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

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
We don't know what happened.His mother says they smashed my son to nothing.I think that's sad if they do not know what is going on or what happened yet.I just want to know why this little boy did this if he did and that's if he even did these murders.I haven't seen all this evidence yet and I'm am not giving up on this little boy.I want to know how and why it happened and we may never know.

suzanne

 

[s_finch]

Are you saying that people don't have to abide by their own state laws concerning firearms?

In my state we do not have to register any of our guns. Now if one is bought in a gun shop the buyer has to go through the FBI criminal background check but then after the gun is bought it does not have to be registered.

imoo

Nor do we register guns in SC.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Eight months IMO would not be enough for taking two lives, no matter what the age. Also, I cannot believe he would be well enough to resume life in a normal society.

I wonder why they don't stipulate that if the boy isn't well enough to help in his own trial or to be tried after eight months then he should be sent to a mental health facility for youth until he is well enough to stand trial? They can't possibly plan to send this boy back out into society if he isn't well enough to stand trial after eight months! That would just be insane. If he isn't well enough in eight months to stand trial then he sure wouldn't be well enough to go back out into society. They aren't very clear in what they are talking about doing.

This boy should have to pay some kind of price for killing his dad and Tim and at the same time he really needs some type of mental health help. It is obvious to me that this boy has issues that need addressed. He doesn't just need his mother. What if they let him out and he gets mad at someone else?
By turning him loose it would give him the message that he didn't do anything wrong and that killing people is the way to handle your anger. He wouldn't have a gun if they let him go but there are always weapons around.

 

[s_finch]

All guns are registered. If bought legally.

I have to respectfully disagree. All of my guns are owned legally, some were passed down through generations, some were gifts, some outright purchases but none are registered.

To paraphrase gun laws in SC, I bolded pertinent parts,,,,,and btw, we like our gun laws.

"No state requirement that gun owners register their firearms. Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are. The lack of registration data makes it more difficult for police to trace guns used in crime, identify illegal gun traffickers or hold gun owners accountable for their weapons. There is no state system to automatically identify and disarm felons and other prohibited people who bought guns legally in the past, but later committed a crime or otherwise became ineligible to keep possession of their firearms."


"SC State law authorizes law enforcement to keep a record of every handgun sold in the state by licensed gun dealers, but the state does not keep any records on the sale of rifles or shotguns or on the "private" sale of handguns by individuals. The handgun sale records are maintained by police for use in gun tracing and related criminal investigations. But the state does not automatically compare past gun sale records with recent criminal activity to identify and disarm felons and others who bought guns legally, but later committed a crime or otherwise became ineligible to keep possession of their firearms."


South Carolina -" No state requirement that criminal background checks be done on all firearm sales. People buying firearms at gun shows, swap meets, or through newspaper or internet advertisements are not subject to a background check. Criminal background checks are only required if the buyer goes to a federally-licensed gun store - all other sales are not subject to the background check."

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The kid walks.
36 seconds is plenty of time to cover your head, or run. It's too long to stand still and be murdered.

You nor I have a clue what went on from that driveway to the porch as Mr. Romans was brutally murdered. You nor I do not know where he was standing or how far he had gotten when he received each shot. You do not know if he was standing, then lurched forward, went down on one knee trying to get up again. You and I just dont know. We dont have a schematic of the crime scene. We dont have trajectory information where the victim was located when fired upon each time nor where the shooter was standing.

But I do know this. The neighbors reported there were pops then a delay each time and they heard up to four shots. That is totally consistent with the reloading of a single shot bolt action rifle.

imoo

 

[s_finch]

The ownership of the gun is irrelevant as well, as are the pasts of the victims. IMO, this child had a very close and loving relationship with his father, which was interrupted or interfered with by the new wife. It seems to me that new rules and new discplines were introduced after the marriage. I believe his bio mom played on these changes and incited this little boy to a level he may not have reached on his own. An 8 year old is not capable of articulating to his father what he was feeling - IMO. That allowed his feelings to escalate to what amounts to murder. I'm really not sure that he can possibly understand the consequences of his actions.

Respectfully, my problem with this theory is that you would think the boy would have shot the stepmom, not his dad.

 

[s_finch]

It doesn't matter which Romero was the legal owner of the gun....allowing the boy unfettered access is negligent, and the Romero estate could be held civilly liable if the Roaman family decides to sue.

The gun laws of AZ don't matter....having an unsecured weapon in the home with a small child is a foreseeable hazard.

If they do sue, hope they get a change of venue to metropolitan Phoenix.

Do we know for sure the boy had unfettered access? I'm thinking this boy is very intelligent and has a personality disorder. I know my oldest child at 8 was crafty enough to sneak and watch were keys were hidden and could have gotten to a gun if she wanted to. She also has ALWAYS had serious rage issues, from infancy (and I had a very healthy pregnancy, no drugs, no drinking, no problems). Some kids/people are born with their wiring a little bit (or a lot) messed up. I'm really leaning in the direction that we're gonna find this boy has a serious personality disorder which includes rage. In fact, sad as this sounds, it may never be safe to release him into society. JMHO

 

[Trino]

The state knows it can not sucessfully prosecute young Romero. The evidence is weak. They know that this 8 year old could not have killed the victims in the matter they have presented. A very slow loading weapon, premeditation, the shooter not knowing if the two grown men would enter the home at the same time, or even if they would arrive home at a usual time, or stop at the bar. Romero shot from behind, Romans being shot three times from the front (each shot requiring a six second time span between shots), making up an alibi of loafing around, being cool during an interogation.

The state of Arizona is between a rock and a hard place. The kid walks.

I think the State of Arizona full well knows the boy killed both men, but you are correct in that they are between a rock and a hard place because public opinion would not allow them to prosecute the boy as an adult.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Hi
We don't know what happened.His mother says they smashed my son to nothing.I think that's sad if they do not know what is going on or what happened yet.I just want to know why this little boy did this if he did and that's if he even did these murders.I haven't seen all this evidence yet and I'm am not giving up on this little boy.I want to know how and why it happened and we may never know.

suzanne

I just have to say that this bio mother acts like she has been in this boys life every single day since his birth. In reality, she hasn't really been there for him since he was two years old. She saw him once a month and then there was a period of time that she didn't see him at all...seems like it was a long period of time. Now she is back to once a month and a weekly phone call. How much can you know about the life your child is living when you only see him once in awhile and talk on the phone once a week?

I don't think that she has the right to say anything about the dad or what the home life was like. How would she even know. She says that the stepmother sat in the room with the boy when she called him so that tells me the boy wasn't talking out of school to his mom. With the stepmother listening to the call the boy wouldn't have been complaining to his mother.

I've know other people who did this. They want people to think that they were always there for their kids when they weren't at all. The media should stop quoting anything that this mom has to say. She is only trying to make the dad look like a monster. Remember bio mother...he was the one who got custody...not you.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Isn't it a rush to judgment on the dad and Tim too? We have no facts as to when Tim used drugs. It could have been recently or it could have been years ago. We don't know anything about Tim and his wife's relationship, if they were getting a divorce or if they had been separated for ages. I notice that his wife didn't tear him to pieces in the media. As far as I can see Tim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and he ended up losing his life because of it. If the dad was to strict with the boy I don't see how that has anything to do with Tim. We don't even know how long Tim had been living with the dad and his family. Could have been a week or a year. I don't think that we know enough about either of these men to judge them harshly right now. They are victims of this crime but are being made to be the opposite.

It's interesting that people on different forums are tearing these men apart while the citizens of the town they lived in feel totally different. The people that actually knew these men aren't trashing them at all while people who had never even met them are throwing them to the wolves, just know that they must have been horribly abusive to the little boy and therefore brought about their own murders. How can strangers know so much about these two men when the people who knew them have nothing but kind words for them?

When 800 people show up for a man's funeral it isn't because they think he is some scurrilous bad character. From the very start citizen after citizen has commented glowingly about Vincent Romero. If he was such a terrible man then they would have most likely had to pay two or three people to show up at his graveside. That did not happened and it said the town has rallied around the Romero family and giving support, which I am sure they need.

Who cares if TRs had a past drug conviction in the town he was from? It could have happened years and years ago. Who cares if Tim Romans was getting a divorce? Unfortunately divorces happen. Maybe the long distance relationship hurt the 20 year marriage but Mrs. Romans never professed that he loved her but she did say that she loved her husband and that he was a wonderful, devoted father who would do anything for his girls. Even from his own home town people spoke highly of him and mentioned he had become a mentor to their child. I think TRs loved children and there is nothing that shows me any different. That is one of the reasons this case just tears me up inside. If Tim was trying to come to the aide of this boy and was murdered by him, then there is nothing as cold and heartless than that act.

It just seems to be a changing of the times Bobbi. Now more and more it seems some murderers are supported and the victims who have lost their lives in such brutal ways are victimized all over again and blamed for their own deaths. It is sad to me. I can remember a time when all victims whether poor, middle class or wealthy were held above the one who murdered them and given respect.

imo

 

[s_finch]

If that kid got toys they need to be delivered to Toys for Tots or some other organization for kids at Christmas. Killing two people doesn't deserve a reward. Sheesh.

This isn't directed at any poster in particular, it's just my opinion based on many posts concerning the gifts sent to this boy.

No, killing two people does not deserve a reward, but perhaps those sending gifts are thinking like me, this boy is emotionally sick, has a serious mental/personality disorder. When someone has a serious personality disorder they are just as sick as someone with cancer. Mental illness is a real illness. I've been trying to think of a similar premeditated crime carried out by an 8 year old and I'm not coming up with one. So either this boy was very abused (and I'm not really buying into his 1000 licks story, sounds like a large round number and 8 year old would pick) or he is seriously ill.

Respectfully my opinion.

 

[SoobsinMI]

I think the State of Arizona full well knows the boy killed both men, but you are correct in that they are between a rock and a hard place because public opinion would not allow them to prosecute the boy as an adult.

Actually, AZ statutes don't allow for a child of 8 years old to be tried as an adult - especially if there is no historical prior felonies.

The 8 months is the length of time given in the statute for a juvenile to be restored to competency. This is for children 12 years or older. If the 8 year old is determined to be "unfit" due to his age, then as the prosecution as stated in their latest motion, 8 months would NOT be enough time to deem him competent.

I am of the opinion that the child probably did it. I want to know why. And I believe that he requires therapy....perhaps for as long as 10 years (which is the maximum he'd get in juvenile court.) It makes more sense, IMO, that the prosecution either offer this plea (I am assuming it's beneficial to the defense, and less than what the max would be if found guilty at trial) or try both cases together. They've stated in the last motion that they would NOT file to try the child for his father's murder, say at 15 years old, to TRY and get an adult sentence. I still don't believe they legally could. However, we'll have to wait and see what the defense does. And, because it's a juvenile case, we may never know the "why" if a plea is taken.

While I believe the spankings were excessive (if the child is to be believed, AND if the 5 swats for forgetting homework is to be believed), I have little interest in Mr. Roman's alleged divorce proceedings, nor any other "drug related" arrests. Unless, of course, this child was living in a drug house (there is NO indication of that) or was severly abused (again, NO indication.) Otherwise, the speculation doesn't justify the murders anyway. JMO

 

[secretsmk]

I just have to say that this bio mother acts like she has been in this boys life every single day since his birth. In reality, she hasn't really been there for him since he was two years old. She saw him once a month and then there was a period of time that she didn't see him at all...seems like it was a long period of time. Now she is back to once a month and a weekly phone call. How much can you know about the life your child is living when you only see him once in awhile and talk on the phone once a week?

I don't think that she has the right to say anything about the dad or what the home life was like. How would she even know. She says that the stepmother sat in the room with the boy when she called him so that tells me the boy wasn't talking out of school to his mom. With the stepmother listening to the call the boy wouldn't have been complaining to his mother.

I've know other people who did this. They want people to think that they were always there for their kids when they weren't at all. The media should stop quoting anything that this mom has to say. She is only trying to make the dad look like a monster. Remember bio mother...he was the one who got custody...not you.

Hi, I'm new here. I hope you don't mind me jump in here with somewhat different view.
So, should they only quote the others? Why shouldn't we hear all sides, and than make our personal judgment? The mother and father had joint custody, I read that somewhere, but the child was living with the father, and the mother was visiting once a month.
I see most of you decided the boy did it. I disagree.
Since the forensic test are not in yet, I base my decision on most part on the basis of the coerced confession. I think they led him to confess, and they did not start the interview with him, they wanted confession from the start. They were already convinced he is guilty,and it is my opinion, mostly on TR wife's statement regarding the phone call. Since there is no evidence presented that there was a call, and at what time, we still don't now if that is what happened.
Watching the video, the only impression I received about the child is that he has no clue what is going on. They want him to tell them a story, so he does, with their great input. Unfortunately, it is obvious he has no idea how many times they are shot, where etc. I only see a child wanting to please adults.
I would like to see evidence before I believe that it was possible for this child to have done the shooting.
IMO

 

[s_finch]

Welcome secretsmk and feel free to jump in. Posters here often disagree but we're usually pretty respectful of others opinions.

 

[Shock]

If the state knew full well, and had the evidence, that the boy is guilty they would go for it. They don't. It didn't happen the way they claim.
The county attorney was voted out of office. He will be replaced in January.
If he thought he could get a conviction on this little boy, he would.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
Quote
Remember bio mother...he was the one who got custody...not you.

Her name is Eryn Thomas.Not bio mother.This is a pretty harsh statement.We do not really know her.That's not fair to her.It is his mother this little boy wanted to be with.

suzanne

 

[s_finch]

If the state knew full well, and had the evidence, that the boy is guilty they would go for it. They don't. It didn't happen the way they claim.
The county attorney was voted out of office. He will be replaced in January.
If he thought he could get a conviction on this little boy, he would.

I'm not sure I agree. Who wants to be the prosecutor that sends away an 8 yr old, especially concerning the public hoopla that is taking place and will only get worse with a trial. I feel the DA is in a difficult place, he has to possibly bring murder charges against an 8 year old boy ----an 8 year old little boy who either was abused or desperately wanted to live with his mother or who has an emotional disorder AND possibly all three of these issues are going on with this child. It would take a mighty hard hearted prosecutor to WANT to try this boy so possibly they are stalling to see if they can produce mitigating circumstances. That's what I would do if I were them.

 

[Trino]

Hi
Quote
Remember bio mother...he was the one who got custody...not you.

Her name is Eryn Thomas.Not bio mother.This is a pretty harsh statement.We not really know her.That's not fair to her.It is his mother this little boy wanted to be with.
suzanne

The boy called his step-mother "MOM." We have no information that the boy had a preference for Eryn Thomas. Although they had joint custody, it takes a lot of negative info to have a child placed in the father's physical custody.

 

[secretsmk]

Often, there is no some bad reason for the mother not to have the child. She was not from St. Johns, so they could be more sympathetic to the father? From what I read in the news, she was calling him regularly. And she probably also tried to have the boy living with her, since it was said that the father opposed by claims regarding the story of the blowing smoke in the child's ear. Also, since smoking was not allowed in the house, maybe it was because than the mother would have the child with her, since the above story would be irrelevant.
So, we have no clear picture of what was happening.
I think they both wanted the child.
I also don't think she is trying to make the father look bad, the opposite, she said he was agood father, and he and the boy loved each other.

 

[Shock]

You're right s finch. I can't know their motives. I'm just thinking that the evidence isn't nearly as strong as the tiny St. Johns PD claimed when they "solved the murder case..."