County prosecutor Noel Levy'sclosing argument

or: how do I invent a story andorchestrate a case

which never happened like this?or: "She went out with men!"

Translate this page into SpanishTranslate this page into FrenchTranslate this page into Germanusing FreeTranslation.com

While Debra Milke case is pending and the convicted woman is going into the fifteenth year ofunjust incarceration, we took a look at other legal documents of Debra's file. None of the facts of TheDebra Milke Case should be a secret to anyone, as it is a perfect example for an extremely biasedand depraved system. However, many visitors of this website have asked us, how the jury could reacha guilty verdict at all. To shine some light on this issue, we publish county prosecutor NOEL LEVY'Sclosing argument here. Its analysis will not only depict to anyone how the prosecutor - obviouslyintentionally - created an untrue scenario of how the murder of CHRISTOPHER MILKE took place, butalso how he twisted and invented facts in order to orchestrate a purported conspiracy, which - lookingat the true facts - plainly didn't exits. The analysis will also show how he - again - manipulated factsthroughout this closing argument which were initially substantiated throughout the trial. But here theywere told in a falsified manner. Our comments will point out how the prosecutor used commonpsychological practice to convince the jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but how he also managed tocover the reality of the case against Debra Milke completely. In the end, we will have to admit thatjuries aren't always perfect, prosecutors aren't always truthful, and media pre-sentencing can have itshorrible effect on a high profile case. We will see here that it's possible for a capable prosecutor to besuccessful with his claims, if he's able to paint in a halfway coherent story. Here lies the core problemof 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 deathsentences, instead of only one.

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (1 of 23)

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 totake about 45 minutes. The State, because it must prove the case beyond areasonable doubt, is able to speak with you both now and -- initially and, should thedefense wish to give its closing argument, then after that. And the purpose and reasonis 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 defenseclosing argument.

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

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

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

Now, in analyzing this case -- and I will say to you that in order to get through myclosing remarks, I may or may not really have time to show you the graphs and chartsand 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'sthe confession of Debra Milke. Now, with a given of the confession of Debra Milke toDetective Saldate in the early evening hours of December 3, 1989, were the factsDebra Milke shared with Detective Saldate that night in her confession, were theycorroborated by the other facts independently investigated by the police and by all ofthe other testimonial evidence that came in.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (2 of 23)

Comment: Here, LEVY admitted himself that the State's case rests solely on theuncorroborated, unsigned, not-witnessed so-called 'confession' of Debra. Aconfession which she denied since December 8th, 1989, the day that she first readDET. SALDATE'S account. This account includes the invented claim that she knewJIM STYERS was going to kill her son, 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER. The true evidence indeedshows that this confession cannot be the crucial point of the case, because DET.HAMRICK related to Debra's acquaintance JANET FROEBE - yet before SALDATEand 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 ofCHRISTOPHER (...)." SALDATE, on the other hand, stated under oath and on thestand that he did not have it in mind to arrest Debra when he went to Florence. It isalso corroborated that SALDATE hadn't spoken to anyone before he entered the PinalCounty's Sheriff's Office, where Debra and JANET were waiting for him to arrive. Thisproves, without a doubt, that police solely relied on the story previously fed bySCOTT, changed and twisted various times. A story, which he obviously told solely inorder to cover his own, major involvement in the murder. No other interpretation ofthese 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, nowage four, would grow up to be like Mark Milke. She described Mark Milke as analcoholic and a drug abuser and she in effect hated him.

Comment: "... in effect she hated him." ... which is what LEVY wanted the jury tobelieve. In fact, SALDATE'S police report doesn't mention the word 'hate' once. Theinitial report solely states: "After their marriage, she said that MARK was constantlyputting her down, telling her that she was no good and would never amount toanything. She said MARK continued to drink constantly during their marriage and touse drugs." Also, on the stand Debra never testified or confirmed that she hatedMARK, and so LEVY'S statement is clearly a fabrication. It's clear that the prosecutorhad the 'hate'-motive in mind in order to fabricate the scenario he wanted the jury tobelieve. 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 thiscase is your common sense. You do not come to the jury box without your own life'sexperiences, and you have some common knowledge called common sense of whatgoes an in the world and in your own community.

Comment: An interesting approach, considering the psychological effect. Tochallenge 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 majorityof those he will find that 'common sense' prevails. There is an implied element ofcomplacency, which will help to carry out the manipulation this way. But the truequestion remains, where was LEVY'S 'common sense' about the fact that police nevertested the many inconsistencies in SCOTT'S story? Why did LEVY hide his knowledgeabout the account of SCOTT'S co-inmate ROBERT E. JOHNSON. Where was 'commonsense' about the fact that at least three local witnesses stated that they heard five toseven, 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 againstDebra], but who ultimately refused the deal?

Now, Christopher Milke was four years old and he had a lot of visitation with his fatherand Debra Milke had had a lot of trouble with Mark Milke. That's why she got a divorcefrom him, which was effectively final in October of 1988. She even said in her affidavitin 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 sameDissolution, same thing, that he abused her and that he was an alcoholic and drugabuser and that she is afraid of him. And even then, in October, she - in the fall of1988, and she testified in January of '89, when she indicated to you that she changedher testimony from the facts she gave to the police, she originally alleged just how badhe was.

Now, you take that as a given. I don't think there is any dispute in all of her testimonyit'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.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (3 of 23)

Comment: What was in relation to her son? It's true, MARK admitted himself that heabused drugs and alcohol, and he went to jail for that several times. Debra madeevery attempt to decently secure her son from his father's abusive behavior, but shealso didn't want to withhold CHRIS from a stable relationship with MARK. It wascertainly a difficult situation for a young mother to decide for 'the right thing'. Buthere LEVY misused exactly this situation as the foundation for a motive, which willsurface 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. Herendeavors 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 shesays that, "Well, there was nothing wrong with him when I first met him", that'ssubject 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 andthis and that, and this was after she marries him. And she used birth control beforeand 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 toldDetective Saldate and admitted on the stand she told him, and that she was not agood mother, she never would be a good mother.

Comment: Again, LEVY told the jury an untrue story. Debra consistently related theprogression of her relationship with MARK. On the stand she testified that she wasn'taware of his drug and alcohol abuse prior to marrying him. It was sometime after themarriage she found out about it. It is documented in great detail how she even triedto help and support MARK, so that he would have the chance to overcome hisaddiction. She accompanied her husband to drug counseling AT various times. Debrarelated all these facts on the stand. However, LEVY knowingly misrepresented herstatements, reproducing them to the jury members in a twisted fashion. This tactic isvery 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 childkilled later on? Hardly. The remark "least of all Chris" - completely made up andadded conveniently - is again a good example how tainting people works. This wasnothing 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'tstand Mark. She doesn't want him to have any visitation or custody. And while the lawallowed him same, it was very limited.

Comment: Poor MARK, limited visitation rights! But LEVY kept quiet aboutthe fact that CHRIS' father was ruthless enough to take the 4 y.o. boy to a crackhouse. 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; thenI had a change of heart, there was a crack house incident", so forth. So she narrowedthat down. It's only going to be a few hours once a week. A few hours, one to threehours at her discretion. And that's the kind of mother she -- the evidence indicated shewas.

Comment: Where's LEVY'S 'common sense' here? MR. LIBBON, representing attorneyof Debra throughout the custody process, related under oath that Debra "... hadnoticed needle marks on his arm and had been told by her sister that her son mayhave 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 toinsist 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 wrongbecomes right - and LEVY lacked truthfulness in his account to the jury. MR. LIBBONconfirmed upon cross-examination that Debra seemed 'very concerned for thewell-being of her son', and she was 'indeed willing to give MARK the chance to fatherthe child.' But no matter what she would've done, LEVY would've always found a wayto 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 shenarrowed his visitation with Chris. She talked about how bad he was.

She went up to Colorado. She saw Dorothy Markwell in Colorado. She was veryabusive to the child, both verbally and physically. It was there that she verbalized justhow much she hated Mark Milke by constantly talking about he was abusive, he was adrug addict and he was an alcoholic. But at the same time she abused ChristopherMilke. And he is growing to age four and he looks just like Mark Milke. You saw thepicture. I don't intend to show it to you again. And he looks just like Mark Milke. Andshe sees that child, and she just saw that child as Mark Milke, as growing up to be

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (4 of 23)

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! Howmany kids would be endangered with murder if every mother in an unstablerelationship wouldn't want her child anymore? How many kids would be in severedanger, just because they look like their fathers? Does this sound like 'commonsense'? 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 withDebra, and she had a hard time to correct her son during her stay in Colorado. Whatno one knew at the time was that CHRIS commenced having a serious thyroidproblem, which would later be solved through a surgery in Phoenix, AZ [December1988]. Even DOROTHY MARKWELL later stated that her testimony on the stand didn'timply 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 tograsp why the boy was so hard to handle. ILSE MILKE had confirmed that Debra wasin 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 shewas away from him, he was incarcerated in prison or jail, she continued to air herabusive ways with the child. And remember, there is no immediate threat from MarkMilke now. He is either in jail or in prison. She even presented to her attorney like shedidn't expect he would ever get out of jail or prison again. But she continued to beabusive toward the child because he is four years old and he is going to look -- healready looks like Mark Milke.

Comment: At this point we can observe how LEVY drew a coherence betweenMARK'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 reallyexisted or if it wasn't solely a means to create an untrue and unjust suspicion? Onlywhen we look at DET. SALDATE'S initial supplemental report about his interrogationof Debra we can see that this purported connection emerged there and ever since, itwas unceasingly repeated. But at the same time it should be addressed that NOELLEVY was demonstrably already in touch with SALDATE on the day that this report

was written. Interesting, huh? Other than that, no other facts support theassumption 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 '89he is four. And at four years old he is more hyperactive, as she described him, ahandful, as she described him, as difficult to handle, as she described him, and he is atan 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 stablehome. He was with his mother, both he and Debra lived in a place together withfriends and all his needs were taken care of. Other kids have more unstable homesand 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 beingpushed away, is being yelled at, being slapped, being thrown across the room.

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

The child is not going to become more calm. He is going to become perhaps morehyperactive. He is going to become more confused and dislocated with all thesemovements and these kinds of interactions with him and his mother, and for thatmatter, his father.

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

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (5 of 23)

Comment: Well, that's not how things truly went. When the divorce was about to bedecided Debra flew to Phoenix alone and on that day she was accompanied by JIMSTYERS, who witnessed MARK'S verbal threats toward Debra. She stayed in Phoenixfor three days and subsequently got back to Colorado, which happened in November1988. During that stay in Phoenix Debra's mother-in-law ILSE MILKE had offeredDebra 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 aboutthe thyroid problem of CHRIS. As the affidavit of DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN reveals, thetreating doctor witnessed that Debra "interacted well with the hospital staff" and"appeared to be well bonded to Christopher, and Christopher appeared to be wellbonded to his mother." Hardly the facts which LEVY wanted the jury members toknow.

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

Comment: The parents mentioned here were RICHRAD 'SAM' SADEIK and his thirdwife MAUREEN, who hardly saw Debra and their grandson at all. In fact, these peoplenever came to visit CHRISTOPHER and Debra in Phoenix. It was always Debra whohad 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 asingle one for a reciprocal visit. MAUREEN, on the other hand, was full of envy towardRICHARD SADEIK'S second wife, RENATE JANKA - Debra's natural mother. It's nosurprise that all of MAUREEN'S family - up to this day, actually - refusedenlightenment about any facts unearthed. In other words, that part of the familybasically doesn't care what really happened when 4 y.o. CHRISTOPHER MILKE waskilled. Debra's own mother, MRS. JANKA, related about Debra's relationship withERNIE that it was merely fun for both of them. MRS. JANKA was in Phoenix inSeptember 1989, hardly 1 1/2 months before the murder happened. Both youngpeople 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 notabout to take on the responsibilities of being a father to this kid. And thus, they did notget married.

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

Now the child has become an impediment between her and her ongoing futuresituation. Now, she has dated a lot. She dated in Loveland, she dated Ernie, she datedbefore Ernie. She liked men. And she particularly liked Ernie Sweat. And sheparticularly 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 hercomments about him.

Comment: Here we have another interesting detail. Please keep this in mind, thatLEVY remembered CARMEN SANTANA when it came to creating his own version of thestory. He will later conveniently skip parts of CARMEN'S testimony. Bottom line, it'sproven that Debra's fellow worker CARMEN was not an unknown person to theprosecutor.And again, Debra never hated MARK, but had to stay away from his abusive behaviorand 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 wasbecoming more and more of a burden.

Now, all of this time she has always moved in with people who would be able to haveassisted her with Christopher, whether it be Susie Stinson or Dorothy Markwell or IlsaMilke, the grandmother, or finally James Styers, the live-in male friend, there is alwayssomeone that's taking care of Christopher while she goes elsewhere. And she goeselsewhere a lot. She leaves Christopher Milke to be watched by others a lot. There is

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (6 of 23)

no mother-child bond there. She didn't want children. She didn't want Christopher. Shewasn't, by her own admission, a good mother.

Comment: Which mother would ever claim that she is 'perfect'? And that's preciselywhat Debra said, that she wasn't perfect. Common sense? But as shown with theDAVID KRONE case, LEVY is demonstrably guilty of sending another Defendantinnocently on death row. There is no doubt that his ruthlessness to do the same toDebra Milke again reached a peak here. Certainly not what the normal citizen woulddescribe 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 LEVYsuppress the opposite statement of DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN? ZUERLEIN had exactlytestified to the loving bond between the mother and her child and the same is trueabout Debra and JIM'S neighbors, the CIULLA'S and MURPHY'S. The most damagingstatements were mainly of family members who hadn't even been very close toCHRISTOPHER and Debra at the time.

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

Comment: This theory is a little far-fetched to a sound mind. How can you concludefrom a 4 y.o. boy how he would be in years to come? Certainly, every good motherwould want her child to be a different person than the father if he is a drug- andalcohol 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 claimeverywhere 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 hedidn't even become four until October of '89 -- she judged that child as though he wasgoing 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 DorothyMarkwell, and then, for whatever reasons that wasn't working out anymore, then shechose to move in with James Styers.

Comment: LEVY'S abbreviation of the facts is interesting, as it grants insight to thetactics of his manipulation. Here, the prosecutor spanned a time-frame within onesentence, which actually spans eight months. It also suppressed Debra's more thansix-month stay with ILSE MILKE. As portrayed above, Debra moved back to Phoenixbecause CHRIS repeatedly expressed the aspiration to see his grandmother ILSE.Debra also missed her friends and felt homesick, and so her decision was certainlynot a 'whatever'. From December 1988 to late July 1989, mother and son werestaying with grandmother ILSE. Then a serious incident happened, in which MARKchoked Debra and took her car keys away. She hid in an alley, securing CHRIS andherself and had to find a solution as where to go next. She called JIM STYERS, whowas the only local person she knew and trusted. JIM instantly volunteered to pick thetwo up and later suggested that they move in with him. This should shine a differentlight on the entire proceedings.

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (7 of 23)

Comment: This is typical for the narrowed-minded mentality of this prosecutor. Henever seemed to ponder about the reasons of JIM'S and GAIL'S breakup, what thebackground story was, and all these considerations. But even if he had, what wouldthese aspects have to do with Debra's understandable desire to secure her son andherself? As with the 'flashing breasts incident' as invented by SALDATE, the filthysupposition is clearly on the part of LEVY. All his unfounded accusations are full ofsexual innuendoes, creating the picture of a depraved young woman. None of theindividuals involved were wealthy, so it's easy to discredit those who had to find waysof dealing with these circumstances. Additionally, LEVY even kept silent about otherwitnesses, for instance neighbor JOHN CIULLA, who stated to police "( ... ) that JIMwas a very good father to his daughter, WENDY, who he had legal custody of. He alsowatched CHRISTOPHER during the day when Debra went to work, and he was alsovery patient with him, taking good care of him.". Not just a good father, but 'a verygood father'! Why would LEVY conceal all these facts? This shows that the courtsystem 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, todiscuss her ex-husband, Mark Milke, with James Styers, to discuss her child withJames Styers. And, after all, he just stayed home and watched her child while shewent to work.

Comment: LEVY raises an interesting point here, which we would like to pick-upourselves in order to bring more facts to the attention of the audience. Many peoplehave asked us how ROGER SCOTT could have known about the life insurance whichDebra had on her son and herself. Here, LEVY gives the answer himself. As adisabled Vietnam vet, STYERS was staying at home, while the young mother wasworking. He had custody of his own daughter WENDY, so why shouldn't he also takecare of CHRIS, which Debra paid for? But on top of this, STYERS was often visited byhis old high-school friend ROGER, as neighbors had confirmed. It's easy to picturehow the two males had made themselves privy with Debra's belongings, and herpersonal documents [including the social security booklet] were stashed inside a mapwhich was openly lying on a table. And at his on trial (10/29/1990) JIM STYERS madethe following statements:

(...)Jesse Miranda: You talk about the benefits booklet. Were you awarethat 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 insurancepolicy?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 tookher 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 goesout and parties or goes out with Carmen or whomever. But James Styers was willing totake care of Christopher and do these things for her. And the testimony is clear that hewas willing to do a great deal for her.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (8 of 23)

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

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

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

Now, evidence can be direct, evidence can be circumstantial, and you can drawreasonable 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. Shenever 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 youwere going to the mall with Christopher. When and how did Roger get into thepicture? I found out that you went to Roger's house and then took him to get aprescription filled and then out for pizza. Why didn't you tell me that? If Roger isresponsible for this - then how did he do it alone? What kind of transportation did heuse and how did Chris get away from you? Is there any way that Mark was involved inthis?"

She told you this on the stand. What to do with Christopher Milke. Well, by then, whatwas happening? She was having difficulty with Ernie Sweat, with whom she supposedlybroke off with the end of November of 1989. She had sent an application for anapartment 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 aKindergarten place, which Debra had already secured for CHRISTOPHER, and JIM'Stestimony about this point didn't match with the prosecutor's portrayal of eventseither:

(...)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 todo, 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 takecare of Christopher Milke. Now, while his name was on the application, the situationdidn't lend itself that Christopher would necessarily be there. So you can infer fromthese facts the chilling thought from this evidence that as early as the first part ofNovember of 1989 became the nucleus and genesis of the idea which was latertranslated into actuality that she would have her son killed.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (9 of 23)

Comment: Here, and for the first time in this closing argument, LEVY made theunfounded accusation that Debra had it in mind to have her son killed. Consideringthe 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 misrepresentedthe true facts and coherences.

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

Comment: A rather confusing argument. And it's interesting that the prosecutor wasnot even capable of putting his far-fetched accusations into a proper sentence. He putit in various ramblings. First of all, Debra is not a religious person, and she neverwas. Therefore, the mere claim and link to God fails her personality completely.Secondly, as the testimonies of both Debra and ERNIE SWEAT have proven, therewas no relationship between the two individuals anymore, and so the murder of herson wouldn't have saved anything. Thirdly, quite a string of people exist who testifiedto 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 thekind of manipulation this causes.

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

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

So what she is portraying here is a contraction of the possibilities of her options withregard to Christopher Milke because he was interfering with her social life, he wasinterfering 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 anymeans because Debra herself always stated that she could've easily found anothersolution if the accusations towards her - that she purportedly had no bonding withCHRISTOPHER - were true. Yet, these claims weren't true, and they were in no waysubstantiated with hard evidence during the trial.

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

Comment: Again, no hard facts corroborate this claim, other than SALDATE'Sinvented and so-called 'confession', which Debra denies since the day she firstlearned about it. Incredibly, here LEVY explicitly told the jury that Debra didn't 'wantto know how you do it'. In his initial tape-recorded interview SCOTT claimed sheapproached JIM after he had bought the first guns, at the end of this argument we willsee how LEVY tried to 'need not have full knowledge', and therefore always kept theexact 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 asthe mastermind behind the murder.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this was Debra's choice. Debra's choice -- she made otherchoices -- was to have her son killed, as the only viable option to her, rather than havethis 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 haveseen, LEVY brought this verb up himself.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (10 of 23)

So Debra's choice was to share with James Styers this conspiracy to have her sonkilled. 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 thedoor, that that was the day that she -- that James Styers was going to take the boy onthe pretext and deception that he was going to Metro Center to see Santa Claus, andthat she knew all about Roger Scott, and that they were going to all go out and kill theboy. She didn't know exactly the method. She didn't want to know. She just knew thathe was to be killed.

Comment: ... which is an interesting statement and shows that the claims thiswebsite makes must be true. LEVY instigated SALDATE to write the confession theway it was written. Here, LEVY suggested that Debra had no idea how the murderwas supposed to take place. This contradicts the statement of ROGER SCOTT duringthe tape-recorded interview held by DET. ROBERT MILLS in the evening hours ofDecember 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 itafter Jim had purchased the one gun, uh, later on I believe it was 3, 4days later he purchased another two guns.(...)

Here SCOTT claimed that the plot was planned after Debra had learned about thefirst gun which JIM had bought. Both, police and the county attorney took all theother statements of SCOTT at face value, yet nobody seemed to mind that SCOTTpointed out that Debra allegedly wanted her son killed only after she knew about thepurchase of the gun. Therefore, she would have known how the murder wouldhappen. This contradiction proves that one of the two individuals must be lying, eitherROGER 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 fatherhad 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", JamesStyers 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 juryby the prosecutor. SALDATE'S report explicitly reads:

I then told DEBRA that it had been my understanding that JIM andROGER were to receive a partial payment of the $5000 policy whichshe had on her child's life. DEBRA denied having a policy but said shemay have told JIM about her father's policy and said that that mayhave been JIM and ROGER'S motivation for the killing but that it wasdefinitely not her's.

Here we see how the ex-cop sloppily invented a scenario within his report whichwould've been technically impossible. How were JIM and ROGER supposed to cash inmoney from the life insurance of RICHRAD SADEIK, Debra's father??? This wouldn'tbe possible at all, and LEVY knew exactly this and therefore misrepresented what wastruly said in the report. As shown above, he correctly reproduced Debra's statementabout her father's policy, but Debra herself never had a policy! The life insurance shehad on herself and her son was part of her social benefits package [see applicationform on the page 'Indexes of Debra's innocence']. LEVY mixed the initial statementand added the self-designed claim about Debra's not-existing policy, thus managedto 'somehow' have the jury believe there was a pecuniary motive on the part of one ofthe purported conspirators. As we see, a scenario which is factually unfounded andobviously self-serving.

Now, thinking about motivations, if James Styers took care of this child -- and youremember 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 areasonable inference that James Styers would independently some desire to killChristopher Milke (....) Roger Scott. There is no evidence.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (11 of 23)

Comment: Please keep this in mind: LEVY himself admitted that there is no evidencethat JIM STYERS would've wanted CHRISTOPHER MILKE dead! The claim [and laterverdict] 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 aconfession by SALDATE actually was. Without the purported confession there wouldbe no logical link or evidence in regard to JIM STYERS. By arresting SCOTT only, thecase would've been solved already, but it was decided to use this murder-case of alittle 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 andCHRISTOPHER appeared at his apartment at 10:30 a.m. that Saturday morning. Thedistance between JIM'S and ROGER'S apartment was approximately a thirty minutedrive, 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 howI 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 anyof the witnesses, including Detective Saldate, had absolutely nothing to gain if theywere to have fabricated any single fact in this case. Nothing.

Comment: Well, the hostile dynamics within Debra's family have been an issue inmany places. As we have see with the interview given by Debra's sister SANDYPICKINPAUGH, envy was on her part. Neither RICHARD SADEIK nor his third wifeMAUREEN ever cared for what Debra and CHRISTOPHER were doing, and the weakpublic 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 ofDebra, 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'tbeen in touch with Debra and CHRISTOPHER in the previous months. But those werethe 'character witnesses' used in order to testify against Debra. But one thing isindeed true, we're wondering ourselves how the 'reward system' within the authoritiesworks, and why a police detective and a county prosecutor would lie so shamelesslyas they did in Debra Milke's trial.

The only individual that could have possibly had any gain whatsoever from theevidence in this trial, I submit to you, would be the Defendant who was on trial. And allof these witnesses substantiated that she had no bond with this child, that she wasabusive with the child, she never loved the child, she didn't care for the child, and sheeither 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 CIULLAand MURPHY, the treating medic DR. KEVIN ZUERLEIN, the attorney Mr. LIBBON, andeven 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 herhonest grief about the loss she had to endure. These facts seem to have escapedLEVY'S short-term memory.

Now, if the child was dead, then Mark Milke wouldn't come around and bother her, novisitation. If the child was dead, then Ernie Sweat might reconsider whether theymight get married, since that child was no longer a consideration, and she could moveto 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 theevidence in this trial that you can see both by direct evidence and by reasonableinferences through all of the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, to come to aconclusion.

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (12 of 23)

Comment: Evidence ... another good point. LEVY made it sound as if any trueevidence existed. That's not the case, as far as physical evidence was concerned. Togive the reader an idea about the true exhibits of evidence established throughout thetrial, 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 themurder-scene; a point which didn't need to be proven, because STYERSconceded 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 formfor the social benefits ... it's pathetic!]

●

amended petition for Dissolution of Marriage●

bag of clothing [which contains the clothing of CHRISTOPHER, which Debrawillingly 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 whichcaused the footprints]

●

binoculars [found in the Toyota which STYERS and SCOTT drove that day]●

Debra's clothing [which disprove SALDATE'S claim that Debra allegedlyflashed her breasts to him, in order to manipulate him]

●

gun and sock [which Debra also willingly gave to police, these items belongedto 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 noevidence for the story LEVY concocted and told to the jury. If there was a visit to analleged 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 apossible death sentence? And why would SCOTT confess to a co-inmate the he wasthe 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 andbowel content? Why were there no witnesses to confirm that CHRISTOPHER wasindeed at the 'Peter Piper Pizza' restaurant? And how - if the murder took place after1 p.m. - would LEVY give a reason that ROGER SCOTT was seen in close proximity tohis own apartment, and not in a desert area north of Phoenix? That would've beenevidence!

She said she hated Mark Milke.

Comment: Again, this is wrong. Debra never said she 'hated' MARK, but it's true shehad 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 callJIM STYERS to confirm this? Why would JIM repeatedly state that Debra hadabsolutely 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 littleboy.

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (13 of 23)

Comment: Why then did STYERS' ex-girlfriend GAIL LIPSHULTZ relate that JIM had itin mind to come pick his daughter WENDY up that morning, and that GAIL onlywanted her picked up a little later, because they had to go somewhere? What's thereason 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 atMetro Center, Sears, as he said it, with the security guard, and Chris was missing, shethen knew he was dead from that point on.

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

The gun that was recovered from Roger Scott's bedroom closet that was sold to JamesStyers 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 evencapable of proving by scientific examination that this was indeed the gun which killedCHRISTOPHER MILKE. No forensic evidence exists. But it's true, logic proves without adoubt 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 waslocked up until the police searched it, was the same type of bullets that were found inthe head of Christopher Milke upon autopsy. The bullets and casing found on UnionHills Drive were the same type as the CCI Stinger hypervelocity ammunition, so youhave more powder in the casing and it shoots the bullet out faster and death can bemore instantaneous.

The shoe print in the wash from the Nike shoe that went to the feet of James Styers isthe same shoe. Described as similar, but you saw the match. And those shoes werefound. in the Metro Center Parking Lot H. The child was found Sunday afternoon byDetective Mills and Detective Saldate, who went out and saw him lying in the wash in afetal position. And upon autopsy he had undigested contents in his stomach, and theevidence was that he had had a pizza. at Peter Piper Pizza between noon and 1:00o'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 onepolice report exists which contradicts the scenario told by LEVY entirely. According tothe report of OFF. CRISWELL, ROGER SCOTT was seen between 1.15 and 2.00 p.m. inthree different places, by three independent witnesses, in close proximity to his ownapartment. Additionally, LEVY obviously intentionally kept silent about Debra's fellowworker CARMEN SANTANA'S statement, that she spoke with Debra on the telephoneat 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 veryaware of how crucial the timeline would be, because he had also attempted tosuppress the testimony of witness JEAN PUGH. On October 10th, 1990, he insisted inchambers to the judge:

"(...) And the essence of what they have to say is that they heardsome shots at 10:30 in the morning on Saturday, December 2, 1989.And I submit that's irrelevant because we have repeated testimony byDebra Milke, the defendant, of her telling various detectives that theywere watching TV and this and that, and it was over at 11:00 andChris Milke goes out the door with Styers at 11:00 a.m. So if thosepeople are hearing shots at 10:30 a.m., that has no relevancy on thecase. (...)"

Here LEVY made it sound as if there was no doubt about the time CHRISTOPHERMILKE was killed, but the facts prove otherwise.

And all of the clothing that was described that he was wearing was consistent withwhat he walked out with that day. But there was no need to have binoculars, no needto have camouflage, no need to have a gun, no need to have extra tennis shoes, noneed to have binoculars -- if I haven't said that already -- all found in the Toyota, if hewas going to Metro Center to see Santa Claus. So all of the corroborating evidence tothe 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 theother? There is none, but by literally inundating the jury members with all kinds ofinformation, the prosecutor accomplished to appear credible. Too bad, none of thejury members ever questioned the true facts of the case.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (14 of 23)

By the way, the testimony of her own family, Richard Sadeik, Maureen Sadeik, KarenSmith, 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 wasonly concerned about James Styers because she knew the child was dead. She wasconcerned that James Styers was in such proximity to the police because JamesStyers, she was afraid might give it away. She grabbed the phone whenever it rangand 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 shereacted to this phone call was she cried and called her father. She didn't bolt out of thehouse, rush down to Metro Center or anything like that. She said she stayed homebecause of her father's instructions.

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

Comment: Here we can see how defendants can be overwhelmed with accusations ina fashion which makes it very difficult for a defense to fight off all of them. This wasanother attack of LEVY on the character of Debra, but again, demonstrably untrueand 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 hisphone number very well and that his mother had been instructed tostay home and near the telephone in case he called. (...)"

LEVY had attempted to discredit Debra before, which he also didn't repeat to thejury. On September 24th, 1990 he cross-examined witness KEVIN MURPHY, aneighbor of JIM and Debra:

(...)Noel Levy: And she told you then something had happened toChristopher?Kevin Murphy: She said she felt that something -- she was worriedabout it, that, you know, if he was missing from the bathroom thatsomebody might have taken him and somebody might be doingsomething bad to him or hurting him.Noel Levy: Then, Mr. Murphy, when you told her, "Oh, Chris is fine, heis just lost at the mall", she didn't say, "Oh, please, take me to themall 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 tocome 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 whichobviously didn't fit, and despite KEVIN MURPHY'S unequivocal confirmation that hehad suggested to Debra to stay by the telephone, LEVY misused and misrepresentedthis circumstance toward the jury by insinuating that she was reckless and not caringfor her son. This is the way his manipulation worked, and judge CHERYL K. HENDRIXdidn't admonish the prosecutor not to falsify the facts. This is the one of the reasonswhy miscarriages of justice happen the way they do.This juncture explains precisely how a certain circumstance can be used against adefendant, even though she solely obeyed to what she was told by several reliablepeople 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 JamesStyers remain in the proximity for so long. That concerned her so much. And she knewwhen she decided to go to Florence to her parents' house the next day the child wasdead, and she as much admitted it by simply saying, after only 20 hours, never goingto Metro Center, never contacting James Styers personally, never really determiningwhat 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 wasjust a deception.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (15 of 23)

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

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

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

And then when she gets to Richard Sadeik's house, who does she call? She calls theapartment 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 infact, up to this day she has a hard time to believe he could have had any part in themurder. Only the diligent manipulation of family members and the overwhelmingpre-trial media sentencing achieved three verdicts in this case, when in fact only oneperson is actually guilty of the killing. It's understandable that a suspecting onlookermay find these statements of Debra in protection of JIM STYERS odd, but the factsresearched and displayed on this website have also shown that the case against JIM isequally 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 fencesput up, there are no zippers zipped, and where you can sort of get behind a wall. Youcome out of the sleep and you make a reaction, perhaps unguarded, as she did here toKaren Smith. When she is told, "There's a deputy outside and they want to talk withyou" -- and so telling -- what does she react? Not like, "Oh, God, is there any news onmy son", anything like that, because now he was dead, but "What the fuck do theywant". That's very telling, right out of a sleep. There is no guarding, which Debra Milketestified 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 hadbeen questioned and volunteered any information imaginable since the afternoonhours of the previous day [12/02/1989]. Friends and acquaintances who had beenwith her throughout these hours have observed her rushing to the telephoneeverytime it rang. Debra stayed up all night and basically didn't have any sleep, butshe was given medication and she was observed drinking some rum'n coke, and soit's clear that her condition must have been entirely devastated. According toRICHARD SADEIK'S statements, he had to urge his daughter to try to get some sleepat 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, Phoenixpolice needed to talk to her. In other words, Debra's wasn't instantly informed aboutany new information or the fact that her son had been found [therefore, aninformation she could've passively received], but she was asked to get up and bequestioned again [which means that she had to actively participate in furtherinvestigations and interviews]. The initial information pertaining to this incidentoriginates in a police report about an interview with Debra's step-sister, KARENSMITH. In that, DET. H.E. HAMRICK narrated: "KAREN recalled that DEBRA wassleeping 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 thisincident shines a different light on the reaction of Debra, and this short-temperedremark appears more understandable. Yet, it's not how the prosecutor related it tothe jury.

And finally, when she is talking to Detective Saldate that night, she knew they knew.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (16 of 23)

She didn't ever ask the Pinal County Sheriffs about her son or anything, just calmlywent there, went into the room and waited what she claimed was two hours. Made noproblem about it, just waited, waited for the inevitable, which she now had to tellDetective Saldate.

Comment: Oh sure, at first Debra was supposedly reckless about her boy. Only afew sentences earlier LEVY suggested that "She didn't want to go to Metro Centerbecause one of the things she couldn't handle was all the police were there." Now, allof 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 believesuch a story? Interestingly, LEVY avoided to relate to the jury how DET. SALDATEpurportedly didn't have it in mind to arrest Debra when he was on the way toFlorence. This leaves the question why detectives already knew about thepreconceived arrest of Debra, even while the interrogation behind the closed doorwas still pending? Nothing in this closing argument is consistent.

Now, if the two pillars of credibility would rest between Detective Saldate and DebraMilke, then you could have a bit of a contest by saying, well, it's only the word ofDetective 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 thecredibility, corroboration of one witness to the other, because each has someoverlapping effect, is Sandra Pickenpaugh and Dorothy Markwell. The very things thatshe 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 notstand 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 otherwitnesses, you then don't have merely two pillars of credibility - that is, the detectiveand suspect defendant - you have multiple pillars supporting the confession itself thatshe gave Detective Saldate. So it doesn't merely rest upon his word, if that's going tobe 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 thevery heart of the confession is that she said she contemplated suicide, but thatwouldn't do any good because Mark would end up with the child, so she definitelydidn't want the child to grow up to be like him; thus, she spoke to Jim and asked. himto figure out a way for her child, Chris, to die. First she didn't tell Jim Styers shewanted her son killed, it was very hard for her, but she finally told him it would bebetter for her son to die than to grow up like her husband, his father. James agreed tohelp 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 claimedthat the alleged instigation of Debra happened only after JIM STYERS had bought thefirst gun. What does LEVY mean by saying 'he simply wouldn't tell her precisely howhe would have the child killed.' LEVY distorted the facts on the file whereverconvenient 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 withJames Styers in order to have the -- kill the child, but it didn't happen and then shebecame 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 thispoint. The full truth is that ROGER SCOTT was completely unable to tell a consistentscenario 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 Streetand Beardsley to start with and then it was Paradise Road and 7Street, 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'renot 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.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (17 of 23)

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 werethere.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 feedinghim, adds himself to the scene - so again, SCOTT, STYERS, and Debraare there in SCOTT'S story.Det. Mills: Okay, and is that what we're talking about as being lastFriday 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 lastweekend 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 Styersto be killed, who was missing? Who was not there to do anything? Mark Milke, becausehe was in Texas, Fort Hood, with his brother. So it was the opportune moment. Nointerference by Mark Milke. He wouldn't drop in unexpectedly. He wouldn't be therepersonally to confront her about the situation. So it was a very opportune moment asfar as all of these things coming together and her exercising her options, as shedescribed them.

The evidence suggests that Debra Milke is in fact very cold and calculating. As she toldDetective Saldate when he asked her, "Didn't you even give your son a special kissthat 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 sweatshirtthat his grandmother, Maureen Sadeik, made him, and the boots his father bought forhim, and she simply sent him out, and without any further concern, so little concernthat when her girlfriend, Carmen Santana called, she said she acted bored. Some smallpoint.

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

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

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

Then she tended to suggest in her confession to Detective Saldate, well, she's notreally crazy, she's just a disturbed 25-year-old.

And then, when he asked her, "Well, you had other options; I mean, there was yourparents and there was Mark Milke". There were others. We know Sandra Pickenpaughoffered to have guardianship papers signed more than once. We now know thatDorothy Markwell agreed to take the child. But she would have nothing to do withthose options, and so what she told him was, "Well, I guess I made a bad judgmentcall".

And then, having told all of these things to Detective Saldate, she says, "Well, I havenever really been able to speak with anyone else before, and now that I have told youall this, this may seem strange, but I'm getting my self-esteem back", which is typicalof the rationalization you saw occur that was most important to Debra Milke, and inher view of herself and social setting, so that her concern was less than her child waskilled, 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 workright away". And that gives you an indication of what was important to her.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (18 of 23)

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

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

Comment: Another ruthless and demonstrable lie. The story about 'Santa Claus' wasnothing but a means to sensationalize this case in the media and to the jurymembers. In fact, ROGER SCOTT had related to DET. ROBERT MILLS:

(...)Det. Mills: How about Friday's trip to the desert, what was he toldthen?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 20miles away in a wash at 99th Avenue and -- you can call it 99th Avenue and can call itPleasant Lake Road (sic)‚ or whatever you want to call it, but 20 miles away fromMetro 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 ofthese 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 theconfusion of many people about this case. But there is no coherence. Debra cannothave known about JIM'S plan to see SCOTT first, and only later to pick WENDY up andtake both kids to the mall.

And the deception, with regard to Styers, by the way, was always maintained to thepolice that that child -- "I was in the bathroom, the child walked off". It turned outthere 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". Asmall 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 wasthe scenario as concocted by JIM STYERS and ROGER SCOTT. JIM must havesuggested to ROGER to go to the Metro Center and claim that the boy was missingthere. ROGER would meanwhile kill some time and then go to the mall via publictransportation. This scenario is depicted in the pertinent report of OFF. CRISWELL.But in fact, CHRISTOPHER MILKE had never been to the Metro Center. ROGER SCOTTthen popped up there at around 2.30 p.m. What was the purpose for this? SCOTTshowed up there because STYERS must have adjured his buddy to support the claimthat both, JIM and CHRIS, had indeed been there at the mall. This was the onlypurpose of this setup and would've given STYERS an alibi. He would've never found away to explain to Debra that he had disobeyed her order and wish not to have a gunin the presence of her son. In one of the jailhouse letters, STYERS told Debra onJanuary 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 saidno shooting with Christopher along. But Roger had other plans." It's clear that JIMSTYERS was eager to distance himself from the fact that he knew of the gun. But westrongly believe he lied about the gun. It's hard to picture in light of five to sevenshots - not three, as Levy claimed - that STYERS had no knowledge about this point.And then he witnessed the murder, unforeseeable and committed by ROGER, andtherefore 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 herlife. She goes from one insurance company to another. And the fabrication, forexample, in the apartment. She does not indicate that she lived with Lisa Milke beforeJames Styers, but goes all the way back to the apartment, Casa Serena Apartmentwhere she lived when she was 19, early 19. And perhaps they are small things, butthey do add up, such as the initial denial of the insurance policy.

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (19 of 23)

Comment: ... and all the lies, shameless misrepresentations and falsehoods spreadby this man ... same thing, and it certainly added up. But it shouldn't be denied thatDebra was indeed caught with a lie pertaining to the places where she lived. But howheavy should this weight? Can you conclude from such a intentional inaccuracy to thefailure 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 apolicy of $5,000 for the child".

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

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

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

But the most telling statement that Debra Milke stated on direct response to her ownattorney's question about whether that report by Detective Saldate, which she hadread, 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 statementmeant. It was Debra's confirmation that she and DET. SALDATE had indeed talkedabout several issues which were later contained in the fraudulent report, which alsoincludes 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, andthen use it by conveniently slipping his own fabrications, twisted statements andmanipulations in. This way the interviewed person will recognized the renderedstatements and maybe even agree with the manipulated report. E.g., this was thecase with the report about the interview of SANDY, which she later confirmed to betrue. But the fact remains, the report contains 19 hardcore discrepancies! SALDATEonce again achieved the manipulation he was after.

That's far different than the mere context. In a situation where she claimed that sheasked for an attorney after her rights were read - one of the rights being you have theright to an attorney - and in the context that she doesn't understand her rights, thatgives you same clue as to whether there was fabrication here that you heard fromDebra Milke, the Defendant, in this case, compared to all of the other witnesses, whohad 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 shewould cause the death. Or premeditation simply means long enough. It's built into thedefinition that will be given to you. And basically it's long enough here, or there is along time, I have got to deal with premeditation. And this may be proven bycircumstantial evidence. And it is premeditation that distinguishes the crime of firstdegree murder. Premeditation.

I will tell you now -- I have already told the Court-as distinguished from openingargument, that I have eliminated felony murder. Because, agreeably, she was not atthe site of the murder. So I have eliminated felony murder, which means whilecommitting kidnapping or child abuse, in the course of committing kidnapping or childabuse, a death results. I have decided I will put it to the litmus, ultimate test, whether

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (20 of 23)

or not there was first degree murder, period; premeditated murder, period. Count II isconspiracy. It's with -- agreed with one or more persons to have her son killed orintentionally promote or assist in the commission of the first degree murder. The scopeof proof of conspiracy is that there is no requirement to show an express agreement. Itis not -- all that is necessary is to prove elements 1 and 2. You may infer it from thecircumstances 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 ofthe criminal acts committed by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of theconspiracy.

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

Knowledge and conspiracy. The correlation is that a conspirator need not have fullknowledge of the details of the conspiracy. In other words, every little detail, like will itend up at 99th Avenue in the wash, or will it end up at 93rd Avenue and Union Hills, orwhatever. Need not have full knowledge of each and every detail, such as will .22 CCIStingers 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, LEVYrepeatedly emphasized how Debra supposedly didn't want to know how her son wasgoing 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 testifiesto that, the handwritten note which confirms this claim, or the circumstance whichundisputedly points to this knowledge? There is none.

The conspirator must have knowingly participated in the plan to have Chris Milkemurdered 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 physicalevidence of the corpus delicti, the body of the child found in the wash, the gun, thebullets, the shoe prints, bullets in the car, and the casing and bullets on Union HillsDrive. In determining the conspiracy, consider the actions and statements of all of thealleged participants.

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

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

Count III, child abuse and dangerous crime against children. The elements are that theDefendant acted under circumstances likely to cause death, that she causedChristopher Milke, a child under 15 years of age, to suffer physical injury - in otherwords, death - that she knew he would die, be killed, and that she acted eitherintentionally or knowingly. She intended that he die and knew he would be taken outand killed that particular day.

Count IV, kidnapping and dangerous crime against children. The Defendant knowinglyrestrained the movements of a child under 15 years of age. Remember, accompliceliability statutes apply. Restraining with intimidation or deception - Santa Claus - whichsubstantially interfered with the child's movements, and by moving the child fromplace to place, and that the restriction was with the intent to inflict death or physicalinjury.

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

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

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (21 of 23)

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 aremore questions about the contradicting details of the case, than anything else. Ofcourse Debra allowed STYERS to use the car, because it was CHRISTOPHER whobegged 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 orcommitting 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 conductor 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 ifthat person is an accomplice of others in the commission of first degree murder. Hereshe 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 useof 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 murderedby shots, three of them, to the back of the head, with .22 bullets, I submit, .22 StingerCCI 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 Statedoesn't really have to prove motive, it still applies to a fellow's common sense to notewhether there it is some motive here. Like I say, no motive on the part of JamesStyers, 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 shewas denied the option of the custody of the ex-husband. She considered moving thecustody to him, talked it over with Richard Sadeik. Richard didn't talk to her for threemonths after that anymore until his birthday and subsequently at Thanksgiving. So shewas denied that option. She then was unable to shift the custody to the sister orothers, as with Dorothy Markwell, because Mark Milke maybe would then say she wasunfit, and she wasn't able to give guardianship to her sister, Sandra Pickenpaugh, soshe couldn't move that child to someone else because of Mark Milke, so her optionsbecame less and less.

Furthermore, to underscore all of it, she had no mother-child bond and was unable tocope 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 ownstatements and the statements of others, she continued to hate Mark Milke and wasunable 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 sonmurdered.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I haven't taken the time to show you exhibits or pictures or thisor that, and preliminary remarks are over for my initial comments to you. Mycomments are verbal. My comments are to assist you to analyze the evidenceconsistent with the law to determine whether the State has proven beyond areasonable doubt by these facts and this evidence, in accordance with the elements ofthe law that I have shared with you here, and you will certainly again hear from theJudge 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 killher son, take him out, knowing that would occur, to take him out in her car, knowinghe would be taken some place to be killed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that, based upon this evidence, that Debraprejudged her four-year-old son, that she is guilty of each and every count, and ofthose counts, first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, childabuse and kidnapping, that those counts with the instruction indicating whether theyare dangerous offenses because of the use of the gun, that it is also a dangerousoffense. And I ask you, now that you have been privy to all of the dark, horriblesecrets, 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 factthat the child was in a wash, that he was simply walking along with his little boots andlittle 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 theaspect of people who are very close to Debra Milke and could share and describe toyou what the truth was in this case. You decide the truth. And I ask you to return a

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (22 of 23)

guilty verdict on each and every count. I ask you to do that in the name of justice.

Thank you, Your Honor.

This page was last modified :Saturday, 06-Mar-2004 03:01:56 PST

[ Home | Table of contents ]  

© 1998-2004http://www.debbiemilke.com/ [Renate Janka]

The Debra Jean Milke Case

http://debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/closingargument.shtml (23 of 23)