County prosecutor Noel Levy's
closing argument

While Debra Milke case is pending and the convicted woman is going into the fifteenth year of unjust incarceration, we took a look at other legal documents of Debra's file. None of the facts of The Debra Milke Case should be a secret to anyone, as it is a perfect example for an extremely biased and depraved system. However, many visitors of this website have asked us, how the jury could reach a guilty verdict at all. To shine some light on this issue, we publish county prosecutor NOEL LEVY'S closing argument here. Its analysis will not only depict to anyone how the prosecutor - obviously intentionally - created an untrue scenario of how the murder of CHRISTOPHER MILKE took place, but also how he twisted and invented facts in order to orchestrate a purported conspiracy which - looking at the true facts - plainly didn't exist. The analysis will also show how he - again - manipulated facts throughout this closing argument which were initially substantiated throughout the trial. But here they were told in a falsified manner. Our comments will point out how the prosecutor used common psychological practice to convince the jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but how he also managed to cover the reality of the case against Debra Milke completely. In the end, we will have to admit that juries aren't always perfect, prosecutors aren't always truthful, and media pre-sentencing can have its horrible effect on a high profile case. We will see here that it's possible for a capable prosecutor to be successful with his claims, if he's able to paint in a halfway coherent story. Here lies the core problem of the system. We would like to show the audience how certain facts and coherences were twisted, solely in order to create the impression of a conspiracy, which only purpose was to achieve three death sentences, instead of only one.

The following closing argument was held by Maricopa County prosecutor NOEL LEVY on October 10th, 1990:

NOEL LEVY: "This is a thoroughly investigated case ..."
American Justice, 'A mother's story of murder'

MR. LEVY:
May it please the Court, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I expect to take about 45 minutes. The State, because it must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, is able to speak with you both now and -- initially and, should the defense wish to give its closing argument, then after that. And the purpose and reason is that the State must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And in that regard, the final remarks, then, can address any questions suggested. or raised in the defense closing argument.

The case against Debra Milke remains four counts, as I have indicated to you in the opening remarks, first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, child abuse and dangerous crime against children, and kidnapping and dangerous crime against children.

As you well know, the victim is Christopher Milke, a child aged four years old, and obviously under the age of 15 years, with regard to the dangerous crime against children.

Now, in the opening remarks I discussed with you what the conspiracy was. And the whole purpose of opening remarks is to give you an outline to allow you to foresee what the evidence will be, and also it gives you some kind of standard and guideline to determine has the State maintained the standard by which the opening remarks were directed. Did this evidence come forth and were the various aspects discussed with you, do they actually exist.

Now, in analyzing this case -- and I will say to you that in order to get through my closing remarks, I may or may not really have time to show you the graphs and charts and pictures in order to be efficient. So let me attempt to be somewhat academic.

To analyze this case, first of all, what is the keystone of the State's case, really? It's the confession of Debra Milke. Now, with a given of the confession of Debra Milke to Detective Saldate in the early evening hours of December 3, 1989, were the facts Debra Milke shared with Detective Saldate that night in her confession, were they corroborated by the other facts independently investigated by the police and by all of the other testimonial evidence that came in.

Comment: Here, LEVY admitted himself that the State's case rests solely on the uncorroborated, unsigned, not-witnessed so-called 'confession' of Debra. A confession which she denied since December 8th, 1989, the day that she first read DET. SALDATE'S account. This account includes the invented claim that she knew JIM STYERS was going to kill her son, 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER. The true evidence indeed shows that this confession cannot be the crucial point of the case, because DET. HAMRICK related to Debra's acquaintance JANET FROEBE - yet before SALDATE and Debra exited the interrogation room - that Debra would be arrested and "(...) was going to be charged as one of the three people involved in the death of CHRISTOPHER (...)." SALDATE, on the other hand, stated under oath and on the stand that he did not have it in mind to arrest Debra when he went to Florence. It is also corroborated that SALDATE hadn't spoken to anyone before he entered the Pinal County's Sheriff's Office, where Debra and JANET were waiting for him to arrive. This proves, without a doubt, that police solely relied on the story previously fed by SCOTT, changed and twisted various times. A story, which he obviously told solely in order to cover his own, major involvement in the murder. No other interpretation of these facts stands the diligent research.

Now, what Debra Milke told Detective Saldate in essence is this: she hated Mark Milke, her husband, so much that she could not stand that her son, Christopher Milke, now age four, would grow up to be like Mark Milke. She described Mark Milke as an alcoholic and a drug abuser and she in effect hated him.

Comment: "...in effect she hated him." ...which was what LEVY wanted the jury to believe in. In fact, SALDATE'S police report doesn't mention the word 'hate' once. The initial report solely states: "After their marriage, she said that MARK was constantly putting her down, telling her that she was no good and would never amount to anything. She said MARK continued to drink constantly during their marriage and to use drugs." Also, on the stand Debra never testified or confirmed that she hated MARK, and so LEVY'S statement is clearly a manipulating fabrication. It's clear that the prosecutor had the 'hate' motive in mind in order to concoct the scenario he intended to make believe. But proper and critical examination of the file shows that he and DET. SALDATE were the only individuals who repeated these unfounded claims.

Now, keep that in mind, because one of the things that you can use in deciding this case is your common sense. You do not come to the jury box without your own life's experiences, and you have some common knowledge called common sense of what goes an in the world and in your own community.

Comment: An interesting approach, considering the psychological effect. To challenge a person's 'common sense' is certainly an intelligent means of manipulation. The challenged individual will now follow the details told and upon grasping a majority of those he will find that 'common sense' prevails. There is an implied element of complacency, which will help to carry out the manipulation this way. But the true question remains, where was LEVY'S 'common sense' about the fact that police never tested the many inconsistencies in SCOTT'S story? Why did LEVY hide his knowledge about the account of SCOTT'S co-inmate ROBERT E. JOHNSON. Where was 'common sense' about the fact that at least three local witnesses stated that they heard five to seven, instead of only three shots that day, December 2nd, 1989? Where was 'common sense' when he repeatedly attempted to plea bargain with ROGER SCOTT [who could've avoided a death sentence if he had consented to testify against Debra], but who ultimately refused the deal?

Now, Christopher Milke was four years old and he had a lot of visitation with his father and Debra Milke had had a lot of trouble with Mark Milke. That's why she got a divorce from him, which was effectively final in October of 1988. She even said in her affidavit in those divorce papers how he was a drug abuser, he was an alcoholic, he abused her, and she was afraid of him. She put it down in the Order to Show Cause in that same Dissolution, same thing, that he abused her and that he was an alcoholic and drug abuser and that she is afraid of him. And even then, in October, she - in the fall of 1988, and she testified in January of '89, when she indicated to you that she changed her testimony from the facts she gave to the police, she originally alleged just how bad he was.

Now, you take that as a given. I don't think there is any dispute in all of her testimony it's bad Mark, maybe she said good Mark, bad Mark, but essentially it was bad Mark, bad Mark. And this is in relation to her son, Christopher.

Comment: What was in relation to her son? It's true, MARK admitted himself that he abused drugs and alcohol, and he went to jail for that several times. Debra made every attempt to decently secure her son from his father's abusive behavior, but she also didn't want to withhold CHRIS from a stable relationship with MARK. It was certainly a difficult situation for a young mother to decide for 'the right thing'. But here LEVY misused exactly this situation as the foundation for a motive, which will surface hereafter. This describes how neither LEVY or anyone who followed 'his story' ever questioned what a young, single mother should've done in that situation. Her endeavors for supervised visitation were certainly the best option at the time.

Now, as you saw the progression, she is out of high school, she meets Mark. While she says that, "Well, there was nothing wrong with him when I first met him", that's subject to same dispute whether he was taking drugs and abusing alcohol even then. And certainly before they got married she knew that. She talks about drug abuse and this and that, and this was after she marries him. And she used birth control before and after marriage because she never wanted to have any children, least of all Chris. She thought about an abortion, but decided it was too painful. That's what she told Detective Saldate and admitted on the stand she told him, and that she was not a good mother, she never would be a good mother.

Comment: Again, LEVY told the jury an untrue story. Debra consistently related the progression of her relationship with MARK. On the stand she testified that she wasn't aware of his drug and alcohol abuse prior to marrying him. It was sometime after the marriage she found out about it. It is documented in great detail how she even tried to help and support MARK, so that he would have the chance to overcome his addiction. She accompanied her husband to drug counseling AT various times. Debra related all these facts on the stand. However, LEVY knowingly misrepresented her statements, reproducing them to the jury members in a twisted fashion. This tactic is very popular when the listeners are assumed to not pay 100% attention. Certainly Debra did practice birth control before getting married, but is this also 'common sense' in order to accuse a young woman of an intention to have her child killed later on? Hardly. The remark "least of all Chris" - completely made up and added conveniently - is again a good example how tainting people works. This was nothing but an emotional remark in order to color his invention.

Now, you take 1988 and it's starting to close in, a smaller and smaller focus. She can't stand Mark. She doesn't want him to have any visitation or custody. And while the law allowed him same, it was very limited.

Comment: Poor MARK, limited visitation rights! But LEVY kept quiet about the fact that CHRIS' father was ruthless enough to take the 4 y.o. boy to a crack house. Here it shows how morally corrupt this attorney actually is.

She went back and saw Mr. Libbon. And at first she says, "Well, you know, joint; then I had a change of heart, there was a crack house incident", so forth. So she narrowed that down. It's only going to be a few hours once a week. A few hours, one to three hours at her discretion. And that's the kind of mother she -- the evidence indicated she was.

Comment: Where's LEVY'S 'common sense' here? MR. LIBBON, representing attorney of Debra throughout the custody process, related under oath that Debra "... had noticed needle marks on his arm and had been told by her sister that her son may have been kept at a place that was known by the police to be involved in drug usage, and she went down to get her son ...". It was the responsible attitude of a mother to insist on supervised visits in light of her former husband's drug and alcohol addiction, but certainly not evidence for an unstable character. Right becomes wrong, and wrong becomes right - and LEVY lacked truthfulness in his account to the jury. MR. LIBBON confirmed upon cross-examination that Debra seemed 'very concerned for the well-being of her son', and she was 'indeed willing to give MARK the chance to father the child.' But no matter what she would've done, LEVY would've always found a way to twist the true coherences in order to invent some scenario and his own 'truth'.

Nevertheless, it was narrowing. She eliminated Mark out through the divorce and she narrowed his visitation with Chris. She talked about how bad he was.

She went up to Colorado. She saw Dorothy Markwell in Colorado. She was very abusive to the child, both verbally and physically. It was there that she verbalized just how much she hated Mark Milke by constantly talking about he was abusive, he was a drug addict and he was an alcoholic. But at the same time she abused Christopher Milke. And he is growing to age four and he looks just like Mark Milke. You saw the picture. I don't intend to show it to you again. And he looks just like Mark Milke. And she sees that child, and she just saw that child as Mark Milke, as growing up to be Mark Milke, and she could not stand that. And therefore, she wished he were dead.

Comment: 'And therefore, she wished he were dead.' What a simple solution! How many kids would be endangered with murder if every mother in an unstable relationship wouldn't want her child anymore? How many kids would be in severe danger, just because they look like their fathers? Does this sound like 'common sense'? Does it match the facts of the case? The research clearly disputes it. It's true - and shouldn't be denied - that CHRIS increasingly caused trouble with Debra, and she had a hard time to correct her son during her stay in Colorado. What no one knew at the time was that CHRIS commenced having a serious thyroid problem, which would later be solved through a surgery in Phoenix, AZ [December 1988]. Even DOROTHY MARKWELL later stated that her testimony on the stand didn't imply that she assumed Debra was capable of murder or had a part in the planning. DOROTHY indeed said that the knowledge of CHRIS' sickness would've helped to grasp why the boy was so hard to handle. ILSE MILKE had confirmed that Debra was in the hospital every day, and she cared for her son's well being a lot.

Now, she was there for several months. And this was unceasing. Despite the fact she was away from him, he was incarcerated in prison or jail, she continued to air her abusive ways with the child. And remember, there is no immediate threat from Mark Milke now. He is either in jail or in prison. She even presented to her attorney like she didn't expect he would ever get out of jail or prison again. But she continued to be abusive toward the child because he is four years old and he is going to look -- he already looks like Mark Milke.

Comment: At this point we can observe how LEVY drew a coherence between MARK'S stay in prison and the difficulties that went with raising CHRIS at that time. Anyone can agree or disagree, but we need to ask whether this coherence really existed or if it wasn't solely a means to create an untrue and unjust suspicion? Only when we look at DET. SALDATE'S initial supplemental report about his interrogation of Debra we can see that this purported connection emerged there and ever since, it was unceasingly repeated. But at the same time it should be addressed that NOEL LEVY was demonstrably already in touch with SALDATE on the day that this report was written. Interesting, huh? Other than that, no other facts support the assumption that one situation was connected with the other.

He is growing older. He is no longer a little baby, as he was three in '88, because in '89 he is four. And at four years old he is more hyperactive, as she described him, a handful, as she described him, as difficult to handle, as she described him, and he is at an age now where they are even more difficult to handle than they were at three.

That's four years old. That's four years old where the child doesn't have a stable home.

Comment: There is no reason to assume that CHRISTOPHER didn't have a stable home. He was with his mother, both he and Debra lived in a place together with friends and all his needs were taken care of. Other kids have more unstable homes and grow up happy too.

That's four years old where the child is yanked with visitation one way or another. That's four years old where the child isn't being held close by the mother, but is being pushed away, is being yelled at, being slapped, being thrown across the room.

Comment: Conveniently exaggerated, MR. LEVY??? Why does no medical report exist which would confirm any bruises? Again, the opposite is true; one police report exists which demonstrates the three bullet wounds in the back of CHRISTOPHER'S head, but at the same time, it speaks of a well-nurtured boy without any signs of physical abuse. The badly paid public defender KENNETH RAY also failed to correct this horrible picture of Debra.

The child is not going to become more calm. He is going to become perhaps more hyperactive. He is going to become more confused and dislocated with all these movements and these kinds of interactions with him and his mother, and for that matter, his father.

Comment: It's the second time that LEVY depicted a coherence between MARK and the hyperactivity of CHRIS. But again, both scenarios didn't have anything to do with each other. MARK was in prison at the time and the divorce was pending. CHRIS, on the other hand, suffered from the thyroid problem, which neither DOROTHY MARKWELL nor Debra were aware of yet.

Comes '89 now. The picture is she is divorced from Mark Milke and his visitation is restricted.

Comment: Well, that's not how things truly went. When the divorce was about to be decided Debra flew to Phoenix alone and on that day she was accompanied by JIM STYERS, who witnessed MARK'S verbal threats toward Debra. She stayed in Phoenix for three days and subsequently got back to Colorado, which happened in November 1988. During that stay in Phoenix Debra's mother-in-law ILSE MILKE had offered Debra to move in so CHRISTOPHER could be around her too. to which Debra agreed. She moved back with CHRIS in December. Later that month medics found out about the thyroid problem of CHRIS. As the affidavit of DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN reveals, the treating doctor witnessed that Debra "interacted well with the hospital staff" and "appeared to be well bonded to Christopher, and Christopher appeared to be well bonded to his mother." Hardly the facts which LEVY wanted the jury members to know.

Then she meets Ernie Sweat and she goes from several jobs after Colorado. She has worked at some point for Farmers, she has worked for Lincoln National, she has worked for Mirabank, and she ends up with John Alden Insurance. Now she meets Ernie Sweat at Lincoln National in January of '89. And she was, as her parents described it, madly in love with him.

Comment: The parents mentioned here were RICHRAD 'SAM' SADEIK and his third wife MAUREEN, who hardly saw Debra and their grandson at all. In fact, these people never came to visit CHRISTOPHER and Debra in Phoenix. It was always Debra who had to take CHRISTOPHER to Florence so that RICHARD would see his grandson. Various photos exist which prove Debra's visits with CHRIS in Florence, but not a single one for a reciprocal visit. MAUREEN, on the other hand, was full of envy toward RICHARD SADEIK'S second wife, RENATE JANKA - Debra's natural mother. It's no surprise that all of MAUREEN'S family - up to this day, actually - refused enlightenment about any facts unearthed. In other words, that part of the family basically doesn't care what really happened when 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER MILKE was killed. Debra's own mother, MRS. JANKA, related about Debra's relationship with ERNIE that it was merely fun for both of them. MRS. JANKA was in Phoenix in September 1989, hardly 1 1/2 months before the murder happened. Both young people consistently stated this, and marriage was never a question between the two. ERNIE SWEAT stated the same when he was on the stand testifying.

She went out on dates with him, but he was unencumbered and he didn't want to be, and this was supposed to be clear, according to Ernie Sweat, with her, that he was not about to take on the responsibilities of being a father to this kid. And thus, they did not get married.

Comment: Picture this logic: At first LEVY made an untrue claim, alleging that Debra had intentions to get married to ERNIE SWEAT. Next, he uses the truth [that both never seriously considered marriage, and that ERNIE didn't feel like taking the responsibility of the father role at that age] in order to fabricate the next motive. But interestingly, Debra's unequivocal position - that she never discussed an intention to marry ERNIE SWEAT - was not accurately reproduced here.

Now the child has become an impediment between her and her ongoing future situation. Now, she has dated a lot. She dated in Loveland, she dated Ernie, she dated before Ernie. She liked men. And she particularly liked Ernie Sweat. And she particularly hated Mark Milke. People that were close to her knew she hated Mark Milke - Carmen Santana, not to mention Dorothy Markwell, and others who had heard her comments about him.

Comment: Here we have another interesting detail. Please keep this in mind, that LEVY remembered CARMEN SANTANA when it came to creating his own version of the story. He will later conveniently skip parts of CARMEN'S testimony. Bottom line, it's proven that Debra's fellow worker CARMEN was not an unknown person to the prosecutor. And again, Debra never hated MARK, but had to stay away from his abusive behavior and threads.

So now, not only was the child growing older and more like Mark Milke - - for example, you remember that when she cut back on visitations, he was very difficult to discipline. Mark Milke has spoiled him and so it's very difficult to control the child, so he was becoming more and more of a burden.

Now, all of this time she has always moved in with people who would be able to have assisted her with Christopher, whether it be Susie Stinson or Dorothy Markwell or Ilsa Milke, the grandmother, or finally James Styers, the live-in male friend, there is always someone that's taking care of Christopher while she goes elsewhere. And she goes elsewhere a lot. She leaves Christopher Milke to be watched by others a lot. There is no mother-child bond there. She didn't want children. She didn't want Christopher. She wasn't, by her own admission, a good mother.

Comment: Which mother would ever claim that she is 'perfect'? And that's precisely what Debra said, that she wasn't perfect. Common sense? But as shown with the DAVID KRONE case, LEVY is demonstrably guilty of sending another Defendant innocently on death row. There is no doubt that his ruthlessness to do the same to Debra Milke again reached a peak here. Certainly not what the normal citizen would describe as being 'perfect' either!

There was no mother-child bond. Now, this mother-child bond is critical.

Comment: We wonder how many kids LEVY had raised himself. Why did LEVY suppress the opposite statement of DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN? ZUERLEIN had exactly testified to the loving bond between the mother and her child and the same is true about Debra and JIM'S neighbors, the CIULLA'S and MURPHY'S. The most damaging statements were mainly of family members who hadn't even been very close to CHRISTOPHER and Debra at the time.

And it didn't exist here and that child became more distanced from the mother or she distanced the child more from her, because he is growing older, becoming more like Mark Milke, and her fear that she would just see Mark Milke and he would end up and be in jail or same other thing.

Comment: This theory is a little far-fetched to a sound mind. How can you conclude from a 4 y.o. boy how he would be in years to come? Certainly, every good mother would want her child to be a different person than the father if he is a drug- and alcohol abuser. Doesn't every parent want his child to be a good, if not better person? Unfortunately, police, media and the prosecution propagated this illogical claim everywhere and so it somehow must have seemed true to the jury members.

And she judged that child, who was only, by '89, going an four years old - because he didn't even become four until October of '89 -- she judged that child as though he was going to go 16 more years and that's just the way he would be.

And as she moved along the progression, staying with Ilsa Milke, then, after Dorothy Markwell, and then, for whatever reasons that wasn't working out anymore, then she chose to move in with James Styers.

Comment: LEVY'S abbreviation of the facts is interesting, as it grants insight to the tactics of his manipulation. Here, the prosecutor spanned a time-frame within one sentence, which actually spans eight months. It also suppressed Debra's more than six-month stay with ILSE MILKE. As portrayed above, Debra moved back to Phoenix because CHRIS repeatedly expressed the aspiration to see his grandmother ILSE. Debra also missed her friends and felt homesick, and so her decision was certainly not a 'whatever'. From December 1988 to late July 1989, mother and son were staying with grandmother ILSE. Then a serious incident happened, in which MARK choked Debra and took her car keys away. She hid in an alley, securing CHRIS and herself and had to find a solution as where to go next. She called JIM STYERS, who was the only local person she knew and trusted. JIM instantly volunteered to pick the two up and later suggested that they move in with him. This should shine a different light on the entire proceedings.

And she was making these choices. And she moved in with James Styers, a male who was married, who she knew had lived with some other woman and gotten her impregnated and had a child, even though he had children of his own, moved in with a male where the move-out of this other female -- Gale was her name -- was so rapid that her closet was still filled in one of the bedrooms that Debra claimed she occupied with Gale's clothes, so much so that she had to use the closet of James Styers as well as use his room for her boxes.

Comment: This is typical for the narrowed-minded mentality of this prosecutor. He never seemed to ponder about the reasons of JIM'S and GAIL'S breakup, what the background story was, and all these considerations. But even if he had, what would these aspects have to do with Debra's understandable desire to secure her son and herself? As with the 'flashing breasts incident' as invented by SALDATE, the filthy supposition is clearly on the part of LEVY. All his unfounded accusations are full of sexual innuendoes, creating the picture of a depraved young woman. None of the individuals involved were wealthy, so it's easy to discredit those who had to find ways of dealing with these circumstances. Additionally, LEVY even kept silent about other witnesses, for instance neighbor JOHN CIULLA, who stated to police "( ... ) that JIM was a very good father to his daughter, WENDY, who he had legal custody of. He also watched CHRISTOPHER during the day when Debra went to work, and he was also very patient with him, taking good care of him.". Not just a good father, but 'a very good father'! Why would LEVY conceal all these facts? This shows that the court system in Arizona lacks integrity. n. [LME integrite l integritas] the quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness.

A very close relationship in one small apartment with Christopher Milke.

Now, she had many opportunities, even as she shared with Detective Saldate, to discuss her ex-husband, Mark Milke, with James Styers, to discuss her child with James Styers. And, after all, he just stayed home and watched her child while she went to work.

Comment: LEVY raises an interesting point here, which we would like to pick-up ourselves in order to bring more facts to the attention of the audience. Many people have asked us how ROGER SCOTT could have known about the life insurance which Debra had on her son and herself. Here, LEVY gives the answer himself. As a disabled Vietnam vet, STYERS was staying at home, while the young mother was working. He had custody of his own daughter WENDY, so why shouldn't he also take care of CHRIS, which Debra paid for? But on top of this, STYERS was often visited by his old high-school friend ROGER, as neighbors had confirmed. It's easy to picture how the two males had made themselves privy with Debra's belongings, and her personal documents [including the social security booklet] were stashed inside a map which was openly lying on a table. And at his on trial (10/29/1990) JIM STYERS made the following statements: (...) Jesse Miranda: You talk about the benefits booklet. Were you aware that the benefits booklet was in the house? Jim Styers: Yes, I was. Jesse Miranda: And how were you aware of that, Jim? Jim Styers: Debbie come home with it and we went over it. Jesse Miranda: So, you and Debbie went over the benefits booklet, before she filled out the form? Jim Styers: Yes. Jesse Miranda: You helped her fill out the form? Jim Styers: No, I didn't help her fill it out. She filled it out herself. Jesse Miranda: Were you helping her along, talking to her? Jim Styers: I was talking with her, yes. Jesse Miranda: Were you aware that there was a $5,000 insurance policy? Jim Styers: Yes, I was. Jesse Miranda: Would you kill Christopher Milke for $5,000? Jim Styers: No, I would not. (...)

I mean, he did a lot of things for her. He took her to work, he picked her up and took her back to work. When Ernie Sweat came over, she estimates maybe 11 or 12 times, comes over to get Debra Milke, and who is left with Chris? Jim Styers. While she goes out and parties or goes out with Carmen or whomever. But James Styers was willing to take care of Christopher and do these things for her. And the testimony is clear that he was willing to do a great deal for her.

Comment: An upright character apparently makes LEVY suspicious about a person. Interesting ... poor man! But why then did nobody question why JIM STYERS was not supposed to testify at Debra's trial? LEVY knew very well, that STYERS' would instantly exonerate Debra. Again, this would not have been what the prosecutor wanted the jury to hear.

But who occupied her bed? Christopher Milke slept there. Who wanted to get in her bed? James Styers. If Christopher Milke no longer was there, that would leave a vacancy in the bed. Who knows?

Comment: Here we see the next round in the character assassination of Debra Milke. The foundation of LEVY'S claims originated in one of the letters exchanged between her and JIM STYERS, after their unexpected and sudden detention in early December 1989. On Christmas [12/24/1989] JIM wrote to Debra: "I found out something tonite that I have to work with. And that is that I love you more than I thought I did." Debra on the other hand always disputed any romantic interest in the man, who is 17 years older than herself. She solely upheld the correspondence with JIM due to the reinforcement of her defense team, and in order to find out what truly happened to her son. Bottom line, if JIM truly had a romantic interest in the young woman, she only learned about this in this letter. Why else should JIM make this revelation on December 24?

Now, evidence can be direct, evidence can be circumstantial, and you can draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence to reach certain conclusions, should you believe this evidence, and you can draw it together.

So she had the opportunity to have these discussions with James Styers. And she did. And she admitted this to Detective Saldate.

Comment: The clear dispute is that Debra never confessed to DET. SALDATE. She never had anything to do with the murder, nor did she know how it came about. That's why she kept asking JIM in her letter one and a half month after her arrest: "All I want to know Jim is what happened. When you left that morning I thought you were going to the mall with Christopher. When and how did Roger get into the picture? I found out that you went to Roger's house and then took him to get a prescription filled and then out for pizza. Why didn't you tell me that? If Roger is responsible for this - then how did he do it alone? What kind of transportation did he use and how did Chris get away from you? Is there any way that Mark was involved in this?"

She told you this on the stand. What to do with Christopher Milke. Well, by then, what was happening? She was having difficulty with Ernie Sweat, with whom she supposedly broke off with the end of November of 1989. She had sent an application for an apartment that was much closer to Ernie Sweat and wasn't near anybody else.

Comment: In the first place, that apartment was closer to her job and near a Kindergarten place, which Debra had already secured for CHRISTOPHER, and JIM'S testimony about this point didn't match with the prosecutor's portrayal of events either: (...) Jesse Miranda: Why were you going to move out of state? Jim Styers: I was tired of this state. Jesse Miranda: Weren't you concerned about Debra? Jim Styers: No, she was all right. Jesse Miranda: Well, you were going to move out of the apartment, correct? Jim Styers: Yes, I was. Jesse Miranda: Weren't you concerned about what Debra was going to do, as far as a place to live? Jim Styers: She was getting an apartment in January. Jesse Miranda: This was the apartment that she told you was close to -- closer to work? Jim Styers: Yes, it was. (...)

And, of course, she had never been in a situation where someone wasn't there to take care of Christopher Milke. Now, while his name was on the application, the situation didn't lend itself that Christopher would necessarily be there. So you can infer from these facts the chilling thought from this evidence that as early as the first part of November of 1989 became the nucleus and genesis of the idea which was later translated into actuality that she would have her son killed.

Comment: Here, and for the first time in this closing argument, LEVY made the unfounded accusation that Debra had it in mind to have her son killed. Considering the demonstrable evidence of the case, did we find any foundation for that claim yet? No, we didn't. But we found several indications that LEVY intentionally misrepresented the true facts and coherences.

Now, as she told Detective Saldate, the reason that she decided to have her son killed is for this reason: She didn't want him to grow up to be like Mark Milke. And it isn't that she didn't love the child, it's that God would take care of the child. She would simply have this child's life ended, having prejudged him, have him terminated, and then he would go up to heaven and God would take care of him and she would be relieved of the burden in that he was becoming more and more and more of a burden to her and this relationship, because she was not a person, certainly, who wanted to stay home and take care of the child, because there is no evidence that she ever took the child out to any particular things that, in your common sense, you would understand a mother would take their child out to.

Comment: A rather confusing argument. And it's interesting that the prosecutor was not even capable of putting his far-fetched accusations into a proper sentence. He put it in various ramblings. First of all, Debra is not a religious person, and she never was. Therefore, the mere claim and link to God fails her personality completely. Secondly, as the testimonies of both Debra and ERNIE SWEAT have proven, there was no relationship between the two individuals anymore, and so the murder of her son wouldn't have saved anything. Thirdly, quite a string of people exist who testified to the loving bond between the young mother and her son. Fourthly ... well, the term 'common sense' certainly already came to your attention. We already know about the kind of manipulation this causes.

She went out and left the child with someone, if not James Styers. She went out with men, she went to bars, she went out, she left Chris. If she ever took Chris, it was to go shopping. But that was shopping. That was for Debra Milke.

Comment: ... which is the most normal thing for a 25 y.o. woman in every other place of the world. Obviously, not so in Arizona. And certainly, Debra is and was more liberal than her narrow-minded accuser. It's not abnormal for a 25 y.o. woman to go out and have fun. The requirement for Debra was always that CHRIS is well taken care of. This was secured with JIM, who was also perceived by other neighbors as being a good father to his daughter WENDY, and a good caretaker of CHRISTOPHER as well.

So what she is portraying here is a contraction of the possibilities of her options with regard to Christopher Milke because he was interfering with her social life, he was interfering with her ability to try to land Ernie Sweat.

Comment: LEVY makes it sound as if this was a fact. Yet, it was not a fact by any means because Debra herself always stated that she could've easily found another solution if the accusations towards her - that she purportedly had no bonding with CHRISTOPHER - were true. Yet, these claims weren't true, and they were in no way substantiated with hard evidence during the trial.

And she had James Styers, a willing, compliant, go-along to conceive the plot and the plan. What to do with Christopher Milke. "Well, I will have to have him killed. Jim, I just don't want to know how you do it, but there is no other option. I have to have my son killed".

Comment: Again, no hard facts corroborate this claim, other than SALDATE'S invented and so-called 'confession', which Debra denies since the day she first learned about it. Incredibly, here LEVY explicitly told the jury that Debra didn't 'want to know how you do it'. In his initial tape-recorded interview SCOTT claimed she approached JIM after he had bought the first guns, at the end of this argument we will see how LEVY tried to 'need not have full knowledge', and therefore always kept the exact amount of alleged 'knowledge' uncertain. He shifted it to his own convenience, depending on where he was with his invented story about Debra's purported role as the mastermind behind the murder.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this was Debra's choice. Debra's choice -- she made other choices -- was to have her son killed, as the only viable option to her, rather than have this Christopher Milke child grow up, as she described it, to be just like Mark Milke, whom she hated.

Comment: Again, she never said or claimed to hate her ex-husband. As we have seen, LEVY brought this verb up himself.

So Debra's choice was to share with James Styers this conspiracy to have her son killed. Conceivably, as early as November of 1989 and continuing until December 2, 1989, when she knew, as she told Detective Saldate, that when they walked out the door, that that was the day that she -- that James Styers was going to take the boy on the pretext and deception that he was going to Metro Center to see Santa Claus, and that she knew all about Roger Scott, and that they were going to all go out and kill the boy. She didn't know exactly the method. She didn't want to know. She just knew that he was to be killed.

Comment: ... which is an interesting statement and shows that the claims this website makes must be true. LEVY instigated SALDATE to write the confession the way it was written. Here, LEVY suggested that Debra had no idea how the murder was supposed to take place. This contradicts the statement of ROGER SCOTT during the tape-recorded interview held by DET. ROBERT MILLS in the evening hours of December 3rd, 1989: (...) Det. Mills: Did she say how she wanted it done? Roger Scott: She just said that she wanted Jim and me to handle it after Jim had purchased the one gun, uh, later on I believe it was 3, 4 days later he purchased another two guns. (...) Here SCOTT claimed that the plot was planned after Debra had learned about the first gun which JIM had bought. Both, police and the county attorney took all the other statements of SCOTT at face value, yet nobody seemed to mind that SCOTT pointed out that Debra allegedly wanted her son killed only after she knew about the purchase of the gun. Therefore, she would have known how the murder would happen. This contradiction proves that one of the two individuals must be lying, either ROGER SCOTT or Debra. But who told the various inconsistent versions of his story?

Now, the gain to James Styers was this $5,000 insurance policy. She knew her father had already taken out a policy, but she decided to take out a policy. And she said, "That may not be my motivation, that may have been Jim's and Roger's", James Styers and Roger Scott.

Comment: Here we are catching LEVY with his dirty fingers in the cookie jar again! The initial issue of the life insurance is entirely twisted and misrepresented to the jury by the prosecutor. SALDATE'S report explicitly reads: 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. Here we see how the ex-cop sloppily invented a scenario within his report which would've been technically impossible. How were JIM and ROGER supposed to cash in money from the life insurance of RICHRAD SADEIK, Debra's father??? This wouldn't be possible at all, and LEVY knew exactly this and therefore misrepresented what was truly said in the report. As shown above, he correctly reproduced Debra's statement about her father's policy, but Debra herself never had a policy! The life insurance she had on herself and her son was part of her social benefits package [see application form on the page 'Indexes of Debra's innocence']. LEVY mixed the initial statement and added the self-designed claim about Debra's not-existing policy, thus managed to 'somehow' have the jury believe there was a pecuniary motive on the part of one of the purported conspirators. As we see, a scenario which is factually unfounded and obviously self-serving.

Now, thinking about motivations, if James Styers took care of this child -- and you remember the time that she last sees him out the door at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, December 2, 1989, out the door at 11:00 a.m., there is no motivation, not even a reasonable inference that James Styers would independently some desire to kill Christopher Milke (....) Roger Scott. There is no evidence.

Comment: Please keep this in mind: LEVY himself admitted that there is no evidence that JIM STYERS would've wanted CHRISTOPHER MILKE dead! The claim [and later verdict] against him must equally solely cling on the invented, so-called 'confession' of Debra. Here we get to the bottom of the question, what the motivation to invent a confession by SALDATE actually was. Without the purported confession there would be no logical link or evidence in regard to JIM STYERS. By arresting SCOTT only, the case would've been solved already, but it was decided to use this murder-case of a little boy to sensationalize it and achieve a high reputation as being 'tough on crime'. By the way, at his own trial, ROGER SCOTT later testified that JIM STYERS and CHRISTOPHER appeared at his apartment at 10:30 a.m. that Saturday morning. The distance between JIM'S and ROGER'S apartment was approximately a thirty minute drive, and therefore the timeline depicted by LEVY cannot possibly be the correct one. JIM and CHRIS must have left the apartment between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m.

The evidence is entirely that Debra Milke wanted to have her son killed. And that's how I came back and she expressed the reasons that she entered into such conspiracy. None of the witnesses that have testified in this trial, be it Richard Sadeik, her father, be it Maureen Sadeik, her stepmother, be it Sandra Pickinpaugh, her sister, be it any of the witnesses, including Detective Saldate, had absolutely nothing to gain if they were to have fabricated any single fact in this case. Nothing.

Comment: Well, the hostile dynamics within Debra's family have been an issue in many places. As we have see with the interview given by Debra's sister SANDY PICKINPAUGH, envy was on her part. Neither RICHARD SADEIK nor his third wife MAUREEN ever cared for what Debra and CHRISTOPHER were doing, and the weak public defender didn't care diligently enough to correct this picture. Debra's mother, RENTAE JANKA, who was in Phoenix only 1 1/2 months before the killing happened, was never subpoenaed, and the same is unfortunately true about other friends of Debra, who would've testified in favor of her and the good mother/son relationship. RICHARD SADEIK, his third wife MAUREEEN, SANDY and DORTHY MARKELL hadn't been in touch with Debra and CHRISTOPHER in the previous months. But those were the 'character witnesses' used in order to testify against Debra. But one thing is indeed true, we're wondering ourselves how the 'reward system' within the authorities works, and why a police detective and a county prosecutor would lie so shamelessly as they did in Debra Milke's trial.

The only individual that could have possibly had any gain whatsoever from the evidence in this trial, I submit to you, would be the Defendant who was on trial. And all of these witnesses substantiated that she had no bond with this child, that she was abusive with the child, she never loved the child, she didn't care for the child, and she either wished the child would simply go away or that he would be dead.

Comment: As shown in various places, this is simply not true. The neighbors CIULLA and MURPHY, the treating medic DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN, the attorney Mr. LIBBON, and even the leading psychiatrist at the Maricopa County Street Jail, Dr. GARCIA-BUNUEL, repeatedly stated that they don't believe Debra had anything to do with the murder. All of them testified to the loving bond between the young mother and her son, or her honest grief about the loss she had to endure. These facts seem to have escaped LEVY'S short-term memory.

Now, if the child was dead, then Mark Milke wouldn't come around and bother her, no visitation. If the child was dead, then Ernie Sweat might reconsider whether they might get married, since that child was no longer a consideration, and she could move to that apartment nearer to Ernie Sweat and be closer to him and, for that matter, closer to her work.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the reasons. This is the analysis based upon the evidence in this trial that you can see both by direct evidence and by reasonable inferences through all of the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, to come to a conclusion.

Now, her confession isn't all that exists here. The confession was fully corroborated by all of the physical evidence and all of the testimonial evidence.

Comment: Evidence ... another good point. LEVY made it sound as if any true evidence existed. That's not the case, as far as physical evidence was concerned. To give the reader an idea about the true exhibits of evidence established throughout the trial, an abbreviated listing of the 'physical evidence' is this: color photographs of the wounds in the back of CHRISTOPHER MILKE'S head [undisputed] inked footprints [in order to establish that JAMES STYERS was indeed at the murder-scene; a point which didn't need to be proven, because STYERS conceded this fact in his letter to Debra before] Application and benefits package [of the social benefits] handwriting example [as if Debra ever disputed that she filled out the form for the social benefits ... it's pathetic!] amended petition for Dissolution of Marriage bag of clothing [which contains the clothing of CHRISTOPHER, which Debra willingly gave to police, so they could continue searching for CHRISTOPHER] aerial photograph [undisputed] boots [the ones which STYERS wore and which fit into the footprints, however, it was never proven were these boots were indeed the one which caused the footprints] binoculars [found in the Toyota which STYERS and SCOTT drove that day] Debra's clothing [which disprove SALDATE'S claim that Debra allegedly flashed her breasts to him, in order to manipulate him] gun and sock [which Debra also willingly gave to police, these items belonged to JIM STYERS] benefits booklet from John Alden Fin. [see? It's not a 'policy'!] Order protection (copy) a few more photographs, medical records, police reports, and so on ... All these items prove facts which weren't even disputed, but they are absolutely no evidence for the story LEVY concocted and told to the jury. If there was a visit to an alleged murder-scene, altogether with Debra, what was the exact time and location, and where are the witnesses for that? If SCOTT was a part of a purported conspiracy, why did he elect not to testify against Debra, which could've saved him from a possible death sentence? And why would SCOTT confess to a co-inmate the he was the gunman himself? If CHRISTOPHER MILKE had pizza - as LEVY had suggested - why wasn't the physical examiner of the State able to confirm the exact stomach and bowel content? Why were there no witnesses to confirm that CHRISTOPHER was indeed at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' restaurant? And how - if the murder took place after 1 p.m. - would LEVY give a reason that ROGER SCOTT was seen in close proximity to his own apartment, and not in a desert area north of Phoenix? That would've been evidence!

She said she hated Mark Milke.

Comment: Again, this is wrong. Debra never said she 'hated' MARK, but it's true she had to protect her son and herself from his abusive demeanor.

She said she didn't want her child to grow up to be like him.

Comment: Who would?

She said that she had these discussions with James Styers.

Comment: ... which is what only SALDATE claimed. Why didn't the prosecution call JIM STYERS to confirm this? Why would JIM repeatedly state that Debra had absolutely nothing to do with the killing? And where does he have this knowledge? Because he was present when ROGER SCOTT - unpredictably for him - shot the little boy.

She said that she conspired with him to have her son killed and knew he would be killed that day and knew that thereafter James Styers would go to Metro Center and create the fabrication that the child was missing.

Comment: Why then did STYERS' ex-girlfriend GAIL LIPSHULTZ relate that JIM had it in mind to come pick his daughter WENDY up that morning, and that GAIL only wanted her picked up a little later, because they had to go somewhere? What's the reason for two conflicting dates, which contradict each other entirely? Therefore, apparently, this claim can't be true at all.

She knew if she was called at 2:45 p.m. by James Styers and he said that he was at Metro Center, Sears, as he said it, with the security guard, and Chris was missing, she then knew he was dead from that point on.

Comment: ... which is a 'claim'. But where is the evidence for such a claim? This statement is nothing but an unfounded supposition.

The gun that was recovered from Roger Scott's bedroom closet that was sold to James Styers in mid-November, the .22, was the same kind of weapon that fired the bullets, the three bullets in the head of Christopher Milke.

Comment: Let's return to the issue of 'evidence' again. The State wasn't even capable of proving by scientific examination that this was indeed the gun which killed CHRISTOPHER MILKE. No forensic evidence exists. But it's true, logic proves without a doubt that this can be the only gun which killed CHRIS.

The bullets found in Debra Milke's Toyota that James Styers had the keys to and was locked up until the police searched it, was the same type of bullets that were found in the head of Christopher Milke upon autopsy. The bullets and casing found on Union Hills Drive were the same type as the CCI Stinger hypervelocity ammunition, so you have more powder in the casing and it shoots the bullet out faster and death can be more instantaneous.

The shoe print in the wash from the Nike shoe that went to the feet of James Styers is the same shoe. Described as similar, but you saw the match. And those shoes were found. in the Metro Center Parking Lot H. The child was found Sunday afternoon by Detective Mills and Detective Saldate, who went out and saw him lying in the wash in a fetal position. And upon autopsy he had undigested contents in his stomach, and the evidence was that he had had a pizza. at Peter Piper Pizza between noon and 1:00 o'clock before the killing took place.

Comment: As this website has shown, this claim also can't be true at all. Unfortunately, public defender KENNETH RAY hadn't been aware of the fact that one police report exists which contradicts the scenario told by LEVY entirely. According to the report of OFF. CRISWELL, ROGER SCOTT was seen between 1.15 and 2.00 p.m. in three different places, by three independent witnesses, in close proximity to his own apartment. Additionally, LEVY obviously intentionally kept silent about Debra's fellow worker CARMEN SANTANA'S statement, that she spoke with Debra on the telephone at 9.00 a.m. that morning. LEVY used statements when they were convenient to him, but suppressed them when they didn't serve his motives. The prosecutor was very aware of how crucial the timeline would be, because he had also attempted to suppress the testimony of witness JEAN PUGH. On October 10th, 1990, he insisted in chambers to the judge: "(...) And the essence of what they have to say is that they heard some shots at 10:30 in the morning on Saturday, December 2, 1989. And I submit that's irrelevant because we have repeated testimony by Debra Milke, the defendant, of her telling various detectives that they were watching TV and this and that, and it was over at 11:00 and Chris Milke goes out the door with Styers at 11:00 a.m. So if those people are hearing shots at 10:30 a.m., that has no relevancy on the case. (...)" Here LEVY made it sound as if there was no doubt about the time CHRISTOPHER MILKE was killed, but the facts prove otherwise.

And all of the clothing that was described that he was wearing was consistent with what he walked out with that day. But there was no need to have binoculars, no need to have camouflage, no need to have a gun, no need to have extra tennis shoes, no need to have binoculars -- if I haven't said that already -- all found in the Toyota, if he was going to Metro Center to see Santa Claus. So all of the corroborating evidence to the confession existed.

Comment: Is that really true? Where is the unequivocal relation between binoculars, tennis shoes etc. on one hand, and Debra's alleged role in a conspiracy, on the other? There is none, but by literally inundating the jury members with all kinds of information, the prosecutor accomplished to appear credible. Too bad, none of the jury members ever questioned the true facts of the case.

By the way, the testimony of her own family, Richard Sadeik, Maureen Sadeik, Karen Smith, and there were some telling things with regard to how she conducted herself, that was additional evidence by which you can reach reasonable inferences. She was only concerned about James Styers because she knew the child was dead. She was concerned that James Styers was in such proximity to the police because James Styers, she was afraid might give it away. She grabbed the phone whenever it rang and expressed her concern, as observed particularly by Karen Smith as well as others, to James Styers rather than her son. Even the aspect of the description of how she reacted to this phone call was she cried and called her father. She didn't bolt out of the house, rush down to Metro Center or anything like that. She said she stayed home because of her father's instructions.

She knew the child was dead. She didn't want to go to Metro Center because one of the things she couldn't handle was all the police were there.

Comment: Here we can see how defendants can be overwhelmed with accusations in a fashion which makes it very difficult for a defense to fight off all of them. This was another attack of LEVY on the character of Debra, but again, demonstrably untrue and a mere fabrication of the corrupt prosecutor. In the police report of DET. J.A. JOST #4111 we can read: "(...) SGT. OWENS said that CHRISTOPHER knew his name and his phone number very well and that his mother had been instructed to stay home and near the telephone in case he called. (...)" LEVY had attempted to discredit Debra before, which he also didn't repeat to the jury. On September 24th, 1990 he cross-examined witness KEVIN MURPHY, a neighbor of JIM and Debra: (...) Noel Levy: And she told you then something had happened to Christopher? Kevin Murphy: She said she felt that something -- she was worried about it, that, you know, if he was missing from the bathroom that somebody might have taken him and somebody might be doing something bad to him or hurting him. Noel Levy: Then, Mr. Murphy, when you told her, "Oh, Chris is fine, he is just lost at the mall", she didn't say, "Oh, please, take me to the mall so I can go look for him", did she? Kevin Murphy: She had suggested that she go a few times. I told her, "No, you should stay here by the phone". Noel Levy: When you said you were going there, she didn't ask to come along, did she? Kevin Murphy: Yeah, she did. Noel Levy: And you told her not to come? Kevin Murphy: Right. (...) Here we can see how the prosecutor was so eager to paint in a scenario which obviously didn't fit, and despite KEVIN MURPHY'S unequivocal confirmation that he had suggested to Debra to stay by the telephone, LEVY misused and misrepresented this circumstance toward the jury by insinuating that she was reckless and not caring for her son. This is the way his manipulation worked, and judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX didn't admonish the prosecutor not to falsify the facts. This is the one of the reasons why miscarriages of justice happen the way they do. This juncture explains precisely how a certain circumstance can be used against a defendant, even though she solely obeyed to what she was told by several reliable people who helped to find her son CHRIS ... at trial, this was used against her!

She didn't want to subject herself to the proximity of the police, much less have James Styers remain in the proximity for so long. That concerned her so much. And she knew when she decided to go to Florence to her parents' house the next day the child was dead, and she as much admitted it by simply saying, after only 20 hours, never going to Metro Center, never contacting James Styers personally, never really determining what went on, "I saw you, James Styers, take my son out the door at 11:00 a.m. supposedly to go to Metro Center and see Santa Claus". Well, of course, all of that was just a deception.

Comment: Obviously the deception was on the part of the prosecutor, because at 11 a.m. CHRISTOPHER MILKE must have already been killed, lying in a desert north of Phoenix, with three bullets in the head. Three witnesses heard not three, but five to seven shots at 11 a.m. on that fateful day. A first set of shots, then after a pause another series of shots. If five to seven - and not three shots were fired - then the whole 'conspiracy' theory flies up and doesn't leave a coherent picture anymore. It's hardly imaginable that a supposed perpetrator tests his gun before performing an intentional murder. Besides, even the three shots don't make much sense. A planned murder doesn't need more than one bullet, two at the most, especially in the case of a little boy. Three bullets are rather the result of an irrational individual, and here we find an additional index pointing at ROGER SCOTT.

She tells her stepmother and her stepsister that "I know he is dead; I want him cremated and the ashes spread over the back yard of my father". Truly macabre, truly horrifying, except for the fact she knew he was dead.

Comment: The only macabre person was/is LEVY himself, because again, he distorted the reality. At the time Debra spoke these words inside a car and en route to Florence, CHRISTOPHER was already missing for more than 24 hours. Any mother who misses her 4 y.o. child for a whole day would have these worst concerns and fears. To make fun out of these worries - or misuse them for dirty, selfish motives - is the hypocritical double-standard. In light of the facts which contradict LEVY, the slander is obvious.

And then when she gets to Richard Sadeik's house, who does she call? She calls the apartment once. No answer.

Twice. James Styers answers and she tells James Styers, "Don't talk to the police, don't tell them nothing, they are assholes".

Comment: It's true, Debra was very upset about the police suspecting JIM. And in fact, up to this day she has a hard time to believe he could have had any part in the murder. Only the diligent manipulation of family members and the overwhelming pre-trial media sentencing achieved three verdicts in this case, when in fact only one person is actually guilty of the killing. It's understandable that a suspecting onlooker may find these statements of Debra in protection of JIM STYERS odd, but the facts researched and displayed on this website have also shown that the case against JIM is equally nonexistent as it is against Debra.

What does she tell after getting out of a sleep? There is something, you might say, pristine about sleep, when you first awaken. There is no guarding, there are no fences put up, there are no zippers zipped, and where you can sort of get behind a wall. You come out of the sleep and you make a reaction, perhaps unguarded, as she did here to Karen Smith. When she is told, "There's a deputy outside and they want to talk with you" -- and so telling -- what does she react? Not like, "Oh, God, is there any news on my son", anything like that, because now he was dead, but "What the fuck do they want". That's very telling, right out of a sleep. There is no guarding, which Debra Milke testified she doesn't remember. So you have all of these factors that come together.

Comment: Sounds convincing, huh? Or doesn't it? What happened really? Debra had been questioned and volunteered any information imaginable since the afternoon hours of the previous day [12/02/1989]. Friends and acquaintances who had been with her throughout these hours have observed her rushing to the telephone everytime it rang. Debra stayed up all night and basically didn't have any sleep, but she was given medication and she was observed drinking some rum'n coke, and so it's clear that her condition must have been entirely devastated. According to RICHARD SADEIK'S statements, he had to urge his daughter to try to get some sleep at probably 3 p.m. A deputy of the Pinal County's Sheriff's Office, DEPUTY SOULES, then came to the SADEIK property and requested Debra to come down, Phoenix police needed to talk to her. In other words, Debra's wasn't instantly informed about any new information or the fact that her son had been found [therefore, an information she could've passively received], but she was asked to get up and be questioned again [which means that she had to actively participate in further investigations and interviews]. The initial information pertaining to this incident originates in a police report about an interview with Debra's step-sister, KAREN SMITH. In that, DET. H.E. HAMRICK narrated: "KAREN recalled that DEBRA was sleeping when the deputy arrived so she woke her up. When she woke DEBRA up, DEBRA'S question was 'What the fuck do they want?'" Maybe the full report about this incident shines a different light on the reaction of Debra, and this short-tempered remark appears more understandable. Yet, it's not how the prosecutor related it to the jury.

And finally, when she is talking to Detective Saldate that night, she knew they knew. She didn't ever ask the Pinal County Sheriffs about her son or anything, just calmly went there, went into the room and waited what she claimed was two hours. Made no problem about it, just waited, waited for the inevitable, which she now had to tell Detective Saldate.

Comment: Oh sure, at first Debra was supposedly reckless about her boy. Only a few sentences earlier LEVY suggested that "She didn't want to go to Metro Center because one of the things she couldn't handle was all the police were there." Now, all of a sudden she allegedly waited for the 'inevitable'. And the mere presence of DET. SALDATE was sufficient to 'make her confess'? How stupid must people be to believe such a story? Interestingly, LEVY avoided to relate to the jury how DET. SALDATE purportedly didn't have it in mind to arrest Debra when he was on the way to Florence. This leaves the question why detectives already knew about the preconceived arrest of Debra, even while the interrogation behind the closed door was still pending? Nothing in this closing argument is consistent.

Now, if the two pillars of credibility would rest between Detective Saldate and Debra Milke, then you could have a bit of a contest by saying, well, it's only the word of Detective Saldate with regard to the confession since she didn't want it recorded. But, instead, you also have as an additional standard by which you can measure the credibility, corroboration of one witness to the other, because each has some overlapping effect, is Sandra Pickenpaugh and Dorothy Markwell. The very things that she enunciated to them about Christopher Milke, non-bonding, not a good mother, hated Mark Milke, could not stand for her son to grow up to be like Mark, could not stand her son, wanted others to take care of him, were all contained in this confession. And so, if it's contained in the confession and independently verified by other witnesses, you then don't have merely two pillars of credibility - that is, the detective and suspect defendant - you have multiple pillars supporting the confession itself that she gave Detective Saldate. So it doesn't merely rest upon his word, if that's going to be the focus and the sword-crossing point of an argument.

The confession itself is -- she talks about the child and all of that sort of thing, but the very heart of the confession is that she said she contemplated suicide, but that wouldn't do any good because Mark would end up with the child, so she definitely didn't want the child to grow up to be like him; thus, she spoke to Jim and asked. him to figure out a way for her child, Chris, to die. First she didn't tell Jim Styers she wanted her son killed, it was very hard for her, but she finally told him it would be better for her son to die than to grow up like her husband, his father. James agreed to help her and he simply wouldn't tell her precisely how he would have the child killed.

Comment: As shown above, the purported co-conspirator ROGER SCOTT claimed that the alleged instigation of Debra happened only after JIM STYERS had bought the first gun. What does LEVY mean by saying 'he simply wouldn't tell her precisely how he would have the child killed.' LEVY distorted the facts on the file wherever convenient to orchestrate a case.

And then she admitted that she made these agreements not only with James Styers, but also one time Roger Scott was present, and in fact at one point went out with James Styers in order to have the -- kill the child, but it didn't happen and then she became frustrated, and another time when he came back and hadn't killed the child, because maybe Mark Milke then would gain some kind of control over his sons.

Comment: The sloppy representation of LEVY'S accusations have a reason at this point. The full truth is that ROGER SCOTT was completely unable to tell a consistent scenario of a purported previous attempt in the tape-recorded interrogation with DET. ROBERT MILLS: (...) Roger Scott: Jimmy said that uh, he and Debbie were out by 7 Street and Beardsley to start with and then it was Paradise Road and 7 Street, uh after that uh, we ... Comment: First, STYERS and Debra are there. Det. Mills: You were not along, you were not along on that trip, you're not there, or were you? Roger Scott: I was there on Paradise and 7 Street. Comment: Now, SCOTT, STYERS, and Debra are there. Det. Mills: You were there? Roger Scott: Yeah. Det. Mills: So the three of you went out there? Roger Scott: No, just Jim and I. Comment: Now, only STYERS and SCOTT are there. Det. Mills: Oh, okay, I thought you said that Debbie was out there. Roger Scott: No, Debbie had gone with Jim so Jim told me, uh. Det. Mills: On an earlier occasion? Roger Scott: Yes. Comment: So now, on 'an earlier occasion' JIM and Debra were there. Det. Mills: Okay, do you know where they went then? Roger Scott: That was the 7 Street and Beardsley. Det. Mills: Okay, so they went so ... Roger Scott: And just decided that wasn't good. Det. Mills: Okay, who decided that, Jim or you? Comment: MILLS is totally confused by now. Roger Scott: Uh, I did. Comment: And, SCOTT, trying to follow the story that Mills is feeding him, adds himself to the scene - so again, SCOTT, STYERS, and Debra are there in SCOTT'S story. Det. Mills: Okay, and is that what we're talking about as being last Friday night? Roger Scott: No, that was, this had been going on for a week trying to ... Det. Mills: Okay, do you know if it was during last week or was it last weekend or when that was? Roger Scott: Last week to my recollection. (...)

At about the time -- at precisely the time that she sent her son out with James Styers to be killed, who was missing? Who was not there to do anything? Mark Milke, because he was in Texas, Fort Hood, with his brother. So it was the opportune moment. No interference by Mark Milke. He wouldn't drop in unexpectedly. He wouldn't be there personally to confront her about the situation. So it was a very opportune moment as far as all of these things coming together and her exercising her options, as she described them.

The evidence suggests that Debra Milke is in fact very cold and calculating. As she told Detective Saldate when he asked her, "Didn't you even give your son a special kiss that day" "Well, no, I didn't have to". "Didn't you even specially dress him that day?" "No, he picked out his own clothes". He picked out the triceratops yellow sweatshirt that his grandmother, Maureen Sadeik, made him, and the boots his father bought for him, and she simply sent him out, and without any further concern, so little concern that when her girlfriend, Carmen Santana called, she said she acted bored. Some small point.

Comment: Yup, another 'small point' of the character assassination of Debra. LEVY spoke of 'evidence', but where is the evidence?

She testified she did all of the laundry Friday. And she tells Mrs. Ciulla that she was glad that Christopher was gone because then he wouldn't bother her while doing the laundry, drag along after her. Small point. Just happens to occur to me.

Comment: ... and we are still wondering how many children this man may have educated and brought up himself ... ? Just happened to occur to us.

Then she tended to suggest in her confession to Detective Saldate, well, she's not really crazy, she's just a disturbed 25-year-old.

And then, when he asked her, "Well, you had other options; I mean, there was your parents and there was Mark Milke". There were others. We know Sandra Pickenpaugh offered to have guardianship papers signed more than once. We now know that Dorothy Markwell agreed to take the child. But she would have nothing to do with those options, and so what she told him was, "Well, I guess I made a bad judgment call".

And then, having told all of these things to Detective Saldate, she says, "Well, I have never really been able to speak with anyone else before, and now that I have told you all this, this may seem strange, but I'm getting my self-esteem back", which is typical of the rationalization you saw occur that was most important to Debra Milke, and in her view of herself and social setting, so that her concern was less than her child was killed, which she knew all along, but that "What am I going to do without probation, am I going to be able to go back to my job, surely I will be able to go back to my work right away". And that gives you an indication of what was important to her.

Comment: LEVY was certainly correct by suggesting that this bizarre story told seems strange. Indeed, very strange! Debra allegedly needed to confess in order to get her self-esteem back, and then disputes this confession for more than fourteen years? How plausible is such a claim?

So she agreed, she encouraged others to have her child killed. The deception was Santa Claus. The plan was James Styers would take the child out to kill him and that then he would fabricate that he was a missing child at Metro Center.

Comment: Another ruthless and demonstrable lie. The story about 'Santa Claus' was nothing but a means to sensationalize this case in the media and to the jury members. In fact, ROGER SCOTT had related to DET. ROBERT MILLS: (...) Det. Mills: How about Friday's trip to the desert, what was he told then? Roger Scott: Well that one was about Santa Claus. Det. Mills: Santa Claus? Roger Scott: Yeah. (...) We learn: In Arizona Santa Claus walks through the desert!

The sequence of events I have already discussed, and we know the child was nearly 20 miles away in a wash at 99th Avenue and -- you can call it 99th Avenue and can call it Pleasant Lake Road (sic)‚ or whatever you want to call it, but 20 miles away from Metro Center where that body was found, and had nothing to do with Metro Center. And I have already discussed how he was killed, the type of bullets. I discussed all of these sequence of events I put up here on the chart.

Comment: ... and this website has certainly impressively disproven the prosecutor. But indeed, the clash between the fact of a murder in a desert area north of Phoenix, and the claim of taking little CHRISTOPHER to the Metro Center is what caused the confusion of many people about this case. But there is no coherence. Debra cannot have known about JIM'S plan to see SCOTT first, and only later to pick WENDY up and take both kids to the mall.

And the deception, with regard to Styers, by the way, was always maintained to the police that that child -- "I was in the bathroom, the child walked off". It turned out there was -- the testimony by Debra Milke was -- there was one little difference there. She said, "I talked to James Styers and he told me the boy was in the next stall". A small change perhaps. But the whole point was that it's a fabrication, in any event, because Styers says, "Well, when I got in the stall, he just wandered off". I mean, these little things can add up.

Comment: True, there is a lie here, a lie with a background story, because this was the scenario as concocted by JIM STYERS and ROGER SCOTT. JIM must have suggested to ROGER to go to the Metro Center and claim that the boy was missing there. ROGER would meanwhile kill some time and then go to the mall via public transportation. This scenario is depicted in the pertinent report of OFF. CRISWELL. But in fact, CHRISTOPHER MILKE had never been to the Metro Center. ROGER SCOTT then popped up there at around 2.30 p.m. What was the purpose for this? SCOTT showed up there because STYERS must have adjured his buddy to support the claim that both, JIM and CHRIS, had indeed been there at the mall. This was the only purpose of this setup and would've given STYERS an alibi. He would've never found a way to explain to Debra that he had disobeyed her order and wish not to have a gun in the presence of her son. In one of the jailhouse letters, STYERS told Debra on January 30th, 1990: "We where out there for awhile and I said it was time to go. Chris was right behind me Roger behind him. I thought the gun was in the car I said no shooting with Christopher along. But Roger had other plans." It's clear that JIM STYERS was eager to distance himself from the fact that he knew of the gun. But we strongly believe he lied about the gun. It's hard to picture in light of five to seven shots - not three, as Levy claimed - that STYERS had no knowledge about this point. And then he witnessed the murder, unforeseeable and committed by ROGER, and therefore he concluded that he also had to find a scenario to tell to Debra.

The fabrications in her application at John Alden, blanking out a whole period of her life. She goes from one insurance company to another. And the fabrication, for example, in the apartment. She does not indicate that she lived with Lisa Milke before James Styers, but goes all the way back to the apartment, Casa Serena Apartment where she lived when she was 19, early 19. And perhaps they are small things, but they do add up, such as the initial denial of the insurance policy.

Comment: ... and all the lies, shameless misrepresentations and falsehoods spread by this man ... same thing, and it certainly added up. But it shouldn't be denied that Debra was indeed caught with a lie pertaining to the places where she lived. But how heavy should this weight? Can you conclude from such a intentional inaccuracy to the failure of a character in regard to murder? We feel that's a little off the wall.

And she didn't know one kind from another, and she works for insurance companies. Until finally she admits, "Well, yes, it was a separate policy and I intentionally bought a policy of $5,000 for the child".

Comment: Again, Debra never owned a policy. It was the application to a group-plan. And besides, this is still a completely different scenario as narrated by DET. SALDATE with his fraudulent report.

But these kinds of fabrications, though they are small, can also link up with fabrications that are more great overlays that you can see, such as denials by Debra Milke with regard to the confession. "Well, yes, I said this and I said this, but no, I didn't say that, I didn't say that, I didn't say that". And that's with the inculpatory parts, the parts that indicated her guilt, her complicity in the conspiracy of the murder of her child. A convenient selection.

Comment: On the note of 'convenient selection', SALDATE'S report about his interview with Debra's younger sister, SANDRA PICKINPAUGH, comes to mind. The analysis reveals 19 [i.w.: nineteen!] hardcore discrepancies on only four pages, which shows how credible any claim of the former Phoenix police detective is. On the tape of that interview e.g. we can hear SANDY describe herself as being 'rebellious' and 'independent', which yielded this reproduction of SALDATE: "SANDRA SAID THAT SHE WAS HER MAIN TARGET DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE AS SANDRA DESCRIBED HERSELF, SHE WAS EASY." How likely is it, in light of these discrepancies, to assume anything the cop/prosecutor conspiracy claimed was anywhere near the truth?

But the most telling statement that Debra Milke stated on direct response to her own attorney's question about whether that report by Detective Saldate, which she had read, was accurate or not, was, "Well, I agreed with the content, but not the context" The content of that report was her confession of the conspiracy to have her son killed. She knew the child would be killed by James Styers.

Comment: No, no, no ... this is neither what was said, nor what the statement meant. It was Debra's confirmation that she and DET. SALDATE had indeed talked about several issues which were later contained in the fraudulent report, which also includes the so-called 'confession'. As pointed out in the previous paragraph, SALDATE'S street-smart pattern was to talk to a person, get some information, and then use it by conveniently slipping his own fabrications, twisted statements and manipulations in. This way the interviewed person will recognized the rendered statements and maybe even agree with the manipulated report. E.g., this was the case with the report about the interview of SANDY, which she later confirmed to be true. But the fact remains, the report contains 19 hardcore discrepancies! SALDATE once again achieved the manipulation he was after.

That's far different than the mere context. In a situation where she claimed that she asked for an attorney after her rights were read - one of the rights being you have the right to an attorney - and in the context that she doesn't understand her rights, that gives you same clue as to whether there was fabrication here that you heard from Debra Milke, the Defendant, in this case, compared to all of the other witnesses, who had no reason to fabricate.

The elements the State must prove. I will try to keep this in the five minutes that I -- everyone expects.

Premeditation. Basically, the death was caused, intended. She intended or knew she would cause the death. Or premeditation simply means long enough. It's built into the definition that will be given to you. And basically it's long enough here, or there is a long time, I have got to deal with premeditation. And this may be proven by circumstantial evidence. And it is premeditation that distinguishes the crime of first degree murder. Premeditation.

I will tell you now -- I have already told the Court-as distinguished from opening argument, that I have eliminated felony murder. Because, agreeably, she was not at the site of the murder. So I have eliminated felony murder, which means while committing kidnapping or child abuse, in the course of committing kidnapping or child abuse, a death results. I have decided I will put it to the litmus, ultimate test, whether or not there was first degree murder, period; premeditated murder, period. Count II is conspiracy. It's with -- agreed with one or more persons to have her son killed or intentionally promote or assist in the commission of the first degree murder. The scope of proof of conspiracy is that there is no requirement to show an express agreement. It is not -- all that is necessary is to prove elements 1 and 2. You may infer it from the circumstances and the common intent of the parties.

Liability for a co-conspirator's act. She doesn't have to be at the scene of the murder. Once the State has proven 1 and 2 in conspiracy, then a conspirator is liable for all of the criminal acts committed by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

So she initiated the conspiracy to commit murder. She set it in motion. She didn't have to be at the scene of the murder, the scene of the child abuse, the scene of the kidnapping, if she knew all of this would take place.

Knowledge and conspiracy. The correlation is that a conspirator need not have full knowledge of the details of the conspiracy. In other words, every little detail, like will it end up at 99th Avenue in the wash, or will it end up at 93rd Avenue and Union Hills, or whatever. Need not have full knowledge of each and every detail, such as will .22 CCI Stingers be used or Remington .22 long-rifle.

Comment: This is also interesting. And who determines how to distinguish whether 'knowledge' existed? NOEL LEVY himself? Throughout the closing argument, LEVY repeatedly emphasized how Debra supposedly didn't want to know how her son was going to be killed, but here all of a sudden 'need not have full knowledge' is sufficient. But then, where is the evidence for this knowledge? Where is the witness who testifies to that, the handwritten note which confirms this claim, or the circumstance which undisputedly points to this knowledge? There is none.

The conspirator must have knowingly participated in the plan to have Chris Milke murdered with the intent to promote the crime, the crime admitted in the confession. And the conspiracy stands with all of the other evidence, including the physical evidence of the corpus delicti, the body of the child found in the wash, the gun, the bullets, the shoe prints, bullets in the car, and the casing and bullets on Union Hills Drive. In determining the conspiracy, consider the actions and statements of all of the alleged participants.

Comment: By saying this, LEVY certainly didn't mean STYERS repeated statement that Debra had nothing to do with the crime. Or did he mean the statement of SCOTT'S co-inmate ROBETER E. JOHNSON, who told an Attorney's Office investigator that SCOTT had confessed to him? Or the statement of Debra's own mother, who was never asked to testify at trial? Or does he mean something like the statement which SALDATE was asked for by a TV team on May 2, 2001, but the ex-cop would instantly end the interview and bounce them out of his home? What does he have to hide?

If you conclude a conspiracy was committed, then you must next determine whether the Defendant, Debra Milke, knowingly became a member of the conspiracy. Well, she initiated it.

Count III, child abuse and dangerous crime against children. The elements are that the Defendant acted under circumstances likely to cause death, that she caused Christopher Milke, a child under 15 years of age, to suffer physical injury - in other words, death - that she knew he would die, be killed, and that she acted either intentionally or knowingly. She intended that he die and knew he would be taken out and killed that particular day.

Count IV, kidnapping and dangerous crime against children. The Defendant knowingly restrained the movements of a child under 15 years of age. Remember, accomplice liability statutes apply. Restraining with intimidation or deception - Santa Claus - which substantially interfered with the child's movements, and by moving the child from place to place, and that the restriction was with the intent to inflict death or physical injury.

Comment: Santa Claus? Did LEVY mean the Santa Claus which CHRISTOPHER was supposedly meeting in the desert, according to SCOTT'S disjointed ramblings [see above]?

She even allowed Styers to use her own car to do this.

Comment: By making certain coherences sound as if they are already a fact, listeners may assume that they are indeed proven. But again, up to this day there are more questions about the contradicting details of the case, than anything else. Of course Debra allowed STYERS to use the car, because it was CHRISTOPHER who begged JIM to take him to the Metro Center, so he could see Santa Claus again, whom the little boy had seen there on the previous day.

An accomplice is one who either solicits or commands another to commit the offense, or aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the offense, or provides the means or opportunity to commit the offense.

Now, the Defendant may be guilty of an offense committed either by her own conduct or the conduct of another who is criminally accountable. Here, James Styers; here, Roger Scott. Debra Milke is criminally accountable for the conduct of another person if that person is an accomplice of others in the commission of first degree murder. Here she knew James Styers and Roger Scott were taking her son to kill him.

Dangerous offense, as alleged in some of these counts, is applicable. It means the use of a gun, which is a deadly weapon. And here, again, as I have already discussed, Christopher Milke, on the time and date in question, December 2, 1989, was murdered by shots, three of them, to the back of the head, with .22 bullets, I submit, .22 Stinger CCI bullets.

Lastly -- I'm over my time, Your Honor. I thank you. I appreciate it.

I submit that the motives are -- of Debra Milke, are these. Now, while the State doesn't really have to prove motive, it still applies to a fellow's common sense to note whether there it is some motive here. Like I say, no motive on the part of James Styers, none on the part of Roger Scott, but rather motive on the part of Debra Milke, I submit, was the dislike she had for her ex-husband, Mark Milke. I submit that she was denied the option of the custody of the ex-husband. She considered moving the custody to him, talked it over with Richard Sadeik. Richard didn't talk to her for three months after that anymore until his birthday and subsequently at Thanksgiving. So she was denied that option. She then was unable to shift the custody to the sister or others, as with Dorothy Markwell, because Mark Milke maybe would then say she was unfit, and she wasn't able to give guardianship to her sister, Sandra Pickenpaugh, so she couldn't move that child to someone else because of Mark Milke, so her options became less and less.

Furthermore, to underscore all of it, she had no mother-child bond and was unable to cope with the child during the months she was up in Colorado with Dorothy Markwell, where Dorothy Markwell took care of the child a lot. And we know by her own statements and the statements of others, she continued to hate Mark Milke and was unable to take care of the child, and it just got worse because he got older and, therefore, she decided, because she hated Mark Milke more than she loved her child, that she -- she decided, Debra's choice-- Debra's choice was to have her son murdered.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I haven't taken the time to show you exhibits or pictures or this or that, and preliminary remarks are over for my initial comments to you. My comments are verbal. My comments are to assist you to analyze the evidence consistent with the law to determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt by these facts and this evidence, in accordance with the elements of the law that I have shared with you here, and you will certainly again hear from the Judge during the instructions, and you will be so formally instructed, that Debra Milke, beyond a reasonable doubt, did want her son dead, arranged to have Jim Styers kill her son, take him out, knowing that would occur, to take him out in her car, knowing he would be taken some place to be killed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that, based upon this evidence, that Debra prejudged her four-year-old son, that she is guilty of each and every count, and of those counts, first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, child abuse and kidnapping, that those counts with the instruction indicating whether they are dangerous offenses because of the use of the gun, that it is also a dangerous offense. And I ask you, now that you have been privy to all of the dark, horrible secrets, and the chilling fact is that child was let out the door on December 2, 1989, from her apartment, and Debra Milke knew he would be killed, and the chilling fact that the child was in a wash, that he was simply walking along with his little boots and little sweatshirt, and suddenly his life ended with three shots to the back of his head, the chilling fact that this all occurred -- you now know the reasons. You know of the aspect of people who are very close to Debra Milke and could share and describe to you what the truth was in this case. You decide the truth. And I ask you to return a guilty verdict on each and every count. I ask you to do that in the name of justice.

Thank you, Your Honor.