Roger Scott's Testimony
at His Own Trial



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



Clip #1: The Incrimination Made by Roger Scott (24:43)

Similar to the case of JIM STYERS and his testimony, we're not in possession of all documents and trial transcripts of ROGER SCOTT'S trial. However, we are in possession of the testimony he made at his trial, which took place on January 31st, 1991. If the claim this website makes is true [that Debra Milke is completely innocent and that a conspiracy never existed], any document should stand the examination, which is why we'd also like to have a look at this crucial information.

However, we should not forget that SCOTT'S story was that he was solely the driver and didn't do the killing. Based on SCOTT'S ramblings and self-serving incrimination of JIM STYERS and Debra Milke, Phoenix police had both individuals arrested. STYERS refused to talk to police when he learned that he was charged with the murder of CHRISTOPHER MILKE. Debra Milke, as we know, was later interrogated by DET. SALDATE, who - as all indications show - later composed a police report which contains an invented confession. In light of these circumstances the only promising defense strategy was for SCOTT'S attorney, ROLAND J. STEINLE III., to continue with this claim; no one should expect anything else prior to reading this transcript. And in fact, STEINLE later signed an affidavit, saying that SCOTT had complained about "brain shrinkage", and that he would 'say what I wanted him to say'. STEINLE continued that ROGER SCOTT 'maintained the untenable position that he was not guilty of this terrible crime, even though he had made statements that supported several elements of the crime'. However, it might still be worth a closer look whether we can find more information about what actually happened out there in the desert on December 2nd, 1989, when CHRISTOPHER MILKE was killed.

Before you start reading this transcript, we'd like to point out that the truly stunning and interesting part is only the last third of this transcript. In that, SCOTT all of a sudden attempted to call back the incrimination of JIM and Debra Milke, but the County prosecutor wouldn't let him talk freely. In other words, by leading and forceful rhetorical techniques of LEVY, SCOTT was compelled to confirm what he initially stated on the tape-recording, recorded by DET. MILLS by December 3rd, 1989. SCOTT'S weak verbal capabilities made it impossible to distance himself from his primary accusations.




Clip #5: The Murder of Christopher Milke (34:43)

January 31st, 1991

ROGER MARK SCOTT,
was thereupon called as a witness by the defense, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. STEINLE:
Roland J. Steinle: Could you state your name, please?
Roger Scott: Roger Mark Scott.
Roland J. Steinle: Mr. Scott, if you'd speak up nice and loud so everybody could hear?
Roger Scott: Roger Mark Scott.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. And how old are you, Roger?
Roger Scott: Forty-two.
Roland J. Steinle: And where do you reside?
Roger Scott: 4816 West Bethany Home Road.
Roland J. Steinle: And is that in Phoenix?
Roger Scott: Yes -- no, Glendale.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. And who do you live with there?
Roger Scott: My mother.
Roland J. Steinle: And how long have you lived with your mother there?
Roger Scott: Between five and six years.
Roland J. Steinle: Do you have a telephone at your apartment?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: How long has it been since you've had a telephone at your apartment?
Roger Scott: We never had a phone at that apartment.
Roland J. Steinle: If you need to make phone calls, what would you have to do?
Roger Scott: I would have to go down to the Circle K on Forty-seventh Avenue and Bethany.
Roland J. Steinle: Mr. Scott, taking you back to December 1989, do you recall that period of time?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Actually taking you back a little bit before then, in November of 1989 did you know a person by the name of James Styers?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: And how long had you known James Styers prior to November of 1989?
Roger Scott: Approximately twenty-three years.
Roland J. Steinle: Had it been a continuous relationship with him?
Roger Scott: No, it was mainly in between girlfriends and wives when he would decide to come over, and we'd go out to different discos, and such forth, and do some dancing and drinking and chasing women until he found one, and I wouldn't see him for a while.
Roland J. Steinle: And then after that relationship would break up, he'd come back and you'd see him again?
Roger Scott: All of a sudden held pop up.
Roland J. Steinle: Just prior to November of 1989, had there come a point in time where you had not seen him for a period of time?
Roger Scott: Yes. Before approximately June or July of '89, I hadn't see him for about five years.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you ... did you run across him again?
Roger Scott: I was at Center Plaza with Jim Wallford, another friend of mine. We were at a boat and travel show, various mobile homes, and so on. And we happened to run across him in the crowd.
Roland J. Steinle: After that, did you start seeing him on some kind of basis?
Roger Scott: He said he would see if he could drop by. And then he started coming over more often as time went on.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you go over to his residence?
Roger Scott: He had taken me over there, yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And when you first started going over to his residence, what was his living situation; was he living alone, was he living with somebody?
Roger Scott: At that time he was running after a girl named Sandy, taking her back and forth to work. And that's about as far as the relationship went, as far as I know.
Roland J. Steinle: What was -- I mean, what kind of place was he living in; a house, an apartment?
Roger Scott: It was an apartment.
Roland J. Steinle: And who was living in the apartment with him?
Roger Scott: Well, Debra Milke and Christopher Milke. That was -- I'm not sure if she moved in afterwards, or I believe Jim just came over for a while, and then when Debra moved in he took me over to introduce me to her, and --
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. So about the time where you started going over to his place was about the same time that Debra moved in?
Roger Scott: I believe so.
Roland J. Steinle: You then, in fact, met a person known to you as Debra Milke?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And what was Debra Milke's relationship with Jim, as he described it?
Roger Scott: They were just basically living together and sharing expenses to make it easier on both of them, due to the fact that neither one of them could more or less afford an apartment and utilities and car insurance and such forth by themselves.
Roland J. Steinle: On a weekly basis, how many times did you see Jim Styers?
Roger Scott: Oh, at first, maybe twice a week.
Roland J. Steinle: Now, you said that he would take you over to his apartment; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes, because he had a car.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you have a car?
Roger Scott: No, I haven't had a car for quite a number of years.
Comment: This is a first interesting point. Here, SCOTT confirmed that he didn't have a car at the time the murder of CHRISTOPHER took place. In DET. DiMODICA'S police report about his interview of HENRY and ILSE MILKE the officer narrated that he talked to MARK MILKE on the telephone [12/03/1989] and MARK'S statements are summarized in this report:
He said JAMES does have some friends that he does not trust and named one as ROGER. He said ROGER had once taken DEBORAH'S (sic) car without permission.
But that report of DET. DiMODICA is not the only source of this claim. In DET. SALDATE'S report about the interview held with MARK it reads:
(...) JIM then asked him if he had a little time to kill that his buddy ROGER was stranded in the area of 99 Avenue and Happy Valley Road and that he needed his socket set to work on the car. MARK said he agreed to take JIM out to area and that he and CHRIS got into the front seat while JIM STYERS sat in the back.
MARK said that he drove to the area of 99 Avenue and Happy Valley Road and that JIM told him that he ought to be looking for a white car. MARK said that they drove up and down 99 Avenue near Happy Valley Road but could not find the white car. (...)
Obviously the white car in question was the white Toyota Corolla of Debra, and with his statement MARK confirmed that Debra had no idea that it was used by ROGER SCOTT one time without her consent. In other words, certain things were going on between JIM and ROGER behind her back.
JIM STYERS' own car had broken down a few weeks before and he was dependant on Debra's. This was the Toyota bought by her mother RENATE and her step-father ALEX when they visited in September, only six weeks before the killing took place. Debra had commenced to repay it to her parents on a monthly basis.
Roland J. Steinle: Does your mother own a car?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: How did you get about town?
Roger Scott: Usually ride the bus, walk, Dial-a-Ride, ride with a friend.
Roland J. Steinle: Did there come a time in the fall of 1989 where Jim started talking about doing something for Debra?
Roger Scott: Doing something, I --
Comment: At first ROGER didn't grasp what the attorney wanted from him, or what he was supposed to answer. STEINLE noticed this and diverted ROGER into telling his version of how the murder took place.
Roland J. Steinle: Well, let's strike that question. Let's be a little bit more direct.
You're on trial for a conspiracy-to commit first-degree murder -- first-degree murder and kidnapping of Christopher Milke.
When is the first time the subject of getting rid of Christopher ever came up?

Roger Scott: That was -- let's see, I believe it was the Monday prior to the death of Christopher.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: He had come over to my house and he said that he wanted to tell me something, but he didn't know if he should.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. So there hadn't been any discussions between you and Jim before that, or you and Debra before that?
Roger Scott: Well, just basically talk. I've -- I knew that they had had problems with Christopher. They said that he was hard to handle and they couldn't find babysitters for him.
And sometimes I didn't pay much attention to it. I knew that Mark and Debbie had had a divorce, and sometimes he would speak against him, but I'd just take it as a bitter divorce. You know, it was just -- I know when I got divorced myself, I wasn't too happy with my lot. She wasn't too happy with me.
Roland J. Steinle: More specifically, other than the bitterness that goes with the divorce and the discussions about Chris being hard to handle, when is the first time that anybody ever mentioned to you, suggested to you or expressed any desire to you to have Christopher Milke killed?
Roger Scott: That was on the Monday prior to him insisting on telling me that -- about what Debbie had talked to him about, and she had had plans to have the boy and Mark both killed.
Comment: At this point we'd like to bring another incident to your attention. In the pre-trial interview of June 15th, 1990 Debra's former father-in-law, HENRY MILKE, told defense attorney KEN RAY that Debra had called on the telephone on November 27th, 1989 to inquire of MARK whether he would like to come over and watch a Batman movie with his son:
(...)
Ken Ray: The other phone call, what do you recollect of that one?
Henry Milke: I forget now what that's related with. I mean this last one, yeah but what do you mean -- the other phone call?
Ken Ray: Yeah. You said you could recollect that she -- you had talked to her twice.
Henry Milke: Okay. The other phone call this -- well, okay. That really had to do with inviting Mark over to their apartment the night before Mark went to Texas to visit my other son. To come over to their apartment and watch Batman with little Christopher.
Ken Ray: Okay. Did you participate, in other words, in the conversation directly with Debra or anyone?
Henry Milke: Not a long conversation, no. But I did take the message.
Ken Ray: Okay.
Henry Milke: Mark wasn't home.
(...)
Henry Milke: It must have been after Thanksgiving, yeah.
Ken Ray: Here's an '89 calendar, Mr. Milke, if that would help.
Henry Milke: Let's see here. (Inaudible).
What is the first -- I think they left on Tuesday morning.
Ken Ray: The last Tuesday before Christopher's death?
Henry Milke : Yeah.
Ken Ray: Okay. That would have been November 28th. That's the last Tuesday in November.
(...)
This independent source relates this incident without any knowledge of SCOTT'S claim about that Monday prior to the murder. But why would Debra invite MARK over if SCOTT'S statement was truthful? It lacks plausibility.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he go into any detail?
Roger Scott: He had told me of two different locations that morning, Seventh Street and Beardsley, and Seventh Street and Paradise Road.
Roland J. Steinle: Do you recall the context in which this discussion came up?
Roger Scott: Like I say, he called over that day and said that he had something to tell me, but he wasn't sure if he wanted to tell me. But later he said "I have to tell somebody", so he told me.
Roland J. Steinle: How did he phrase it when he began to tell you?
Roger Scott: Like he was very surprised that Debra would say such a thing. He had said that she had gotten the idea, I believe, the night before -- yeah, the night before she had seen the guns in the closet, and she had put all this together.
I -- I found it a little hard to believe that she just thought about it one night, but all I had was what Jim had told me.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he ask for your assistance?
Roger Scott: He had told me that Debbie had the idea of if he could get Roger to help you, I know he needs money for his SS lawyer, and that I could give him two-hundred-and-fifty dollars if he'd help.
Roland J. Steinle: You had requested to borrow money from Jim?
Roger Scott: Never.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you told Jim that you needed the money?
Roger Scott: I just told him about the incident through the lawyer advertised if we win your case, you know, then he collects.
Roland J. Steinle: And then you went to him?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And he requested a fee?
Roger Scott: Yes, after a while he let me know that there was a hundred -- under the table charge of two-hundred-and-seventy-five dollars for a couple of doctors which would help the case along and get my SSI or SS.
Roland J. Steinle: So Jim had known this prior to the date where he was talking to you?
Roger Scott: Oh, yes, I told him a couple of months before that, I believe it was. I had been trying for this claim since December, possibly January of '89. I'd tried myself, and I thought, well, maybe a lawyer could help.
And when I founded (sic) out he wanted two-hundred-seventy-five dollars, I figured, well, since he's going to get a third of what I collect anyway, that was enough. He did advertise free. If I did need the money, I could have gotten it from my mother or side jobs on my own.
Comment: Here ROGER denied ever having asked JIM about the money for the SSI claim. However, both JIM and Debra independently stated that ROGER had indeed asked them for the money. But we will see later why there's a purpose for ROGER in distancing himself from his request.
The fact of the matter remains; until SCOTT was arrested by Phoenix police he hadn't obtained the money for the attorney, and so his SSI benefits were never granted.
Roland J. Steinle: Were you working a regular Job at this point in time?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: How were you sustaining yourself?
Roger Scott: Well, through food stamps to help out with the food around the house, and some side jobs around the apartments and various things. More or less a handyman and mechanic.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: Various things I can do.
Roland J. Steinle: How did your mother sustain herself?
Roger Scott: She's on Social Security.
Roland J. Steinle: How did the discussion end; did it continue on or how did it finish up that day?
Roger Scott: Well, I had told him that she was a very sick person. And I just told him that he should get rid of her as soon as possible, just move out, tell the woman to hit the road, move out, and various things.
And he just dropped me oft at a bus stop. I said I didn't want to hear from him until he -- she had moved out or something.
Roland J. Steinle: When is the next time that you saw Jim Styers?
Roger Scott: I had seen him the next day, I believe. And he said he did tell her that there was no way that he was going to help her in this way, and that if she wanted it, she could do it herself.
Comment: This allegedly took place from Monday to Tuesday, on the evening when Debra had demonstrably invited her ex-husband MARK to come over and be with his son. But what SCOTT related here was - according to his version - that STYERS callously accepted the fact that a 4 y.o. boy was to be killed soon. Was it really JIM's casualness, or wasn't it much rather ROGER'S?
Roland J. Steinle: Did there ever come a time when you went out to the desert with Jim and Christopher prior to December 2nd?
Roger Scott: Christopher had rode along with us. I believe he was with us -- no, he wasn't there. I don't think so.
Comment: At first CHRIS was there, then he wasn't. This part is getting rather confusing, because JIM STYERS was CHRIS' baby-sitter. Where else would CHRIS have been, if not with him? This shows that ROGER'S memory was either very perforated or he simply made the story up ... and attorney STEINLE had to help ROGER to tell his initial story:
Roland J. Steinle: In your interview with the police officers, you make reference to going out to a location where the National Guard was doing maneuvers; do you recall that?
Comment: This incident wasn't voluntarily told by ROGER during the tape-recorded interrogation, but brought up by DET. MILLS with a leading question:
(...)
Det. Mills: Anyway last week you and Jim went out to 7 Street and Beardsley, 7 Street and Paradise, and you decided that wasn't a good location, I think you had mentioned earlier that there was some talk about the National Guard being out there or something like that?
Roger Scott: Yes, he said he had taken Christopher out to 7 Street and Paradise and he was thinking of doing it then but then he heard a voice off ahead of him in the dark.
Det. Mills: Uh uh.
Roger Scott: And it turned out to be a National Guard out there, I don't know if they were on maneuvers or what but anyway he forgot about it then.
(...)
Roger Scott: Well, that's the same day I was talking about his -- these various ideas. This was Seventh Street and Paradise Road where she and he had talked about another location for a murder. And Jim had -- first, he had told me about it.
Then he told me the night prior to that that he had actually taken the boy out to Seventh Street and Paradise and was out there and was going to murder the boy then, and -- but he heard voices and he looked over, and supposedly the National Guard was having a -- some kind of a maneuver out there.
And he thought that was a message from God and such forth, and he was glad of it, and he wasn't going to do it. And that's when he was going to go home and tell Debbie that he wasn't going to have anything to do with it.
Comment: Here SCOTT claimed that the incident including the National Guard happened 'the night prior to that'; in other words, the Sunday before JIM supposedly approached ROGER about helping with the murder. If that's what SCOTT wanted to make believe, why would STYERS be glad he hadn't killed the boy and tell Debra 'that he wasn't going to have anything to do with it'. None of the stories ROGER told made any sense.
Roland J. Steinle: Were you along on that trip?
Roger Scott: Not when he took Christopher out there, no. I had been out there before when he told me about that that day. We were just driving around and he was showing me these various places that she had talked about.
Comment: '... when he told me about that that day'. Here SCOTT alleged that CHRISTOPHER was present when JIM STYERS related to him about Debra's purported wish to have her son killed. The incident in which the National Guard caused them to change their minds happened the night before. JIM allegedly told ROGER about the conspiracy but somehow JIM took ROGER out there to show him the possible murder-scene BEFORE this happened!! We're getting almost as confused as ROGER was! But again and as portrayed above, this claim is in harsh conflict with the information given by HENRY MILKE. How was CHRISTOPHER supposed to be in the desert when his mother invited her ex-husband over to watch a film with his son a the same time? SCOTT'S ramblings were not coherent at all. Apparently not even STEINLE knew what SCOTT would testify to next.
Roland J. Steinle: So at the end of this day, what was the conclusion of the discussion?
Roger Scott: Well, again, I told him that we had talked two different times after I told him to just drop me at a bus stop. He stopped talking. And then he brought it back up in talking about various things. And I told him to drop me off at the bus stop again.
And he said "Well, it's too late. I'm over on this side of town and I've got to pick up Debbie. And I can't make -- I can't make traffic if I take you home first. So I got to pick up Debbie. I'll drop her off and then I'll take you home."
Roland J. Steinle: So did you pick up Debbie?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Comment: All of a sudden SCOTT claimed that he was present inside the car which JIM STYERS drove and they picked up Debra from work together. Incredibly, this story is neither contained in SALDATE'S report about his interrogation of ROGER, nor in the transcript of the tape-recorded interrogation of DET. MILLS.
Roland J. Steinle: What happened after you picked up Debbie?
Roger Scott: Well, Jim got in the back seat with the kids, and I was sitting in the front seat, passenger and Debbie took over the driving of the car. She -- after she got in the car, she looked back like this and said "He's still here?"
Roland J. Steinle: Was there ----
Roger Scott: I guess she had some kind of an idea that we were supposed to do it that day. I wasn't aware of this.
Comment: 'Jim got in the back seat with the kids', which is clearly the plural form. In other words, according to SCOTT'S version told here, CHRISTOPHER was supposedly going to be killed in the presence of WENDY. A rather troubling scenario, but it is additionally in conflict with other information. In the pre-trial interview of STYERS' ex-girlfriend GAIL LIPSHULTZ she related:
(...)
Tom Buckner: Prior to Christopher's murder, when was the most recent time you saw Jim?
Gail Lipshultz: Oh, I saw him the day before when he dropped off Wendy.
Tom Buckner: Okay, that would be on the 1st of December of 1989?
Gail Lipshultz: Yeah, probably.
(...)
This information means that - according to SCOTT'S story - Debra supposedly wanted CHRISTOPHER killed in the presence of WENDY, but that JIM indeed dropped his daughter off at GAIL'S place. A pretty confusing scenery to picture, especially because GAIL didn't indicate that Debra or SCOTT were present when JIM appeared.
Roland J. Steinle: Did she say anything other than the expression, "He's still here"?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Comment: At first SCOTT announced that Debra had allegedly made more statements ...
Roland J. Steinle: What did she say?
Roger Scott: Well, that was, I believe, the extent of it that day.
Comment: ... and is then unable to repeat any of them. We have not heard any comprehensible story story from SCOTT implicating Debra Milke at this point.
Roland J. Steinle: What occurred after that? What's the next time you saw Mr. Styers after this occasion?
Roger Scott: Well, I had seen him during that week. He had to get a couple of shots there and prescriptions in order to keep his disability checks coming in.
And, yeah, he acted like he had turned against Debbie and was being nice to Chris for a change. And it was a -- everything seemed fine.
Comment: Here SCOTT confirmed that he had seen JIM on additional occasions. He already talked about Monday and Friday, and so that would leave three more days that week.
Roland J. Steinle: When's the next time there was any discussions about doing away with Chris?
Roger Scott: It was when we had driven out to see the gliders after going to a couple of drugstores and having pizza. He said that he had to do it, and that he told me ----
Comment: Now there was even an additional trip to the desert. STEINLE became totally frustrated and confused ...
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. Let's stop for a minute. Which day are we talking about now?
Roger Scott: The day of the murder.
Roland J. Steinle: December 2nd, 1989?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: And when did he say that to you in relationship to the -- to what had happened curing the day; what point in time were you when he said that to you?
Roger Scott: It was right after the murder, he'd -- first, he had told me that -- after he had gotten in the car, that "That little bastard won't ever bother me again."
Comment: Please pay attention to this sentence. It's a key sentence which will be repeated several times. This was the first mention. What does it mean basically? Here SCOTT allegedly remembered a single statement precisely. Later on, during his testimony he will even contradict his own statements which were made only minutes ago.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: "I had to do it."
Roland J. Steinle: Let's go back a little bit earlier on that day. When did you first see Mr. Styers that day?
Roger Scott: He come over to my house about 10:30.
Comment: As shown here and in many other places of this website, the claim that JIM STYERS together with CHRISTOPHER left the apartment at 11 a.m. falls apart. SCOTT testified that STYERS and CHRIS arrived at his door around 10.30 a.m. The distance from STYERS' apartment to SCOTT'S is approximately a thirty minute drive by car. As we've seen with the analysis of the closing argument of NOEL LEVY at Debra Milke's trial, as well as in the evaluation of OFF. CHIRSWELL'S report, the prosecutor knowingly and advisedly sought to hide the true departure time of JIM and CHRIS from their apartment, claiming they left only at 11 a.m. But as also shown, Debra's co-worker CARMEN SANTANA testified at trial that she spoke to Debra already at 9 a.m. on the telephone, and therefore it appears to be doubtless that JIM and CHRIS indeed left at approximately 10 a.m.
Roland J. Steinle: And how did it come that he came over to your house?
Roger Scott: I called him to see what he was doing.
Comment: SCOTT had previously related that he didn't have a telephone at his apartment, and would have to go elsewhere if he wanted to call somebody. As SCOTT had confirmed, he called JIM on that Saturday morning, which raises the probability that SCOTT had speculated that his buddy would take him for a ride.
And he said that Debbie was packing some things, so he wanted to get out of the house and just -- just go for a ride. He asked me if I had a -- anywhere I had to go.
Comment: SCOTT called STYERS, but STYERS asked him whether he had anywhere to go? C'mon ... !
Roland J. Steinle: And what did you tell him?
Roger Scott: I told him that I had to go to a couple of drugstores to purchase a couple of presents for my mother and also for a couple of neighbors. And we went there and we looked and they didn't have them. I talked to a couple of different people. Nobody could find them.
Then we went to Walgreen's where I called in a prescription -- where I had called in a prescription a couple of days before, and we picked that up.
Comment: It is corroborated by DET. KAVANAGH'S report that the original cash register receipt from Walgreen's displays the time of the purchase there as 11.52 a.m., and the pertinent receipt was impounded as evidence by the officer. The Walgreen's store in question is only a few minutes away by car from SCOTT'S apartment, right across the street of the Peter Piper Pizza restaurant, where the two men showed up only twenty-one minutes later [12.13 p.m., as the cash register receipt of the 'Peter Piper Pizza' restaurant reveals]. If STYERS along with CHRISTOPHER popped at up at SCOTT'S place, and all individuals agreed that they didn't go inside the apartment, then the question about what happened between 10.30 and 11.52 a.m. remains.
SCOTT didn't relate of any particular places the three have been to, nor did the police investigations disclose information about any places where the three could've been throughout that time span. Most likely, SCOTT jumbled up all the times and places they've been to, according to what he was supposed to say. We will see a little further down below how this is corroborated.
Then he brought up the idea of pizza, and we went across the street to a Pizza Hut, and the -- we both agreed that the prices were too high. So we went back across the street by Walgreen's to Peter Piper Pizza where we ordered a pizza and soft drinks.
Roland J. Steinle: After having the pizza, what was the discussion?
Roger Scott: That I figured that we had -- he said if -- I figured if we had time, we could go out and see the gliders, a gliding school out by Lake Pleasant. It was -- I can't remember the name of that road -- not Happy Valley; it's on out there. Anyway, it's west of Ninety-ninth.
Comment: SCOTT tried to sell the story that it was him who had suggested to 'go and watch gliders'. But please notice that at first Roger said "-- he said if --" then he caught himself and suggested that it was him and not JIM who wanted to go see the gliders. Besides, ROGER just doesn't strike us as the kind of guy that would stop and watch an airplane come in for a landing. And how likely and believable is this in light of the fact that STYERS had a newly bought gun with him, which he had bought for his old buddy ROGER?
And we had gone out there somewhere around a week beforehand. And he had talked to one of the instructors out there about the prices and how many flights you'd have to make to, you know, get a license or whatever. And I believe it was forty dollars a lesson; four lessons and then you can solo.
And he seemed interested in this.
So I said "Well, you really mean it about flying?"
"Yeah, I think so."
Roland J. Steinle: So on Saturday, the 2nd, you went back out towards the glider school?
Roger Scott: Yes -- well, that's where we were supposed to go.
Roland J. Steinle: And what were you going out there for?
Roger Scott: To go and see the gliders. I figured he was going to talk to the man some more. I didn't know. Quite a talkative person. I didn't know if he was going to try to join the school or not.
Roland J. Steinle: Did Jim Styers often talk about these ideas of his, like learning how to fly, doing other things?
Roger Scott: It suddenly popped up the day we first went out there. He had mentioned about it first when we went by Paradise Valley Airport, I believe it was, and the kids liked the planes.
Then we went out to this glider school, and I didn't know anything about it myself. But we went out there and we watched the gliders, and he had some binoculars with him at that time.
And he talked to the man. I could hear him part of the time. He seemed like he was either trying to put a snow job on the man, just talking to him, or otherwise he was interested. It was kind of hard -- trying to help him keep an eye on the kids while he was talking.
Roland J. Steinle: December 2nd, did you proceed out towards the glider school?
Roger Scott: Yes, from the pizza.
Roland J. Steinle: Up to this point in time, had there be any discussions that day of killing Christopher Milke?
Roger Scott: No, everything was just fine between Jim and Chris. From what I had seen, he had more or less turned sour towards Debbie and her thoughts, and he was being very good to Chris for approximately three days beforehand. He had told her to just move or -- I don't believe exactly what he told me, but any way he more or less told her to get out, according to what he told me.
Comment: If everything was okay between CHRIS and JIM and he told Debra to basically go to hell, then why would JIM agree to the instigation of murder, especially with Debra and CHRIS moving out of his life? ROGER'S story is coming apart at the seams and no one seems to notice. His attorney certainly shouldn't notice because that would make his client guilty, and LEVY certainly isn't going to notice because that would make JIM and Debra both innocent, two individuals he had already sent to death row.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. Up to this moment, had you ever agreed with James Styers to assist them for the fee of two-hundred-and-fifty dollars?
Roger Scott: No. I was very well surprised when Jim had brought it up. When Jim had told me about it, he was talking about how crazy Debra appeared in bringing up such ideas, that he couldn't believe it himself. And later on he had mentioned "Well, wait until you hear this." And he said that "She will even offer to pay you two-hundred-and-fifty dollars if you could help me."
Roland J. Steinle: Did you accept it at that point in time?
Roger Scott: No. No.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you ever come back later and tell him that you were willing to assist him?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: So you begin the trip out to the glider school?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Who's driving?
Roger Scott: Jim drove from the -- from my house to the drugstore and the pizza and out through almost Sun City.
We were almost at the end of Sun City, and he pulled over at an intersection and says "Here, you drive for a while."
Roland J. Steinle: Did you drive?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And where did you drive to?
Roger Scott: I -- I drove towards the driving school.
Roland J. Steinle: Driving school?
Roger Scott: Flying school. Sorry.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you stop along the way anywhere?
Roger Scott: Yes. He told me to pull over and he had to relieve himself and he was going to take Chris with him. He thought maybe I would have to also. Asked me if I wanted to, and he told me where to pull over.
It was a -- seemed kind of strange, because it was down in a wash where oncoming or passing traffic couldn't see the car.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you get out of the car at that point?
Roger Scott: Yes, I did. I started to get out on the east side of the road. And as soon as you got out into the wash, it just came right back up into the desert, so there was no privacy at all.
So he decided to go across the street over to the west side. And there was more privacy over there, instead of standing out there in -- with the oncoming cars corning watching him.
Roland J. Steinle: As he starts into the wash, did he say anything to you?
Roger Scott: No. He just -- oh, he had mentioned something about when he got out of the car, I believe on -- I believe on the east side, about "Yeah, maybe we can find some snakes."
And I says -- I took it as a joke because I figured they'd be hibernating in December.
Roland J. Steinle: When he got out of the car, did you see whether or not he had a gun with him?
Roger Scott: No. No, I didn't see one.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you seen a gun anywhere in the car prior to that time?
Roger Scott: No, I hadn't. No.
Roland J. Steinle: Does he proceed into the wash?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Do you go with him?
Roger Scott: I was starting to, and then I thought "Well, I can wait until I get to that glider school," because it wasn't that much further, maybe three miles.
Roland J. Steinle: So what did you do?
Roger Scott: I waited in the car.
And then I decided that the car being parked there wasn't a very bright idea for somebody going to or from the lake, maybe speeding and might not see it when they come down into the dip. So I decided to move the car.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you move the car?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: What did you do with it?
Roger Scott: I was going to drive it up on the upper hill so that people could see it. But instead I just drove it back and forth a couple of times waiting for him to come out, you know, and thought it was taking a while. So I did honk the horn a couple of times to try to get their attention. I ----
Roland J. Steinle: Did there come a time where you saw James Styers again?
Roger Scott: Yes. Suddenly he was out to the side of the road ahead of me and he was standing there like this, like he was hitching a ride. And so that's when I went up to pick him up.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you pick him up?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Pick him up?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he get in the car?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did Christopher get in the car?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: What if anything did he say when he got in the car?
Roger Scott: He said "That little bastard will never bother me again."
Comment: Here we are with the second mention of that sentence which ROGER had learned by heart.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you ask him what he meant?
Roger Scott: Well, when he got in the car, I was looking towards the back door waiting for Christopher to get in, because Chris was used to opening and closing his own door and locking it and putting on his seat belt.
And that's when Jim told me, he said "Come on, let's get out of here. That little bastard will never bother me again."
Comment: The third time.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you heard any shots prior to this?
Roger Scott: Yes, I had.
Roland J. Steinle: How many shots did you hear?
Roger Scott: I heard three.
Roland J. Steinle: What did you think when you heard the shots?
Roger Scott: I didn't think much of it because of the fact that out there in the desert people go out to target practice and paint, various things.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: It was -- there was quite a number of people out in the desert that day.
Roland J. Steinle: When you leave, do you pull away. from the wash?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Where do you go?
Roger Scott: I proceeded down Ninety-ninth Avenue as he told me, and I kept going until he told me to turn left at Union Hills.
Roland J. Steinle: Why did you go where he wanted you to go?
Roger Scott: Well, after all, he had a gun in his hand and he told me that "The little bastard will never bother me again," and I figured out here I'd probably be next.
Comment: This was the fourth time that SCOTT repeated STYERS' alleged substantiation why CHRISTOPHER was shot. It looks a lot as if SCOTT had learned this by heart, but not really like a spontaneous truthful account. Just twenty-four hours after the murder happened, SCOTT had a hard time to remember JIM'S exact words.
Roland J. Steinle: When he got in the car, did he have the gun with him?
Roger Scott: Yes, he had it in his hand.
Roland J. Steinle: This little snub-nose gun that's been admitted into evidence in this trial?
Roger Scott: Yes. It was a small gun you can actually put in the palm ----
Roland J. Steinle: Where were you going as he was directing you? Did he tell you where he wanted to go to?
Roger Scott: Yes. I went down Ninety-ninth Avenue, and he told me to turn at Union Hills, left. And I did.
Roland J. Steinle: As you were going down Union Hills, did he do anything with the gun?
Roger Scott: He said he had to get rid of the bullets, I believe, and started to toss them out his window.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he re-load the weapon?
Roger Scott: I don't remember whether he did or not. Like I say, I was driving.
Roland J. Steinle: Later on in the investigation, you showed the police officers where he threw the bullets out the window?
Roger Scott: Yes, I told them where.
Roland J. Steinle: Bullets that were later recovered and admitted into evidence here?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Where were you ultimately going to as you're going down Union Hills Road?
Roger Scott: He wanted to go to the freeway.
Roland J. Steinle: Where was he going to?
Roger Scott: At that time, I -- I was just heading towards the freeway.
Roland J. Steinle: When you got on the freeway, what did he tell you?
Roger Scott: Turn right and get off at Dunlap, I believe it was.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he tell you where he was going to?
Roger Scott: No, he just said to turn off at Dunlap.
And I had thought he wanted to go to his home. And I was in the left-hand lane. I was going to turn left, and he come -- "Get over to the right. Turn right. I got to get to Metro Center."
Roland J. Steinle: Okay. And did you do what he told you to do?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Where did you end up?
Roger Scott: At Metro Center.
Roland J. Steinle: And was the car parked in a certain location?
Roger Scott: I parked the car.
Roland J. Steinle: The location that's been described by the various police officers here in the trial?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: After the car was parked, what if anything happened?
Roger Scott: Well, we got out and he started walking towards Sears at Metro Center. And I was walking along. And we got into the -- inside the door, and I stopped at the tool section which was right inside the door, and he went on. And he was saying -- going through the door, he was telling to report the boy missing.
Roland J. Steinle: Why didn't you leave?
Roger Scott: I was -- I was scared and confused. I mean, it's just -- I couldn't believe that this had actually happened, even though I knew it had. I wanted to leave, but I couldn't remember where the bus stop was. And I asked hint -- I believe I asked him.
Comment: SCOTT used public transportation all the time but couldn't remember where it was now? Come on!
He says "Well, I'll tell you later."
And I had walked through the mall and I heard the broadcast go over some of the walkie-talkies of the security people about the description of Christopher, and they were looking for him.
And I was still scared because Jim knew that I didn't want to have anything to do with this, and all of a sudden here he brought me into it.
And I asked approximately three -- I think it was three people where the bus stop was and the security, and they didn't know.
Comment: The mall security didn't know where the bus stop is? Give us a break here ...
And I was ----
Roland J. Steinle: Jim had brought you into the thing, did he not?
Roger Scott: Yes, he had.
Roland J. Steinle: The day in question, were you wearing a pair of black Nike tennis shoes?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: Who was?
Roger Scott: James Styers.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he have a second pair of shoes in the car for himself?
Roger Scott: He had another pair of tennis shoes in the car. I think on the way back -- I believe on the way back he did say that he's going to change shoes.
Roland J. Steinle: And he in fact did change shoes?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And he gave you the black Nike tennis shoes, did he not?
Roger Scott: Yes, he tried to hand them to me, and I just dropped them in the planter.
Comment: ... which leads us to the question: Why then didn't STYERS do that himself in the first place? It doesn't make sense for JIM to pass the shoes on to ROGER, when JIM could've placed them in or behind the dumpster himself.
Roland J. Steinle: What did he want you to do with them?
Roger Scott: He told me to throw them in a dumpster or get rid of them somewhere.
Roland J. Steinle: And those were the shoes that he had been wearing when he went into the wash, were they not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he give you a gun?
Roger Scott: Well, I can't describe it as give. He later -- when we had walked outside to the car, he was telling me where the bus stop was. And that's when he pointed over that way. And I looked over that way, he grabbed hold of my belt and stuck the gun in my belt.
There was several people in the parking lot and heavy Christmas shopping, and I felt that he was drawing attention. I started to walk away from him, and I had gotten from where I parked the car on this side of the road, the driveway and this next row, and then there's a planter. That's where he tried to give me the shoes. And I wouldn't take them; I just dropped them in the planter.
Comment: This just seems absolutely incredible with a parking lot full of Christmas shoppers and no one noticed this. ROGER would have almost certainly reacted with some sort of surprise if he was looking the other way for the bus stop when JIM did this. This would make it difficult, if not impossible, for JIM to put the gun into ROGER'S belt on the first try. After all, if his story is true, with ROGER being scared to death, his senses would be keyed up into the emergency mode and he would jump at any little thing, possibly even yell or some other reaction. If he would have jumped back or yelled even just a little bit, it would have caught someone's eye and then they would have seen the gun in JIM'S hand and called security. Then the party would have been over.
Roland J. Steinle: And you eventually showed the police officers where those shoes were?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: What did you do with the gun?
Roger Scott: I -- I was trying to think of somewhere to throw it. The parking lot was busy. And by the time I got to the bus stop, there was people waiting for the bus, and it just seemed like people were watching me everywhere I went.
And I -- I couldn't get rid of it at the bus stop, so I took it on the bus with me. And I was going to get rid of it. And I thought about leaving it on the bus, out, no, then they'll put it together with who was sitting there.
And Jim had already brought me into this, and I didn't know how I was going to get out of it -- which if I go down to the police and try to tell them my side of the story, whether they'd listen. Various thoughts.
Roland J. Steinle: Were you frightened?
Roger Scott: Very much so.
Roland J. Steinle: Were you frightened of James?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Frightened by what he had brought you into?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you think anybody would believe you?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Why?
Roger Scott: Because of the fact I was with him.
Roland J. Steinle: Before he got out of the car that day with Christopher, had you entered into any kind of agreement, formal or informal, to help get rid of Christopher Milke?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: When you went out there that day, were you out there to assist him in the killing of Christopher Milke?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you in fact know that he was going to kill him at that point in time?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: You did in fact take the gun and took it home, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And in fact later on when the police officers came and talked to you, you went along with the story, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes. It was a story that Jim had brought up in front of a Sears before we went out to the car, that he came up and he said "Hello, Roger," he says, "have you seen Christopher anywhere? Do you remember what he looks like, Debbie's boy?"
And trying to describe what he was wearing.
I said no.
Comment: It is indeed very believable and likely that JIM STYERS was the one of the two males who created this scenario to tell the mall security in order to distance himself from the murder. But it's hardly believable that this happened in front of the Sears store, like SCOTT testified, but during their stay at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place. According to the statements of SCOTT'S and STYERS' fellow inmate ROBERT E. JOHNSON, JIM had revealed to him:
Then he concurred with them going to the -- afterwards, going to the Metro Center and calling the police and concocting their story about him being -- that he was just kidnapped or something and they didn't know where he was at.
As we have seen, the timeline SCOTT told with his testimony is hardly plausible, and therefore the most likely scenario was that JIM and ROGER sat down at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place and composed the story they intended to tell there. In other words, there was an agreement between the two, hiding the fact that they took CHRISTOPHER out to the desert, where the killing ultimately happened. While eye-witnesses have seen STYERS at the Metro Center already at 1.30 p.m., SCOTT was only see there after 2.30 p.m., which matches the timeline portrayed in the report of OFF. CRISWELL entirely.
Here he was trying to drag -- had dragged me into it even more. It was just -- that's all I could think at the time.
He asked me if -- how I got there.
He asked me how I got there. And I said -- I didn't say anything.
He said "Well, did Phil bring you down?" And he -- the only Phil that I -- well, we both know a Phil, to start with. And that's a seventy-year-old man in my apartment complex.
Roland J. Steinle: You had talked to Jim about Phil on other occasions?
Roger Scott: Yes, about Phil and I once in a while going down to the neighborhood bar and shooting pool, and that I helped him fix his car, had been some painting jobs out in Scottsdale, various places with him and his son-in-law.
Roland J. Steinle: Now, this conversation that went about as to how you got to Metro Center and whether you came with Phil, in whose presence was Mr. Styers saying all these things?
Roger Scott: It was a girl named Holly from Sears.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you know what her position at Sears was?
Roger Scott: I think he said that she was selling something in the aisleways. She wasn't really connected with Sears, if I remember right.
Comment: Again, it looks like SCOTT related another bald-faced invention at this point about HOLLY McCORMACK. This witness was interviewed by police, and the report of DET. MEENK #2341 reveals about this first contact:
(...) While en route to the Sears store, they went down the escalator to the lower level and were walking along when STYERS told McCORMACK "Wait a minute, there's a neighbor of mine, maybe we should ask him if he has seen CHRISTOPHER." This subject was later identified as ROGER SCOTT. ROGER was sitting at a bench smoking a cigarette.
Apparently the meeting of STYERS and SCOTT was pre-planned, and here we can see why. Both men had previously agreed on the act and here the show was intended to distance both of them from the murder of CHRIS.
ROGER told McCORMACK and STYERS that he was there to meet a friend of his at Sears and the friend didn't show up. ROGER then advised that he was going to get on a bus and leave.
ROGER had done his duty and he had no more business to hang around at the mall. Consequently, he sought to distance himself even more and thus leave. As we can see here, it was SCOTT who mentioned the intention to meet 'a friend', not STYERS.
STYERS asked ROGER if he had seen CHRIS and asked ROGER how long he had been there. ROGER said that he had been there approximately two hours and this was at approximately 4:00 P.M. when he made the statement.
As stated before, STYERS was first seen by a witness named THOMAS EDWIN LYNCH (a.k.a. 'Budda') at the Metro Center, between 2.00 and 2.30 p.m. SCOTT made the unfounded claim that he was already present at the Metro Center for two hours, but the consistent report of OFF. CRISWELL disproves his claim. According to that, SCOTT was seen at three different places in close proximity to his own apartment between 1 and 2 p.m. After that SCOTT must have used public transportation and gone to the Metro Center on his own in order to provide an alibi to STYERS. We will se how that came about ...

At this time STYERS made the comment "If he has been here for two hours and he hasn't seen CHRISTOPHER, we could have walked right by him too." ROGER then told McCORMACK and STYERS that he was getting ready to leave.

STYERS then told McCORMACK that he was going to go out and check the parking lot and STYERS and ROGER then left to do that. Per McCORMACK, the time was approximately 4:15 P.M. STYERS was gone for approximately five to ten minutes and then he came back and told McCORMACK that he had checked around the car and left. Again STYERS asked McCORMACK if he should call police and CHRISTOPHER'S mother.

(...)
SCOTT figured that his duty was done. The two men left the Metro Center together, probably in order to make further appointments. However, this entire excerpt from the police report confirms that SCOTT'S testimony was in large parts untruthful.
Roland J. Steinle: Later on, Mr. Styers came over to your apartment late at night, did he not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: With a detective?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Comment: At this point it should be clarified how ROGER SCOTT truly came into the picture in STYERS' story. This point is sometimes misrepresented, alleging that police pressed on STYERS until he would disclose the name 'ROGER SCOTT'. This is untrue. According to the police report of DET. YOST #41111 this is how the name of ROGER truly came into the picture:
(...) Subsequent to this briefing I was directed to transport JAMES back to the area of the Peter Piper Pizza that he had had lunch with CHRISTOPHER earlier that day. While en route to the Peter Piper Pizza at 43rd Avenue and Glendale, JAMES indicated to me that he had also been with a friend of his names ROGER SCOTT, during the time that he had eaten lunch at Peter Piper Pizza with CHRISTOPHER. He also indicated that ROGER SCOTT had showed up unexpectedly at Metro Center, shortly after CHRISTOPHER had disappeared. With this information I asked JAMES to direct me to ROGER SCOTT'S residence so that I could interview him. At 0045 hours, JAMES directed me to 4816 Bethany Home Road Apt. 120. (...)
The interesting fact here is that STYERS claimed that he had been with CHRISTOPHER inside the pizza parlor [which we know cannot be true], and that SCOTT was also present. Then, later at the Metro Center, SCOTT was there again. The question is: Was SCOTT - according to STYERS' portrayal - separated from STYERS and CHRISTOPHER in the intervening period, or not? Or did JIM simply jumble up the details both men had agreed to tell police? In any case, we can see here that STYERS volunteered the information about ROGER, and it's clear that the intention for this was that SCOTT was supposed to continue to unburden STYERS.
Roland J. Steinle: The detective talked to you about seeing Mr. Styers at Metro Center, did he not?
Roger Scott: He did.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you tell the police officer this story about Phil?
Roger Scott: Yes, Jim had brought up about Phil again, and he was looked like he was almost getting ready to point towards his apartment. And I thought "Now, what are you trying to pull?"
And so that's when I turned seventy-year-old Phil into a high school friend -- well, not a friend, somebody I had known from Alhambra High School.
Roland J. Steinle: After coming back from Metro Center, what did you do the rest of the evening?
Roger Scott: After I got home?
Roland J. Steinle: Yes.
Roger Scott: I stayed around the house. I tried to stay busy in the kitchen and walking around the house, acting like I was dizzy. My mother was watching TV, and I -- I just couldn't face it without telling everybody what happened, and that it would be probably too much for her.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you eat dinner that night?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: What time did you turn in and go to sleep?
Roger Scott: I believe it was 12:30, maybe 1:00 o'clock.
It was -- it wasn't long before Jim brought the detectives. I had thought that maybe if I turn in, she'd decide that she was tired. And if I could leave her a note and go down to the police station at Washington and Seventh Avenue, I figured it would be a lot better if I went to them. But Jim had brought the detective over.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: I later, then, proceeded to get ready to go down and leave the note. I -- she was getting ready to go to bed, and the detective came back in a short time and he asked me to come back to Metro Center, and then he would take me down to the station on Seventh Avenue and Washington and asked me just to sign a paper stating that I would sign -- that I would agree to a lie detector test at a later date, and then he would return me home.
Roland J. Steinle: You went down to the station, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And you didn't tell him what really happened, did you?
Roger Scott: No. I was -- I was brought by the same detective that Jim had brought to the house. And, yeah, the idea that was going through my head at that time was just to -- going on my own and start over. That was my idea at the time.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you been asleep at all that night prior to being woken up or getting out of your bedroom with the detective?
Roger Scott: No, I was simply in my room watching a small TV I have back there, waiting for her to go to sleep.
Roland J. Steinle: You went down to the station?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: You talked to a number of detectives, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Detectives that have testified at trial.
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: -- is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And you eventually talked with Detective Saldate; is that not true?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: And there came a point during that interview where you made certain statements, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Up to that point in time had you slept at all in the last two days?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Do you take medication?
Roger Scott: I do.
Roland J. Steinle: What type of medication?
Roger Scott: Medication called Drudis (phonetic) for back pain, and Dilantin for seizures.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you taken any medication on the day of the 3rd?
Roger Scott: I don't believe I had.
I had taken some extra pills the night of the 2nd. I thought that it would maybe calm me down. I was very nervous with what all had happened and with the death and Jim bringing the detectives over and starting the story about Phil. And I wanted to go down to the police station, and I was just trying to calm myself down by taking some extra pills.
Roland J. Steinle: Before you started to tell Detective Saldate what actually transpired out at the wash, you had not slept?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: You had not taken your medication?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Had you eaten at all?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: When was the last time you had eaten before you made any statements to Detective Saldate?
Roger Scott: When we stopped to have the pizza.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you request any food during the course of the day of December 3rd while you were at the police station?
Roger Scott: No. I didn't feel like it was -- I would have a right to just stop and say "You mind, I'm hungry. I've had nothing to eat."
I was talked to by a number of detectives. At one time it was pair after pair, until -- and put into very small rooms where I'd sit, and sometimes I'd start to doze off in the chair, and there'd be somebody else wanting to talk, until I talked to Saldate.
Roland J. Steinle: The interview with Saldate, was it a lengthy one?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: There came a point in that interview where he indicated that he didn't believe you; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: What was he going to do?
Roger Scott: He told me that "I don't believe what you're telling me, Roger. And if you don't tell me -the truth, I'm going to have to read you your Miranda rights. You know what that means, don't you?".
I said "Yes."
He said "Then, I'm going to have to go to your house and I'm going to have to tear it apart and search. And that would be hard on your mother, wouldn't it?"
Roland J. Steinle: You had talked to Saldate for some time about your relationship with your mother?
Roger Scott: I'd talked to various people that day.
And I ----
Comment: Even here at his own trial ROGER SCOTT sometimes appeared to doze off ... and STEINLE had to bring him back into the picture ...
Roland J. Steinle: Are you very close to your mother?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Is she in good health?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: When you started to tell Detective Saldate what happened, did you indicate to him that you didn't think Jim would do it?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Was he taking any notes during this interview?
Roger Scott: We were mainly talking, conversing between ourselves.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you see him with a pencil and a pad of paper, taking notes?
Roger Scott: I don't remember. If he did, it was very, very little.
Roland J. Steinle: Okay.
Roger Scott: It was mainly a conversation.
Roland J. Steinle: Did he provide you with any means to take your own notes as to different topics you talked about and the different questions that were asked of you?
Roger Scott: No, I didn't know that I needed ----
Noel Levy: Did he ever ask whether or not you would consent to having a tape recording?
Roger Scott: No, I don't believe he did.
Roland J. Steinle: Later on the subject of tape recording the interview came up, did it not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: But Detective Saldate never asked you whether or not you wanted to have this interview taped, did he?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: During the course of the interview, did you tell Detective Saldate the same things that you've told us today?
Roger Scott: No, I -- until he told me he was going to go and tear the house apart, and that would be hard on my mother, I had still been talking about Phil. And before he said he was going to go over to search the house, he was going to get to the truth one way or another, I believe he put it.
Comment: Apparently any kind of story was sufficient for SALDATE ...
Roland J. Steinle: After that point, though, did you tell Detective Saldate what you told us today?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Why were there differences?
Roger Scott: Well, all I could see is police storming in the door, scaring my mother to the point of a heart attack and possibly death.
Roland J. Steinle: Were they asking you questions and allowing you to give narrative answers as you're doing today, or were they asking you questions and asking for yes-or-no answers?
Roger Scott: They were asking me questions for answers. And as I tried to answer them, sometimes get cut off. Of course, I'm sort of a long-winded person when I get to talking.
Roland J. Steinle: If you'd go into an explanation on certain subjects, would they cut you off?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Interrupt you?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Allow you to explain what you really meant?
Roger Scott: It was mainly ----
Roland J. Steinle: We'll get back to that.
You've heard the tape recording of your conversation with Detective Mills?

Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: At the point in time you did that, what was your state of mind?
Roger Scott: Well, I was very tired. I -- I told him that -- that it would be good to finally get this off my chest.
Comment: Sleep deprivation is known to be one of the bes tools an interrogator has to his disposal. It makes people say things they wouldn't ordinarily say and after it's on tape ROGER had no choice but to built his story to fit. You can hear on the page of the tape-recorded interrogation how tired, confused and discontinuously ROGER'S statements actually were. If that can be the foundation of a capital case against another person, it scares the hell out of you.
Roland J. Steinle: And you talked to -- and you talked to him for some period of time?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: During the course of that interview, especially right at the end of the first side, there's a part in there that discusses what took place once Jim got out of the car. And during the course of -- that is the discussion about Jim coming up to you and saying to you that he was going to do the child, or kill the child, do you remember hearing that on the tape?
Roger Scott: Yes, I do.
Roland J. Steinle: That's different from what you've told us today, is it not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Why is that different?
Roger Scott: At the time I was trying to tell everything that had happened, and I wasn't getting everything straight according to the tape. But -- but all in all, it -- it's more of a mix of words. It's there, but it's mixed up. I was tired. I was trying to cooperate and tell -- tell them everything, and my words did get mixed up at times.
Roland J. Steinle: Do you have trouble expressing yourself?
Roger Scott: Lot of people say so. I must have. I -- I very often try hard to have myself understood, and sometimes I try too hard and it seems to make it even worse. I have to repeat myself to people.
Roland J. Steinle: You have a fear that a lot of people don't understand what you're saying to them, do you not?
Roger Scott: I like to be understood when I'm talking to them as far as a simple job on their car. What I'm going to do. Especially something as important as this, I wanted to be understood. I thought that actually we already had some understanding of what had gone on after the -- I had signed for the Search Warrant and had talked to them, and I figured they knew what was going on.
Roland J. Steinle: At any time before you heard the shots, did you know that Jim Styers was going to kill Christopher Milke?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: When you went out there that day, did you intend to assist Jim in the killing of Christopher Milke?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you ever agree with Debra or Jim to help participate in a conspiracy to kill him for five thousand dollars life insurance?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: You've known Jim Styers for many years, have you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: He has a number of his own children?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Even as you sit here today, do you believe that Jim Styers did what he did?
Roger Scott: It's hard to believe. I know it's true.
And in '68 he got married, and by the time I saw him again in '71 he had two girls by his first marriage. And I know he had a daughter, Heather, by his second marriage. And by Gail, common-law wife, he had Wendy.
Roland J. Steinle: On Saturday the 2nd, did Jim Styers ever tell you that he had to pick up his daughter, Wendy, by 2:00 o'clock?
Comment: It's interesting that STEINLE brought this question up at all. In fact, in the pre-trial interview of GAIL LIPSHULTZ, STYERS' former girlfriend and the mother of their joint daughter WENDY, she related that STYERS intended to pick his daughter WENDY up in the morning hours of the next day. That next day was the Saturday in question, December 2nd, 1989:
(...)
Tom Buckner: The weekend that Christopher was murdered out in the desert, where was Wendy?
Gail Lipshultz: She was here with me.
Tom Buckner: When had Jim brought her home? Do you remember what day? Like you say, it was from the day before?
Gail Lipshultz: Oh, you mean when he brought her here?
Tom Buckner: Right.
Gail Lipshultz: Yeah, the day before, in the evening. He said he was going to pick -- he wanted to pick her up like early the next day. I told him, wait 'til like later in the afternoon because I wanted to take her somewhere.
(...)
If GAIL'S story told here is true, how then could STYERS have planned to commit the murder of CHRISTOPHER [which would have implied that he later had to calmly pick WENDY up]. JIM would have had to be prepared that police would question him for a while, even if he only reported the boy missing from the Metro Center mall. And it's true, we find even more indications that GAIL'S story was the full truth: In the completely independent report of DET. JUDY TOWNSEND #3933 of June 15th, 1990 the detective related:
(...)
"During the course of the day (12/2/1989), JIM'S ex-wife, DEBBIE, kept calling for JIM to come pick up WENDY. WENDY had gone to her mother's the night before, but was to be picked up on Saturday by JIM.
When JIM came from being interviewed by the police on 12/3/1989, he called DEBBIE from her phone, telling her that he was going to church and would pick up WENDY after the service."
(...)
There are a few mistakes in this paragraph, that we need to clarify at first. DET. TOWNSEND falsely named JIM'S ex-wife DEBBIE, but it's was GAIL. Also, as we know, GAIL wasn't the ex-wife, but only the former girlfriend. But other than these clarified details, this incident told by neighbor PATRICK MURPHY corroborates GAIL'S initial statement entirely. JIM STYERS had planned to pick his daughter WENDY up that Saturday, and therefore the claims made by SCOTT appear to be fully invented. Indeed, this revelation points at the assumption that STYERS solely intended to kill some time until he could pick WENDY up. In the meantime he may have consented to take ROGER into the desert in order to try the new gun he had bought for him. On this occasion, the murder happened. This is the most likely scenario.
Roger Scott: No, he hadn't said anything at that time.
Roland J. Steinle: In November -- we've heard testimony in the form of a stipulation that Jim Styers went to a VFW post and bought two guns, one of which was the was the murder weapon.
You've heard this testimony?

Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did Jim Styers tell you that he had bought two guns?
Roger Scott: He had told me that he had bought two guns, I believe it was Sunday, the day before he told me that Debbie had seen the guns in the closet and came up with the idea.
Roland J. Steinle: As a matter of fact, you're the one that told basically the detectives where to start looking for the person that sold Jim Styers the gun?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did Jim Styers buy that little snub-nose gun for you?
Roger Scott: No. Jim is a very cheap person. If he'd buy you a Coke, he'd expect you to buy him one back later in the week or month, or whatever.
Comment: Here, JIM STYERS was all of a sudden 'a very cheap' person. SCOTT'S long-time buddy JIM was asked for $250 so SCOTT could file his SSI claim, but when it came to a gun ROGER ran like hell to distance himself from the purchase.
Roland J. Steinle: As a matter of fact, you split the pizza tab down the middle, didn't you?
Roger Scott: Yes. It's the only way you're going to eat.
Comment: Oooops, a tiny slip of the tongue! Didn't SCOTT claim that the two men were to the pizza restaurant along with CHRISTOPHER, and only took the boy to the desert afterwards? According to this scenario, the pizza would have to be split into three pieces, but here STEINLE'S questioning and SCOTT'S unaware answer reveals that the pizza was solely split 'down the middle', and therefore in only two pieces. This is an additional indication that CHRISTOPHER was never there when JIM and ROGER were sitting at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place. SCOTT had unconsciously confirmed his visual memory of what really happened.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you own any other guns other than the one that was found in your apartment?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: And the one that was there, was that yours?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Were you aware of the fact that there was CCI Stinger ammunition in the glove compartment?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you ever buy that ammunition?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: On December 3rd you were arrested, were you not?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: While at the police station on that day, did you ever request to talk with Jim Styers?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Roland J. Steinle: Did Jim Styers ever come talk with you?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Since that day of the arrest, have you ever attempted to call Jim Styers?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Have you ever attempted to write him?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: Has he written you any letters?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: You've heard his testimony concerning you, have you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Roland J. Steinle: Did you pull the trigger?
Roger Scott: No.
Roland J. Steinle: You don't have any kids of your own, do you?
Roger Scott: Not legally.
Roland J. Steinle: Would you have participated in something like this?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
MR. STEINLE: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: We'll take a break at this time and reconvene in approximately fifteen minutes. (Whereupon, court recessed at 12:25 p.m., reconvening at 12:45 p.m.)
THE COURT; Mr. Levy?
MR. LEVY: Thank you, Your Honor.
Comment: So far the direct examination of SCOTT didn't yield any surprises. STEINLE had SCOTT well-prepared even though the Defendant still struggled with the details of his story, which were in large parts confused, conflicting with other information or plainly self-contradictory. Interestingly, on cross-examination something else happened. Now NOEL LEVY faced SCOTT, and all of a sudden SCOTT must have woken up and realized that he wouldn't get off. In fact, we will now see how SCOTT attempted a complete turnaround at various points. It became difficult for the prosecutor to keep ROGER SCOTT to tell him the story he actually wanted to hear. Please pay attention to the forceful bullying and intimidation LEVY will now use in order to hinder SCOTT from any rapture while he's testifying on the stand.


Roger Scott today
ROGER SCOTT, 2003



CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVY:
Noel Levy: Mr. Scott, I'm the prosecutor; you understand that?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: My questions will essentially ask for 'a yes-or-no answer; can you handle that?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Comment: Already at the beginning of the cross-examination LEVY is aware of how fragile SCOTT'S mental state truly is. He asks twice before he begins ...
Noel Levy: During the discussion with Detective Saldate on December 3rd, a little after noon, when you told them those things that you had not told to the detectives before, no one had used any physical force or coerced you, or any of that kind of thing, did they?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Comment: Isn't it interesting that LEVY didn't start out pertaining to any details of the murder case which was on trial here, but whether the authorities had acted lawful? It's true, in the tape-recorded interrogation of SCOTT, DET. MILLS ensured that he would confirm how decently he was treated by the authorities.
Noel Levy: And several detectives through these discussions had gotten you sodas to drink; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Mr. Saldate got me a Mountain Dew.
Noel Levy: And you had been able to go to the bathroom, for example?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you had been provided with a hamburger by Detective Mills?
Roger Scott: After the tape was made.
Noel Levy: You mean before the tape was made?
Roger Scott: I believe it was -- states on the tape -- well, yes, I -- I meant that. I'm sorry.
Noel Levy: And then they had been pretty nice to you?
Roger Scott: Detective -- yes.
Noel Levy: After you were given rights by Detective Saldate, you had told him what happened with Christopher and the planning of what happened, did you not?
Roger Scott: I told him according to what I knew of what Jim had told me of the various plans of Debbie and things before. And that's what I was telling him.
Noel Levy: And then you finally admitted to him, Detective Saldate, about noon, that there were -- that Phil was imaginary?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you admitted to him that you knew the facts?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: And then you went with the detectives and told them the location of the child?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: You told them about the incident?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: You told them the way it occurred, to the best of your knowledge?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: You told them the route back to Metro Center?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you told them that what you had said before was a whole made-up story?
Roger Scott: The Phil story?
Noel Levy: Yes.
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: You told them where the tennis shoes were?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you told them where you had hidden the gun?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: You told Detective Saldate that you were driving the car?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: What you heard the gun go off three times?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And that you went back to Metro Center, and that Styers contacted the security saying that Christopher was lost; is that what you told Detective Saldate?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you also told him that you were going along with Styers and lying your way out with regard to your imaginary friend, Phil?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: Now, Styers approached you and made it known to you that he wanted to get rid of Christopher; is that so?
Roger Scott: If you can explain that?
Noel Levy: Did Styers approach you and basically make it known to you that he wanted to get rid of Christopher?
Roger Scott: No.
Comment: Here, something changed with SCOTT and he became erratic and answered the question pertaining to what he had always claimed with a harsh 'no'. In other words, according to this statement JIM had NOT approached ROGER and told him that we wanted to get rid of CHRISTOPHER.
Noel Levy: I call your attention to the transcript, Page 143, Page 7, Line 20, where the question was --
Line 19: "Let -- let me interrupt you right there. So Jim approaches you and basically makes it known to you that he wants to get rid of Christopher?
Answer: Yes."
Do you recall saying that?

Roger Scott: I don't recall. If it's on the tape, yes.
Comment: Another surprising revelation unravels here; SCOTT doesn't even remember the incrimination of STYERS he had told to DET. SALDATE! This was the epic point in SCOTT'S initial story, which led to the arrest of both, STYERS and Debra, demonstrably without an alleged confession [because police detectives even talked about the forthcoming arrest of Debra while the interview behind the closed door was still pending]. SCOTT gave in and conceded '... if it's on the tape, yes.' But what if it wouldn't have been on that tape? Would he have attempted to recant his initial accusation?
Noel Levy: And he told you that because he said he couldn't stand Christopher; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And he told you that Debra Milke, Christopher's mother, also wanted to get rid of Christopher because she couldn't handle him either; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Comment: LEVY instantly became aware that he needed to lead SCOTT on, and only with the help of this aggressive questioning he got SCOTT to remember the accusation against STYERS and Debra, who was already found guilty and on death row when this testimony was made. LEVY will now take care to tell the story according to the scenario he wants the jury to know, and not endanger the desired story by the unreliable ramblings of ROGER SCOTT ...
Noel Levy: And it was Styers that approached you and talked to you face to face before you went about doing away with Christopher, before you went and talked face to face with Debbie; is that right?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you talked face to face about doing away with Christopher within the last week at least twice with her; is that correct?
Roger Scott: She ---
Noel Levy: Yes or no, Mr. Scott?
Roger Scott: I believe it does say that on the tape.
Comment: It's shocking to every sound mind to read how the prosecutor led SCOTT on to tell the story he wanted to hear. SCOTT was obviously close to the edge of recanting his initial statements about Debra, but the prosecutor used rhetoric tricks and intimidation to get ROGER to answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Obviously, SCOTT had a hard time to function properly under verbal pressure, and it makes you wonder even more how the initial interrogation of SALDATE must've went.
Noel Levy: And she said to you that she had to get away from Christopher, she wasn't cut out to be a mother, and she wanted you and Styers to take care of it; is that correct?
Roger Scott: That's what I said, yes.
Comment: SCOTT himself used a technique to evade LEVY'S aggressive examination. Even though LEVY gave all the details, SCOTT didn't give any persuading answers, but solely referred to what was said on the tape.
Noel Levy: And she said that she wanted Jim and you to handle it after Jim purchased the gun; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Pardon me?
Noel Levy: And she said that she wanted you and Jim to handle it after Jim purchased a gun; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: And at first it was planned to be Christopher and his father, but the father went to Texas, they couldn't wait, and Christopher would just have to disappear; is that the way it was?
Comment: This is how you ask a child, but not a Defendant in a criminal trial. We can't help but wonder about the purported, big rush. If there was any truth at all to this scenario, what difference would a few more days make? MARK MILKE was schedule to return to Phoenix shortly, and if the conspiracy claim was true, then JIM, ROGER and Debra surely could've waited another two days. Otherwise, the conspiracy never existed ...
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: You were aware of an insurance policy in the amount of five thousand dollars which would help them payoff debts they needed to take care of; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And they offered you money, too; is that correct?
Roger Scott: They had.
Noel Levy: Yes or no?
Roger Scott: Well, I'll have to say no.
Comment: ... and the next shock! SCOTT even stated here - on the stand and under oath - that he was NOT promised any money for his participation. LEVY now had to be very concerned whether his story would continue to stand.
Noel Levy: All right. I call your attention to the transcript, Page 143 -- Exhibit 143, Page 10, Line 1:
"Question: Okay. And there was also some money involved in this, too, right, in the form of an insurance policy?
Answer: Yes, five thousand dollars which would help them to payoff debts that they needed to take care of. Their money situation got out of hand and they had offered me money, too."

Roger Scott: Yes, they had offered ----
Comment: Only when being confronted with the transcript of the tape-recorded interrogation, SCOTT again conceded that his initial story contained the allegation that he was offered money. How believable is this at this point? Obviously SCOTT intended to tell a different scenario, if the prosecutor would grant him that possibility ...
Noel Levy: Yes, they had offered you money, Mr. Scott; is that a yes, sir?
Roger Scott: I'll have to say no, unless I'm able to explain it.
Noel Levy: Do you remember saying this in the taped statement to Detective Mills on December 3rd, 1989?
Comment: ... but LEVY'S ruthlessness avoided exactly that. Instead of letting the Defendant elaborate on his objection, LEVY again used the close referral to the transcript of the interrogation:
Roger Scott: I remember it being on -- hearing it on the tape.
Comment: In other words, SCOTT claimed here that he heard his own voice on that tape, but it's not the scenario he actually wished to confirm to the prosecutor now. The conclusion of this matter must be that he wasn't offered money by either JIM STYERS or Debra Milke.
Noel Levy: And they offered you -- first it was a hundred-and-fifty, and then they wanted to get Chris all the more, it went up to two-hundred-and-fifty is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Comment: ... and then the story changed again.
Noel Levy: And your part was to be for -- the two-hundred-fifty dollars was to drive the car?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: Now, you testified on direct that you never went out with Mr. Styers to attempt to kill Christopher at any location; is that correct?
Roger Scott: No, sir.
Noel Levy: Never did?
Roger Scott: I never did.
Comment: As above, SCOTT contradicted all his initial claims when he put the blame on his purported co-conspirators.
Noel Levy: Do you recall on the tape, Exhibit 130 in evidence, saying the following?
(Whereupon, tape played.)
Noel Levy: Do you recall -- is that your voice on the tape, Mr. Scott?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: And you said this to Detective Mills on that particular day, December 3rd of '89?
Roger Scott: Yes, sir.
Noel Levy: And you mentioned that you didn't think Styers would do it on direct examination; do you recall?
Roger Scott: That's right.
Comment: LEVY skipped his own question here. The question whether SCOTT had been out at any place for a previous attempt on CHRIS' life remains denied by ROGER. LEVY now had to rush in order to ensure SCOTT testifying to the crucial points.
Noel Levy: The reason that you didn't believe Styers would do it was because as you were driving up and down on Ninety-ninth Avenue, you didn't hear any shots and you thought that, well, maybe Styers just wouldn't go through with it.
Other than that, you knew he was going to kill Christopher when he got out of the car, didn't you, Mr. Scott?

Roger Scott: No, sir.
Comment: Again, here SCOTT denied the paramount incrimination against JIM STYERS, namely that it was clear that JIM would kill CHRISTOPHER that day. LEVY will once again have to use the proven successful technique of referring strictly to that tape ...
Noel Levy: Do you recall doing a taped interview with Detective Mills on December 3rd of '89, do you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
(Whereupon, tape played.)
Noel Levy: Is that your voice on that tape telling that to Detective Mills?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: Christopher was told on these trips going out to the desert that he was going to see Santa Claus; is that correct?
Roger Scott: It says that on the tape.
Noel Levy: Yes? Is that a yes?
Comment: Here LEVY was not only leading, but literally putting words into ROGER SCOTT'S mouth. ROGER did not confirm the claims pertaining to what was said to CHRISTOPHER when the little boy was taken out into the desert, but he solely replied that this is stated on the tape. By no means does it mean a 'yes', but this way you bully people around ...
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: Now, Saturday morning you called Jim approximately 10:30; is that correct?
Comment: Do we realize he purpose of this question? SCOTT was so intimidated by now that he would say 'yes' to every question. Here, LEVY had SCOTT confirm that 'you called Jim approximately 10:30', but as we've seen before, that was the time when JIM had already popped up at SCOTT'S place, according to SCOTT'S testimony on direct-examination. LEVY had SCOTT make a statement which is in conflict with his earlier testimony.
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you talked about taking care of Christopher, didn't you?
Roger Scott: No, it was just -- I know it says that on the tape.
Comment: A last effort of SCOTT to try to come out with the truth about what happened in that desert area north of Phoenix, but LEVY would insist on the aggressive questioning. Roger had obviously just begun to realize the trouble he really was in. This comes closer than anything else put forth to explain why ROGER turned down a plea bargain to escape the gas chamber. SCOTT will now give in to the prosecutor and basically just consent to everything ...
Noel Levy: And you said it had to be done, didn't you, yes or no?
Roger Scott: On the tape, it does.
Comment: But here ROGER wasn't given the chance to tell the truth.
Noel Levy: And you said you were aware it was going to be done, yes or no?
Roger Scott: I was aware of everything.
Noel Levy: And you knew it was going to be done that Saturday, yes or no?
Roger Scott: I know it happened that Saturday.
Comment: ... which is not the answer to that question. SCOTT still struggled with some resistance, but would now give up for a while and flatly only answer 'yes' or 'no'.
Noel Levy: After you had pizza at Peter Piper Pizza, then Styers drove out Ninety-ninth Avenue, and about halfway you took over driving by Sun City; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you're the one who took the detectives to this particular wash just north of Happy Valley Road on Ninety-ninth Avenue; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: When you drove out there, Jim decided to stop at this location; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: He was aware of -- he was aware of that location; is that so?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: You also got out of the vehicle, did you not?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And Styers told Christopher as he was getting out to get Christopher to go out of the car, that he was going to go look for snakes; is that so?
Roger Scott: That is what he -- he told him.
Noel Levy: Well, he didn't tell anybody, Detective Mills, about anybody relieving themselves, did you?
Comment: Reasonable point. On direct-examination SCOTT had indeed testified 'He told me to pull over and he had to relieve himself and he was going to take Chris with him.' Like LEVY questioned, this point is in conflict with SCOTT'S initial statement during the tape-recorded interrogation:
(...)
Det. Mills: When you drove out there, who decided to stop at that location?
Roger Scott: Jim did.
Det. Mills: He told you to stop there?
Roger Scott: Yes.
(...)
Roger Scott: Apparently not on the tape that he was going to relieve himself.
Noel Levy: All you said was -- you all got out and Christopher was told that you were going to look around for snakes, and that's why the binoculars were brought; is that so, yes or no?
Roger Scott: I believe it says that on the tape.
Noel Levy: And the idea was that he would look through them and keep his interest; is that so?
Roger Scott: That's usually what you do with binoculars.
Noel Levy: And then you all crossed from the east side of Ninety-ninth to the west side through the wash approximately fifty feet west; is that correct?
Roger Scott: We went into the east side, too shallow. We crossed to the West side. And then ----
Noel Levy: About fifty feet, yourself?
Roger Scott: No, I wouldn't say that.
Noel Levy: You wouldn't?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: And then Jim Styers says "I'm going to do it up there, on up, close enough to where they can find the body in a couple of days, maybe three."
He said that, didn't he?

Roger Scott: That's what it says on the tape.
Comment: Wrong again, SCOTT never touched this sticky issue when he recorded that interrogation. In fact, it was solely contained in SALDATE'S report about his interrogation of SCOTT, and it reads:
ROGER said JIM wanted to leave him not too far from the roadway so he would be found in just a couple of days and they could collect the insurance money as soon as possible.
Both, LEVY and SALDATE also made a big thing out of this point at the Grand Jury hearing:
Armando Saldate: (...) 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. (...)
Trouble is that this is an obvious, bald-faced invention. The corpse of CHRISTOPHER was hidden behind branches and trees, and the report of DET. MILLS states about this point:
DET. SALDATE and I walked w/b from 99 Avenue in the wash and after going through some underbrush came upon the body of CHRISTOPHER MILKE.
The report of DET. HOUSE on the other hand explicitly states that "A cluster of tree branches covered the wash bed at 98 feet west. This made visibility westward in the wash difficult." Hardly the scenario to find a corpse within two or three days.
Noel Levy: Now, Mr. Scott, you do recollect the taped statement that you gave to Detective Mills on December 3rd; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
(Whereupon, tape played.)
Noel Levy: So, Mr. Scott, you knew in fact while in the wash and before the wash that Styers was going to execute Christopher Milke, did you not?
Roger Scott: No, I didn't.
Noel Levy: You told this to Detective Mills, did you not?
Roger Scott: I don't deny the tape.
Noel Levy: And there was no pressure applied upon you whatsoever, and with a very slow colloquy or discussion between you and Detective Mills, and nobody rushed you to make your explanation, did they?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: Nobody cut you off, did they?
Roger Scott: Pardon me?
Noel Levy: Nobody cut you off, did they?
Roger Scott: In the tape I was trying to explain things at times.
Noel Levy: Here, did you note where you were cut off?
Roger Scott: In there, no, not at that time.
Comment: In other words, SCOTT indicated that his perception of the truth was different on the stand than what was said on the tape. LEVY quickly knows how to frustrate these attempts, and offers SCOTT to point out what he had noted about that interrogation. LEVY knew firsthand that the mental case wouldn't be able for that.
Noel Levy: And so what you told the jury today in testimony upon direct examination that you didn't know what was happening, and that you didn't know Chris was going to be killed, and that you went to the east side of the wash because Styers wanted to relieve himself, and then went to the west side because there was more cover, you never told any of these things to Detective Mills because you've fabricated here today in your testimony, haven't you?
Roger Scott: No, I haven't.
Noel Levy: What you told Detective Mills, you told him very calmly, slowly and methodically, as you have just heard, correct?
Roger Scott: I tried to tell him to the best of my ability. I was very tired. I was trying to tell him everything that happened ----
Noel Levy: And ----
Roger Scott: -- during the whole thing and cramming it all on one tape. He said he only had one tape.
Noel Levy: And you did, didn't you, correct?
Roger Scott: I did make the tape then.
Noel Levy: To the best of your knowledge?
Roger Scott: At the time, yes.
Noel Levy: So the idea was that you would drive and be a lookout; is that so?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: Well, it's already been brought out that there's a lot more traffic on Lake Pleasant Road to the lake on weekends; you know that, don't you?
Comment: At this point LEVY not only had SCOTT say what he wanted him to, but additionally provided the pertinent motive. But in fact, it's one of the very weak points to claim that the murder of a 4 y.o. boy needed an accomplice as a driver. For $250, that would make a rather expensive cab driver. The murder-scene is no more than a 30 to 45 minute car drive away from Metro Center, and no normal person would need a driver to kill a little boy, aged four.
Roger Scott: Naturally, there is.
Noel Levy: And when you went with James Styers to kill the child earlier at that one location, I believe Seventh Street and Paradise, there was too much traffic there, and you told Detective Mills that "We had to cut it off because there was too much traffic."
Is that so, Mr. Scott?

Roger Scott: That's how it came out on the tape.
Noel Levy: And when you -- James Styers went to Beardsley and Seventh Street to kill the child, and the National Guard people were there and voices, he knew he needed a lookout and someone to assist him, so he came to you, didn't he?
Roger Scott: He did not.
Noel Levy: Well, you just testified on direct that he came to you and asked you to help him kill the child; didn't you testify to that on direct, Mr. Scott; yes or no?
Roger Scott: I would have to say no.
Noel Levy: You didn't testify?
Roger Scott: If I cannot explain it, no.
Comment: The Defendant even indicates that we wishes to elaborate in order to be able to tell the correct story, but again, LEVY disregards this and continues ...
Noel Levy: So you went up and back, and you went as far north as Jomax Road, didn't you?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you turned around and you came back slower, and a car was coming up behind you. So you didn't want to look so obvious, so you slowed down and you pulled off the road on the north bank of the wash; is that correct?
Roger Scott: If I turned around from Jomax Road, I'd be going south. Pardon me.
Noel Levy: Yes, isn't that correct, you'd be going south?
Roger Scott: Yes, I -- it would be on the south side.
Noel Levy: You stopped on the south bank or the north bank of the wash?
Roger Scott: When I passed -- when I went down from Jomax Road, I went south to the other side of the wash. When the car came along, naturally I slowed down, pulled over so he could pass.
Noel Levy: Then you turned around again?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And then you went north again?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And then you turned around again?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And then you stopped on the north bank of the wash?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: So, because you hadn't heard anything yet, you decided to get out of the car; is that correct?
Roger Scott: I had gotten out of the car to see where they were.
I know it says that on the tape, but I hadn't heard anything.
Noel Levy: That's what you said on the tape, correct?
Roger Scott: That's what I said on the tape.
Noel Levy: And because you still hadn't heard anything, you got out of the car and walked out in the desert to see if you could see them, correct?
Roger Scott: Yes, I walked around behind the car and stepped up on a bank to see if I could see where they were.
Noel Levy: You were about a thousand feet away when you heard three shots; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you knew the three shots were coming down in the wash from where Styers and the child were, correct?
Roger Scott: No, I didn't.
Noel Levy: From a thousand feet on the north bank; is that so?
Roger Scott: Approximately, yes.
Noel Levy: And the north bank, of course, is higher than the south bank, and it's higher than the bottom of the wash, is it not?
And if you have any question, Mr. Scott, I'll be glad to show you photographs.

Roger Scott: I'm very aware of what it looks like.
Noel Levy: Are you?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And so you know the north bank is higher than the south bank?
Roger Scott: I believe it is.
Noel Levy: And it's higher than the bottom of the wash?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you were a thousand feet away and heard three shots?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And you are telling this jury that you didn't know they were coming from the location of where Styers went into the wash with the boy?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: You're not telling the jury that?
Roger Scott: I'm saying I don't know where the shots came from.
Noel Levy: Then you got back in the car and you drove southbound; is that so?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And then Jim was out on the road just north of the wash, and you picked him up in the car; is that so?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And he said words, more or less "Well, that's done, and let's get out of here;" is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And he had the gun with him?
Roger Scott: Yes, he had it in his hand.
Noel Levy: And you drove south on Ninety-ninth Avenue to Union Hills Drive, and then you drove east on Union Hills Drive towards the Black Canyon Freeway?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And then you saw that Styers began emptying the shells out of this revolver one by one, didn't you?
Roger Scott: Yes.
Noel Levy: And he opened the cylinder up and he picked out each casing one by one and flipped them out the window, spacing them out every few blocks; is that correct?
Roger Scott: He told me that's what he was doing. I was driving the car, and naturally I was looking ahead.
Comment: How could ROGER know exactly where to show the detectives where to look for the casings, unless it was ROGER and not JIM who had tossed them out of the window? Reciprocally this would prove that JIM drove the car, and not ROGER. Didn't ROGER previously state that he hadn't observed JIM taking the shells out of the gun because he was allegedly driving? It appears he conveniently altered the truth. JIM STYERS testified at his own trial that ROGER drove car when the two men left the murder-scene.
LEVY: Your Honor, I've been given a signal, and our watch is a little faster than the court clock. And this is an agreeable time to stop to where all parties would be in agreement, if the Court is.
THE COURT: Either counsel want to put anything additional on the record with the jury here?
MR. STEINLE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will take the recess at this time.
Folks, please keep in mind the admonitions given to you at the outset of this trial. They still apply at all times during the trial, including through your deliberations.
We won't see you again until Monday.
Remember, we start Monday morning at 10:45.
As I recall, Steve had already spoken to you about that time; is that correct?
All right. Have a good weekend, and we'll see you next Monday at 10:45. (Whereupon, court recessed at 1:15 p.m.)



This page was last modified:
Friday, 18-Jan-2013 17:15:17 CET
The Debra Jean Milke Case


Return to previous page Home | Table of Contents ]  



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