• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debra Milke conviction overturned

The problem here is that effectively the questionable testimony took the life of the convicted person. Such should be treated a lot like aggravated murder.
 
Here's a 2002 episode of American Justice with background on the case and the trial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TlHgijafSM

Milke's father and sister turned against her in a big way, but they didn't have any knowledge of what happened. It was just character assassination.

I love how the kid's father, an alcoholic and drug addict who was in and out of jail the whole time the kid was alive, is sure the verdict is right on. Not that he has any really knows what happened, either.

Two key points:

- Roger Scott accused Milke when he confessed, but he later refused to testify against her in exchange for a plea deal. He didn't know her well. No way he'd have done that if she commissioned the murder, and I'm surprised a guy like that didn't take the deal anyway. The other guy, Styers, wouldn't testify against her either.

- The defense asked for the police detective's personnel file, and the judge turned them down. Now we know why. (This judge was later pulled off criminal cases, and in a state like Arizona, that really says something.)

Here's a more recent clip about the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn4_zUMtL5o

Here's a call to action in the Daily KOS:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...turning-of-Debra-Milke-s-wrongful-conviction#

They provide a contact for the Arizona AG. Valentine's Day was a month ago, but it's never too late to tell someone how you feel. I did, and it felt good.
 
Draca said:
Debra Milke conviction overturned after 22 years on Arizona Death Row.

Brady bill violated by undisclosed history of misconduct of officer Armando Saldate.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-womans-death-sentence-thrown-22-years-death/story?id=18732077


Here's the Court of Appeals judgement:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001 web - corrected.pdf


I like this part :D:

"The Phoenix Police Department and Saldate’s
supervisors there should be ashamed of having given free rein
to a lawless cop to misbehave again and again, undermining
the integrity of the system of justice they were sworn to
uphold. As should the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office,
which continued to prosecute Saldate’s cases without
bothering to disclose his pattern of misconduct."
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but they violated the Brady rule of evidence:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

Not the Brady bill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
 
The Duck Test

Caper said:
Does anyone think she is guilty? I don't. But it does seem a bit weird. Two friends just decide to shoot a kid in the head. It almost makes more sense with her involved.... Though not much more.
Click to expand...

Of course she's guilty.

And couldn't agree less with your "though not much more" comment. The profoundly despicable murder of that dear little 4yo boy makes no sense whats'ever without the mother's complicity. And perfectly wicked sense with it.

At least she hasn't, no matter what transpires from here, gotten away scot-free. Which she very likely could have, had she been only slightly more cunning than she actually is.
.
.
 
lane99 said:
Of course she's guilty.

And couldn't agree less with your "though not much more" comment. The profoundly despicable murder of that dear little 4yo boy makes no sense whats'ever without the mother's complicity. And perfectly wicked sense with it.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose her co-conspirators refused to testify against her and lay out the details of her supposed complicity? They had nothing to lose and much to gain by doing so.
 
That's one talking point down

Firstly, the underlying assumptions in your question are flawed and inaccurate. And we can deal with that in a moment.

Secondly, even if the question was completely valid in conception, what's your point? Are you implying they must not have testified against her because she really wasn't involved, and these guys were cut from such honourable and noble cloth they couldn't see their way clear to lying about it even if that would save their own necks? Really?? The same two heroes that had just tricked a 4yo boy into the desert and put a couple bullets into the back of his head? Well, if that makes sense to you, so be it. I doubt it'll make sense to anyone looking at this in the cold hard light of day.

Reality check. If you were correct (which you're not) that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by testifying against her, they would have done so. Whether she was actually involved or not!

Now, let's get back to the original problem with your question. The reason you can't figure out why neither of her two co-conspirators were willing to testify is you don't have a good grasp on the circumstances that prevailed. In short, your assertion that they had nothing to lose is completely wrong. They potentially had plenty to lose at the time if they had agreed to testify against her. And that's surely why they didn't.
.
.
 
Last edited:
lane99 said:
Firstly, the underlying assumptions in your question are flawed and inaccurate. And we can deal with that in a moment.

Secondly, even if the question was completely valid in conception, what's your point? Are you implying they must not have testified against her because she really wasn't involved, and these guys were cut from such honourable and noble cloth they couldn't see their way clear to lying about it even if that would save their own necks? Really?? The same two heroes that had just tricked a 4yo boy into the desert and put a couple bullets into the back of his head? Well, if that makes sense to you, so be it. I doubt it'll make sense to anyone looking at this in the cold hard light of day.

Reality check. If you were correct (which you're not) that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by testifying against her, they would have done so. Whether she was actually involved or not!

Now, let's get back to the original problem with your question. The reason you can't figure out why neither of her two co-conspirators were willing to testify is you don't have a good grasp on the circumstances that prevailed. In short, your assertion that they had nothing to lose is completely wrong. They potentially had plenty to lose at the time if they had agreed to testify against her. And that's surely why they didn't.
.
.
Click to expand...

According to everything I have read, Roger Scott, who initially accused Milke of being involved, was offered a plea bargain to tell that story in court, and he refused. He admitted being involved in the murder, and he is on death row himself, so I'm not sure what you think he had to lose by taking the deal.

Styers wouldn't testify against her because his story is that Scott shot the kid on the spur of the moment.
 
The willingness of some folks to throw away lives is appalling. More I can not say.
 
casebro said:
Mistrial? Possible retrial? Or out and out innocent?
Click to expand...

There's no way to prove she's innocent, because the allegation involves a verbal contract, but the case against her is based purely on unreliable testimony, as follows:

- One of the two men who killed this kid (Roger Scott) confessed. In his initial statement, he said Milke asked him and his accomplice to commit the murder in exchange for a share in a $5k life insurance policy. But he refused a plea bargain to testify against her at her trial, and he is on death row. I can't imagine why he would refuse to testify if she really was involved.

- A police detective, having heard Scott's accusation, got Milke alone for an hour, and came out of that interview with the claim that she had confessed, but he didn't get her to sign anything, and the interview was not recorded. This police detective has a history of serious misconduct in other cases, and this was not revealed to Milke's defense at the time of the trial.
 
I don't handle face to face confrontational circumstances well, so in an hour, a shady detective could get me to confess to killing Kennedy. I was 8 yo and living in Japan at the time, but damnit, I'd confess just make it stop!
 
lane99 said:
The profoundly despicable murder of that dear little 4yo boy makes no sense whats'ever without the mother's complicity. And perfectly wicked sense with it.
Click to expand...


QUE?! Bad men killing children makes no sense unless the children's mother directs it?! Can you possibly be serious? This happens all the time. The real unlikelihood and rarity would be for a mother to request men to kill her child.

Something that in this case there is no evidence of, but only the claim of a confession by a proven corrupt officer.
 
I've just started reading this thread, and the opinion of the USDC is awesome, especially this one.


US DC said:
Saldate’s supervisor asked him to record Milke’s
interrogation, yet Saldate didn’t even take a tape recorder
with him. When he arrived in Florence, Arizona, where
Milke was waiting for him, he didn’t obtain a recorder there
either, even though he knew they were readily available.
Saldate claims that Milke refused to have the conversation
recorded, but admits that he “basically didn’t want to record
it anyway.” And why not? Because “a tape recorder is an
obstacle for [him] to get to the truth” and so “it’s [his] practice never to use a tape recorder.” Of course, being left with no recording is an obstacle for us to get to the truth, but Saldate tells us not to worry: “[The] conversation was going
to be noted by me in a truthful manner, so there was really no
need for tape recording.” Right.
Click to expand...
My bolding. What a slapdown.
 
Speaka da English?

Draca said:
QUE?! Bad men killing children makes no sense unless the children's mother directs it?! Can you possibly be serious? This happens all the time...
Click to expand...

"Que", indeed. I said we can't make sense of THIS murder without the mother being at the nexus of it.

If you claim there's a alternative that makes more sense than Debra Milke being a puppetmaster who used a couple of simpleminded patsies to do her dirtywork, then let's hear it. What's your explanation for why the two big bad men marched this 4 y.o. boy into the desert and executed him?
.
.
 
lane99 said:
"Que", indeed. I said we can't make sense of THIS murder without the mother being at the nexus of it.

If you claim there's a alternative that makes more sense than Debra Milke being a puppetmaster who used a couple of simpleminded patsies to do her dirtywork, then let's hear it. What's your explanation for why the two big bad men marched this 4 y.o. boy into the desert and executed him?
.
.
Click to expand...

Styers was a mental case who had the hots for Milke. She had just paid the deposit on an apt. and was about to walk out of his life. He may have reasoned that he could eliminate the kid and then be in a position to comfort Milke in her distress and fill the void in her life. That makes as much sense as the guy in Maine who abducted his crush with the idea that he would then rescue her and be a hero, but ended up killing her...

http://www.ktvn.com/story/22452337/police-maine-man-staged-kidnap-that-killed-girl

You can convince yourself that your theory makes sense. But a theory is not evidence, and in this case, the evidence reeks. Why would Milke tell a fat, corrupt police detective a completely different story than what she has told everyone else? And why did Roger Scott, who initially accused her, refuse to testify against her in exchange for a plea agreement? You say he had something to lose. What did he have to lose? He is now on death row.
 
lane99 said:
"Que", indeed. I said we can't make sense of THIS murder without the mother being at the nexus of it.

If you claim there's a alternative that makes more sense than Debra Milke being a puppetmaster who used a couple of simpleminded patsies to do her dirtywork, then let's hear it. What's your explanation for why the two big bad men marched this 4 y.o. boy into the desert and executed him?
.
.
Click to expand...


Here's a clue:
At first glance, Styers is the exact opposite of Mark -- inconspicuous, reticent, almost shy. He attends church regularly, studies the bible and takes care of the neighbors' children as well as a daughter from his first marriage. Slowly Debbie recognizes that her solicitous new roommate is a sick psychopath haunted by terrible ghosts.

As a Vietnam soldier, Styers took part in massacring civilians, including women and children. He once shot an eight-year-old, unarmed Vietnamese boy who was trying to climb onto the bed of his military truck. "Self-defense" was how he justified the killing before a military commission. These victims won't leave Styers alone. After his discharge from the army, he has nightmares. He incurs serious head injuries from a fall and must receive regular medical treatment. He is given lithium and navane. According to tests, he has an IQ of 84, well below average.

Debbie's living arrangement with Styers becomes a nightmare for her. She discovers weapons and ammunition under tables and in closets. She must put up with Styers' friend, Roger Scott, a sick junkie who suffers from paranoid delusions. Scott is as devoted to the Vietnam veteran as a loyal dog. He sees Styers as the great "Alpha Wolf." Sensing that Styers not only wants to share the apartment with her, but her bed as well, Debbie secretly rents a second apartment. Once she signs the lease, she tells Styers she is moving out. It's Thanksgiving.

For Styers, a world collapses. No one knows what this Vietnam vet, who conceals his demons behind a pious facade, really feels for Debbie. Is he a man like Sadeik or Mark Milke who cannot accept a separation? Is he hoping she will stay with him if he destroys the last tie to her ex-husband?

On death row, the child killer unburdens his heart. In a letter to Debbie at Perryville Prison, he confesses his love for her and quotes the Bible, Psalm 51: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest."

http://justicedenied.org/debramilke.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Styers was a mental case who had the hots for Milke. She had just paid the deposit on an apt. and was about to walk out of his life. He may have reasoned that he could eliminate the kid and then be in a position to comfort Milke in her distress and fill the void in her life. That makes as much sense as the guy in Maine who abducted his crush with the idea that he would then rescue her and be a hero, but ended up killing her...

http://www.ktvn.com/story/22452337/police-maine-man-staged-kidnap-that-killed-girl...
Click to expand...

Granted your grim fairy tale makes as much sense as events (if you've described what is found in your attached link accurately) which don't make any sense at all. But, so what.

Obviously the relevant question is how much sense does it make compared to the alternative scenario which places Debra Milke at the center of the murder conspiracy to kill her son. And on that score, your fantasy is a dismal failure, and does not reconcile any of the known circumstances of this case.

It should be very telling to the reader that- even given completely free rein, and an utterly blank slate to imagine a scenario which does not implicate Debra Milke- you are simply unable to conceive of anything that holds together from a logical, rational and common sense perspective, and can not come up with something that keeps Debra Milke as merely an innocent bystander until you travel through the looking glass.


Charlie Wilkes said:
...Why would Milke tell a fat, corrupt police detective a completely different story than what she has told everyone else?...
Click to expand...

Well, if she told the police officer that she was involved, then then reason she told everyone else a different one quite likely is she thought better of it. Happens everyday. People are backed into a corner, and in trying to talk their way out of it, say something they have a hard time living down.

But, with regards the totality of your question, I am confused. And have no idea why you think that he was overweight has some bearing on this.


Charlie Wilkes said:
...why did Roger Scott, who initially accused her, refuse to testify against her in exchange for a plea agreement?...
Click to expand...

You're repeating yourself. And haven't yet explained the relevance of this question, and the point you're trying to make with it.

As I explained in an earlier post, if you're implying we can draw some inference from this regarding Milke's guilt or innocence, then you are wrong.
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom