SCANT EVIDENCE IS A CUE TO MOVE ON
It is nearly 24 years since jurors heard the sad story of 4-year-old Christopher Milke, whose mother told him her friends would take him to the mall to see Santa Claus but who instead was found dead in the desert.
Could it have been that imagery — a self-obsessed young mother turning over her son to a wretched pair of losers — turned a sensational murder case against Debra Milke?
In retrospect, it is beginning to seem that emotion and outrage sent Milke to prison, not hard, factual evidence.
It is difficult for many of us who in 1990 watched that tense courtroom drama unfold to believe what we are hearing now — that the strongest evidence against Milke was the testimony of Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate.
Even then, Saldate had a history of fudging evidence. There was no recording of the confession he claimed to have squeezed from his prime suspect. Yet the jury found Milke guilty, largely based on what Saldate said.
Well, Saldate isn’t saying anything about Milke anymore. With Milke free on bond, and with the judge and prosecutors weighing a new trial, Saldate is refusing to testify or cooperate at all with prosecutors. He is claiming his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Lacking some other source of solid evidence, it is difficult to envision how Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery can make a case against Milke beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the county attorney on Friday declared he will seek another trial.
Whether the state ever had sufficient proof to convict Milke is open to question. The fact that that evidence now is tainted is not.
Milke spent 22 years on death row for the murder of her son. Considering the case against her as it exists today, this may be a moment for prosecutors to declare victory and move on.