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

[Trino]

Right, I will leave it to the people that knows her best.

If sued she may have to declare bankruptcy. Maybe in her homeowners insurance they have a clause where they will pay off a lawsuit for a certain amount. I highly doubt she has vast assets. At least she would get to keep her original home that she had for years before this all occurred.

I don't know if it would be considered half his since she did not get this property during the marriage of 2 months and she probably sends the payment for it with her own signature on the check. imoo

I thought marriage automatically gave you half of each other's assets. I know a woman that owned a house, married a jerk (only 2 years), and had to give him half when they divorced. Maybe laws vary in each state.

 

[southcitymom]

IMHO, they haven't had a problem displaying all these other documents that some 'claim' points towards the child as the perp. I don't see any reason after a plea, that they can't show us what they have.

IF they don't show what they have, the people will think it's because they didn't have anything at all.

I'd like to know just what it is that they THINK makes this child look guilty. I haven't seen anything yet, myself.

JMHO
fran

I think it depends on the person, Fran. I assume we are not going to see everything they have because of the child's age. That's fairly common with juvenile crime. But that fact does not lead me to believe they have no evidence.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't think anyone involved closely with this case wants to send an 8-year-old to jail for murder, so if plea is struck, I would definitely assume the evidence was compelling enough to convince all the people that are handling the case of the child's guilt.

 

[southcitymom]

I thought marriage automatically gave you half of each other's assets. I know a woman that owned a house, married a jerk (only 2 years), and had to give him half when they divorced. Maybe laws vary in each state.

They do, Trino - many states just talk about equitable distribution and not halfsies.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I thought marriage automatically gave you half of each other's assets. I know a woman that owned a house, married a jerk (only 2 years), and had to give him half when they divorced. Maybe laws vary in each state.

You may be right but I think she could hire a lawyer and prove that Vinnie only had a 2 month investment in the house.

But I could be wrong.

It is just so wrong for her to lose everything she had way before this happened imo.

imo

 

[fran]

I think it depends on the person, Fran. I assume we are not going to see everything they have because of the child's age. That's fairly common with juvenile crime. But that fact does not lead me to believe they have no evidence.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't think anyone involved closely with this case wants to send an 8-year-old to jail for murder, so if plea is struck, I would definitely assume the evidence was compelling enough to convince all the people that are handling the case of the child's guilt.

Have you actually seen any of the voluminous pages of documents they have unleashed on this child? IF you know his name, just 'google,' and you'll get plenty of hits. They are NOT protecting him as a juvenile, IMHO.

IF I was his mom, I'd sue the whole county for what they've done to this child.

I wouldn't be too comfortable to assume anything they may have. What they've released is NOT incriminating for this child. Much of what has been released is rumor and hear-say and wild speculation.

The supposed 'gag order' is only good for the defense it would seem. All the pros has to do is file what they want the public to know. They don't usually do this with a 'juvenile,' but for God only knows why, this pros decided because of the interest in the case, they'd make an exception for this child. They made a 'special section' just for this case. They block out the birth date of the victims, yet they leave the child's name all over the pages as written.

Course, then when you read some of the witness statements, they're so poorly written, either handwriting or visually photo'd you can't read them. I have no idea where the media got some of the alleged 'rumors' they've managed to spread around about this boy.

This case is the grossest miscarriage of justice that I've ever witnessed. From 'rush to judgment' to 'trial by media,' this case takes the cake!

Arizona, it would seem to me, really needs to get with the program.

JMHO
fran

 

[azmama]

From the things I have learned about all of this lately, she should be worried about her own hide about now!

Why should she be worried about her own safety?

I didn't mean her personal safety, things are falling apart all over the place within the case. Also, I believe (I would have to go and check but) the benefit dinner is not in St. John, but another town. I don't really see any outpouring of support of her there, just as there is no outcry about the boy being on furlough.

Trino~
I thought marriage automatically gave you half of each other's assets. I know a woman that owned a house, married a jerk (only 2 years), and had to give him half when they divorced. Maybe laws vary in each state.

In Arizona it does, we are a community property state.

This case is the grossest miscarriage of justice that I've ever witnessed. From 'rush to judgment' to 'trial by media,' this case takes the cake!

Absolutely!

Arizona does need to get with it, our CPS system is horribly run, and LE in any outlying areas (not in big cities) really leave much to be desired.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

From the things I have learned about all of this lately, she should be worried about her own hide about now!

Why should she be worried about her own safety?

I didn't mean her personal safety, things are falling apart all over the place within the case. Also, I believe (I would have to go and check but) the benefit dinner is not in St. John, but another town. I don't really see any outpouring of support of her there, just as there is no outcry about the boy being on furlough.

Trino~
I thought marriage automatically gave you half of each other's assets. I know a woman that owned a house, married a jerk (only 2 years), and had to give him half when they divorced. Maybe laws vary in each state.

In Arizona it does, we are a community property state.

This case is the grossest miscarriage of justice that I've ever witnessed. From 'rush to judgment' to 'trial by media,' this case takes the cake!

Absolutely!

Arizona does need to get with it, our CPS system is horribly run, and LE in any outlying areas (not in big cities) really leave much to be desired.

The number given 928 337-2000 seems to be the St. Johns Regiuonal Chamber of Commerce.

[PDF] Apache County, ArizonaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
www.springerville-eagarchamber.com. St. Johns Regional Chamber of Commerce. P.O. Box 929. (928) 337-2000. 180 W. Cleveland. FAX: (928) 337-2020 ...

 

[azmama]

I reread the announcement, I stand corrected

Still, I could organize a dinner at the school next door for some "victim", doesn't prove anything.

ugh:banghead:

Never mind, not worth losing my hair over, what will be will be with this case, all of this is merely speculation, as much as you want it all to be fact.

 

[southcitymom]

Have you actually seen any of the voluminous pages of documents they have unleashed on this child? IF you know his name, just 'google,' and you'll get plenty of hits. They are NOT protecting him as a juvenile, IMHO.

IF I was his mom, I'd sue the whole county for what they've done to this child.

I wouldn't be too comfortable to assume anything they may have. What they've released is NOT incriminating for this child. Much of what has been released is rumor and hear-say and wild speculation.

The supposed 'gag order' is only good for the defense it would seem. All the pros has to do is file what they want the public to know. They don't usually do this with a 'juvenile,' but for God only knows why, this pros decided because of the interest in the case, they'd make an exception for this child. They made a 'special section' just for this case. They block out the birth date of the victims, yet they leave the child's name all over the pages as written.

Course, then when you read some of the witness statements, they're so poorly written, either handwriting or visually photo'd you can't read them. I have no idea where the media got some of the alleged 'rumors' they've managed to spread around about this boy.

This case is the grossest miscarriage of justice that I've ever witnessed. From 'rush to judgment' to 'trial by media,' this case takes the cake!

Arizona, it would seem to me, really needs to get with the program.

JMHO
fran

I have. I have just not formed the opinions you have formed. I do wonder what else will might be released.

 

[Trino]

I believe the boy was charged as an adult, since there is no lower age on murder. However, the judge, PA are treating him as a juvenile. It appears this is why info can be made public.

 

[SoobsinMI]

You may be right but I think she could hire a lawyer and prove that Vinnie only had a 2 month investment in the house.

But I could be wrong.

It is just so wrong for her to lose everything she had way before this happened imo.

imo

Arizona may be a community property state, but that only applies to property accumulated DURING the marriage. If the house was hers before the marriage, it remains hers.

I'm not sure I understand why she should be losing "everything" now? IIRC, one of her "friends" posted that she's in deep financial difficulties and has a lot of debt "due" to her husband. I still don't understand what that has to do with the murders, however.

 

[SoobsinMI]

I believe the boy was charged as an adult, since there is no lower age on murder. However, the judge, PA are treating him as a juvenile. It appears this is why info can be made public.

That is incorrect. He was NOT charged as an adult, and there IS a "lower age on murder." I posted links to the AZ penal code referencing murder, and juveniles in the past.

 

[SoobsinMI]

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00501.htm

13-501. Persons under eighteen years of age; felony charging; definitions

A. The county attorney shall bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age and is accused of any of the following offenses:

1. First degree murder in violation of section 13-1105.

2. Second degree murder in violation of section 13-1104.

3. Forcible sexual assault in violation of section 13-1406.

4. Armed robbery in violation of section 13-1904.

5. Any other violent felony offense.

6. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender.

7. Any offense that is properly joined to an offense listed in this subsection.

B. Except as provided in subsection A of this section, the county attorney may bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is at least fourteen years of age and is accused of any of the following offenses:

1. A class 1 felony.

2. A class 2 felony.

3. A class 3 felony in violation of any offense in chapters 10 through 17 or chapter 19 or 23 of this title.

4. A class 3, 4, 5 or 6 felony involving a dangerous offense.

5. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender.

6. Any offense that is properly joined to an offense listed in this subsection.

C. A criminal prosecution shall be brought against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile has been accused of a criminal offense and has a historical prior felony conviction.

D. At the time the county attorney files a complaint or indictment the county attorney shall file a notice stating that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender. Subject to subsection E of this section, the notice shall establish and confer jurisdiction over the juvenile as a chronic felony offender.

E. Upon motion of the juvenile the court shall hold a hearing after arraignment and before trial to determine if a juvenile is a chronic felony offender. At the hearing the state shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender. If the court does not find that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender, the court shall transfer the juvenile to the juvenile court pursuant to section 8-302. If the court finds that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender or if the juvenile does not file a motion to determine if the juvenile is a chronic felony offender, the criminal prosecution shall continue.

F. Except as provided in section 13-921, a person who is charged pursuant to this section shall be sentenced in the criminal court in the same manner as an adult for any offense for which the person is convicted.

G. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Accused" means a juvenile against whom a complaint, information or indictment is filed.

2. "Chronic felony offender" means a juvenile who has had two prior and separate adjudications and dispositions for conduct that would constitute a historical prior felony conviction if the juvenile had been tried as an adult.

3. "Forcible sexual assault" means sexual assault pursuant to section 13-1406 that is committed without consent as defined in section 13-1401, paragraph 5, subdivision (a).

4. "Other violent felony offense" means:

(a) Aggravated assault pursuant to section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraph 1.

(b) Aggravated assault pursuant to section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraph 2 involving the use of a deadly weapon.

(c) Drive by shooting pursuant to section 13-1209.

(d) Discharging a firearm at a structure pursuant to section 13-1211.

I did find this interesting, which I haven't seen before:

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00921.htm

13-921. Probation for defendants under eighteen years of age; dual adult juvenile probation

A. The court may enter a judgment of guilt and place the defendant on probation pursuant to this section if all of the following apply:

1. The defendant is under eighteen years of age at the time the offense is committed.

2. The defendant is convicted of a felony offense.

3. The defendant is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

4. The defendant does not have a historical prior felony conviction.

B. If the court places a defendant on probation pursuant to this section, all of the following apply:

1. Except as provided in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this subsection, if the defendant successfully completes the terms and conditions of probation, the court may set aside the judgment of guilt, dismiss the information or indictment, expunge the defendant's record and order the person to be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction. The clerk of the court in which the conviction occurred shall notify each agency to which the original conviction was reported that all penalties and disabilities have been discharged and that the defendant's record has been expunged.

2. The conviction may be used as a conviction if it would be admissible pursuant to section 13-703 or 13-704 as if it had not been set aside and the conviction may be pleaded and proved as a prior conviction in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant.

3. The conviction is deemed to be a conviction for the purposes of sections 28-3304, 28-3305, 28-3306 and 28-3320.

4. The defendant shall comply with sections 13-3821 and 13-3822.

C. A defendant who is placed on probation pursuant to this section is deemed to be on adult probation.

D. If a defendant is placed on probation pursuant to this section, the court as a condition of probation may order the defendant to participate in services that are available to the juvenile court.

E. The court may order that a defendant who is placed on probation pursuant to this section be incarcerated in a county jail at whatever time or intervals, consecutive or nonconsecutive, that the court determines. The incarceration shall not extend beyond the period of court ordered probation, and the length of time the defendant actually spends in a county jail shall not exceed one year.

F. In addition to the provisions of this section, the court may apply any of the provisions of section 13-901.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Arizona may be a community property state, but that only applies to property accumulated DURING the marriage. If the house was hers before the marriage, it remains hers.

I'm not sure I understand why she should be losing "everything" now? IIRC, one of her "friends" posted that she's in deep financial difficulties and has a lot of debt "due" to her husband. I still don't understand what that has to do with the murders, however.

Since burials are so expensive nowadays that had to be one of the things that has really devastated her financially.

LE said they found no insurance policies inside the home on VR.

Does she even work at the doctor's office full time?

Then I am sure the time she took off after this happened and that also set her back.

Also her husband was the major breadwinner imo. So I do think with that gone now, it too has devastated her financially. He may have helped her with the bills too while they were together way before they married.

I feel very sorry for her.

imoo

 

[southcitymom]

I believe the boy was charged as an adult, since there is no lower age on murder. However, the judge, PA are treating him as a juvenile. It appears this is why info can be made public.

Are you sure about that, Trino? I can understand why it might be so but he is, of course, not an adult.

 

[southcitymom]

That is incorrect. He was NOT charged as an adult, and there IS a "lower age on murder." I posted links to the AZ penal code referencing murder, and juveniles in the past.

Thanks for posting those links.

 

[SoobsinMI]

Since burials are so expensive nowadays that had to be one of the things that has really devastated her financially.

LE said they found no insurance policies inside the home on VR.

Does she even work at the doctor's office full time?

Then I am sure the time she took off after this happened and that also set her back.

Also her husband was the major breadwinner imo. So I do think with that gone now, it too has devastated her financially. He may have helped her with the bills too while they were together way before they married.

I feel very sorry for her.

imoo

She had to have had a way to make her mortgage payments, right? I can't imagine that she was working part time when she purchased the house. And normally, supervisors have some sort of death benefit, if only to cover funeral expenses.

 

[Fairy1]

I don't believe we should assume Vince was the major breadwinner when it was Tiffany who owned the home. In any case, I'm sure she needs help and no matter who is responsible for her losing her husband, I'm sure she's in need.

 

[azmama]

Since burials are so expensive nowadays that had to be one of the things that has really devastated her financially.

LE said they found no insurance policies inside the home on VR.

Does she even work at the doctor's office full time?

Then I am sure the time she took off after this happened and that also set her back.

Also her husband was the major breadwinner imo. So I do think with that gone now, it too has devastated her financially. He may have helped her with the bills too while they were together way before they married.

I feel very sorry for her.

imoo

bolded by me; Hmmmm, well, she did take time off after the murders, we saw proof of that on her sisters blog with her whooping it up, the photos showing her having a great time and talked about their partying, spending $ to come to Phoenix and party does not seem like a hardship to me. She didn't look like a grieving widow either...

We do not know what Tims salary was, and it was widely speculated by several people here that he didn't make much! I remember commenting on it. So which is it, he was the breadwinner, or he didn't make much $?

He was also probably union, they have basic death benefits in most cases, all the way down to the unskilled labor.

 

[Fairy1]

bolded by me; Hmmmm, well, she did take time off after the murders, we saw proof of that on her sisters blog with her whooping it up, the photos showing her having a great time and talked about their partying, spending $ to come to Phoenix and party does not seem like a hardship to me. She didn't look like a grieving widow either...

We do not know what Tims salary was, and it was widely speculated by several people here that he didn't make much! I remember commenting on it. So which is it, he was the breadwinner, or he didn't make much $?

He was also probably union, they have basic death benefits in most cases, all the way down to the unskilled labor.

Well, that is a good point, azmama. I had forgotten about her partying almost immediately after losing her husband. I know everyone grieves differently, but it does give one pause. Particularly knowing they were fighting the day Vince was murdered. Who knows? Obviously, anything is possible. Even an 8-year-old child gunning down 2 grown men with a .22 shotgun in the afternoon for no apparent reason.