Talk:Debra Milke

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I created an article about an Arizona death row inmate. Other death row prisoners are included in Wikipedia as well. On top of that, many of Debra's supporters are sure that she is an innocent person (with a death penalty conviction!). She should therefore (at least) be listed in Wikipedia. I am the webmaster of all the cited websites (meaning: I maintain them) in support of Debra. A&E have a documentary about her questionable case in the US, and the case is a huge outrage in Europe, because it is based on a not tape-recorded, not witnessed, and not signed confession (narrative report of one police officer).

I also added the link to he page of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning Debra Milke's case. This should confirm all I claimed before. I also added the link to her page of the Arizona Department of Corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm realizing that the page should have been named lastname_firstname, therefore, Milke_Debra. I don't know how to correct that :( Can it be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

With Wikipedia, it is customary for entries about people to be named "firstname lastname". For this reason, the name of the article should not be changed. ---Dagme (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally disagree that only sources of rag sheets are accepted on Wikipedia. Why don't we also allow a (presumably innocent) convict to show her side of the story with a homepage?? I'm appalled by the one-sided tactics of Wikipedia so far.

Wikipedia is not the place to "show her side of the story." It seems to me that you are too personally invested in this topic to make neutral contributions. Divine (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone be "too personally invested" when as person is convicted to die, based on a plainly impossible timeline? Unfortunately the jury never heard this, like so many details. Yep, I do believe Debra was wrongfully convicted. Please also consider that Debra Milke was prosecuted by the same man who innocently sent Ray Krone to death row. All I'm asking is that the reasonable doubts are at least addressed beside the undisputed facts of the case. Thanks for at least including the link the homepage which was setup by Debra's mother, Renate Janka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your reply confirms that you are too close to the case emotionally. You are welcome to insert neutral, objective text regarding the controversy surrounding Milke's confession. Sourced, of course (and not from your own website). Divine (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is less Debra's supporters that are biased because facts from police and trial records are addressed (on her behalf). At her trial these details were never addressed, and in parts suppressed. Which part in my post was emotional? The timeline is not an option, but a mathematical, chronological fact. Your comment shows that you select what is 'believable' based on your own opinion. There is a reason that more than 120 people were freed from death row since it was reinstated. That is another fact. Sorry this is not recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 10:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As soon as someone enter's something it's becoming inaccurate again... therefore another correction: A verbatim web-version of Detective Saldate's report http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/saldatereport.shtml (I have the original copy of police too)

Examination of Det. Harvey Hamrick on 09/13/90 at Debra Milke's trial: (...) Kenneth Ray: You were aware that, before you even departed Phoenix, that Debra Milke would be at Richard Sadeik's house, is that correct? Det. Hamrick: One of the reasons for my going to Florence was to confirm that. Kenneth Ray: And indeed you did confirm that? Det. Hamrick: Well, before we got there, other arrangements were made to have the Sherriff's Office there go to her father's house and to ask her to come back to the station in Florence to be interviewed. (...) Kenneth Ray: Was that something you learned later, that other arrangements had been made? Det. Hamrick: We learned that on the way. We were in some contact with radio and we were aware that that was being done. (...) Various other police records confirm that no one of Phx police spoke to Debra or her acquaintance until Saldate arrived.

Murder investigation

Azfrankie, some of your edits did indeed correct errors I inadvertently introduced, such as the sentence about Milke confessing to the murder, when she actually allegedly confessed to the detective she wanted her son dead. That's an important distinction. But I disagree with your other edits. Particularly this sentence:

"When the lead case detective, Armando Saldate, arrived with a helicopter, he sent her accompanying acquaintance out of the room, and started the interrogation behind the closed door."

Do you mean he arrived in a helicopter? Either way, why is this information relevant? Regarding the interrogation, none of the information you introduced is relevant. That he sent whoever came with her out of the room and conducted it behind a closed door is not unusual for police procedure. Interrogations aren't typically conducted with other non-law enforcement personnel present, excepting attorneys or in the case of minors. Neither are they conducted out in the station lobby or some other open space. I suspect you want to include this information to cast the interrogation in a light that supports your bias, which is that the police acted inappropriately and that Milke is innocent. Your implication is inappropriate for a neutral point of view. As I suggested earlier, you could include the facts of the interrogation procedure in a separate paragraph or section.

And please stop referring to Milke as "Debra"--please refer to her as "Milke" (see WP:MOS/Biographies). Divine (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay... "Milke". I don't mind. It is extremely important to state that "Saldate" arrived in a helicopter: Please see the verbatim transcript of "Saldate's" testimony at trial: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/saldateincourt2.shtml (search for: 'helicopter'). Also see: http://forensicsncrime.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=crimecases&action=print&thread=1849 Parallel, two Phoenix police officers had already arrived in Florence (by car; DET. HAMRICK & DET. DiMODICA), but were told via radio not to speak to "Milke" (trial testimony of Det. HAMRICK; ). In fact, their trial testimonies confirm that they never spoke to "Milke". The acquaintance of "Milke" sent out of the room was JANET FROEBE. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAgDMb-t8Ls (at 6:01, at 6:10 "Milke" explains it herself). After having been sent out of that room, JANET FROBE was interviewed herself: http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/janetfroebe.shtml (verbatim copy of the police report; or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAgDMb-t8Ls at 12:02). This interview took place while "Milke" was interrogated by "Saldate". "Saldate" himself has a documented history of of tainting confessions, committing perjury under oath, and lying to his supervisors (http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/separationnotice.shtml & http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/mjplay/saldate4.shtml). At the 9th Circuit Court even Judge Alex Kozinski stated: "In 22 years of doing this, or 23 years, I have never seen a case where there hasn't been a signed Miranda Waiver." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQ1KWK8jz0). You may not be aware of it, but please believe me that 100% accuracy is extremely important here, which is why I made the latest edits (to eliminate the obvious misrepresentations). The outrageous fact about this (narrated) confession is that it was not tape-recorded, not witnessed by anyone, and not signed. Yet, "Milke" herself steadfastly denies that she ever made a confession (in more than 22 years), or that she had anything to do with the killing of her son; and upon emerging from that jail dispensary, "Saldate" did not inform anyone about having obtained a confession (http://www.debbiemilke.com/en/case/docs/maureensadeik.shtml): "Upon completing our interviews, DET. HAMRICK and I returned to the Pinal County Jail and re-contacted DET. SALDATE who stated that he had placed DEBRA under arrest for the homicide of her son, CHRISTOPHER. DET. HAMRICK and I then returned to Phoenix."). Please also look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQh6O5PECjw (where even talk show host Bill Kurtis questions the tactics of Phoenix police in this particular case). I am working on this case for fifteen years now, and I certainly have an opinion by now. Please excuse me, this is my conclusion by stating (/considering/addressing the true) facts, but certainly not bias. In fact, the hardcore evidence is that the entire killing did not take place in the way Maricopa County prosecutor "Levy" claimed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlYf7hebR1g In 2001 I started working with her attorneys; this is how I got full access to all the records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of text and a lot of external links, but I didn't find the answer to my questions. Please just make the argument for why the info about helicopter is relevant? Of course accuracy is crucial, but excessive detail isn't necessary. And what is unusual about conducting an interrogation one-on-one and behind a closed door? It seems that what's unusual is that Saldate didn't record the confession in any way--this fact is already mentioned in the article. The assertions about Saldate are potentially libelous and shouldn't be included (maybe not even in this Talk page). Divine (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sorry; I thought you wanted it detailed. The helicopter ride was crucial to show that despite other detectives already present, this particular cop - with a history of tainted lineups and coerced or falsified confessions - took this particular interview into his hands. He obviously wanted to set up a swearing contest. The resulting report is the only piece of evidence linking "Milke" to the murder of her son. I believe that is why it is important to note.azfrankie (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Had to delete the category 'German people convicted of murder.' Even though born in Berlin "Milke" always had an American passport and was/is an American citizen (due to her American father Richard Sadeik, who was solely stationed in Berlin in the early 60s). Immigration might only apply to her German mother, Renate Janka (See http://www.amazon.de/Lasst-meine-Tochter-endlich-frei/dp/3426272636/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344091286&sr=8-1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeals process

And here's the next inaccuracy: The first hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA took place on August 20th, 2008. They didn't 'remand' the case. They questioned the District Court in Phoenix, AZ if "Milke" had knowingly, intelligently waived her Miranda Rights (evidence not allowed on Wikipedia): "Under these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing in federal court is required. See Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 745 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). We therefore remand with instructions to conduct a limited hearing on the sole issue of whether petitioner validly waived her Miranda rights; respondent shall have the burden of proof. The district court must conduct the hearing and render its findings within 60 days of this order." The result, admittedly, was a setback for "Milke's" defense, because federal judge Robert C. Broomfeld found Det. "Saldate" more credible (credibility evaluation). The final decision is yet to be concluded as of July 2012. For the defense, atty. Lori Voepel pleaded for an oral argument, which took place November 3rd, 2010 [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azfrankie (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand when you say they didn't remand the case when the court document you quote says: "We therefore remand with instructions.." In any case, I removed the alleged inaccuracy to err on the side of caution, since the source I cited does not contain the word "remand." I freely admit I am unfamiliar with the appeals system--you are welcome to add developments on Milke's appeals as long as they are SOURCED, presented in a NEUTRAL way, and NOTABLE (article doesn't need a play by play of every little development). Divine (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the instructions to the District Court back in 2009. After Judge Broomfield filed his opinion (02/2010), the case went back to the 9th Circuit, and should be decided on shortly. It's not like the 9th Circuit Court remanded the case back to the state level entirely; it was like a side step in order to evaluate the sole question if "Milke" had knowingly, intentionally waived her rights (to remain silent).azfrankie (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

German-born or Berlin-born or born in Germany?

STOP WRITING "GERMAN BORN." She was only one year old moving to USA. Nothing of her family were Nazis. War is 70 years ago. Stop saying "German born." The English article says "... born ... in Berlin-Steglitz) is a German-born Arizona death row inmate" while the German article says "... born as Debra Sadeik in Berlin-Lichterfelde) is a US-American...". My question is, was she really German-born and got the German citizenship at birth from her German mother or was she born with US citizenship after her father? If the latter, I think it is wrong to say German-born. If the first, I would however think it would be interesting to mention in the article why she had German citizenship and when she became naturalized American. If I am not wrong, there was no double citizenship at that time in Germany and according to German law AFAIK does a child get the citizenship of the mother. Unless there was a different regulation for children of US military. Anyhow, I think it would be interesting to add information about her citizenship but also family since her mother seems to play a quite prominent role in the attempt to get her released from jail. Cattleyard (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

She was born in Germany but holds U.S. citizenship as her father unlike her mother who is a German citizen. Milke has never been a German citizen in her adult life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.78.125 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Added facts from the 9th circuit "Facts" section to the lede

I added facts about the death of Christopher to the lede as well as clarify that she is on bind pending a new trial and not released from custody. That source explains the helicopter as the distance from the murder scene, shopping center and Milke's home is significant, and other questions from a year ago. Saldate, the detective, was the person that allegedly informed Milke of her son's death. She is currently free on bond awaiting a new trial. --DHeyward (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not exonerated.

Exonerated means something very specific--it means the count has declared that a person is innocent of the crime that they'be been imprisoned for. This is not what happened in Milke's case.67.193.142.207 (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Courts don't usually officially declare innocence, so you're not quite right there. And, as a matter of fact, Milke is listed as being exonerated on the Exoneration Registry. Still, I get your point, Milke was not exonerated according to the general public's understanding of the meaning of the term.AjjeSmit (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This should perhaps be re-written to reflect that this woman is not innocent, but was released due to a technicality and then not re-tried due to facile double-jeopardy arguments. As a side-note, why are these articles written as biographies for these killers, and not as articles concerning who was murdered - Must Wikipedia take the criminal's side on every matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to discuss this before adding anything. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, what do you suppose?

It is possible the original wording was too strong in one direction, but your wording is definitely too strong in the other. The only evidence against her is an alleged confession from a cop who falsified evidence. There was literally no other evidence against her. The other two defendants didn't name her. Her conviction was overturned, and the court doing so recommended investigating the cop. This isn't "a technicality". This is undermining the entire case against her. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You make good sense, but the cop is not accused of falsifying evidence here but elsewhere, the infamous Ninth Circuit had no real role to make such a ruling and threw out the jury's conviction based on this technicality (the detective's ill history), without Milke's motive (divorce, insurance, etc.) the contract killing of her 4yr old pre-school son makes little sense, what is Styers' motive without her involvement?

By what means this counts as 'double-jeopardy' is byzantine to me, if the federal Ninth Circuit throws out a state jury's verdict (as it does 80% of the time) is there not to be a re-trial?