Compound motivations
used against
Debra Milke

An analysis

Return to previous page eMail a friend Download this page in Acrobat format printable version
Translate this page into Spanish
Translate this page into French
Translate this page into German
using FreeTranslation.com 		Free web and text translation


The obvious lack of any verifiable evidence against Debra Milke - other than a not recorded, not signed, not witnessed and obviously fabricated confession - led to a string of compound motivations for her role in Detective Saldate's and prosecutor NOEL LEVY's conspiracy theory. As with other cases of questionable convictions, the accusing figures used a string of motives, each one of them of weak meaningfulness, in order to accomplish the character assassination annihilating Debra Milke and fabricate something to come up with at trial. This page will have a closer look at all these compound 'motivations', their sources and the actual circumstances referring to these:

Motive 1:
Debra didn't want her son to grow up like his father


Where does this motive emerge at first? The exact sentence of this motive appears in the initial police report of Armando Saldate, and in fact, it was a sentence that Debra had stated. According to Debra's own recollection she said "... that I did not want my son to grow up like his father and become a drug addict." But, regarding the drug career of MARK MILKE, this maternal attitude is very understandable. Having proven Saldate's pattern of permanently twisting statements or reproducing them in an incorrect context serious doubts as to this motive as well as its reproduction arise.
The first part of this sentence was later on uncritically taken over by various newspapers and magazines and repeated over and over again.
Does this motive apply? It's hard to imagine that a mother who wanted to avoid her child growing up like her natural father would rather chose to have it killed. However, the mere allegation alone does not make this statement a motive, and the true meaning of the sentence implies that her aversion towards her ex-husband was stronger than the love for her child. Debbie had left her marriage because she didn't want her son to subject to an abusive relationship, which is also backed up by the two restraining orders she had filed, and other witnesses (who have not been called at trial). Also, she had already obtained sole custody and there was no reason for her to believe -  even if Christopher had started a similar demeanor like his father - he wouldn't change, given the fact that Christopher was only 4 years old at that time.
Is there a logical context for this motive? Absolutely not. At the time of the crime Debra had just started a good job and qualified for a new apartment, where she wanted to move in by January 1, 1990 in order to be closer to her job. She was 25 years old at that stage, divorced for one year, and attractive. She had just received sole custody for Christopher, so why would such a motive serve as a reason for murder?
This allegation would also require a low-educated person with no skills at all, unable to support herself and her child. But the opposite is true: even her sister SANDY testified to her intelligence, and the same is true with ERNIE SWEAT and others.
Does this motive appear to be fabricated? Yes, it does. Given the proven falsehoods of Police Detective Saldate the fabrication of such a motive would just mean one of his smaller misconducts. His shameless lies in this and other cases exclude this motive automatically, but the same is true looking at Debra's position in life at that time. There is no logical reason to believe this point could have motivated Debra to a conspiracy to have her son Christopher killed. The uncritical reproduction of Saldate's allegation through the Arizona media alone made this the most popular motive in The Debra Jean Milke Case.



Motive 2:
Her son Christopher interfered with Debra's professional and social life


Where does this motive emerge at first? This motive was brought up by Debbie's own sister, SANDRA PICKINPAUGH. As stated on many occasions on this website, both sisters had a difficult relationship. Especially from SANDY'S side there was a strange jealousy towards her older sister, and at the various circumstances, it is obvious why this statement came up at all. All investigations show that Debbie - at that time - was an attractive woman, able to stand on her own two feet, she was popular, hard-working and had a gorgeous little boy. SANDRA herself mothered an illegitimate son, was a single parent herself and hardly ever had a job for more than a few months. Debra has always been the hated, overhwelming example for SANDRA. Obviously, after learning about the killing of her nephew and manipulated by the statements of Detective Saldate, this point was keen to be presented in order to make Debra appear an evil, calculating, neglecting mother who, as a young woman, had only set her sights on boyfriends and her professional career.
Does this motive apply?  The more we learn from the various testimonies about Debra's actual relationship with her son Christopher, the more it becomes an unlikely allegation that anything was wrong. Starting with the factual evidence that Debra had accomplished two restraining orders against her former husband MARK MILKE in favor to her son Christopher and herself, to the fact that neither MARK mentioned any abuse during his interview with Saldate, and the same was true with her then-boyfriend, ERNIE SWEAT. There were also some experts who testified in favor to Debra and confirmed that her relationship with Christopher was very normal. Yet, no one is perfect, and Debbie was sure often times exhausted with her duties as a mother and working at the same time, given the circumstance that she was a girl in her early 20s.
Is there a logical context for this motive? Only at the first look. As described above, the reason why this subject came up is comprehensible, yet - looking at Debra's situation in life - it does also not make much sense at all. Witnesses who were called into the stand for the prosecution and served character damaging testimonies were not given the opportunities to explicitly state that Debra could indeed rely on her sister, her friend DOROTHY MARKWELL and on JIM STYERS, to take care of Christopher throughout the days. At most of these occasions these people took advantage of financial support from Debra (SANDY often had no job; DOROTHY MARKWELL was a single parent and it didn't cause much trouble to also look for Christopher; JAMES STYERS could use Debbie's car and be with his daughter Wendy and Christopher, while Debra was at her job), which was not addressed at trial.
Does this motive appear to be fabricated? Well, this motive is not literally fabricated, yet it does not appear to serve as a motive for murder at all. Other than the mentioned individuals it would have been easy for Debra to give Christopher to her ex- husband MARK MILKE, her father or friends who also had children, if her own son had really interfered with whatever plans. However, nothing of this took place or was proven.



Debra Milke
Debra Milke -
Is there one motive that applies?


Motive 3:
Debra wasn't cut out to be a mother


Where does this motive emerge at first? This exact statement emerged from the tape-recorded interview which ROGER SCOTT gave at 08.12 p.m. His initial confession to Detective Saldate at approximately 04.10 p.m. on December 3, 1989 did not contain any reason or motive of Debra Milke at all. It should be repeated, that he incriminated her at least 30 minutes after confessing his knowledge about the murder. In that, SCOTT did not make any statements referring to that at all. Later, during the recorded interview ROGER SCOTT stated that Debra was not cut out to be a mother, when Detective MILLS asked him "What did she say, as best as you can recall?" In order to backup her implication SCOTT had to say anything, but he chose to not embellish this incrimination in any way.
Does this motive apply? No, there is no reason to believe that. Debra, as a young mother, was surely occasionally exhausted with the high-strung little boy, yet she was able to support herself, as well as Christopher. And - another important point - it was her initial wish to have a child after the marriage with MARK MILKE.
Is there a logical context for this motive? Absolutely not. As stated above, Debra was ready to move out into her new apartment by January 1, 1990. She had a good job. She had her own car. She was attractive and intelligent. Why would such a motive make sense, or serve as a reason to have Christopher killed?
Does this motive appear to be fabricated? No, admittedly this is not a fabricated motive, but it can't be regarded a motive at all. Looking at her entire social history she wanted a child, she wanted a family, she took care for herself and her little boy. When MARK MILKE met Debra at first, he liked her maternal qualities the most. After her marriage she was indeed enjoying some freedom as soon as it would be available, and she thought she could rely on family members and friends to take care of Christopher, so she could go out. It's extremely exaggerated to demand a different behavior of an attractive, young single woman who parents a little boy. It's one of the rather weird demandings of today's society that a single mother should stay home, take care of herself and her child and not find some joyful hours for herself. But Debbie was by all means never the vamp of the neglecting mother that Saldate made her look like.

Motive 4:
Money from a life insurance of Debra offered to Styers and Scott to have her son killed


Where does this motive emerge at first? SCOTT mentioned this insurance money at first, and it's true, Saldate's initial reports says "ROGER said he only went with JIM because he needed the $250.00 to file the Social Security case. ROGER then mentioned that CHRIS was supposed to have a $5000 life insurance policy and that JIM told him that he would give him $250.00 if he was to help him." After that ROGER SCOTT did not implicate Debra during his talk with the Detective and continued to reveal more details of how things took place. Only after at least 30 minutes and already on the way to the murder-scene, SCOTT asked Saldate and Detective MILLS, if he should go on and tell them more about the crime. It's up to suspicions whether SCOTT noticed that the entire "insurance" issue would only make sense if he implicated Debra, since STYERS alone couldn't possibly refer to money from a life insurance.
Does this motive apply? Definitely not. At least not, as far as Debra Milke is concerned. She had been working in the insurance industry for some years at that time, and came tot he following conclusions in a letter: "When I got my new job at John Alden in August - 30 days later I fill out my benefit package at home (2 weeks after the restraining order was filed). My employee handbook was left at home so Jim had complete access to that book if he wanted to read it." And she continued: "During the month of November, Roger asked me in front of Jim if he could borrow $250 for some attorney he wanted to retain for his social security. I said no, I was not a bank and he had every capability of working just like I did." The allegation that a bright woman like Debra intended to cash in on a life insurance payment is too far-fetched. But Saldate elected not to realize that a "conspiracy" would only make sense if the perpetrators not only agreed to the crime, but also to the benefits for each participant. Therefore the insurance can't possibly apply and is another example of how an 'alleged motivation' supposedly fits into a 'story'.
Is there a logical context for this motive? By logic, the "insurance issue" is definitely excluded, since the insurance conditions explicitly read: "A Benefit will not be payable under this Certificate if any loss results directly or indirectly from: ( ... )(e) participating in or attempting to commit an assault or felony".
Does this motive appear to be fabricated? No, it was not fabricated, but - as told to police by ROGER SCOTT - the circumstances of this life insurance is rather unbelievable. It was merely Debra's participation to a group plan, not a separate purchase, cost no more that $6 and would at the most cover the burial costs. If any court, jury or prosecutor considered this point as a motive it wouldn't be very close to life.

Motive 5:
Christopher interfered with Debra's plans to get married with her then-boyfriend, Ernie Sweat.


Where does this motive emerge at first? In summer of 1990 - becoming aware of the fact that the state didn't have any evidence against Debra Milke, former Police Detective Armando Saldate started to make this additional motive up, after having interviewed ERNIE SWEAT. SWEAT confirmed that he felt Debra needed someone who was seriously thinking of a family with her and Christopher. Saldate twisted those statements in his report about the interview, and at trial ERNIE SWEAT forcefully denied any intentions pertaining to an alleged marriage. Therefore Debra had no reason to think that killing Christopher would solve this situation.
Does this motive apply? This motive is completely off the wall. Neither Debbie nor ERNIE SWEAT ever had serious intentions to marry. ERNIE SWEAT confirmed this fact during his court testimony, and the same is true with Debra and Debra's mother, RENATE JANKA (who had been in Phoenix with her husband in September 1989) after seeing both young people interact with each other.
Is there a logical context for this motive? No, there's not. Debra still had to get over her ex-husband MARK MILKE and wasn't out for a serious relationship. She was indeed looking for some fun, dating and a stable situation for herself and her son. She was not ready for a second marriage and she was hesitant about a serious relationship at that time.
Does this motive appear to be fabricated? Yes, absolutely. The entire string of purported compound motivations is obvious when looking at their actual occurrence. This motive did not exist or was never addressed when Debra was arrested, but only after Saldate had interviewed ERNIE SWEAT. The cop lied about SWEAT'S original statements (as always) and was disproved at trial. Therefore this motive can not only be considered weak, but already neutralized.

C O N C L U S I O N



Other than the serious doubts about the truthfulness of the alleged confession as fabricated by Armando Saldate, none of the above analyzed motives appear to apply to Debra Milke at all. It's a crying shame that none of the media ever had the guts to seriously question any of these allegations, but repeated them like a bunch of parrots. None of these motives is backed up by incriminating statements of Debra or hard facts, nor does any of these apply when looking at her true life circumstances. If the media or the public would have had a close look at these circumstances, it would have become apparent that Debra had no reason for a conspiracy, as little as she had a reason to have Christopher killed at all. All the summarized motives appear to be compound, taken out of context, weak and ineffective and do not apply to Debra Milke's true life situation at all.



This page was last modified:
Monday, 03-Mar-2008 19:03:01 CST