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

[azmama]

Expert: St. Johns boy, now 9, incompetent

link;
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/30/20081230childcharged30-ON.html

I hope I did this right.

 

[SieSie]

Expert: St. Johns boy, now 9, incompetent

link;
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/30/20081230childcharged30-ON.html

I hope I did this right.

You did great, thanks for the info and link, azmama!!

I'm not surprised at the news, but wonder what's in store for this boy now. Can he still be held in juvie or does this mean they'll just let him go home with his mom like nothing happened?!

 

[fran]

Expert: St. Johns boy, now 9, incompetent

link;
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/30/20081230childcharged30-ON.html

I hope I did this right.

Hi azmama!

Thanks for the link. I believe this is just the def expert and now they need the pros expert to agree and then a hearing, a judgment, etc, etc.....

IF both experts agree and the judge rules as the article stated, THEN the boy would be ruled incompetent and the charges will be dropped.

To be fair, I'm personally not looking for the boy to be just EXCUSED, but I want them to throw out the coerced (imho) confession and IF they could get enough evidence against him from forensics and such, then try him. However, I don't believe they will be able to prove the child did it.

The St Johns PD really should do a proper investigation on this case. They may even surprise themselves and catch the REAL killer(s).

JMHO
fran

PS....Oh, and WELCOME to Websleuths azmama!

 

[azmama]

Oh good! I was nervous to post a link. I am such a dork.

Thank you for the warm welcome

I have such mixed feelings about this whole thing, I have an 11 year old son and an almost 8 year old son, in my opinion, neither of them have the capacity to plan and murder 2 men, especially his papa.....

IF he did it, I hope he gets a lot of help, counseling and rehab, I do not think "juvie" is a good place for him, he will come out more schooled on trouble he can get in, and very hard and angry, imo. He is just so young.

I do think St Johns LE need to go out and INVESTIGATE, Tiffany Romero has been on my mind since day one, then compounded many times over after finding that blog with the photos of her laughing and partying with friends/family less than a month later.

The whole thing is so sad.

 

[Trino]

You did great, thanks for the info and link, azmama!!
I'm not surprised at the news, but wonder what's in store for this boy now. Can he still be held in juvie or does this mean they'll just let him go home with his mom like nothing happened?!

Pretty much he'll just go home with his mother, maybe even to Mississippi where his mother lives. If the charges are dropped with prejudice, as it appears, it may be suggested that he get mental health care, but if the charges will be dropped, even that cannot be forced.

It's sad how this is turning out for both the boy and the victims.

 

[azmama]

I don't know if it is possible, but I think the counseling/therapy should be mandatory.

 

[Bobbisangel]

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

I hear what you are saying but it still doesn't make any sense to me. So if a judge has met someone before or spoken to them on an occasion or two...go to the same church, etc, they can't sign a search warrent?
I had a judge I went before to do with a Civil Suit. In fact he made the final decision in this county about it. My attorney took it to the Appeals Court. We had the same judge with the custody case over my deceased daughter's daughter. Why wasn't that a conflict of interest as he resided over two of my cases. One to do with my deceased daughter and one to do with the custody of her daughter...a battle between myself and the killer's parents.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Doesn't the judge still have to make a decision on whether the Pros can drop the murder charge concerning the dad? Wasn't he going to wait until the compatency hearing is through?

I hope the Pros is allowed to drop that first murder charge and the boy will be able to be charged when he is older. No way should he be allowed to just walk out that door as if nothing happened....if he committed these murders.
That would be so wrong. Maybe the boy is to young to help in his own defense but he is not to young to know the difference between right and wrong and he knows what happens when you shoot someone several times as he has hunted animals. He knows that they don't come back to life just like he told the detective with the phone that the boy remarked on. He said his dad wouldn't be coming back.

 

[gitana1]

Pretty much he'll just go home with his mother, maybe even to Mississippi where his mother lives. If the charges are dropped with prejudice, as it appears, it may be suggested that he get mental health care, but if the charges will be dropped, even that cannot be forced.

It's sad how this is turning out for both the boy and the victims.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. To my knowledge, juvenile dependency court has an open case on this child. Even if they don't, they can and probably should. They can open one on charges of possible neglect of the kid. Or simply that he is at risk of harm. Or, someone could file a petition for guardianship. As such, the juvenile court (or probate court in the case of a guardianship) would have jurisdiction over the child, regardless of any criminal case dismissal, and could issue orders that would supercede the family court orders. This means, the court could issue orders keeping him in the custody of the state and mandate in-patient treatment, etc. If this child did commit the murders, he needs much more help than outpatient counseling could ever provide. He would likely need several years of in-patient treatment. Think about this:
If he did it, but does not understand the significance of what he did, the finality of death, etc., and is not a sociopath, then he will suffer trauma from the event and the fact that h himself cuased the death of his own daddy. That could destroy him mentally and/or create worse mental illnesses than he already could have. If he did this, sending him off with his mother with no long-term intensive treatment plan would be catastrophic for not only the kid, but for society.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Expert: St. Johns boy, now 9, incompetent

link;
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/30/20081230childcharged30-ON.html

I hope I did this right.

Thank you for the link.

Yes, we had heard last week, I believe, that Dr. Cady, the expert for the defense, had ruled him incompetent.

I don't think the Doctor's evaluation, who did it for the State has been disclosed yet.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I hear what you are saying but it still doesn't make any sense to me. So if a judge has met someone before or spoken to them on an occasion or two...go to the same church, etc, they can't sign a search warrant?
I had a judge I went before to do with a Civil Suit. In fact he made the final decision in this county about it. My attorney took it to the Appeals Court. We had the same judge with the custody case over my deceased daughter's daughter. Why wasn't that a conflict of interest as he resided over two of my cases. One to do with my deceased daughter and one to do with the custody of her daughter...a battle between myself and the killer's parents.

I agree Bobbi. I knew the Judge, that awarded me Guardianship of my father, for over 20 years and he knew my father very well.

IMO, Brewer/Wood is going to have to show what the conflict was at the time the search warrant was issued. Not after it was issued and the boy became a suspect. That is two different events and Judge Gunnels, once the suspect was known, signed no further search warrants.

This isn't like the police going to get a search warrant so they can bust the doors down in someone's home hoping to catch them doing drugs or something of that nature. This search warrant was much needed and probable cause was the two dead bodies they had found at the home, when they were summoned to the scene.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I respectfully disagree with this statement. To my knowledge, juvenile dependency court has an open case on this child. Even if they don't, they can and probably should. They can open one on charges of possible neglect of the kid. Or simply that he is at risk of harm. Or, someone could file a petition for guardianship. As such, the juvenile court (or probate court in the case of a guardianship) would have jurisdiction over the child, regardless of any criminal case dismissal, and could issue orders that would supersede the family court orders. This means, the court could issue orders keeping him in the custody of the state and mandate in-patient treatment, etc. If this child did commit the murders, he needs much more help than outpatient counseling could ever provide. He would likely need several years of in-patient treatment. Think about this:
If he did it, but does not understand the significance of what he did, the finality of death, etc., and is not a sociopath, then he will suffer trauma from the event and the fact that h himself caused the death of his own daddy. That could destroy him mentally and/or create worse mental illnesses than he already could have. If he did this, sending him off with his mother with no long-term intensive treatment plan would be catastrophic for not only the kid, but for society.

I am not sure that is true. The DA listed this dilemma in his motions. He said it was highly doubtful that the boy would be remanded to any civil commitment. He talked about how risky that was for this boy by having no treatment.

If this boy is not convicted then the Courts will have no jurisdiction over him. CPS has already recinded their role in this issue when Judge Roca gave his mother custody of him, when he is out for a walkabout. So I think Trino is right, he will be free to go.

I don't believe the evaluators diagnosed him with any mental defect that would require him to be under therapy.

I am curious however how the defense expert projected in the future and already says he will not be competent even when evaluated in 8 months again. He is 9 years old now and will be closer to 10. If the State expert agrees that he is now age incompetent but does not agree about he still will be in 8 months, I think Judge Roca will rule that he will be reevaluated at that time.

Another thing that is surprising in this particular juvenile case. Usually the Court will appoint their own mental evaluator, because many times the defense expert will side with the defense's take and the State's will decided moreso that the defendant is fit. By having three then it is the tie breaker for the Judge many times and they will rule based on the two that agreed with the same evaluation. But maybe in this case it will work out if both the State and the defense experts has the same opinion. If not how does Judge Roca choose which one is right since they are both opinions?

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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).

I respectfully disagree. At the time of the search warrant on the home they did not think he was a suspect but an eye witness to the crimes. If they had thought he was a suspect, then they would have done GSR testing immediately on his hands and took his clothes and shoes that very night.

imoo

 

[Trino]

I don't know if it is possible, but I think the counseling/therapy should be mandatory.

If charges are dropped w/o prejudice, nothing can be forced, nothing mandatory.

Since Tiffany has not (to my knowledge) visited the boy in juvenile detention, it seems she isn't interested in raising him. He's never lived with his natural mother, so we don't know how things would work out there.

However, IMO, there could be "manipulation" to the point that the parent(s) could be charged with neglect and ask that the boy be made a ward of the state. At least, I think this could (and should) be done. He could then get help.

 

[fran]

Keep in mind that there are three things a defense attorney is taught to cover in almost any case. Attack the law, attack the evidence, attack the witness. (lol, I think that's it?)

While I understand why the def is requesting the initial evidence gathered be disallowed, because there truly is a law in place involving the circumstances he's referencing, I'm just not sure this case 'fits' into the category mentioned. As the def states, the judge does have a 'conflict of interest' here, but I DO believe he acted in 'good faith' with the first SW. The problem is, this judge put the initial 'evidence gathering' in jeoprady by his actions.

Honestly, I hope they're able to work around this and NOT disallow the evidence from the scene. No matter WHO did the crime, this evidence is crucial to obtaining justice for these two victims. While I am strongly in favor of disallowing the alleged confession, because I personally feel it's completely bogus, I HOPE the evidence stands! seriously.

IIRC, even the defense attorney asked for future psychiatric care for the child should he be judged incompetent to stand trial. I could be wrong but I believe that even his mom would follow through with anything the court recommends for this child. I honestly believe his family and many in the legal community are looking out for the best interests of this child.

Although most of the adults involved feel the child did commit the crime because of his alleged confession, there's also the STRONG possibility that this child did NOT commit the crime and there's a murderer(s) walking around thinking they got away with it.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, just circumstances that are NOT norm, COULD be something or NOT, but definitely need to be investigated. This is NOT an open and shut case like St. Johns LE wants us to believe. They stated within 24 hours they'd solved the case, but they were soooooo WRONG, IMHO. There's a NUMBER of experts who've weighed in on this case after viewing the alleged confession video, that STRONGLY agree with this assessment. That the 'confession' was 'coerced' and MOST LIKELY NOT true.

I am aware that many DO believe the confession and that this child committed this murder. Ok, we'll just agree to disagree on that issue. But let me ask you this, seriously, AFTER viewing whatever has been available of this alleged confession, after seeing all of the 'circumstances' regarding this case that COULD point to SOMEONE else, WITHOUT answers to the existance of these circumstances:

Are you still comfortable with this child as the perp beyond a reasonable doubt? enough to convict?

What would you do if in 2, 5, or 10 years, you found out that this child really didn't commit the crime, the confession was completely bogus (as has happened in a NUMBER of high profile cases involving young children AND even teenageres and ADULTS) and this child's life was altered FOREVER, AND they had leads or even KNEW who the REAL killer(s) are?

How would you feel that this child, who MAY HAVE done NOTHING other than coming upon the scene of his murdered father and friend, was AGAIN victimized by the system?

Now imagine this is YOUR loved one murdered and the accused is YOUR son, YOUR grandson?

I want justice for these murder victims just like everyone else. But I'm not willing to sacrifice this child just to 'solve' an open case and find out later it was all just a HUGE mistake and there is (are) REAL KILLER(S) walking the streets.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If charges are dropped w/o prejudice, nothing can be forced, nothing mandatory.

Since Tiffany has not (to my knowledge) visited the boy in juvenile detention, it seems she isn't interested in raising him. He's never lived with his natural mother, so we don't know how things would work out there.

However, IMO, there could be "manipulation" to the point that the parent(s) could be charged with neglect and ask that the boy be made a ward of the state. At least, I think this could (and should) be done. He could then get help.

I am just not sure if anything could be made mandatory.

I also read and can't remember where now, that his mother has a five year old daughter and is in the process of getting a divorce.

As a mother I would feel very uncomfortable allowing this boy to live around my five year old daughter if he had had no treatment at all.

Personally, I don't think Vincent Romero ever saw any hint that this was coming. So if this boy is good at hiding his true feelings then I find that scary as well.

imoo

 

[Trino]

I am just not sure if anything could be made mandatory.

I also read and can't remember where now, that his mother has a five year old daughter and is in the process of getting a divorce. As a mother I would feel very uncomfortable allowing this boy to live around my five year old daughter if he had had no treatment at all.
Personally, I don't think Vincent Romero ever saw any hint that this was coming. So if this boy is good at hiding his true feelings then I find that scary as well.imoo

You're correct. If she has another child, I think she should take a good look at what it would take to raise this boy, especially with another child in the house. If I correctly recall, she is 26 yrs old. I believe she was 17/18 when she had him.

Her financial status and insurance status are also important, as mental health help isn't cheap. IMO it will take years of therapy to rehabilitate him - if that's possible. If she moves to Mississippi with the boy, my guess is that AZ will have no say in what she does with him. It isn't as if she just lived around the corner or even in the same town. Her contact with him was a weekend once a month. How well did she know him? I hope the court takes a good look at the mother and her ability to raise the boy.

 

[azmama]

I am just not sure if anything could be made mandatory.

I also read and can't remember where now, that his mother has a five year old daughter and is in the process of getting a divorce.

As a mother I would feel very uncomfortable allowing this boy to live around my five year old daughter if he had had no treatment at all.

Personally, I don't think Vincent Romero ever saw any hint that this was coming. So if this boy is good at hiding his true feelings then I find that scary as well.

imoo

Ok, I do agree, I would not endanger my other children, but we don't know what the mother or the courts have planned, it seems like we just expect that the mom will take him home, enroll him in school and that will be that.....go on about life like nothing happened. Kind of a silly assumption, I think.

I have 4 children and *I* would take him into my home. It seems we are all assuming that he will not get any rehab/therapy/counseling, but in fact, he may be!

I don't think anyone wants anyone to get away with murder, but I agree with Fran, I am not willing to throw this kid under the bus to "solve the case".

There are lots of convicted "criminals" in jail who in fact are INNOCENT, some have or had been in for a loooooong time. What would that do to a person, an adult? Then ask yourself what that would do to a boy who is 9 being in the system for years do to a boy of this age? If he was not a criminal going in, there is a very good chance he would come out a criminal.

Are yoiu willing to convict him with what has been put out to the public? I am not. None of it looks so cut and dried to me.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Ok, I do agree, I would not endanger my other children, but we don't know what the mother or the courts have planned, it seems like we just expect that the mom will take him home, enroll him in school and that will be that.....go on about life like nothing happened. Kind of a silly assumption, I think.

I have 4 children and *I* would take him into my home. It seems we are all assuming that he will not get any rehab/therapy/counseling, but in fact, he may be!

I don't think anyone wants anyone to get away with murder, but I agree with Fran, I am not willing to throw this kid under the bus to "solve the case".

There are lots of convicted "criminals" in jail who in fact are INNOCENT, some have or had been in for a loooooong time. What would that do to a person, an adult? Then ask yourself what that would do to a boy who is 9 being in the system for years do to a boy of this age? If he was not a criminal going in, there is a very good chance he would come out a criminal.

Are you willing to convict him with what has been put out to the public? I am not. None of it looks so cut and dried to me.

Yes, they are innocent people in prison but our system of justice is the best in the world. No system will ever be infallible. It is run by humans and humans can make mistakes but with there being over 2.5 million inmates in our penal system and about 200 exonerated in the past 20+ years or so, or the DA didn't retry the case, it still shows that it is a tiny minority who are wrongly convicted. Most of these cases are old cases that involved DNA evidence but when we had no DNA technology to test the evidence at that time or eye witness testimony, which can be faulty. So the chances of that happening here is awfully slim, to none imo.

It is not my place to convict him but in my opinion, from everything I have read, it seems much more likely than not that he is the sole shooter. While we may only know snippets it never means that other things aren't known that also bolsters his guilt. Judge Roca told them to continue their investigation, even though they are at a standstill and I believe they have done.....just that.

I don't really know what will happen to him. From what all I have read if found age incompetent to stand trial then the juvenile court has no jurisdictional control over him.

They do not have the same authority as if he was an adult where the adult can be housed in a mental institution and then be brought back many times to have a competency evaluation and when found competent, even years later, they can be brought to trial. The only way he could be remanded is if he was diagnosed with a mental defect. I don't think he will be. Now if the Judge thinks he can be reevaluated in 8 months, he would still be under some type of court jurisdiction, I would think but I really don't know.

What I will not do is throw the two homicide victims under the bus for this defendant. If he is found incompetent to be able to assist in a trial, I sincerely hope that the county attorney reveals all the evidence, including forensics and ballistic testings, so that the people of St. Johns will know once and for all, who cruelly murdered these two men. If he is ruled age incompetent, they will never have justice for the two men who lost their lives but they can have some semblance of peace, I suppose, knowing that the evidence, even unheard in a court of law, showed who did it.

imoo

 

[azmama]

I do respect your opinion OBE, and neither of us are going to convince the other...I agree it would be a shame for him to walk *if* indeed he did as they said, planned, executed etc, but the "evidence" does not lead me to the same conclusion as yours, I have not seen any solid evidence that shows he is guilty.

Unfortunately, my judgement may be clouded since I still have small children and my boys are close to the age of this boy.

We will just have to wait and see