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

[Fairy1]

LOL! Well you aren't going to see it. Wood made sure of that and all the other records are sealed now.

Hundreds of pages from the DPS investigation have never been put up on the site.

Wood seemed relieved that they all had been sealed now. He sure didnt peep a word or even give a hint as to what the motive was.

I think that was one of the "wranglings" going on behind the scene. Negotiations to make the plea deal and that everything on the defendant went "whoosh" and sealed up like a tomb.

imoo

Well, OBE, of course I realize none of us will likely ever see the actual evidence in this case. And let me ask you, if LE, the prosecutor, defense attorney AND judge honestly believe, without a doubt, that this boy is a cold-blooded murderer, what possible purpose do they serve by sweeping it all under the rug, letting him off easy and sealing the records forever? Is it your contention that they all would rather wash their hands of the whole case and let the chips fall where they may? This case has garnered national attention and, by its very nature, is complicated and messy. Is it your position that all of these men would risk their professional reputations by allowing the boy to, basically, walk away into a world of unsuspecting people?

 

[fran]

LOL! Well you aren't going to see it. Wood made sure of that and all the other records are sealed now.

Hundreds of pages from the DPS investigation have never been put up on the site.

Wood seemed relieved that they all had been sealed now. He sure didnt peep a word or even give a hint as to what the motive was. Just said the boy had talked to him about his involvement.

I think that was one of the "wranglings" going on behind the scene. Negotiations to make the plea deal and that everything on the defendant would go "whoosh" and sealed up like a tomb.

imoo

The pros in this case made the first plea offer to the def way back in November. They even went so far as telling the news reporter there was a deal to which the def attorney denied it because they hadn't seen any of the evidence against their client. The plea deal is set up entirely by the pros. It's their offer, take it - or leave it to the def.

It has been the pros that has put forth every bit of dam*ing piece of evidence against this child they could muster up. It's the pros who has withheld releasing or lack of filing into evidence, 100's of pages of documents. It's the pros who does NOT want any further information to come out to public domain with regard to this investigation.

I haven't seen the def attorney say anything that would make one believe he's delighted the additional evidence won't be released. As a matter of fact, about all I've heard him say about that is that it would remain sealed forever and we may never know exactly what happened that fateful day.

It's a known fact, def attorneys NEVER ask their client if they're guilty. They assume they're innocent and go from there. IF they knew their client was guilty, it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible, to be an effective advocate for the accused. This particular attorney has only spoken about discussing the plea deal with the boy, NOT whether he's guilty or innocent.

The child was explained the plea deal by his attorney three times. In his interview, the def attorney even used a metaphor of an airline ticket. First class stand-by and MAYBE get on your flight, or coach and guaranteed passage. Is this how he EXPLAINED THREE TIMES to the child? Is this how he convinced him to sign a paper and 'admit' so that he can spend the rest of his life reliving that horrible scene where he either came upon his murdered father and friend or did he actually shoot them?

Claim innocence and go to trial and even IF found innocent of the one charge, there was the possibility of a second charge when he was 15 and the possibility of 25 + years. All the while the trials and such were going on, the child would be incarcerated and dealing with any number of doctors and professionals picking his brain.

"Admit," to one count, he could POSSIBLY go home with mom, no trials, some doctor visits, and he wouldn't be asked to 'admit' to the charge on his own dad.

BOTH sides signed this plea deal. IF what hasn't been released or revealed in the 100's of pages of unfiled documents pointed ONLY towards this child's guilt, there's NO doubt in my mind, this DA would have run with it and this child would be behind bars today.

If you read the voluminous news articles written about this plea deal and see statements referred to by both sides of this case, you would see it was BOTH the pros and def who worried about winning this case. The pros feared the def could place enough reasonable doubt to point to 'other possible perps,' and the def feared the judge would withhold one count and the child would see years of incarceration, multiple trials, and the possibility of 25 + years behind bars.

The GAL stated in his recent news interview, BOTH doctors declared this child incompetent to stand trial. But what the doctors declare doesn't make any difference because the pros and def have made a plea deal, signed by the judge, BEFORE it was determined LEGALLY if he was able to even understand the charges and proceedings against him.

Was this legal? Can the child appeal? I dunno. But, my common sense tells me yes; but, then, I'm not a lawyer. We may find out, though.

JMHO
fran

PS...Just fwiw, for those decrying if the child was declared incompetent then there would be no justice for the victims. You're absolutely right. But I look at it differently because I don't feel the pros has proved it's case. As a matter of fact, I see a number of possibilities. But then, everyone knew that about me, didn't they? I'm not willing to sacrifice this child under the disguise of justice for the victims, when I personally feel there is a REAL killer out there and he thinks he's gotten away with murder...fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Where did the DA speak out in the media and say they didn't have the evidence to prove this case, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are you saying that all plead out cases, the DA did not have the evidence? All 90% of the defendants in our justice system that plead instead of going to trial?:waitasec:

tia

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well, OBE, of course I realize none of us will likely ever see the actual evidence in this case. And let me ask you, if LE, the prosecutor, defense attorney AND judge honestly believe, without a doubt, that this boy is a cold-blooded murderer, what possible purpose do they serve by sweeping it all under the rug, letting him off easy and sealing the records forever? Is it your contention that they all would rather wash their hands of the whole case and let the chips fall where they may? This case has garnered national attention and, by its very nature, is complicated and messy. Is it your position that all of these men would risk their professional reputations by allowing the boy to, basically, walk away into a world of unsuspecting people?

I think they all did the best they could when the murderer turned out to be a 9 year old child. Had the defendant been older they would not have been given this sweetheart deal. They all found themselves in a quagmire imo. Too young to be put in detention with the other juveniles. Too young for adult jail. They have always been between a rock and a hard place, from day one, in this case.

I think they think the most important thing is to try to see what makes him tick and what makes him explode and capable. They are hoping they can uncover that with extensive mental health treatment.

What possible purpose? To qualm further unrest in the community. Defense attorneys always fight to keep things sealed that are grossly detrimental to their client. We do not know yet if JR is going to rule that he has to stay in the St. John's community. The less that is known about what they uncovered about him and these murders is better for him.

imoo

 

[Linda7NJ]

In Georgia, the training to become a GAL is a one-day course.

I have a great deal of respect for GALs, but I don't believe they are the only people involved in children's cases that care about the children.

Not everywhere, many counties require their GAL's be lawyers.

Some places CASA workers and GALs are basically the same.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I have worked with children all my life. I have been in a courtroom on many occasions, and this it the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. There is no way a child can be tutored to truly understand the intricate nature of law to help defend himself in court. This lawyer is arrogant to even imply he can.



Then truthfully neither one of us can speak to what he might want.

The4 boy isn't required to obtain a law degree

 

[Linda7NJ]

LOL, oh sorry, southcitymom

But you know me! I think he's most likely innocent and the only way to agree that he killed either one of the men, would be to lie.

But it is IMHO........of course.

This is a 9 yo child. He would NOT understand the legal terms but he understands if he 'admits' he gets to go home and if he does NOT admit, he goes back to jail. The lawyer did explain it three times. I'm sure he understood very clearly.

Tell them what they want to hear. "admit." oh.........and say 'no' when the judge asks you if you want a trial.

JMHO
fran

The judge could have sent him right back to juvenile detention while awaiting sentencing, I see nothing in the plea agreement that guaranteed the boy would be going home with his mother that day or at the time of sentencing.

Personally I doubt when all is said and done that he will be residing with her. He'll likely be in some treatment facility.

So to state the boy was given the choices of going home with mom or face the possibility of 25 years to life just isn't true.

 

[Linda7NJ]

sniped
And unless I see, with my own 2 eyes, the forensic evidence proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt, I will never believe this child executed these murders as they would have us believe. I am the mother of 2 children of waaaaay above average intelligence and I know for absolute certain neither one of them would have been capable of killing 2 grown men with a single-shot .22 rifle in this manner at the age of 8. No way.

IMO

Then consider yourself lucky!

 

[OrdinaryLife]

The4 boy isn't required to obtain a law degree

Exactly. Which is why he was assigned a GAL to be his guardian ad litem. Because an 8 year old child cannot possibly understand legalese or his legal rights, hence the assistance. But, we all know that, right?

 

[fran]

Where did the DA speak out in the media and say they didn't have the evidence to prove this case, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are you saying that all plead out cases, the DA did not have the evidence? All 90% of the defendants in our justice system that plead instead of going to trial?:waitasec:

tia

I can't locate the articles or article that I saw where it was spelled out. I'm not sure if it was a direct quote, or the reporters assessment of their impression from the interview. They did spell it out though, that the def would most likely bring up 'other' potential suspects, the fact one (married) victim was having a(n) affair(s), the possible drug connection, the reputation of one of the victims (something to do with Tim, IIRC, getting in fights or something?). There's also the quote from the GAL in the article I referenced yesterday:

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

Then there is this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/20/9-year-old_pleads_guilty_to_homicide/UPI-98681235149904/

County attorney Michael Whiting says he agreed to the deal because it was likely the boy would have been found incompetent to stand trial.


Throughout this entire case, the pros hasn't had a problem releasing incriminating evidence. To assume the evidence we have not seen all points to the child as the perp, is,.............well,.............just wrong, IMO. But, that's just me.

What it boils down to is neither side was confident of a slam dunk which is why the plea deal was signed by both sides. The pros layed the rules for the def. Take it - or leave it. It's the pros' rules.

No, I don't believe that ALL plea deals are made because neither side is confident they can win. As a matter of fact, in more cases than not, the accused pleas guilty to a lessor charge, knowing the pros has the evidence to prove their case. He's setteling for a lessor known, rather than taking a chance of life, dp, or whatever. I believe I've shared that my daughter is a forensic chemist. She analyzes lots of pieces of evidence where she's never called to testify about,..........because often times, a plea deal was signed.

This is ONE case. What they do with other cases, doesn't matter with regard to this child. There ARE unanswered questions, circumstances, missing weapons, possible OTHER perps. Some may not agree, but LE does. At the least, that 'other possibilities' cannot be discounted beyond a reasonable doubt.

They do NOT plea down a double murder 'slam dunk.' They knew both sides were due to run an uphill battle.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

The judge could have sent him right back to juvenile detention while awaiting sentencing, I see nothing in the plea agreement that guaranteed the boy would be going home with his mother that day or at the time of sentencing.

Personally I doubt when all is said and done that he will be residing with her. He'll likely be in some treatment facility.

So to state the boy was given the choices of going home with mom or face the possibility of 25 years to life just isn't true.

Of course there was no GUARANTEE that the child would go home if he plead guilty, but ..........IF he plead innocent, it was GUARANTEED he would most likely go through, at the least, possible 9 years of incarceration while the legal beagles argued the case, and then possibly 25 additional years after he turned 15 and went through another trial.

The fact he went home tells me, they told him he'd go home if he plead guilty and he did......at least until March 5th.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have never seen a DA or even a defense attorney state their case is a slam dunk for either one of them. That would be rather ignorant and pompous imo.

They do NOT plea down a double murder 'slam dunk.' They knew both sides were due to run an uphill battle.

They plead this case down because neither side knew what to do with it knowing the double murderer was an 8 year old. No DA or defense had ever faced this dilemma.

If the defendant had been of the age of majority the DA would have sought the death penalty. IMO, there would have been no plea deal whatsoever unless the adult defendant plead guilty to save his own sorry butt from lethal injection.

This case was plead out due to the boy's age.

County attorney Michael Whiting says he agreed to the deal because it was likely the boy would have been found incompetent to stand trial.

I don't see anywhere in Whiting's words he said he plead this case because they didn't have the evidence against this boy. I think he resigned himself, that some pittance of justice is better than none.



IMOO

 

[fran]

I believe southcitymom said it best. IF the child hadn't been so young we would never have even heard about this case. After contemplating that, I have to agree. But then I'd have to add that then they may have still been able to bully this child into pleading guilty and we never would have known the difference.

But, this child was only 8 at the time and we DID hear about it and we've seen how incompetently this case has been handled. I believe I've already expressed in more than one post what I feel about this pros and this PD.

Did this child commit this crime?........I do NOT know.

Could someone else have committed this crime? ......Yes, there's unswered questions about other possible suspects.

Is there any one NOT suspect that according to what has been available to the general public, had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit this crime?.........YES

Have these other NOT suspect(s) been cleared?.......No, not that WE know of.

Is the child's gun the murder weapon?..........We don't know.......there are a NUMBER of missing 22 guns that we do NOT know the disposition of and whether they've been tested.

What scares me is people think they KNOW he's guilty with only 1/2 the evidence. They ASSUME the answers of what's not been put forth as evidence or ASSUME LE has cleared other avenues.

THAT scares me!

I would HOPE to heaven IF any of those who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt this child is guilty, IF they're ever on a jury, LISTEN to and consider the defense side when listening to a trial. That is why they have trials,...........pros puts out the evidence against the suspect, the accused then presents exculpatory evidence, circumstances, witnesses to prove his innocence. Either he can prove his innocence or enough REASONABLE doubt that he's guilty.

IF this plea deal gets overturned and the pros cannot refile and there ends up being no justice for these victims, the only ones to blame for that travesty would be the pros. THEY are the ones who rushed to judgment on this and filed charges before they knew what they had. They proclaimed the child's gun the murder weapon, (they didn't know that answer, and IMO, still don't), they THOUGHT they had proof of premeditation of the 1000 spanking alleged paper which has NEVER been found, they THOUGHT there was a LOT of proof that has never materialized.

UNIDENTIFIED prints on the alleged murder weapon is NOT going to do........nope..

POSSIBLY fired through the alleged murder weapon is NOT going to do.......

ONE drop of blood on the child's levis, unidentified that WE know of,.............NOT proof of anything.

GPR evidence..........nope, hunting family, guns everywhere,

FWIW, there is NO blood on any of the child's underwear. Forensics proved that........

IF this child did it and he gets away with it, it's the pros and pd's fault. IF someone else did it and the pd doesn't catch the bad guy,.........well, I don't need to explain who's fault that is.

Besides the fact they had an incompetent defendent sign a plea deal before they had a competency hearing, which he's guaranteed, may NOT work. We'll see.

JMHO
fran

PS.......YES,.........this case is a mess

PPS..........I DID give a link where the pros said "it was likely the boy would have been found incompetent to stand trial." As I can't find a link to the pros saying he didn't have the 'evidence' to convict, disregard that.
The GAL stated in yesterday's linked article, BOTH doctors declared the boy incompetent.
However, the GAL has SEEN the evidence and the investigation and stated,
"The evidence, given the poor police work, is not exactly what you would call ironclad."

 

[southcitymom]

Not everywhere, many counties require their GAL's be lawyers.

Some places CASA workers and GALs are basically the same.

Yes - you do have to be an atty first, that's true - I was just talking about the actual training itself.

 

[southcitymom]

I think they all did the best they could when the murderer turned out to be a 9 year old child. Had the defendant been older they would not have been given this sweetheart deal. They all found themselves in a quagmire imo. Too young to be put in detention with the other juveniles. Too young for adult jail. They have always been between a rock and a hard place, from day one, in this case.

I think they think the most important thing is to try to see what makes him tick and what makes him explode and capable. They are hoping they can uncover that with extensive mental health treatment.

What possible purpose? To qualm further unrest in the community. Defense attorneys always fight to keep things sealed that are grossly detrimental to their client. We do not know yet if JR is going to rule that he has to stay in the St. John's community. The less that is known about what they uncovered about him and these murders is better for him.

imoo

Well-stated and I agree.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe southcitymom said it best. IF the child hadn't been so young we would never have even heard about this case. After contemplating that, I have to agree. But then I'd have to add that then they may have still been able to bully this child into pleading guilty and we never would have known the difference.

But, this child was only 8 at the time and we DID hear about it and we've seen how incompetently this case has been handled. I believe I've already expressed in more than one post what I feel about this pros and this PD.

Did this child commit this crime?........I do NOT know.

Could someone else have committed this crime? ......Yes, there's unswered questions about other possible suspects.

Is there any one NOT suspect that according to what has been available to the general public, had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit this crime?.........YES

Have these other NOT suspect(s) been cleared?.......No, not that WE know of.

Is the child's gun the murder weapon?..........We don't know.......there are a NUMBER of missing 22 guns that we do NOT know the disposition of and whether they've been tested.

What scares me is people think they KNOW he's guilty with only 1/2 the evidence. They ASSUME the answers of what's not been put forth as evidence or ASSUME LE has cleared other avenues.

THAT scares me!

I would HOPE to heaven IF any of those who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt this child is guilty, IF they're ever on a jury, LISTEN to and consider the defense side when listening to a trial. That is why they have trials,...........pros puts out the evidence against the suspect, the accused then presents exculpatory evidence, circumstances, witnesses to prove his innocence. Either he can prove his innocence or enough REASONABLE doubt that he's guilty.

IF this plea deal gets overturned and the pros cannot refile and there ends up being no justice for these victims, the only ones to blame for that travesty would be the pros. THEY are the ones who rushed to judgment on this and filed charges before they knew what they had. They proclaimed the child's gun the murder weapon, (they didn't know that answer, and IMO, still don't), they THOUGHT they had proof of premeditation of the 1000 spanking alleged paper which has NEVER been found, they THOUGHT there was a LOT of proof that has never materialized.

UNIDENTIFIED prints on the alleged murder weapon is NOT going to do........nope..

POSSIBLY fired through the alleged murder weapon is NOT going to do.......

ONE drop of blood on the child's levis, unidentified that WE know of,.............NOT proof of anything.

GPR evidence..........nope, hunting family, guns everywhere,

FWIW, there is NO blood on any of the child's underwear. Forensics proved that........

IF this child did it and he gets away with it, it's the pros and pd's fault. IF someone else did it and the pd doesn't catch the bad guy,.........well, I don't need to explain who's fault that is.

Besides the fact they had an incompetent defendent sign a plea deal before they had a competency hearing, which he's guaranteed, may NOT work. We'll see.

JMHO
fran

PS.......YES,.........this case is a mess

PPS..........I DID give a link where the pros said "it was likely the boy would have been found incompetent to stand trial." As I can't find a link to the pros saying he didn't have the 'evidence' to convict, disregard that.
The GAL stated in yesterday's linked article, BOTH doctors declared the boy incompetent.
However, the GAL has SEEN the evidence and the investigation and stated,
"The evidence, given the poor police work, is not exactly what you would call ironclad."

I disagree with just about everything you said.

 

[Fairy1]

Well-stated and I agree.

Awwww, thanks SCM! But this was not my post - it was OBE's! Somehow the quotes got off kilter last night. Surely you didn't think I would say something regarding this case with which you would agree! LOL :blowkiss:

 

[Fairy1]

The judge could have sent him right back to juvenile detention while awaiting sentencing, I see nothing in the plea agreement that guaranteed the boy would be going home with his mother that day or at the time of sentencing.

Personally I doubt when all is said and done that he will be residing with her. He'll likely be in some treatment facility.

So to state the boy was given the choices of going home with mom or face the possibility of 25 years to life just isn't true.

Well there ya go - they didn't send him back to Juvie while awaiting sentencing. Is this a common practice when a judge believes the defendant is a cold-blooded murderer? Nope.

If it turns out that he doesn't get to go home with mom, it may very well be because they KNOW she will not or cannot get him the help he needs to deal with the violent death of his father.

IMO

 

[Openmind]

Yes - you do have to be an atty first, that's true - I was just talking about the actual training itself.

GAL, guardian ad litem, and CASA, court appointed special advocate, are the same service. I am a CASA/GAL, and I am not a lawyer.

A CASA/GAL is assigned to a case and are documented by the court to access records, attend meetings and court dates, and most importantly meet with the child and all the people that interplay with that child to determine what is best for them.

Considering this child's situation, the fact his GAL is a lawyer is very advantageous. This case is much more complicated than a your typical CPS case. In my county, all CPS cases are given a CASA volunteer. I remember little Shasta Groene's CASA was an attorney, and I thought, considering all the legal issues she and her family had to encounter, that was a very wise choice. Same with this boy.

 

[Fairy1]

GAL, guardian ad litem, and CASA, court appointed special advocate, are the same service. I am a CASA/GAL, and I am not a lawyer.

A CASA/GAL is assigned to a case and are documented by the court to access records, attend meetings and court dates, and most importantly meet with the child and all the people that interplay with that child to determine what is best for them.

Considering this child's situation, the fact his GAL is a lawyer is very advantageous. This case is much more complicated than a your typical CPS case. In my county, all CPS cases are given a CASA volunteer. I remember little Shasta Groene's CASA was an attorney, and I thought, considering all the legal issues she and her family had to encounter, that was a very wise choice. Same with this boy.

Based on your experience, do you feel it was odd that his GAL was not present at his plea hearing and appeared to have learned of the plea deal after the fact? I'm NO expert, but is that the way it's supposed to go?