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

[Chargergal]

I thought Cady was selected by the defense and Judge Roca excepted that.

Are they three evaluators? I know Brewer picked his and the State picked theirs and the Judge agreed with both choices.

What is the name of the court appointed psychologist? I missed their name somewhere along the way, I guess.

TIA

imoo

Here's my readers digest version that I read in two different documents so I might have it backwards. Dr. Cady was appointed very early on by the court for some sort of evaluation. There was another doctor who declined the referral. The recall reading somewhere the prosecution was concerned with Dr. Cady's finding because it was too early on. Dr. Cady was retained to determine competency. Brewer requested a Dr. Juliano (?) and rescinded his request after the evaluation came in from Dr. Cady. I believe the two from Tucson are for mental evaluation. Of course, I'm not an attorney and could have interpreted this all backwards and I'm open for other interpretations.

P.S What does TIA mean? Thanks.

 

[MeoW333]

Here's my readers digest version that I read in two different documents so I might have it backwards. Dr. Cady was appointed very early on by the court for some sort of evaluation. There was another doctor who declined the referral. The recall reading somewhere the prosecution was concerned with Dr. Cady's finding because it was too early on. Dr. Cady was retained to determine competency. Brewer requested a Dr. Juliano (?) and rescinded his request after the evaluation came in from Dr. Cady. I believe the two from Tucson are for mental evaluation. Of course, I'm not an attorney and could have interpreted this all backwards and I'm open for other interpretations.

P.S What does TIA mean? Thanks.

I wonder why the prosecution would be concerned with Dr. Cady's finding as it was too early on?
Early on in the investigation?
Usually the courts have their own forensic psychologists they use; being it a small town,they'd have to request outside ones, i guess.

I would also like to know what TIA means.. i've been a member for awhile, however some of these acronyms get me..

 

[SieSie]

P.S What does TIA mean? Thanks.

TIA - Thanks In Advance


ETA (Edited To Add): Link to Websleuths Lingo Thread in the Caylee Anthony Forum

 

[MeoW333]

IMO, if the police work during this whole case was done professionally and by the book, i may say look, i agree with OBE. There are cases of conduct disorder in children; granted from what we've heard through the grapevine, he showed no signs. As others brought up, if the boy is able to mimick emotions (which would be hard for an 8 year old child); yet if we take into consideration environmental factors which would be the boy's home life (it was no Leave it to Beaver) possibly the boy was used to having to "act" a certain way to stay out of "trouble" with his father.
Something is amiss with this case, something is not right about it, i can't pinpoint what aside from his young age and the fact we've not heard all that was said. We're just not privy to that information.
The whole town knows eachother, the crime scene was released too early, there was a horrible attempt by LE involving the whole interrogation of the boy. Other possible leads were not followed up properly.
If the police had done their job to a t, then i would be more swayed that it's a lot more likely the boy did it and that if he has conduct disorder, somehow his signs of it got overlooked, or he hid it well.
Even in cases of conduct disorder in children, most of them do not kill their 2 grown men, one of which was the father. Especially at age 8. Which IMO, i would think that something led up to the boy "snapping".
Some kind of abuse, i'd be leaning towards mental/emotional abuse at this point.
Combined with the knowledge of firearms, not good.
We know Tiffany was against the boy owning a gun. We don't know the reasons behind that. Maybe she doesn't want to make waves within the family, understandable. We also know she was out partying. Perhaps thats how she deals with grief? For a newly married woman to be widowed a month later, one would think she would be in a state of despair and depression, i know i would and i certainly wouldn't be out partying, i'd be lucky to make it out of bed each day if i lost the one i loved and married.
This case is so involved. I don't see anything good coming out of the boy going to juvie (learn more crime ways in there, get out, get arrested again; revolving door. I think a youth psychiatric facility would be more appropriate at his age.
He would be able to get more intensive treatment in a facility that caters to youths with mental and emotional problems. If he isn't showing signs of problems now, rest assured they will manifest later on, soon enough.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Here's my readers digest version that I read in two different documents so I might have it backwards. Dr. Cady was appointed very early on by the court for some sort of evaluation. There was another doctor who declined the referral. The recall reading somewhere the prosecution was concerned with Dr. Cady's finding because it was too early on. Dr. Cady was retained to determine competency. Brewer requested a Dr. Juliano (?) and rescinded his request after the evaluation came in from Dr. Cady. I believe the two from Tucson are for mental evaluation. Of course, I'm not an attorney and could have interpreted this all backwards and I'm open for other interpretations.

P.S What does TIA mean? Thanks.

Thank you. I was under the impression that Cady finally became the one to evaluate the boy's competency for the defense and the one that he just had done was the one by the State selected doctor.

TIA, means "thanks in advance"

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20228896&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

 

[MeoW333]

Good link, OBE!
I found these parts in it:

"Brewer also notified the court of defense's intent to file motions to suppress evidence. Brewer cited Fourth Amendment, Miranda and Voluntariness issues as reasons for any such motions.
After the hearing, Brewer said the Miranda and Voluntariness issues deal with the confession of the juvenile, as defense believes the boy was not read his rights and was not represented by a parent or attorney before the police interview that led to the confession. Officers with St. Johns Police and the Apache County Sheriff's Office contend they thought the boy was a victim and not a suspect at the time.
He said they are also trying to suppress the evidence taken with a search warrant, citing the Fourth Amendment. He said defense is arguing the judge who signed the warrant, Butch Gunnels, was not a "neutral and detached magistrate" as the amendment requires. Brewer also requested on behalf of the juvenile that he be allowed to have personal items back if they are no longer needed as evidence. He said the boy's items, including a wallet his dad gave him, a pet boxer and a snowboard, hold sentimental value to him."

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20228896&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

I'm not sure how he'd keep his pet dog, Boxer, in any type of lock up. Or a snowboard for that matter. Maybe they are thinking of releasing him. Otherwise i see know idea why they would file to release those things. Supposedly Tiffany has the dog. (she had brought it to her friend's house when they were partying).
There was way to much shoddy work done by LE during this whole case, enough that it may get thrown out in court.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Should we be questioning the work of the small town police? We already seen the shoddy questioning of the boy. They should have checked every angle and not just focused completely on the boy. Where is Tiffany? We've not heard a peep from her; only in her friend's blog she was partying..

If the boy is guilty, then i'm sure the police could have used better tactic in catching their killer.

Yes,I do think we should be questioning the work of the small town police.They were pitiful.

 

[mostlylurking]

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20228896&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

This is not a surprise. In one of the status hearings when the judge would not hear anything substantive, he said to the State something like " I assume you'll be filing for review" the state answered yes. I really paraphrased that. So, now they've filed for the next level up to review things, as has the defense.
At least this is one piece of protocal they seem to be following -- unlike so much of the rest of this investigation/case.

 

[azmama]

I don't think any reservation police are involved at all.

Reservation police were there the day of the crime, assisting and interviewing family and witnesses.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Reservation police were there the day of the crime, assisting and interviewing family and witnesses.

Why would they come in immediately? The Romero home was not on a reservation.

Which officers were with the reservation police?

TIA

imoo

 

[Bobbisangel]

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20228896&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

Ocean...can you please explain what this is all about? Just the first part of it.
Does the Pros want to drop one of the charges or what? Did the judge they have been before until now not want them to do that? I'm confused.

 

[mostlylurking]

Ocean...can you please explain what this is all about? Just the first part of it.
Does the Pros want to drop one of the charges or what? Did the judge they have been before until now not want them to do that? I'm confused.

Bobbisangel --
I'm not Ocean, but I'll take crack at this.
The pros wanted to drop the charge regarding the dad. The speculation is that it is so they could charge the boy later, when he's older, in an adult court. Because none of the competency evaluations were in on the child yet, the judge said he would not rule on anything substantive & dropping that charge was substantive. There are some other things that the judge would not rule on also, until the evals are done. So, the pros appealed to a higher court for their ruling/interpretations & that's what this is. The current judge expected them to appeal to a higher court on some of his rulings & his expectation of that is recorded in one of the status hearing transcripts.

That is my layman's understanding of this piece of it all. Hope it helps & if I've said it wrong, I'm sure others will correct or add.....

 

[Bobbisangel]

Bobbisangel --
I'm not Ocean, but I'll take crack at this.
The pros wanted to drop the charge regarding the dad. The speculation is that it is so they could charge the boy later, when he's older, in an adult court. Because none of the competency evaluations were in on the child yet, the judge said he would not rule on anything substantive & dropping that charge was substantive. There are some other things that the judge would not rule on also, until the evals are done. So, the pros appealed to a higher court for their ruling/interpretations & that's what this is. The current judge expected them to appeal to a higher court on some of his rulings & his expectation of that is recorded in one of the status hearing transcripts.

That is my layman's understanding of this piece of it all. Hope it helps & if I've said it wrong, I'm sure others will correct or add.....

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

 

[mostlylurking]

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

Ya know, I don't get all the legal bruhaha of it all. I think somehow, the pros wanted to get the emotion of the boy shooting his dad out of things now, prosecute on the room mate & then at the end of the juvenile detention stuff prosecute on the dad. It would make the kid's time behind bars last longer. (That's at least my interpretation.) Also, they offer the plea deal, which the defense wouldn't take (or hasn't taken), before the competency results came back, 'cause if the deal was taken then it would not have to go to trial now & they could have the dad killing to try later. The defense seems to have held the position that without any proof of physical evidence & no forensics back yet, that there is not a reason to take a plea deal.

Again -- my layman's interpretation.... fwiw

 

[Chargergal]

Ya know, I don't get all the legal bruhaha of it all. I think somehow, the pros wanted to get the emotion of the boy shooting his dad out of things now, prosecute on the room mate & then at the end of the juvenile detention stuff prosecute on the dad. It would make the kid's time behind bars last longer. (That's at least my interpretation.) Also, they offer the plea deal, which the defense wouldn't take (or hasn't taken), before the competency results came back, 'cause if the deal was taken then it would not have to go to trial now & they could have the dad killing to try later. The defense seems to have held the position that without any proof of physical evidence & no forensics back yet, that there is not a reason to take a plea deal.

Again -- my layman's interpretation.... fwiw

Here's the link where a couple attorneys were interviewed in Phoenix when this first came out.
http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=307103

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

I think it has something to do with the time constraints. The DA was the first to tell Judge Roca they were very concerned about the case being delayed and at a standstill. In juvenile cases if they want a speedy trial then they are to go forward to trial in 45 days not like it is in an adult court which is 180 days for a speedy trial. The 45 days in this case is causing a nightmare because cases of heinous double murder, rarely if ever, occurs in the juvenile system. The majority of cases they deal with are petty or non violent crimes and they don't have to wait for complex forensic evidence to come back, like they are having to do with this one.

They want him to go ahead and rule on the motion to dismiss because the way I understand it if they deem him age incompetent at this time both charges will still be attached to the case and the DA is wanting to withdraw it now, even if the boy is found age incompetent now or not.

imoo

 

[Chargergal]

Came across this today on youtube. It's a quick tour of the town of St. John's, AZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoOK1YFPiWw&feature=related

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Came across this today on youtube. It's a quick tour of the town of St. John's, AZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoOK1YFPiWw&feature=related

Thank you. It seems to be a rather nice rural town. Very good roads and new businesses in the area. It is nice because it seems to be more spread out than a lot of tiny towns which can appear congested. Typical with older homes and newer homes in the area.

imoo

 

[fran]

I’ve finally had a chance to review a number of articles about this case as well as court documents filed up to Dec 23rd. I’m quite confident my position is not going to be very popular, but if anyone wants to blame NO justice being served for these two victims, one need not look any further than the St. Johns LE community, including the judge who signed the original SW. I normally try not to criticize LE because they have a difficult enough job as it is. But in this case, LE completely dropped the ball.

The 8 yo’s attorney has filed to have much of the initial evidence suppressed because the first judge who signed the original SW SHOULD HAVE excused himself BEFORE he even signed off on that SW. Even the attorney said in his brief, “unfortunately…” when referring to some of the evidence being disallowed, but he’s just doing his job for his client. Anything they obtained as a result of the first SW MAY be thrown out as ‘fruit from a poisonous tree…..’ That judge was acquainted with the victim Vincent Romero and the now accused as well. There’s a lot of precedent for having this ‘evidence’ disallowed.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION TO SUPPRESS RE ILLEGAL WARRANT.pdf

I know many will believe the attorney filed this motion BECAUSE the evidence points towards his client, but he doesn’t even know that YET. From what I can see, this attorney is just doing his job and would be remiss in his duty as an officer of the court if he didn’t file this motion. IF this attorney didn’t file this motion and this child is convicted of the crime and the circumstances of the original SW brought up later, I believe the lawyer could be sighted by whatever agency it is that overseas lawyers and such.
There’s reasons for laws, to protect the citizens. If anyone should follow the law, it would be LE and the judges. Laws were broken in this investigation. The unfortunate point is, it will be justice that will suffer.

If you go to the above link, you’ll see that the judge knew when he signed the SW that he needed to recluse himself from this case. YET, he went ahead and signed the first SW. What a HUGE mistake. That SW included the crime scene, discharged shells, EVERYTHING directly involved in the crime. He put in jeopardy, all that was gained from that search and POSSIBLY additional SW’s submitted as a result of info gained from the first SW.

HUGE, huge, mistake, IMHO.

JMHO
fran