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

[Trino]

If the boy is, indeed, at home, just how is a visitor's list supposed to work? Obviously, someone just cannot stop by to say hello or bring milk and cookies.

If this boy is at home, he obviously has no friends right now. Is this healthy? Is he being schooled?

 

[fran]

Welcome to the REAL WORLD of this now 9 yo child. The terms of his plea deal were dictated by the PROS, they own it.

Every time the child wants anything, there has to be papers filed, motions ruled on, objections ruled on..............believe me, the pros has their objections, the latest being they don't like the doctor the def wanted to work with the child. They want their own 'approved' doctors.........at the rate this court is working, the child may be 10 before he can start school again. IF the pros doesn't like the def request for outside assistance for this child, then the Court can and HAS objected to the normal fee of said expert.

Yeah, the Court has the open check book and the def is at their mercy. Is it a wonder this child with no means accepted a plea deal from 'big brother?'

Oh, yeah, he knew what he was signing, his own def attorney explained it to him three times.:waitasec: It's an illusion that this Court, pros and def attorney were watching out for this child's best interest. Their objective was to sweep this case under the rug with the least expense to the county and State.

JMHO
fran



Memornadum of Agreement - Filed Feb 19, 2009
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.pdf


"The juvenile is to have no contact with victims, their immediate or extended families, unless such person files a written request with the Court and the judge issues an order in writing granting such request."

"The juvenile shall not be allowed to enroll in any public, private or charter school (or any school that is not a secured facility) until the juvenile is determined to not pose a threat to himself or the public and such determination is determination is submitted to the Court in writing by his evaluating psychiatrist and the State and defense and victims are given an opportunity to object at a hearing before this Courts."


Apache County High Profile Cases
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Welcome to the REAL WORLD of this now 9 yo child. The terms of his plea deal were dictated by the PROS, they own it.

Every time the child wants anything, there has to be papers filed, motions ruled on, objections ruled on..............believe me, the pros has their objections, the latest being they don't like the doctor the def wanted to work with the child. They want their own 'approved' doctors.........at the rate this court is working, the child may be 10 before he can start school again. IF the pros doesn't like the def request for outside assistance for this child, then the Court can and HAS objected to the normal fee of said expert.

Yeah, the Court has the open check book and the def is at their mercy. Is it a wonder this child with no means accepted a plea deal from 'big brother?'

Oh, yeah, he knew what he was signing, his own def attorney explained it to him three times.:waitasec: It's an illusion that this Court, pros and def attorney were watching out for this child's best interest. Their objective was to sweep this case under the rug with the least expense to the county and State.

JMHO
fran



Memornadum of Agreement - Filed Feb 19, 2009
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.pdf


"The juvenile is to have no contact with victims, their immediate or extended families, unless such person files a written request with the Court and the judge issues an order in writing granting such request."

"The juvenile shall not be allowed to enroll in any public, private or charter school (or any school that is not a secured facility) until the juvenile is determined to not pose a threat to himself or the public and such determination is determination is submitted to the Court in writing by his evaluating psychiatrist and the State and defense and victims are given an opportunity to object at a hearing before this Courts."


Apache County High Profile Cases
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/

Well I actually think the Prosecution is correct on not wanting the chosen defense expert to evaluate this boy. The psychologist that the State recommends have much higher credentials and specializes in evaluating and treating children.

I am quite floored that the defense did not pick an expert with credentials, expertise and experience in evaluating young children.

The doctor who graduated from Harvard makes the defense expert look very inept since their degree is rather lacking. So I am very glad that the State is monitoring this case very closely. They need to get to the bottom of what makes this boy tick and capable of committing double homicide.

I don't think anyone thought that he would be just out there free as a lark to go about his life as he pleased or maybe some did but I never thought that was going to happen. It is in his best interest and the best interest of society that he be monitored closely for the next 9 years imo.

I am glad that Wood explained the plea deal to him three different times. It showed he went over it several times to make sure he understood. He would have been inept if he only went over it one time imo.

imo

 

[Linda7NJ]

If the boy is, indeed, at home, just how is a visitor's list supposed to work? Obviously, someone just cannot stop by to say hello or bring milk and cookies.

If this boy is at home, he obviously has no friends right now. Is this healthy? Is he being schooled?

The school district would be required to provide homebound instruction until he is cleared...( safe to be around )

Who in the right mind would want their own 9 year old to be HIS friend?

 

[fran]

I am glad that Wood explained the plea deal to him three different times. It showed he went over it several times to make sure he understood. He would have been inept if he only went over it one time imo.

imo

Yeah, one of the ways he explained the plea deal to this child, was comparing it to an airplane ride.:waitasec:

Sure, that makes sense, NOT!

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

The school district would be required to provide homebound instruction until he is cleared...( safe to be around )

Who in the right mind would want their own 9 year old to be HIS friend?

I would.

fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would.

fran

That's SCARY as hell!

I compare it to my belief that pit bulls are great dogs. They're strong, smart and loyal. I firmly believe good breeding and training make all the difference. If I was single and childless, I'd own one. BUT I am a mother FIRST and foremost and I am not willing to bet my child's life on it if I just happen to be wrong.

I also believe my child is responsible, trustworthy and smart enough to own a gun like this boy. But I am not willing to bet his life on it when he has friend's in and out of here constantly...what if I'm wrong?

What if you are wrong? You are willing to risk your own child's well being and possibly even his life?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yeah, one of the ways he explained the plea deal to this child, was comparing it to an airplane ride.:waitasec:

Sure, that makes sense, NOT!

JMHO
fran

All the adults that I know use simplistic examples so that the child can understand.

However he explained it to him, he knew this boy for months, and knew the best way of giving an example for him to understand.

imo

 

[SoobsinMI]

I truly do not believe this needs an explanation - from me. Do you watch the news or read the newspapers?

I have no interest in turning this into a religious debate. My point is, those who need to justify their questionable acts against children will find a way to do so. Not bashing ALL lawyers, judges, parents, priests, etc. Just saying, it can and has been done. Over and over and over again.

Okay, if you would like to throw that "zinger" at the Catholic Church out there, then hide behind "religious debate" that is your perogative. However, the "age of reasoning" as determined by the Church has nothing to do with pedophile priests (you can look that up.) And some priests aren't the only religious clergy to have committed despicable acts against children. But you knew that.

 

[hannahsnana]

The school district would be required to provide homebound instruction until he is cleared...( safe to be around )

Who in the right mind would want their own 9 year old to be HIS friend?

Precisely, Linda; nor would I want him assigned to my daughter's (a teacher) classroom. He might decide he has a grievance against her.

 

[fran]

All the adults that I know use simplistic examples so that the child can understand.

However he explained it to him, he knew this boy for months, and knew the best way of giving an example for him to understand.

imo

IF the child understood clearly what the plea deal was, he wouldn't need an analogy. Not to mention the fact that pleading to negligent homicide has absolutely nothing to do with an airline reservation. He wasn't signing up to go on vacation.:waitasec:

Please, let's be honest here. The child was too young to understand what he was doing or of the proceedings against him. Avoiding the 'competency hearing' doesn't erase what BOTH the pros and def psychiatrist's findings were, the child was 'NOT COMPETENT' to stand trial which would mean he was NOT COMPETENT to enter a plea on his own at 9 yo.

They didn't even have him say the 'word,' GUILTY, he said the word 'admit' and he said he didn't want a trial. Let's see IF they have him describe the alleged crime he committed like they do most ADULT persons entering a plea deal. He might even say what he did on the BOGUS confession video, "I think I did (shoot the victim)" and (where was he when you saw him or shot him?) "he was on the ground."

Sorry, all of the misguided supposed explanations of the child understanding what was happening in that court room, yadda, yadda, yadda,..........just sounds absurd and falls with a thud.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

That's SCARY as hell!

I compare it to my belief that pit bulls are great dogs. They're strong, smart and loyal. I firmly believe good breeding and training make all the difference. If I was single and childless, I'd own one. BUT I am a mother FIRST and foremost and I am not willing to bet my child's life on it if I just happen to be wrong.

I also believe my child is responsible, trustworthy and smart enough to own a gun like this boy. But I am not willing to bet his life on it when he has friend's in and out of here constantly...what if I'm wrong?

What if you are wrong? You are willing to risk your own child's well being and possibly even his life?

What's even more frightening is that you compare this child to a dog.

IF you could show me one thing that proves this child committed this crime, I may rethink allowing him near my loved children, or now grandchildren. Until I can see this proof, I have no problem with this child.

The question isn't what IF I'm wrong, what IF the Court is wrong?...... That the only thing this child is guilty of was trusting the very system that was supposed to protect him?

Imagine being 8 yo and coming upon the murdered body of your dad and friend and then being told you did it and go to jail.

Wow! Good breeding and training?............ We'll just agree to disagree on this matter..........on ALL levels.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

IF the child understood clearly what the plea deal was, he wouldn't need an analogy. Not to mention the fact that pleading to negligent homicide has absolutely nothing to do with an airline reservation. He wasn't signing up to go on vacation.:waitasec:

Please, let's be honest here. The child was too young to understand what he was doing or of the proceedings against him. Avoiding the 'competency hearing' doesn't erase what BOTH the pros and def psychiatrist's findings were, the child was 'NOT COMPETENT' to stand trial which would mean he was NOT COMPETENT to enter a plea on his own at 9 yo.

They didn't even have him say the 'word,' GUILTY, he said the word 'admit' and he said he didn't want a trial. Let's see IF they have him describe the alleged crime he committed like they do most ADULT persons entering a plea deal. He might even say what he did on the BOGUS confession video, "I think I did (shoot the victim)" and (where was he when you saw him or shot him?) "he was on the ground."

Sorry, all of the misguided supposed explanations of the child understanding what was happening in that court room, yadda, yadda, yadda,..........just sounds absurd and falls with a thud.

JMHO
fran

I am being honest. I do believe he did understand it. Even elementary teachers to college professors use analogies so I fail to see your point.

I also believe that the lawmakers of AZ thinks that an 8 year old can understand plea deals, since a child of 8 can be charged and convicted of a crime in that state. I am sure this boy is not the only young juvenile to do a plea deal. He may be the first though that got such a sweetheart deal after being charged and accused of double homicides.

Oh he is already way past that. It is no longer "I think". He affirmed and said "I ADMIT"!! I think a plea deal is easier to understand than a trial that may last for months. Especially if they know they are guilty but they aren't going to have to do time for it and only be psychoanalyzed.

I also think he told others that he did it besides LE, Court, CPS caseworker. I think he told people in his own family and those who may have been present at his grandmother's home when he was there.

The only reason he probably doesn't tell his moma he knows she is worried she may have to testify under oath about what he tells her. She said so herself. She is fearful to ask him. But why would she be fearful about what he would tell her if she was so sure he did not do this? :waitasec: The only reasons she can have any fear is if she is so afraid he is going to tell her he did it and how he did it, imo.

imo

 

[Fairy1]

Okay, if you would like to throw that "zinger" at the Catholic Church out there, then hide behind "religious debate" that is your perogative. However, the "age of reasoning" as determined by the Church has nothing to do with pedophile priests (you can look that up.) And some priests aren't the only religious clergy to have committed despicable acts against children. But you knew that.

I said I have NO interest in turning this into a religous debate. I was not the one to bring the Catholic church into the discussion. And I completely agree that the Catholic church is not the only entity guilty of abusing children. The FLDS would have us all believe that 12-year-old girls are ready to marry OLD men and bear children.

My point is that children are exploited daily by people from all walks of life. IMO, the attorneys, judge and LE in this particular case have used the boys age as an excuse for everything. Originally, they were toying with the idea of charging him as an adult. Then they claimed that he was not competent to stand trial. Yet he apparently was competent enough to agree to the plea deal - without the support of his mother or his GAL. I guess because it was explained to him THREE times.

It's not so much I believe these folks didn't necessarily have his best interests at heart, but I don't feel ANY of them really knew how to handle this case.

I didn't mean to offend anyone and sorry if I did....

 

[fran]

I am being honest. I do believe he did understand it. Even elementary teachers to college professors use analogies so I fail to see your point.

I also believe that the lawmakers of AZ thinks that an 8 year old can understand plea deals, since a child of 8 can be charged and convicted of a crime in that state. I am sure this boy is not the only young juvenile to do a plea deal. He may be the first though that got such a sweetheart deal after being charged and accused of double homicides.

Oh he is already way past that. It is no longer "I think". He affirmed and said "I ADMIT"!! I think a plea deal is easier to understand than a trial that may last for months. Especially if they know they are guilty but they aren't going to have to do time for it and only be psychoanalyzed.

I also think he told others that he did it besides LE, Court, CPS caseworker. I think he told people in his own family and those who may have been present at his grandmother's home when he was there.

The only reason he probably doesn't tell his moma he knows she is worried she may have to testify under oath about what he tells her. She said so herself. She is fearful to ask him. But why would she be fearful about what he would tell her if she was so sure he did not do this? :waitasec: The only reasons she can have any fear is if she is so afraid he is going to tell her he did it and how he did it.

imo

The two examining experts pretty well moot any arbitrary discussion by elementary school teachers or college professors. BOTH psychiatrists disagree and said the boy was NOT COMPETENT. As they're the one's who examined the child, I'll take their word for it.

AVOIDING the findings of the two doctors that actually examined the boy doesn't make their findings go away. The FACT is, the child was most likely not competent to enter into said agreement, therefore, we'll see how well this plea deal holds up under scrutiny.

Do you have a link to where the child told anyone else that he did this, except the people who coerced him into a confession and then 'admitting his actions caused Tim's death?'

Or, are you just making that up?

I'm sure you've read all of the court documents. It's in those documents, mentioned in a def filing, that the mother cannot discuss the events of Nov. 5 with the child as she may be called to testify. So it would appear what you 'think' and what is 'fact' MAY NOT exactly coincide..... Yes, the mother repeated that statement,...... made clear to her by the boy's attorney and mentioned in court documents.

That's my point,
IMHO,
fran

 

[Fairy1]

Anyone who believes Eryn has not discussed this with her son is in complete denial. She believes he is innocent and I HOPE will do everything in her power to protect him and clear his name. If Tanya does file a civil suit, it's entirely possible this boy will NEVER have any type of normal, productive life. EVER. Maybe that's what she's hoping for???

 

[Bobbisangel]

IF the child understood clearly what the plea deal was, he wouldn't need an analogy. Not to mention the fact that pleading to negligent homicide has absolutely nothing to do with an airline reservation. He wasn't signing up to go on vacation.:waitasec:

Please, let's be honest here. The child was too young to understand what he was doing or of the proceedings against him. Avoiding the 'competency hearing' doesn't erase what BOTH the pros and def psychiatrist's findings were, the child was 'NOT COMPETENT' to stand trial which would mean he was NOT COMPETENT to enter a plea on his own at 9 yo.

They didn't even have him say the 'word,' GUILTY, he said the word 'admit' and he said he didn't want a trial. Let's see IF they have him describe the alleged crime he committed like they do most ADULT persons entering a plea deal. He might even say what he did on the BOGUS confession video, "I think I did (shoot the victim)" and (where was he when you saw him or shot him?) "he was on the ground."

Sorry, all of the misguided supposed explanations of the child understanding what was happening in that court room, yadda, yadda, yadda,..........just sounds absurd and falls with a thud.



I'll bet this boy knew what dead meant when he got ready to murder his dad and Tim. When he got the shells and his gun out and lay in wait for them to come home from work that day. No one had to explain even once what dead forever meant. I think this boy is a lot smarter then you give him credit for.

 

[Openmind]

I'll bet this boy knew what dead meant when he got ready to murder his dad and Tim. When he got the shells and his gun out and lay in wait for them to come home from work that day. No one had to explain even once what dead forever meant. I think this boy is a lot smarter then you give him credit for.

Even a very small child will hide or deny when they have done something wrong. Toddlers will try to avoid being punished. Does that mean they understand all their actions when they break a rule or cause some harm? And children learn very early how to plot out a behavior.

Here is a chimp that planned his crime. I guess he is tired of being looked at. With enough motivation, people, even chidlren, will devise a plan to end a perceivced problem. What I want to know is why a child would commit such a crime. It has to be a deeper issue than being spoiled or lacking control. And that control discussion has gone all over the map from the newly formed family that was then explained away as a long standing relationship that he accepted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-chimp14-2009mar14,0,5971964.story

Since so many think this boy is very smart, here is some information on gifted and talented children. Even if he is not exceptionally bright, this issue can apply to any child. That is the problem with children -- they aren't fully developed, emotionally or intellectually, in a consistent way. Children are not robots that behave all the same way at the same time. Their development and skill levels can be very staggered even within themselves. Just because a child seems very capable on one level does not mean they are equally capable on all levels.

One of the hallmarks of a gifted and talented child is asynchronous development. That is, their physical, emotional, social, and cognitive development is out of sync, it is uneven. This characteristic is distinctly different than the development of high achievers and the majority of children. While the 6 year old gifted and talented child may be able to think like a 12 year old, he/she may write like a 6 year old, relate to others like a 7 year old, and have reached the emotional maturity of only a 4 year old. Asynchronous development creates special challenges for gifted and talented children.

http://www.fortbend.k12.tx.us/gifted/whatis.cfm

For me, the problem is him understanding the plea. The assumption that because someone explained this critical information to the child three times and used clever analogies to break it down to his level is ridiculous. You can get a child to parrot all sorts of information but that does not mean they have integrated that information into their life skills or can reapply that information in different situations. They just know when to respond to what they have been taught. If teaching was that easy, that it is a matter of simply telling children information a magic number of times or finding the right story, we could streamline education and start graduating kids at ten. Being bright does make a child more capable of absorbing information, but that does not mean they comprehend that information on the same level as an adult.

 

[fran]

Even a very small child will hide or deny when they have done something wrong. Toddlers will try to avoid being punished. Does that mean they understand all their actions when they break a rule or cause some harm? And children learn very early how to plot out a behavior.

Here is a chimp that planned his crime. I guess he is tired of being looked at. With enough motivation, people, even chidlren, will devise a plan to end a perceivced problem. What I want to know is why a child would commit such a crime. It has to be a deeper issue than being spoiled or lacking control. And that control discussion has gone all over the map from the newly formed family that was then explained away as a long standing relationship that he accepted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-chimp14-2009mar14,0,5971964.story


Since so many think this boy is very smart, here is some information on gifted and talented children. Even if he is not exceptionally bright, this issue can apply to any child. That is the problem with children -- they aren't fully developed, emotionally or intellectually, in a consistent way. Children are not robots that behave all the same way at the same time. Their development and skill levels can be very staggered even within themselves. Just because a child seems very capable on one level does not mean they are equally capable on all levels.



http://www.fortbend.k12.tx.us/gifted/whatis.cfm

For me, the problem is him understanding the plea. The assumption that because someone explained this critical information to the child three times and used clever analogies to break it down to his level is ridiculous. You can get a child to parrot all sorts of information but that does not mean they have integrated that information into their life skills or can reapply that information in different situations. They just know when to respond to what they have been taught. If teaching was that easy, that it is a matter of simply telling children information a magic number of times or finding the right story, we could streamline education and start graduating kids at ten. Being bright does make a child more capable of absorbing information, but that does not mean they comprehend that information on the same level as an adult.

What truly concerns me about this case and this plea of 'guilty', but not really, (in this child's mind,) to this child, he 'admitted his actions on Nov. 5th caused the death of Tim.'

In this child's bogus confession, at one point he said he shot at the fleeing car. In another part he said he shot each victim twice to put them out of their misery.

This child, IMHO, COULD have it in 'his mind,' they wanted him to say he did something to 'prevent' the crime, ie 'shooting at the fleeing car.' When that didn't work, or appease them and they continued to persuade him further, he 'put them out of their misery,' as he's been taught with hunting by his dad.

Now the child admitted his 'actions' caused the death of one of the victims. Is he saying 'what he did' caused their death, or is he thinking 'what he did NOT do (ie protect them)' that caused Tim's death?

People can claim all they want this child knows he did it and that's why he confessed, but until the 'evidence' proves he did in fact kill these men, I'm not buying the confession at face value. I've also shown several cases where the accused and convicted was later found innocent. There are cases across this country where the pros withholds exculpatory evidence. UNTIL I see the answers to questions I've stated previously, I refuse to ASSUME LE has investigated and ruled out other possibilities.

I'm not saying an 8 yo child can NOT kill. I'm saying I do NOT THINK this child killed. At the least, with what information has been released and I'm not going to assume LE has the answers. IF it's not in the documents, it doesn't exist.

JMHO
fran

 

[Trino]

Even a very small child will hide or deny when they have done something wrong. Toddlers will try to avoid being punished. Does that mean they understand all their actions when they break a rule or cause some harm? And children learn very early how to plot out a behavior.

Here is a chimp that planned his crime. I guess he is tired of being looked at. With enough motivation, people, even chidlren, will devise a plan to end a perceivced problem. What I want to know is why a child would commit such a crime. It has to be a deeper issue than being spoiled or lacking control. And that control discussion has gone all over the map from the newly formed family that was then explained away as a long standing relationship that he accepted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-chimp14-2009mar14,0,5971964.story

Since so many think this boy is very smart, here is some information on gifted and talented children. Even if he is not exceptionally bright, this issue can apply to any child. That is the problem with children -- they aren't fully developed, emotionally or intellectually, in a consistent way. Children are not robots that behave all the same way at the same time. Their development and skill levels can be very staggered even within themselves. Just because a child seems very capable on one level does not mean they are equally capable on all levels.

http://www.fortbend.k12.tx.us/gifted/whatis.cfm

For me, the problem is him understanding the plea. The assumption that because someone explained this critical information to the child three times and used clever analogies to break it down to his level is ridiculous. You can get a child to parrot all sorts of information but that does not mean they have integrated that information into their life skills or can reapply that information in different situations. They just know when to respond to what they have been taught. If teaching was that easy, that it is a matter of simply telling children information a magic number of times or finding the right story, we could streamline education and start graduating kids at ten. Being bright does make a child more capable of absorbing information, but that does not mean they comprehend that information on the same level as an adult.

Based on the boy's video actions, some have decided the boy is smart. I'm withholding an opinion on this. The boy was, w/o a doubt, very verbal and cunning. This does not necessarily equate intelligence, and we have no idea as to his mental abilities. The evaluator said he was not competent to understand the charges at age 9. This does not sound to me as though he is highly intelligent.