I'm hoping he's currently serving a long jail sentence.

even though he's destroyed lives, has been disciplined for propositioning a female motorist when he was on patrol and been accused of improper interrogation tactics.

This whole story has made me sick for so long. I'm glad she is finally free, but at such a cost.

He doesn't deserve it.

Really? That obvious? Of course in your OP you leave out that Milke's roommate was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder. You are also leaving out that his friend took the child into the desert and killed him. She had life insurance on the kid. You also leave out she discussed the policy with her roommate. Why would she do that? What would be the motivation of these two men to kill this child on their own? Why would a mother let a friend of a friend take her 4 year old somewhere?

Yes, the prosecution should have given the file on the detective to the defense. It was a violation of the Brady Rule to not do so. That was an error which the court found could have lead to hung jury. To leap from that to saying she was "framed" and its "stupidly obvious" that she had nothing to do with the murder is utter nonsense.

I don't think anything is so obvious here.

If the worst thing happened, I would not have been able to afford or think about affording insurance.

As one who kept up with this trial, it is obvious.

$5,000 split 3 ways is not worthy of a murder.
Search the story, and you'll find some interesting facts. Both the murderer and his accomplice refused to testify against her.
One would think, to avoid the DP, the murderer would have turned. Milke's roommate took the child ostensibly to visit Santa (before the usual question "why didn't she go?" comes up, several times my children have been taken to see Santa by Aunts/Uncles and once my roommate) with his friend. The friend testified that Styers took them to the desert, and shot the boy. When the friend freaked out and asked why he had done that, Styers told him he believed he would receive some of the insurance policy and that he'd give him $250.

The only testimony that connected Ms. Milke to the crime? That of the detective. And she denies this ever transpired. I believe her. This should have been a not guilty verdict back then.

Again, the "friend of a friend" was not the murderer. She knew the man, lived with him and trusted him. As a single mother, I have done the same thing.

The killers was a a roommate and his friend. She did not live with him the roommate's friend. You would let your 4 year old go with a friend of your roommate --- someone you do not live with??? Others will form their own opinions on that...

You contadict yourself in your post. You say $5,000 split 3 ways is not worthy of a murder. Then you say Styers told him he believed he would receive some of the insurance policy and that he'd give him $250. So it WAS a reason for someone to commit murder.

Why did she discuss her life insurance on her son with a roommate? Do you do that?

She knew the man, lived with him and trusted him How the hell do you know that? Did you live there?

Meth heads will kill for $100 let alone $5000.

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/styers-james-lynn.htm

No, I did not contradict myself, and on appeal, the insurance money aspect of the mitigating circumstances was thrown out ($5,000 split 3 ways is not worthy of a murder.). It was not a reason for a mother to ask her roommate (again it was the flipping roommate and not a flipping "friend of a friend&quot to murder her son. Two, I fill out paperwork in front of those I live with all the time and share bits and pieces about my life. You don't? How odd.

Most importantly, and the main fact you are messing up: "You would let your 4 year old go with a friend of your roommate --- someone you do not live with???".

Deep Breath...

Read the stories and the documents:

SHE DID NOT LET HIM GO WITH A "FRIEND OF A FRIEND." HER ROOMMATE TOOK HIM TO SEE SANTA, PICKED UP HIS FRIEND, WENT TO TWO STORES AND LUNCH AND THEN TOOK HIM OUT TO THE DESERT AND SHOT HIM... THE ROOMMATE SHOT HIM. THE ROOMMATE TOOK HIM. THE "FRIEND OF A FRIEND" WAS PICKED UP AFTER THE ROOMMATE TOOK HIM.

In answer to your question, and as I have stated previously, I WOULD and I HAVE let my roommate take my child. If I didn't trust a roommate, I wouldn't be "rooming" with him. Judge me all you want, but I hope you don't often get called for jury service. There was not one shred of reasonable evidence against this woman besides the fact she gave birth to him and pulled a burial policy out on him...which is something smart parents do. Her mistake? Choosing roommates to trust.

Then you said the son was murdered for the $5000. That is the contradiction. You apparently don't know shit about meth heads. And I don't get my info from "articles". I look at the evidence presented at trial. Something you should try sometime.

Scott was a severe alcoholic with several traumatic brain injuries and an atrophied brain. He claims Jim did the shooting, but no one knows.

The person who wasn't there and had nothing to do with it was the boy's mother.

"She had life insurance on the kid."

In your laughable attempt to be an internet Sherlock Holmes, the measly amount of the insurance policy is something you conveniently left out. And in your zeal to portray the the policy's existence as part of some nefarious plot, you also leave out the fact that Milke's $5,000 insurance policy for her child was simply something that automatically came with her employee benefits package (she worked for an insurance company).

"You also leave out she discussed the policy with her roommate. Why would she do that?"

The only one who ever claimed that Milke told her boyfriend/roommate of the life insurance policy was the crooked detective who fabricated the alleged discussions in the first place. Neither of the two admitted killers were willing to testify at Milke trial, and neither did testify at her trial.

"Of course in your OP you leave out that Milke's roommate was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder. You are also leaving out that his friend took the child into the desert and killed him."

You didn't even get that one right: it was both men, not just one, who took the child out to the desert and shot him dead. That Milke trusted the wrong man to enter into her life and to be around her child proves her lack of good judgement; it doesn't in any way prove complicity in her child's murder

to overturn convictions, especially under shameful conditions like this.

They wouldn't have done that if they weren't convinced of her innocence.

I don't know if you've been following the Amanda Knox case, but eight years after the death of her roommate she's about to have another high court hearing in Italy, which may or may not result in her re-conviction (after being released in 2011 when an appeals court ruled that she was "innocent.&quot

This hearing will be happening on Wednesday. If she is re-convicted, the witch-hunters will be calling for her immediate extradition.

in the murder room matched a known burglar -- who told a friend over Skype that he had been with the victim when she died -- they should have let the students go.

Instead, they went back to the murder room 6 weeks later and "discovered" a bra clasp in some rubbish on the floor. And after they passed it around via their dirty plastic gloves (visible on video), they sent it to a lab that reported finding Raffaele's DNA on it -- but managed to destroy the clasp before it could undergo the scientifically-required retest.

This whole case stunk from beginning to end . . . though it still isn't over yet.

What could have possibly been the motive? Insurance? Why would this guy think he could get some of the insurance money if mother didn't tell him anything?

except for the testimony of the now-discredited cop.

The small policy was just an employee benefit that she had, and no one testified that she had told her male roommate about it -- except for the lying detective.

Why did the men shoot him? The roommate's pal was a "severe alcoholic" with four traumatic brain injuries and an atrophied brain. So maybe he didn't have a rational reason.

The woman obviously has very poor taste in men, but that doesn't make her a child murderer.

http://murderpedia.org/female.M/m/milke-debra.htm

The recent Ninth Circuit opinion focuses on what it terms the failure of defense attorney Steinle to present possibly compelling mitigating evidence at sentencing.

That evidence, the panel wrote, included "four traumatic head injuries Scott had suffered, a brain scan showing Scott's brain had atrophied, evidence Scott suffered from seizures, as well as evidence of the plea bargain offer, which Scott wanted to accept but Steinle rejected."

The panel noted in its June 2 opinion that Steinle had used Roger Scott's claim of "brain shrinkage" as grounds for requesting a court-ordered evaluation before trial.

"There is no evidence, however, Steinle independently investigated these claims to present them as mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of the trial," the judges wrote.

They also noted that Scott was a severe alcoholic, drinking two fifths of whiskey daily, "which may also have contributed to cognitive problems."

You were silent on that. Why did she discuss the policy with her roommate? You were silent on that. No court has said her confession was fabricated. You were silent on that. The court said the past history of the detective should have been given to the defense. And it should have been. Nothing says that her confession was fabricated. You were silent on that. Don't make up evidence. The policy did NOT automatically come with her benefits. She signed up for it. You were silent on that.

except for the testimony of the discredited detective who claims to have taken her statement without taping it or having her sign it.

What was the motivation of the killers? I don't know,but one of them was a "severe alcoholic" with four traumatic brain injuries and an atrophied brain. Maybe he was drinking and just lost it.

whether she was innocent or guilty.

But I am not going to sympathize with the defendant because of it.

about statements made to him. He didn't tape his interview with the woman or have her sign a statement.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Milke

In their opinion the Circuit Court said,
Milke’s alleged confession, as reported by [Pinal County Sheriff's Detective] Saldate, was the only direct evidence linking Milke to the crime. But the confession was only as good as Saldate’s word, as he’s the only one who claims to have heard Milke confess and there’s no recording, written statement or any other evidence that Milke confessed. Saldate’s credibility was crucial to the state’s case against Milke. It’s hard to imagine anything more relevant to the jury’s—or the judge’s—determination whether to believe Saldate than evidence that Saldate lied under oath and trampled the constitutional rights of suspects in discharging his official duties. If even a single juror had found Saldate untrustworthy based on the documentation that he habitually lied under oath or that he took advantage of women he had in his power, there would have been at least a hung jury. Likewise, if this evidence had been disclosed, it may well have led the judge to order a new trial, enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, at least, impose a sentence less than death. The prosecution did its best to impugn Milke’s credibility. It wasn’t entitled, at the same time, to hide the evidence that undermined Saldate’s credibility.

I just shows what black hearted scumbags many prosecutors are.

They're the best!

She should be glad she wasn't in Texas.