|
The following is a synopsis of the findings of the former defense team which was presented at the "National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty", held in Chicago from Nov. 13th - 15th, 1998. (For more details see Memorandum in Support of Habeas Corpus, filed in Federal District Court in Arizona on August 31, 1998, Case No.
CIV 98-00060 PHX-RCB).
As the attentive reader of our website will notice this account disregarded the evidence available in The Debra Jean Milke Case and painted in a scenario which was largely based on assumptions. It is not the intention to attack or discredit anyone who participated in putting this synopsis together, yet it will explain to the audience how a wrongful approach to Debra's case led to false suppositions, and thus a wrongful defense strategy. 'Claim of actual innocence' had been a part of 'debbiemilke.com' since its early launch and thus it was decided to keep it instead of simply deleting it, added with comments and correcting false speculations.
EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED DEBBIE MILKE
A single detective fabricated a confession and orchestrated the creation of extremely damaging character evidence. No other evidence of value existed.
FACTS RELATED TO CONFESSION
The detective had everyone leave the room including another detective working the case.
|
Comment : SALDATE did not send another detective present out of the room, but Debra's accompanying acquaintance JANET FROEBE. In fact, while SALDATE was interrogating Debra JANET herself was interviewed by DET. HAMRICK of Phoenix police, and in that interview HAMRICK already disclosed that Debra would be "charged as one of the three people involved in the death of CHRISTOPHER", which means that her arrest was entirely preconceived.
|
He shut the door and sat in a chair directly in front of Debra. He immediately told her that her son was murdered and that she was under arrest for his murder. Debra let out a loud scream heard by others outside the room.
|
Comment : Unfortunately we haven't found any indications or witness testimony that corroborate the allegation that Debra's screaming could be heard outside that interrogation room.
|
Thirty minutes later he emerged from the room holding Debra by the arm, proclaimed she confessed, and escorted her to a police vehicle. He rode in the back seat with her to the main police station.
|
Comment : At this point it should be noted that DET. HAMRICK, DiMODICA and LT. YOST returned from the SADEIK property where they had interviewed Debra Milke's natural father RICHARD and her step-mother, MAUREEN SADEIK. The pertinent report of DET. HAMRICK mentions the meeting with DET. SALDATE after exiting the interrogation room, but it does not mention any statement of the police veteran that the young mother had made a voluntary confession. The former defense team was wrong again.
|
- The detective was alone with Debra during the entire time the alleged confession took place.
- Another detective working the case was in the room, but was told to leave during the time the confession supposedly occurred.
|
Comment : Once again, no other detective was present in that room, but Debra's and the SADEIK family's acquaintance JANET. The three officers who had come down from Phoenix using a police car have consistently testified at trial that none of them had spoken to either Debra or JANET when both females arrived at the Pinal County Sheriff's Office.
|
- The detective was told by his superior to tape-record any conversation he had with Debra. He did not.
|
Comment : As the trial transcripts have shown it's unclear whether Saldate was ordered to tape-record his interrogation of Debra Milke. Yet, it is proven with the testimony of Pinal County Deputy ROBERT SOULES that the three officers who were en route to Florence initially had the order to interview Debra. It wasn't Saldate who had the initial order.
|
- Debra did not sign, initial, or in any way authenticate any writing relating to a confession.
- Debra was held incommunicado by the detective from the time he emerged
from the room with her to the time be booked her into jail.
- Three days after Debra's arrest the detective produced a written synopsis of her purported confession, in narrative form.
|
Comment : ... and the interesting aspect here is that the report about the interrogation of Debra Milke was written approximately five hours before the report about the interrogation of ROGER SCOTT was completed. It's rather odd to imagine why these proceedings would take place in a chronologically twisted order, and it raises suspicions whether county prosecutor NOEL LEVY had led SALDATE on how to create the case of a conspiracy to commit murder.
|
- All notes taken during the purported confession were destroyed after the written narrative was completed.
|
Comment : In fact, Saldate's statements about these notes were self-contradicting and confused throughout the entire course of the investigative phase. In a pre-trial interview held on June 26, 1990 he still claimed that he had "checked with his notes". Notes that
were - according to SALDATE and prosecutor NOEL LEVY - destroyed after the report in question was written.
|
- The detective has a documented history of lying and giving misleading
evidence in court, lying to and misleading grand juries, obtaining confessions from people who were in a state of trauma and people he knew were mentally impaired.
- Five highly experienced and respected law enforcement officers from across the country, after reviewing the facts of this case signed affidavits stating the confession never occurred.
- The psychiatrist who has been head of the county jail's psychiatric unit for over 30 years, and had dealt with Debra for nearly a year before she went to trial, signed an affidavit stating that she was not involved in her son's death. He also set out in his affidavit the reasons Debra testified poorly at trial :
- She had been taught by the doctor and his staff how to control her emotions when she testified, because she was terrified of going crazy,
- the damaging effects of the trauma she had been living with while she was awaiting trial, and
- the distorting and dulling effects of the medication she was taking. He was not allowed to testify at trial.
|
Comment : This is another untrue claim. DR. GARCIA was not disallowed to testify at trial, but the trial date conflicted with a trip DR. GARCIA had planned. For this reason the chief psychiatric was substituted by DR. KASSEL for the Voluntariness Hearing. DR. GARCIA himself still testified at the Presentencing Hearing and clearly stated on this occasion that he thought the jury had reached a wrongful verdict.
|
FACTS RELATED TO CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
The detective was the only witness who testified to the Grand Jury (Dec. 8, 1989 - defense counsel not present), which indicted Debra on the murder charge. After her indictment, the detective spent enough time with her father and sister and a former friend to convince them that Debra's confession was real and her motives were true. He told them that Debra wanted Christopher killed to collect a $ 5.000.00 insurance policy, that she wanted to marry a man who did not want children, and that she did not want Chris to grow up like his father.
|
Comment : And there's more to this than that. In reading the transcript of that Grand Jury Hearing SALDATE could be proven to fabricate details of a purported pre-planning, which - as we have shown - never took place. Prosecutor NOEL LEVY'S leading questions confirm how he plus the police veteran have orchestrated a case against three individuals, when in fact all indications point at ROGER SCOTT as the sole perpetrator alone who had shot 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER MILKE, without pre-planning or 'comprehensible motive'.
|
Debra's father was a prison guard and alcoholic and her sister suffered from serious emotional problems, which predisposed them to believe the detective.
WHY WOULD THE DETECTIVE WANT DEBRA CONVICTED ?
The detective concluded that Debra was in some way involved in the murder, based on statements made by one of the men who participated in the killing.
WHY WOULD THE DETECTIVE LIE AND MANIPULATE PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY TO GAIN A CONVICTION :
The detective knew the person who implicated Debra would not be a credible witness because :
- The person had changed material facts relating to Debra's involvement during the interrogation.
- He knew the person had mental problems.
- He knew his interrogation tactics would render the person's testimony untrustworthy.
- He had interrogated him for 12 hours without giving him his medication or food.
|
Comment : ROGER SCOTT was not interrogated by SALDATE for twelve hours. SCOTT was interrogated by various detectives.
|
- He had threatened to have the person's elderly mother's house searched, which the person feared would kill her.
- There was no other evidence of any value to prove her guilt.
FACTS LEADING UP TO THE CRIME:
Before Christmas 1989, on a Saturday morning, JIM STYERS was supposed to take four year old CHRISTOPHER MILKE to see Santa Claus, while his mother, Debra Milke, stayed home to do house work. Instead STYERS picked up a friend and took CHRISTOPHER to the desert where he shot him to death (remark : Styers denies this and insists that Scott pulled the trigger).
|
Comment : The story told by this defense team assumes STYERS' guilt just like all the media and the jurors did at trial. Yet, crucial evidence on the record was disregarded and the author of these comments himself was confirmed by attorney ROSENQUIST that he had no idea about the statements of former Maricopa County jail inmate ROBERT JOHNSON, who reproduced that ROGER SCOTT confessed the killing to him.
|
STYERS then dropped his friend off and went to the mall where he was supposed to take CHRIS and reported him lost. The police investigation lead to his friend, ROGER SCOTT, who, after interrogation, lead the police to the body and to evidence showing STYERS committed the murder.
|
Comment : Untrue again. SCOTT alleged that "Jim killed him", yet no evidence exists to assume that JIM STYERS was indeed the gunman. This defense team even disregarded the possibility that ROGER SCOTT'S statements could've solely been a means to cover his own butt and talk himself out of the major guilt for the crime.
|
Debra was a popular girl in high school, she was a cheerleader, she was a member of social clubs, and made good grades. She was responsible at home and did not cause any problems. She had good manners and did not smoke or drink. She was the typical happy teenager. She was never arrested or charged with any crime or misdemeanor.
She eventually met MARK MILKE, fell in love and married him. CHRISTOPHER was born a year later. Debra did not know how serious his [MARK'S] drug addiction problem was until after they married. She eventually found out when their relationship deteriorated dramatically and he ended up in prison several times. Debra divorced him and lived with his mother (remark : with whom she shared a close relationship) until he got out of prison. When MARK got out of prison he started creating a lot of problems for Debra and CHRISTOPHER, because he was still using drugs.
Debra and CHRISTOPHER moved in with JIM STYERS until they could get re-established. Debra had known STYERS for several years prior to her moving in. He had lived in the same apartment complex where Debra and her sister had lived. Her sister had lived with him for a period of time prior to her marriage. They both considered him a good friend. They had no reason to distrust him. He used to go to church regularly, he was courteous and helpful, and he had a young daughter who frequently stayed with him. Neither Debra or her sister ever had a romantic involvement with STYERS.
The problems with MARK escalated to the point where Debra became extremely scared and decided to move to a place where he could not find her and CHRIS. She found a good job, an apartment, and a day care center across town and was preparing to move. Debra's mother and stepfather came to the United States from Switzerland to help her prepare for the move. They helped her buy a car and helped in other ways, financially. When she finally told STYERS she was moving, CHRISTOPHER was dead in a matter of days. It was eventually found out that STYERS had fallen in love with Debra and became obsessed with her.
|
Comment : ... and this theory founded the defense strategy for Debra Milke between the years 1992 and 2000. In fact, as you read the preceding paragraph you will realize that this is nothing but an assumption, based on no hard facts. Unfortunately no proper research had been done up to this point, because the theory of killing a little boy in order to win a young woman's heart is hardly plausible.
|
WHY WOULD STYERS KILL CHRISTOPHER AND HOW COULD HE HAVE THE CAPACITY DO DO IT ?
|
Comment : Here and again the headline suggest that STYERS had an interest in killing CHRIS MILKE. This is untrue, according to proper and diligent research of the legal records. It seems that the fact of STYERS' conviction was taken into consideration when this 'claim' was compounded and STYERS' guilt was 'somehow' assumed. Unfortunately it did not contain any factual foundation.
|
Styers suffered from a serious mental illness and was being treated at the V.A. hospital. The mental illness was a result of a tour in Viet Nam. At his trial Styers testified that he had killed old people, women, and children. He specifically related an incident where he killed a young child when the boy tried to climb onto his truck.
|
Comment : ... which implies that STYERS had a motive for murder ? In order to investigate true proceedings a biased attitude should be avoided completely.
|
Experts indicate that the reasoning STYERS used to reach his decision to kill CHRIS is not unusual with his Viet Nam training and experiences, and his mental illness are taken into account. They said that STYERS had to come up with a way to keep Debra from leaving. If he killed MARK, there was still no guarantee Debra would not leave, but if he killed CHRIS, MARK and CHRIS would be out of the picture, so Debra would have no reason to leave.
|
Comment : What a theory ! As if this scenario made any sense ! It doesn't. In fact, it takes a malfunctioning mind to consider this theory as a reasonable motive for murder.
|
Therefore, STYERS would be there to take care of her during her time of grief.
|
Comment : If this defense team would have ever taken into consideration that Debra Milke was [and still is] an independent and strong person - and thus, even if the claim were true - it would've become clear that she wouldn't have turned to STYERS for comfort during a time of grief. This theory is malfunctioning and hardly plausible.
|
The experts also stated that this was a perfectly logical solution for a person who lost their ability to have feelings related to the killing of another person.
|
Comment : Too bad we don't know who those 'experts' were. They certainly need some more job training.
|
WHY WOULD SCOTT IMPLICATE DEBRA IN THE DEATH OF HER SON ?
STYERS recruited an old friend, ROGER SCOTT, to help him commit the murder.
|
Comment : One could make it sound less theatrical and simply state that STYERS met his old buddy ROGER.
|
SCOTT suffered from a number of mental illnesses, which would cause him to easily get confused and have problems remembering. SCOTT also had a low I.Q. and was characterized in his Habeas Corpus Petition as a follower and a yes man. He would do almost anything someone told him to do and would agree with almost anything someone told him. At first, SCOTT resisted STYERS' request that he assist him in the murder.
|
Comment : ... this is what SCOTT claimed, and SCOTT alone. To imply that this meeting was supposedly meant to commit a murder is nothing but turning a blind eye to the true facts of the case.
|
However, after STYERS told him(*) that Debra wanted her son killed because she did not want him to grow up like his father and that Debra would give him money out of the proceeds from an insurance policy she had on CHRISTOPHER, SCOTT agreed to help.
(*) This is an allegation made by Scott, whereas Styers has NEVER implicated Debra ever to this day.
Please read James Styers' letter
to Olga.
These statements by STYERS, which were subsequently related to the detective by SCOTT, were the origin of the motives the detective said Debra gave him during her confession for wanting her son killed. The detective gave a third motive for Debra wanting her son killed based on an interview with a man who the detective said Debra was in love with. The detective said the man told him that he would not get serious about Debra because he did not want children. However, when the man testified he said this was not true. He said that he and Debra never discussed marriage or whether he did or did not want children.
In conclusion, the Habeas Corpus Petition filed in this case also raises issues involving serious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Various legal motions and supporting documentation pending in this case prevent divulging certain information publicly at this point.
|
