A MOTHER'S APPEAL

Since February of this year, I have spent four months reading through all the court records, trial transcripts, police reports, literally every shred of official documentation. I wanted to educate myself as to what took place and who said what at which time. The documents of all three cases are bound into twenty volumes and are not separated to each individual's case. Nevertheless, friends and I took the time to read it all. I have talked to numerous people, directly or indirectly involved with Debbie's case. I have followed leads of my own with people I knew from the past and those who knew Debbie and her life. I have accessed any archive I came across. I was appalled by my own findings and the negligence of Debbie's former defense counsel, as well as what this state was capable of and willing to do.

What was WRONG when a young mother, who trusted her friend, was in total denial at first to believe the story told to her that the JIM STYERS 'she knew' could not possibly have had any hand in killing her son ?
(note : in fact, as our synopsis uncovering the tactic of Phoenix police about December 3rd, 1989 shows, it's very questionable whether a pre-planning in the murder case of Christopher existed at all, or that STYERS' had any part in it)

What was WRONG for a young mother to dig her heels in and become tough and determined to forge a life for herself and her son and pursue a career which would enable her to do so and to get out from under the "environmental morass" she has been exposed to ?

What was WRONG to make arrangements with her sister to take care of the two children, when Debbie was the only one working, sometimes two jobs at a time, to make ends meet for all of them including her sister and her sister's child ?

What was WRONG with the statement that "I did not want my child to grow up to be like his father" (THE REASON SHE DIVORCED MARK MILKE), when all she had experienced, even after the divorce, was that her ex-husband was beyond reason at the time ? She did not take this step lightly, because she loved MARK MILKE. Her only and foremost concern was to extricate her son from a drug environment. MARK MILKE had made many efforts and promises to become "clean," but in those days he had not been able to manage it.

What gave this policeman (or any other) the right to take this sentence (or any other) out of context and leak it to the media in a totally distorted way ?

The murder of my grandson, Christopher, just before Christmas, outraged the nation, it outraged our family, too. But what outrages me most, is that NOBODY ever took a step to look behind the scenes or follow up any other lead in this crime. For Armando Saldate, it was his "last hurrah," because he retired from the police force with an "ironclad" case and got elected to be Constable. He claims that he has children and a family that he would do anything to protect from harm.

I would like everyone to look closely at the events surrounding my daughter's arrest, her trial, and her state appeals process. The tactics employed by the police and the courts have put my daughter on death row. There is no physical or any other real substantiation to the charges brought forth against Debbie.

Many citizens are gravely concerned about the fact that family members have testified against Debbie in such a devastating manner. The answer to these by all means valid questions can only be found in the love/hate dynamics of this family and its social history. Nobody knows them better than I do, but I would like to refrain from going deeper into this scenario at this particular time. It is too painful. Neither Debbie's father, RICHARD SADEIK and his family, nor her sister, SANDY PICKINPAUGH and her family, as well as Debbie's former friend, DOROTHY MARKWELL, were living close by or had any first-hand knowledge of her actual life and plans in those crucial days. Those who knew her best in those days did NOT crucify or even implicate her. Therefore, the testimony of the above-mentioned three people can only be regarded as plain hearsay and were founded on mere speculations AFTER the murder took place.

One of the more serious aspects in Debbie's trial are the egregious errors committed on the part of Debbie's public defender, KENNETH RAY, who allowed the State to put into evidence a tape-recording which SANDY made on the advice of her father during Detective Saldate's visit to her in Wyoming. SANDY was instructed by her father to mail this tape to him. During SANDY'S testimony, this tape became an issue of discussion. Defense Counsel either did not listen to the tape in its entirety or else he was given a damaged copy with gaps in it. Fact is that he did not object this tape to be introduced by prosecutor NOEL LEVY as Exhibit No. 145, thereby making it evidence. However, the tape was never played in open court and the jury had no knowledge of its contents. By the time SANDY'S testimony was concluded only the State knew about the contents of the original tape recording. According to press sources (who are now in possession of the original tape), it contained evidence which - had it been listened to or taken seriously by defense counsel and played in open court - would have left ample room for the defense to object to inadmissible evidence based on pure hearsay. Defense counsel's negligence to evaluate the significance of this tape and to agree to have it admitted into evidence by the prosecution without objection was absolutely improper and prejudiced his client to the utmost. HE gave the State the case.

Furthermore, it is a fact that defense counsel called NO witnesses in Debbie's behalf, including myself, despite my many tries to contact him. I have also discovered that there would have been many available, who knew Debbie well and who, to this day, keep wondering why nobody contacted them. Court records show, for instance, that at least my husband and I were listed as witnesses for various pre-trial hearings, but were never contacted or informed that such hearings took place.

If a person's rights cannot be protected by legal counsel (regardless of his professional standings), if a person's rights can be violated by bypassing proper police procedures and prosecutorial politics occur in an attempt to quiet the populace, then we find ourselves in a damaged legal system. This system allows tactics of overwhelming individuals who haven't the resources to fight back. A trustworthy justice system depends on a good check and balance system and part of that is to see that our state and local laws protect its citizens from such abuses by law endorsement agencies and officials, who we vote into office, but who choose to violate that trust. It is almost impossible not to come to the conclusion that my daughter Debbie is being sacrificed officially and publicly for a heinous crime she had nothing to do with. It would be detrimental to have to admit to another judicial error after the many that have occurred already in this state in recent years. Admittance to miscarriage of justice by one or several participants in the outcome of this controversial case is not popular anywhere, but in a high profile case as this one it means votes, careers, and personal ambitions to those who are in power to rule over life and death of an individual.

Nothing in this world can bring back what has been lost for Debbie : her only child, her young years, her possible career, or anything that a normal young adult dreams of. Debbie also lost the opportunity to share the final days of many of her loved ones : her maternal grandparents; her paternal grandmother; Christopher's grandmother, ILSE MILKE; and especially hard for Debbie was to be unable to share the final days of her father, RICHARD SADEIK, who passed away last March. This state has publicly proclaimed to eradicate the life of Debbie Milke and yet, I wonder, how many Arizonans have bothered to ask to learn the truth.

Thousands of people, here and abroad, have become very concerned as to how our police tactics and prosecutors work. According to Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, I quote Mr. Pat Bane : "Trials are like games; the attorney who makes the best move wins and the other side loses. Wins often translate into votes and advanced careers. Our court system rewards the winners and punishes the losers, making no effort to understand or break the cycle of cause and effect that perpetuates a crime. Our mass media has immense potential to effect positive change. Instead the media too often appeal to our basest instincts, entertaining us with the prurient details of brutal crimes and trivialize human suffering."

I have studied all the legal details and I am SCARED.