Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 12:23:08 PM

Though I am glad, that he is off death row, he put that onto himself by his own fault, by lying too much and hindering police work.

Apart from that, he had committed a murder beforehand, which he really had not been punished for.

I'm glad you got your way now can you do us a favor and get Betty Jane Mottinger's unlawful criminal death sentence overturned? Oh wait, you can't because John Spirko made sure that wasn't possible 

I hope he has a rough time in prison.

You forgot the victim of his first murder.

All because you have a distrust in them doesn't mean they didn't do a superb job. All because you don't like the result, doesn't mean it's the wrong one.

The defense has it easy. All they need is 1 hold out in the jury and their client isn't found guilty while the prosecutor has to bust his/her ass and actually sway all the jurors on the jury. It can't be a majority rules situation when it comes to the jury, every single juror has to agree. On top of that the prosecutor has to hand over all evidence that "may" help the defense whereas the defense has attorney/client privilege so who's getting shafted now?

Quote

In the park near were I lived, slept an elderly homeless man, a very calm and polite man, often drunk, but never aggressive.
They took him into a home for homeless persons, but still he kept sleepingon the park bench under a blanket sometimes.

Then one night, as I had senn him slleping there, next morning came the news, that he had fallen from the bench, drunk, dying from that crash, and falling onto his burning cigarette, which had done some damage.

We neighbours did not believe that, as somebody, who had seen him dead, said, that his whole side of the body had been burnt.
We placed candles at his bench, flowers and demanded investigation.
The police took all away every day. The autopsy went that way, that they said, that third party fault was totally excluded.
So we gave up.
3 weeks later a young woman went to the police and confessed, that her boyfriend (16 years old at that time) had beaten his head in and set him on fire, while still being alive

.

That's hardly relevant nor is it inherently the fault of the police. The blame would more or less be the medical examiner's (if there is any) but not even close to the fault of the perpetrator. If you honestly believe you can trick people into believing Debra is innocent then take it to the lawyers, the Governor of Arizona, her defense lawyer, the judge who presided over the case etc just leave us out of it because we the good folks of this victim's advocate site are not going to help you get a child killer off death row. We are not going to help you introduce theories that could be an act made by Debra altogether.

Do you have proof she didn't say "what the fuck do they want now?"? Because if not, you're not going to get very far advocating for her. So if you still think you can trick people into believing she is innocent then by all means try your luck somewhere else because as my mother would say, I was born at night but not last night.

That is a thorough and understandable answer. I will do.

And Milke says herself on her website, that she used exactly those words: "what the fuck do they want now?".
So why should I argue against her own words?

I will do, what you said, and thanks for your good answer.

Quote

But still I think, that to understand, one should alwas hear both sides.

12 hard working real folks heard both sides at trial/sentencing. They made the right decision and if we're wrong about her guilt we will apologize but until she is proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, as it stands she is guilty as my username being JTiscool.

You do not need to stress the point that the jury were hardworking people.

The way that case was presented to them, made them give to her the guilty verdict. Once a verdict has been made, it is very hard to overthrow it.
Because beforehand the attorney had to prove the guilt of the offender. Afterwards the offender has to prove his innocence.
Just imagine Milke being really innocent? How could she prove that?
How can anyone do that after being convicted ?
That is very very difficult.

Maiken, have you ever stopped to even consider the fact that she might be lying? Or consider the fact that she had told her sister she didn't want her son anymore and asked her to take him, not to mention the fact that the 2 guys who took her son in her car and killed him knew exactly how much the life insurance she had just taken out on Christopher was worth?

Of course that means nothing to you, she must be innocent because she said so....

Please stop making such a fool of yourself, you are giving me a headache.

Styers knew about that insurance and testified it in trail. See trail transcript of Styers trial.

Sure, it did occur to me, not only once, that it might be, that she was lying.

As I had said. If Ihad been on the jury during first trial and only listen to what detective Saldate said, I would have found her guilty.

But still I think, that to understand, one should alwas hear both sides.

What Gregg Fisher wrote, is simply so abominable, I do not know any other, than to give back to him, what he wrote some posts earlier. FY

What I think is, that though some cases need to be rethought, specially when they rely on such little or none real evidence.

Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 03:15:10 PM

I do have no sympathy for murderers.

You *only* have sympathy for murderers. Especially those who murder children and babies.

FY

Quote from: AnneTheBelgian on February 28, 2011, 03:05:11 PM

I wonder if there is not a fascination for killers...

It is her choice but she must know this : NO FASCINATION FOR MURDERERS HERE ! NO COMPASSION FOR MURDERERS HERE !


 








Anne

That's right!

The correct place to garner sympathy and compassion for murders is at PTO or on some scumpal site. Please go there if you want to talk to people who care about them 

I do have no sympathy for murderers.

Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 02:56:44 PM

Quote from: JTiscool on February 28, 2011, 02:28:49 PM

Quote

On top of it, Milke was screaming during the interview and trowing hysterics by the news, that her child was dead.

Even if this was true and it happened, you know it's called acting. Right?

Armando Saldate: I told her that her son had been found, he was shot, and told her -- she immediately began to yell and cry and scream. I told her I wouldn't tolerate that. I told her she was under arrest for murder, and she again began to yell and scream and again told her I would not tolerate that and would want to speak to her and interview her in regards to her involvement in the murder, which we did.

Actually, how would you think, that a mother would behave, when getting told, that her child is dead.

Saldate might have been a good investigator, but remember, that he had interviewed Scott on lenght, until he ead him to the crime scen,e found Christopher and drove back.

I imagine, that he must have been in a very stressed and upset mood too, at that time.

Not also criminals do not ask for a lawyer, but simpy ever person, who believes themselves innocent.

It is too easy for me how Gregg Fisher sees it.

I got severe doubts, whether the course of interview went just the same way as detective Saldate wrote down later.

Hell yeah, she was screaming and crying.  She got caught!  Her hired murderers turned on her and gave her plot to kill her baby son to get the insurance money away. I would imagine she would be upset, the bitch!  And I don't blame Soldate for putting a stop to her fake histrionics, since she was the one who ordered the murder of her own son.

For me she showed a quite normal reaction for a mother, hearing, that her child was dead, then got told, that he had been murdered, which she must have feared already and then op top, getting told, that she was accused of its murder.

I do understand Saldates reaction a bit.

But that whole 1/2 hour interview was definitely not made with a woman who had her wits together and should be therefore questioned heavily.

Quote

On top of it, Milke was screaming during the interview and trowing hysterics by the news, that her child was dead.

Even if this was true and it happened, you know it's called acting. Right?

Armando Saldate: I told her that her son had been found, he was shot, and told her -- she immediately began to yell and cry and scream. I told her I wouldn't tolerate that. I told her she was under arrest for murder, and she again began to yell and scream and again told her I would not tolerate that and would want to speak to her and interview her in regards to her involvement in the murder, which we did.

Actually, how would you think, that a mother would behave, when getting told, that her child is dead.

Saldate might have been a good investigator, but remember, that he had interviewed Scott on lenght, until he ead him to the crime scen,e found Christopher and drove back.

I imagine, that he must have been in a very stressed and upset mood too, at that time.


Not also criminals do not ask for a lawyer, but simpy ever person, who believes themselves innocent.

It is too easy for me how GrannyB sees it.

I got severe doubts, whether the course of interview went just the same way as detective Saldate wrote down later.

Usually investigators are instructed to tape the interview, so they can rewind the tape and listen to it.

What you say, is wrong GrannyB.

Sometimes you have to listen to such a tape tw or three times, before finding out, were a person has been lying.

Quote

Yes it is a pro board, but even being pro one should also being able to raise specific questions whether one was rightfully convicted.

Except that there's nothing to question here. Something that came off a scumpal's site is not credible enough to raise questions.

This Info came from:

"IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
116TH MARICOPA COUNTY
GRAND JURY IN RE:

DEBRA JEAN MILKE
JAMES LYNN STYERS
ROGER MARK SCOTT
GRAND CR-89-12631

Phoenix, Arizona
December 8. 1989
3:25 p.m.


REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS.

I wuld be pleased if you could find any other sources, except newssides and Mr. fisher has denied so far to produce any trial transcripts himself.

Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 01:25:38 PM

Saldate never recorded that interview and wrote his testimony after what he remembered. That was a deep flaw, as it is hard to recollect words which were spoken truely only by memory.

For you definitely. You can't even remember that this is a pro board. But for trained interviewers, it is not hard at all.

Quote

On top of it, Milke was screaming during the interview and trowing hysterics by the news, that her child was dead.

No, she wasn't. In fact, as has been pointed out to you before, her response when the police came to her door was: "What the fuck do they want?" 

Quote

Do you really think, she was capable of understanding, what she said then? I do not.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Yes it is a pro board, but even being pro one should also being able to raise specific questions whether one was rightfully convicted.

You told me, that no evidence is counted, unless being brought tforward at ao court,.

What she said, when police came to her house, is irrelevant, by your own terms.

Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 02:12:30 PM

Quote from: JTiscool on February 28, 2011, 01:29:03 PM

Quote

Saldate never recorded that interview and wrote his testimony after what he remembered.

How do you know? Because her fansite said so?

No, several sources say so.

Several sources that contribute to her fansite?

No!

Quote

Saldate never recorded that interview and wrote his testimony after what he remembered.

How do you know? Because her fansite said so?

No, several sources say so.

January 13, 2010
Miranda Rights at the center of Debra Milke appeal





<object type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" id=\"video\" width=\"640\" height=\"520\" data=\"http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=7885\"><param value=\"http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=7885\" name=\"movie\"/><param value=\"&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Eksaz%2Fnews%2Fnews%5Fother%5F4%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3Dmiranda%2Drights%2Ddebra%2Dmilke%2Dappeal%2D1%2D11%2D2010%3Bloc%3Dsite%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D240634503433732060%3Frand%3D0%2E804325048239519&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxphoenix%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D131419453&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxphoenix%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2010%2F01%2F11%2FdebraMILKE5p011110%5Ftmb0001%5F20100111174258%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxphoenix%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2Fmiranda%2Drights%2Ddebra%2Dmilke%2Dappeal%2D1%2D11%2D2010&category=news&title=debraMILKE5p011110&oacct=foximfoximksaz,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia&headline=Miranda%20Rights%20at%20the%20Center%20of%20Debra%20Milke%20Appeal\" name=\"FlashVars\"/><param value=\"all\" name=\"allowNetworking\"/><param value=\"always\" name=\"allowScriptAccess\"/></object><p style=\"width:640px\"><a href=\"http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/justice/miranda-rights-debra-milke-appeal-1-11-2010\">Miranda Rights at the Center of Debra Milke Appeal: MyFoxPHOENIX.com</a></p>



A U.S. District Court Judge has dealt Debra Milke (pictured in a 1991 photo) a big legal setback, ruling that the death-row inmate did validly waive her Miranda rights against self-incrimination before she allegedly confessed to having her son murdered in 1989.

Judge Robert C. Broomfield's 21-page ruling comes two weeks after hearing from both Milke and former Phoenix homicide Detective Armando Saldate during an evidentiary hearing in his courtroom.

The hearing had been ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after it ruled that it could find no evidence that Milke had waived her rights.

Broomfield's decision now returns to the appellate court for evaluation. The panel still may reverse him and rule that Detective Saldate illegally elicited Milke's incriminating statements, and order a new trial.

Then again, they may not.

But the judge's ruling left little to the imagination about his position.

A Maricopa County jury convicted Milke of first-degree murder and conspiring with two Phoenix men to commit first-degree murder by arranging the homicide of her four-year-old son Christopher.

Milke was one the area's more reviled murder defendants of that time, in part because police said that the young divorce'e allegedly lured her son to his death by telling him he was going to see Santa Claus.

New Times wrote extensively about the Milke case, and here and here are a few clips.

Judge Broomfield pointed out that the recent evidentiary hearing testimony of both Milke and Saldate "mirrors" what they said at trial two decades ago.

Milke testified that Saldate badgered her throughout the 30-minute interrogation, and ignored her requests to speak to an attorney. Saldate said that Milke told him she understood her rights but denied his request to tape-record the interview.

Judge Broomfield ruled in favor of the State of Arizona by a preponderance of the evidence (that can be 51 percent) that "[Milke] waived her Miranda rights."

The judge's opinion gives new fodder to the mantra of many: Never, ever talk to the police when you're a suspect, even if you're innocent as a lamb.

"There was no evidence that [Milke] was incapable of comprehending her rights," Broomfield wrote, "and only her self-serving testimony suggested that she did not understand them when they were recited by Saldate."

The judge noted that Milke's recent testimony "appeared rehearsed and formulated to support her legal arguments."

As for Saldate, who these days is an elected Phoenix constable, he said h[color=]e "did not report that [Milke] gave a straightforward confession of guilt as to her role in her son's murder[/color], as he could have done if he were fabricating his account of the interrogation."

http://4wardeveruk.org/2010/01/miranda-rights-at-the-center-of-debra-milke-appeal/

Those things, you may also read the other way round. And thats a fact.

Saldate never recorded that interview and wrote his testimony after what he remembered. That was a deep flaw, as it is hard to recollect words which were spoken truely only by memory.

Also the interrogation of Milke lasted only half an hour.  Saldate wrote down so many things he remembered from it, that it surprises, that he got them in such a short time.
On top of it, Milke was screaming during the interview and trowing hysterics by the news, that her child was dead.

Do you really think, she was capable of understanding, what she said then? I do not.

This whole interview thing sound s very strange to me. I cannot imgine, that Saldate could have got so much information in such a short time from a woman with a nervous breakdown.

Which other evidence do you mean. Please tell me!

I would advise you for the umpteenth time to read the effin' court opinions and findings of facts but it is clear that you lack the intelligence to comprehend them.
[/quote]

Yes, I did.

Excuse me that I only found the trial transcript and what Mr. Saldate told the grand jury at that time on Milkes side.
From what I read there, what Saldate testified, I think, would have given a guilty verdict to Milke too.
 
But her last appeal hinged only on the question, how certain sentences of her might have been interpreted. So I do think, tha certain conclusions, which were made at the first trial, proved to be wrong.

That last denience of appeal I was reffering to.

Styers told a different thing at his trial, Scotts version was pretty  unreliable.

Quote from: Maiken on February 28, 2011, 12:03:34 PM

Quote from: Gregg Fisher on February 28, 2011, 11:45:30 AM

If people want to review again the evidence against Milke, they can read the opinions and findings of facts - not the bullshite you copy and paste off her fansite.

Well it would make day better, if they would and not only read, was was written in the medias.

Posting from Jeff1857 in this forum: 9th Circuit Tosses Death Sentence for James Styers AZ DR in 1989 Murder
« on: October 24, 2008, 04:19:41 PM »:

"According to court records and media accounts, Milke found the child to be an inconvenience in her life and asked Styers, her roommate, to kill him."

Is that credible?

Yes.

Why? It was based solely on that one interview, from which the transript was written down later by Saldate in a way as he could remember and was never signed by Milke.

Which other evidence do you mean. Please tell me!