Debra Milke Press Release

Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:01 pm

I think we should start working on the PR to get it ready.

-------------------
NER:

For all exonerations, the most common causal factors that contributed to the
underlying false convictions are perjury or false accusation (51%), mistaken
eyewitness identification (43%) and official misconduct (42%) – followed by
false or misleading forensic evidence (24%) and false confession (16%). The
frequencies of these causal factors vary greatly from one type of crime to
another.

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoner ... ummary.pdf
-------------------
IP:

Common Causes
Here you will find further information about seven of the most common causes of wrongful convictions:
•Eyewitness Misidentification
•Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science
•False Confessions / Admissions
•Government Misconduct
•Informants or Snitches
•Bad Lawyering

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/

----------------------------

What I would like to do is create a press release that is thought provoking. A pr that challenges the read to reconsider the case.

My idea is to name is something like - 7 Signs the Debra Milke case is a Wrongful Conviction. Then I would like to use statistics from the National Exonerations Registry and the Innocence project to challenge the conviction.

Just started thinking about this but some of the things I can think of.

1. official misconduct (42%) - for the 'confession'
2. Media influence

What else should be included. Any other suggestions or ideas?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:35 pm

Bad lawyering caused by scant economical resources is definitely an issue in this case.
I've also found references to improper handling or showing of evidence to the jury at this site:

justicedenied.org/debramilke.htm

"It's very difficult to fool a group of observers twenty-four hours a day for fourteen months," says Dr. Bunuel, director of the prison psychiatric services. "As time passed, the whole team came to believe in Debbie's innocence, and it was a shock when she was convicted. "None of this interests the judge or the district attorney. When no substantial evidence is found, they have the entire Sadeik clan testify in court. When even this proves ineffective and there is the risk of a hung jury, Judge Hendricks -- in violation of courtroom procedure -- sends a tape into the room where the jury is deliberating. It is evidence that was not used in the trial.

The tape is of the questioning of Debbie's sister, Sandy Pickinpaugh. Despite his usual forgetfulness, Saldate made a point of recording Sandy. On the tape, Sandy, a jealous, embittered woman, describes her sister as cold and unemotional. The district attorney regarded the tape as insufficient for use in court, but now it helps the jurors reach a verdict: "Guilty on all counts." The public breathes a sigh of relief and the New Times runs the headline: "Hi, my name is Debbie Milke. I'm on death row for killing my little boy." Welcome to the prison state of Arizona!
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:40 pm

roteoctober wrote:justicedenied.org/debramilke.htm
Don't refer to that article! It was written back in 1998. I don't blame the author, Ingo Hasselbach, who I happen to have known pretty well at the time. The trouble here is that Ingo could write only based on what he was given by Debra's then-attorney, Anders Rosenquist. Rosenquist largely based his briefs on unfounded speculations, and was therefore a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Huge portions of Debra's file he disregarded. I lobbied for that article to be taken down for twelve years, due to all the inaccuracies, but unfortunately the Justice:Denied people never even responded (to me and to others). Makes you wonder about their goals.... Or maybe that site isn't even maintained at all anymore, who knows?!

P.S.: The paragraph about that tape recorded by SANDRA PICKENPAUGH is complete B.S. That tape was produced to the court, and impounded as evidence. When KENY RAY intended to play it, his cassette player went out of batteries and the tape started howling. Defense, prosecution, and the court agreed to place it in the box of evidence. The reason why KEN RAY meant to play that tape is SALDATE'S incredible 'flashing breast allegation.' That's the only thing which came to his attention from the evening he received it, to next morning, when he intended to play it in court: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs ... view.shtml

When I first heard that tape, I instantly noticed all the discrepancies from this actual conversation to SALDATE'S narrative report of it: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs ... tion.shtml . We counted 19 (!) discrepancies in that 2x 30 min. tape alone.

P.P.S.: Not SALDATE, but SANDRA recorded that tape!! All details are explained in film clip #3 (http://youtu.be/jyfLSZpgL1M), at around 20:40. You would have noticed the error in that article. SANDRA'S father recommended to her to tape the interview, because SANDRA was pregnant. The idea was that the tape might save her from being called as a witness at Debra's trial. SALDATE certainly didn't want to leave any evidence... This clearly comes out from the trial records.

You see, you cannot believe that article at all. It is flawed, big time, and therefore doesn't help Debra, nor does it represent the case accurately.


P.P.P.S.: Why are we writing in this new thread at all?? :confused:
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sat Aug 04, 2012 4:06 pm

Because we are now drifting too much! :lol:

This thread is dedicated to the oncoming press release and Sarah and what its main themes could be: I suggested the meek level of the defense AND (quoting that article) the possible mishandling to evidence.

Now that you have pointed out its unreliability, I think it is better to drop this last point and I will also avoid to quote the site as a reference at the bottom of my article, as I thought previously to do.

It's a pity because the author seemed, and in my opinion was, really concerned for Debra.

The main discussion on the case goes on in the usual (old) thread.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 04, 2012 4:30 pm

User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:31 am

RimRider
For me the main points of the case, as I read it, are:
1) The statements of Saldate: The 'confession' is an invention by Saldate
2) The not correctly and completely investigated killing: What happened really in the desert, who really killed Christopher
3) The case of Levy: Levy is abusing of the jury, lies, half truths, substituting informations
4) A biaised judge, a proven incompetent judge, later no more allowed to lead penal trials
5) Complete lack of reliable evidence
So if you agree with this how would your formulate a press release, what would be your main points?
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:25 am

pmop57 wrote:RimRider
For me the main points of the case, as I read it, are:
1) The statements of Saldate: The 'confession' is an invention by Saldate
2) The not correctly and completely investigated killing: What happened really in the desert, who really killed Christopher
3) The case of Levy: Levy is abusing of the jury, lies, half truths, substituting informations
4) A biaised judge, a proven incompetent judge, later no more allowed to lead penal trials
5) Complete lack of reliable evidence
So if you agree with this how would your formulate a press release, what would be your main points?
I would almost not dare to pinpoint Debra's case down to just some points. I think the starting point would have to be SCOTT, and his questionable accusations. His own attorney later filed an affidavit to the fact that "MR. SCOTT appeared to want to make everyone like him. He wanted everyone to be his friend." (20) (see http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/pleabargain.shtml). Without incriminating statements the initial case would not even point at DEBRA MILKE. Your other points are well shaped. Judge CHERYL K. HENDRIX was later removed from hearing 'criminal' cases. She was moved to the department of family law. Under Arizonan law - at the time - the word of a police officer was technically considered 'evidence'. Therefore the only 'evidence' against DEBRA is SALDATE'S police report and the included 'confession' (The courts, the prosecution, and the defense team agree on that).
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:07 am

So you say the report of Saldate cannot be challenged because 'technicaly' the word of a police officer is evidence. Is 'technicaly' equal to 'legaly', was this quoted in a law of the State of Arizona or was it simply of general use or convention, I cannot imagine that constitutionnel rights are built on professionnel charactaristics, one of the basic standards of law, at least in States of Right (Rechtsstaat), is "all people are equal" by law. Isn't the above statement not a fundamental violation of basic human rights and an abusive practice by the State of Arizona.
On the other hand why shouldn't facts not be presented as facts in 2012, isn't it a moral obligation to detail all points of judicial miscarriage.

I think this should be treated on the other thread of this case.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:16 am

pmop57 wrote:So you say the report of Saldate cannot be challenged because 'technicaly' the word of a police officer is evidence. Is 'technicaly' equal to 'legaly', was this quoted in a law of the State of Arizona or was it simply of general use or convention, I cannot imagine that constitutionnel rights are built on professionnel charactaristics, one of the basic standards of law, at least in States of Right (Rechtsstaat), is "all people are equal" by law. Isn't the above statement not a fundamental violation of basic human rights and an abusive practice by the State of Arizona.
On the other hand why shouldn't facts not be presented as facts in 2012, isn't it a moral obligation to detail all points of judicial miscarriage.

I think this should be treated on the other thread of this case.
Well, the question if DEBRA MILKE'S constitutional rights were violated is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. I'm finding it interesting that SCOTT's case was decided upon within nine months, while DEBRA is waiting for a decision for more than 22(!!) months now. 'All people are equal' is the theory; however, more and more citizens wake up to the fact that this is not was happens domestically. Strongly reminds me of the old Soviet times, only with creases.

Many of the facts and evidence that have been brought to light in the recent years have never been addressed at DEBRA'S trial. I'm personally finding the timline evaluation, the statements of JEAN PUGH, ALAN SWANSON, and CAROL GRIFFIN royally important in order to find out what really happened. All that never took place during DEBRA'S trial, was never addressed. Any sound person and governor of a US state would have to realize that using the "death penalty" is the most inadequate and dangerous thing to do. But I'm not implying that JAN BREWER is a sound person :tongue: AZ courts cannot flawlessly evaluate the actual guilt of a person, in light of inflammatory media coverage and prosecution, as it happened here. Plus, AZ juries are known to come up with the most questionable verdicts. That's even recognized in other parts and states of the US.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:57 am

RimRider wrote:
pmop57 wrote:So you say the report of Saldate cannot be challenged because 'technicaly' the word of a police officer is evidence. Is 'technicaly' equal to 'legaly', was this quoted in a law of the State of Arizona or was it simply of general use or convention, I cannot imagine that constitutionnel rights are built on professionnel charactaristics, one of the basic standards of law, at least in States of Right (Rechtsstaat), is "all people are equal" by law. Isn't the above statement not a fundamental violation of basic human rights and an abusive practice by the State of Arizona.
On the other hand why shouldn't facts not be presented as facts in 2012, isn't it a moral obligation to detail all points of judicial miscarriage.

I think this should be treated on the other thread of this case.
Well, the question if DEBRA MILKE'S constitutional rights were violated is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. I'm finding it interesting that SCOTT's case was decided upon within nine months, while DEBRA is waiting for a decision for more than 22(!!) months now. 'All people are equal' is the theory; however, more and more citizens wake up to the fact that this is not was happens domestically. Strongly reminds me of the old Soviet times, only with creases.

Many of the facts and evidence that have been brought to light in the recent years have never been addressed at DEBRA'S trial. I'm personally finding the timline evaluation, the statements of JEAN PUGH, ALAN SWANSON, and CAROL GRIFFIN royally important in order to find out what really happened. All that never took place during DEBRA'S trial, was never addressed. Any sound person and governor of a US state would have to realize that using the "death penalty" is the most inadequate and dangerous thing to do. But I'm not implying that JAN BREWER is a sound person :tongue: AZ courts cannot flawlessly evaluate the actual guilt of a person, in light of inflammatory media coverage and prosecution, as it happened here. Plus, AZ juries are known to come up with the most questionable verdicts. That's even recognized in other parts and states of the US.


After having learned about more details of this case, I agree with you that the whole investigation of the case against Scott was not very serious. I don"t know what influence the prosecution could have had on the investigation (or Saldate). But I suspect the police and the prosecution were working together and one reason to manage Scott was that they wanted him to testify against Debra (see the deal proposed by Levy). Therefor they were also satisfied with Styers being the shooter.

But I don't think that all these details are necessary to motivate people to support Debra by signing the petition. I would base on some of the most telling elements which of cause does not mean that other elements are to be neglected.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:07 pm

How about this for a provoking intro of a press release:

RimRider wrote:A man killed a 4 year-old boy.
To police he admitted knowing where the dead body was.
He mentioned to police that another friend was with him.
That friend refused to talk to police an requested an attorney.
In order to get at him anyway, they arrested the boy's mother.
Three days later police presented a report, claiming that the mother confessed to a plot.
That confession was not signed, not tape-recorded, or witnessed by anyone.
The mother and the two men were indicted anyway.
The purported confession was allowed into evidence at the mother's trial.
All three people were convicted to die.

Where did this happen? Iran? Irak? China? No, cases like that can happen in Arizona!
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:33 pm

Rimrider,

All good points. I don't think that is how I want to open it though. I want the PR to be thought provoking in - Look how many sign there are that this is a wrongful conviction. Something that might cause people to think about it and compare it to other cases or WC.

For example, at the time of conviction there was a lot of trust that a cop wouldn't lie. How does that work today knowing the stats on misconduct. On Michael Morton's prosecutor hiding evidence, on Amanda Knox's confession also not being video taped. How can the conviction remain based on trusting the undocumented proof of this one cop?

* That could be an article on its own.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:48 pm

Sarah wrote:Rimrider,

All good points. I don't think that is how I want to open it though. I want the PR to be thought provoking in - Look how many sign there are that this is a wrongful conviction. Something that might cause people to think about it and compare it to other cases or WC.

For example, at the time of conviction there was a lot of trust that a cop wouldn't lie. How does that work today knowing the stats on misconduct. On Michael Morton's prosecutor hiding evidence, on Amanda Knox's confession also not being video taped. How can the conviction remain based on trusting the undocumented proof of this one cop?

* That could be an article on its own.


I think it is also important to look at the former behaviour of that particular cop in other cases he was in charge of and that his realibility could never be questioned because he was covered by an incompetent judge who later was dismissed from dealing with criminal cases.
Another point is about the question of her actual appeal, aren't all people to be treated equal by law, why should the word of a cop weight more then the word of a normal citizen.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Sarah » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:03 pm

pmop57 wrote:I think it is also important to look at the former behaviour of that particular cop in other cases he was in charge of and that his realibility could never be questioned because he was covered by an incompetent judge who later was dismissed from dealing with criminal cases.
Another point is about the question of her actual appeal, aren't all people to be treated equal by law, [highlight]why should the word of a cop weight more then the word of a normal citizen[/highlight].


I love that. Maybe that should be the press release. That and Scott's history.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:50 pm

pmop57 wrote:why should the word of a cop weight more then the word of a normal citizen


Rimrider told me that Arizona laws have changed from the time of the case and that today the simple word of a police officer would not be accepted as evidence, but he was unable to give a precise reference to a law or decree, so that in my article I had to put it in a somewhat vague form:

It is also to be noted that, since the time of the trial, the rules seem to have changed in Arizona so that today an unsigned, unrecorded “confession” like that of Debra Milke most probably would not be admitted as evidence.


Should we be able to find that precise reference it would be a boon for any press release: "convicted thanks to a law so unfair that indeed has been abolished"...

I tried but didn't find anything, but I don't know where to search for the laws and regulations of the State of Arizona, let alone one specific law: maybe someone more accustomed with the US judicial system could be helpful.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:01 pm

roteoctober wrote:
pmop57 wrote:why should the word of a cop weight more then the word of a normal citizen


Rimrider told me that Arizona laws have changed from the time of the case and that today the simple word of a police officer would not be accepted as evidence, but he was unable to give a precise reference to a law or decree, so that in my article I had to put it in a somewhat vague form:

It is also to be noted that, since the time of the trial, the rules seem to have changed in Arizona so that today an unsigned, unrecorded “confession” like that of Debra Milke most probably would not be admitted as evidence.


Should we be able to find that precise reference it would be a boon for any press release: "convicted thanks to a law so unfair that indeed has been abolished"...

I tried but didn't find anything, but I don't know where to search for the laws and regulations of the State of Arizona, let alone one specific law: maybe someone more accustomed with the US judicial system could be helpful.


I don't believe that there was a special law in Arizona ruling that the word of a cop cannot be challenged. There was at best a not written convention (not based on any law, but probably covered by judges and prosecutors) that was applied. I cannot believe that such a law would have been in anyway compatible with the US constitution. This is actually also part of the actuel appel of Devra, that her constitutional rights were violated.
But eventually a lawyer could confirm this. But as said I cannot believe that this was compatible with any law of the US. But I stay open to learn more.
On the other hand why not exploite this discrepancy and why not explain that based on other affairs Saldata can be called a notorious liar. Plus the methods of prosecutor Noël Levy.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:53 pm

pmop57 wrote:I don't believe that there was a special law in Arizona ruling that the word of a cop cannot be challenged. There was at best a not written convention (not based on any law, but probably covered by judges and prosecutors) that was applied. I cannot believe that such a law would have been in anyway compatible with the US constitution. This is actually also part of the actuel appel of Devra, that her constitutional rights were violated.
But eventually a lawyer could confirm this. But as said I cannot believe that this was compatible with any law of the US. But I stay open to learn more.
On the other hand why not exploite this discrepancy and why not explain that based on other affairs Saldata can be called a notorious liar. Plus the methods of prosecutor Noël Levy.
Don't forget that Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix was very biased toward the defendant, and turned many requests of the defense team down. Debbie herself told me that her trial was less a trial but a circus.

On Friday, January 25, 1991 the "Arizona Republic" published the following article: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/hendrixinfo2.shtml
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:25 am

RimRider wrote:
pmop57 wrote:I don't believe that there was a special law in Arizona ruling that the word of a cop cannot be challenged. There was at best a not written convention (not based on any law, but probably covered by judges and prosecutors) that was applied. I cannot believe that such a law would have been in anyway compatible with the US constitution. This is actually also part of the actuel appel of Devra, that her constitutional rights were violated.
But eventually a lawyer could confirm this. But as said I cannot believe that this was compatible with any law of the US. But I stay open to learn more.
On the other hand why not exploite this discrepancy and why not explain that based on other affairs Saldata can be called a notorious liar. Plus the methods of prosecutor Noël Levy.
Don't forget that Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix was very biased toward the defendant, and turned many requests of the defense team down. Debbie herself told me that her trial was less a trial but a circus.

On Friday, January 25, 1991 the "Arizona Republic" published the following article:
http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/hendrixinfo2.shtml


You are right. I always forget that judge.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Sarah » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:54 pm

* I'm not going to be able to do the press release. At least not now.

I'm moving and will not be able to be on the forum much at all until at least Oct.

If it isn't done by October by this group I'll jump back in at that point.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:48 am

pmop57 wrote:It is also to be noted that, since the time of the trial, the rules seem to have changed in Arizona so that today an unsigned, unrecorded “confession” like that of Debra Milke most probably would not be admitted as evidence.
Okay, I just checked deeper into this issue. The rule to watch is this: http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/e801.htm

Rule 801. Definitions
(c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.

So, it appears that rule is still effective. It is not as unbelievable as it may sound in respect to Debra's case. The intention of the lawmaker was that a suspect may give a confession when being arrested, but later deny that confession after having spoken to an attorney. However, this rule very obviously opens the door to very unjust behavior of untruthful law enforcement officers (as it happened to Debbie) :(

Ah, addendum: I was right, there is a movement to have this rule changed, but only recently. I have no idea what came out of it so far.
http://www.aacj.org/news.php (scroll down to May 20, 2011)
AACJ wrote:May 20, 2011
AACJ Supports State Adoption of Federal Evidence Rules

Today AACJ filed a comment in support of the changes to Rules 702 and 801(d)(1)(A), Arizona Rules of Evidence to conform to the Federal Rules of Evidence and to implement a conforming change to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.4(f). (...) The adoption of the federal version of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) would prevent the use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive (as distinct from impeaching) evidence unless they were taken under oath in a proceeding or deposition.
The pertinent brief of AACJ can be found here: http://www.aacj.org/resources/uploads/AACJ_comment_final_corrected_posted.pdf "On the other side were those who insisted that in order to be admissible as substantive evidence prior inconsistent statements ought to carry some indicator of trustworthiness." Unfortunately Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix elected not to grant the defense discovery of the personnel records of Det. Saldate at the time. "It will end, however, a grossly unfair practice whereby a criminal defendant can be convicted of a crime solely or principally on the unsworn, inherently unreliable statement that, but for the present Arizona rule, would and should be considered inadmissible hearsay." See also

http://azdnn.dnnmax.com/AZSupremeCourtM ... fault.aspx
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:03 pm

There is also this one:

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by applicable constitutional
provisions, statutes, or rules.


Which practically means what?

That hearsay is not admitted except when it is admitted? :confused:
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:06 pm

Sarah wrote:* I'm not going to be able to do the press release. At least not now.

I'm moving and will not be able to be on the forum much at all until at least Oct.

If it isn't done by October by this group I'll jump back in at that point.


Ok Sarah, best wishes for your moving, I think that we will be able to prepare at least the text of the PR by October. What I'm totally inexperienced in is trough what channels make advertise it: I think you or Bruce will be needed for that step.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:32 am

Sarah, best wishes from me too! I'm looking forward to the housewarming party :yay:

One thing I'm just becoming aware of are the writer's guidelines of the PHOENIX MAGAZINE, a very respected and high-quality monthly publication. I know that there was an article about Debra ten years ago, raising a lot of questions. Maybe another attempt should be made to have a detailed article published?
http://www.phoenixmag.com/Docs/writers-guidelines.pdf
http://www.phoenixmag.com/
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:37 am

RimRider wrote:Sarah, best wishes from me too! I'm looking forward to the housewarming party :yay:

One thing I'm just becoming aware of are the writer's guidelines of the PHOENIX MAGAZINE, a very respected and high-quality monthly publication. I know that there was an article about Debra ten years ago, raising a lot of questions. Maybe another attempt should be made to have a detailed article published?
http://www.phoenixmag.com/Docs/writers-guidelines.pdf
http://www.phoenixmag.com/


Reading the guidelines it comes out that they "prefer" authors with 5 years of documented experience and/or professional credentials, moreover they want people coming from the Phonix area...I hardly qualify... :lol:

Do you know somebody satisfying those requirements, Rimrider?
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:17 am

roteoctober wrote:Do you know somebody satisfying those requirements, Rimrider?
Yep, Peter Aleshire. He is a former professor for journalism and lives in Payson (where I love to (rim-)ride with my bike and have breakfast with friends). He wrote a great article about Debra's case which was published in the PHOENIX MAGAZINE in 1998. Maybe he'd be interested in an investigative follow-up story. I even found a telephone number of him, and will try to call him later today. Let's see if he is willing to talk to me. For those interested, I uploaded his article here: http://jumbofiles.com/user/DebraMilke/195258/doc
P.S.: Mi stupido - mea culpa. It's here too: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/media/deadwrong.shtml
P.P.S.: I just called the number of Peter Aleshire in Payson, but the provider's announcement is that the number was disconnected. Maybe the family moved elsewhere. So, now I also don't have an idea who could do this :cry:
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:50 am

Do we have an example of how such a press information could look like from another case? I haven't been able to find anything on the site...
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:07 pm

I've sent a message to Sarah asking if there is a model or template or something of that kind for a press release.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:45 pm

DougM and Rimrider, pmop57 when he'll be back full time and also whoever else wants to join the effort,

now that thanks to Sarah we have a reference for preparing a press release, we should try to prepare a draft, putting together the most important elements of the case and possibly creating a slogan, something that may catch the attention.

For once it would be better not to split the hair in four...somehow this is advertising and so what's important is that it sells.

Let me know your opinions.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby pmop57 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:54 pm

roteoctober wrote:DougM and Rimrider, pmop57 when he'll be back full time and also whoever else wants to join the effort,

now that thanks to Sarah we have a reference for preparing a press release, we should try to prepare a draft, putting together the most important elements of the case and possibly creating a slogan, something that may catch the attention.

For once it would be better not to split the hair in four...somehow this is advertising and so what's important is that it sells.

Let me know your opinions.


Roteoctober,
I agree that it must be selling. I think there is enough information to backup most assertions. Will be "full time" back again mid of september.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:10 pm

roteoctober wrote:DougM and Rimrider, pmop57 when he'll be back full time and also whoever else wants to join the effort,

now that thanks to Sarah we have a reference for preparing a press release, we should try to prepare a draft, putting together the most important elements of the case and possibly creating a slogan, something that may catch the attention.

For once it would be better not to split the hair in four...somehow this is advertising and so what's important is that it sells.

Let me know your opinions.


Well, I can probably help with this, because that is right up my alley for my line of work. I would be willing to write a press release, but I would need help from the group in deciding what are the key elements of the case, and what is the key thing that would catch the attention of someone in the media and make them want to use this release to publicize the case.

All of you would be welcome to critique as needed. :smile:

My thoughts of some key elements that would catch attention are:

* Young mother, who not only lost her child, but was then unjustly charged with the murder
* Debra is on Death Row
* Do we, as a society, want to put a woman to death when there is no real evidence? Simply on the word of a lone policeman?

There are lots of other details and potential ways to go with this. My suggestion is to think, "If I knew nothing about this case, what would get my attention if I saw it in the news?".

Thoughts anybody? I am open to any ideas anyone has.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:14 pm

I'm currently preparing certain activities locally in Arizona. I think I will focus on two mains points:

1.) The story of what actually happened when the little boy was killed was changed by Det. Saldate and & Noel Levy (which pertains to the amount of gun shots fired)
2.) The timeline implied in the story Debra Milke was convicted on does not work; it is in conflict with information on the police records
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:01 pm

RimRider wrote:I'm currently preparing certain activities locally in Arizona. I think I will focus on two mains points:

1.) The story of what actually happened when the little boy was killed was changed by Det. Saldate and & Noel Levy (which pertains to the amount of gun shots fired)
2.) The timeline implied in the story Debra Milke was convicted on does not work; it is in conflict with information on the police records


RimRider --

Can you point me to that timeline information? I would like to look at that.

Thank you.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:28 pm

Here are some good examples of press releases from The Innocence Project.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Press-Releases.php
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:32 pm

Dougm wrote:Can you point me to that timeline information? I would like to look at that.

Thank you.
[youtube]vlYf7hebR1g[/youtube]

http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline1.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline2.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline3.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline4.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline5.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline6.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline7.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline8.jpg

http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/reportcriswell.shtml
debbiemilke.com wrote:We can see here that the true route - opposing to what was told by the State to the jury at Debra's trail - was most likely this one:

- STYERS together with CHRISTOPHER left the apartment (1) and went to ROGER SCOTT'S apartment (2). They arrived there at approximately 10.30 a.m. STYERS gave SCOTT the gun which he had purchased previously.
- As three they drove north to the desert, 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (3).
- After the murder had taken place SCOTT and STYERS drove back to Phoenix. SCOTT'S purchase at a Walgreen's store (4) took place at 11.52 a.m. After that they two men checked out a 'Pizza Hut' but decided that it was too expensive. They crossed the road and entered the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place.
- After lunch and concocting their plan there, STYERS drove SCOTT to an 'Osco Drugs' store on W. Glendale Ave. (6) After that he dropped ROGER off at the 'Circle K' store (7) 47th Ave. and W. Bethany Home Road, in close proximity to SCOTT'S apartment. STYERS next drove to the Metro Center (5).
- On his own now, SCOTT decided to have a drink and went to the 'Arabian Room' (8), which is probably a 15-minute walk away from the 'Circle K' store. After having his drink SCOTT used public transportation to go to the Metro Center himself in order to provide the prearranged alibi to STYERS.


The graphics of the timeline actually show up on the page of the video clips: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/intro/clips.shtml
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:53 pm

RimRider wrote:
Dougm wrote:Can you point me to that timeline information? I would like to look at that.

Thank you.
[youtube]vlYf7hebR1g[/youtube]

http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline1.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline2.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline3.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline4.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline5.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline6.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline7.jpg
http://www.debbiemilke.com/images/jpg/timeline8.jpg

http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/reportcriswell.shtml
debbiemilke.com wrote:We can see here that the true route - opposing to what was told by the State to the jury at Debra's trail - was most likely this one:

- STYERS together with CHRISTOPHER left the apartment (1) and went to ROGER SCOTT'S apartment (2). They arrived there at approximately 10.30 a.m. STYERS gave SCOTT the gun which he had purchased previously.
- As three they drove north to the desert, 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (3).
- After the murder had taken place SCOTT and STYERS drove back to Phoenix. SCOTT'S purchase at a Walgreen's store (4) took place at 11.52 a.m. After that they two men checked out a 'Pizza Hut' but decided that it was too expensive. They crossed the road and entered the 'Peter Piper Pizza' place.
- After lunch and concocting their plan there, STYERS drove SCOTT to an 'Osco Drugs' store on W. Glendale Ave. (6) After that he dropped ROGER off at the 'Circle K' store (7) 47th Ave. and W. Bethany Home Road, in close proximity to SCOTT'S apartment. STYERS next drove to the Metro Center (5).
- On his own now, SCOTT decided to have a drink and went to the 'Arabian Room' (8), which is probably a 15-minute walk away from the 'Circle K' store. After having his drink SCOTT used public transportation to go to the Metro Center himself in order to provide the prearranged alibi to STYERS.


The graphics of the timeline actually show up on the page of the video clips: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/intro/clips.shtml


OK. I read all about the timeline, and watched most of the videos. But there is something I don't understand, so help me out.

I understand what you are saying about how the police timeline must be wrong. There is a lot of evidence of this. It sure seems to show that Christopher was killed much earlier than the prosecutor claimed. But how does changing the timeline exonerate Debra? If I understand it correctly, the thing she was convicted of is planning to have Christopher killed, not of doing it herself. So if he is killed at 10 am, or 11 or 1 pm, it doesn't change the idea the prosecutors put forth that she asked to have Chris killed. Under that scenario, a juror could be shown that the time of death was actually in the morning, and still convict Debra if that juror thought she was the instigator, no matter what time it happened.

What am I missing here? I love all the detail about the case, it is great, but does the timeline change the case against Debra?

Thanks!!
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:37 am

Dougm wrote:OK. I read all about the timeline, and watched most of the videos. But there is something I don't understand, so help me out.

I understand what you are saying about how the police timeline must be wrong. There is a lot of evidence of this. It sure seems to show that Christopher was killed much earlier than the prosecutor claimed. But how does changing the timeline exonerate Debra? If I understand it correctly, the thing she was convicted of is planning to have Christopher killed, not of doing it herself. So if he is killed at 10 am, or 11 or 1 pm, it doesn't change the idea the prosecutors put forth that she asked to have Chris killed. Under that scenario, a juror could be shown that the time of death was actually in the morning, and still convict Debra if that juror thought she was the instigator, no matter what time it happened.

What am I missing here? I love all the detail about the case, it is great, but does the timeline change the case against Debra?

Thanks!!
Ah, okay. Well, look at it like this: The claim was that a "conspiracy" to have little CHRISTOPHER killed existed. That was supported with the claim that only three shots were fired, and as you heard from JEAN PUGH, SALDATE made every attempt to suppress the information of the four local witnesses. If five to seven - instead of only three - shots were fired, it tells us a completely different scenario, as is also explained in the clip. It shows that the two men went out to the desert to try the new gun in the first place. The problem is that STYERS even covered this fact towards Debra in his letters to her, and also with everything he stated at his own trial. He would have had to admit that he was reckless when he subjected CHRISTOPHER to ROGER SCOTT, and a gun in is hands. We heard from the local witnesses that these shots were fired in two different series and that a break was in between; a break of one to five minutes, depending of the individual statements. Of course we need to interpret ourselves what happened, and what the reason was that the two series of shots were fired, but it's clear that STYERS & SCOTT did not go to the desert just in order to kill CHRIS. So, this information does not directly exonerate Debra, but it shows that something completely different happened. It is indirect evidence, if you wish. Only the State's claim of a "conspiracy" included all three individuals, and this happened because JAMES STYERS refused to talk to police on Sunday late afternoon, when he requested an attorney. My best guess is that SCOTT indeed mentioned Debra when he was interrogated, but only STYERS' refusal to talk to police triggered SALDATE'S helicopter ride, because police could not get at STYERS. As you know, the helicopter ride coincides precisely with STYERS refusal to talk to police. Does that make sense to you?

P.S.: Let me add this: By disproving that the murder happened after 1 p.m. we can see that the story on which Debra was convicted is impossible. This strengthens the '11 a.m. scenario', where we find four people stating the same thing, and this - eventually - leads us to the 'five to seven shots scenario' (and ultimately tells us that the killing was not a preplanned murder). I hope this makes it clearer... What I believe makes the research in Debra's case so strong is that we can not only disprove one scenario, but offer an alternate one which matches with all the records.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:47 am

Dougm wrote:Here are some good examples of press releases from The Innocence Project.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Press-Releases.php
Great link. Sum and substance, I believe a press release should not be longer but two pages and just focus on a few most significant issues. Of course this would included the uncorroborated confession in the first place, but certainly also the faulty timeline, the fact that the original occurrences out there in the desert were changed by police, and that the Jury never got to hear the entire story as it truly happened. As far as Sarah's request to come up with some challenging thoughts, how about the 'greater weight' the word of the cop received at trial?
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:43 am

Not just the greater weight but also the free rein given to Saldate to "quote" Debra's statement from notes that didn't exist anymore and that he himself had destroyed.
That he had really destroyed them or not by the time he testified doesn't matter: that's what Saldate said and what the jurors knew and that this didn't turn on in their minds a red light as big as the ones in Times Square on New Year's Day is something which defies immagination.
That the judge allowed that without even a warning astonishes me, but then there can be some justification in American Court procedures.

About the timeline, I agree that seven shots in two series undermine the prosecution case and particularly that this was a preplanned murder: no premeditation means no conspiracy and so no involvement by Debra.

I'd add also a reference to the low level of legal counseling Debra could afford.

By the way, the closing arguments by Ken Ray are on www.debbiemilke.com?
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:14 am

RimRider wrote:
Dougm wrote:OK. I read all about the timeline, and watched most of the videos. But there is something I don't understand, so help me out.

I understand what you are saying about how the police timeline must be wrong. There is a lot of evidence of this. It sure seems to show that Christopher was killed much earlier than the prosecutor claimed. But how does changing the timeline exonerate Debra? If I understand it correctly, the thing she was convicted of is planning to have Christopher killed, not of doing it herself. So if he is killed at 10 am, or 11 or 1 pm, it doesn't change the idea the prosecutors put forth that she asked to have Chris killed. Under that scenario, a juror could be shown that the time of death was actually in the morning, and still convict Debra if that juror thought she was the instigator, no matter what time it happened.

What am I missing here? I love all the detail about the case, it is great, but does the timeline change the case against Debra?

Thanks!!
Ah, okay. Well, look at it like this: The claim was that a "conspiracy" to have little CHRISTOPHER killed existed. That was supported with the claim that only three shots were fired, and as you heard from JEAN PUGH, SALDATE made every attempt to suppress the information of the four local witnesses. If five to seven - instead of only three - shots were fired, it tells us a completely different scenario, as is also explained in the clip. It shows that the two men went out to the desert to try the new gun in the first place. The problem is that STYERS even covered this fact towards Debra in his letters to her, and also with everything he stated at his own trial. He would have had to admit that he was reckless when he subjected CHRISTOPHER to ROGER SCOTT, and a gun in is hands. We heard from the local witnesses that these shots were fired in two different series and that a break was in between; a break of one to five minutes, depending of the individual statements. Of course we need to interpret ourselves what happened, and what the reason was that the two series of shots were fired, but it's clear that STYERS & SCOTT did not go to the desert just in order to kill CHRIS. So, this information does not directly exonerate Debra, but it shows that something completely different happened. It is indirect evidence, if you wish. Only the State's claim of a "conspiracy" included all three individuals, and this happened because JAMES STYERS refused to talk to police on Sunday late afternoon, when he requested an attorney. My best guess is that SCOTT indeed mentioned Debra when he was interrogated, but only STYERS' refusal to talk to police triggered SALDATE'S helicopter ride, because police could not get at STYERS. As you know, the helicopter ride coincides precisely with STYERS refusal to talk to police. Does that make sense to you?

P.S.: Let me add this: By disproving that the murder happened after 1 p.m. we can see that the story on which Debra was convicted is impossible. This strengthens the '11 a.m. scenario', where we find four people stating the same thing, and this - eventually - leads us to the 'five to seven shots scenario' (and ultimately tells us that the killing was not a preplanned murder). I hope this makes it clearer... What I believe makes the research in Debra's case so strong is that we can not only disprove one scenario, but offer an alternate one which matches with all the records.


I understand. So the timeline does not exonerate Debra by itself, but can be used as supporting evidence that the prosecution case does not match the facts, and that they hid information from the jury.

I'll be a devil's advocate here, but I don't think that the number of shots is a strong argument against the conspiracy charges. Maybe a small point that might add to the stronger points that the so called "confession" was not recorded and there are no notes, Scott's accusation only exists via the testimony of the same police detective, etc. The timeline shows a pattern of deception by the authorities, which is important, but is not the strongest point in Debra's favor, because if I believed she was guilty of the conspiracy, I can easily come up with a scenario of the killing that includes the 7 shots.

But I can't accept a scenario where a mother is convicted of killing her child when the only "evidence" that supports that is the testimony of one man who has lied before and has no supporting documentation of any kind.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:50 am

Dougm wrote:I understand. So the timeline does not exonerate Debra by itself, but can be used as supporting evidence that the prosecution case does not match the facts, and that they hid information from the jury.
Well, do you remember the "In chambers..." part in that fourth clip? It tells us that the Jury was withheld the information. And in fact, both side should have researched in detail, and an interested Jury would have probably asked for that information.

Dougm wrote:I'll be a devil's advocate here, but I don't think that the number of shots is a strong argument against the conspiracy charges. Maybe a small point that might add to the stronger points that the so called "confession" was not recorded and there are no notes, Scott's accusation only exists via the testimony of the same police detective, etc. The timeline shows a pattern of deception by the authorities, which is important, but is not the strongest point in Debra's favor, because if I believed she was guilty of the conspiracy, I can easily come up with a scenario of the killing that includes the 7 shots.
Well, in my experience each individual is convinced or impressed by different facts. I think it's an extremely strong point, because no one could ever tell me what the first series of shots was about, other than SCOTT & STYERS doing target practicing with the new gun which STYERS had purchased just on the preceding weekend. But anyways... I'm very convinced that the second series of shots killed CHRISTOPHER, and the scenario that all three individuals were en route back to the car, first STYERS, then CHRISTOPHER, at the end SCOTT (who still had the gun in his hand) was independently told by STYERS at his own trial, as well as ROBERT E. JOHNSON, a co-inmate of SCOTT. SCOTT had confessed the killing to him. The duplicity of telling the same scenario through two different individuals tells me that this is how the killing must have taken place: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/robertjohnson.shtml By the way, ALAN SWANSON'S account is very clear about the three shots in the second series: bang - pause - bang, bang.

[youtube]y7_PvR3k6bQ[/youtube]

I hope I'll be getting the original tape of the interview of JOHNSON soon, so everyone can listen themselves. All this would directly contradict the "conspiracy" allegation, and additionally show mitigating facts pertaining to STYERS as well. I never believed that JAMES had the idea to have CHRISTOPHER killed (so does Debra). There is no indication for that, anywhere. It's the 'big picture' that tells us the entire story. Sum and substance, I personally believe for years that this crime landed two innocent people on death row. STYERS maintains his innocence just like Debra.

Addendum: I think we would probably improve the case if one of us corresponded with STYERS. I can't do that because I'm so deeply involved in Debra's case, and that would pose a problem to ADOC.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:36 am

RimRider wrote:
Dougm wrote:I understand. So the timeline does not exonerate Debra by itself, but can be used as supporting evidence that the prosecution case does not match the facts, and that they hid information from the jury.
Well, do you remember the "In chambers..." part in that fourth clip? It tells us that the Jury was withheld the information. And in fact, both side should have researched in detail, and an interested Jury would have probably asked for that information.

Dougm wrote:I'll be a devil's advocate here, but I don't think that the number of shots is a strong argument against the conspiracy charges. Maybe a small point that might add to the stronger points that the so called "confession" was not recorded and there are no notes, Scott's accusation only exists via the testimony of the same police detective, etc. The timeline shows a pattern of deception by the authorities, which is important, but is not the strongest point in Debra's favor, because if I believed she was guilty of the conspiracy, I can easily come up with a scenario of the killing that includes the 7 shots.
Well, in my experience each individual is convinced or impressed by different facts. I think it's an extremely strong point, because no one could ever tell me what the first series of shots was about, other than SCOTT & STYERS doing target practicing with the new gun which STYERS had purchased just on the preceding weekend. But anyways... I'm very convinced that the second series of shots killed CHRISTOPHER, and the scenario that all three individuals were en route back to the car, first STYERS, then CHRISTOPHER, at the end SCOTT (who still had the gun in his hand) was independently told by STYERS at his own trial, as well as ROBERT E. JOHNSON, a co-inmate of SCOTT. SCOTT had confessed the killing to him. The duplicity of telling the same scenario through two different individuals tells me that this is how the killing must have taken place: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/robertjohnson.shtml By the way, ALAN SWANSON'S account is very clear about the three shots in the second series: bang - pause - bang, bang.

I hope I'll be getting the original tape of the interview of JOHNSON soon, so everyone can listen themselves. All this would directly contradict the "conspiracy" allegation, and additionally show mitigating facts pertaining to STYERS as well. I never believed that JAMES had the idea to have CHRISTOPHER killed (so does Debra). There is no indication for that, anywhere. It's the 'big picture' that tells us the entire story. Sum and substance, I personally believe for years that this crime landed two innocent people on death row. STYERS maintains his innocence just like Debra.

Addendum: I think we would probably improve the case if one of us corresponded with STYERS. I can't do that because I'm so deeply involved in Debra's case, and that would pose a problem to ADOC.


I agree that the story told by the prosecution is not the most likely scenario, and a lot of it can be contradicted by the facts in the timeline. I also agree that they kept this info out of the trial. So those things are points in Debra's favor.

I also agree the story that seems most likely is that someone (Scott, I assume) fired the first 4 shots, in the guise of taking target practice and/or testing the gun, then fired 3 more shots into Christopher, killing him. If it was while walking back to the car, as Styers says, I don't know, but that is more important to Styers than it is to Debra, and I highly doubt Styers would ever be exonerated, whether he pulled the trigger or not (I vote for not). While I agree that the killing could very well have been a surprise to Styers, his taking Christopher to the desert with Roger Scott and a gun, and also trying to cover up the killing, does not bode well for him in court. Debra, I think, is another story, because there is no evidence of the conspiracy.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:52 pm

Dougm wrote:While I agree that the killing could very well have been a surprise to Styers, his taking Christopher to the desert with Roger Scott and a gun, and also trying to cover up the killing, does not bode well for him in court. Debra, I think, is another story, because there is no evidence of the conspiracy.
In a way I agree with what you are saying. However, if Debra was eventually exonerated, all that implicated STYERS was the claim of SCOTT. I always wondered if that had any legal consequences for his case. I feel it should have (even tough his recklessness certainly deserved some punishment).
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:44 pm

RimRider wrote:
Dougm wrote:While I agree that the killing could very well have been a surprise to Styers, his taking Christopher to the desert with Roger Scott and a gun, and also trying to cover up the killing, does not bode well for him in court. Debra, I think, is another story, because there is no evidence of the conspiracy.
In a way I agree with what you are saying. However, if Debra was eventually exonerated, all that implicated STYERS was the claim of SCOTT. I always wondered if that had any legal consequences for his case. I feel it should have (even tough his recklessness certainly deserved some punishment).


I don't know what happened exactly, or if he deserves punishment, even if he did not have any involvement in the murder, and Roger Scott did it in a way that was a surprise to Styers. I am just saying that he was so much more closely involved in the murder situation and cover up than Debra was, that getting his conviction changed would be a lot harder. He may be innocent, but he is much less sympathetic and his actions harder to explain.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:21 am

Rimrider wrote:Addendum: I think we would probably improve the case if one of us corresponded with STYERS. I can't do that because I'm so deeply involved in Debra's case, and that would pose a problem to ADOC.


How can one correspond with Styers, I suppose he can't receive e-mails?

By the way: what's ADOC?
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:11 pm

roteoctober wrote:
Rimrider wrote:Addendum: I think we would probably improve the case if one of us corresponded with STYERS. I can't do that because I'm so deeply involved in Debra's case, and that would pose a problem to ADOC.
How can one correspond with Styers, I suppose he can't receive e-mails?
I believe archaeologists found out that in earlier times people corresponded via letters. Those were papers with words and even sentences written or printed on them, and then put into an envelope and even mailed off. It was found out that in rare cases the words were even handwritten! In order to be able to do this various nations have 'postal services' :bop: The cute little pictures to be put on such envelopes (and which pay the price) are called 'stamps'. Go figure, neither James nor Debra ever worked with the kind of computers we are having today. Debra even needs to write with a ball pen refill, since inmates made weapons out of regular pens.

roteoctober wrote:By the way: what's ADOC?
Arizona Department of Corrections

Here's STYERS "homepage" on the ADoC website: http://www.azcorrections.gov/inmate_datasearch/results_Minh.aspx?InmateNumber=082792&LastName=STYERSJAMES%20L&SearchType=SearchInet
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:30 pm

Frankie, Frankie, go figure that I'm so old that I even witnessed that time when people wrote with pens on paper, but I also confusedly remember ( ;-) ) that a destination address was also needed, moreover I don't even know if there are specific formalities or procedures that have to be followed (after all he is on death raw not at a spa).

However, if someone can provide me with an address, I have no problem tring to start (it's up to hom to answer) a correspondence with him. I also think with should decide together what put in the letter.

In due time I'd like to ask him why he tried to cover up the murder, but of course that can't be the first question, we have to take a softer approach.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:37 pm

roteoctober wrote:Frankie, Frankie, go figure that I'm so old that I even witnessed that time when people wrote with pens on paper, but I also confusedly remember ( ;-) ) that a destination address was also needed, moreover I don't even know if there are specific formalities or procedures that have to be followed (after all he is on death raw not at a spa).

However, if someone can provide me with an address, I have no problem tring to start (it's up to hom to answer) a correspondence with him. I also think with should decide together what put in the letter.

In due time I'd like to ask him why he tried to cover up the murder, but of course that can't be the first question, we have to take a softer approach.
Easy:
James Lynn Styers #082792
SPC Eyman SMU II
ASPC - Florence
P.O. Box 3500
Florence, AZ 85132-3500
USA
(http://www.azcorrections.gov/prisons/Jeff_Eyman.aspx) SMU means "Special Management Unit". That's where are the death row inmates are (except, Debra is in the female's prison Perryville).

I do know that some lawyers currently intend to interview him, but it's up to his own attorney if he'll allow that to happen. Don't be too forward with your questions; DR inmates are usually very skeptical of help or a stranger writing to them.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:59 pm

Ok, I have no problem in signing the letter myself but I accept suggestions about what to ask.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:08 pm

roteoctober wrote:Ok, I have no problem in signing the letter myself but I accept suggestions about what to ask.
Well, to give you my idea of such a letter, how about first telling him that you heard about the murder case of Christopher, and in researching the information available you found out quite a few inconsistencies in that case (you could also speak of a group of people; that#s up to your choosing). Also, you heard that he has almost exhausted all his appeal efforts, and that you are sorry for that. Maybe he will reveal to you if further legal steps are planned. I think that would also be interesting.

I would not dwell too much on the case itself in a first letter. Maybe in a second or third one. You will see how he responds. Inmates will usually want to learn a little bit about who's writing to them, so just tell them whatever you feel like disclosing. That would my suggestion. Debra and I are usually exchanging one lengthy letter a week, and we#re doing that for 13 years, or so. Should we open a separate thread for the communication with James Styers?

Matthew, will you try to put some PI text together? You said that's your ball field... :yay:
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby Dougm » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:50 am

RimRider wrote:
roteoctober wrote:Ok, I have no problem in signing the letter myself but I accept suggestions about what to ask.
Well, to give you my idea of such a letter, how about first telling him that you heard about the murder case of Christopher, and in researching the information available you found out quite a few inconsistencies in that case (you could also speak of a group of people; that#s up to your choosing). Also, you heard that he has almost exhausted all his appeal efforts, and that you are sorry for that. Maybe he will reveal to you if further legal steps are planned. I think that would also be interesting.

I would not dwell too much on the case itself in a first letter. Maybe in a second or third one. You will see how he responds. Inmates will usually want to learn a little bit about who's writing to them, so just tell them whatever you feel like disclosing. That would my suggestion. Debra and I are usually exchanging one lengthy letter a week, and we#re doing that for 13 years, or so. Should we open a separate thread for the communication with James Styers?

Matthew, will you try to put some PI text together? You said that's your ball field... :yay:


Yes. I will. I am not in the Public Relations field. However, when the subject was mentioned that it needed to be like Advertising and sell the story, I can do that, and have experience. I don't know the case as well as you and others do, so I may need some help with that. I'll go over the case details again, that will help.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:14 pm

Dougm wrote:Yes. I will. I am not in the Public Relations field. However, when the subject was mentioned that it needed to be like Advertising and sell the story, I can do that, and have experience. I don't know the case as well as you and others do, so I may need some help with that. I'll go over the case details again, that will help.
Of course we'll assist you! :::thumbs up:::

Some links to Arizona media:
http://www.disastercenter.com/media/azmedia.html
http://www.abyznewslinks.com/uniteaz.htm
http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/us/3/139

Of course, nation-wide media contacts are wishful as well.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:50 pm

I still have not heard back from the Phoenix Magazine :sadno: If all else fails I'll have to drive to their office when I'm there in October, and see if I get to talk to someone.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby roteoctober » Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:56 pm

Next week I will be away from home but from September 10 I'll be able to work on the letter to send to Styers, or better, I maybe will work on it even before, but I'll print and send it only after that date.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Sun Sep 02, 2012 4:11 pm

roteoctober wrote:Next week I will be away from home but from September 10 I'll be able to work on the letter to send to Styers, or better, I maybe will work on it even before, but I'll print and send it only after that date.
Okay Luca, that sounds like a plan! :)
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:21 pm

Is a 'press release' about 'pressing the release of Debra'? :bop:
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ

Re: Debra Milke Press Release

Postby RimRider » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:53 pm

I met Jana Bommersabch today. We will likely sit down in the near future and discuss Debra's case in great detail.
User avatar
RimRider
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ


Return to Debra Milke Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron