AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #4

[Linda7NJ]

Oh, I doubt if she's worried about a civil suit for herself. I believe it's the game manufacturers that Tim's wife is aiming at.

I believe it's called, 'deep pockets.'

Course, I doubt she's going to get very far with that. After all, there would then be a lot of facts that come out about this case and the lack of a complete investigation.

They may have been able to persuade this little boy to 'admit' to causing Tim's death and seal the records, but I doubt they'd be able to work that same sort of hocus/pocus with any NY type lawyers, (big legal guns) a game manufacturer would employee. The accuser would have to prove their point and when the records are sealed, well, they don't have a lot of proof.

Also, then his family would have to admit that Tim was a mulitple cheating, drug dealing guy who told one of his drug runners someone wanted to kill him. IF there's {no proof} this person has been checked out fully,............Mrs. Romans just doesn't have a case.

JMHO
fran

WOW !!! Talk about assumptions

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wouldn't be hysterical if the judge called her on it before sentencing?

Judge offers a mulligan.... in open court give the boy and his mother a chance to withdraw from the plea agreement based on the comments she's made to the media!

ROFL!

 

[fran]

His mother did not proclaim his innocence today!

She will not even talk to the boy about it for FEAR she'll be called to testify AGAINST him.

She hasn't done a darn thing. Hasn't hired a lawyer, hasn't filed an appeal. SHE's DONE NOTHING LEGALLY.

I think the GAL didn't show up because it was a DONE deal and she was in total agreement with it behind closed doors, just as the boys lawyer stated she was.

Publicly, I believe she's LYING so she can exploit the situation for cash...

I thought the complaint about Eryn, per previous posts, was that she wasn't going to do anything about this child pleaing guilty?

She does have an attorney, which everyone is aware of, but she was told she had no say on the child's plea deal.

Eryn was in court and it has been written in various news articles that she was crying in court during the plea deal proceedings.

She has now gone on National tv and stated she doesn't feel the child was competent to make a plea deal.

I don't know why the GAL didn't show up in court. I DO KNOW that he was appointed by the court. The GAL not being present during such an important hearing raises questions about the legality of the proceeding.

Whether one believes the child's mother is lying or not, is irrelevant. She did do what many have said she wouldn't. She IS saying she doesn't like the plea deal and she believes the child is not competent to make such an agreement.

It also doesn't matter that she didn't proclaim the child's innocence. There's a legal proceeding pending before the court, she's not allowed to. Remember the gag order?

JMHO
fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

I thought the complaint about Eryn, per previous posts, was that she wasn't going to do anything about this child pleaing guilty?

She does have an attorney, which everyone is aware of, but she was told she had no say on the child's plea deal.

Eryn was in court and it has been written in various news articles that she was crying in court during the plea deal proceedings.

She has now gone on National tv and stated she doesn't feel the child was competent to make a plea deal.

I don't know why the GAL didn't show up in court. I DO KNOW that he was appointed by the court. The GAL not being present during such an important hearing raises questions about the legality of the proceeding.

Whether one believes the child's mother is lying or not, is irrelevant. She did do what many have said she wouldn't. She IS saying she doesn't like the plea deal and she believes the child is not competent to make such an agreement.

It also doesn't matter that she didn't proclaim the child's innocence. There's a legal proceeding pending before the court, she's not allowed to. Remember the gag order?

JMHO
fran

His mother LYING is very relevant in my opinion.

You think it's in the boy's best interest to have his mother lying on national television?

There is no gag...it's over. The plea will stand and it's end of story. imo

all that's left to learn is the sentance.

 

[fran]

His mother LYING is very relevant in my opinion.

You think it's in the boy's best interest to have his mother lying on national television?

There is no gag...it's over. The plea will stand and it's end of story. imo

all that's left to learn is the sentance.

So, you're saying that the statement made by Mr. Wood in the previous article I linked and copied the portion where he said the boy's mother disagreed is a lie?

Who's lying?

The news reporter?

Mr. Wood?

What purpose would Mr. Wood or the news reporter have to lie?

fran

 

[southcitymom]

Wouldn't be hysterical if the judge called her on it before sentencing?

Judge offers a mulligan.... in open court give the boy and his mother a chance to withdraw from the plea agreement based on the comments she's made to the media!

ROFL!

Allright, that made me laugh out loud!

 

[fran]

I honestly didn't know what a mulligan was so I just passed over the attempt at humor.

Guess I still don't see the 'humor' in this situation,....... comparing a double murder and the possibility of an 8 yo child either being a murderer or wrongly convicted and a golf game.

I thought this was about justice and real lives, not about a game.

That's just me,
fran

 

[southcitymom]

To be honest, scm, I have no idea why he didn't show up. Of course, like several posters here have stated, everyone knew there was going to be the plea deal hearing so he must have known.

Was it due to incompetence on the GAL's part?

Was it planned by the legal minds involved for the GAL not to be present, thereby allowing them to avoid the FACT that the TWO psychologists from both sides of the aisle deemed this child incompetent to make his own decision? Thus, allowing the plea deal to go thru?

I dunno. But I KNOW that I'm not the only one questioning the legality of that hearing........:

(respectfully snipped for length)

Thanks for answering, Fran.

So answer me this. As you know, I think the boy did this and I believe the plea was worked out by people who have both the boy's best interests AND society's best in mind. And I know you have a lot of questions and think there's every chance in the world that he didn't do this and, while that's not what I see, I respect your stance.

Now, I understand the boy's been judged incompetent to undergo a trial and, just from my perspective, I can see that. IMHO, solely as a result of his age, he probably is legally unable to participate in his own defense. And I can see how that carries over to entering into a plea - again, he was 8 when he did this (9 now) - we're kind of stymied by his age with all this.

So, my question is - what do you think should happen to this boy? I'm going to have to ask you to assume for the sake of argument that he shot his Dad and Tim. If you think he's too young to stand trial and too young to enter into a plea, but he's guilty in the eyes of all those closest to the investigation, what should be done?

 

[southcitymom]

I honestly didn't know what a mulligan was so I just passed over the attempt at humor.

Guess I still don't see the 'humor' in this situation,....... comparing a double murder and the possibility of an 8 yo child either being a murderer or wrongly convicted and a golf game.

I thought this was about justice and real lives, not about a game.

That's just me,
fran

It is serious, of course, but I think it's okay to chuckle a little or we'd all go nuts!:blowkiss:

 

[fran]

(respectfully snipped for length)

Thanks for answering, Fran.

So answer me this. As you know, I think the boy did this and I believe the plea was worked out by people who have both the boy's best interests AND society's best in mind. And I know you have a lot of questions and think there's every chance in the world that he didn't do this and, while that's not what I see, I respect your stance.

Now, I understand the boy's been judged incompetent to undergo a trial and, just from my perspective, I can see that. IMHO, solely as a result of his age, he probably is legally unable to participate in his own defense. And I can see how that carries over to entering into a plea - again, he was 8 when he did this (9 now) - we're kind of stymied by his age with all this.

So, my question is - what do you think should happen to this boy? I'm going to have to ask you to assume for the sake of argument that he shot his Dad and Tim. If you think he's too young to stand trial and too young to enter into a plea, but he's guilty in the eyes of all those closest to the investigation, what should be done?

It appears to me that they MAY be leaning more toward allowing the child to reside with his mom while he also undergos psychiatric evaluation and treatment. By their wording, they even indicated that he could possibly, after a hearing, move to another state. (that's how I came to the conclusion they're probably going to allow him to go with his mom)

Anyway, they can go ahead and order the same treatment, whatever you want to call it, even if the child were deemed 'incompetent.' He could receive all of the same medical evaluation, etc., just not as a convicted felon, based on a plea deal. Let's face it, even IF he's innocent, the past few months have had a horrendous impact on this child. If the only thing he's guilty of was coming upon the two murdered victims, that alone could be a great danger to his young mind. Even in the first court hearings, the seasoned police officers who witnessed the crime scene were traumatized.

While they're at it, as it was this PROS that was so quick to make a special online section for the legal documents to be released, regarding this child, I'd like to see them release everything they've been hiding. They've already told the world who this child is and everyone in town already knew.

Let's see what they have that is pointing to this child beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to stop hiding behind the law and prove this child did it. Even if he's deemed incompetent, they've made sure everyone knows they think he is guilty and they've done everything within their power to make the public believe it too.

With what they've fed to the media, they've already labeled this child a murderer. This will last him a life-time. Now, let them prove it, so that they can't say they 'lost' based only an a technicality.

JMHO
fran

 

[SoobsinMI]

I have never heard of a defendant appealing a plea deal that he and he alone enacted.

I just linked a case a few days ago, of a 14 year old (at the time) who accepted a plea, and is now appealing as there is evidence that he was NOT the murderer.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Wouldn't be hysterical if the judge called her on it before sentencing?

Judge offers a mulligan.... in open court give the boy and his mother a chance to withdraw from the plea agreement based on the comments she's made to the media!

ROFL!

So, let me get this straight. You accuse the mother of not doing anything, yet call her a liar. She *finally* speaks out, though carefully in regards to her son. Then make a joke concerning this case based on comments she makes to the media, though you yourself stated there wasn't any gag order left.

I do not think it's funny. I do believe the mother is doing what she can for her son. I know she has followed through what she was ordered to do from the Court. I have no doubt she is doing the very best she can with that she has to "work" with. Legally and as a mother.

imo

 

[Trino]

It appears to me that they MAY be leaning more toward allowing the child to reside with his mom while he also undergos psychiatric evaluation and treatment. By their wording, they even indicated that he could possibly, after a hearing, move to another state. (that's how I came to the conclusion they're probably going to allow him to go with his mom)

Anyway, they can go ahead and order the same treatment, whatever you want to call it, even if the child were deemed 'incompetent.' He could receive all of the same medical evaluation, etc., just not as a convicted felon, based on a plea deal. Let's face it, even IF he's innocent, the past few months have had a horrendous impact on this child. If the only thing he's guilty of was coming upon the two murdered victims, that alone could be a great danger to his young mind. Even in the first court hearings, the seasoned police officers who witnessed the crime scene were traumatized.

While they're at it, as it was this PROS that was so quick to make a special online section for the legal documents to be released, regarding this child, I'd like to see them release everything they've been hiding. They've already told the world who this child is and everyone in town already knew.

Let's see what they have that is pointing to this child beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to stop hiding behind the law and prove this child did it. Even if he's deemed incompetent, they've made sure everyone knows they think he is guilty and they've done everything within their power to make the public believe it too.

With what they've fed to the media, they've already labeled this child a murderer. This will last him a life-time. Now, let them prove it, so that they can't say they 'lost' based only an a technicality.JMHOfran

From what I've read if a trial had found the boy to be innocent, there could have been no demand from the court that he receive any type of treatment.

 

[fran]

She's doing NOTHING LEGALLY. Running her mouth in the media for $$$$ isn't doing a thing for the boy now is it? Behind closed doors, I believe she was singing a different tune.
http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=333431

Do you have a link that states the child's mom was payed for her appearance in the media?....... or are you just making it up?

TIA,

fran

 

[fran]

That is totally unfair and unfounded, imo, Fran. With 3/4 of the discovery results not made available for viewing we have no idea if they couldn't put the weapon in this boy's hands. They asked for clearer prints from the boy's fingers. We do not know if they got that and I see no reason why they wouldnt nor do we know what results were found after then. Nor do we know what further testing was done on the weapon itself when the experts recommended it be sent out for further testing.

I don't think the prints were unidentifiable, i.e, matching someone else but maybe smudged and only showing a partial print pattern and that is why they needed clearer fingerprints from the boy. (the middle and ring fingers)

I have never heard of a defendant appealing a plea deal that he and he alone enacted. I rather doubt since 8 year olds can be charged and convicted of a crime in AZ that this is the first plea deal that a young juvenile has made. I am sure Roca is fully aware of what juveniles did or did not do in prior cases.

They have plenty of time to evaluate the boy. The DA said the disposition of the case could take from 60 to 90 days. I am sure JR has other court commitments besides this case, alone.

Well you are entitled to your opinion but the 1/4 that they have put out shows me the investigation was vast. Much was done and we have only seen a small part of their investigation with 3/4 of it sealed.

imo

This case isn't about fair, it's about justice. With only 1/4 of the evidence being released, people don't have a problem declaring this child guilty beyond a doubt and are so sure the unreleased evidence points to the child.

IF the forensic report says "Unidentified," it's 'unidentified.' When a link can be provided proving it was the child, then we'll put the gun in his hand. The problem is, this plea deal is being made now with what has been released to date. What has been released did NOT put the gun in the child's hand and an UNKNOWN print was on the alleged murder weapon.

It is what it is,..................now.

This child did NOT 'enact' this plea deal. The pros did.

enact = to establish by legal authoritive act.

The pros offered the plea deal clear back in Nov. They even announced a deal to the press. The def denied it. The plea deal was not talked about again until approximately one month before the plea deal hearing.

The plea 'deal' was made on the pros terms and conditions. You may want to read it to familiarize yourself. At the end it stated, "It is intended to be the most favorable offer that the state will make in this case. If rejected, it is likely any subsequent plea offer will contain less favorable terms and conditions."

FWIW, I don't believe when they put that paragraph in they were saying that if the child rejected the plea they'd give him a more lenient sentence on any further negotiations. It's called tuff talk from the State of Arizona to a 9 yo child.

It's amazing how time drags on and on and on, for a 8 or 9 yo child. They have no concept of numbers and time. Sixty to ninety days is an eternity to a small child.

Yes I am entitled to my own opinion. With only 1/4 of the evidence revealed, it's beyond me how anyone could possibly declare this child guilty without knowing what the other 3/4 of the evidence is.

Kind of like the innocence project. These are people freed because the dna PRESERVED was NEVER tested. Which kind of tells one that just because evidence is submitted, doesn't necessarily mean it points towards the accused. Me.............I'd like to KNOW the answer before I jump into something.

JMHO
fran

 

[southcitymom]

It appears to me that they MAY be leaning more toward allowing the child to reside with his mom while he also undergos psychiatric evaluation and treatment. By their wording, they even indicated that he could possibly, after a hearing, move to another state. (that's how I came to the conclusion they're probably going to allow him to go with his mom).....

(respectfully snipped for length)

I may be in the minority here, but that wouldn't bother me. I am comfortable leaving it to the wisdom of those who know the case the best.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Fran,
"Yes I am entitled to my own opinion. With only 1/4 of the evidence revealed, it's beyond me how anyone could possibly declare this child guilty without knowing what the other 3/4 of the evidence is."

Yes...........and I am entitled to my own opinion as well and what you say is counter opposing to your argument imo.

You say we cant possibly declare him guilty with only 1/4 of the evidence revealed but yet you can declare him innocent and state this is some vast conspiracy to get a 9 year old boy, even without knowing what the other 3/4 of the evidence is and proclaim that there is some wild killer on the loose somewhere.:waitasec:

If I recall you have given your opinion quite often based only on 1/4 of the information that has been revealed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and they do not have to agree.

Not one thing known points away from this boy.

imoo

 

[Fairy1]

If I recall you have given your opinion quite often based only on 1/4 of the information that has been revealed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and they do not have to agree.

Not one thing known points away from this boy.

imoo

Snipped for relevance.....

EVERYONE here has given their opinion based on 1/4 of the evidence - including you. And yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions. There are some here who feel it necessary to belittle other posters or the people involved in this case. It's childish and pointless. In all liklihood, none of us will ever know the evidence in this case. All we can really hope for is that this child will receive the help he needs.

And the fact that "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" means absolutely nothing to me. We know what they WANTED us to know in order to back up their own case. It's called "spinning" and IMO, we have not heard the last of it. There are others - reporters and judges amongst them - who will demand to see how this case got to this point.

 

[Trino]

Snipped for relevance.....

EVERYONE here has given their opinion based on 1/4 of the evidence - including you. And yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions. There are some here who feel it necessary to belittle other posters or the people involved in this case. It's childish and pointless. In all liklihood, none of us will ever know the evidence in this case. All we can really hope for is that this child will receive the help he needs.

And the fact that "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" means absolutely nothing to me. We know what they WANTED us to know in order to back up their own case. It's called "spinning" and IMO, we have not heard the last of it. There are others - reporters and judges amongst them - who will demand to see how this case got to this point.

I agree that we will not know all the evidence in this case. The info is sealed, and even if the plea is appealed, it doesn't mean we will know any more. No reporter nor anyone else of which I'm aware has demanded anything. At this point what makes you think they will?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Snipped for relevance.....

EVERYONE here has given their opinion based on 1/4 of the evidence - including you. And yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions. There are some here who feel it necessary to belittle other posters or the people involved in this case. It's childish and pointless. In all liklihood, none of us will ever know the evidence in this case. All we can really hope for is that this child will receive the help he needs.

And the fact that "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" means absolutely nothing to me. We know what they WANTED us to know in order to back up their own case. It's called "spinning" and IMO, we have not heard the last of it. There are others - reporters and judges amongst them - who will demand to see how this case got to this point.

You are correct.

I am not sure that the truth will come to light though. It is customary in all plea deals that no further information comes to light. And it has been enough time for the media to put the squeeze on... in order to find out but nothing has come out. Seems to me even the media knows they aren't privy to sealed records.

I certainly hope that he gets the therapy he needs for his sake as well as society's. We need to find out why these particular defendants do what they do and then hope it is treatable.

imo