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

[Linda7NJ]

I just don't know, Linda. If the evaluations which are available to everyone involved weren't "good," why do you think Pros and Defense want the Judge removed? That doesn't make sense.

Do you think the Judge could possibly be bowing to political pressure?

I'm more inclined to believe that the evualtions weren't complete when the plea was entered into. I think the boys needs can not be adiquitly met through the probation department.

I think they may be in disagreement as to WHERE he will be placed. I have a feeling the attorneys want him placed in a expensive RTC, perhaps out of state ($$$$$) as opposed to Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

 

[Linda7NJ]

another article

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20382367&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=506182&rfi=6

However, he said he did not see a program that would address security for both the minor and the community, as well as the impact on the victims' families.
"For the minor, this community is pure poison," he said.
Smith added, "Here in our immediate area, the level of treatment that might be necessary in a case like this might not be available."

Wood said he believed the plea deal has already "collapsed." While the deal stated his client would be placed on probation supervision, "the judge made it clear this morning that would not be an appropriate disposition."
Wood said he will talk with his client about their available options. He said if Roca does reject the plea and his client does not want to be incarcerated, then they would withdraw and ask for a new judge in the case.

To avoid throwing fuel on the fire, we'll let things run its course," he said.
Wood said he talked with two private schools in Navajo County about enrolling the juvenile in their school while matters proceed.
"They both unequivocally said, 'No.

 

[dgfred]

Apparently, funding isn't the issue. I am a tad confused. But it sure sounds to me like the kid is surely a danger. The evulations are complete and I would bet they weren't "good"

I found this press release:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/Press%20Releases/JV2008065%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20OCTOBER%2022,%202009.pdf

Next hearing is NOVEMBER 10th

Ha, 'sounds' to you the kid is 'surely' a danger... wow, are you going to be disappointed if he is not incarcerated. I'd take that 'bet'... how could they be 'good' anyway :waitasec: ??? after what had happened? SOUNDS to me that the judge has been swayed by outside influences... and the case has been rotten from the get-go in more ways than one.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Would be very interesting if the plea agreement is tossed, that's for sure.

Yes, I will be incredibly disappointed if this boy isn't placed in some secure facility for treatment and soon.

It will be of NO benefit to the boy for a trial or to postpone intensive treatment any longer. His needs are not being met now. IMO It's not even about punishment at this point, if this child EVER stands a chance at being rehabilitated, the window of opportunity to do so, is closing ...fast!

 

[dgfred]

IMO there will not ever be a trial... the case was mishandled almost from the beginning and forensics do not show beyond a doubt the boy was the shooter. Also the video could not be used, as we all know the problems with that. After all this time with his mother imo in jail treatment would almost be a form of punishment in itself... but he does need it for more than one reason. Incarcerating the kid will not be the answer for anything... intensive treatment and intensive probation could be.

 

[southcitymom]

another article

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20382367&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=506182&rfi=6

However, he said he did not see a program that would address security for both the minor and the community, as well as the impact on the victims' families.
"For the minor, this community is pure poison," he said.
Smith added, "Here in our immediate area, the level of treatment that might be necessary in a case like this might not be available."

Wood said he believed the plea deal has already "collapsed." While the deal stated his client would be placed on probation supervision, "the judge made it clear this morning that would not be an appropriate disposition."
Wood said he will talk with his client about their available options. He said if Roca does reject the plea and his client does not want to be incarcerated, then they would withdraw and ask for a new judge in the case.

To avoid throwing fuel on the fire, we'll let things run its course," he said.
Wood said he talked with two private schools in Navajo County about enrolling the juvenile in their school while matters proceed.
"They both unequivocally said, 'No.

Thanks so much, Linda. There is a lot more information in this article. From the article:

"Roca said if he were to reject the plea agreement, he would be inclined to commit the boy to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, as he sees no other alternative. He said he believes ADJC has a wider pool of resources and options beyond intensive probation and could "craft a program for the minor."
After the hearing, Court Administrator Betty Smith said Roca has not said whether it means the juvenile should be incarcerated in ADJC or not."

It seems to me that all of this is being driven from a standpoint of how to best help the child and not from a standpoint of incarcerating the child as punishment or bowing to outside influence. I mean - I understand that the needs of the child are weighed in conjunction with the safety of the community as a disposition is reached and that a disposition must include consequences for his actions, but nothing I read here leads me to believe that some new information has come to light that leads the Court to the believe that the child needs to be locked up for the safety of the community.

It seems to be more about crafting something that is right and do-able for everyone. The Court doesn't seem to think the child and his Mom will be able to easily comply with intensive probation and get the child the help he needs.

I still don't believe that putting this boy behind bars is the way to go. There has got to be a better way to craft something appropriate without locking him up.

 

[southcitymom]

Would be very interesting if the plea agreement is tossed, that's for sure.

Yes, I will be incredibly disappointed if this boy isn't placed in some secure facility for treatment and soon.

It will be of NO benefit to the boy for a trial or to postpone intensive treatment any longer. His needs are not being met now. IMO It's not even about punishment at this point, if this child EVER stands a chance at being rehabilitated, the window of opportunity to do so, is closing ...fast!

It'll be interesting if the plea agreement OR the Judge is tossed!

Do we know what sort of treatment the boy is receiving now?

 

[dgfred]

I believe they want the boy locked up for the safety of the BOY, not the community.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It'll be interesting if the plea agreement OR the Judge is tossed!

Do we know what sort of treatment the boy is receiving now?

None, zip, nada, zilch!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe they want the boy locked up for the safety of the BOY, not the community.

If it were that simple, probation could be transferred and his mother could just move.

 

[southcitymom]

I'm more inclined to believe that the evualtions weren't complete when the plea was entered into. I think the boys needs can not be adiquitly met through the probation department.

I think they may be in disagreement as to WHERE he will be placed. I have a feeling the attorneys want him placed in a expensive RTC, perhaps out of state ($$$$$) as opposed to Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

I do understand that the evaluations were probably not fully complete when the plea was first agreed upon, but I also think if they wound up being not "good," the Judge would refer to that. ( something like - "I am disinclined to support the plea agreement because evaluations show that for the safety of the community as well as the rehabilitation of the child, he must be locked up while he is being treated.")

I just don't see any intimation that the child is a danger. but iI agree he needs intensive support I disagree that he needs to be incarcerated.

 

[southcitymom]

If it were that simple, probation could be transferred and his mother could just move.

I wish that were an option. I wish they could get out of St. John's.

 

[southcitymom]

None, zip, nada, zilch!

Really???? We know that - he's not even talking to a therapist once a week?

 

[dgfred]

If it were that simple, probation could be transferred and his mother could just move.

Righto.... maybe that is the next step they are leaning to.

 

[dgfred]

Without the plea deal, the prosecution has a very weak case. So they wish to keep the plea deal or the elected county officials will be in hot water indeed in the next elections... not to mention probably loosing the case. The kid's attorneys wish to keep the plea deal to get treatment for the boy, but NOT in jail as was the promise. Therefore both sides wish to keep the plea deal in place.

 

[Fairy1]

I wish that were an option. I wish they could get out of St. John's.

Is this an option? I would really like to know.

Clearly, the St. John's community is in charge at this point and this child has a snowball's chance in he*l of ever having a normal life there. It seems to be a bit of a conundrum. His mom needs the support of the family that lives in St. John's, but the other folks in St. John's are not willing to allow him to live amongst them. Of course, they have no more "official" information than we do here, but they are determined to punish this child as they see fit.

It's a very sad situation, all around.

 

[azmama]

I read the plea agreement...It is what it is. It stated there was a possibility of juvenile detention. IMO It's a little late to be crying foul now.

Good thing your opinion does not count in this case.

That is the FINAL draft of the agreement, the original did not include detention as a posibility, if I remember correctly. AND If you recall, the Mother was COMPLETELY AGAINST IT, the GAL was not even in on the drafting of it, but according to the court, the boy could adequately digest and SIGN FOR HIMSELF!!! Really? Most 8 year old kids have every, or most decisions made for them, every single day, and do not have the "benefit of a GAL", but this court allowed an 8 YEAR OLD CHILD SIGN A PLEA AGREEMENT, WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A COMPETENCY EVALUATION!!!

Apparently, funding isn't the issue. I am a tad confused. But it sure sounds to me like the kid is surely a danger. The evulations are complete and I would bet they weren't "good"

Everything in AZ right now, no doubt funding is part of the issue, Apache County could easily be the poorest County to boot.

Who is the child a danger to? He has been living in a private home with his family for nearly a year, and has even travelled with nary a problem...:waitasec:

Of course the evaluations were "not good", funny, he was also evaluated several times for competency, but none of those evaluations were ever used...hmmm, now why could that be? OH! Because he was 8!!!

No child kills for no reason, I will never believe that, there were extreme circumstances, without a doubt, I am sure THAT is in the evaluations...

None, zip, nada, zilch!

Really? Really? Are you really standing up and saying AS FACT THAT YOU ARE IN POSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHILD IS GETTING NO THERAPY??? The comment would be laughable if you were not dragging a 9 year old CHILD through the mud.

This is unbelieable, I had no idea you were psychic!
What did he eat for dinner last night?

When you go that far, it is no longer your opinion, and talking about things you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MAKES YOU LOOK JUST PLAIN RIDICULOUS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE BOY (clearly)!


BTW, Today (11/5) is the anniversary of Vince's and Tim's death, it has been weighing on me all day. I am sure it was weighing on the boy, and his family.

 

[Trino]

Good thing your opinion does not count in this case.

That is the FINAL draft of the agreement, the original did not include detention as a posibility, if I remember correctly. AND If you recall, the Mother was COMPLETELY AGAINST IT, the GAL was not even in on the drafting of it, but according to the court, the boy could adequately digest and SIGN FOR HIMSELF!!! Really? Most 8 year old kids have every, or most decisions made for them, every single day, and do not have the "benefit of a GAL", but this court allowed an 8 YEAR OLD CHILD SIGN A PLEA AGREEMENT, WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A COMPETENCY EVALUATION!!!



Everything in AZ right now, no doubt funding is part of the issue, Apache County could easily be the poorest County to boot.

Who is the child a danger to? He has been living in a private home with his family for nearly a year, and has even travelled with nary a problem...:waitasec:

Of course the evaluations were "not good", funny, he was also evaluated several times for competency, but none of those evaluations were ever used...hmmm, now why could that be? OH! Because he was 8!!!

No child kills for no reason, I will never believe that, there were extreme circumstances, without a doubt, I am sure THAT is in the evaluations...



Really? Really? Are you really standing up and saying AS FACT THAT YOU ARE IN POSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHILD IS GETTING NO THERAPY??? The comment would be laughable if you were not dragging a 9 year old CHILD through the mud.

This is unbelieable, I had no idea you were psychic!
What did he eat for dinner last night?

When you go that far, it is no longer your opinion, and talking about things you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MAKES YOU LOOK JUST PLAIN RIDICULOUS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE BOY (clearly)!


BTW, Today (11/5) is the anniversary of Vince's and Tim's death, it has been weighing on me all day. I am sure it was weighing on the boy, and his family.

Just a comment re: age. The boy turns 10 shortly, this month as I recall.

 

[sdn8tv]

I just don't know, Linda. If the evaluations which are available to everyone involved weren't "good," why do you think Pros and Defense want the Judge removed? That doesn't make sense.

Do you think the Judge could possibly be bowing to political pressure?

Bingo! Donna Grimsley wants to be relected next year....

 

[sdn8tv]

None, zip, nada, zilch!

Really...how do you know he is getting None, Zip, Nada, Zilch? This kid is getting therapy session three days a week on an outpatient basis.

P.S...not one evaluation said this kid needs to be in jail. Please go back and read your own sources...that is a quote from the boys attorney.

"No expert, no doctor and no one that has had any prolonged contact with the juvenile has suggested that this is an appropriate sentence," Wood wrote. "It appears that the court has succumbed to political pressure from some local 'citizens' to have the juvenile removed from the community."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/11/05/20091105stjohns1105.html