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

[mostlylurking]

Kids this age are so hard. I am one of the ones who is not sure of guilt in this case. I do think the child was led in the questioning, both on camera and off. But if he did commit the murders, what does the future hold for him? LOL, it is hard to say. What a child is like at the age of 8, and what he will be like at 18 is often so different that kids will sometimes seem almost like different kids. I believe we are shaped both by genetics and by experience and environment. And he cannot escape his genetic makeup. But experience can be different for different kids, even two kids in the same family. So experience tells him that he murdered and it is a big deal and he got into a whole lot of trouble. And that it interfered with his life, and limits were placed on him because of it. His environment has changed a lot. Instead of living with his father, he is now living with his mother. Does that mean that he will get more 'mothering' and attention and love? Will he get consistent discipline? I don't know. He will be getting counseling too. I think his history means that growing up will be harder for him, everybody won't be nice to him. Someday he may also realize the magnitude of what he has done, and could develop the attitude that he has to live up to the reputation of being a bad boy that he and others think he is.

I think it could go either way. But to some extent we are all shaped by our past, and so things don't look good for him.

So, take that speculation one more level. Regardless of a person's personal beliefs in this case, let's speculate on this thought.....
What IF he DIDN'T do it. What if he WAS lead in questioning & was in such shock that day that he just started answering what he thought people wanted to hear. What if, through all of this, he has had a false memory created in him and he thinks he did it, but he didn't. What will become of him as a result? What kind of adult will he be then -- after being forced to believe he did this????

***** This is a speculation concept. Not meant for people to rip open all the evidence which they think proves guilt. Just a commentary and thought process for consideration of what happens if an innocent child is forced into a place of believing their own guilt. It does happen.******

 

[raeann]

Yes I would as I feel that my wife and I could bring him up with the love, care, attention and proper environment that a boy needs. Personally I would not see him as a danger to anyone. Plus, my daughter just left for college for the first time last night... miss her already.

Off topic----here is a present for you----I listened to this song for DAYS after my daughter left for college. In case you don't see this on the thread here, I will also PM the link to you. Wanted to put it here for others to enjoy also!

http://www.imeem.com/mrdurden87/music/HD2pMbKW/nickel-creek-when-you-come-back-down/

 

[dgfred]

Thanks for that pal! I appreciate it immensely. :blowkiss:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

When my Dad was around this age, 8-10, he almost hung his best friend, who would have died with a smile on his face. They were playing cowboys and Indians and my Dad caught him fair and square. Together,they fashioned a noose for the hanging. My grandfather pulled into the driveway just as my Dad was about to kick a box out from under his friend's feet!

I share this story not to make light of what might have happened with the boys in this article and the 7-year-old, but to point out that young children don't always have a firm grasp on what grown-ups see as reality. That's just one of the reasons we don't prosecute them as adults.

I do think that some kids can make hasty decisions that may be dangerous but I do not dismiss each child that does premeditated acts to be the same as what all children may do.

Just like the case that I mentioned. I highly doubt that all of the school boys involved dd not know what they were doing was wrong when they led/lured the 7 year old into the park, put a noose around his neck and left him for dead.

At least in the other infamous UK case those treacherous boys who lured that little boy to his death did serve 8 years even though they were young.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So, take that speculation one more level. Regardless of a person's personal beliefs in this case, let's speculate on this thought.....
What IF he DIDN'T do it. What if he WAS lead in questioning & was in such shock that day that he just started answering what he thought people wanted to hear. What if, through all of this, he has had a false memory created in him and he thinks he did it, but he didn't. What will become of him as a result? What kind of adult will he be then -- after being forced to believe he did this????

***** This is a speculation concept. Not meant for people to rip open all the evidence which they think proves guilt. Just a commentary and thought process for consideration of what happens if an innocent child is forced into a place of believing their own guilt. It does happen.******

How can he have false memories. This interview didn't even last but about an hour total.

They weren't leading him imo when they just ask him about what he did that day once he got off the bus. That is where he messed up because none of it computed even loosely with the times known.

2.5 walking around and around and around the block yet not one soul saw him at anytime until he left the home shortly after the gunfire was heard.

imo

 

[Knox]

Off topic----here is a present for you----I listened to this song for DAYS after my daughter left for college. In case you don't see this on the thread here, I will also PM the link to you. Wanted to put it here for others to enjoy also!

http://www.imeem.com/mrdurden87/music/HD2pMbKW/nickel-creek-when-you-come-back-down/

That is a beautiful song, thanks Raeann :blowkiss:

 

[mysteriew]

So, take that speculation one more level. Regardless of a person's personal beliefs in this case, let's speculate on this thought.....
What IF he DIDN'T do it. What if he WAS lead in questioning & was in such shock that day that he just started answering what he thought people wanted to hear. What if, through all of this, he has had a false memory created in him and he thinks he did it, but he didn't. What will become of him as a result? What kind of adult will he be then -- after being forced to believe he did this????

***** This is a speculation concept. Not meant for people to rip open all the evidence which they think proves guilt. Just a commentary and thought process for consideration of what happens if an innocent child is forced into a place of believing their own guilt. It does happen.******

My guess is that it would be the same. He thinks he did it, everyone else thinks he did it, and so that is part of his experiences. Even if later he should remember that he didn't do it, he already has the 'rep.'

 

[mysteriew]

How can he have false memories. This interview didn't even last but about an hour total.

They weren't leading him imo when they just ask him about what he did that day once he got off the bus. That is where he messed up because none of it computed even loosely with the times known.

2.5 walking around and around and around the block yet not one soul saw him at anytime until he left the home shortly after the gunfire was heard.

imo

First the kid saw the scene. He would have had some memory from what he saw and may have deduced other things. Then questioning began as soon as he made contact with the neighbors, continued when LE arrived, continued in the crusier on the way to the station. He could have observed a lot of things before making contact with LE and then overheard other things as the neighbor talked, as the LE talked to each other around him. He was on tape for an hour, but a lot happened before he ever got on tape.

 

[Knox]

Were the LE folks who interviewed him trained in questioning a child? Meaning like those who are brought in to question a child who has suffered sexual abuse, they know how to ask questions in a way that is unique to a child's perspective.

 

[mysteriew]

Were the LE folks who interviewed him trained in questioning a child? Meaning like those who are brought in to question a child who has suffered sexual abuse, they know how to ask questions in a way that is unique to a child's perspective.

IIRC they used an inexperienced deputy who knew him "from the neighborhood" to question him.

 

[dgfred]

How can he have false memories. This interview didn't even last but about an hour total.

They weren't leading him imo when they just ask him about what he did that day once he got off the bus. That is where he messed up because none of it computed even loosely with the times known.

2.5 walking around and around and around the block yet not one soul saw him at anytime until he left the home shortly after the gunfire was heard.

imo

Maybe not leading him at that part, but since in their minds he was already a suspect they didn't believe what he said he did... so then they started manipulating him to the 'story' they wanted.
Of course then they 'lied' to him and told him "what if we tell you someone saw you with a gun" and "are you sure you didn't shoot the gun"... thus the start of false memories. But, the point missed is that even if the little boy was the sole shooter... his rights were abused from the beginning like no other case anywhere in the country. A high-profile attorney would have had a field day destroying the prosecution's case and almost everyone concerned can see this imo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

IIRC they used an inexperienced deputy who knew him "from the neighborhood" to question him.

Exactly. She talked to him as a child that she had known from the neighborhood. She sure did not have any experience in getting coerced statements out of a child. I think both police officers were truly saddened to know he could do such a thing.

He was very chatty and quite talkative on his own accord without them prompting him.

He was not led when they asked him to tell them what he did that day and yet that is where his story began to unwind.

And he never fully told them the truth. Like most kids who fib they will tell one story and see if it flies and if they know it doesn't they will add a little more and that is what he did. The reason they didn't get the entire truth from him is once he said he was involved they stopped the interview, which they did the right thing, even though both of them knew the full story had not been told by him at that time.

imo

 

[dgfred]

She did not talk to him as a friend from the neighborhood, she used that to get the info they wanted. His story was one thing, then they had the answers already for 'their theory' which was suggestive to what answers they wanted. His story didn't unwind, they changed/formed it into another one. His story was unchanged until they started lying to him.
So are you actually saying the interrogation was legal and the norm in this country? And that they didn't use any suggestion in the interview? Whether he was the shooter or not, releasing that video was a travesty, and totally unethical.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Maybe not leading him at that part, but since in their minds he was already a suspect they didn't believe what he said he did... so then they started manipulating him to the 'story' they wanted.
Of course then they 'lied' to him and told him "what if we tell you someone saw you with a gun" and "are you sure you didn't shoot the gun"... thus the start of false memories. But, the point missed is that even if the little boy was the sole shooter... his rights were abused from the beginning like no other case anywhere in the country. A high-profile attorney would have had a field day destroying the prosecution's case and almost everyone concerned can see this imo.

I am not saying that the interview would have made it into court if there had been a trial. I think there was much more evidence than we will ever know about that WOULD have been entered. Couey's confession and others have been tossed out too but that did not mean that the DA did not have other supporting evidence to get a conviction.

All the other conversations that he had with various others including the police at the crime scene that day would have been allowed in. The interview being tossed does not preclude those or other evidence. IMO, he confessed to others what he done and those witnesses would have been allowed to testify as to what they were told by the defendant.

Since 90% of cases are plead down in our court system having this case also ending in a plea is seen in the majority of cases and certainly not the minority.

It was a win win for both sides.

Neighborhood can get back to normal life.
Defendant gets a lesser felony degree.
Tim Romans and family gets some semblance of justice.
DA gets a legal admittance of guilt by the defendant.
Defendant is in the system, probation and will be monitored closely until age 18.

etc........

I do remember the words of Judge Roca though when he told the kid during accepting his plea if he violates his probation they are back to square one.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She did not talk to him as a friend from the neighborhood, she used that to get the info they wanted. His story was one thing, then they had the answers already for 'their theory' which was suggestive to what answers they wanted. His story didn't unwind, they changed/formed it into another one. His story was unchanged until they started lying to him.
So are you actually saying the interrogation was legal and the norm in this country? And that they didn't use any suggestion in the interview? Whether he was the shooter or not, releasing that video was a travesty, and totally unethical.

I do think the releasing of the video was unethical.

I would like to know if it is customary in that state that LE gives the media access to documents/videos on other cases.

 

[dgfred]

But Judge Roca is a problem too: How can a 8yr old agree to a plea deal in the first place? Of course they will be back to square one if he violates his probation... seems that has been the objective all along to get the kid into detention/jail for good. IMO he did not confess to others before the interview about being the shooter. In fact when asked about Tim- 'why would I shoot Tim' with a noticeable tone of disbelief is clearly heard. Also EVERY piece of evidence released has a 'counter-theory' on it's meaning and relevence... and is highly ambiguous (especially the fingerprint stuff) and GSR reports. Good lawyers would slash this case to ribbons at a trial.

 

[Knox]

Anybody have a link to the video of the interview handy? For the NG's ... If not him who do you think the shooter was?

 

[dgfred]

All of our theories/speculation in other shooters is just that, because of the scarcity of released information. All of the info released points toward the boy (though very weak and ambiguous) like for instance the limited figerprints released and the lack of GSR on the boy. Here are just a few possibilities though, in case you haven't followed the case too closely.
*There was a supposed death threat against Tim a week or two before the shooting although it is not known if was from a drug related person or another angle.
*The boy mentions a 'white car' like his grandpa's sort of in his interrogation, and that someone was 'running toward the house' (could it have been Tim???)
*Tim proposed to a women I think the night before the shooting (jealous boyfriend/lover)
*Possible high level drug connections involving Tim is always a possibility.
*Relationship problems at home and infidelity questions have been mentioned concerning each victim either them or their spouse.

There are a couple more ideas, but haven't been verified or supported that I choose not to list... but I'm sure you get the idea. Since the investigation was basically closed down once the boy admitted the shooting in the interrogation, and the crime scene opened up to the step-mother a couple of days afterward forever ruining any follow up investigation... we may never know exactly what happened. Mostly it seems both the prosecution and the small town of StJohns want to push this out of their mind/sight. Only the boy's civil rights have been squashed the entire process.

 

[southcitymom]

I do think the releasing of the video was unethical.

I would like to know if it is customary in that state that LE gives the media access to documents/videos on other cases.

Me too - not cool to release it, though honestly, I was very interested in reviewing it a number of times.

As a general rule, I find confessions of children troubling under the best circumstances and have seen/read a number of them in other cases that I found problematic.

The confession of this child probably wouldn't stand up in court, though I don't think these officers intended to nail him to the wall in this interview - they were truly still just gathering information.

That said, I found this child's "confession" to be natural and believable on every level. I see/hear absolutely no coercion, bullying, implanting, railroading, etc.... That's just my opinion, of course. Legally valid or not, it is one of the things that leads me to the conclusion that he killed these two men.

Still, I have hope that he will get whatever sort of help he needs and eventually fashion a better life for himself.

 

[dgfred]

Well why not think his original story was 'natural and believable'? NO WAY the video would stand up in court. Do you not think lying to the boy was a form of
coercion or implanting? Easy to disbelieve what was said at first, but easy to believe what he said afterward after being lied to? Even then he said he 'might' have fired the gun a couple of times... not 10. So why believe parts of what the boy says, but not others that don't 'fit'? All false confessions sound believable, that is why they are not used in court and sometimes allow a suspect to not be convicted or charged at all.