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

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
Ok.They can't sue the police department for Negligence?

suzanne

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi
I was thinking about where the 5 $100 bills came from and I think I read some where it says their wallets were seized for evidence?Maybe the money was in their wallets.

suzanne

Could have been. They always take any personal possession found on the bodies and they have to photograph any money that was taken. They usually do inventory list as to what was taken and from where. That is to protect LE.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi
Ok.They can't sue the police department for Negligence?

suzanne

What negligence?

 

[Salem]

Respectfully snipped ~

BTW when a mother loses custody, many times it's a case of economics especially if she hasn't any skills or money to provide a home.

This is a "generality" or "stereotype" and I just want to put it out there that I disagree 100%. I believe, generally when a mother loses custody it is for good reason. Just my opinion.

Salem

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
They arrested this little boy without having the ME report or any of the forensic evidence back and read no Miranda rights with no attorney present.

suzanne

 

[colette]

If the boy is not guilty then why is his lawyer considering the plea bargin? The evidence is there they just have to work out the details.

 

[Lyn1001]

Just putting out there what San Carlos LE stated to St. Johns LE. No date was stated as to when San Carlos LE was investigating, but it was obvious that they were concerned enough to make such statements to St. Johns LE. Who knows who old he was. Maybe he was 8 years old or was suspect before/until he moved in with this family in St. Johns. Does age/time matter in terms of a crime? I have to wonder about this man's history and that includes dealing with law enforcement. Just saying for argument sake....

IMVHO

I know a number of people, who if they were murdered right now and their past was looked in to, would have some shady stuff. I know people who USED to smoke marijuana and sell small amounts. They also had a few problems with DUI's. HOWEVER, they are now, a number of years later, quite straight laced spouses and parents. Haven't done anything illegal or drug related in a long time. But you can bet that if they were in the news for some reason, it would be brought up in a heartbeat! A lot of people like to party when they're younger, some just get caught more often than others.

 

[Lyn1001]

If the boy is not guilty then why is his lawyer considering the plea bargin? The evidence is there they just have to work out the details.

Because if his lawyer knows there is a strong case against the boy, the plea bargin may be the best option.

 

[colette]

Because if his lawyer knows there is a strong case against the boy, the plea bargin may be the best option.

Thank you ! IMO, the plea bargin is the ONLY option.

 

[mostlylurking]

Nah,I don't think so, they would have never used a kid's gun. They have their own gun, most likely, stolen and untraceable. They would have fired a shot to the head and been done with it. They wouldn't waste this many shots.

imoo

Unless you are in their minds, you don't know what someone might do to cover their tracks.

 

[mostlylurking]

Could have been. They always take any personal possession found on the bodies and they have to photograph any money that was taken. They usually do inventory list as to what was taken and from where. That is to protect LE.

imoo

Must be to protect LE, 'cause there ain't been no protectin' of this child's rights through any of this. Whether he ends up guilty or not, his rights as a citizen have been totally hosed.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi
They arrested this little boy without having the ME report or any of the forensic evidence back and read no Miranda rights with no attorney present.

suzanne

That is not against the law.....that is typical that an arrest will be made and at a later date the autopsy reports and other forensic evidence comes back in later. Full disclosure is required before the start of the trial. The Judge will tell both attorneys when that must be done.

That will be up for the Judge to decide if the confession is excluded. If so the case will move on forward like it is doing now with or without the confession.

John Couey's confession was suppressed by the Judge yet the case went forward and to a conviction. The case was based on the evidence not Couey's confession even though he did confess that he had killed Jessica Lunsford.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Unless you are in their minds, you don't know what someone might do to cover their tracks.

Well there is always a FIRST for everything, I suppose, but I have never heard or read of such instance. The victims are usually killed with much higher power weapons than a kid's gun.

imoo

 

[PattyCake]

Good gosh... I kept thinking this little boy wasn't guilty and if he was there had to be substantial abuse or something to push him to do this. A 'regular' child would never. I just wonder if he actually did shoot his dad AFTER his dad was already shot - and he was tryign to put his dad out of pain? I don't know. None of this makes sense. Wonder what is going on. Wish there wasn't a media ban.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Respectfully snipped ~

This is a "generality" or "stereotype" and I just want to put it out there that I disagree 100%. I believe, generally when a mother loses custody it is for good reason. Just my opinion.

Salem

She had joint custody right?She would have never had joint custody if she was a unfit mother.Physical custody is just living with the parent.But they both have joint custody and equal rights in the decision making of thier child.As I was told by our attorney's joint custody leaves it open for us to agree and discuss about the welfare of our children.I have joint and physical custody of 3 of my children.my little girl wanted to be with me.My 8 year old son asked me if he could live with his father and I said yes.I honored what my little boy wanted.But I do miss very much him not being with me all the time.

suzanne

 

[twinkiesmom]

The locals commenting on the published articles seemed to believe the boy wanted to live with his grandmother.

http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/s...r.18c702709.html?ocp=24#slcgm_comments_anchor

 

[Shock]

Hi
I wonder if his mother Eryn Thomas Bloomfield who now has custody of her little boy can sue any of these people because of any this.She did say I wonder what ever happened to innocent untill proven guilty.I don't see where they did that here.

suzanne

Don't know if St. Johns has sovereign immunity or not. Maybe someone who really knows the law can tell us. Too many of us SHLs try to guess.
Anyway, let's hope she can.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Don't know if St. Johns has sovereign immunity or not. Maybe someone who really knows the law can tell us. Too many of us SHLs try to guess.
Anyway, let's hope she can.

Okay...enlighten me. What is "SHLs"? Yeah, I am that much of a dork.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
Your not a dork.I don't know what it means either.LOL.

suzanne

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She had joint custody right?She would have never had joint custody if she was a unfit mother.Physical custody is just living with the parent.But they both have joint custody and equal rights in the decision making of their child.As I was told by our attorney's joint custody leaves it open for us to agree and discuss about the welfare of our children.I have joint and physical custody of 3 of my children.my little girl wanted to be with me.My 8 year old son asked me if he could live with his father and I said yes.I honored what my little boy wanted.But I do miss very much him not being with me all the time.

suzanne

Something just has to be up why she didn't get physical custody of this boy. Where I live it is rare that a father gets to have full physical custody even if the mother has much less money than the father. The Courts are consistently more lenient toward giving the children to their biological mother unless of course there was some big problem with her, like drug use or gross neglect or abuse of the children.

From what I have read the boy has always been in the home of the father's. And the child support issue was only two years ago when he was given official physical custody so she must have just left the boy with him all those years and then came back a couple of years ago and that is when it wound up in court where he got the boy and she got the rights to shared custody.

That would mean she did have a right to see him but I wonder if she could take him out of state. She seemed to go there each time, instead of him coming for the summer or for Christmas in MS. Since she said she saw him once a month.

imoo