on December 2nd, 1989
at around 11 a.m.
An analysis
As set forth with the depicted faulty timeline, the State of Arizona implied at the consecutive trials of Debra Milke, James Styers, and Roger Scott that only three shots were fired, and that a conspiracy to kill 4 y.o. Christopher Milke between the three defendants supposedly existed. As it is with circumstantial evidence, it inherits an unbalanced weight if it is not carried and supported by other corroborating evidence. This supporting evidence is depicted in the reconstructed timeline itself, since it not only disproves the ‘after 1 to 2.45 p.m.’ allegation, but at the same time shows an alternate scenario at around 11 a.m., which three independent witnesses testified to (and which matches will all other evidence). Considering all statements made about the incident at 11 a.m. we can count a total of five to seven shots, which were fired in two series. All witnesses stated that there was a break in between; a break of one to up to five minutes. In her trial testimony on direct examination, Ms. Pugh stated on October 10, 1990:
(…)
Ken Ray: Just draw a line to the point where you indicated your view is obstructed a little bit.
Okay. Thank you.
You have indicated on December 2nd you had occasion to hear gunshots.
Jean Pugh: Yes.
Ken Ray: What time of day did you hear those?
Jean Pugh: Sometime between 10:00 and 11:00. Probably closer to 11:00. I’m not real sure because I wasn’t keeping track.
Ken Ray: All right. And what did you do in response to hearing those sounds?
Jean Pugh: I stayed inside until the first series ceased, then I went out to look to see who was shooting.
Ken Ray: Could you tell from where you were at when you heard those sounds from what direction they came?
Jean Pugh: Yes. They were coming from the southwest.
Ken Ray: Why did you take it upon yourself to go look? Was there something unusual about this?
Jean Pugh: Well, yeah. The shots were strange. They weren’t the normal shots we have out there.
Ken Ray: What was different?
Jean Pugh: They were so low-caliber. It was the appearance of a mature shooting. It was not someone that shoots to target practice or knows how to handle a gun.
Ken Ray: How many shots did you hear?
Jean Pugh: Three or four.
Ken Ray: From what direction did the shots appear to come?
Jean Pugh: From the southwest.
Ken Ray: And you went outside and looked to the southwest?
Jean Pugh: Yes.
Ken Ray: And what did you see?
Jean Pugh: I didn’t see anyone.
Ken Ray: All right. Did you see any objects or anything?
Jean Pugh: No.
Ken Ray: Did you have an occasion to see from where those shots came, the exact point?
Jean Pugh: No. I was satisfied where they were coming from.
Ken Ray: And where was that?
Jean Pugh: From the base of the mountain there that I showed you, the hilltop.
Ken Ray: Where this area is, this location that has the red circle?
Jean Pugh: Yes.
Ken Ray: And as you looked at that location, did you see any vehicles?
Jean Pugh: At that time, no.
Ken Ray: Did you have occasion later to see vehicles?
Jean Pugh: Yes.
Ken Ray: What did you see?
Jean Pugh: I seen a white vehicle leaving on the Gasline road.
Ken Ray: In which direction was the vehicle headed?
Jean Pugh: South.
Ken Ray: Did it appear to be moving slowly or average?
Jean Pugh: For that road, average.
Ken Ray: All right. Did you hear any sound of squealing tires or anything of that nature?
Jean Pugh: No.
Ken Ray: Did you ever see any people around or within that car?
Jean Pugh: There appeared to be one person in it.
Ken Ray: Now, it is quite a distance, is it not, from your house to the location that has a circle?
Jean Pugh: About a block and a half.
Ken Ray: Are you able to — do you wear glasses?
Jean Pugh: Sometimes when I read.
Ken Ray: Do you have vision problems?
Jean Pugh: I’m farsighted.
Ken Ray: Do you feel comfortable saying you saw a white car pull away slowly or leaving this location marked in the red?
Jean Pugh: Yes, I do.
Ken Ray: All right. Did you hear any other shots that day?
Jean Pugh: Well, after I went back in, I heard three more shots, but they were more — had a rhythm to them. They were a different type of shot, but the same caliber. There was just a matter of possibly two minutes between the first group of shots and the second.
Ken Ray: Did it appear to come from the same direction?
Jean Pugh: Yes, they came from the same spot.
Ken Ray: Did you have an occasion, then, on the following evening December 3rd, to see any kind of activity in the area of this red circle on Exhibit 106?
Jean Pugh: Yes, I did.
Ken Ray: What did you see?
(…)
Ms. Pugh counted three or four shots in the first series, and then three more shots in the second (six or seven in total). Her testimony is confirmed entirely by Alan Swanson, the friend of her son Jerry, who was equally firm with the number of shots fired in the interview on behalf of the prosecution (10/09/1990):
(…)
Alan Swanson: … but this day, ah, Jerry and I worked there, heard the shots … I don’t know, we didn’t have TV on, we were just sitting here talking, just getting ready for barbecue, like Jean said, and something was said about it and I said ‘yeah’ and Jean went out, checked the barbecue or something, I don’t remember now, and never heard anymore. You know, just … the two different sets, they weren’t … there was nothing normal about ’em because generally when you’re target practicing you have a rhythm. When you target practice you point the gun at the target and you fire your shots. These weren’t – ah, I would call it – spontaneous. There was no, there was no sense and no rhythm. That’s, you know …
Robert Mills: How many, how many shots do you think you heard?
Alan Swanson: Well, there’s, I know there’s two different sets and they’d have been five or six.
Robert Mills: Total or in each set?
Alan Swanson: No, total.
Robert Mills: Total? Okay.
Alan Swanson: I know there was three or four in the first one.
Robert Mills: Okay.
Alan Swanson: I’m sure. I’m not positive but I’m, I’m, I’m pretty sure there was three … I know there was three, maybe four in the first one and then I don’t know how long there was in between. Seem like probably five minutes, I think. And then there might, I’m sure there was three, I know it was three in the second. But they weren’t repeated. There was a shot, pause, shot, shot.
Robert Mills: How long do you think the pause was?
Alan Swanson: No more than two or three seconds.
Robert Mills: Hm, okay. Could you tell where they were coming from?
Alan Swanson: Ah, I know they were coming from what we call Gasline Road.
Robert Mills: Okay, on the other side like Lake Pleasant Road?
Alan Swanson: Yeah, that were Southern Union Gas road there … Gasline and there’s a road. Everybody uses it I think, except me. Anyway, ah, I knew they were coming from that direction because I have a sense of, some sense of direction when I hear a noise. I guess, part of it is military training, just something that …
Robert Mills: Okay.
Alan Swanson: Anyway, ah, with the windows and everything I knew, you know, what windows were open and what direction they were coming from. And there was a conversation, I don’t remember what it was that Jean said, something about the shots and I said ‘ya, I heard ’em’, and that’s when she went outside. I don’t remember it now.
Robert Mills: Were they close to the house?
Alan Swanson: Ah, no, but I know they were 22 or 25 caliber.
Robert Mills: Small caliber?
Alan Swanson: Yeah.
Robert Mills: Okay.
(…)
He ‘knew it was three in the second’ series of shots, and this witness had a military education and practice. Yet, the scenario told here was carefully suppressed by the case lead detective, and the prosecutor assigned to the case. Only the allegation of an ‘only three shots’ scenario, between 1 and 2:45 p.m. supports the claim of a ‘conspiracy.’ Yet, these points are in conflict with the statements of all witness close to the murder scene, who said that they did not hear any other shots the whole day. STYERS, MILKE, and SCOTT were therefore definitely convicted on the basis of a scenario which is in harsh conflict with reliable witness testimony and the proof that the reconstructed timeline of the State is faulty and plainly impossible. But how could this ever happen? Ms. Pugh’s initial telephone conversation with defense counsel Kenneth Ray explains in detail:
(…)
Jean Pugh: And I thought “Well shit, at least I’ve called, I’ve tried”. And that’s why I made two phone calls, I think I called the Peoria police first, and they referred me to the homicide detective and the homicide detective was so cruel and, you know — factually called me a liar —
Ken Ray: Aha.
Jean Pugh: Everything he said was “You’re a bold-faced liar”, he just used another language.
Ken Ray: Let me give you some names and see if — let me repeat some names to you and see if it — any names sound familiar to you? Ah, Armando Saldate? Does that sound familiar?
Jean Pugh: I don’t know.
Ken Ray: Detective Ontiveros.
Jean Pugh: Sir, I’ve heard all those names —
Ken Ray: Have you? Alright.
(…)
Ms. Pugh’s statements therefore confirm that Phoenix police had no intention to let the true scenario of what happened transpire and come to surface. Likewise, MILKE’S mother Renate Janka filed an affidavit to the fact that she made contact with the case lead detective ARMANDO SALDATE, JUN. prior to trial. Upon the request to see the ‘confession’ of MILKE, she was told ‘that was not for her to see’ and that ‘she better go back to where she came from;’ A number of indexes which show the PPD had no other intention but to go on with an unfounded claim of a conspiracy. Since PPD also failed to investigate what really happened in the murder case (i.e. failed to test any power burns) we can only look at ‘what is there.’ The ‘five to seven shots’ scenario does reveal some indexes the court should consider:
1.) Which of the two series of shots killed Christopher Milke?
a. The statements of both Ms. Pugh and Mr. Swanson show with high certainty that the second series had three shots. Both stated that the first series had three or four shots. This is a first indication that it was the second series which killed the victim.
b. If we lay various fictional versions into picture in order to imagine a scenario where the first series killed a 4 year-old boy, we cannot come up with a halfway reasonable or imaginable idea what the second series of shots should have been about. It’s hard to imagine that a child was killed, and one of the two men then continued target-practicing.
2.) If the second series killed the victim, what was the first series about?
Given – as presumed – that the second series of shots was fatal to Christopher Milke, what was the first series of shots about? While STYERS claimed at his own trial that SCOTT was ‘safe at the time’ and supposedly didn’t drink, neighbors to STYERS, MILKE and her son testified otherwise. They (the Ciullas and the Murphys) testified that SCOTT would become obnoxious at times, and that STYERS had to drive him home. STYERS himself testified that SCOTT had shot in alleys, had shot at people. STYERS also stated that he had to take a gun away from SCOTT once, because he was going to shoot his wife.
The evidence is that STYERS purchased two guns on the preceding weekend of this killing, using a post-dated check (dated 12/01/1989; to seller Steve Hicks at a gun show). There is no hint or evidence that MILKE ever had any knowledge about the purchase of these two additional guns. Given that MILKE had a regular job at the time – why would STYERS pay for the purchase of the two guns (to Steven Hicks, using a post-dated check)? MILKE only knew of the one gun which she showed police during the missing person investigation. We therefore have to conclude that STYERS’ visit to SCOTT’S place was supposed to give the newly purchased gun to him. The two men along with victim Christopher Milke then obviously went to the desert to try this gun out (shooting at cans or snakes). STYERS claim at his own trial – that he had no idea that Scott had the gun with him – is therefore unbelievable and in conflict with the three (four) witnesses close to the murder-scene. At his own trial (10/29/1990) STYERS testified:
(…)
Jesse Miranda: Did he ever say anything about firing the gun?
Jim Styers: He liked them. He said he liked to do it. He said — he has talked to me about times he has fired the guns, shooting them down the alleys, and his mother verified that.
Jesse Miranda: In your opinion, does Roger Scott appreciate — well, strike that question.
Has Roger ever fired the weapon, in your presence, in a manner which was unsafe?
Jim Styers: Yes, he has.
Jesse Miranda: When he fired the weapon as you’ve just indicated, was there any concern by Roger about the safety of anyone around him?
Jim Styers: No, there wasn’t.
(…)
And upon cross-examination STYERS testified that there was a clear distinction between the two new guns he had purchased, which was his own, and which was meant for Scott:
(…)
Noel Levy: You already had a gun besides that, did you not?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: The guns that you had were, one of them was Exhibit 137, this chrome .22 revolver, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Let me see it better.
Noel Levy: No, I won’t show it to you.
Jim Styers: Let me see the handle. No, that’s, that’s the one I bought with it.
Noel Levy: So, this is your gun?
Jim Styers: Doesn’t really look like my gun. No.
Noel Levy: You denying or admitting it’s your gun?
Jim Styers: If I could see it a little better I’d be able to tell you.
Noel Levy: Do you see it?
Jim Styers: Yes, that’s my gun. That’s the one I bought with the other one.
Noel Levy: You kept it in this brown sock?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: You kept it in your closet?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
Noel Levy: You kept it in your closet as shown in 104 Exhibit 87, at the top shelf?
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: You kept it loaded as per Exhibit 141, is that so?
Jim Styers: I didn’t have it loaded all the time, but I did at that time, yes.
Noel Levy: You kept it loaded even though Christopher Milke was in the house, as well as your daughter Wendy?
Jim Styers: Yes, I did.
(…)
Yet, STYERS also admitted that the gun for Scott was in the car when he drove over to him:
(…)
Noel Levy: For what reason did you put it in the glove compartment, knowing that Christopher Milke was going to be going to see Santa Claus that day at Metro Center?
Jim Styers: Because they were going with the guns to Roger’s.
Noel Levy: Yes. And you already testified on direct examination, Mr. Styers, that according to you, Roger Scott was careless with guns, shot at people, shot in the alley, shot in an unsafe way, yet you took the gun on that day, with Christopher Milke with you in the car, to take the gun to Roger Scott. Is that so?
Jim Styers: Yes, that’s right.
Noel Levy: And that if that’s so, Mr. Styers, you claim that you never went into the house of Roger Scott but only stayed in the parking lot, you talked for a while, he got in and you drove off, is that correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, that’s right.
Noel Levy: Yet you could have easily, according to your version, have insisted, under these conditions, that he take that gun into his house, but you forgot to mention that, or what, Mr. Styers?
Jim Styers: No, Roger wasn’t drinking at the time, so he was all right.
Noel Levy: So, it’s perfectly all right to have the gun, that you claim suddenly to give him that day for no known reason, and also have the box of .22 Stinger ammunition in the glove box, is that right?
Jim Styers: No.
Noel Levy: But you did have the. 22 Stinger ammunition in the glove box, did you not?
Jim Styers: Yes. I did.
Noel Levy: You testified on direct examination, Mr. Styers, that when you got out of the car at the wash, 99th Avenue north of Happy Valley Road, that’s where the gun was in the glove box.
Jim Styers: Yes.
Noel Levy: And the gun then was in the glove box per Exhibit 74 and 75, with the Stinger ammunition?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was.
Noel Levy: And the Stinger ammunition was covered up with a — this Cardinals child’s logo shirt, correct?
Jim Styers: Yes, it was.
Noel Levy: So, you knew then in the same glove box was a gun and ammunition, and Christopher Milke, age four, in the same car with Roger Scott, whom you claim to be unsafe, is that correct?
Jim Styers: No. Roger Scott was safe at the time.
Noel Levy: Now he’s safe?
Jim Styers: He was at the time.
Noel Levy: When did he become safe, Mr. Styers?
(…)
On redirect STYERS stated pertaining to the whereabouts of that gun which he claimed was Scott’s:
(…)
Jesse Miranda: Did you ever tell Roger Scott to take the pistol, that he shot Christopher with, to his apartment?
Jim Styers: No, I did not.
Jesse Miranda: Did you know whatever happened to that pistol?
Jim Styers: No, I don’t.
(…)
In contrast the police report of Det. Saldate (12/06/1989) states about this gun:
“(…) I asked ROGER if he knew where the gun was at and ROGER paused and then said that JIM gave him the gun to get rid of it but that he had not. He said that JIM gave him the gun initially and told him to get rid of it but that JIM also told him that he could keep it if he wanted it. ROGER said he kept the gun and that it is in his closet at his home. (…)”
In other words, according to DET. SALDATE’S account SCOTT claimed that the actual perpetrator of a homicide gave the weapon away and thusly accepted the danger of being uncovered by forensic evidence. How believable is that? This gun was later found, wrapped up and hidden inside a box at SCOTT’S apartment. It is therefore only logical that the first series of shot were fired by SCOTT, trying out the new gun. Any alternate scenario appears hardly believable and unlikely.
3.) Did a conspiracy exists?
Granted that the second series killed victim Christopher Milke, and the first series was ROGER SCOTT trying out the new gun, it appears likely that the murder happened in the presence of STYERS, but without his knowledge or a preconceived intention. In fact, there is no indication in the file that STYERS would want Christopher Milke dead. There are various indications in the file that Roger Scott didn’t like children in general, DEBRA MILKE and her son Christopher in particular (because MILKE harshly rejected giving SCOTT $250 which he needed to file a social benefits claim. According to MILKE’S own statement she made some sarcastic comment to the effect of ‘getting a job, like every other person’ to SCOTT). Christopher had a thyroid condition and was high-strung. Another source, a report about an interview of a fellow worker of MILKE, CARMEN SANTANA, held by KIRK FOWLER, investigator for the defense, on December 22, 1989 reveals:
“(…) Debra seemed like a good mother. She did the best she could with her child. Carmen had known STYERS since August. He seemed like a really nice man. Carmen thought STYERS cared a lot for Debra, unknown if this was romantic interest or as a daughter. ROGER SCOTT went out with them one time. CARMEN did not care much for him, he seemed creepy and weird. (…)”
A scenario (as stated) including five to seven shots contradicts the claim of a conspiracy. It does not make any sense that the victim was shot with three bullets, but before that another series of three or four shots were fired. A ‘conspiracy’ between the three defendants was obviously never the case.
[Annotation: I believe not all States in the US have laws where the instigation of a homicide is weighted equally as the actual murder. I think this is therefore a special situation in Arizona. This circumstance might therefore conveniently serve for equal punishment of all supposed members of a conspiracy.]
4.) Why did the State (falsely) insist that three shots were fired?
We have to ask the reason of why the State of Arizona claimed that only three shots were fired when the murder happened: When the dead body of the victim was found it was easy to check that the three bullets which killed the boy were the apparent ones, the ones available without a great search effort. In his tape-recorded statement, ROGER SCOTT would even confirmed three shots, but looking at this tape-recording (12/03/1989) closely and with suspicion we will find a number of inconsistent statements:
(…)
Roger Scott: There was a spot on the, I can’t remember exactly what road, but it was north, pulled off into a neighborhood, thinking of doing it there and uh, there just got to be too much traffic all of a sudden and so had to stop that idea. He had more or less worried each other for a week up until Saturday out of doing it and Saturday I didn’t believe he would do it because I didn’t hear the shots for a while. I drove up and down the road, I looked for them, um, I saw the, well I looked and could not see them, I beeped the horn a couple of times or once and then again…
Det. Mills: Okay.
Roger Scott: But, I could _______
Det. Mills: We’ll get into that as _______
Roger Scott: Then I heard the three shots.
Det. Mills: Okay, we’ll get into that as time passes, okay. Uh, let me ask you this, what was Christopher told about these trips to the desert?
Roger Scott: Later on he was going to go see Santa Claus, uh we…
Det. Mills: How about Friday’s trip to the desert, what was he told then?
Roger Scott: Well that one was about Santa Claus.
Det. Mills: Santa Claus?
Roger Scott: Yeah.
(…)
In other words, SCOTT claimed on the original tape that the boy would see ‘Santa Claus’ in the desert. Considering the mental state SCOTT was in (and his IQ of 70-something) it is obvious that SCOTT was to confirm three core points with his statement:
- That he was supposedly only the driver,
- that only three shots were fired, and
- that the boy was supposed to see Santa Claus
.
SCOTT could have been briefed to state these three core points in a tape-recorded interrogation before SALDATE left off with the helicopter. SCOTT’S statements are yet in conflict with the perceptions of the three witnesses close to the murder-scene. Interestingly, SCOTT later also attempted to recant these initial statements at his own trial (but was harshly turned down by the inquisitor, oops, prosecutor). January 31st, 1991:
(…)
Roger Scott: We went into the east side, too shallow. We crossed to the West side. And then —-
Noel Levy: About fifty feet, yourself?
Roger Scott: No, I wouldn’t say that.
Noel Levy: You wouldn’t?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: And then Jim Styers says “I’m going to do it up there, on up, close enough to where they can find the body in a couple of days, maybe three.”
He said that, didn’t he?
Roger Scott: That’s what it says on the tape.
(…)
Noel Levy: Now, Mr. Scott, you do recollect the taped statement that you gave to Detective Mills on December 3rd; is that correct?
Roger Scott: Yes.
(Whereupon, tape played.)
Noel Levy: So, Mr. Scott, you knew in fact while in the wash and before the wash that Styers was going to execute Christopher Milke, did you not?
Roger Scott: No, I didn’t.
Noel Levy: You told this to Detective Mills, did you not?
Roger Scott: I don’t deny the tape.
(…)
Roger Scott: — during the whole thing and cramming it all on one tape. He said he only had one tape.
Noel Levy: And you did, didn’t you, correct?
Roger Scott: I did make the tape then.
Noel Levy: To the best of your knowledge?
Roger Scott: At the time, yes.
Noel Levy: So the idea was that you would drive and be a lookout; is that so?
Roger Scott: No.
Noel Levy: Well, it’s already been brought out that there’s a lot more traffic on Lake Pleasant Road to the lake on weekends; you know that, don’t you?
Roger Scott: Naturally, there is.
Noel Levy: And when you went with James Styers to kill the child earlier at that one location, I believe Seventh Street and Paradise, there was too much traffic there, and you told Detective Mills that “We had to cut it off because there was too much traffic.”
Is that so, Mr. Scott?
Roger Scott: That’s how it came out on the tape.
Noel Levy: And when you — James Styers went to Beardsley and Seventh Street to kill the child, and the National Guard people were there and voices, he knew he needed a lookout and someone to assist him, so he came to you, didn’t he?
Roger Scott: He did not.
Noel Levy: Well, you just testified on direct that he came to you and asked you to help him kill the child; didn’t you testify to that on direct, Mr. Scott; yes or no?
Roger Scott: I would have to say no.
Noel Levy: You didn’t testify?
Roger Scott: If I cannot explain it, no.
(…)
These statements make it clear that only the ‘three shots allegation’ supports the contention that a conspiracy between the three defendants existed, and explains why prosecutor Levy insisted that only three shots were fired (equal to Det. Saldate towards Jean Pugh & Milke’s mother Renate Janka). Levy, on the other hand, had the information that witnesses heard five to seven shots at 11 a.m. but knowingly and falsely claimed in chambers ‘That has no relevancy on the case.’ The State therefore intentionally failed to consider facts mitigating to defendant MILKE. If a different number of shots were fired, it means that the contention of a conspiracy cannot be upheld.
5.) What was Styers role in the killing?
It is notable that the State of Arizona never attempted to prosecute any other scenario but STYERS having been the actual gunman, SCOTT the driver, and MILKE the mastermind. This scenario was the only possible scenario for the prosecution, even though police did not have any evidence to support this claim. Suspicions must arise what positive effect the number of convictions (especially DP) had on the officers and the prosecutor involved. SCOTT’S rambling statements were inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unbelievable. In the April 11, 1990 issue of the Mesa Tribune Levy stated about the plea agreement which was offered to Scott:
The proposed agreement with SCOTT was “based on the fact that he was not the trigger man,” LEVY said.
In the interview SALDATE held with MILKE’S sister Sandra Pickinpaugh (06/30/1990) the cop stated the same:
“(…)
Mr. Saldate: Debra’s trying to pursue – her theory is, of course she didn’t do anything. I didn’t know nothing had happened. Jim’s theory is, of course, and I can see it in the letters and I can see it in a lot of things. He, of course, gave me the theory it wasn’t he that did it. It was Roger Scott that did it. You know, I didn’t know he was the one that did it either. However, he’s doing this and she’s asking him –
Ms. Pickinpaugh: So she’s writing him back?
Mr. Saldate: Yeah. Let me explain the letters and you’ll see what these letters are about. We don’t have all the letters. Some of the letters, you know, they – of course they told the attorney’s they destroyed or whatever. The letters we do have start with the fact that she didn’t know what happened. I need to know what happened, Jim. And Jim is responding to her as if she didn’t know what was happening. In reading these letters you can see it is a setup. They’re setting people up to believe in all that kind of – Jim – we have the letters (inaudible). Jim did do the shooting. He – you’ve got to be real strong. You have to love somebody a lot to do what he did. I mean, I don’t know if it’s mind control or if she has that strong of a (inaudible) but she has really controlled Jim.
Ms. Pickinpaugh: Oh, yeah. That’s not surprising. Jim is very easily controlled.
Mr. Saldate: And then to pursue after he does it – to pursue it and to come back and think the lie up, you know, to officers and stuff like that, to continue to pursue it.
And then once they (inaudible) back. And that’s why – and people wonder well, Roger Scott confessed. Debra confessed but Jim didn’t. Okay? Jim told me, I don’t know what happened. He has since in letters confessed somewhat.
(…)
Mr. Saldate: So it wasn’t his idea to begin with. He’s not really involved in the – involved – how do I put it?
Ms. Pickinpaugh: He’s not knee deep in it.
Mr. Saldate: No. Not seriously involved in the, you know, he’s legally in it. He’s going to be prosecuted just like the rest of them. But he’s not emotionally involved in what was happening.
Ms. Pickinpaugh: Right.
Mr. Saldate: Okay. (Inaudible) he’s involved. He participated. He’s a participant in all this. Then he got at the other end, he got Debra (inaudible). But now she handled (inaudible). She has a reason to try to, of course, I did it for other reasons. I didn’t want him to grow up like Mark. In other words, she’s doing it – she’s trying to explain her actions because as she grew up and as you’re explaining her to me and that I know her, she’s trying to manipulate what happened and make it better than what happened because she knows she’s in trouble. Jim was the only one that (inaudible) that night. The only reason he didn’t do it was is he wasn’t actually wrong. He probably was the only person. You know he was mostly involved. He had someone to save. He didn’t know that Debra was going to talk later on. Debra was gone.
(…)
Mr. Saldate: He does. He sends her money. He sends her writing material. He feels so good because she writes to him.
Ms. Pickinpaugh: Sure.
Mr. Saldate: And in one of the letters – I say she’s probably – one of the letters we don’t have she’s telling him a couple of things like (inaudible) – when we get out of here – when I get out here we could be together (inaudible).
(…)”
Another untrue claim of SALDATE: STYERS never confessed in any of the letters (nor do they contain any indication of that); these letters only confirm what STYERS later testified to at his own trial, that he was indeed at the murder scene when the killing happened. First, police did not have one indication that SYTERS was the actual gunman (or had an intention to have Chris killed), other than the unbelievable claims of SCOTT. Second, here SALDATE was referring to letters the police DID NOT HAVE and insinuated the possible content. Third, SALDATE theorized about MILKE controlling STYERS, when there was not one single item of evidence supporting this unbelievable version. Yet, it was keen to manipulate Pickinpaugh into believing the pre-arranged scenario (which was also fed to the mass-media). Such an approach – to define the outcome of a criminal trial before it even started – can only fail, and proves its faulty nature. It shows the erroneous approach of all three trials before they ever started. Yet, reciprocally, it explains the amount of ‘character assassination’ needed to portray MILKE as an evil mother who supposedly instigated the plot (see the ‘flashing breasts incident’). In light of her traumatized condition and the dire family ties portraying her as the ‘evil mastermind’ was not difficult to achieve.
In light of the situation pertaining to the murder weapon the true involvement of STYERS appears differently. How likely is it that the actual gunman gave the weapon out of his hands? Why would a man kill the child of the woman he allegedly tried to get into his bed? Where is the indication that STYERS could not stand Christopher anymore? There is none.
Conclusion:
STYERS undeniably purchased all three guns in total: Two, which he kept in his own apartment; one gun which he claimed purchased for SCOTT. Since STYERS had some time left (according to Gail Lipschultz) he used the occasion to drive MILKE’S car to bring the gun to SCOTT. The two men then decided to go to the desert so SCOTT could try the new gun (and run some errands in connection with that). That was the first series of shots (two, three, or four shots). On the way back to the car the murder happened: SYTERS in front, then Christopher, and at the end SCOTT, still with the gun (which he fired before) in his hands. Then the shots went off; the second series. This scenario was told by both, STYERS and a fellow inmate of SCOTT, ROBERT EARL JOHNSON. No conspiracy ever existed.