AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #2

[oceanblueeyes]

During the hearing Sgt. Rodriguez testified, after a question by defense attorney Ben Brewer, that the only evidence the police had when the boy was charged was the inadmissible confession, the .22 casings, Grandma saying that Mr. Romero was chest shot (which he wasn't) and Mrs. Roman's claim that she heard the boys voice (but no shots) over the phone. No witness, no forensics, nothing much at all. The Sgt. also admitted that no gun powder residue test was done on the boy's hands.

Of course it wasn't. They believed at the time of the crime that he was a witness not a suspect.

When did the Judge say the confession was inadmissible?

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I didn't say you had said it. I said it seems you want it, and that is sad to me.

I'm sure you will continue to post your opinions, as everyone here is doing, and as I posted mine relative to my observations.

Well I am glad that I do not try to interpret other posters, that I don't even know. Much less make comments about what I may observe about them personally.

This case is not about posters and their observations of other posters.

Now, back on topic. There is absolutely nothing out there that dissuades me from forming my held opinion about this boy and with a month getting ready to rollover, the DA still believes there is too as he goes forward with the case. Even the defense attorney is contemplating the plea offer.

imoo

 

[Shock]

He wasn't just a witness when they charged him.
The inadmissibility is self evident.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
I feel maybe the defense attorney is holding back for the forensic and other evidence to come back because if the foresic evidence does not point to this little boy the prosecution does not have a case.

suzanne

 

[SailorMoon]

Sorry folks..busy here at work and I was just wondering -- how did the thanksgiving visit go with his mom? Did he go with her back to where she lived or stay locally?? TIA>

 

[colette]

Hi
I feel maybe the defense attorney is holding back for the forensic and other evidence to come back because if the foresic evidence does not point to this little boy the prosecution does not have a case.

suzanne

He is not holding out for evidence, he is holding out until he hears the results of the 3 mental health evaluations.

"The boy's attorney, Benjamin Brewer told the court that he will be doing his best to make sure the boy understands the legal implications of the offer and also will be making sure that the kid undergoes mental evaluations. The current plead deal that is being looked at right now will rest on the mental-health evaluations results."


NOTHING ABOUT EVIDENCE... even his lawyer knows he did it.


http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212190253.shtml

 

[colette]

Sorry folks..busy here at work and I was just wondering -- how did the thanksgiving visit go with his mom? Did he go with her back to where she lived or stay locally?? TIA>

He had to stay locally, other than that I think that is all we know.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
I think I read he is waiting for the forensic evidence to come back too.

suzanne

 

[Bobbisangel]

He wasn't just a witness when they charged him.
The inadmissibility is self evident.

He was a witness when they first questioned him. If he had ever had gun residue on his hands it would have been long gone by the time they questioned him the second time believeing that he was the shooter. That was after the funeral and after Tim's wife had talked to LE according to one report.

I can't imagine anyone actually wanting this little boy to be guilty and to spend part of his life in juvie. But if he is guilty it will all come out after the evidence comes back and he does need some help. He could get that help in detention. He shouldn't just be released if he committed these murders even if he is just 8 years old. It may be that the evidence comes back saying that it wasn't this boy after all but I don't think that is going to happen. I believe that he was upset at his dad for getting after him and then the spanking following. If someone else committed these murders what would the motive have been? Nothing was stolen and the money was still in the males wallets.
The dad didn't have a record of any kind and hadn't been involved in anything illegal. We have no idea when Tim's arrest took place or when he was suspected of dealing drugs. Besides that was a couple hundred miles away. Someone else shooting them doesn't make sense to me.

I still wonder if the bio mom didn't have something to do with the shootings. If she didn't put the idea in the boy's head because she wanted him to live with her and with dad out of the way she thought that could happen. She probably didn't think the boy would be arrested or charged because of his age. She could have really reinforced his feelings about the spanking, etc.
If she did put this idea in his head she must have really convinced him that he could never tell anyone or she would go to jail and he would never see her again.

 

[Shock]

Of course Mr. Brewer wants all the evidence, including the evaluations. But if the forensics show that some, or all, of the spent .22 casings weren't fired from the single shot rifle then the case becomes more complex.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock
He wasn't just a witness when they charged him.
The inadmissibility is self evident.


I agree.He wasn't just a witness when they arrested him.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

He wasn't just a witness when they charged him.
The inadmissibility is self evident.

He was just a witness the night of the crime. That is when GSR would have been taken if they thought he was a suspect. They did not think that at the time and GSR is easily washed off of the hands.

Nothing is self evident in a court of law. It will be up to the Judge to exclude the confession or to allow it or to only allow parts of it. That has not been determined so no, it is not self evident on how he will rule.

He is the Presiding Judge over the case. Juveniles do not have jury trials so therefore he has already heard and seen the confession whether he allows or suppresses it.

imoo

 

[Shock]

I think the defense attorneys question to the Sgt. regarding powder residue tests was more about did the police even consider doing a test at the time. They didn't.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Hi
I think I read he is waiting for the forensic evidence to come back too.

suzanne

I'm puzzled that they arrested the boy on just the little that they knew. I wonder why they didn't wait until the evidence comes back so that they know for sure? It seems to me because of his age he could have stayed with his grandparents and that his bio mom could have visited him at their home. The judge could have made it so the bio mom couldn't take him anywhere so that she wouldn't take off with him. I can understand arresting adults before all of the evidence is back because it takes so long but not this little kid. It just seems that they must have been pretty sure that he did the killings. I know that we don't have all of the details of this case and that there is a lot that we don't know. I wish they could release more info so we could all understand what is going on a lot better.

The defense attorney shouldn't make any pleas before he knows what the evidence is. I know that this boy can't go to court until the mental evals are in and that is only right. But nothing should happen until all of the evidence is back and the investigation is complete on both sides.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

I feel this little boy should not have been arrested untill ALL this information was in.I feel they really jumped the gun here.

suzanne

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think the defense attorneys question to the Sgt. regarding powder residue tests was more about did the police even consider doing a test at the time. They didn't.

That shows very clearly at that time LE did not suspect him or they would have.

imoo

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock
I think the defense attorneys question to the Sgt. regarding powder residue tests was more about did the police even consider doing a test at the time. They didn't.

That shows very clearly at that time LE did not suspect him or they would have.

imoo

They should have did this.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock
I think the defense attorneys question to the Sgt. regarding powder residue tests was more about did the police even consider doing a test at the time. They didn't.




They should have did this.

Why? They did not suspect him then?

 

[Ms Suzanne]

They should have checked everything.This whole case was pitiful.It made the keystone cops look competent.I'm sorry.

 

[Shock]

Exactly. The police said they suspected a family member from the start of their investigation. The boy found the bodies. The boys .22 rifle was in plain view (3' inside the front door on a dog cage). Empty .22 casings on the floor. Timeline was right. I'm not saying they needed Sherlock Holmes, it just seems odd that they didn't suspect the child right away and take preliminary evidence.