Indexes of
Debra's innocence

Beside the statements made on this website that describe the case of Debra Jean Milke, the actual crime, the circumstances of her arrest, her trial, and the sentencing, various cogent indexes of Debra's innocence can be proven and are summarized here. The "confesssion", as alleged by DETECTIVE SALDATE was neither recorded on video or audio tape, nor signed by Debra. The decision to have her arrested was demonstrably pre-conceived by DETECTIVE SALDATE, and her conviction was solely based on indexes and character assassination; all evidences presented at trial were merely legal evidence ... yet, not one of the items presented yielded a proof beyond a doubt to the unbiased onlooker for any involvement of the young mother in the killing of her only child, CHRISTOPHER MILKE. The facts contained on this page are shown to be relieving indexes for her. Therefore we list them here, which - in addition - will also stop various rumors going around that were helpful with the denunciation of Debra Milke.

At first we should discuss the verdict of October 12th, 1990 and the detention of sentencing of January 18th, 1991. During the trial there were incriminating testimonies by her father, RICHARD SADEIK, Debra's sister SANDRA PICKINPAUGH and her former friend, DOROTHY MARKWELL, that led to the judgement of 'guilty'. One has to learn about the dynamic relationships within the family to understand the testimonies, as were already explained by RENATE JANKA, Debra's mother. RICHARD SADEIK is remembered for his cynical threats resulting from the separation and divorce by stating: "Nobody leaves Sam Sadeik! I have no idea when and how, but one day you'll have to pay for that!" No one had an idea at that time how fatefully right he was.

Other than what has been exposed at trial and in the media at that time, there are no actual signs that Debra - as a thoughtful mother of little CHRISTOPHER - had done anything wrong. Many said just the opposite. There are many to believe that after CHRISTOPHER'S birth, she primarily watched over his well-being. Secondly, despite her disrupted marriage with MARK MILKE, she supported the connection between father and son. Although divorced she often let CHRISTOPHER stay with his father day-wise. MARK - because of his drug- and alcohol addiction was the initial reason for the breaking up of the marriage - wanted to see his son following a stay in prison. Debra agreed because MARK was living at her sister SANDY'S place and Debra was then trustful of her sister. In the summer of 1988 SANDY alarmed Debra that MARK [having CHRISTOPHER with him] has driven to the house of a friend who was also known to the police to be a drug addict. Debra immediately called the police and started to look for her son and subsequently found him in a drug scene. MARK threatened her verbally and physically and wouldn't hand over the little boy. A deep rip now fractured the relationship between the two parents. The year after that [following another serious happening] Debbie obtained a restraining order. This order said MARK had to restrain himself from her as well as from CHRISTOPHER [SANDY was also named for protection]. As a reason for this Debra described later :

"After some serious incident in June 1988 I insisted on "supervised" visitation. When Mark was released from another stay in jail I made him consider a withdrawal treatment if he ever wanted to regain visitation rights. Despite his assertions it became obvious in July 1989 that Mark wasn't 'clean' at all, when I wanted to pickup Chris from a supervised visit. What I found was absolute horror. Mark and his friends were totally 'high' and he didn't have any intention to give Chris back to me. He took away my car keys, beat and choke me and threatened to kill me. My son saw all of this from the window of the house and was totally confused. I couldn't free him and intended to call the police, when eventually one of Mark's friends turned in, got a hold of Mark and had Chris leave the house. We ran for our lives and at first I didn't know where to go (it was late at night), except to hide behind a garbage container."

The restraining order filed
against MARK MILKE (June 1988)

Another issue of major importance at Debra's trial was the life insurance she had on her little son and herself. The entire issue is actually treasonable because it discloses how the prosecution - supported by an obviously prejudiced judge - distorted facts to its convenience merely to provide another invented motive for the murder of CHRISTOPHER and to accomplish the foundation of a claim of 'pecuniary gain' which could be used as 'aggravating circumstance' against the young woman. The first mention of an alleged 'policy' in this case came about in SALDATE'S report of his interrogation of ROGER SCOTT:

From DET. SALDATE'S report: "(...) 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. (...)"

Here a first odd point comes up. SALDATE clearly and unequivocally represented the statement that CHRIS was supposedly covered with life insurance in form of a 'policy' as told by SCOTT, because - consequently - this is what SCOTT thought the paper was. SALDATE repeats exactly this claim in his report. Suspicious critics of Debra often wonder how SCOTT and STYERS would know about the existence of this insurance but considering all the details of that point in time we can easily picture where their knowledge originated and that's it's not really a surprise. Neighbors consistently confirmed that SCOTT was observed at STYERS' apartment frequently during daytime and that he was often drunk on these occasions. According to a statement of neighbor JOHN CIULLA, ROGER would even get "obnoxious at times" and that JIM had to drive him home. During these visits Debra was not present in the apartment because she was working her job. We can assume without difficulty how the two men had made themselves privy with Debra's insurance booklet and these coherences also explain why both males confirmed at their separate trials that they knew about the existence of this insurance. The search warrant as executed by Phoenix police on December 3rd, 1989 discloses that Debra's paperwork was only stashed in a folder, lying on top of a table. The two men had no problem to access these documents.

While DETECTIVE SALDATE went to Florence by helicopter in order to railroad Debra ... ooops ... interview Debra Milke his fellow detective, ROBERT MILLS tape-recorded an interrogation of ROGER SCOTT, commencing at 8.12 p.m. During that interrogation MILLS explicitly inquired about the issue of a life insurance 'policy' and we will see how SCOTT confirms exactly this:

From the tape-recorded interrogation of ROGER SCOTT on 12/03/1989: Det. Mills: Okay, and there was also some money involved in this, too, right, in the form of an insurance policy ? Roger Scott: Yes, of $5,000, which would help them to pay off debts that they needed to take care of, their money situation had got out of hand and they had offered me money to ... Det. Mills: Okay, how much did they offer you ? Roger Scott: It was, at first it was $150 to, $150 and then it went, as it went on and they wanted to get rid of Chris all the more it went up to $250. Det. Mills: Okay, what was your part to be, what were you going to do for that $250 ? Roger Scott: Drive the car.

This proves that SCOTT had not changed his mind about the existence of a 'policy', because - still - this is what he thought the benefits booklet of Debra was. But the truth is that he was wrong. Debra never had a 'policy' in her possession. Next, SALDATE'S report about interrogating Debra Milke displays more interesting details. Even though this conversation took place after interrogating ROGER, this report about Debra was typed at first on December the 6th! In this report SALDATE narrated:

From DET. SALDATE'S report: "(...) I then asked DEBRA if she had killed her son because of some insurance she may have had on him and she told me she did not. She then said she did not have any life insurance on him but she believed that her father who lives in Florence did. She also believes that her father was the beneficiary of that policy. I then told DEBRA that it had been my understanding that JIM and ROGER were to receive a partial payment of the $5000 policy which she had on her child's life. DEBRA denied having a policy but said she may have told JIM about her father's policy and said that that may have been JIM and ROGER'S motivation for the killing but that it was definitely not her's. (...)"

In the first report SALDATE had already made sure that there was some convenient link between the life insurance and the supposed motivation of the purported participants to kill CHRISTOPHER MILKE. A supposition on his part which will actually work in a majority of homicide cases, which is why it makes sense for an homicide detective to try to find a pertinent coherence. It is indeed very likely that Debra's instant response to the question of life insurance was to say no. But that was an error, because SALDATE didn't not refer to a 'policy' at first [as opposed to the other report pertaining to SCOTT] but solely to 'insurance money'. Only a couple of minutes prior to this statement Debra was forcefully and cruelly informed about the murder of her little boy, that he had been shot and also that she was under arrest. Isn't it comprehensible that Debra mentioned the life insurance policy her father had on all of his kids at first, because its sum was significantly higher compared to the sum covered by her personal social benefits package? Does it make sense - if Debra indeed tried to hide the fact that life insurance was a part of her social benefits - that she mentioned the insurance her father had on his kids at all? Ask yourself, would you be able to remember all details of an insurance policy instantly when interrogated in such a state of shock?

Now that SALDATE knew from Debra about the life insurance her father had on his kids he ended the paragraph suggesting "... that that may have been JIM and ROGER'S motivation for the killing but that it was definitely not her's." As we have seen with the analysis of SALDATE'S - also narrated - report of his interview with SANDY PICKINPAUGH we can easily picture how he misrepresented the true statements made and conveniently slipped this final sentence into his report. But how could JIM and ROGER possibly cash in and benefit from a life insurance Debra's father had on the little boy? How would that work? Debra later conceded the initial error on her part when the juncture of her social benefits was brought up by the prosecution. She had signed up to insurance as a part of her benefits with her new job that she had started in late August, 1989. There is no individual insurance policy as this was a group plan. There is only an application-form denoting the benefits offered from the employer and a copy of that is returned to the employees for the record, but no 'policy' at all. Dental care and medical costs, life insurance etc. are the other benefits she had selected.

The original application form,
signed by Debra in August 1989 ...



... and the insurance conditions that refer to the form,
excluding any benefits in case of participating in
or attempting to commit an assault or a felony.

At trial the District Attorney suggested that JAMES STYERS - as the suspected perpetrator, according to the state's faulty theory - had promised his friend ROGER SCOTT to benefit from this insurance. Debra rebuts that she had never initiated a conversation with STYERS about her benefits package, but he had watched her fill out the forms and had asked her questions about them. Her denial of her own life insurance for CHRISTOPHER was therefore taken out of context by prosecutor NOEL LEVY and SALDATE'S report served Judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX to acknowledge 'pecuniary gain' as aggravating circumstance, even though we can also see how she disregarded - again - the fact that Debra was not in possession of a 'policy':

Judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX' Sentencing Order of 01/18/1990: "(...) The State has alleged the existence of aggravating circumstances under A.R.S. § 13-703 (F)(4),(5),(/6) and (9). Subsections (4) and (5) are: "The defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment, or promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value." and "The defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value." The Law: To prove pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance, the State must show that the motivation for the commission of the murder was the expectation of pecuniary gain. (...) The financial motivation must be the cause of the murder and not merely the result (...). The Evidence: The evidence is that the defendant purchased and had a life insurance policy insuring the life of Christopher Milke. However, the mere existence of the policy does not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder was committed for the money - that the money was the reason the child was killed. (...) The only evidence presented linking the death to the procurement of life insurance proceeds has come from the defendant's testimony. In her statement to Det. Saldate, Ms. Milke denied having a life insurance policy insuring her son., At trial Ms. Milke testified she did not know she was purchasing life insurance on her son as part of her employment benefits package - that she thought the life insurance was an automatic part of the benefits package. She later testified she always maintained life insurance on Christopher, ever since he was born, using the rational "since I was fully insured I thought he should be." Were it not for the inconsistent statements and initial denial as to the existence of the policy, I would not be able to find that the defendant committed the offense in expectations of the receipt of anything of pecuniary value. But taking all of the evidence as a whole, it is clear, and the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a motivating factor for the murder, although not the only reason for the murder, was the proceeds for the life insurance policy. (...)"

In the order above the judge adulterated the fact that Debra Milke was in possession of a 'policy'. No exhibit of the case is a 'policy' which was in possession of the young woman when she was arrested, and up to this day the sentence of death solely clings on the flimsy evidence as a result of the misrepresented and erroneous initial statement of SCOTT. All that was presented at trial and moved in as exhibits were these pertinent documents:

• Exhibit 103 [entered 09/18/1990] - Application and Benefits Package - the application documents displayed above.
• Exhibit 163 [entered 10/02/1990] - Benefits booklet from John Alden Fin. - This booklet was in possession of Debra and obviously confused by SCOTT as a 'policy'. But this isn't a 'policy' at all.
• Exhibit 172 [entered 10/02/1990] - Enrollment form. This is the new application which refers to the year 1990. In that Debra changed the beneficiary as for her own life from her sister SANDY - who lived out of state at the time - to her father. At trial this new form was considered evidence that a newly bought 'policy' was solely signed in preparation of killing CHRIS.

Where is the 'policy'? All these exhibits clearly show that the judge reached a decision and sentence referring to something she never saw: the insurance 'policy' for the life of CHRISTOPHER, the document SCOTT referred to from early on with his actually unbelievable incrimination. Judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX - in bed with a corrupt cop and an overzealous prosecutor - made the same misguided assumption as ROGER SCOTT when she referred to a 'policy'. But a 'policy' was never presented or examined at trial. This activity shows that the individuals involved were blinded with bias and based an opinion founded on 'non-proof'. Therefore the argumentation of the sentencing fails in full and misrepresents the true coherences.