James Styers' Testimony
at His Own Trial



Return to previous page eMail a friend Download this page in Acrobat format printable version
Bookmark and Share


Other than the humongous file of The Debra Milke Case we considered it a possibility that statements from the trial of JIM STYERS might also shine some light on the true proceedings in both, the murder of 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER MILKE, and the circumstances which led to the detention of his mother. Unfortunately, the webmaster of this site doesn't have access to the entire file of JIM STYERS' case, but we are in possession of some excerpts of STYERS' testimony, and these are already sufficient to give us a clearer picture of what may truly have happened when the little boy was shot in the desert north of Phoenix.
At his own trial JIM STYERS was legally represented by attorney JESSE MIRANDA. The following starts with JIM'S direct examination by MR. MIRANDA. The first issue MR. MIRANDA sought to clarify were the statements contained in the impounded letter going back and forth between Debra and JIM:




Clip #5: We are shining some light on what happened on the crucial day in
DEBRA MILKE'S case; December 2nd, 1989. By putting together witness testimony
we are concluding how the tragic murder of 4 year-old CHRISTOPHER MILKE truly came about,
and - maybe - even disclose who the actual perpetrator was!


October 29th, 1990

DIRECT EXAMINATION
(...)
Jesse Miranda: Why were you give -- and it was giving money, wasn't it?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: Why were you giving Debra money?
Jim Styers: Nobody else would, everybody disowned her.
Comment: This independent statement of JIM STYERS confirms what this website explains in many places about the true demeanor of Debra Milke's family in Florence after her arrest. She received no support from them, no benefit of a doubt towards the made-up story told by the State, and no one would care for her financial needs in the months prior to her trial. Here, STYERS told MR. MIRANDA his motivation why he sent some money on Debra's books.
Jesse Miranda: Jim, the next letter that we have is from February 24th of 1990. Again, you start off with Dear Debbie, and you write, I hate Roger too. In fact, I don't know what words that would be bad enough to use to say what I think of him. Your benefits book is probably how he got his information, but I never saw him look at it. I told him no for the $250 also. He needed it for his Social Security -- apparently it's suppose to be lawyer?
Jim Styers: Yeah.
Jesse Miranda: What do you think of Roger at this point in time?
Jim Styers: Right now?
Jesse Miranda: Yeah.
Jim Styers: I can't say.
Jesse Miranda: You talk about the benefits booklet. Were you aware that the benefits booklet was in the house?
Jim Styers: Yes, I was.
Jesse Miranda: And how were you aware of that, Jim?
Jim Styers: Debbie came home with it and we went over it.
Jesse Miranda: So, you and Debbie went over the benefits booklet, before she filled out the form?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: You helped her fill out the form?
Jim Styers: No, I didn't help her fill it out. She filled it out herself.
Jesse Miranda: Were you helping her along, talking to her?
Jim Styers: I was talking with her, yes.
Jesse Miranda: Were you aware that there was a $5,000 insurance policy?
Jim Styers: Yes, I was.
Jesse Miranda: Would you kill Christopher Milke for $5,000?
Jim Styers: No, I would not.
Jesse Miranda: When you and Debra talked about the $5,000 insurance policy that was issued, or was being paid for, did you talk about killing Christopher Milke?
Jim Styers: No, we did not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever talk with Debra Milke about killing Christopher Milke?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever discuss it or was there ever any discussion between you and Debra Milke which could be interpreted as you talking about killing Christopher?
Jim Styers: No, there was nothing.
Jesse Miranda: So, just so I understand, you were aware of the $5,000 --
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: -- that Debra requested. Do you regularly apply for life insurance?
Jim Styers: Do I apply for life insurance?
Jesse Miranda: Yes.
Jim Styers: Got life insurance for my kids.
Jesse Miranda: Which kids?
Jim Styers: Jeff, Chris, Heather and Wendy.
Jesse Miranda: Is it for more than $5,000?
Jim Styers: I believe so.
Jesse Miranda: Okay. Next in here you talk about, you say, I quote, I told him no for the $250 also. He needed it for his Social Security lawyer. What was that about?
Jim Styers: He was trying to get Social Security disability.
Jesse Miranda: What did he need $250 for?
Jim Styers: To, I guess, like an advance payment to the lawyer.
Jesse Miranda: He had talked to you about it?
Jim Styers: Yes, he talked --
Jesse Miranda: He had asked you for the $250?
Jim Styers: Yes, he did.
Jesse Miranda: What did you tell him when he asked you for the $250?
Jim Styers: That I don't have it.
Jesse Miranda: What was his reaction to you when you told him I don't have $250 to give you?
Jim Styers: Well, he knew if I had it I'd probably would have gave it to him. So, he asked Debbie.
Comment: Here we come across the next interesting detail. JIM STYERS himself stated that he would have given ROGER SCOTT the requested $250, if only he had the money. This is fully consistent with the statement of SANDRA PICKINPAUGH in her interview with DET. SALDATE from June 30th, 1990. In that, SANDY related: "Jim could not say no to anybody. I mean, Jim just does numerous things for people. He's just that kind of person (inaudible). He would call me and say I'll be over in 10 minutes, I'm right around the corner from you and show up two hours later. You know. It was because he saw a lady on the highway with her car, you know, or somebody needed a ride somewhere." In essence, all information corroborates that JIM STYERS is a very helpful person and seemed to please the people who surrounded him, including his buddy ROGER.
Jesse Miranda: How do you know he asked Debbie?
Jim Styers: I was there.
Jesse Miranda: What did Debbie tell him?
Jim Styers: No way.
Jesse Miranda: Why would Roger Scott ask Debra Milke for $250, when apparently she was well aware she didn't care for him?
Comment: Another interesting point. MR. MIRANDA implied with his question that Debra disapproved of ROGER SCOTT, and the two individuals didn't get along very well. But Debra respected the contact of JIM with his former high-school buddy ROGER, because she had no right to impose her predilection onto JIM, who had offered her and her son a place to stay.
Jim Styers: Because he needed the money.
Comment: ... and JIM confirmed this presumption. The sole reason why ROGER SCOTT would ask Debra for the $250 in spite of her antipathy towards him was his need for a prepayment to an attorney.
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever agree with Roger Scott to give him $250 if he would kill Christopher Milke?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever agree with Debra Milke to pay Roger Scott $250, or for that matter any amount of money, to kill Christopher?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Were you hurting for money so badly that you would kill Christopher Milke for $5,000?
Jim Styers: No, I was not.
(...)

Jim Styers 1989
JIM STYERS after being arrested, 1989

Jesse Miranda: When had you last started contact with Roger Scott?
Jim Styers: About a year before this came up.
Jesse Miranda: So, about 19- -- late 1988 you again ran into Roger?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: This was the boat show, where he was with Jim?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was some kind of a show.
Jesse Miranda: After that, what kind of contact did you have with Roger Scott?
Jim Styers: He'd call, me every once in a while, need a ride somewhere. Every once in a while we'd go out.
Jesse Miranda: You bought a gun, a revolver for Roger Scott; is that right?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: You bought that in late November?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: How much did you pay for that revolver?
Jim Styers: $20.
Jesse Miranda: Why would you buy Roger Scott a gun?
Jim Styers: Because he wanted one and I had one already, so I was going to go out shooting.
Jesse Miranda: You were going to go out shooting?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: You by yourself, you and Roger Scott, you and Roger Scott and others; who?
Jim Styers: Roger and I and maybe Jim Wallford.
Jesse Miranda: Jim Wallford liked guns?
Jim Styers: Yes, he does.
Jesse Miranda: As much or more than Roger Scott?
Jim Styers: Yeah, I think so. I think he likes them more than I do.
Comment: Here STYERS stated that he and varying companions were out with him for shooting purposes. In other words, when DET. SALDATE interrogated SCOTT, and this interrogation had meanwhile taken more than twelve hours, the detective threatened to ransack the apartment of SCOTT'S elderly and frail mother. Most likely, SCOTT would then incriminate his buddy JIM with the killing of CHRISTOPHER, and also remember details of these 'previous' visits to shooting places in the north of Phoenix. This is the information where this most probable scenario unravels.
Jesse Miranda: Had Roger Scott ever had any other firearms that you're aware of?
Jim Styers: Yes, he did.
Jesse Miranda: What firearms did he have before?
Jim Styers: He had a .22 rifle.
Jesse Miranda: And how do you know he had a .22 rifle, Jim?
Jim Styers: I've seen him shoot it. I've seen it at his house. I've taken it from him once.
Jesse Miranda: Why would you -- did you take it from him?
Jim Styers: Because he was drunk and he was going to shoot his wife.
Comment: A stunning detail about ROGER SCOTT'S behavior in regard to guns! STYERS knew exactly that ROGER SCOTT was a possible danger when intoxicated. And this is apparently what JIM STYERS can rightfully be accused of, namely the irresponsibility to take a gun to ROGER SCOTT in the presence of 4 y.o. CHRIS, the little boy he had under his supervision and who he was responsible for that morning [December 2nd, 1989].
Jesse Miranda: Did you --


MR. LEVY: Objection. I couldn't foresee this irrelevancy coming. I believe it's not probative of anything. Ask that it be stricken.
Comment: STYERS testimony was not probative of anything? Why the objection at this point? As we pointed out in our analysis of LEVY'S closing argument at Debra Milke's trial, the prosecutor needs to be strongly suspected for the instigation of the claim that a conspiracy existed. STYERS' statement on the other hand would make the unbiased onlooker question whether SCOTT was truly a safe person, and consider the possibility that SCOTT unforeseeably shot the little boy in the desert. This objection makes LEVY'S true intentions even more apparent. But thankfully, it was overruled by the judge.
THE COURT: Overruled, the answer may stand.
BY MR. MIRANDA:
Jesse Miranda: Jim, had you ever talked to Roger about his -- him firing weapons?
Jim Styers: Not really talked to him, no.
Jesse Miranda: Did he ever say anything about firing the gun?
Jim Styers: He liked them. He said he liked to do it. He said -- he has talked to me about times he has fired the guns, shooting them down the alleys, and his mother verified that.
Jesse Miranda: In your opinion, does Roger Scott appreciate -- well, strike that question.
Has Roger ever fired the weapon, in your presence, in a manner which was unsafe?

Jim Styers: Yes, he has.
Comment: Again, STYERS knew that ROGER SCOTT wouldn't be safe under certain circumstances.
Jesse Miranda: When he fired the weapon as you've just indicated, was there any concern by Roger about the safety of anyone around him?
Jim Styers: No, there wasn't.
(...)
Jesse Miranda: Jim, you were planning on moving from this state?
Jim Styers: Yes, I was.
Jesse Miranda: Where were you going to move to?
Jim Styers: I was thinking about going to Wyoming.
Jesse Miranda: Who did you talk to about moving?
Jim Styers: Debbie Pickinpaugh.
Jesse Miranda: Debbie --
Jim Styers: Uh-huh -- excuse me, Sandy Pickinpaugh, Debbie's sister.
Jesse Miranda: Did you talk to John and Karen about it?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did. I also talked to Ron about it, Sandy's husband.
Jesse Miranda: Why were you going to move out of state?
Jim Styers: I was tired of this state.
Jesse Miranda: Weren't you concerned about Debra?
Jim Styers: No, she was all right.
Jesse Miranda: Well, you were going to move out of the apartment, correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, I was.
Jesse Miranda: Weren't you concerned about what Debra was going to do, as far as a place to live?
Jim Styers: She was getting an apartment in January.
Jesse Miranda: This was the apartment that she told you was close to -- closer to work?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was.
Comment: LEVY'S unfounded claim in his closing argument at Debra's trial is contradicted here by STYERS' testimony. Here STYERS clearly reveals that Debra's sole motivation to find herself an apartment was to live in a place closer to her job. As the application form for that apartment reveals, she listed her son and herself for that accommodation. LEVY'S supposition that her motive was to move closer to ERNIE SWEAT turns out entirely invented and contradictory to all coherency.
Jesse Miranda: When did you start talking about moving out of state?
Jim Styers: Well, it was right after Sandy and her husband moved to Wyoming.
Jesse Miranda: When was that?
Jim Styers: When they had got married in November, something like that, October maybe.
Jesse Miranda: You got along well with Sandra?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: You got along well with her husband Ron?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: Were you going to move to Wyoming permanently?
Jim Styers: No, I was going up to just find out if I wanted to stay there or not, I talked to my wife about it too.
Jesse Miranda: Karen Styers?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Jesse Miranda: What did Karen -- what was Karen's reaction to that?
Jim Styers: Well, she thought it would be all right if - it worked out okay.
Jesse Miranda: Jim, just a couple of points: One, why, if you bought the gun towards the end of November, did you not give the gun to Roger Scott before December 2nd?
Jim Styers: Because I hadn't really seen Roger anymore in there. And when I talked to him on the phone, he had said he didn't want to take it on the bus if he came over.
(...)

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. LEVY: I need to show some objects.
THE COURT: Just show them.
BY MR. LEVY:
Noel Levy: I show you Exhibit 138. Is this your gun, Mr. Styers?
Jim Styers: No, it isn't.
Noel Levy: It is not your gun?
Jim Styers: No, it isn't.
Noel Levy: You just testified earlier --
Jim Styers: That is Roger's gun.
Noel Levy: Let me rephrase that. Did you purchase this gun, Exhibit 138, in about mid-November from a Steve Hicks?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: And you gave him a postdated check?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: This is the gun you purchased?
Jim Styers: It's one of them.
Noel Levy: And so when you purchased this gun, you purchased it for you, James Styers, at that time?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Noel Levy: You did not. Did someone instruct you to purchase this?
Jim Styers: No, they did not.
Comment: It is corroborated and actually no question that JIM STYERS bought three guns in total. The first gun was purchased in mid November 1989. This was the one which Debra voluntarily showed to police in the course of the interview held at the apartment throughout the missing person investigation. The pertinent report of DET. DAVIS #2181 reads:
"DEBRA said JIM is a good father and has spoiled WENDY. She described him as being very patient and that he has taken care of her sister's baby. She said JIM was in the Marines. At that time, DEBRA said, no he has never flipped out. She was asked about JIM owning any guns and she said I think he has one gun. She then asked if we would like to see it and I told her yes. DEBRA went to another room and returned with a revolver and found it to be a German made revolver that had the initials EIG MODEL E15 on it. It also was found to be a .22 long rifle 6 shot revolver with serial number 247137."
As shown in our synopsis 'A Try at Enlightenment', STYERS bought another two guns from an individual named STEVEN W. HICKS, paying him with a post-dated check.
Noel Levy: You just purchased it, and you gave your check, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: I show you Exhibit 120, these Nike tennis shoes. Do you recognize them?
Jim Styers: No, I do not.
Noel Levy: Are you admitting or denying that these are your shoes?
Jim Styers: I'm denying they are my shoes.
Noel Levy: You said to your defense counsel that the tennis shoes in the car were Nikes and they were yours. Do you recollect --
Jim Styers: Yes, I do.
Noel Levy: Do you now change your testimony?
Jim Styers: I do not.
Noel Levy: Are you aware that when the white Toyota automobile was searched that there were no such tennis or tennis shoes in that car?
Jim Styers: I know it now, yes, I do.
Noel Levy: Showing you Exhibit 108, specifically, the check for $80 from James Styers to Steve Hicks dated December 1, 1989. Is that your check?
Jim Styers: Yes, it is.
Noel Levy: And that's the check you paid for the gun, being Exhibit 138 that I just showed you?
Jim Styers: Yes, that was one of the guns.
Noel Levy: There was more than one gun, correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, there is.
Noel Levy: You already had a gun besides that, did you not?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: The guns that you had were, one of them was Exhibit 137, this chrome .22 revolver, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Let me see it better.
Noel Levy: No, I won't show it to you.
Jim Styers: Let me see the handle. No, that's, that's the one I bought with it.
Noel Levy: So, this is your gun?
Jim Styers: Doesn't really look like my gun. No.
Noel Levy: You denying or admitting it's your gun?
Jim Styers: If I could see it a little better I'd be able to tell you.
Noel Levy: Do you see it?
Jim Styers: Yes, that's my gun. That's the one I bought with the other one.
Noel Levy: You kept it in this brown sock?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: You kept it in your closet?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: You kept it in your closet as shown in 104 Exhibit 87, at the top shelf?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: You kept it loaded as per Exhibit 141, is that so?
Jim Styers: I didn't have it loaded all the time, but I did at that time, yes.
Noel Levy: You kept it loaded even though Christopher Milke was in the house, as well as your daughter Wendy?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Comment: Other than the first gun which JIM bought, this is the other gun STYERS held at his apartment. Debra stated that she had no idea about his one, and the way it was hidden corroborates this presumption that she was entirely truthful about it.
Noel Levy: And in addition, you owned Exhibit 136, this gun and this holster. Do you see it?
Jim Styers: Yes, I do.
Noel Levy: Is this your gun?
Jim Styers: Yes, it is.
Noel Levy: You also kept it in the top shelf of your closet, is that so?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: You kept it as shown in Exhibit 86, is that so?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: In addition in your -- this is your closet per 85, is it not?
Jim Styers: Yes, it is.
Noel Levy: The guns were up here in the shelf, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, it is.
Noel Levy: The clothing in your closet, besides yours, are the clothing of Debra Milke's, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, they are.
Noel Levy: There was no room in the other closet in the other room where she slept because the closet was full of Gail's clothing, is that so?
Jim Styers: It was Gail's, Wendy's and Christopher's clothes in there.
Noel Levy: So, she had to put your clothes in your bedroom closet?
Jim Styers: Yes, she did.
Noel Levy: Along with her other things, is that correct?
Jim Styers: That's right.
Noel Levy: Showing you Exhibit 147, the .22 long rifle Stinger ammunition, you've seen this before, have you not?
Jim Styers: I believe so.
Noel Levy: It was in the glove compartment of Debra Milke's car, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Is that the ones that were in it?
Noel Levy: You said you knew.
Jim Styers: I don't know if those were in it or not. I had shells at the house too.
Noel Levy: You knew however there were .22 CCI Stinger, box of Stinger ammunition in the glove box of the car?
Jim Styers: Yes, I do.
Noel Levy: You put them in there?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: Or did Debra Milke put them --
Jim Styers: I put them there.
Noel Levy: Who purchased them?
Jim Styers: I did.
Noel Levy: Or did Debra Milke?
Jim Styers: I did.
Noel Levy: Did you together?
Jim Styers: No.
Comment: He we see how ruthlessly LEVY tried of JIM STYERS to have him testify his desired scenario. Interestingly, LEVY contradicted himself with his obstinate questioning. In his closing argument at Debra's trial he explained to the jury members: "The correlation is that a conspirator need not have full knowledge of the details of the conspiracy. In other words, every little detail, like will it end up at 99th Avenue in the wash, or will it end up at 93rd Avenue and Union Hills, or whatever. Need not have full knowledge of each and every detail, such as will .22 CCI Stingers be used or Remington .22 long-rifle." But during the cross-examination of JIM STYERS he suggested exactly this, that JIM and Debra purportedly went along together in order to purchase the gun(s), which would contradict the 'need not have full knowledge' statement. It unravels that these were nothing but self-serving suppositions which led the prosecutor.
Noel Levy: .22 Stinger CCI ammunition, you knew that to be hypervelocity, did you not?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: Has more impact, correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, it does.
Noel Levy: More killing power, correct?
Jim Styers: Probably.
Noel Levy: Normally at your house you kept Super X long rifle .22 ammunition, did you not?
Jim Styers: No.
Noel Levy: You did not?
Jim Styers: I had both there.
Noel Levy: Oh, you kept this Stinger ammunition there as well?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: Where did you keep it?
Jim Styers: Kept it with the guns.
Noel Levy: In your closet?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: For what reason did you put it in the glove compartment, knowing that Christopher Milke was going to be going to see Santa Claus that day at Metro Center?
Jim Styers: Because they were going with the guns to Roger's.
Noel Levy: Yes. And you already testified on direct examination, Mr. Styers, that according to you, Roger Scott was careless with guns, shot at people, shot in the alley, shot in an unsafe way, yet you took the gun on that day, with Christopher Milke with you in the car, to take the gun to Roger Scott. Is that so?
Jim Styers: Yes, that's right.
Noel Levy: And that if that's so, Mr. Styers, you claim that you never went into the house of Roger Scott but only stayed in the parking lot, you talked for a while, he got in and you drove off, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, that's right.
Comment: In other words, LEVY knew precisely that JIM STYERS had acted irresponsible in subjecting the little boy to the presence of ROGER SCOTT in connection with a gun. That's indeed the accusation JIM STYERS has to face. Interestingly, LEVY didn't use the often-stressed 'common sense' in order to find out how the murder truly took place. Instead, he invented the claim of an alleged conspiracy, led DET. SALDATE on to fabricate a confession of Debra and thus 'framed' JIM STYERS between this and the self-serving and disjointed accusations of ROGER SCOTT. A confession, which was never signed, not witnessed by anyone, nor tape-recorded. The deadly result: three death sentences in place of only one!
Noel Levy: Yet you could have easily, according to your version, have insisted, under these conditions, that he take that gun into his house, but you forgot to mention that, or what, Mr. Styers?
Jim Styers: No, Roger wasn't drinking at the time, so he was all right.
Comment: We come to the next point which raised strong suspicions toward JIM STYERS. LEVY asked the very reasonable question about not taking the gun into SCOTT'S apartment. Instead, STYERS knew that the gun remained inside the car, and SCOTT additionally got into Debra's white Toyota Corolla. More clearly, isn't the most likely scenario that SCOTT had talked JIM into driving to that remote desert area north of Phoenix in order to try the newly bought gun? Isn't that the same activity as the two men have done previously, like STYERS related upon direct examination to MR. MIRANDA? It is, and that's why it's reasonable to assume that STYERS commenced being untruthful at this point.
But why would JIM STYERS be untruthful, but insist on being totally innocent of the murder of CHRISTOPHER? Why did he justify the fact that he took ROGER out to the desert, in connection with the gun he had brought along for his buddy? We have seen in several places on this website, that JIM STYERS had promised Debra Milke explicitly not to use any weapons in the presence of CHRISTOPHER. When STYERS realized that ROGER SCOTT had shot the little boy, he knew that his disobedience toward the young mother would surface. This is what he sought to hide.
Additionally we'd like to point out that you can listen to an audio sample of ROGER SCOTT'S conversation with DET. ROBERT MILLS. Listening to this sample you will realize that SCOTT sounded everything but 'all right' on those fateful days, December 2nd and 3rd, 1989.
Noel Levy: So, it's perfectly all right to have the gun, that you claim suddenly to give him that day for no known reason, and also have the box of .22 Stinger ammunition in the glove box, is that right?
Jim Styers: No.
Noel Levy: But you did have the. 22 Stinger ammunition in the glove box, did you not?
Jim Styers: Yes. I did.
Noel Levy: You testified on direct examination, Mr. Styers, that when you got out of the car at the wash, 99th Avenue north of Happy Valley Road, that's where the gun was in the glove box.
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: And the gun then was in the glove box per Exhibit 74 and 75, with the Stinger ammunition?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was.
Noel Levy: And the Stinger ammunition was covered up with a -- this Cardinals child's logo shirt, correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was.
Noel Levy: So, you knew then in the same glove box was a gun and ammunition, and Christopher Milke, age four, in the same car with Roger Scott, whom you claim to be unsafe, is that correct?
Jim Styers: No. Roger Scott was safe at the time.
Noel Levy: Now he's safe?
Jim Styers: He was at the time.
Noel Levy: When did he become safe, Mr. Styers?
Comment: Again, a reasonable question. LEVY touched the sensitive spot of JIM STYERS' lie for a second time.


Jim Styers today
JIM STYERS in 2003,
after fourteen years at the Florence Inn.
Member of a conspiracy, or innocent like Debra?


MR. MIRANDA: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. LEVY:
Noel Levy: Mr. Styers, on the way back from the wash, it was you and Roger Styers in Debra's car, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Roger Scott, yes.
Noel Levy: Roger Scott was driving?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: And the route back, I show you Exhibit 149, was it down 99th Avenue to Union Hills and the freeway then to Metro Center?
Jim Styers: I'm not sure of the route.
Noel Levy: Does that sound about right?
Jim Styers: I don't know.
Comment: Why would STYERS all of a sudden lack memory about the route back into Phoenix? Well, on one hand the fact of the murder may have caused JIM to be very excited and distanced. That needs to be taken into account. On the other hand, the way back didn't directly lead the two men to the Metro Center, which JIM apparently also sought to hide with his 'lack of memory'. The diligent reconstruction of their motions reveals that the murder didn't take place after 1 p.m., as LEVY claimed at Debra Milke's trial. Evidence clearly proves that ROGER SCOTT showed up at a Walgreen's store where he made a purchase at 11.52 a.m. After that, the two men were identified at a Peter Piper Pizza place, and they stayed there between 12.13 p.m. [according to the cash register receipt] and presumably 12.50 p.m. After that, one police report clearly proves that ROGER SCOTT was seen in three places in close proximity to his own apartment. Subsequent to the meal, STYERS must have dropped ROGER off and already went to the Metro Center, where he intended to orchestrate the claim that the little boy was missing from the Sears' store men's room.
Noel Levy: And then Mr. Styers, Roger Scott driving, as you say, with the gun in his lap, and you, I take it, were riding in the passenger seat?
Jim Styers: Yes.
(...)
Noel Levy: Did you know, Mr. Styers, in that -- in -- during November -- well, let's put it this way, rephrase it. I believe you testified on direct with regard to Exhibit 124, for example, you were asked about Alden Insurance benefits, and you said that you went over with Debra Milke the benefits, including the 5,000 insurance policy on Christopher, is that so?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: Did you go through a booklet like this?
Comment: Interesting. Wherever convenient for the prosecutor he claimed that Debra had a 'policy'. But here, he referred to a social benefits booklet. The initial claim of an 'insurance policy' originated in SCOTT'S first accusation, which implied pecuniary gain of the alleged conspirators. He made a statement about a policy, because that's what SCOTT thought the booklet was. But again, it was solely a social benefits booklet, never a 'policy' which Debra had acquired.
Jim Styers: Yes, we did.
Noel Levy: And did you go through the forms?
Jim Styers: No, I didn't go through the forms.
Noel Levy: And was it your understanding that she was going to apply for a 5,000 policy for Chris?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: Did he -- did she tell you that she did later and he was insured?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: So, I take it, while you were talking with her then you must have known, by looking at the booklet, that she was the beneficiary?
Jim Styers: Yes.
(...)

October 30th, 1990

REDIRECT

Jesse Miranda: How would you characterize your memory of the events of December 2nd, 1989?
Jim Styers: Cloudy.
Jesse Miranda: When you went to the area of 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road, Jim, did you go there for the specific purpose of stopping at that wash?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Why were you in that area?
Jim Styers: Because it's a road on the way out to the lake.
Jesse Miranda: And what's at the lake?
Jim Styers: Out near the lake is a glider school.
Jesse Miranda: And whose idea was it to stop at that particular location?
Jim Styers: It was Roger's.
Comment: It doesn't look as if JIM STYERS was truthful here either. STYERS sought to distance himself in regard to any and all details in connection with the murder-scene, claiming it was ROGER'S decision, that they solely went out to go to a glider school, etc. However, as the reconstruction of the true timeline shows, the murder must have taken place at 11 a.m. According to three witnesses, five to seven shots were fired that day, not only the three later found in the back of CHRISTOPHER MILKE'S head. This confirms our presumption that the two men had agreed to go and try out the newly bought weapon. Again, the falsehood told by JIM STYERS in light of his intention to cover his irresponsible demeanor is corroborated.
Jesse Miranda: Did you suggest, in any way, shape or form, that you stop at that particular location?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: You knew the gun was in the glove compartment?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: Did you know that the ammunition was also in the glove compartment?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: Did you know the gun was loaded?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Comment: Just picture this: Here STYERS claimed that he wasn't aware that the gun was loaded. It appears more than unlikely that SCOTT had an opportunity to load the gun without STYERS becoming aware of that. Therefore, again, this statement raises the strong suspicion that STYERS lied again about this point.
Jesse Miranda: When was the first time that you saw that gun outside that vehicle?
Jim Styers: When Roger pointed it at me.
Comment: Why should STYERS claim that ROGER SCOTT had pointed the gun at him? It appears that we can grant this statement some credibility. In other words, the scenario STYERS described here was that the shots which killed CHRISTOPHER MILKE were fired behind his back, and upon turning around, SCOTT had pointed the gun at him. STYERS must next have calmed SCOTT down in order to convince him to concoct a halfway believable scenario and to cover both their butts. No matter what the audience will believe of STYERS, but the facts clearly show that his next activities were solely meant to hide his knowledge and distance himself for the murder-scene.
Jesse Miranda: Did you know how Roger got the gun out of the glove compartment?
Jim Styers: No, I do not.
Jesse Miranda: Were you watching Roger constantly?
Jim Styers: No, I was not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you expect Roger to do anything like this to --
Jim Styers: No.
Jesse Miranda: -- to Christopher?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Were you expecting anything to happen out there?
Jim Styers: No, I do not.
Jesse Miranda: This gun that you put in the glove compartment, and you did put in the glove compartment is that right?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: You bought that gun in late November?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: And you hadn't driven over to Roger's to drop it off?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: You had discussed the fact that you had a gun that you had bought for him with Roger?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: And you bought the gun for Roger because he liked guns?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Jesse Miranda: Now, these letters that we're talking about, that we went over in detail yesterday, Jim, do you recall those letters?
Jim Styers: Yes, I do.
Jesse Miranda: When you wrote those letters, did you know Debra was going to give them to her attorney?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Mr. Levy asked you whether Debra asked for your consent to give them to her attorney?
Jim Styers: Yes, she did.
Jesse Miranda: Did you -- did she ask for that consent before or after you wrote those letters?
Jim Styers: After I wrote the letters.
Jesse Miranda: So, she -- what happened was, she didn't ask you, can I turn over some letters to my attorney, right?
Jim Styers: No, she doesn't, she couldn't have.
Jesse Miranda: Do you know how those black Nike shoes got into the planter?
Jim Styers: No, I do not.
Comment: But we do. In the supplemental report of OFF. CRISWELL it reads that an employee of the Circle K described his clothing and that he wore a bag. This was the store where ROGER SCOTT was seen at approximately 1.15 p.m.:
MAXINE EDWARDS said he was carrying a blue athletic type bag and he was wearing a red plaid shirt and a ball cap.
Therefore it's clear that STYERS gave the tennis shoes which he wore in the desert to SCOTT, requesting him to dispose of them. SCOTT carried them with the athletic type bag and later used public transportation to go to the Metro Center. There, he dropped the shoes behind a planter of the Sears store's parking lot, close to the Metro Center.
Jesse Miranda: You know they were found in the planter out by Metro Center?
Jim Styers: I know they were found at the Metro Center, yeah.
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever tell Roger Scott to take the pistol, that he shot Christopher with, to his apartment?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you know whatever happened to that pistol?
Jim Styers: No, I don't.
Comment: And this is a last hallmark point which tells us that SCOTT told lie after lie. The supplemental report of DET. SALDATE about the interrogation of ROGER SCOTT reads:
I asked ROGER if he knew where the gun was at and ROGER paused and then said that JIM gave him the gun to get rid of it but that he had not. He said that JIM gave him the gun initially and told him to get rid of it but that JIM also told him that he could keep it if he wanted it. ROGER said he kept the gun and that it is in his closet at his home.
It never made any sense to a clear mind that the alleged perpetrator of a murder supposedly gave a murder weapon to someone else, and thus would've recklessly accepted the danger of being uncovered by forensic evidence. Thus a true perpetrator would've jeopardized his own security. 'Common sense' should reveal that this was nothing but SCOTT'S self-serving way out to explain the possession of the gun which killed 4 y.o. CHRISTOHER MILKE and which was later found at his apartment.
Jesse Miranda: Jim, are you taking medications now?
Jim Styers: Yes, I am.
Jesse Miranda: Are you taking them on the basis -- on a prescribed basis?
Jim Styers: Yes, I am.
Jesse Miranda: You indicated that after Roger shot Christopher, and you assumed that he shot Christopher, right?
Jim Styers: Right.
(...)



This page was last modified :
Friday, 18-Jan-2013 17:11:56 CET
The Debra Jean Milke Case


Return to previous page Home | Table of Contents ]  



© 1998-2014
http://www.debbiemilke.com/ [Renate Janka]