Milo Stanley

This was one of those cases that while I was reading it, it was very clear that Milo Stanley had committed a horrendous crime and that he was guilty but in the same respect, I do not believe that he had a fair trial. Nor do I believe that the court ruled appropriately. This is not necessarily something that you have never heard me say about a case but the latter part in which I disagreed with the court, is a little more rare from me. I fear certain rulings from courts because official rulings that are upheld set a precedence meaning future cases can look back at them to help them make new rulings. In this particular case Milo Stanley confessed to the murders of his wife and five year old daughter but only after he had requested an attorney and questioning had continued. Milo's defense would later argue that this confession had been obtained illegally and that it should not have been entered into his jury trial. The appeals court later denied that saying that although he was given his Miranda Rights by the officer who took him to be “interviewed” he was not required to do so and he was not under arrest at the time of the question, but more importantly at the time in which he requested an attorney but apparently stated at the police station...in the same room. But, as I tend to do, I have gotten away with myself.

On June 19, 1986 at about 11:30 at night Milo Stanley called the Clarksdale Arizona police. He reported that his wife, Susan and their five year old daughter, Selest (There were other spellings of her name) had gone out for a walk about 10:45 and had not returned. The following morning two of Susan's sisters went to a Volkswagen garage owned by Milo and his father. They spoke with Milo's father and they discovered that the car that Susan had been driving the night before was inside the garage. There was an indication, although I could find nothing that confirmed this, that the sisters had seen Susan and Selest the night before as they also found one shoe of Susan's and one of Selest's inside the car and claimed they were wearing those the night before. The sisters reported that there was an “offensive odor” inside the car. They reported this to the police but it is unclear if they responded because it was later reported that one of the sisters returned to the garage a few hours later and looked at the car again. This time she saw bloodstains and called her other sister back to confirm. It was said they once again reported this to the police and it appears that at this point officers arrived.

At about 5:30 on the evening of the 20^th officers talked to Milo and his father and asked for access to the garage. They were given consent to search the property which allowed them to begin but they also filed for a search warrant. In the meantime Detective Saravo asked if Milo if he would go to the station with him for an “interview” and he agreed. It was then that Saravo read Milo his Miranda Rights. Soon after Milo also gave officers the right to search his apartment. Once the interview started at the station it did not take long before Milo asked for an attorney.

By law when someone is being questioned by authorities when they ask for an attorney all questioning is to stop. The person has the right to find an attorney. The sticky part here is that the courts do not appoint attorney's to someone who has not been charged yet. Those who are not yet charged, can still be arrested or even held for a period of time. It does not appear that Milo was ever told that he had the right to leave or if he was, he had presumably been taken to the station with the officer and had no way to get back to his home so he remained in the room in which the interview had taken place.

Meanwhile back at the garage investigators had found a blood soaked blanket and a seat cover in a trash can inside the building. It is unclear but apparently the warrant or permission they had did not cover something that they were wanting to look into and so one of the officer went back to the station to prepare another warrant. While there Saravo was informed of what was going on.

Saravo headed back into the interview room with Milo and told him what had been found at the garage and that the investigators believed that foul play was involved in the disappearance of his wife and daughter. It was clear that Milo was a suspect, and very well may have been all along but it is unclear if Milo was directly told this. According to Saravo after hearing this news Milo had become very emotional and began to cry. He claims that he asked Milo whether he was okay and that Milo proceeded to confess that he had shot his wife and daughter. At this point Saravo began asking Milo questions to determine if Susan and Selest were alive or dead. Saravo says that Milo told them that they were not alive and then gave a full confession that included telling investigators where the bodies were located. They were in fact found right where Milo had said. Some reports stated that the bodies were found on the side of a remote road while the appeal report stated that he had thrown the body off a fifty foot cliff.

Milo's confession was that he and his wife had an argument over his drug and alcohol use. Both five year old Selest, as well as the couple's one year old son were in the car at the time. Milo had proceeded to shoot Susan in the head three times and his daughter once. It was theorized that Selest was killed simply because she had witnessed the murder of her mother and that the fact that his son was so young and could not tell what he may have seen had saved his life. Milo dumped the bodies and then took his son home where he then called the police to report his wife and daughter missing.

After deliberating for just under three hours on July 10, 1987 Milo Stanley was convicted and a little more than two months later he was sentenced to life in the death of Susan and was given a death sentence in the death of his daughter, Selest. But, of course as these things go things did not end there. While I discussed earlier the issue that surrounded the admittance of the confession there were other issues of interest in appeals that would follow. Early on Milo was examined by a Dr. Karleen Hammitt, a psychiatrist. Her notes revealed that she believed Milo to be “anguished, sobbing, and not able to relate properly.” It was noted that he “had sobered up for the first time in a long time.” The notes also spoke of the fact that when speaking of the crime he had described himself in a “dissociative state” and in essence claimed an out-of-body experience. However, several months later Hammitt would dismiss this theory when she was interviewed by the prosecutors and the defense attorney. She would claim that while Milo suffered from grief, he did not indicate remorse. It was these initial claims that would keep the case in the appeals courts for two decades. Part of the claims involved in this area was the standard “ineffective counsel” argument. In the end they all failed. As I stated from the beginning, I believe Milo Stanley was guilty of murdering his wife and child. But, I must be fair, I am unsure at what level I believe that to be.

Guilty can mean a lot of things as we know. There are levels of murder. Then there things like manslaughter and self-defense. One can be guilty to any one of these things and yet as we know the penalty or punishment for them vary greatly. Even the term “not guilty by reason of insanity” only means not guilty in courts, but it does not mean one has not committed the crime. We have also heard the term “not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.” A prime example of such a case would be Andrea Yates. She was in fact “guilty” of murdering her children, but she was not sane when she did so. To add to this, to qualify for the death penalty certain things have to be met, as well as certain things cannot be true. For example a mentally challenged person, generally determined by an IQ score, cannot be executed, nor can someone who committed a murder while a juvenile. In this case Milo qualified for the death penalty when it was theorized, and his confession apparently confirmed, that he had killed his daughter for the sole purpose of eliminating a witness in the murder of her mother. But, where I “wobble” you may say is I do not feel enough of his mental state was explored or I was able to find enough information to understand just how deeply it was considered. The statement that Hammitt stated that he had suffered from grief but not remorse bothered me. In fact, they are deeply entwined with each other and it is often difficult to not have them both when they are genuine.

Between the years of 2001 and 2006 death penalty appeal processes were stalled at the federal level for Arizona cases. But, Milo Stanley never made it to the execution chamber. On May 10, 2013 he was found hanging in his jail cell at Eyman Prison in Florence Arizona. His death was ruled as suicide. He was fifty years old.