Why Debra Milke is actually innocent

As the analysis of the very early proceedings in Debra's case has shown, the young mother was only implicated by one mentally retarded Phoenician named ROGER SCOTT. SCOTT - with certainty the true and only perpetrator of this crime - eventually admitted knowledge about the killing of 4-year-old CHRISTOPHER MILKE after being interrogated for twelve hours by Phoenix police. SCOTT initially tried to put all the blame on his buddy and former high school friend JIM STYERS, claiming JIM 'couldn't stand the little bastard anymore'. STYERS, a Vietnam veteran on disability, had reported CHRISTOPHER MILKE missing from the Metro Center on the preceding day, December 2nd, 1989. He lived with his 2-year-old daughter WENDY in an apartment in the northern area of Phoenix, when Debra had called JIM in July 1989 as the result of an unpleasant incident with her former husband MARK MILKE. MARK, an alcohol and drug abuser, had harassed his young ex-wife and repeatedly threatened to kill her if she wouldn't change the supervised visitation regulations with his son and grant him joint custody over CHRIS. Debra declined. For that reason she turned to JIM for help, who offered her to rent one room inside his apartment, which Debra paid for. During the days, while she was at work, JIM made additional money by babysitting not only his daughter, but little CHRISTOPHER as well.

Only one to one-and-a-half hours after his initial statement SCOTT extended his incrimination, alleging that not only he and STYERS were responsible for the crime, but that the boy's mother purportedly wanted little CHRISTOPHER killed. Clearly, SCOTT had realized how much his first claim had damaged STYERS' position. Therefore, he attempted to save JIM STYERS from further blame. SCOTT made this additional incrimination inside a police car and en route to the murder-scene. The officer talking to SCOTT, former Phoenix DETECTIVE ARMANDO SALDATE - upon learning that a young grief-stricken mother was involved in SCOTT'S story - now rushed to a decision and ordered the arrest of both individuals, JIM STYERS and Debra Milke. Incredibly, the pertinent police report of SALDATE'S fellow DET. ROBERT MILLS - who was also present inside the police car - doesn't even mention the added incrimination of SCOTT. There are strong indications that SCOTT'S whole story of Debra wanting her son CHRISTOPHER killed were merely suggested by someone to him. Was he promised relief by incriminating the other two? The further techniques used to invent a case and achieve a foundation for the claim of a conspiracy will be described hereafter.

From DET. MILLS' supplemental report:
"After DET. SALDATE and I escorted ROGER to my vehicle I drove to the area of 99 Avenue and Union Hills. On ROGER'S instruction I turned north through the northern outskirts of Sun City and continued north to just north of Happy Valley Road when ROGER indicated that we had just passed through the wash where CHRISTOPHER had been shot."

What followed next was completely unknown to Debra Milke's government-paid defender KENNETH RAY when Debra's trial commenced. Not only had three Phoenix detectives gone to and arrived at Florence, where Debra Milke was staying with her family, but according to trial testimony, these officers were told via radio not to talk to the young woman, that other arrangements had been made and that DETECTIVE SALDATE from Phoenix was now on the way to Florence. They were told to have Debra wait for the detective at the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, where Debra arrived with her accompanying acquaintance JANET FROEBE at 6.35 p.m. Incidentally, the accurate reconstruction of the timeline proves that SALDATE'S decision to go to Florence himself arose around the time when both detectives along with ROGER SCOTT returned to the police main station, and MILLS attempted to interview JIM STYERS (6.41 p.m.). STYERS, upon learning that he would be charged with the murder of CHRISTOPHER, requested an attorney and stated that he wouldn't say anything further. Consequently, SALDATE was the only Phoenix officer who arrived in Florence via helicopter. At trial he later hid all these circumstances and claimed that using a helicopter was "solely a means of transportation." He eventually entered the dispensary room of the Pinal County Jail where Debra Milke was waiting together with her accompanying acquaintance, JANET. SALDATE next sent JANET out of the room and closed the door behind him (7.53 p.m.). He was now alone with Debra inside that room. There is a dispute about some details pertaining to the following conversation, but both individuals largely agree on the main issues that were brought up during the conversation. Meanwhile, in the corridor, JANET was interviewed by another detective who related to her that Debra Milke "was going to be charged as one of the three people involved in the death of CHRISTOPHER." (7.55 p.m.) Debra Milke's purported guilt was clear before any officer had ever talked to her, or before the outcome of the interview would be known! Thirty-five minutes later SALDATE emerged from the dispensary room and took Debra to a police car. She wasn't handcuffed and she was supposed to not speak to anyone. Another detective who briefly conversed with SALDATE was informed that he had arrested the young woman for murder, but the report of the pertinent officer makes no mention of a statement by DETECTIVE SALDATE about a voluntary confession of the young woman!

From DET. DiMODICA'S supplemental report:
"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."

Newspaper articles published on the following two days reported the crime and the arrest of the three individuals. In an article headlined 'Mother, 2 others arrested in murder' on the 4th The Phoenix Gazette solely stated about Debra that "Christopher's mother, Debbie, age unavailable, was, picked up between 8 and 9 p.m. in Florence, where she had gone Sunday morning to be with her parents." One day later, on the 5th, The Mesa Tribune covered the murder in greater detail and reproduced statements of STYERS and Debra's neighbors. The entire account didn't mention a voluntary confession, and one neighbor, SUZANNE MURPHY, even stated pertaining to Debra "If she had anything to do with (the murder), she's the best actress in the world." This article also disclosed that "Little information has been released on what led police to arrest the trio. ANDERSON has said there is evidence pointing to a definite motive but declined to reveal the motive." Well, as we will see, the case was only in the final stages of being invented.

Three days after the arrest, on December 6th, 1989, SALDATE wrote a police report including purported statements of Debra in narrated form. This report claims that she knew that STYERS was going to kill CHRISTOPHER when the two left the apartment that Saturday morning and that she wanted the little boy killed because she feared CHRISTOPHER would 'grow up and be like his father'. This 'confession' was never signed, witnessed by anyone, nor tape-recorded. And in fact, it is contradictory to statements of two individuals, STYERS' former girlfriend GAIL LIPSHULZ and neighbor JOHN CIULLA, who consistently and independently confirmed that STYERS had it in mind to pick up his daughter WENDY from GAIL'S place on that fateful Saturday. These coherences contradict the claim of SALDATE'S report that "JIM told her that they were planning to do it today and that he was going to pick up ROGER." Yet, at trial the so-called 'confession' was allowed into evidence. Debra on the other hand steadfastly disputed this confession and states for sixteen years that she never confessed to anything, and that she doesn't have anything to do with the crime.

From the interview of GAIL LIPSHULTZ:
( ... )
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.
Tom Buckner: So he never picked her up that weekend at all?
Gail Lipshultz: No.
( ... )

Initially the case was supposed to be tried in the county of Peoria, but the authorities managed to quickly move it to Maricopa. Why? On December 8th, 1989, Maricopa county prosecutor NOEL LEVY sought the indictment of the three individuals, ROGER SCOTT, JIM STYERS and Debra Milke. His only witness: Phoenix police DETECTIVE ARMANDO SALDATE. The 'ping-pong rhetoric' used at the Grand Jury hearing in order to paint in their story, not only reveals the carefully pre-arranged details between the prosecutor and the cop, but - comparing the transcript of the hearing to the actual reports - how facts were embellished and, in some parts, bold-faced inventions. SALDATE claimed that SCOTT "indicated that it should not be too far away because they had wanted the child found within two or three days." LEVY, wide-awake and highly alerted, embarked on a salvage operation by asking "They or Styers?", to which SALDATE responded "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." Incredibly, one police report of DET. HOUSE exists which clearly states that "A cluster of tree branches covered the wash bed at 98 feet west. This made visibility westward in the wash difficult." And MILLS' report equally speaks of "going through some underbrush" in order to get to the dead body of CHRISTOPHER MILKE. Everyone who had ever been to the murder-scene confirms that the little boy would have hardly been found within days, the way the corpse was hidden by all the trees and bushes. This is the kind of manipulation used, but consequently, the indictment was granted by the jury.

At trial - but also before that and through the media - the authorities alleged that Debra Milke was the 'evil mastermind' who ruthlessly manipulated her roommate JIM STYERS in order to have the little boy killed [Note: By the way, criminal evaluations show that 98% of all mothers, who wish their babies dead, actually do the killing themselves. This means that the likeliness of such a scenario is extremely small.]. The prosecution continued with this claim, whereas there is no evidence to assume this. In his closing argument prosecutor NOEL LEVY argued that JIM and CHRISTOPHER had left the apartment at 11.00 a.m., picked up ROGER SCOTT and subsequently ran some errands. Then, at 12.13 p.m., the two men took the boy to a pizza parlor where they had pizza. This activity was depicted as CHRIS' 'last meal' by the sensationalizing prosecutor. After that - according to the state - CHRISTOPHER was taken to the desert and killed as allegedly pre-arranged between the three individuals. Judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX - who received a serious reprimand pertaining to a previous incident, that she performed "... at best, a series of thoughtless acts by a judge who had apparently forgotten the position she held and consequences of her actions" - displayed obvious bias toward Debra Milke and her defense, including disallowing to address the fact that SALDATE had falsified his living address in order to run for constable.

The truth - indeed - is a whole lot different. At trial a fellow worker of Debra [CARMEN SANTANA] testified that she talked to Debra at 9.00 a.m. that morning and that JIM and CHRIS had already left the apartment. At his own trial SCOTT claimed he was picked up by JIM at 10.30 a.m. [whereas the distance from JIM'S to ROGER'S apartment was no less than a 30-minute car drive]. Two local witnesses of the murder [JEAN PUGH and CAROL GRIFFIN] stated at Debra's trial that they heard five to seven shots fired on that December 2nd, 1989 and that this happened at approximately 11.00 a.m. No one heard any other shots on the weekend. Additionally, KEN RAY re-examined the state's witness, DR. BOLDUC, and achieved a statement of the examiner that he was actually unable to confirm that pizza was indeed the stomach and bowel content of CHRISTOPHER. Also, since 11.00 a.m. of that December 2nd, no reliable witness could testify that CHRIS was seen either in the 'Walgreens' store or at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place. On top of that the police file contains a report including statements of three witnesses who clearly stated that ROGER SCOTT had been seen in close proximity of his apartment between 1.00 and 2.00 p.m. on that day, which confirms that the murder cannot have taken place subsequent to JIM and ROGER having had pizza. None of these facts were ever told to the jury, nor were they known to public defender KEN RAY.

If not three, but five to seven shots were fired, this incident shows that it would be unreasonable to assume that a pre-planned murder had taken place. STYERS and SCOTT have both independently admitted that CHRIS has never been at the Metro Center, and in following the timeline of their motions we can reconstruct that STYERS went along with SCOTT solely in order to find an excuse not only towards police, but also towards Debra, who he had promised not to use any weapons in CHRIS' presence. Other than that no comprehensible motive or indication exists that JIM STYERS indeed wanted CHRIS killed. SCOTT was to pop up later at the Metro Center and confirm the story STYERS told when he reported CHRIS missing from the mall. This is corroborated by the fact that STYERS voluntarily mentioned to police that he had met his old high-school friend ROGER SCOTT that Saturday. Only upon this revelation police contacted SCOTT and subsequently took him to the police main station, where he was interviewed for more than twelve hours. When SALDATE ultimately threatened to ransack the apartment where SCOTT lived together with his frail and elderly mother, he feared that could kill her and eventually confessed to know where the dead body of CHRISTOPHER was.

In the judicial department we can clearly see the pattern which eventually landed Debra Milke on death row. Not only was the so-called confession as typed by SALDATE a mere fabrication, but prosecutor NOEL LEVY made every attempt possible to undermine her credibility and to accomplish the picture of an evil, selfish woman. LEVY pursued to plea bargain with ROGER SCOTT against Debra several times, but SCOTT would refuse to repeat his incrimination during Debra Milke's trial. JIM STYERS repeatedly claimed that Debra Milke was indeed innocent and had nothing to do with the killing. Ambush witnesses - pre-informed by the media and SALDATE, and therefore well-manipulated - testified at trial to Debra's abusing nature towards her son. But those statements largely conflict with forensic evidence even ascertained by the State, other testimonies of doctors and people who dealt with her shortly prior to the tragedy. These individuals spoke of a loving bond between the young mother and her son. Debra Milke herself displayed a weak performance on the stand, but it was never addressed to any of the jury members that she was under the influence of an anti-anxiety drug named 'Buspar'. In order not to 'lose it' in public this medication helped her to maintain her posture, but her personality appeared to be flat and made her seem as if she lacked emotions. Clearly, the young woman was literally scared to death and couldn't grasp what was happening to her. Her defense team later stated that Debra began to cry uncontrollably as soon as she was taken into the holding room.
Also, no one had ever informed the jury that Debra had undergone a polygraph test, which she passed. But the result of this test - taken at the Durango Jail - was declared inconclusive because of the environment.

When local witness JEAN PUGH made her first telephone contact with public defender KEN RAY she related information to the defense attorney which was not closely examined nor fully disclosed by MRS. PUGH, and therefore also not used at trial to exonerate Debra. During the conversation she stated that she had made several telephone calls and summarized her findings in regard to ROGER SCOTT : "He is the one that's giving them all the information and all this hell-or-blue about getting money from her to kill the kid and then the two men went together to kill, but he never got out of the car" and KEN RAY confirmed that this is what the State's theory was. But she continued "He actually told them there was (...) seven shots fired. (...) But they couldn't find the shells, so he was to keep his mouth shut and there was only three shots fired and that was the story he was to tell. (...) Now he's covering his butt by implicating the other two. And then they got a quick-shut and dry conviction." Naturally, MR. RAY was obviously shocked about these news and inquired "Without disclosing those sources, are they in any nature, ah, government officers ?" whereto MRS. PUGH responded "One is --." This shocking incident fully matches with all the invented facts, fabrications and manipulations used to try Debra Milke. It means that governmental powers knowingly and intentionally invented a case against the young woman only in order to satisfy the public outcry for retaliation about the death of a 4-year old boy, CHRISTOPHER MILKE.

All the contradictions and coherencies depicted above were unknown and hadn't come to the attention of the government-paid public defender, and so his last-minute subpoena of MS. PUGH and MS. GRIFFIN didn't convince the jury. There was not enough time for the public defender to follow-up on his suspicions and thoroughly investigate all the records. On top of that the deliberations were in jeopardy to end in a mistrial, and so the entire process led to a rushed and weak defense. SALDATE, who was unable to provide the handwritten notes he allegedly took during the interrogation of Debra stated in a pre-trial interview on June 26th, 1990 - only two-and-a-half months prior to the trial - "I read that later on and I checked it with my notes, and that's exactly what I said." But who defended the alleged destruction of these handwritten notes after the police report was typed? Who boasted to reporters that it was usual for officers to throw notes away? NOEL LEVY! In fact, the story and details told on this website weren't even remotely known at that time. In a 1998 telephone interview the jury foreman ERIC C. JOHNSON stated "it just didn't seem right that a woman who just had her son killed by this man supposedly, ah, would be writing letters to him, asking what's going on. Ahm, we didn't think it was right, ah, ... you know, it just didn't make any sense ..." True, it didn't make any sense in light of the claim that a conspiracy existed. Debra Milke never 'had her son killed.' This statement proves that the pre-trial manipulation had worked very well. Reciprocally, the correspondence going on between JIM STYERS and Debra shortly after their arrest made a great deal of sense, presuming that no conspiracy existed. The letters available and displayed on this website prove nothing else but that. But in order to manipulate Debra's sister SANDY SALDATE told her "And in one of the letters - I say she's probably - one of the letters we don't have she's telling him a couple of things like (inaudible) - when we get out of here - when I get out here we could be together (inaudible)." Go figure ! "In one of the letters we don't have ..." This means SALDATE suggested something to SANDY that Debra probably said in one letter police didn't have. Outstanding police investigation! It's as funny as it's ridiculous. Additionally, Debra had inquired of her defense team about what to do when STYERS' first letter arrived at her place. Investigator for the defense, KIRK FOWLER, confirmed that they encouraged Debra to respond to JIM and try to find out what happened when the murder took place.

Reading LEVY'S closing argument at Debra Milke's trial we are strongly reminded of the unspeakable and overzealous accusations used in the old times of the Catholic inquisition.

The judge, or inquisitor, could bring suit against anyone. The accused had to testify against himself/herself and not have the right to face and question his/her accuser. It was acceptable to take testimony from criminals, persons of bad reputation, excommunicated people, and heretics.

Not only did LEVY tell the jury a story of how the murder of CHRISTOPHER supposedly took place, but he can be proven knowingly suppressing facts and details of what really happened. He not only misrepresented the true course of how the tragic murder happened, but used a lot of character assassination in order to taint the jury members in against the young woman. A social security benefits booklet became an insurance policy, the actual time that JIM and CHRISTOPHER left the apartment was diligently covered, and the fact that Debra had dated men was used and twisted in order to make her appear reckless about her maternal duties.

Later at his own trial, ROGER SCOTT repeated his initial claims during the direct examination by his own attorney, ROLAND J. STEINLE III., but he confused many details which were conflicting with his initial confession and other evidence. Then, upon cross-examination of County prosecutor NOEL LEVY, ROGER attempted to recant his accusations, which yielded some stunning answers:

From ROGER SCOTT'S testimony at his own trial [01/30/1991]
(...)
Noel Levy: Did Styers approach you and basically make it known to you that he wanted to get rid of Christopher?
Roger Scott: No.
(...)
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.
(...)
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.
(...)
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.
(...)
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.
(...)
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.
(...)

LEVY'S had a knack of forcefully turning SCOTT'S attempted change of song down rhetorically, continuously confronting him with his initial tape-recorded confession in which he had put all the blame for the killing of CHRIS on STYERS and Debra Milke. ROGER was cut off repeatedly and not given the chance to elaborate on these stunning answers. But the death sentences against JIM STYERS and Debra had already been given, and no one really desired to listen closely to these disconnected ramblings anymore. However, the question remains: Why would SCOTT ultimately try to dissent with the prosecutor when he was the only witness the State could rely on?

In a most recent evaluation of SALDATE'S reports by a highly acclaimed California criminal expert the result was that "The combination of all these risk factors - the coercive interrogation, Mr. SCOTT'S psychological disabilities, and a disputed confession that was neither documented nor signed nor corroborated - strongly raise the possibility that the ultimate miscarriage of justice may have occurred here: the wrongful conviction of a factually innocent person who awaits execution."

Still, some visitors to this internet presence wish to believe in the 'story' they were fed back in 1989/90 and believe that Debra Milke was indeed the manipulative puppeteer behind the tragic murder. We'd additionally like to inform these doubters that the testimony of a fellow prisoner of ROGER SCOTT at the Maricopa County Jail exists, in which that inmate [ROBERT E. JOHNSON] told county attorney investigator TOM BUCKNER that SCOTT had confessed the actual killing to him. Prosecutor NOEL LEVY never considered MR. JOHNSON'S statements and carefully hid this knowledge. Reporters have tried to interview former DET. SALDATE about his role in Debra Milke's case, but the arrogant ex-cop refused any statement, immediately ended the interview and threw the TV-team out of his home. What does he have to hide? A most recent court order disclosed that SALDATE'S personnel file consisted of only four (!) sheets of paper. Hardly what one expects with an officer who was on the force for more than 21 years. But the personnel file contained a separation notice including a reprimand for continued lying to his superior. As a result the author concluded: "(...) ... your image of honesty, competency, and overall reliability must be questioned. Therefore, so must your value to the department be questioned." Prosecutor NOEL LEVY not only sent Debra Milke innocently to death row, but demonstrably also RAY KRONE [exonerated by DNA evidence], probably DAVID HEYDE and presumably also JIM STYERS. Or, as a former Arizona appellate judge told us privately: 'NOEL LEVY, CHERYL. K. HENDRIX, ARMANDO SALDATE and KENNETH RAY working on one case ... that's as bad as it can get'. Those who believe that the death penalty system in Arizona is just should consider this thought: in almost every case where provable police misconduct can be unearthed and landed an innocent person on death row, the actual killer still walks free on the streets. That's not how it's supposed to be in order to prevent further crime. In every case where provable police misconduct can be unearthed and landed an innocent person on death row, it imposes unspeakable tragic not only on the individual in question, but also on its entire family and friends. Our local and state government needs to live up to their obligations and avoid a win at any cost policy in lieu of justice being served. This should be avoided at all cost.