AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #1

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
No,I don't think they have enough proof here.But we don't know what's going on yet.

suzanne

 

[oceanblueeyes]

that is possible, but the blood trail leads me to believe he was headed towards the door from his truck, i believe they said he was found dead very close to the front door and there was an approximate 8 yard (24 feet not short) trail/trickle of blood leading from near the truck to where he was found.

i was also reading the documents released today - the state is moving to dismiss count 1 ? count 1 is the killing of his father. why would they do that?

That is what I think too, lil.

He was going toward the house door from the truck.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi
No,I don't think they have enough proof here.But we don't know what's going on yet.

suzanne

I have seen other DAs do the same thing when there are multiple homicides involved. They pull one and hold it because there is no time limitations on murder.



imoo

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
I agree.I have seen it done too.I hope we hear soon why they did it.

suzanne

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi
I agree.I have seen it done too.I hope we hear soon why they did it.

suzanne

I doubt we are going to hear anything from the DA but you can bet the pundits will do their guessing games as usual. You know how they love to read those tealeaves.

They will usually hold the stronger one as an ace in the hole.

 

[colette]

They sure have more evidence in the murder of Mr. Roman than they do of the father as to the boys guilt. So they are pushing the easiest case first I guess.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I can fully understand why Ms. Romans is upset. Letting this boy go home for Thanksgiving is not appropriate. While he may be 8, he calmly and coldly killed two people.

I thought the mother lived out of state. Where is she going to take him over the holiday if she doesn't even live there?

I don't think he should be able to leave the detention center either. This boy might not understand the consequences of his actions in the long term but this boy cold bloodly planned these murders and had been planning on killing the two men for awhile. He lay in wait for them to come home from work. When Tim went outside to speak with his wife the boy called him into the house so that he could kill him. He didn't just shoot them each once and then get scared and run. He shot them enough times to be sure that they were dead. This 8 yr old is not your average 8 yr old kid.

Most 8 yr old kids...if they accidentally shoot a sibling or playmate, etc, freak when they see what has happened. They fall apart. Not this boy. He remained as cool as if nothing horrible had happened. In the video's he could have been talking about losing a toy or something. I would have thought he would have been devistated because his dad was dead but he didn't seem bothered at all. I watched the video's and wondered how he could just talk like it wasn't his dad's death at his hand he was talking about.

Most kids are taught from the time they are small to call 911 in an emergency.
If this boy had walked into the house and found his dad and Tim shot and dying wouldn't he have called 911 instead of nudging his dad with his foot to see if he was alive...thinking he saw his dad move so he picks up the gun and shoots him two times so he wouldn't suffer????? We know now that it was a story the boy told but even the story was awful. If we shoot a deer and the shot doesn't kill the deer we do shot it again so it isn't suffering or we try to find it if it is shot and runs so that it isn't hurt and suffering. Humans aren't deer or bears or animals that we hunt. We don't shot them to end their suffering. We call 911 so we can get help for them.

It is hard to think that an 8 yr old could do something like this. Especially if we have or have had normal 8 yr olds but this boy isn't normal. I don't know at what age sociopathic behavior starts but I believe that this boy is a sociopath with no conscience and if this is the case he will never be able to be fixed.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I agree, Chiperoni in that i think there was a lot of neglect. It would explain why the boy was able to get out his gun in the first place. He also mentioned in the interview sometimes his dad would leave his own gun bag at the bottom of the stairs and his step mother would make him carry it up for his dad. All the guns in that house should have been locked away at all times. The boy should have had more parental supervision and nurturing attention in general.

Just because the dad didn't lock his son's gun up and might not have always locked his own gun up doesn't mean that there wasn't parental supervision in the home. There has been nothing said about the boy not being nurtured by his dad and stepmother. From what the neighbors and friends have said the dad was always doing things with his son. We have no idea if the dad was a huggy kissy dad or not. The boy called his stepmother...mom. The dad had raised this boy alone from the time he was 2 yrs old which means that the dad was 23 yrs old when he got custody of him. That says something for the dad. From all accounts this boy was a good kid all around which tells me that dad was doing something right. Kids act out or withdraw when things aren't right at home....especially little kids. This boy APPEARED to be a normal kid.

 

[impatientredhead]

Just because the dad didn't lock his son's gun up and might not have always locked his own gun up doesn't mean that there wasn't parental supervision in the home. There has been nothing said about the boy not being nurtured by his dad and stepmother. From what the neighbors and friends have said the dad was always doing things with his son. We have no idea if the dad was a huggy kissy dad or not. The boy called his stepmother...mom. The dad had raised this boy alone from the time he was 2 yrs old which means that the dad was 23 yrs old when he got custody of him. That says something for the dad. From all accounts this boy was a good kid all around which tells me that dad was doing something right. Kids act out or withdraw when things aren't right at home....especially little kids. This boy APPEARED to be a normal kid.

We have no way to know at this point how the gun came to be accessible that day. Maybe Dad left it out all the time. Maybe a mistake was made this time resulting in it being out at this one inopportune time. The boy is accused of premediated murder maybe he got to it by lying to one of the adults, maybe he he hid it last time it was out, maybe he pretended to lock the cabinet and didn't, maybe he found the key or combo to where Dad kept it locked up.

A lot of assumptions are being made about the gun, how he got it, how being trained to use it effected his developement, etc.... I think it is a normal human emotion to look at an unexplainable tragedy and say well it couldn't happen to me or my family because we don't do __________________. It gives us a sense of control in our lives so we don't have to consider that horrible tragedy can strike anyone.

And we may find out that Dad was a gun wielding lunatic that pointed guns at people and made threats, taught his son inappropriate things about guns and people, etc... I doubt it from what we have seen. But we really don't know.

 

[impatientredhead]

Thanks Cyber......so they are holding this one as their "ace in the hole" should they need it?

I was thinking that was most likely the case.

I did notice in the DAs motion he bolded "without prejudice" so he is putting them on notice.

Absolutely. Hold one back in case a jury won't convict on the first one. In case that interview gets thrown out. Psych evals will still be to come. The odds of this turning into a legal nightmare are huge.

 

[SoobsinMI]

Hi
How many times do they know each person was shot and where from the autopsy report.Where can I get all this information.This isn't adding up for me.

suzanne

Here is a link that was posted earlier. It's court information, released to the public, by the clerk of the court. I've read the transcript from the first hearing, and it is puzzling. They said that no one could tell where the men were hit, other than the head, however a police officer said he saw shots in the chest. He also reports finding 8 shell casings, four in the house, four outside.

http://groups.google.com/group/apacheschighprofile/web/jv2008065?pli=1

 

[SoobsinMI]

None of this makes a lick of sense to me unless the DA wants to just charge him for Romans now so he will do juvie time and then will file charges later on the father's murder. There is no time limit on when murder charges have to be brought. It could happen 10 years from now or even later.
Good grief, this is strange. Vincent Romero was murdered and was still dressed in his jacket, jeans, boots and even his hardhat.

imoo

That's true, however sentencing would be limited to what the "normal" sentence is at the time of the murder. In other words, they couldn't wait until he was an adult, to charge him, and get an adult sentence.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That's true, however sentencing would be limited to what the "normal" sentence is at the time of the murder. In other words, they couldn't wait until he was an adult, to charge him, and get an adult sentence.

That is true. I think they have loads of evidence on both cases and they know the father's case would be the more emotional one. Again, sort of how they held off in the Routier case on the one charge of the youngest child that she murdered. Of course her sentence was death and there is no further punishment or sentence necessary to be made.

So lets say they have the case on Mr. Romans' murder now and proceed and he receives a conviction and he is incarcerated for that murder until the age of 18. Then if they bring the charges against him at a later date for his father's death even if tried under juvenile standards at the age he was when he killed. If convicted and they would be able to use the other aggravating factor in that he had murdered two people not just one, then he would at least serve another 10 years for the killing of his father. That would be a total sentence of approximately 20 years total for both of the deaths, not just one 10 year term.

I can see why the DA has really thought about this and knows no matter how many people this boy murdered, as it stands now he would only serve time for it as if he had only killed one. Therefore; it leaves no justice to be served for the TWO victims involved, only for one.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Absolutely. Hold one back in case a jury won't convict on the first one. In case that interview gets thrown out. Psych evals will still be to come. The odds of this turning into a legal nightmare are huge.

I think it is this DA is refusing to give this suspect two victims for one sentence.

He knows that this is almost 99%-100% going to be tried in Juvenile Court and the severest punishment that can be given will be until he is 18 years old, no matter if he had murdered one,two or forty people.

Even if he has to try him later under juvenile guidelines for murdering his father he will at least be given another 10 year sentence which gives a total of 20 years for both deaths. Not just the one blanket sentence of 10 years across the board.

imoo

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
Thankyou very much for the link.I am curious of what the Report of Guardian Ad Litem had to say.

suzanne

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hi
I wonder why.They did something like this in Darlie Routiers case.She was accused of killing her sons Damon and Devon, she was prosecuted for and convicted only of Damon's death because there was no proof of her killing her other son.

suzanne

I think they dropped Devon murder charges in the event she wasn't convicted. They would have a second chance.

 

[CyberLaw]

For goodness sake people,a 9 years old CHILD does not normally steal, do drugs, know about sex or whatever. What the heck have the parents doing or not doing to this child. This is not normal. This was learned conduct. Either at home or in a environment.

As to the boy of 8. The Dad raised him. Who knows what went on behind closed doors, what the boy was taught and raised from a young age.

When you have children who are "not normal" and commit crimes at a "tender" age, I look to what they have been allowed to do, what the home environment was like, abuse, substance abuse, what was said in the home.

Children are not born knowing how to kill and handle guns and do drugs. It is learned and learned most likely at home.

The damage needs to unlearned and undone.

In Canada, no one under the age of 12 can be charged with a crime. Any crime, but then again, we have strict gun control laws. Very strict, that prevents a child from access to a gun, handling a gun, or possession of a gun.

 

[colette]

In Canada, no one under the age of 12 can be charged with a crime. Any crime, but then again, we have strict gun control laws. Very strict, that prevents a child from access to a gun, handling a gun, or possession of a gun.

Killers don't need a gun. You have a case right now in Canada/ Medicine Hat, where a twelve year old girl and her boyfriend killed her parents and young brother with knives.

Anyway let's not blame the victim. Just because this killer is only 8 it doesn't make him innocent. Oh.. right, he was only keeping his dad and Mr. Romans from suffering.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

For goodness sake people,a 9 years old CHILD does not normally steal, do drugs, know about sex or whatever. What the heck have the parents doing or not doing to this child. This is not normal. This was learned conduct. Either at home or in a environment.

As to the boy of 8. The Dad raised him. Who knows what went on behind closed doors, what the boy was taught and raised from a young age.

When you have children who are "not normal" and commit crimes at a "tender" age, I look to what they have been allowed to do, what the home environment was like, abuse, substance abuse, what was said in the home.

Children are not born knowing how to kill and handle guns and do drugs. It is learned and learned most likely at home.

The damage needs to unlearned and undone.

In Canada, no one under the age of 12 can be charged with a crime. Any crime, but then again, we have strict gun control laws. Very strict, that prevents a child from access to a gun, handling a gun, or possession of a gun.

Absolutely agree. Great post. I look forward to the future info provided concerning homelife and exams done by the pro's concerning this child. As I have said several times, there is more to this story and I will not toss this child out as some definition of a sociopath.

 

[Trino]

We have no way to know at this point how the gun came to be accessible that day. Maybe Dad left it out all the time. Maybe a mistake was made this time resulting in it being out at this one inopportune time. The boy is accused of premediated murder maybe he got to it by lying to one of the adults, maybe he he hid it last time it was out, maybe he pretended to lock the cabinet and didn't, maybe he found the key or combo to where Dad kept it locked up.

A lot of assumptions are being made about the gun, how he got it, how being trained to use it effected his developement, etc.... I think it is a normal human emotion to look at an unexplainable tragedy and say well it couldn't happen to me or my family because we don't do __________________. It gives us a sense of control in our lives so we don't have to consider that horrible tragedy can strike anyone.

And we may find out that Dad was a gun wielding lunatic that pointed guns at people and made threats, taught his son inappropriate things about guns and people, etc... I doubt it from what we have seen. But we really don't know.

It was not required by AZ law to lock up a gun. This is not unheard of. Many people in rural AZ do exactly as the dad did. The gun used was the boy's own gun.

I don'b think the dad was a gun wielding lunatic, since no one has remotely suggested this.