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

[Trino]

Thanks, Linda. Is this like the AZ boy, or what?

The story says, according to School Superintendent Bob Heigele, "He fit in well with our school and he didn't have any more problems than any other student in the fourth grade," Heigele said. "He was a typical boy. I saw him around and it appeared he was well-liked."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks, Linda. Is this like the AZ boy, or what?

The story says, according to School Superintendent Bob Heigele, "He fit in well with our school and he didn't have any more problems than any other student in the fourth grade," Heigele said. "He was a typical boy. I saw him around and it appeared he was well-liked."

Yep.

Scary huh? At least he appeared visibly shaken up and genuinely scared when he ran to the neighbors with the gun. That's a kid I can have hope for.

I don't hold out much hope for the boys that skip away, and spin lies to get away with it and have zero remorse, like the other two.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The reason I was curious about the goggles/safety hat issue is because I wondered if the father was working on a project at home and if he had been working on a project at home, was there perhaps another adult that may have been at the house, working with him. W/out the knowledge of a concrete timeline, I was curious if another adult may have been at the house at the time of the murder of the Father. Again, it is probably nothing but, that was my line of thinking in regards to the safety goggles and hat. In my profession, I wear safety goggles and I can not stand wearing them any longer than necessary. I take them off ASAP when they are not needed.

Flossie

From what I have read both men had planned to go help a friend build a chest of drawers that evening after work. I think most likely Vinnie just stopped by the house to shuck all of his work gear and maybe to check on the boy. I think that is why Vinnie inadvertently (IMO) left the passenger side door cracked because he thought he would be right back out.

I do believe the time line that was entered is correct and believe that Vinnie had just walked through the door seconds before 4:52 and by 4:55 he was dead then IMO the boy opened the main entry door back up and beckoned for Tim to come inside by saying something was wrong with his dad.

Tim only had his knit cap on so maybe he left all of his stuff in his truck everyday and Vinnie left it in his bathroom where he could put all of it back on before leaving for work the next day.

JMO

 

[colette]

Well I for one am going to compare the boy 11 who killed his dad's fiance to the 9 year old. They both killed with premediation. (the 11 year old hid his gun with a blanket and shot thought it) they both used their own youth guns, they both killed 2 people (the baby was 2 weeks from birth) and they both pretended to be innocent after the murders.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Aren't they due back in court one day this week? Anyone know when?

 

[fran]

Ahhh,.................at least some people watching this crazy case get the point and not just SOME Websleuthers and the boy's own mother. Course, the last paragraph copied kind of explains why the boy decided what he did. In my book it's called 'black mail.' Like the boy's own lawyer said when he was asked how he knew the child understood what he was signing etc., "Because I explained it to him THREE times."

Oh, yeah, a just turned 9 yo understands the proceedings and what he signed when grown adults get confused of the terms as stated in the plea agreement. Surrrrre, that makes sense,......NOT!

He signs, he gets to go home with mom, he doesn't sign, he goes back to detention and could face the possibility of years and years in jail. What's a little lie for the price of freedom?

Thank you Lauie Roberts of The Arizona Republic. You've restored my faith in 'critical thinking.'

JMHO
fran



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

Competency at core of boy's guilty plea

by Laurie Roberts - Feb. 25, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

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

But the confession was bogus, and both medical experts who examined the boy evidently concluded that he's not competent to stand trial. So how can a kid who isn't competent to stand trial be competent to plead guilty to negligent homicide?

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?

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."




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

If the plea is thrown out, the county could launch an all-out, six-month effort to make him competent - meaning that he understands the charges and can assist in his own defense. Or prosecutors could wait until he is 15 and attempt to try him as an adult. The evidence, given the poor police work, is not exactly what you would call ironclad. Still, it's a risk.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Ahhh,.................at least some people watching this crazy case get the point and not just SOME Websleuthers and the boy's own mother. Course, the last paragraph copied kind of explains why the boy decided what he did. In my book it's called 'black mail.' Like the boy's own lawyer said when he was asked how he knew the child understood what he was signing etc., "Because I explained it to him THREE times."

Oh, yeah, a just turned 9 yo understands the proceedings and what he signed when grown adults get confused of the terms as stated in the plea agreement. Surrrrre, that makes sense,......NOT!

He signs, he gets to go home with mom, he doesn't sign, he goes back to detention and could face the possibility of years and years in jail. What's a little lie for the price of freedom?

Thank you Lauie Roberts of The Arizona Republic. You've restored my faith in 'critical thinking.'

JMHO
fran



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

Competency at core of boy's guilty plea

by Laurie Roberts - Feb. 25, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

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

But the confession was bogus, and both medical experts who examined the boy evidently concluded that he's not competent to stand trial. So how can a kid who isn't competent to stand trial be competent to plead guilty to negligent homicide?

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?

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."




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

If the plea is thrown out, the county could launch an all-out, six-month effort to make him competent - meaning that he understands the charges and can assist in his own defense. Or prosecutors could wait until he is 15 and attempt to try him as an adult. The evidence, given the poor police work, is not exactly what you would call ironclad. Still, it's a risk.

WTH???? Is there anything that has been done regarding this case, the victims, and the child that has not been screwed up???? Unfreakingbelievable.......

 

[southcitymom]

....Oh, yeah, a just turned 9 yo understands the proceedings and what he signed when grown adults get confused of the terms as stated in the plea agreement. .......

I completely agree that no 9 -year-old has a full understanding of a plea, just as no 9-year-old is really competent to stand trial.

The GAL thinks the plea should be thrown out based on this fact. Does the GAL then think he should go through a trial which he can't fully understand either? Or does the GAL think because it's impossible for him to have a full understanding, he should just get a pass and go home and forget any of it ever happened?

Because of his age, I do not this this child will ever meet the legal standards of full understanding regardless of how his case is handled in the Courts. Still, his crimes must be dealt with.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sorry, the kid knew exactly what he was doing when he pumped ten rounds into the bodies of his own father and Tim.

 

[Trino]

I completely agree that no 9 -year-old has a full understanding of a plea, just as no 9-year-old is really competent to stand trial.

The GAL thinks the plea should be thrown out based on this fact. Does the GAL then think he should go through a trial which he can't fully understand either? Or does the GAL think because it's impossible for him to have a full understanding, he should just get a pass and go home and forget any of it ever happened?

Because of his age, I do not this this child will ever meet the legal standards of full understanding regardless of how his case is handled in the Courts. Still, his crimes must be dealt with.

It appears that there is little question the boy committed these murders. While the public has only 1/4 of the records, just the fact that the DA agreed to the plea bargain gives me cause to think the boy is guilty. If he's guilty, society just can't let him go home w/o consequences or therapy. I believe the purpose of the plea bargain was to get the boy some help. Take that away, and he completely walks. This isn't fair to the boy.

 

[southcitymom]

Sorry, the kid knew exactly what he was doing when he pumped ten rounds into the bodies of his own father and Tim.

That may be the case - we really don't know. But full understanding means a good deal more than that in a legal sense - it encompasses him knowing and understanding a great many rights and consequences (both in a trial or a plea) that, even with a lawyer, no 9-year-old in the world can really "get." IMHO. Grown adults sometimes don't even "get" it.

 

[southcitymom]

It appears that there is little question the boy committed these murders. While the public has only 1/4 of the records, just the fact that the DA agreed to the plea bargain gives me cause to think the boy is guilty. If he's guilty, society just can't let him go home w/o consequences or therapy. I believe the purpose of the plea bargain was to get the boy some help. Take that away, and he completely walks. This isn't fair to the boy.

I agree with you completely. It is interesting to think about because just based on his age alone, I don't believe he has a full understanding of much of this - nor should he be expected to - he just turned 9, after all. I believe the Court and the attorneys have done the best they can in the face of that knowledge.

 

[fran]

I completely agree that no 9 -year-old has a full understanding of a plea, just as no 9-year-old is really competent to stand trial.

The GAL thinks the plea should be thrown out based on this fact. Does the GAL then think he should go through a trial which he can't fully understand either? Or does the GAL think because it's impossible for him to have a full understanding, he should just get a pass and go home and forget any of it ever happened?

Because of his age, I do not this this child will ever meet the legal standards of full understanding regardless of how his case is handled in the Courts. Still, his crimes must be dealt with.

I can't speak for what the GAL is thinking, but he said he wants to review the documents and do what is best for the child. I get the impression that he believes, as everyone does, (including me), that this child needs to work with a doctor. Even IF he did or did NOT commit this crime, either way he needs to talk to a professional.

Who knows, if he finds that if by protesting and getting it thrown out and they then COULD possibly find the child incompetent and then he wouldn't get any help, he might feel that's not in the best interest of the child.

He gives the impression, IMO, that he feels with what the pros has, he's not certain they could find the child guilty.

JMHO
fran

 

[southcitymom]

I can't speak for what the GAL is thinking, but he said he wants to review the documents and do what is best for the child. I get the impression that he believes, as everyone does, (including me), that this child needs to work with a doctor. Even IF he did or did NOT commit this crime, either way he needs to talk to a professional.

Who knows, if he finds that if by protesting and getting it thrown out and they then COULD possibly find the child incompetent and then he wouldn't get any help, he might feel that's not in the best interest of the child.

He gives the impression, IMO, that he feels with what the pros has, he's not certain they could find the child guilty.

JMHO
fran

IMHO, the pros would have a superhard time proving their case even if they had a videotape of the boy doing this. You are going to be hard-pressed to find 12 people who will convict an 8-year-old of murder. That's the uphill battle the pros faces, IMHO.

 

[fran]

IMHO, the pros would have a superhard time proving their case even if they had a videotape of the boy doing this. You are going to be hard-pressed to find 12 people who will convict an 8-year-old of murder. That's the uphill battle the pros faces, IMHO.

I would like to have more faith in people than that. Contrary to what some people may feel, many of the persons who feel this child is innocent, or MAY be innocent, are not in that position because of this child's age. At least not me.

I'm going by the evidence, or lack there of, or unresolved questions. The boy's age, to me, has nothing to do with how I feel about this case. Of course, that's notwithstanding the uphill battle the pros may face IF this verdict were thrown out and IF the court deemed the child competent. That is a whole issue, unto itself.

FWIW, even as far as the child's bogus confession goes, even if the child were 15, I would still say it was bogus because they obviously did NOT read the child (person) his rights when they OBVIOUSLY had already discussed, in a meeting with 15? other officers, the possibility he was the shooter and had already, unknowing to him, collected his clothing to (help) prove their suspicions.

JMHO
fran

 

[southcitymom]

I would like to have more faith in people than that. Contrary to what some people may feel, many of the persons who feel this child is innocent, or MAY be innocent, are not in that position because of this child's age. At least not me.

I'm going by the evidence, or lack there of, or unresolved questions. The boy's age, to me, has nothing to do with how I feel about this case. Of course, that's notwithstanding the uphill battle the pros may face IF this verdict were thrown out and IF the court deemed the child competent. That is a whole issue, unto itself.

FWIW, even as far as the child's bogus confession goes, even if the child were 15, I would still say it was bogus because they obviously did NOT read the child (person) his rights when they OBVIOUSLY had already discussed, in a meeting with 15? other officers, the possibility he was the shooter and had already, unknowing to him, collected his clothing to (help) prove their suspicions.

JMHO
fran

I will believe what you say about the boy's age not affecting you, but I believe with all my heart that if the boy was the man's 28-year old son, MOST of us wouldn't have followed it with such detail. It might have been a one-page thread.

I also think the boy's age does sway how you feel about the confession - maybe I'm wrong but if you heard this boy's words on those tapes coming from the mouth of a grown man, you'd probably assume the cops had the right person.

I think the vast majority of us (and the population at large) are affected by the boys' age. Frankly, I don't understand how someone can't be.

 

[fran]

I will believe what you say about the boy's age not affecting you, but I believe with all my heart that if the boy was the man's 28-year old son, MOST of us wouldn't have followed it with such detail. It might have been a one-page thread.

I also think the boy's age does sway how you feel about the confession - maybe I'm wrong but if you heard this boy's words on those tapes coming from the mouth of a grown man, you'd probably assume the cops had the right person.

I think the vast majority of us (and the population at large) are affected by the boys' age. Frankly, I don't understand how someone can't be.

Well, I can't really say one way or the other, I guess about the confession and if he was older, but I have seen other confessions, older people- teens and twentys, that were coerced and were later proven so. I honestly see that in this child's tape. I guess I just look at it differently than those who don't see it.

One thing I KNOW for sure, is the written translation of the child's alleged confession, is NOT word for word what I heard, and what I heard puts a different translation on it. I know there are others who heard what I did as well, so I'm not making it up.

JMHO
fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMHO, the pros would have a superhard time proving their case even if they had a videotape of the boy doing this. You are going to be hard-pressed to find 12 people who will convict an 8-year-old of murder. That's the uphill battle the pros faces, IMHO.

It was to be decided by the judge. A jury was never part of the equation.

 

[southcitymom]

It was to be decided by the judge. A jury was never part of the equation.

Thanks - I missed that - it's a wise decision.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

If an adult had been interviewed as this child was, he/she would have been given their rights. They also would have been able to request a lawyer before even doing so. LE would never had gone through with an adult as they chose to with this child. I do not believe you can ever compare an adult vs a child in this case. Apples and Oak trees, imho.

A child, as many of us agree, cannot possible comprehend the enormity in regards to a case like this. It's not possible. I will not get into a debate about this because it's not worth the headache (and I have one today, groan) to do so, no matter what link or expertise anyone has to share.

This child's age did have an impact on me, of course. However, not as much as the way this case was handled from the very beginning by LE. I want justice for the victims, never blamed the victims, but I did have many questions. I still do.