AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #3

[Ms Suzanne]

Ok,I listened to the confession again as best as I can and could hear.I get upset every time I hear these.I hear intimidation by the police officers.She is constantly telling this little boy tell me the truth.Which to me is saying she is telling him he is lying.She tells the little boy there would be lots of gun residue on his shirt a few times.Well I looked it up because I do not know about guns very well because I won't allow them in my house and it says this gun would not have alot of gun residue and they did not have this information back yet and still don't right?.She says some one saw him.She also says some one said they heard him on the phone and had the audacity to even say they had a copy of the phone call.which they do not have.She tells the little boy all the shots that killed the two men were from the same gun and same bullets.But the ME report was not even back yet.All the time saying don't lie you need to tell us the truth.He seems to be crying at the end of the tape the other lady goes over to him.she pushes her away.The lady says are you ok sweetie?She made me so mad.Who trained her.I don't think they will be doing any more "witness" interviews for a very very long time or ever again.I was very upset with this.

sorry I did not make this easier to read.

 

[Shelby77]

Thanks OBE I knew it had to be there in front of my face and there it was at the top of page 2 (for anybody else who can't find it like myself) I had to check the doc 2x even after you directed me there, I still missed it lol

And I'm with ya mostlylurking, I know it can and does happens, but if you're not competent at the time of the crime, how does maturing naturally in life make you more competent of actions you committed while still incompetent??? doesn't make much sense to me.
Regardless of the circumstances of what happened, I just pray this boy gets the help he needs when all is said and done. I don't see how going home or to juvie is going to help him...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

IMO, if charges are based on a crime committed at a certain age, then whenever the defendant is brought to trial, the case should be heard as if that person were the age at the time the crime was committed. Again, IMO, if you weren't competent to be tried at the time of the incident, then you should not be be considered competent to understand what you did in the first place. Therefore, trying you later as an adult is not a fair due process. Again. This is MOO. I know that laws are written various ways, etc., so I don't need the legaleze quoted. I'm just sayin'

I don't think he will be ruled mentally incompetent as in a mental defect. They will rule that he is age incompetent at this time and cannot assist his defense in his trial now imo. That is two different issues all together.

Didn't Michael Skakel's attorney try the same thing since he was a minor when he killed Martha Moxley? Yet they tried him for that murder as an adult.

It doesn't mean he is incompetent and cant realize the consequences of his actions but the law says he must be able to help the defense in the trial, itself. Alex and Derek King were 12 and 13 and tried as an adult. Chris Pittman was 12 years old and tried as an adult. They will wait until he has aged some.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Quote
They will rule that he is age incompetent at this time and cannot assist his defense in his trial now imo.

I think think so too.

 

[mostlylurking]

I don't think he will be ruled mentally incompetent as in a mental defect.
Agreed & not what I meant to imply.

They will rule that he is age incompetent at this time and cannot assist his defense in his trial now imo. That is two different issues all together.

If a child can't assist in his/her defense at the time of the crime due to age incompetence, then when that child is of the age to assist in his/her defense, is should still be based on the age at the time of the alleged crime.

Didn't Michael Skakel's attorney try the same thing since he was a minor when he killed Martha Moxley? Yet they tried him for that murder as an adult.

Sorry, hat is mostlylurking for a reason. Not familiar with this reference. However, regardless of precedent, I still hold my opinion about being tried based on the age at the time of the alleged crime.

It doesn't mean he is incompetent and cant realize the consequences of his actions but the law says he must be able to help the defense in the trial, itself. Alex and Derek King were 12 and 13 and tried as an adult. Chris Pittman was 12 years old and tried as an adult. They will wait until he has aged some.

I would give you the 12/13 may be getting old enough in my book to have a conscience understanding of actions AND have the ability to understand how to help in their own defense & may be eligible for adult v. child determination in a trial, depending on the circumstances. But again, I won't go there with a blanket statement based on precedent of other cases.

Answers in bold.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

In the so called confession interview she says all through the interview with this little boy.Tell us the truth now.Your not lying now right?But through the whole interview she is lying to him.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

I don't think he will be ruled mentally incompetent as in a mental defect. They will rule that he is age incompetent at this time and cannot assist his defense in his trial now imo. That is two different issues all together.

Didn't Michael Skakel's attorney try the same thing since he was a minor when he killed Martha Moxley? Yet they tried him for that murder as an adult.

It doesn't mean he is incompetent and cant realize the consequences of his actions but the law says he must be able to help the defense in the trial, itself. Alex and Derek King were 12 and 13 and tried as an adult. Chris Pittman was 12 years old and tried as an adult. They will wait until he has aged some.

You cannot compare any of the prior cases with this child. The King brothers murdered their father, but there was some very important issues concerning a friend of their father's, Chavis, who was a child molester and in fact had a sexual relationship with one of the boys.

Skakel was 15-16 years old concerning the Moxley case, was diagnosed with dyslexia, mother died of cancer, and his father an alcoholic. He had been under suspicion for years before he was finally taken to trial. Pittman was being over treated with Zoloft (200 mg at the age of 12!) for mild depression. All these cases involve prior life circumstances let alone the age of these people. That is not the case with this 8 year old child as we know now and as many have argued about this child.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You cannot compare any of the prior cases with this child. The King brothers murdered their father, but there was some very important issues concerning a friend of their father's, Chavis, who was a child molester and in fact had a sexual relationship with one of the boys.

Skakel was 15-16 years old concerning the Moxley case, was diagnosed with dyslexia, mother died of cancer, and his father an alcoholic. He had been under suspicion for years before he was finally taken to trial. Pittman was being over treated with Zoloft (200 mg at the age of 12!) for mild depression. All these cases involve prior life circumstances let alone the age of these people. That is not the case with this 8 year old child as we know now and as many have argued about this child.

Chirs Pittman murdered BOTH of his grandparents as they slept in their bed and he used a shotgun, burned the house down, fled the scene and told LE a black man did it. The jury did not believe that Zoloft was the cause of the murders. He got 30 years and his appeals so far have been denied.

If the Judge finds he is age incompetent to assist then he can be reassessed in 8 months which will make him closer to 10 than 8. It is already legal to charge 8 year olds with a crime in Arizona so imo it certainly will be even more so when he is closer to 10.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Chirs Pittman murdered BOTH of his grandparents as they slept in their bed and he used a shotgun, burned the house down, fled the scene and told LE a black man did it. The jury did not believe that Zoloft was the cause of the murders. He got 30 years and his appeals so far have been denied.

If the Judge finds he is age incompetent to assist then he can be reassessed in 8 months which will make him closer to 10 than 8. It is already legal to charge 8 year olds with a crime in Arizona so imo it certainly will be even more so when he is closer to 10.

The point is that Chris Pittman, as well as the others, had a troubled history. That, according to many, is not the case here. The other point is all of the others were 4-7 years older than this child. Major difference in "growth" of a child. Even if they wait until they feel this child is "competent" at the age of 10, it does not mean he was at the age of 8 when a crime was committed.

 

[Chargergal]

This was interesting. I read it a few weeks ago and it might be duplicative but it was a 7 and 8 year old where a coerced confession was involved. I know there is much more information available on this particular case. The city of Chicago paid big bucks for this one.
http://www.injusticeline.com/confess.html

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The point is that Chris Pittman, as well as the others, had a troubled history. That, according to many, is not the case here. The other point is all of the others were 4-7 years older than this child. Major difference in "growth" of a child. Even if they wait until they feel this child is "competent" at the age of 10, it does not mean he was at the age of 8 when a crime was committed.

Age competency has nothing to do with being mentally incompetent. Age competency to the Court system is a standard set forth on whether the defendant can fully understand the ins and out of a trial and court procedures.

The only way that he can never be tried for this is if the experts find that he has a mental defect or disorder, where he would not be able to recognize the wrongfulness of his acts. Or if the Judge rules he is age incompetent now and once reassessed in 8 months after this procedure has ended and he still is found age incompetent then the case will be dismissed for good. In the legal system the defendant must know right from wrong, that is the judicial threshold. I believe that the experts will find he does have that ability to know but most likely they will find that he, at this time, is age incompetent.....not mentally incompetent.

If Arizona already allows for an 8 year old to be charged with a crime then the legislature has to think that at age 8 a child knows the difference between right and wrong imo but this is such an extreme and rare case where there are double homicides involved making the trial for this unique juvenile that much more involved. I would dare to guess that he probably is the only one at the detention center that is charged with double homicide.

This is one of the toughest cases to have imo. Like Judge Roca said the Juvenile System wasn't set up to handle cases like this. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of juveniles are never charged with a Class A Felony consisting of double homicide. The Juvenile system was established to rehabilitate youthful offenders of petty, non violent crimes. This is horrible adult like crimes but yet the defendant is a young juvenile. Everything has to be weighed carefully. Judge Roca understands the predicament imo. Not only does he know he has, most likely, the youngest murder defendant, he has seen come before him but he also is very aware that he has two murder victims that were heinously murdered. I do not envy him or any of the attorneys in this difficult case.

imoo

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Yeah,that link is interesting.I also noticed in the so called confession that the little boy gets a little emotional when he talks about his father swatting him 5 times.He actually uses the word hit I think.That's not a swat.He also uses the word they too.He said his dad told her to do it.

 

[MeoW333]

sniped


Mrs Roman can testify that she heard the boy's voice in the back ground, that is not hearsay. Also they will have the phone records and timeline.


Like I said no one is changing anyone's mind.

Objection, hearsay. No concrete proof other than one's word.

 

[MeoW333]

And, if you look at the real facts & eliminate the coerced statement, there is not enough confirmed evidence to have made an arrest.

I am not fixed in my opinion yet. Do I want to believe this child is innocent, yes. Do I know if he is? No. Do I know if he is not? No.

There is nothing but a coerced statement, with no miranda rights and no adult present as his representation, and NONE of those adults who were outside waiting for hiim were told they were allowed to be in with him if they wanted to.

If that tape had never made it to the public airways & the gag order were in place on everything & therefore he was not in custody, is there really enough information for him to be considered a suspect? No. Not anymore than all the other scenarios which have been postulated.

Lest we forget, out of the 2 officers that had interviewed him; one wasn't certified for forensic interviewing and had been det for 1 day; and the other knew him personally.

 

[MeoW333]

I'm surprised no high profile lawyers have jumped on this case pro bono yet..

 

[colette]

Objection, hearsay. No concrete proof other than one's word.

You and ordinarylife do not understand hearsay. If Mrs. Roman heard the boy's voice herself, knew it was his voice... she could testify about it. Then the defendant could be asked about this if he takes the stand.

Hearsay would be something her husband said to her, she could not repeat it because no one could cross examine the husband as he is dead. As Oceanblueeyes said there is "the excited udderance" exception to the hearsay rule, the judge could allow something Mr Roman said in that case.

HEARSAY RULE

"A rule of evidence that prohibits secondhand testimony at a trial. For example, if an eyewitness to an accident later tells another person what she saw, the second person's testimony is hearsay. The reason for this rule is that the opposing party has no ability to confront and cross-examine the person who has firsthand knowledge of the event. "

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/FFEBF86E-989B-4B2E-BC22081A6301B4F0

 

[Fairy1]

I don't believe we should compare this case to any other to date as it is not similar to any that I've ever heard of. There is still so very much we don't know - about this child or the circumstances surrounding the murders. Based on what little we do know, I cannot believe anyone could categorically find this little boy guilty of double murder. There are most certainly other possible killers and extenuating circumstances.

Isn't it possible that whoever killed these men told the child that if he claimed responsibility he would just go to "juvie" for a short time? If not, I'm curious to know how he ever heard of "juvie."

Historically speaking, violent criminals with a propensity for murder have shown previous signs of violence. We don't know if this child has that type of past. There is so much we don't know yet. The confession is meaningless to me at this point.

 

[Fairy1]

You and ordinarylife do not understand hearsay. If Mrs. Roman heard the boy's voice herself, knew it was his voice... she could testify about it. Then the defendant could be asked about this if he takes the stand.

Hearsay would be something her husband said to her, she could not repeat it because no one could cross examine the husband as he is dead. As Oceanblueeyes said there is "the excited udderance" exception to the hearsay rule, the judge could allow something Mr Roman said in that case.

HEARSAY RULE

"A rule of evidence that prohibits secondhand testimony at a trial. For example, if an eyewitness to an accident later tells another person what she saw, the second person's testimony is hearsay. The reason for this rule is that the opposing party has no ability to confront and cross-examine the person who has firsthand knowledge of the event. "

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/FFEBF86E-989B-4B2E-BC22081A6301B4F0

I would ask - did Mrs. Romans know this boy and his voice? I would also ask if she timed her call to exactly the time the murderer she knew would be there was there to avenge her husband's cheating? I would call that reasonable doubt. She is NOT an eye-witness.

 

[gitana1]

Guys, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rules of Evidence section 801 (c). In other words, it is any statement made outside of the court proceedings that is now being discussed in court in order to show that what was being uttered (not "uddered", LOL!) is true. It can be confusing, however, because the matter asserted could be other than a statement. An example of classic hearsay would be if the defense puts on testimony from someone who said he heard someone else say, before trial that the Defendant "is innocent. He was not even there on the day of the crime." The defense would be offering that out of court statement to prove that indeed, the defendant was not there and is innocent. So, it would be hearsay. In this case, the statement potentially offered here, "Tim, something's wrong with my dad", would be offered not to prove that something was wrong with the dad, but instead, that the child was there before Tim died. If it was a statement uttered by someone other than the child and if I was the attorney wanting the statement in, I would argue that it is not hearsay because the truth of the matter asserted was not what I was offering the statement for. But, let's say the statement was offered to show that the dad was hurt before Tim died and that the kid said this (and was thus there at the scene). If said by someone other than the child, it would be considered hearsay. But, none of that matters here because any statement by the child would NOT be hearsay as it is considered an "admission" by a party, the kid. Any statements made by a party to the case, (here, the defendant), is considered an "admission" and is not classified as hearsay. It falls under the state equivalent of Federal Rules of Evidence section 801 (d) (2). I probably confused things even more! Sorry. Point is, the statement comes in.

 

[mysteriew]

Age competency has nothing to do with being mentally incompetent. Age competency to the Court system is a standard set forth on whether the defendant can fully understand the ins and out of a trial and court procedures.

The only way that he can never be tried for this is if the experts find that he has a mental defect or disorder, where he would not be able to recognize the wrongfulness of his acts. Or if the Judge rules he is age incompetent now and once reassessed in 8 months after this procedure has ended and he still is found age incompetent then the case will be dismissed for good. In the legal system the defendant must know right from wrong, that is the judicial threshold. I believe that the experts will find he does have that ability to know but most likely they will find that he, at this time, is age incompetent.....not mentally incompetent.

If Arizona already allows for an 8 year old to be charged with a crime then the legislature has to think that at age 8 a child knows the difference between right and wrong imo but this is such an extreme and rare case where there are double homicides involved making the trial for this unique juvenile that much more involved. I would dare to guess that he probably is the only one at the detention center that is charged with double homicide.

This is one of the toughest cases to have imo. Like Judge Roca said the Juvenile System wasn't set up to handle cases like this. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of juveniles are never charged with a Class A Felony consisting of double homicide. The Juvenile system was established to rehabilitate youthful offenders of petty, non violent crimes. This is horrible adult like crimes but yet the defendant is a young juvenile. Everything has to be weighed carefully. Judge Roca understands the predicament imo. Not only does he know he has, most likely, the youngest murder defendant, he has seen come before him but he also is very aware that he has two murder victims that were heinously murdered. I do not envy him or any of the attorneys in this difficult case.

imoo

The prosecution can elect not to prosecute in cases like this. And I can think of two cases where they had ample evidence of the crime and the prosecution did elect not to prosecute. One was two 6 or 7 year old boys who raped a 4 or 5 year old girl at school, the other was a girl about 6 or 7 who stabbed another child (she said she just wanted to.) In both cases the prosecution said the state was not setup to handle such a young child and the child was too young to understand the court system. And one of the cases they mentioned something about they did not believe that it would be in the interest of justice to take the kid to court. It wasn't said, but I believe that in these cases the parents may have agreed to take the kids to counseling. But they wouldn't state that publically due to the child's right to privacy in matters of treatment.