The conspiracy theory
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Translate this page into Spanish Translate this page into French Translate this page into German using FreeTranslation.com |
|
|
After systematically examining all the records of The Debra Jean Milke Case this page now will take a closer look at the "conspiracy" theory, as asserted by former Phoenix police detective ARMANDO SALDATE and prosecutor NOEL LEVY in pursuing the convictions of both, Debra Milke and JIM STYERS. The fact contained on this page were taken directly from the Phoenix police reports or the pertinent trial transcripts. The scenario told by SALDATE and LEVY to win an indictment at the Grand Jury hearing alleged that Debra Milke, ROGER SCOTT and JAMES STYERS participated in a conspiracy to murder 4-year-old CHRISTOPHER MILKE. As we have shown, many falsehoods and twisted facts were used to prop up this theory, and to publicly paint Debra Milke as the supposed mastermind behind the crime. But - as we have also seen - this miscarriage of justice largely came about because of an unsurprising episode: ROGER SCOTT trying to talk himself out of guilt for CHRISTOPHER'S killing, according to SALDATE'S report, after having admitted knowledge where the dead body is. In that report, SALDATE claimed that, while trying to wriggle himself out of responsibility, SCOTT made a far-fetched accusation against Debra Milke, CHRISTOPHER'S mother, claiming she had set up her child's death. This incident is solely portrayed in that police report penned down by SALDATE, only on the day when he was demonstrably already in touch with prosecutor NOEL LEVY [12/06/1989]. Interestingly, this incident which purportedly took place inside a police car and en route to the murder-scene was not mentioned in the pertinent report of DET. ROBERT MILLS who was also present inside the vehicle and, according to SALDATE'S testimony at paint Debra's trial, actually driving the car. The police records show how ROGER SCOTT'S self-serving, unbelievable statement led to a false "solution" of CHRISTOPHER'S murder before SCOTT'S statements were ever properly examined. According to the prosecution's story, SCOTT first confessed shortly after 3:30 in the afternoon of Sunday, December 3, 1989. Sometime after 4:00, SCOTT changed his story, now with the allegation against Debra Milke. By 4:50 a team of police were sent out to arrest JIM STYERS and Detectives HAMRICK and DiMODICA were driving from Phoenix to Florence to locate Debra for an interview with SALDATE. The decision to arrest Debra may have already been made by the police, or SALDATE may have decided to arrest Debra on his own by the time he was helicoptering from Phoenix to Florence and the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. But one thing is clear: SALDATE'S claim - made in the detective's report of his interview with Debra and repeated in his trial testimony - that he decided to arrest Debra when he saw her "feign" emotion is a bold-faced lie. Police reports of interviews with JANET FROEBE and MAUREEN SADEIK show that SALDATE had planned to arrest Debra before he ever met her. And this is just the first lie in SALDATE'S report - this report contains the lie that sent Debra to death row, the wholly unverified claim that she confessed to a role in CHRISTOPHER'S murder. With this lie, SALDATE conveniently "confirmed" SCOTT'S accusations against both Debra and JIM STYERS - and the many inconsistencies in SCOTT'S story were hidden and ignored instead of being properly investigated. On this website, we refer to SALDATE'S report as the 'alleged "confession"', because in more than fourteen years of unjust incarceration Debra has steadfastly maintained her innocence and consistently denied that she ever confessed to anything. And in fact, the "confession" SALDATE claimed is not supported by any evidence at all - it was not signed by Debra, not witnessed and not tape-recorded. In contrast, ROGER SCOTT'S initial confession to participation in this crime was later tape-recorded by DET. MILLS. That tape-recorded testimony raises a lot of questions about it's truthfulness and the circumstances surrounding it. We'll get back to this particular point further below on this page. Since the State's case was based on the confused, self-serving accusations of ROGER SCOTT, conveniently "proved" with a not-witnessed "confession" obtained by a detective with a long, shameful record of misconduct, it is quite reasonable to examine the facts to see if any signs of a "conspiracy" exist at all. Debra didn't want her son "to grow up like his father". And that's certainly true, because MARK MILKE was a drug and alcohol addict and had threatened and harassed Debra again and again. This is what the young woman told DETECTIVE SALDATE while he interviewed her in the jail dispensary on that fateful evening of December 3rd, 1989. But SALDATE took that understandable concern stated by a caring mother and used it in a twisted manner, making it sound as if it was a bizarre motive for murder. The detective used the same pattern of misrepresentation, lies, and character assassination designed to pre-convict an individual in many of his reports. We have clear proof of the detective's technique in his report about the interview of SANDY PICKINPAUGH, Debra's younger sister, when we compare it with it with the original transcript of the interview - a comparison that shows in black and white just how unscrupulous and willing to lie SALDATE is. And there are even more indexes which prove SALDATE'S claims to be extremely unreliable. While DET. HAMRICK'S statements to JANET FROEBE and MAUREEN SADEIK show that a preconceived intention to arrest Debra existed, SALDATE made no mention to any of his fellow detectives about a "confession" of the young woman directly after exiting the interrogation room. In his report, DET. DiMODICA described how SALDATE emerged from the jail dispensary but he made no mention of a pertinent statement of the former detective. How likely is it that the veteran with 21 years on the force wouldn't mention such a serious confession of a suspect to anyone with a single word? "(...) Upon completing our interviews, DET. HAMRICK and I returned to the Pinal County Jail and re-contacted DET. SALDATE who stated that he had placed DEBRA under arrest for the homicide of her son, CHRISTOPHER. DET. HAMRICK and I then returned to Phoenix. (...)" What were the real actions of Debra, her roommate JAMES STYERS, and ROGER SCOTT around the time CHRISTOPHER was killed? Several facts fly in the face of the State's theory that Debra Milke was conspiring with STYERS and SCOTT. Her life was on the upswing, and she had started the best job in her life. She had saved up enough money from her new job to get her own apartment with CHRISTOPHER, where she would be moving in January. She had already found day care for CHRIS near the new apartment. And, despite a long, difficult separation and divorce from MARK MILKE, Debra was still keeping in touch with him so that CHRISTOPHER could have a stable relationship with his natural father. In fact, according to an interview with her former father-in-law, HENRY MILKE, Debra had called only six days prior to CHRISTOPHER'S murder to inquire whether MARK would like to come over and watch a Batman movie with his 4-year-old son. This incident on Monday, November 27, 1989 - one week before the little boy was killed - is hardly the action of a woman who "hated her ex-husband more than she loved her child" (according to prosecutor LEVY). The prosecution's records show something interesting about STYERS' actions on the weekend of the murder. His former girlfriend GAIL LIPSHULTZ stated in her interview that JIM had asked her on the preceding Friday, December 1, 1989, if she would allow him to pick their 2-year-old daughter WENDY up in the morning of the next day: (...)STYERS' unsuccessful attempt to pick up his daughter on that Saturday morning is another fact that hardly matches the State's allegation that the murder of CHRISTOPHER MILKE was pre-planned. But State Attorney's investigator TOM BUCKNER did not pursue GAIL LIPSHULTZ' statement that STYERS had wanted to pick up WENDY early Saturday, the same time when the "conspiracy" was supposedly to be carried out. The State's story of the murder was already decided and all evidence contradicting their theory was ignored. As GAIL continued, she described JIM STYERS as a caring and reliable person, which matches up with all other statements from people who knew STYERS, with one exception: ROGER SCOTT. The details of the killing itself, as found in the pertinent police records, reveal more information that doesn't fit a "conspiracy". The gun that killed CHRISTOPHER was later found in the apartment of ROGER SCOTT. In his confession, SCOTT stated that JIM STYERS had given him the gun and told him to get rid of it, or to just keep it if he wanted. Common sense dictates that it's very unlikely that the supposed gunman, JIM STYERS, would use ROGER SCOTT to dispose of the deadly weapon in that offhand way SCOTT claimed. This claim by SCOTT in his confession lacks any logic.  The apartment complex where ROGER SCOTT lived with his elderly and sick mother. But more than that about SCOTT'S story of a "conspiracy" made no sense: During his interview with Detective MILLS, SCOTT was asked to tell about Debra's alleged role in the plot, but SCOTT was completely unable to tell a remotely coherent story. First, there is SCOTT'S story of how STYERS approached him with the plan to murder Christopher: (...)Here SCOTT alleged that JIM STYERS couldn't stand CHRISTOPHER any more, which was why he stated "the kid has to go". This statement contradicts the real situation at the time. Debra had successfully applied for an apartment and was ready to move out of JIM STYERS' place by January 1990. Even if STYERS in fact couldn't stand CHRIS, he wouldn't have to deal with the boy for very much longer. And, furthermore, the only reason Debra hadn't moved out by December 1st was to give STYERS the opportunity to look for a new roommate to share the rent. Therefore SCOTT'S story made no sense at all. But since his story "solved" the case for the police, the prosecution never displayed any concerns about the claims represented by SCOTT. Instead, MILLS asks a leading question about Debra's alleged involvement, to which SCOTT can only respond "yeah" without revealing any details: (...) That's not the end of SCOTT'S unbelievable ramblings. In the matter of the alleged earlier attempts to kill CHRISTOPHER, SCOTT is completely unable to tell a coherent story, even helped by MILLS' leading questions. As MILLS tried to get SCOTT to talk about Debra's supposed role in the crime, SCOTT'S story utterly fell apart - the people present at each scene change with almost every single answer SCOTT gives: (...)As we can see, SCOTT was completely unable to tell a comprehensible story about Debra's appearance without disintegrating into contradiction. At first SCOTT said how Debra and JIM were out by 7 Street and Beardsley, then Paradise Road and 7 Street, alleging he (SCOTT) was with them at Paradise and 7 Street. Upon the question "So the three of you went out there?" he changes the story and replied it was just JIM and him. Next Debra had gone with JIM 'so JIM told him' and all of a sudden it's 7th Street and Beardsley. And on and on. Completely unbelievable and confused. But these were not the only signs of SCOTT'S confused mind. One aspect of CHRISTOPHER'S murder was that JIM STYERS, whether he did or did not participate in the killing, had originally taken the child out that Saturday with plans of visiting the mall Santa Claus. This sad detail of a child murdered on a trip to see Santa was played up heavily by prosecutor LEVY and the media, helping to poison the atmosphere around Debra's trial. But, in SCOTT'S rambling story, every attempt to carry out the "conspiracy" involved a trip to Santa: (...)At this point, Detective MILLS simply gave up trying to get any remotely logical story from SCOTT about the "conspiracy". But, as with the rest of the investigators in this case, it never occurred to MILLS that ROGER SCOTT'S story was totally incomprehensible because it was almost completely untrue. The "conspiracy" was already the "official version" of the crime and leads to more question what the purpose of this involuntarily hilarious interrogation actually was. Let's take another look at the telephone interview between Debra's defense attorney, KEN RAY, and JEAN PUGH, a local citizen of the remote desert area, where the killing took place. MRS. PUGH contacted RAY on October 5th, 1990, after Debra had testified. MR. RAY'S opportunities to interview the witness prior to her testimony on October 10th were sharply limited. Yet, we learn about some interesting background information: (...)MRS. PUGH testified at the Jury Trial on October 10th, 1990. But as we can see from reading the record of her testimony, LEVY had no intention of seriously considering her testimony (as well as the testimony of MRS. GRIFFIN, who confirmed many of the details told by MRS. PUGH) as it conflicted with the scenario presented by SALDATE with the help of ROGER SCOTT. With our analysis of Debra's case we assumed that details included in the shocking narration of MRS. PUGH must be confirmed somewhere at another place in the humongous file of this crime. And indeed, we were successful in finally finding the 'key' as to what most likely really happened. At his own trial, ROGER SCOTT at first repeated all the claims which we already learned about. Largely led on by his own defense attorney, he at first stated that he was only the driver, that JIM had shot the little boy and that he, ROGER, didn't think it would actually happen. Then, upon being cross-examined by NOEL LEVY, ROGER all of a sudden attempted a drastic change. This yielded this stunning dialogue: (...)Indeed, stunning answers of SCOTT in light of the fact that both Debra Milke and JIM STYERS had already been convicted to die when this testimony was made. But what does it reveal basically? SCOTT attempted to recant his initial testimony, but the prosecutor wouldn't let him do that. Apparently, when facing LEVY something instantly changed with SCOTT, but his limited verbal capabilities wouldn't result in a successful, coherently performed testimony which would've contradicted all the charges previously brought against the three defendants. SCOTT all of a sudden became aware of the fact how damaging his statements were on all of the three and he realized that all of them were now railroaded. He probably also realized that he wouldn't get off by claiming that he was solely the driver. Maybe this was what was suggested to him by SALDATE in order to 'frame' the other two? If we look at all the facts displayed above, wouldn't that make a great deal of sense? "Well, that one was about Santa Claus" ... a confused statement of an individual convulsively trying to remember and reproduce what he was supposed to say (in the tape-recorded interrogation of 12/03/1989). The alleged but not coherently narrated participation of Debra Milke in a previous attempt on CHRIS' life ... all these points all of a sudden start to make sense, and in fact, they answer another question in regard to the so-called 'confession'. Let's assume SALDATE informed LEVY about a suspected killer [ROGER] who would say about anything he was supposed to say, doesn't it make sense for LEVY to instruct the detective about indicating in his report that the young women had admitted knowledge about the crime, that she had made such a confession to SALDATE? All of a sudden the puzzle starts to make sense: Due to this instruction SALDATE penned his report about the interrogation of Debra Milke at first (whereas it has actually taken place only after interrogating ROGER). This is why SALDATE summed up LEVY as 'support personnel' in his case synopsis, which was penned later on the same day than the other two reports [December 6th, 1989]. Debra Milke's behavior from the time CHRISTOPHER was reported missing was completely consistent with a mother profoundly concerned with her missing child. But, with lies, misrepresentation and character assassination, the State tried to attack her actions. At trial, LEVY claimed Debra should have immediately gone to the mall, even though the police report filed by DETECTIVE YOST on December 3, 1989, at 1:15 p.m. states that Debra "had been instructed [by police] to stay at home and near the telephone in case he [CHRISTOPHER, who knew his phone number] called." Debra spent the entire time from mid-afternoon Saturday to noon Sunday keeping anxious vigil for Christopher with her family and neighbors. One neighbor, SUZANNE MURPHY, told the Mesa Tribune (December 5th, 1989): "She kept asking the detective if there were people who would take a little boy and kill him. If she had anything to do with [the murder], she's the best actress in the world." The other neighbors all testified at her trial about Debra's genuine concern and fear as she waited for word of her son.  Sears at Metrocenter, where Christopher was reported missing by JIM STYERS. After Debra spent twenty hours awake, waiting for news of CHRISTOPHER and giving several interviews to investigators, her step-mother MAUREEN SADEIK suggested that Debra go to her father's house in Florence to wait with her family; police agreed this was fine, took down the address and phone number in Florence, and left an officer at the apartment to answer the phone. Yet in the Grand Jury Hearing, the jurors were allowed to get the misleading impression that Debra left for Florence almost immediately after she heard her son was missing. During the entire period from hearing of her son's disappearance in the afternoon of December 2nd, 1989, to being cruelly told of CHRISTOPHER'S murder by DETECTIVE SALDATE in the evening of December 3rd, Debra Milke did everything she could to help police. In an interview with police in the morning of December 3, she was asked about ROGER SCOTT, supposedly one of the "conspirators". Yet Debra continued her full cooperation with investigators, waited for word from the police at Florence, and voluntarily went with Deputy SOULES to the Pinal County Sheriff's Office late in the afternoon, with no hint of trying to take refuge from the police. All these points show one thing clearly: The "conspiracy" claimed by SALDATE, LEVY, and the State never took place. It is especially shocking to recognize that all this information was available to prosecutor NOEL LEVY. The relentless efforts of the authorities (including shameless misrepresentations to the Grand Jury, twisted facts, a preconceived intention to arrest Debra without investigation and two attempts to plea bargain with ROGER SCOTT) to accomplish a 'quick shut and dry' death penalty conviction at any cost show how little the so-called "justice system" (much rather, injustice system) of Arizona is able to prevent foul play against its citizens. |