AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #4

[oceanblueeyes]

It seems to me that the judicial system is going to have to figure out what they are going to do with these young kids that commit murder. It seems like they just get younger every day. They are going to have to get something into place for the young ones. They can't just keep sending them back home.

If there is to be any hope for this boy and others like him they will have to under go intensive therapy. Whether that will help or not no one knows yet but it is worth a try. I think these kids should be in inpatient therapy though where they can continue to get their schooling like they do in detention but have individual and group therapy. With this boy a therapist is going to have to get down to the reason he committed these murders. Why the boy believes he wanted to murder his dad and Tim. His reasoning might not even make sense to us but it is a real reason to him. Once that reason is discovered maybe with a therapists help he can work through that and learn other ways of dealing with his problems. I don't know but I don't think he should be back out in society until he can come to terms with these murders and why they shouldn't have happened....what other options he had.

His mother not believing that he committed these murders really bothers me. I can't see how she will be a help to him if she clings to that belief. She will see no need for him to have therapy and this boy will probably end up worse off then he is now. Does she not realize that he could get mad at her like he did his dad? I hope the judge or this boy's attorney make sure this boy is court ordered to go to therapy if he is allowed to go home. Still, if mom is negative about his going to therapy it is going to confuse this boy and he may not even cooperate with a therapist. I think the judge is going to have to lay down some strict rules before he turns this boy over to his mom.

I'm anxious to see what the judge comes up with. There was talk about this boy going to some kind of facility for young kids where he would get therapy and I really hope the judge decides on that until he is 18 yrs...at least.

Excellent post!

I believe that these particular type of children, who kills their loved ones or someone that resides in the home with them, are in a league of their own. They don't even mesh with the other juvenile offenders imo.

The courts need to find a way to handle this small group of juvenile violent offenders in our society.

imoo

 

[Linda7NJ]

For many years I taught students whose parents mostly didn't give a d..... There are stories that will be with me for the rest of my life. One involved a 14 year old boy whose mother was supposed to come to school the next day because he got into trouble He plainly told me she wasn't coming because she was so drunk she couldn't stand up that morning. By 15 he had fathered two children.

Another young lady went from being an A student to failing. Her mother stole her boyfriend away from her. She was living with her grandmother, trying to survive this. I've also taught a murderer, a child molester, a child who was murdered, and many kids who are now in prison.

What happened? If you were at parent conferences you would know. Of 150 kids I taught about 20 parents showed up, and mostly they were the parents of good kids. What I've learned is that in most cases an A student is an A student no matter what the curriculum, no matter what the technology, no matter what test he/she is given, and no matter who the teacher is. The key to a better education is the parent who raised these kids.

Trino,

I know and understand exactly what you're talking about. I worked in the city of Camden for a number of years. It was usually easy to understand why the kids were the way they were. What I found astonishing...one child out of 50, just one...had the inner drive to get herself to school, hand wash her clothes and study hard, walk a mile to the library if she needed help with her homework and always made the honor roll. She was only 7 years old when I first met her! She was in and out of the worst foster homes I've ever seen and back with her crack addicted mother more times than I can count. I am thrilled to say she is now an amazing woman and mother. Her siblings weren't so lucky and two were murdered the rest are in prison.

I always wondered what made her be so determined to rise above? She is every bit as rare a find as an 8 year old murderer.

 

[fran]

This is my point of view only:

I don't believe for a minute that everyone in LE, the Pros, the defense attorney, the judge and anyone else who had a say so in what happens to this boy got together and decided to make a scapegoat of this boy. I also don't believe that they wanted to get this case over and done with so they made sure this boy pled guilty.

We have no idea what evidence was found at the crime scene. We haven't been told the lab results or much of anything else because of the gag order.
We don't know who LE questioned and who they didn't. We don't know what they did or didn't do on this case. I know people would like to believe that LE focused on this young boy from the beginning and didn't even talk to anyone else or follow any other leads. They just made the decision to hang this kid by his heels and that was that.

If the mother didn't want this boy to plead guilty it seems she should have spoken up when the decision was in the process of being made. She had lots of time to verbalize her opinion because this decision sure wasn't made over night. From what I gather she doesn't think this boy is guilty and therefore I doubt if she even sees a need for long term therapy. I have an idea that if this boy is allowed to leave with his mother he will never even see a therapist which means he will get no help unless it is court ordered. Truth be known, this boy needs therapy. A good therapist needs to find out why he set out to murder his dad and Tim and work from there. This is a troubled boy and he will only get worse without help. Without help we just may read his name in the news again someday if murder is his way of taking care of his problems. Maybe he won't be allowed to own a gun but a gun isn't the only weapon that can be used to get rid of someone.

I get the idea that there are people out there who think this boy should just be turned loose to go home with his mom and everything will be fine because they haven't seen proof that he murdered his own dad and Tim. We likely won't see any proof but I know one thing. Without this boy getting any help I wouldn't want him living next door to me or mine. He is a troubled child and I have no doubt about that.

In a news interview, the guardian ad litem stated that both psychologists, (def and pros) found this child to be incompetent to stand trial. IF the guardian ad litem knows this, so does the pros and def and the judge. IF they take this plea deal with those doctor's findings part of the 'sealed' portion of this file and the knowledge of these opinions, they are 'hiding' the fact this plea deal should not be allowed. Why? Because the child is NOT competent to make an adult decision.

This child's mother was seen crying at the hearing. The def attorney knew she objected to the plea deal. Eryn was told she had 'no say' in the proceedings, the child could sign without her permission. Heck, the court itself appointed a guardian ad litem and didn't have him at the hearing because they knew they could have the child sign. Why? Because LEGALLY, as long as the child has not been judged incompetent with a court hearing, he was able to sign his own document.

We do know much of the forensic results and they do NOT JUST point to the child. I can't even imagine what they have in sealed documents that COULD exonerate this child. But alas, this court is going to seal these documents. However, from what I've read, before a judge can accept a plea deal, he must review the file and be certain that the case has been fully investigated. With what we know now, if this judge signs off on this deal, he better be certain there is NO exculpatory information.........NEVER say NEVER.....IF they can find a way to talk this child into signing guilty legally, there MAY very well be a way to UNSEAL these documents.

There's a REASON why LE is obligated to turn over everything exculpatory to the def. It's been proven time and time again of LE concealing exculpatory evidence. IF this judge and this pros have seen exculpatory evidence and failed to turn it over,................they may be called upon to answer by a higher court.

You're correct, this child does need to see a doctor. Whether he's guilty or not, he's now damaged mentally. I don't think that fact has been lost with his mom. We'll see.

I'm one of the people who feel this child should go home. He's not old enough to make this severe of a decision on his own. He's been found incompetent but they've avoided putting these findings in the court records, that we know of, because they made the plea deal before the competency hearing.

The one thing I would like to see in this case is St. Johns PD doing a thorough investigation. I'm not sure that'll ever happen though. Especially if what we've seen so far is their normal MO.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

FYI, Eryn is going to appear on Good Morning America.

fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

FYI, Eryn is going to appear on Good Morning America.

fran

When?

 

[fran]

When?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6995430&page=1

Even though the tapes have been ruled inadmissible in any court case, the boy's mother says she's "in shock" that her son's lawyers are allowing the now-9-year-old to plead guilty to negligent homicide without her consent.

The mother describes her son as a little boy who still comes to her in the middle of the night when he is scared by nightmares.

The boy's guilty plea has surprised many in the legal community.

In an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America," Eryn Bloomfield said her son did not know what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty and he did not understand the concepts of probation or Miranda rights.

 

[fran]

Well, well, well, seems those that ASSUMED Eryn didn't object to the child's plea were wrong.

Also, those that ASSUMED she wasn't going to do anything about it were wrong as well.

Oh, AND those that ASSUMED she wouldn't want him to see a doctor were wrong too........ Of course, you'll only know that if you see her appearance on GMA. She said he's seeing a doctor and it's been doing a LOT of good.

Of course she did stop short in declaring the child innocent, but that's because she hasn't been allowed to discuss the case with the boy because they might then, call her to testify.

I think I'll go out on a limb here and make a prediction on MY ASSUMPTION:

I do NOT believe we've heard the end of this case or Eryn B. AFTER the sentencing hearing on March 5th, she will then be free to do what she wants. Looks like she's not going to fade into the sunset like this pros wants.

Just sayin'.......IMHO,
fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well, well, well, seems those that ASSUMED Eryn didn't object to the child's plea were wrong.

Also, those that ASSUMED she wasn't going to do anything about it were wrong as well.

Oh, AND those that ASSUMED she wouldn't want him to see a doctor were wrong too........ Of course, you'll only know that if you see her appearance on GMA. She said he's seeing a doctor and it's been doing a LOT of good.

Of course she did stop short in declaring the child innocent, but that's because she hasn't been allowed to discuss the case with the boy because they might then, call her to testify.

I think I'll go out on a limb here and make a prediction on MY ASSUMPTION:

I do NOT believe we've heard the end of this case or Eryn B. AFTER the sentencing hearing on March 5th, she will then be free to do what she wants. Looks like she's not going to fade into the sunset like this pros wants.

Just sayin'.......IMHO,
fran

First...the boy's own lawyer said the very day before the change of plea hearing that it was HER and the BOYS decision, not HIS.

What has she done about it? Not a darn thing! She still hasn't talked to the boy about it...WHY? Because ...drum roll........she could be forced to testify against him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why? My assumption...because he's GUILTY!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6995430&page=1

Even though the tapes have been ruled inadmissible in any court case, the boy's mother says she's "in shock" that her son's lawyers are allowing the now-9-year-old to plead guilty to negligent homicide without her consent.

The mother describes her son as a little boy who still comes to her in the middle of the night when he is scared by nightmares.

The boy's guilty plea has surprised many in the legal community.

In an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America," Eryn Bloomfield said her son did not know what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty and he did not understand the concepts of probation or Miranda rights.

Thanks for the link. I found nothing really shocking about it but this I did find very interesting. Hmmmmm.

"Bloomfield said she has not yet asked her son about the day he allegedly killed two people because she fears she'd be called to testify in court about what he told her."

imo

 

[fran]

Thanks for the link. I found nothing really shocking about it but this I did find very interesting. Hmmmmm.

"Bloomfield said she has not yet asked her son about the day he allegedly killed two people because she fears she'd be called to testify in court about what he told her."

imo

So????????

She doesn't want to go into court and testify. We've already seen no matter what this child says, other than "I did it,'' is listened to.

Obviously Eryn believes in her child. People said she wouldn't do anything.

The point is, she IS doing something so those people were wrong.

JMHO
fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

So????????

She doesn't want to go into court and testify. We've already seen no matter what this child says, other than "I did it,'' is listened to.

Obviously Eryn believes in her child. People said she wouldn't do anything.

The point is, she IS doing something so those people were wrong.

JMHO
fran

She's doing NOTHING LEGALLY. Running her mouth in the media for $$$$ isn't doing a thing for the boy now is it? Behind closed doors, I believe she was singing a different tune.
http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=333431

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well, well, well, seems those that ASSUMED Eryn didn't object to the child's plea were wrong.

Also, those that ASSUMED she wasn't going to do anything about it were wrong as well.

Oh, AND those that ASSUMED she wouldn't want him to see a doctor were wrong too........ Of course, you'll only know that if you see her appearance on GMA. She said he's seeing a doctor and it's been doing a LOT of good.

Of course she did stop short in declaring the child innocent, but that's because she hasn't been allowed to discuss the case with the boy because they might then, call her to testify.

I think I'll go out on a limb here and make a prediction on MY ASSUMPTION:

I do NOT believe we've heard the end of this case or Eryn B. AFTER the sentencing hearing on March 5th, she will then be free to do what she wants. Looks like she's not going to fade into the sunset like this pros wants.

Just sayin'.......IMHO,
fran

Who assumed that she didn't object?
Where does it say she is going to do something about the plea deal?
Who assumed he wasn't seeing a doctor? The court appointed a therapist to see him. What does that have to do with Eryn getting him a doctor? She doesn't pay for it, the state has that burden until he is 18.:waitasec:

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She's doing NOTHING LEGALLY. Running her mouth in the media for $$$$ isn't doing a thing for the boy now is it? Behind closed doors, I believe she was singing a different tune.
http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=333431

Yes, it seems to be a "Don't ask.........dont tell" policy going on in that house.

She says she FEARS she will be asked to tell what he told her. I think she knows that a civil suit is coming down the pike too.

imoo

 

[Linda7NJ]

Personally, I think she's a LIAR.

I see no reason the boy's lawyer would lie when he stated CLEARLY the decision to take the plea was the boy and his mothers decision and that they were in agreement.

She, IMO has a motive to LIE in public.

 

[southcitymom]

So????????

She doesn't want to go into court and testify. We've already seen no matter what this child says, other than "I did it,'' is listened to.

Obviously Eryn believes in her child. People said she wouldn't do anything.

The point is, she IS doing something so those people were wrong.

JMHO
fran

Different topic, but Fran, why do you think the boy's GAL failed to show in Court for the plea?

 

[southcitymom]

I don't have time to look at these links y'all posted right now (off to carpool), but will take a look when I get back.

 

[fran]

Different topic, but Fran, why do you think the boy's GAL failed to show in Court for the plea?

To be honest, scm, I have no idea why he didn't show up. Of course, like several posters here have stated, everyone knew there was going to be the plea deal hearing so he must have known.

Was it due to incompetence on the GAL's part?

Was it planned by the legal minds involved for the GAL not to be present, thereby allowing them to avoid the FACT that the TWO psychologists from both sides of the aisle deemed this child incompetent to make his own decision? Thus, allowing the plea deal to go thru?

I dunno. But I KNOW that I'm not the only one questioning the legality of that hearing.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/24/20090224roberts0225.html

Competency at core of boy's guilty plea

.............snip................

And while I'm posing questions, how can a judge hold meetings to negotiate a plea and exclude not only the child's mother but also the guardian appointed by the court to look out for the boy's best interests?

Attorney Albert Lassen, who is Christian's guardian ad litem, told me he may ask that the plea be thrown out, given reports that both psychologists found the boy incompetent.

"You're either competent or you're incompetent, and if you're not competent, you can't enter a plea," he said. "I think the dodge is that the judge and the defense attorney and the prosecutor think that because they never got around to actually holding a competency hearing, as required under the rules, that therefore they can practice and maintain the ruse that the child's not incompetent."

In other words, the kid's not incompetent until the judge declares that he's incompetent. Yeah, that makes sense.

Lassen didn't attend last week's change-of-plea hearing in St. Johns but he saw enough of the exchange on TV to be troubled.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course, it's not only the GAL that's questioning the legality of the plea hearing and of the decision by the court to allow this child to act on his own behalf. Please read at the link and see this retired judge's actual response. Perhaps I should take back by post where I may have been giving Judge Roca more credit than he was due, as far as knowledge of the law. Maybe he doesn't know any more about proper court proceedings than the St. Johns PD appears to know about investigating a crime.

JMHO
fran


http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/47036

St. Johns reaction worth reading

Got an e-mail this morning from a respected Maricopa County juvenile judge who retired a few years ago. He was responding to my column this morning, asking how a kid who is not competent to stand trial is competent to plead guilty to negligent homicide?

Here's the retired judge's response:

 

[fran]

Personally, I think she's a LIAR.

I see no reason the boy's lawyer would lie when he stated CLEARLY the decision to take the plea was the boy and his mothers decision and that they were in agreement.

She, IMO has a motive to LIE in public.

I believe this news article is pretty self explanatory.

fran

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/19/20090219stjohns0219ONL.html

..........................snip.........................

His mother objected to the plea.

“The mother doesn't believe he did this,” said Ron Wood, the boy's lawyer. “I don't have a quarrel with her belief.”

Still, Wood said, he thought the plea was correct and in the boy's best interest.

The mother also said she did not think Christian understood the proceedings. But Roca found that Christian entered the plea “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.”

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe this news article is pretty self explanatory.

fran

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/19/20090219stjohns0219ONL.html

..........................snip.........................

His mother objected to the plea.

“The mother doesn't believe he did this,” said Ron Wood, the boy's lawyer. “I don't have a quarrel with her belief.”

Still, Wood said, he thought the plea was correct and in the boy's best interest.

The mother also said she did not think Christian understood the proceedings. But Roca found that Christian entered the plea “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.”

His mother did not proclaim his innocence today!

She will not even talk to the boy about it for FEAR she'll be called to testify AGAINST him.

She hasn't done a darn thing. Hasn't hired a lawyer, hasn't filed an appeal. SHE's DONE NOTHING LEGALLY.

I think the GAL didn't show up because it was a DONE deal and she was in total agreement with it behind closed doors, just as the boys lawyer stated she was.

Publicly, I believe she's LYING so she can exploit the situation for cash...

 

[fran]

Yes, it seems to be a "Don't ask.........dont tell" policy going on in that house.

She says she FEARS she will be asked to tell what he told her. I think she knows that a civil suit is coming down the pike too.

imoo

Oh, I doubt if she's worried about a civil suit for herself. I believe it's the game manufacturers that Tim's wife is aiming at.

I believe it's called, 'deep pockets.'

Course, I doubt she's going to get very far with that. After all, there would then be a lot of facts that come out about this case and the lack of a complete investigation.

They may have been able to persuade this little boy to 'admit' to causing Tim's death and seal the records, but I doubt they'd be able to work that same sort of hocus/pocus with any NY type lawyers, (big legal guns) a game manufacturer would employ. The accuser would have to prove their point and when the records are sealed, well, they don't have a lot of proof.

Also, then his family would have to admit that Tim was a mulitple cheating, drug dealing guy who told one of his drug runners someone wanted to kill him. IF there's {no proof} this person has been checked out fully,............Mrs. Romans just doesn't have a case.

JMHO
fran