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

[fran]

While reviewing the documents about this case, I came across the motion filed by the def attorney to throw out the child’s confession. LE claimed that their interview with the 8 yo suspect was originally as a witness. Unfortunately, they were lying and there’s a NUMBER of witnesses that CAN testify to that fact. LE also claimed this was a voluntary interview with the full permission of the family to talk to the child. That too is a lie.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/doc...NTS AND REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARINESS HEARING.pdf

From the above linked filing it’s evident that LE withheld a LOT from previous hearings and from the presiding judge.

1. There was a briefing of 10 to 15 officers PRIOR to the 8yo’s interview in which they theorized that the child could possibly be the shooter, which was in part, the REASON for the second interview.

2. The grandfather initially refused to allow them to re-interview the child.

3. LE confiscated the child’s clothing from the day before (alleged evidence gathering is in question) which was proof that they suspected the child of shooting the gun PRIOR to the interview.

4. LE made a lot of ‘false’ promises to persuade the family to allow the interview.

5. The child had the RIGHT to have family or counsel with him during the interview, LE refused the family’s numerous requests for EITHER.(both family’s presence or legal representation were requested by various family members)

6. LE LIED to the child during the interview which is NOT standard procedure for interviewing a ‘witness,’ and most especially a ‘child.’

7. LE used techniques for SUSPECTS in their interview, NOT witnesses.

8. LE told the child they wouldn’t lie to him, yet they did repeatedly.

9. Even after LE managed to get the boy to change his story a # of times until he finally confessed to the first murder, they continued to question him without Mirandarizing him, until he finally confessed to the 2nd murder.

10. Even AFTER LE took him down to the station to book him for DOUBLE MURDER, again still not Mirandarizing him, they allowed a CPS worker to interview the boy again, obtain additional information which she relayed to LE and they used AGAINST this child.

I’m almost willing to bet this confession, along with the ‘evidence’ collected before any second or third or however many more SW’s were issued, will be thrown out. This is completely in violation of this child’s Constitutional Rights as well as laws within the State of Arizona.

I believe the St. Johns Police Department has some ‘splainin’ to do. Looks to my uneducated mind, they completely blew this case. What a shame.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

LOL, talk about a thread hog. I promise, this will be my last post for a while.

There’s a couple of things that bother me about this case, not the least I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, but please, hear me out.

The child’s attorney has filed for funds to hire a person who is an expert in ‘false confessions.’ I believe the def has HUGE grounds for this. We’ll see.

The child’s attorney has also filed for funds for an expert in ‘crime scene reenactment.’ This is the problem I see with this actual crime, shooting 10 times, two perfectly fit, adult males by an 8 yo child, with a ‘single action’ 22.

There is no way in heck this child could have gotten the drop on these two adult males, without them getting to him first. Just no way. I believe the def will be able to prove this was impossible.

1. The trajectory of the bullets into victim Tim Roman has NOT been stated in the autopsy. IF this child did in fact shoot Tim, the trajectory would have been upwards. There was also a wound to both his right chest and left chest, which opens the possibility of TWO shooters.

2. From indications at the scene and autopsy reports, it appears that victim Vincent Romero was shot both from the front and back. There were frontal wounds and empty shell casings in the upstairs hallway as well as shell casings towards the bottom of the stairway and back wounds. AGAIN pointing towards the possibility of TWO shooters.

3. Although it’s been stated they confiscated all 22’s on the premises, all I can find is the ONE 22, single action rifle belonging to the child. In one of the court documents, one of the officers stated this single action 22 was the ONLY 22 in the home. YET, in the ‘evidence photo,’ there’s an owners manual for a Mossberg 22 automatic rifle. WHERE is the automatic?

4. IF you want to go back to inconsistencies in the child’s statement, in his alleged confession, the child stated he put his gun in the closet. YET, it was found on the dog’s cage. To me, this is just ONE problem with the alleged confession.

5. Tim’s wife did NOT initially tell LE that she heard the child on the phone. She didn’t mention that until the second day. Why? That is the ONLY thing that connects the child to the scene at the time of the crime.

PLUS, which is it? She heard the child call Tim? Or she heard Tim call the child and he didn’t answer? I’ve seen BOTH scenarios spoken about in the various articles and documents.

6. IF Tim’s wife heard the child from within the house on the cell phone, why didn’t she hear the shots? I know they COULD have been muffled, but if she could hear him call out, she could hear the shots as well?

7. Why did Tim’s wife lawyer up so fast? Once she told LE that the child was present during the crime, she stopped talking to LE and got a lawyer.

Wonder if we’ll ever get the answers to these questions? Guess time will tell.
JMHO
Fran

PS…from every article I read, the ONLY persons stating this child would be capable of this crime was the step mom, who, imho, convinced the grandparents he could have done it and they didn’t agree with her until AFTER he was arrested. EVERYONE else who’s acquainted with this child said they didn’t believe he could have done this…..fran

 

[lizzybeth]

Please don't apologize for your posts Fran. I look forward to reading your views on this.

 

[fran]

Please don't apologize for your posts Fran. I look forward to reading your views on this.

Oh, thanks lizzybeth! LOL, it's just that I do get a little long-winded at times. You can tell when I did my homework. heehee Not sure if it's ALL correct, but..........still opens lots of doors for doubt, IMHO.

:blowkiss:
fran

 

[azmama]

Wow is all I can say FRAN, you did a fantastic job.

btw, I think you are spot on.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

LOL, talk about a thread hog. I promise, this will be my last post for a while.

There’s a couple of things that bother me about this case, not the least I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, but please, hear me out.

The child’s attorney has filed for funds to hire a person who is an expert in ‘false confessions.’ I believe the def has HUGE grounds for this. We’ll see.

The child’s attorney has also filed for funds for an expert in ‘crime scene reenactment.’ This is the problem I see with this actual crime, shooting 10 times, two perfectly fit, adult males by an 8 yo child, with a ‘single action’ 22.

There is no way in heck this child could have gotten the drop on these two adult males, without them getting to him first. Just no way. I believe the def will be able to prove this was impossible.

1. The trajectory of the bullets into victim Tim Roman has NOT been stated in the autopsy. IF this child did in fact shoot Tim, the trajectory would have been upwards. There was also a wound to both his right chest and left chest, which opens the possibility of TWO shooters.

2. From indications at the scene and autopsy reports, it appears that victim Vincent Romero was shot both from the front and back. There were frontal wounds and empty shell casings in the upstairs hallway as well as shell casings towards the bottom of the stairway and back wounds. AGAIN pointing towards the possibility of TWO shooters.

3. Although it’s been stated they confiscated all 22’s on the premises, all I can find is the ONE 22, single action rifle belonging to the child. In one of the court documents, one of the officers stated this single action 22 was the ONLY 22 in the home. YET, in the ‘evidence photo,’ there’s an owners manual for a Mossberg 22 automatic rifle. WHERE is the automatic?

4. IF you want to go back to inconsistencies in the child’s statement, in his alleged confession, the child stated he put his gun in the closet. YET, it was found on the dog’s cage. To me, this is just ONE problem with the alleged confession.

5. Tim’s wife did NOT initially tell LE that she heard the child on the phone. She didn’t mention that until the second day. Why? That is the ONLY thing that connects the child to the scene at the time of the crime.

PLUS, which is it? She heard the child call Tim? Or she heard Tim call the child and he didn’t answer? I’ve seen BOTH scenarios spoken about in the various articles and documents.

6. IF Tim’s wife heard the child from within the house on the cell phone, why didn’t she hear the shots? I know they COULD have been muffled, but if she could hear him call out, she could hear the shots as well?

7. Why did Tim’s wife lawyer up so fast? Once she told LE that the child was present during the crime, she stopped talking to LE and got a lawyer.

Wonder if we’ll ever get the answers to these questions? Guess time will tell.
JMHO
Fran

PS…from every article I read, the ONLY persons stating this child would be capable of this crime was the step mom, who, imho, convinced the grandparents he could have done it and they didn’t agree with her until AFTER he was arrested. EVERYONE else who’s acquainted with this child said they didn’t believe he could have done this…..fran

Your list is quite well done Fran and impressive even if I disagree with some of it. I admire your tenacity.

1. The confession, I agree it may be thrown out. The Judge has not decided on either, iirc. 1. For the defense to hire this false confession expert or 2. If the confession will be allowed in. However I think that without it the DA will have convincing evidence.

2. Yes, the defense should always ask for a particular type of expert, especially when they know that the State will have their own reenactment experts who will testify. So the defense are doing their jobs. Just like the defense attorneys call in these type of experts in other cases.

3. The Mossberg found in the home is not the murder weapon. It clearly shows in the crime scene photos that these were rim fire LR .22 bullet casings, not the .17 box of bullets used in the Mossberg, that they removed from the scene. The bullet casing for a .17 bullet is vastly different because it has the indented neck at the top of the bullet casings and is longer and slimmer. The bullet casings left behind were not but were regular .22 LR bullets. The same bullets used in the 22. single bolt action rifle.

4. The main thing I do not agree with you on though is when you say no child could have gotten the drop on two adult males. Shooting a .22 single bolt action rifle is absolutely very easy to do. A very simple mechanism. Even 7 year olds can do it with precision and quickness. When the two victims were totally caught off guard they can easily be taken down having only seconds to react before being hit again. A .22 rifle bullet is usually fired approximately 75 feet to a 150 feet away at a target or smaller animal. When shot within a close proximity to a human being, who is much larger and easier to hit, the shots can do much more harm, than if fired from a distance away from the victim. They may have been able to make a few steps before collapsing but imo they didn't make it far, especially the shots to vital areas.

5. I wonder if this closet was close to the stairwell and if someone could hide inside, with Vincent Romero not seeing them when he past by, since the ME said that two of the shots happened when Romero's back was to the shooter and the shooter was below him when VR was on the staircase steps and to the right when they fired .

6. I don't see two shooters. I do see one shooter that was moving around in different positions when they fired the weapon each time.

7. The only lawyer I know that Tanya has obtained is a civil lawyer. Seems they are blaming this in part on maybe violent video games.

8. I think Tanya's credibility will stand. She did tell the police about this conversation very early on.

9. I think the time line will connect him to the scene of the crime.

10. If the grandparents didnt think this boy capable of doing this, even if Tiffany did think he did it............ it wouldn't have swayed them to say that THEY thought he was capable.
imoo

 

[Chargergal]

http://www.kpho.com/news/18383132/detail.html
Article from local news channel this morning. I also hear on the same new station last night that new evidence was released that contained a sock with blood (oh no is this OJ again..LOL) AND TWO guns were recovered and ELEVEN shells. One of the guns was a 22 rifle and a 22 hand gun. I'm going to try and find any truth to that...but I'm catching a plane to Omaha in a few hours so if anyone else finds it please post it.
Another interesting point it the article it appears the boy is out of custody during the proceedings. Personally I believe it is more stressful for the boy to be in and out as well as causing a stress on the juvenile detention facility.
Cheers,

 

[oceanblueeyes]

http://www.kpho.com/news/18383132/detail.html
Article from local news channel this morning. I also hear on the same new station last night that new evidence was released that contained a sock with blood (oh no is this OJ again..LOL) AND TWO guns were recovered and ELEVEN shells. One of the guns was a 22 rifle and a 22 hand gun. I'm going to try and find any truth to that...but I'm catching a plane to Omaha in a few hours so if anyone else finds it please post it.
Another interesting point it the article it appears the boy is out of custody during the proceedings. Personally I believe it is more stressful for the boy to be in and out as well as causing a stress on the juvenile detention facility.
Cheers,

Thanks for the information.

I have read that they found 10 spent bullet casings at the crime scene plus one live bullet was found in the boy's rifle when they took it in.

I haven't heard anything mentioned about a .22 handgun though in all the court documents I have read.

imoo

 

[azmama]

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

Which officers were with the reservation police?

TIA

imoo

I have been looking around and can not find the document I thought said that Reservation LE were involved, I did see in one place where I thought it was them, that it was Apache County Sheriff's Dept.

I will keep looking, but it appears I was mistaken:blushing:

If I find what I thought I read, I will post it.

 

[Trino]

While reviewing the documents about this case, I came across the motion filed by the def attorney to throw out the child’s confession. LE claimed that their interview with the 8 yo suspect was originally as a witness. Unfortunately, they were lying and there’s a NUMBER of witnesses that CAN testify to that fact. LE also claimed this was a voluntary interview with the full permission of the family to talk to the child. That too is a lie.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/doc...NTS AND REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARINESS HEARING.pdf

From the above linked filing it’s evident that LE withheld a LOT from previous hearings and from the presiding judge.

1. There was a briefing of 10 to 15 officers PRIOR to the 8yo’s interview in which they theorized that the child could possibly be the shooter, which was in part, the REASON for the second interview.

2. The grandfather initially refused to allow them to re-interview the child.

3. LE confiscated the child’s clothing from the day before (alleged evidence gathering is in question) which was proof that they suspected the child of shooting the gun PRIOR to the interview.

4. LE made a lot of ‘false’ promises to persuade the family to allow the interview.

5. The child had the RIGHT to have family or counsel with him during the interview, LE refused the family’s numerous requests for EITHER.(both family’s presence or legal representation were requested by various family members)

6. LE LIED to the child during the interview which is NOT standard procedure for interviewing a ‘witness,’ and most especially a ‘child.’

7. LE used techniques for SUSPECTS in their interview, NOT witnesses.

8. LE told the child they wouldn’t lie to him, yet they did repeatedly.

9. Even after LE managed to get the boy to change his story a # of times until he finally confessed to the first murder, they continued to question him without Mirandarizing him, until he finally confessed to the 2nd murder.

10. Even AFTER LE took him down to the station to book him for DOUBLE MURDER, again still not Mirandarizing him, they allowed a CPS worker to interview the boy again, obtain additional information which she relayed to LE and they used AGAINST this child.

I’m almost willing to bet this confession, along with the ‘evidence’ collected before any second or third or however many more SW’s were issued, will be thrown out. This is completely in violation of this child’s Constitutional Rights as well as laws within the State of Arizona.

I believe the St. Johns Police Department has some ‘splainin’ to do. Looks to my uneducated mind, they completely blew this case. What a shame.JMHOfran

All this may be true. The boy's rights may have been violated. However, if this is all thrown out, and the boy did this, then what? Can the killing of two human beings be thrown by the wayside?

 

[Bobbisangel]

I personally don't understand why it makes a difference if the judge knew the father and son or not. My guess would be that they weren't best friends who hung around together. Everyone in that small town probably knows each other.

In a search warrent LE have to list exactly what they are looking for. Every judge does it the same way because it is the legal way. The can't look for anything that isn't listed on the SW. The judge and LE didn't get together and plan something deceitful to do with the SW. The judge didn't put his head together with LE and decide to try and hang this little boy. LE knew what they needed to look for and it all would have been on the SW so what does it matter what judge signs the warrent? Any judge would have signed the warrent but this judge ended up signing it. I hope the judge shoots this request right down the drain.

 

[Bobbisangel]

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

Thanks Ocean...appreciate the info.

 

[fran]

All this may be true. The boy's rights may have been violated. However, if this is all thrown out, and the boy did this, then what? Can the killing of two human beings be thrown by the wayside?

IF the child did this crime and they throw out the confession, LE will have to do what most LE agencies do and investigate the crime. They'll have to find REAL evidence.

I've seen LE convict persons after they've been made to discard a confession because of jeopradizing the accused's rights. IF this child, in fact did this crime, and IF LE is able to come up with enough evidence to convince a judge this child committed the crime, then he will be given his punishment.

On the other hand, IF LE is also made to discard the evidence gathered as a result of the first SW, that would be a travesty. But there would be no one to blame for that travesty of justice other than the officers who obtained the SW and the judge who signed it. He KNEW he wouldn't be able to deal with that case because of his friendship with the victim. Yet, HE signed the SW anyway.

What a shame.

You know, even IF this child didn't commit this crime and there's evidence someone else may have done it, LE has jeopradized their conviction as well, because the initial evidence collected at the crime scene could not be presented.

Again, what a shame.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

I personally don't understand why it makes a difference if the judge knew the father and son or not. My guess would be that they weren't best friends who hung around together. Everyone in that small town probably knows each other.

In a search warrent LE have to list exactly what they are looking for. Every judge does it the same way because it is the legal way. The can't look for anything that isn't listed on the SW. The judge and LE didn't get together and plan something deceitful to do with the SW. The judge didn't put his head together with LE and decide to try and hang this little boy. LE knew what they needed to look for and it all would have been on the SW so what does it matter what judge signs the warrent? Any judge would have signed the warrent but this judge ended up signing it. I hope the judge shoots this request right down the drain.

It's called conflict of interest and has to be dealt with in the legal community all the time. The first judge knew at the time he signed the first SW he would have to excuse himself from that case. IMHO, he jeopradized the whole case by signing that warrant. The initial evidence collected at the scene, shell casings, murder weapon, blood evidence, crime scene photos, could all possibly be put in jeoprady because of that judge.

They pass rules for a reason. This judge is an officer of the court and knows the rules. You break the rules, you pay. In this case, the sad part is the victims and their families would pay by not receiving justice for these murders.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

http://www.kpho.com/news/18383132/detail.html
Article from local news channel this morning. I also hear on the same new station last night that new evidence was released that contained a sock with blood (oh no is this OJ again..LOL) AND TWO guns were recovered and ELEVEN shells. One of the guns was a 22 rifle and a 22 hand gun. I'm going to try and find any truth to that...but I'm catching a plane to Omaha in a few hours so if anyone else finds it please post it.
Another interesting point it the article it appears the boy is out of custody during the proceedings. Personally I believe it is more stressful for the boy to be in and out as well as causing a stress on the juvenile detention facility.
Cheers,

Thanks Chargergal

I've been looking and haven't found anything about any other guns. Guess this is exactly why the def has filed a motion about officers conflicting statements. I KNOW that in the official hearing, one officer stated there was only ONE 22 in the home and it was taken and it was the child's gun.

I did hear that the child was spending Xmas and his birthday with his mom.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It's called conflict of interest and has to be dealt with in the legal community all the time. The first judge knew at the time he signed the first SW he would have to excuse himself from that case. IMHO, he jeopardized the whole case by signing that warrant. The initial evidence collected at the scene, shell casings, murder weapon, blood evidence, crime scene photos, could all possibly be put in jeopardy because of that judge.

They pass rules for a reason. This judge is an officer of the court and knows the rules. You break the rules, you pay. In this case, the sad part is the victims and their families would pay by not receiving justice for these murders.

JMHO
fran

I don't think this will be the reason that justice will be denied for these two murdered victims. It will be because of the age of the defendant and the court finding him incompetent to assist in his defense. Had this defendant been an adult, then they most likely would have been given the death penalty, due to the heinous cruelty of the murders.

My heart breaks for these victims who will never receive justice and for the families that loved them and mourn their deaths. How does anyone ever get over a death of a loved one, when justice was denied to them? IMO, they wont. They will not ever have even this much closure to cling to or knowing that at least justice prevailed for their loved ones and validated the worth of their lives.

Our Justice system is supposed to be justice for all yet these two men will not be given that, ever.

So I guess the next 8 year old that murders people will just walk away too without any responsibility or accountability for their own actions. Imo, it sends a very bad message that the age of the defendant can eliminate justice for those who have been murdered. It is also a scary thought.

This leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as much as when a murderer gets off on a technicality.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I personally don't understand why it makes a difference if the judge knew the father and son or not. My guess would be that they weren't best friends who hung around together. Everyone in that small town probably knows each other.

In a search warrant LE have to list exactly what they are looking for. Every judge does it the same way because it is the legal way. The can't look for anything that isn't listed on the SW. The judge and LE didn't get together and plan something deceitful to do with the SW. The judge didn't put his head together with LE and decide to try and hang this little boy. LE knew what they needed to look for and it all would have been on the SW so what does it matter what judge signs the warrant? Any judge would have signed the warrant but this judge ended up signing it. I hope the judge shoots this request right down the drain.

Just because a defense files a motion to dismiss anything doesn't mean it will be done, no matter what the defense attorney opines or the case law he attaches. Steve Farese immediately filed two motions to suppress Mary Winklers' 3 statements to police. It was denied. He also immediately filed a motion to suppress the search warrant of the parsonage. It was also denied.

I think the Judge will weigh the search warrant very carefully. This wasn't some made up or trumped up search warrant needed by LE. They had a crime scene with two dead bodies on the property. At the time of this search warrant the defendant was not considered a suspect, so I see no conflict of interest in the case. Had he already been named a suspect then maybe there would be a conflict of interest at the time but he wasn't.

I looked at the search warrant documents and what they listed that they were looking for seemed to be very reasonable due to the nature of the crimes.

So on that particular issue, imo, we will have to wait and see if there was any or what Judge Roca thinks was the conflict of interest. Personally I dont see any conflict, either for the defendant or for the victims in this case, at the time it was issued.

 

[colette]

Judges don't like to throw out evidence, they more often keep it in than throw it out. There have to be big reasons to toss major evidence in a double murder.

 

[azmama]

On our evening news reports it was reported......

The decision has been made about the boy's competency, he has been found NOT competent to stand trial by the evaluators, the news here in Phoenix is saying that it is likely that the charges will be dropped WITH prejudice (meaning that he can not be charged at a later date), since his competency will not be able to be restored (reached) before the time limitation of the trial. (Isn't this something like 240 days?)

I will look for a link, but am not sure of the link rules....

 

[azmama]

Just because a defense files a motion to dismiss anything doesn't mean it will be done, no matter what the defense attorney opines or the case law he attaches. Steve Farese immediately filed two motions to suppress Mary Winklers' 3 statements to police. It was denied. He also immediately filed a motion to suppress the search warrant of the parsonage. It was also denied.

I think the Judge will weigh the search warrant very carefully. This wasn't some made up or trumped up search warrant needed by LE. They had a crime scene with two dead bodies on the property. At the time of this search warrant the defendant was not considered a suspect, so I see no conflict of interest in the case. Had he already been named a suspect then maybe there would be a conflict of interest at the time but he wasn't.

I looked at the search warrant documents and what they listed that they were looking for seemed to be very reasonable due to the nature of the crimes.

So on that particular issue, imo, we will have to wait and see if there was any or what Judge Roca thinks was the conflict of interest. Personally I dont see any conflict, either for the defendant or for the victims in this case, at the time it was issued.

Judges don't like to throw out evidence, they more often keep it in than throw it out. There have to be big reasons to toss major evidence in a double murder.

Regardless of the reasoning, there are LAWS in place to protect the civil rights of the defendant, and they were clearly violated. I am not saying I agree with it, but we have seen time and time again where someones civil rights trump the evidence. (generalizing).

They DID think he was guilty, whether they said so or not! They were not treating him as a witness, they were treating him as a suspect!
I believe the law will prevail on the boys side (in the area of evidence and legality etc).