STYERS are living together, right?

Comment: It's obvious MS. KURT was indeed aware of the questionable story presented. "Is life going on as normal here?" Milke and STYERS are living together; are they a couple, are they engaged, what was their motive?

MR. NELSON: Detective -- you can ask the question, does Mr. Styers know he's being investigated for the murder of this child?

MS. KURT: So Styers is aware that he is a chief suspect in this investigation?

Armando Saldate: Yes.

MS. KURT: And Scott is still in custody?

MR. NELSON: The question of whether or not a person is in custody or not is totally irrelevant to your determination as to whether there's probable cause.

MS. KURT: Oh. Okay. So what are we trying to determine here?

Comment: Indeed, a good question. Any decent look at the story presented would leave serious doubts as to the lack of hard evidence.

MR. NELSON: Are there any additional questions?

Comment: ... but then MS. KURT is silenced. At least for a while ...

MR. SABOURIN: Yes. Debra Milke has been charged with the murder. You told her that she was charged with murder when you read her her Miranda rights and stuff like that when she was screaming her head off, you told her to knock it off, she started screaming again, you told her to knock it off, she was charged with the murder.

Armando Saldate: I told her she was under arrest for murder.

MR. SABOURIN: Right.

MS. HAMILTON: I was wondering if Ms. Milke told you that her husband had a mental condition or what it was she didn't want this child to grow up like him. Was there some definite thing that you're able to tell us like that, or just generalism she didn't want him to grow up?

MR. LEVY: I think you can answer that.

Armando Saldate: She told me that her husband was a heavy drinker, a drug user, had spent time in prison, and that she didn't want him to grow up with that.

Comment: If this explanation were given while describing the "confession," it would make the story even less believable, because it is a completely reasonable explanation of why a mother wouldn't want her son to grow up like his father (not an explanation for murder); yet given without this explanation, it is presented as a bizarre motive for murder, which obviously made MS. HAMILTON confused and uneasy - as she should be, since it makes no sense !

Yes, sir?

MR. MC AULIFFE: Has it been determined who the owner of the gun was? Is there a registered owner of the gun, or who bought and purchased the gun?

Armando Saldate: That takes some time and that has not been done. And that's being done.

MR. NELSON: Are there any further questions?
There being no further questions --

Noel Levy: Well, before we break, in summary, then, Detective Saldate, is that both Debra Milke and Roger Scott have indicated that they, including Styers, agreed to -- that the child should be killed; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.

Comment:  This point makes it clear why Saldate had a motive to fabricate the alleged confession of Debra Milke: hadn't he done that, cornering STYERS between two 'confessions' of SCOTT and Debra Milke, nothing would incriminate JAMES STYERS other that SCOTT'S rambling allegations. Only an additional confession - real or unreal - would tie not only ROGER SCOTT, but also JAMES STYERS and Debra Milke to this murder.

Noel Levy: And then the child was taken out, put into Roger Scott's car, shot by, according to Roger Scott, shot by James Styers, because he heard three shots, and James Styers said he shot the child; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And then the autopsy the child was found with three bullet holes in the back of the head purporting to be .22 caliber; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And then you found a .22 caliber gun that he said that Styers gave him to get rid of in his house?
Armando Saldate: That is also correct.
Noel Levy: And you found shoes that he said Styers gave him to hide in the bushes at Metrocenter?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And Styers said that he took the child to Metrocenter and the child disappeared out of the bathroom; is that correct?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: And within the time frame that he said the child disappeared, according to Roger Scott, would the child already have probably been killed, according to Scott's statement?
Armando Saldate: That's true.
Noel Levy: And that Styers was living with Debra Milke, and that she knew that and said that she knows that Styers did take that child that day and she understood that it was to kill the child?
Armando Saldate: That's correct.
Noel Levy: Along with Roger Scott?
Armando Saldate: Yes.
Noel Levy: And did Debra Milke also tell you that when she got the call from Styers that he was at Metrocenter that she knew the child was dead?
Armando Saldate: Yes.
Noel Levy: Any other questions?

MR. ARCHULETA: Have you been able to ascertain the time of death?

Armando Saldate: I haven't. The doctor I don't believe can.

MS. KURT: And has there been a record of a phone call at that particular time frame determined in that time span?

Armando Saldate: What type of record, ma'am?

MS. KURT: The time span from the time that they supposedly left the scene of the crime, arrived at Metrocenter and placed a call to Debra Milke?

Armando Saldate: What type of record? I don't understand.

MS. KURT: I don't know, however they find out?

Armando Saldate: There is no records for any public phones that someone uses to call someone else. There is no record of it unless it's a toll call.

MS. KURT: Oh, but I thought she was in Florence?

Armando Saldate: Ma'am, she was here at that time.

MR. LEVY: She went to Florence later?

Armando Saldate: She went to Florence after the disappearance of her son.

MS. KURT: So after Jim's call?

Armando Saldate: That's correct.

Discrepancy #7: That's incorrect. Saldate let the jury believe that Debra, after JIM STYERS had called, up and left to go to Florence. It's basically as if it was said: 'after a person is born, he dies', which isn't incorrect either, but just doesn't tell the whole story. As the reader will see in our rundown of proceedings Debra stayed home for approximately 22 hours after JIM STYERS had called for the first time and reported Christopher missing from the mall. Debra spent her 'around the clock vigil' with friends who came for support, police interviews and staying at the phone, waiting for Christopher to call.

MR. NELSON: Are there any further questions?

MR. MC AULIFFE: Who did Scott say drove the car out to the desert area?

Armando Saldate: He said he drove part of the way and Mr. Styers also drove part of the way. The last part he drove. Styers took the child from the car.

MR. LEVY: Any other questions?

MR. NELSON: There being no other questions, Detective, you are excused.
Arizona law prohibits you from discussing your testimony here today with anyone other than the prosecution.
Would you please remain outside in the witness room.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Whereupon, the witness left the Grand Jury room.)

MR. NELSON: Are there any legal questions?
There being no legal questions, at this time, I'll remind you of your options. We'll leave the room to allow you time to consider those options.

(Thereupon, the Deputy County Attorney and the Court Reporter were excused from the Grand Jury Room, were subsequently recalled into the Grand Jury Room, and the following proceedings took place :)

MR. BENNETT: The jury has voted and directs the County Attorney to prepare a draft indictment for our consideration.

MR. NELSON: I have prepared a draft indictment for you to consider.
The admonitions read earlier today concerning draft indictments are applicable.

(Thereupon, the Deputy County Attorney and the Court Reporter were excused from the Grand Jury Room, were subsequently recalled into the Grand Jury Room, and the following proceedings took place :)

MR. BENNETT: The clerk will read the Grand Jury findings.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: The Grand Jury, with 14 members present and only members of the Grand Jury present, deliberated upon evidence, and with 14 jurors voting by a vote of 14 to 0 returned a true bill.

(Thereupon, Patrick O'Neil, Commissioner, was called into the courtroom and the following proceedings were had:)

4:40 p.m.

P R 0 C E E D I N G S
RE: RETURN OF INDICTMENTS

MR. BENNETT: Your Honor, case 116 GJ 83, a true bill.
My signature appears on the indictment endorsing it as a true bill.

MS. KMITEC: This is an NSI.
All defendants are non-bondable on Count 1. And Mr. Levy will give you the factual basis and the information on Counts 2, 3, 4.

MR. LEVY: Your Honor, Count 1 is murder. Count 2 is conspiracy to commit murder, first degree. Count 3 is child abuse. Count 4 is kidnapping. Both Count 3 and Count 4 are alleged as dangerous crimes against children.
I have the warrant fact sheets here.
That way I read the statute cE 13-3961 B and E as to Counts 2 and 3 being dangerous crimes against children, that they are not bailable, and also on Count 1 we're alleging that it is a capital case on the basis that there is a child that was killed under the age of 15 years, which is an aggravated factor. Pecuniary gain at least as to two of the defendants, Scott and Styers. As to the purported, there in fact was an insurance policy $ 5000 an the child's life payable to Debra Milke, so there are factors that make this a capital case.
And as I understand it, on Count 2 being a conspiracy to commit first degree murder, that's not, ipso facto, not bondable So the State is requesting a bond and surcharge of $ 270,000 relative to each respective defendant.
So in summary, it would seem to me it would be non-bondable, should the Court decide as to Counts 1, 3 and 4, and as to Count 2, the State is requesting a bond of 270,000 as to each defendant.

THE COURT: Do you want to place anything on the record so that I can find that the proof is evident, presumption great?

MR. LEVY: Okay. Defendant Scott stated, after Miranda rights, so forth, that there was a conspiracy to commit to murder the child involving the mother wanted the child killed.
Styers, who lived with her, was to kill the child, and he drove them out to the desert where the child was killed.
Debra Milke, also, after Miranda, talks that she wanted the child killed, she wanted James Styers to do it. She knew that he wanted Scott to be involved with him, and they tried to do it several times before.
On the day in question, she knew they were going to take the child out to kill the child and confirmed about the insurance policy, and when Styers called her later that afternoon and said he was at Metrocenter, so forth, she knew the child had been killed, because that was part of the plot, to say the child had become missing from Metrocenter.

Comment: This time it's Levy who commits foul play, claiming Debra Milke had confirmed about the insurance policy. Even in regards to Saldate's report which contains the alleged confession this statement is a complete falsehood. That report clearly says: "I then told DEBRA that it had been my understanding that JIM and ROGER were to receive a partial payment of the $ 5000 policy which she had on her child's life. DEBRA denied having a policy but said she may have told JIM about her father's policy and said that that may have been JIM'S and ROGER's motivation for the killing but that it was definitely not hers."

THE COURT: And that last information was obtained from Defendant C?

MR. LEVY: Yes. And then, of course, there's physical evidence. Three shots to the back of the child's head. Casing, gun, bullets, those sorts of things.

Comment: As with the results of the scientific analysis of the cited tennis shoes, none of the .22 caliber cartridge cases could be identified or excluded as having been fired by the RG .22 caliber revolver (Item 2, Inv. 176-369-5). Therefore, no physical evidence ever materialized in this case, other than Christopher's dead body.

THE COURT: It's ordered assigning this cause a criminal number.

MS. KMIEC: The paperwork does not read as Mr. Levy just stated.

THE COURT: Yes. Did you want a chance to read that to change that, or what are you proposing ?

MS. KMIEC: Your Honor, I believe the Court clerk can change the paperwork on those issues.

THE COURT: Including on the warrants and prepare a new warrant?

MS. KMIEC: And we'll get you a new warrant.

THE COURT: Based upon what I've heard, ordered that a notice of supervening indictment issue with copies to be served on the parties shown on the face thereof.
The current orders of release or custody or --

MS. KMIEC: They're NSI non-bondable on one and two, warrant on Counts 3 and 4.

THE COURT: As to Count 1, all three defendants, it's ordered that those prior orders relating to the custody status remain in full force and effect.
Court does find that the proof is evident, presumption great that the requirements of our laws and Constitution have been satisfied at least at this time.
It's further ordered as to Counts 3 and 4 as to Defendants A and C, the defendant shall be held without bond. And as to Count 3 with Defendants A and B, also ordered that on those counts defendants be held without bond, and that as to all three defendant on Count 2, that bail be set in the amount of 237 -- that's not. You said --

MR. LEVY: 270,000, I believe is the figure with surcharge.