Debra Milke conviction overturned

lane99 said:
Granted your grim fairy tale makes as much sense as events (if you've described what is found in your attached link accurately) which don't make any sense at all. But, so what.

Obviously the relevant question is how much sense does it make compared to the alternative scenario which places Debra Milke at the center of the murder conspiracy to kill her son. And on that score, your fantasy is a dismal failure, and does not reconcile any of the known circumstances of this case.

It should be very telling to the reader that- even given completely free rein, and an utterly blank slate to imagine a scenario which does not implicate Debra Milke- you are simply unable to conceive of anything that holds together from a logical, rational and common sense perspective, and can not come up with something that keeps Debra Milke as merely an innocent bystander until you travel through the looking glass.




Well, if she told the police officer that she was involved, then then reason she told everyone else a different one quite likely is she thought better of it. Happens everyday. People are backed into a corner, and in trying to talk their way out of it, say something they have a hard time living down.

But, with regards the totality of your question, I am confused. And have no idea why you think that he was overweight has some bearing on this.




You're repeating yourself. And haven't yet explained the relevance of this question, and the point you're trying to make with it.

As I explained in an earlier post, if you're implying we can draw some inference from this regarding Milke's guilt or innocence, then you are wrong.
.
.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained anything. You have stated your opinion, but it has no substance. You wave away the problems with this case without addressing them. Above you said that Scott had "plenty to lose" if he testified against Milke. What did he have to lose? And why wouldn't he take a plea bargain that would keep him off death row? Do you really think he would do that if she had hired him and Styers to carry out this murder? I don't. Most criminals will roll over on someone in a heartbeat to get a better deal for themselves. The only way I can explain his refusal to testify is that his conscience wouldn't let him do it, because he knows she is innocent. Have you got a better explanation?

And why should anyone believe this detective who eschews notes and recordings? Do you really think the uncorroborated testimony of one police officer with a history of misconduct should be enough to put someone on death row?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
...The only way I can explain his refusal to testify is that his conscience wouldn't let him do it, because he knows she is innocent...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I thought you meant. And I've already explained upthread why it's nonsense.

So, his conscience allows him to participate in murdering little children- utterly without motive,earthly reason, or remorse- but doesn't allow him to shift blame to someone else when handed the opportunity on a golden platter? What rubbish.

Like all too many of the arguments advocating Debra Milke's innocence, this of yours is devoid of logic, reason, common sense, and consistency. Which perhaps is inescapable when one is pushing an agenda equally devoid of those qualities.



Charlie Wilkes said:
...Have you got a better explanation?...
Click to expand...

Of course, I do. It's not difficult to come up with something that is better than one that relies on false assumptions and misrepresentation (as do most of the other comments you've made in this thread. Although I can't be bothered to take the time to debunk them all) and makes no sense (as I've demonstrated in this and another post above) to begin with.

Now, let's cut to the chase. The question "why didn't Scott accept the plea deal?" is not a valid question. Scott WANTED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA DEAL. It was his lawyer who rejected it.
.
.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
So, now that this innocent woman has lost 22 years of her life due to a policeman who lied under oath, does the state of Arizona intend to: (a) compensate her monetarily for stealing a bit over two decades of her life or (b) take legal action, leading to prison, against the lying cop?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that a cop who lies under oath to convict somebody should have to serve the sentence of the convict if the lie is discovered and it reverses the conviction.
 
lane99 said:
If you claim there's a alternative that makes more sense than Debra Milke being a puppetmaster who used a couple of simpleminded patsies to do her dirtywork, then let's hear it. What's your explanation for why the two big bad men marched this 4 y.o. boy into the desert and executed him?
.
.
Click to expand...


We like things to make sense, but often they just don't. That is especially true of the actions of someone who would cold-bloodedly kill a 4-year-old. Regardless of the motive, something is not right in such a person's head, and we shouldn't expect to see a rational pattern of behavior.
 
aggle-rithm said:
We like things to make sense, but often they just don't. That is especially true of the actions of someone who would cold-bloodedly kill a 4-year-old. Regardless of the motive, something is not right in such a person's head, and we shouldn't expect to see a rational pattern of behavior.
Click to expand...

Yes; this. Also...I suspect everyone involved was a druggie. Never, never, never trust or try to anticipate the behavior of a person with a head full of chemicals. You do not know what they will do, or why.
 
lane99 said:
Yes, that's what I thought you meant. And I've already explained upthread why it's nonsense.

So, his conscience allows him to participate in murdering little children- utterly without motive,earthly reason, or remorse- but doesn't allow him to shift blame to someone else when handed the opportunity on a golden platter? What rubbish.

Like all too many of the arguments advocating Debra Milke's innocence, this of yours is devoid of logic, reason, common sense, and consistency. Which perhaps is inescapable when one is pushing an agenda equally devoid of those qualities.

Of course, I do. It's not difficult to come up with something that is better than one that relies on false assumptions and misrepresentation (as do most of the other comments you've made in this thread. Although I can't be bothered to take the time to debunk them all) and makes no sense (as I've demonstrated in this and another post above) to begin with.
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated anything. You're ignoring the facts of the case and the substance of the points made in this thread.

lane99 said:
Now, let's cut to the chase. The question "why didn't Scott accept the plea deal?" is not a valid question. Scott WANTED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA DEAL. It was his lawyer who rejected it.
.
.
Click to expand...

Bah. This guy confessed and led the cops to the body. He was going down. He knew it, and his lawyer knew it. He could have saved his life and eventually gotten out of prison. Instead he's sitting on death row - because he refused to testify against Milke.

You can wave that away, but don't expect anyone else to wave it away.
 
lane99 said:
...Now, let's cut to the chase. The question "why didn't Scott accept the plea deal?" is not a valid question. Scott WANTED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA DEAL. It was his lawyer who rejected it.
Click to expand...


Charlie Wilkes said:
...he's sitting on death row - because he refused to testify against Milke.

You can wave that away, but don't expect anyone else to wave it away.
Click to expand...


You appear to be a shilling for Debra Milke, and it's a waste of time trying to reason with you.

Scott did not refuse to testify against Milke. He wanted to accept the plea deal and confirm that Milke was the mastermind of the conspiracy. But his lawyer rejected the deal. This is a fact, documented by court records.

End of story.
.
.
 
That's 12 mistakes out of how many cases?

Corsair 115 said:
Just to offer proof of this, here's a list of major criminal cases in Canada where persons were wrongfully convicted.
Click to expand...

...And over a period of, what, 60 years? Now, obviously errors are inevitable, and should be acknowledged and remedied. However wrongful convictions are rare.

Ironically, Guy Paul Morin (number 8 on your list) was falsely accused and convicted of a heinous child murder in no small measure thanks to poster Charlie Wilkes' hero (and whom Charlie endorsed so resoundingly upthread). An utter asshat named John Douglas. A man who believes his "profiles" are more reliable than DNA evidence. Now THERE'S an accident waiting to happen.
.
.
 
lane99 said:
...And over a period of, what, 60 years? Now, obviously errors are inevitable, and should be acknowledged and remedied. However wrongful convictions are rare.

Ironically, Guy Paul Morin (number 8 on your list) was falsely accused and convicted of a heinous child murder in no small measure thanks to poster Charlie Wilkes' hero (and whom Charlie endorsed so resoundingly upthread). An utter asshat named John Douglas. A man who believes his "profiles" are more reliable than DNA evidence. Now THERE'S an accident waiting to happen.
.
.
Click to expand...

Douglas would never say that profiles are more reliable than DNA evidence, or that profiles in and of themselves constitute evidence at all.

Moreover, Douglas is candid about his mistakes, and he discusses them at length in his books.

You're doing a bit of profiling yourself in this thread. You seem to think a theory in which Milke commissioned two men to murder her child is plausible, but one in which the men did it without her knowledge or participation is not plausible. What training or experience informs that judgment? What is your expertise in this field?
 
lane99 said:
Now, let's cut to the chase. The question "why didn't Scott accept the plea deal?" is not a valid question. Scott WANTED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA DEAL. It was his lawyer who rejected it.
.
.
Click to expand...

Scott: "Why can't we accept the plea deal?"
Lawyer: "Because I said so, that's why!"
Scott: "But...I don't want to die!"
Lawyer: "Nobody asked what you want. Now just sit there and be quiet."
Scott: *heavy sigh* "OK..."
 
lane99 said:
You appear to be a shilling for Debra Milke, and it's a waste of time trying to reason with you.

Scott did not refuse to testify against Milke. He wanted to accept the plea deal and confirm that Milke was the mastermind of the conspiracy. But his lawyer rejected the deal. This is a fact, documented by court records.

End of story.
.
.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The claim, submitted in a kitchen-sink petition filed years after the trials, is that the lawyer rejected the plea because Scott refused to read it, even though he supposedly wanted to take it.

The fact is that he did not testify even though he certainly could have done so, was asked to do so multiple times, and was given a strong incentive to do so.
 
lane99 said:
...And over a period of, what, 60 years? Now, obviously errors are inevitable, and should be acknowledged and remedied. However wrongful convictions are rare.

Ironically, Guy Paul Morin (number 8 on your list) was falsely accused and convicted of a heinous child murder in no small measure thanks to poster Charlie Wilkes' hero (and whom Charlie endorsed so resoundingly upthread). An utter asshat named John Douglas. A man who believes his "profiles" are more reliable than DNA evidence. Now THERE'S an accident waiting to happen.
.
.
Click to expand...

You've just lost your right to be taken seriously on these subjects. Sorry dude.
 
Ditto

Ha, if you're in the camp of those who support Douglas's asshat refusal to admit he was wrong about Guy Paul Morin (which of course he cant, since it would be tantamount to admitting he deliberately tailored his "profile" to help local cops frame Morin) then somehow I think I can live without your approval.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread:

It if official now that the Country Attorney's office is planning to re-try Debra Milke. Her lawyer currently denies that she will, but I guess there is a reasonable chance in the near future she will be admitting her guilt and accepting a plea arrangement. At least that's what she'll do if she's smart. She has a golden opportunity now to repent. If she takes it, she'll have received her punishment and earned the right to live the rest of her life as a redeemed person.
.
.
 
lane99 said:
Ha, if you're in the camp of those who support Douglas's asshat refusal to admit he was wrong about Guy Paul Morin (which of course he cant, since it would be tantamount to admitting he deliberately tailored his "profile" to help local cops frame Morin) then somehow I think I can live without your approval.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread:

It if official now that the Country Attorney's office is planning to re-try Debra Milke. Her lawyer currently denies that she will, but I guess there is a reasonable chance in the near future she will be admitting her guilt and accepting a plea arrangement. At least that's what she'll do if she's smart. She has a golden opportunity now to repent. If she takes it, she'll have received her punishment and earned the right to live the rest of her life as a redeemed person.
.
.
Click to expand...


Alford Plea, good way to let someone go without admitting they were wrongfully convicted. I hope she doesn't agree to it if offered but also wouldn't blame her for taking it.
 
lane99 said:
Ha, if you're in the camp of those who support Douglas's asshat refusal to admit he was wrong about Guy Paul Morin (which of course he cant, since it would be tantamount to admitting he deliberately tailored his "profile" to help local cops frame Morin) then somehow I think I can live without your approval.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread:

It if official now that the Country Attorney's office is planning to re-try Debra Milke. Her lawyer currently denies that she will, but I guess there is a reasonable chance in the near future she will be admitting her guilt and accepting a plea arrangement. At least that's what she'll do if she's smart. She has a golden opportunity now to repent. If she takes it, she'll have received her punishment and earned the right to live the rest of her life as a redeemed person.
.
.
Click to expand...

That's a hoot. Without Saldate's testimony, they lack even probable cause needed to retry. Saldate is an undisputed multiple perjurer and general lawbreaker, who intentionally went out of his way to ensure that there would be no recording to confirm or disprove his assertions about what Milke said to him. Best of luck to the prosecutors as they proceed to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a case they can't win, all because they can't admit they ********** up. Milke's alleged confession to Saldate will not be admissible this time, and without it there's no case.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
They are not saying the cop lied in her trial, just that the defense should have been aware of his history. According to the story, the cop has already been disciplined for his actions (although sometimes they didn't do much) -- there's no reason to charge the detective now that I can see.
Click to expand...

According to the article he lied under oath several times, although not necessarily in this particular case. My understanding is that "discipline" for perjury involves jail time.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Debra Milke has been freed, but she still faces a retrial.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/justice/arizona-milke-release/
Click to expand...

Good. And while in principle there is no legal bar to retrying her, and the state apparently is planning to do so if (read: when) their appeal to SCOTUS is denied, I invite you all to ask yourselves: if the state had any case at all against her, do you really think there is any way in hell she would have been released on bond in a capital murder case? Some questions answer themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom