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

[southcitymom]

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.

The smartest 8/9 year old in the world would not be able to fully comprehend the situation this boy found himself in - there's just not enough life experience by that age.

Still, I think this boy has above-average intelligence - his verbal communications to include vocabulary in that interview are better than most 8/9 year old boys, IMHO. Rightly or wrongly, that signifies high intelligence to me.

 

[fran]

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???

Fairy, I totally agree with you, but she can NOT admit it, per the Court orders. I DO believe she MAY have discussed this case with the child. PERHAPS this is why she was crying in court the day of the 'plea deal' hearing?

She KNOWS he's innocent and no one would listen to her. She went through her attorney voicing her objection and the Court wouldn't hear it or said the boy could enter his own plea.

ie.....................

Do you want to go home with your mom and visit a doctor a few times?.. or.. Do you want to go to jail and maybe two trials and spend the next 9 + possibly another 25 years in jail?

Do you want to be sure you get on the plane with your mom? or do you want to maybe miss your flight and pay for it the rest of your life and only see your mom on visiting days?



JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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???

Well we aren't the ones in denial. She is the one that said she has not asked him about the day of the murders because she fears

she may have to testify to what he told her. If he told her he was innocent she would have no fear but testify with glee that he told her that..........not fear.

I never heard her say that her son was innocent when she was last on GMA.

Also I have heard of no appeal being made by anyone on the plea deal and it is proceeding forward to full disposition.

If she truly thinks he is innocent then we should have seen an immediate appeal filed trying to stop the plea deal. To date.........nothing.

I think she does know and that is why, as her coping mechanism, she uses the "don't ask-don't tell" policy in her home with her son.

At least she knows if he admits it to her it can come back to haunt him later on, especially if there is a civil lawsuit filed where all witnesses will be deposed and make sworn statements.




imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think the gag order is in place anymore.

CA Whiting has spoken out.
Wood has spoken out.
Tanya Romans finally gave an interview to Mike Watkiss with Az.family.
EB was back on GMA again.

imo

 

[fran]

Well we aren't the ones in denial. She is the one that said she has not asked him about the day of the murders because she fears

she may have to testify to what he told her. If he told her he was innocent she would have no fear but testify with glee that he told her that..........not fear.

I never heard her say that her son was innocent when she was last on GMA.

Also I have heard of no appeal being made by anyone on the plea deal and it is proceeding forward to full disposition.

If she truly thinks he is innocent then we should have seen an immediate appeal filed trying to stop the plea deal. To date.........nothing.

I think she does know and that is why, as her coping mechanism, she uses the "don't ask-don't tell" policy in her home with her son.

At least she knows if he admits it to her it can come back to haunt him later on, especially if there is a civil lawsuit filed where all witnesses will be deposed and make sworn statements.




imo

Here's a link to the actual interview of Eryn on GMA. NOWHERE does she say she 'fears she may be called to testify.' At the beginning of the clip, DS said the mother stated, "Lawyers asked her still not to comment about the details of that night."

The actual word 'fear' was a statement by DS, NOT the mom. I believe it falls under the category, 'creative license.' In other words, embellishing.

There may be a 'lift of the gag,' but she's still being asked not to comment about the details of that night.. This is NOT unusual when there's continuing legal proceedings. As far as I personally am aware, the judge hasn't actually signed-off on the plea deal. The only document I saw on file was the deal and the lawyer's and boy's signatures.

JMHO, but I would think that UNTIL the judge signs off and sentences the child, the child would best be suited AND his mom for him, to not make any further public statement regarding that night. I believe that's what appeals are for. Her GMA interview purpose appeared more to point out that she was NOT allowed to object and she feels the child 'didn't know what he was signing.' He did make a comment to his mom though, that he could 'go home' with her.


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6995430&page=1


Also, JMHO, to ASSUME the mom isn't doing anything behind the scenes to prove this child is innocent, because we haven't heard or seen anything, is being naive. I mean, people were saying that same thing a week or so ago UNTIL the mom appeared on GMA,.............then, about the only defense the people making that claim had to say was, 'she's a liar.' ANOTHER OPINION, based on something NOT filed as to a FACT.

Just shows that anyone can have an opinion, but it doesn't mean they're correct in their OPINION. Even I.

Of course, then you have the GAL who stated in a news article that he MAY object because of the findings of the TWO psychiatrists. He has, so far, requested copies of the TWO psychiatrists reports and I believe perhaps the plea deal hearing as well. At least he's seen some type of written transcript of the hearing, I believe.

I guess the bottom line, Don't under-estimate the love and determination of a mother.

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

"I guess the bottom line, Don't under-estimate the love and determination of a mother."

JMHO
fran

We will see if there is even an ATTEMPT to get this plea deal struck by Eryn. All we have seen so far is mouth work.

I don't underestimate the love or determination of a mother. I don't underestimate their capacity for total denial either. I understand why no mother would want to come to grips that their own child murders people.

We even see adult convicted murders who have mothers decrying their innocence.

imoo

 

[SoobsinMI]

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.

I agree. I'd imagine there would have been some confirmation through the school that he was in an accelerrated program, if he were exceptionally gifted. I think someone mentioned that his lawyer was trying to get him a scholarship to a private school. I'd guess that had nothing to do with an academic scholarship, but more along the lines of a financial scholarship (which happens frequently.)

In any case, those that have a high intelligence quotient, do not necessarily have a high emotional quotient.

 

[SoobsinMI]

Here's a link to the actual interview of Eryn on GMA. NOWHERE does she say she 'fears she may be called to testify.' At the beginning of the clip, DS said the mother stated, "Lawyers asked her still not to comment about the details of that night."

I don't understand how anyone can believe that NOW is the time for her to "speak her mind" or pursue any type of legal recourse. The boy hasn't even been sentenced yet. This is NOT over for him. Now is not the time to be appealing, and I don't know if that is even a possibility.

 

[SoobsinMI]

According to AZ statute, a "rule 32 petition" canNOT be filed, until AFTER sentencing.

http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=16003&topic=ARRESTED

Question: How do I file a rule 32 petition?

Answer: Rule 32 is an Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure – part of the rules followed by Arizona Courts to make sure a person’s rights are followed. This rule allows a person to seek post-conviction relief (another Court’s ruling), where it’s not a direct appeal issue or where a person changed their plea from guilty to not-guilty and is not eligible to appeal.

If it is an appeal in a criminal case, then they have until 30 days after the mandate affirming the judgment and sentence in the appellate court to raise a Rule 32 issue. If the case isn't appealed or if the defendant can't file a direct appeal because they changed their plea, they have 90 days after sentencing to file the Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in the Superior Court that sentenced them. The Notice of Post-Conviction Relief form is found in the form section of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Most jails and public defender offices have them also.

Caution: If you file a Rule 32 petition and fail to list every reason why you are seeking relief, you give up the right to raise that reason later.

Definition of Plea: A defendant's statement of guilty or not guilty about the charges against them.

Obviously, now is NOT the time for any action to be taken. Can we NOW stop disparaging the mother for "not doing anything??"

 

[fran]

"I guess the bottom line, Don't under-estimate the love and determination of a mother."

JMHO
fran

We will see if there is even an ATTEMPT to get this plea deal struck by Eryn. All we have seen so far is mouth work.

I don't underestimate the love or determination of a mother. I don't underestimate their capacity for total denial either. I understand why no mother would want to come to grips that their own child murders people.

We even see adult convicted murders who have mothers decrying their innocence.

imoo

When Eryn voiced her concern to the Court, BEFORE the plea deal, that she objected to the 'plea deal' and when she went on GMA and voiced her concern AGAIN about the 'plea deal,' AND she said she doesn't believe the child understands what he signed is a little more than 'mouth work' as you refer.

Minimizing the child's mother's advocacy for her son is kind of in the same line as ignoring all the EXCULPATORY evidence that we do NOT know what the results were, or,.... even IF there are results at all and ASSUME they point towards the child. But alas, the records are sealed as to WHAT IS NOT in evidence.

This isn't an adult who's been given a plea deal, this is a young child who trusts the ADULTS around him are looking out for his best interests. But are they? or are they CYA?

I guess it doesn't really matter what Eryn does, she'll be criticized anyway.
I hope we do see answers, for the child's sake if nothing else. IF it's not him, it would be nice to know the person who did commit the crime was behind bars.

JMHO
fran

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Here's a link to the actual interview of Eryn on GMA. NOWHERE does she say she 'fears she may be called to testify.' At the beginning of the clip, DS said the mother stated, "Lawyers asked her still not to comment about the details of that night."

The actual word 'fear' was a statement by DS, NOT the mom. I believe it falls under the category, 'creative license.' In other words, embellishing.

There may be a 'lift of the gag,' but she's still being asked not to comment about the details of that night.. This is NOT unusual when there's continuing legal proceedings. As far as I personally am aware, the judge hasn't actually signed-off on the plea deal. The only document I saw on file was the deal and the lawyer's and boy's signatures.

JMHO, but I would think that UNTIL the judge signs off and sentences the child, the child would best be suited AND his mom for him, to not make any further public statement regarding that night. I believe that's what appeals are for. Her GMA interview purpose appeared more to point out that she was NOT allowed to object and she feels the child 'didn't know what he was signing.' He did make a comment to his mom though, that he could 'go home' with her.


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6995430&page=1


Also, JMHO, to ASSUME the mom isn't doing anything behind the scenes to prove this child is innocent, because we haven't heard or seen anything, is being naive. I mean, people were saying that same thing a week or so ago UNTIL the mom appeared on GMA,.............then, about the only defense the people making that claim had to say was, 'she's a liar.' ANOTHER OPINION, based on something NOT filed as to a FACT.

Just shows that anyone can have an opinion, but it doesn't mean they're correct in their OPINION. Even I.

Of course, then you have the GAL who stated in a news article that he MAY object because of the findings of the TWO psychiatrists. He has, so far, requested copies of the TWO psychiatrists reports and I believe perhaps the plea deal hearing as well. At least he's seen some type of written transcript of the hearing, I believe.

I guess the bottom line, Don't under-estimate the love and determination of a mother.

JMHO
fran

Honestly, I have absolutely nothing to add to this post. Fran, you have stated it so very well where I am with this case and with the information that has been given to us since the last Court date.

I find it very interesting (and distrubing) that this Mother was first ridiculed for not saying anything in regards to her son. She follows lawyers requests, and now that she can share her thoughts (though, very carefully as to counsels requests), she still is judged. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I agree that there is absolutely nothing this woman can do to avoid such swift judgment from some.

This is not over yet. Thankfully. Hopefully, the GAL will do his job as the child advocate that he has been hired to do. Especially since evaluations have not been part of this case that any of us know of. FWIW, I do not understand where upper intelligience or lower intelliegence has come into play here. Everything that is stated on that topic should be followed more clearly that it's an opinion and not a fact. No one know what this child's "level" is. As far as the scholarship fund is concerned, I take that as financial help. Unless there is some definite link to it being some other than that.

imho

 

[Openmind]

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.

I teach gifted and talented students that are a few years older than this child, and they get the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution confused. The claim this boy can understand the complexity of the law with three simple lessons is ridiculous. Being G/T or not, I can't see where any nine year could understand criminal charges. Half the time kids can't understand why they lose recess. Being bright and intelligent does not mean he has the ability to reason like an adult. It means he has a greater ability to acquire information but that does not mean he knows how to use that information on an advance level. And if he isn't that bright, these claims he understands all this are truly inappropriate.

 

[southcitymom]

.....
In any case, those that have a high intelligence quotient, do not necessarily have a high emotional quotient.

Absolutely true - and a good point to consider in this case.

 

[Fairy1]

I teach gifted and talented students that are few years older than this child, and they get the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution confused. The claim this boy can understand the complexity of the law with three simple lessons is ridiculous. Being G/T or not, I can't see where any nine year could understand criminal charges. Half the time kids can't understand why they lose recess. Being bright and intelligent does not mean he has the ability to reason like an adult. It means he has a greater ability to acquire information but that does not mean he knows how to use that information on an advance level. And if he isn't that bright, these claims he understands all this is truly inappropriate.

So, so, so true! And my concern is not only that he may not have fully understood the plea, but that he was not capable of planning and carrying out the crime of which he has been accused. Even if he is a "gifted" child, it would have been a huge undertaking and would have required a lot of thought...IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think this boy knew exactly what he was doing when he shot two men repeatedly to death.

I don't see where a degree in rocket science is necessary when the boy knows he's guilty, the prosecution had the odds in their favor, and they had the evidence to prove his guilt. His choice was a rather simple one. Risk being found age incompetent now and tried later as an adult which could result in a long "big boy prison term" or admit what he did and be done with it...... imo.

I believe with the help of his attorney and his mother he made the right choice.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

I think this boy knew exactly what he was doing when he shot two men repeatedly to death.

I don't see where a degree in rocket science is necessary when the boy knows he's guilty, the prosecution had the odds in their favor, and they had the evidence to prove his guilt. His choice was a rather simple one. Risk being found age incompetent now and tried later as an adult which could result in a long "big boy prison term" or admit what he did and be done with it...... imo.

I believe with the help of his attorney and his mother he made the right choice.

The child's mother did not agree with this agreement and the child's GAL was not there for him. It is not simple nor is this case finished. There is more to this story and I believe over time we will eventually find out why.

imo

 

[gitana1]

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

I get what you're saying, Fran. I also think it's clear this child was not competent to stand trial or to enter a plea agreement. However, I think everyone was faced with a unique situation and tried to deal with it as best as they could.
You know, I have been on the fence about whether this child actually committed the crime although my gut, my experience with children, my understanding of human nature coupled with the little info we were exposed to, told me that the child did indeed commit this horrible crime. And, I trust his attorney. I think that from a lawyer point of view, his actions show he seriously cares about the welfare of this child. The attorney is not a dummy. I think if he had serious concerns about whether or not the little boy committed the killings, he would not have allowed him to plea.
I actually communicated with the defense attorney letting him know about this site, and the theories and other information some posters uncovered which could cast doubt on the kid's guilt. He communicated back that he indeed had that information. He seems to know what he is doing. And don't forget, he has access to i9nformation his attorney-client privilege gives him, which we never will. So, I am pretty much off the fence toward guilt.
However, I still strongly feel that although the child knew what he did was wrong, he did not understand the gravity of the situation, the magnitude of what he did, or the permanence of the acts. I also still strongly believe that it is very likely that something terrible was occurring in the home causing the child to resort to such horror.
It is interesting to me that the posters here who believe this kid is a cold-blooded murderer who should be treated as much as a cold-blooded murdering adult as possible, simply ignore, repeatedly, my posts and those of other posters which clearly show that, despite a knowledge of right or wrong at age 8-9, the age of the child physiologically prevents him from having the understanding or foresight of an adult. His lack of mature frontal lobe brain development renders him incompetent in a legal sense. This is science. It's the same thing that gives us medicine, computers, knowledge about space, geology, oceanography, technology, etc. I have never once seen the lack of frontal lobe development in children and the consequences of that lack, refuted anywhere. It's why parents and guardians are required to provide care for children or face criminal charges. So, what is to be done?
Although I think this kid was not competent to plea, I think the system did the very best they could with this nightmarish case. They ensured that the little boy would not be housed in an institution with adults or without treatment. They ensured that he would receive serious treatment for whatever issues he has, whether abuse in his background, a budding personality disorder, excessive rage or immaturity, whatever, such that he could one day become a productive member of society again. And, they seem to have ensured that he would not be isolated from whatever love and support his mother or other concerned family are willing to give him, throughout this process. He's a child, so there's hope and I think the system is tapping into that hope with the plea deal they have for him.
So, I guess I will not please anyone on either side of this debate, but I for one feel the system did a pretty wonderful job with an impossible circumstance.

 

[Openmind]

I get what you're saying, Fran. I also think it's clear this child was not competent to stand trial or to enter a plea agreement. However, I think everyone was faced with a unique situation and tried to deal with it as best as they could.
You know, I have been on the fence about whether this child actually committed the crime although my gut, my experience with children, my understanding of human nature coupled with the little info we were exposed to, told me that the child did indeed commit this horrible crime. And, I trust his attorney. I think that from a lawyer point of view, his actions show he seriously cares about the welfare of this child. The attorney is not a dummy. I think if he had serious concerns about whether or not the little boy committed the killings, he would not have allowed him to plea.
I actually communicated with the defense attorney letting him know about this site, and the theories and other information some posters uncovered which could cast doubt on the kid's guilt. He communicated back that he indeed had that information. He seems to know what he is doing. And don't forget, he has access to i9nformation his attorney-client privilege gives him, which we never will. So, I am pretty much off the fence toward guilt.
However, I still strongly feel that although the child knew what he did was wrong, he did not understand the gravity of the situation, the magnitude of what he did, or the permanence of the acts. I also still strongly believe that it is very likely that something terrible was occurring in the home causing the child to resort to such horror.
It is interesting to me that the posters here who believe this kid is a cold-blooded murderer who should be treated as much as a cold-blooded murdering adult as possible, simply ignore, repeatedly, my posts and those of other posters which clearly show that, despite a knowledge of right or wrong at age 8-9, the age of the child physiologically prevents him from having the understanding or foresight of an adult. His lack of mature frontal lobe brain development renders him incompetent in a legal sense. This is science. It's the same thing that gives us medicine, computers, knowledge about space, geology, oceanography, technology, etc. I have never once seen the lack of frontal lobe development in children and the consequences of that lack, refuted anywhere. It's why parents and guardians are required to provide care for children or face criminal charges. So, what is to be done?
Although I think this kid was not competent to plea, I think the system did the very best they could with this nightmarish case. They ensured that the little boy would not be housed in an institution with adults or without treatment. They ensured that he would receive serious treatment for whatever issues he has, whether abuse in his background, a budding personality disorder, excessive rage or immaturity, whatever, such that he could one day become a productive member of society again. And, they seem to have ensured that he would not be isolated from whatever love and support his mother or other concerned family are willing to give him, throughout this process. He's a child, so there's hope and I think the system is tapping into that hope with the plea deal they have for him.
So, I guess I will not please anyone on either side of this debate, but I for one feel the system did a pretty wonderful job with an impossible circumstance.

Totally agree!

 

[fran]

This is just a FYI and I haven't been able to confirm this from news reports. I received information that Tiffany was in an auto accident Saturday, 3/14, and they had to life flight her to another area. I heard she had to have emergency surgery yesterday.

Like I said, I haven't seen any official report.

As controverial as this thread has been, no one has wanted any further harm to come to any of these victims. I hope you'll all join me in saying a prayer for Tiffany's recovery. She really has already been through enough without this.

sincerely,
fran

 

[OrdinaryLife]

This is just a FYI and I haven't been able to confirm this from news reports. I received information that Tiffany was in an auto accident Saturday, 3/14, and they had to life flight her to another area. I heard she had to have emergency surgery yesterday.

Like I said, I haven't seen any official report.

As controverial as this thread has been, no one has wanted any further harm to come to any of these victims. I hope you'll all join me in saying a prayer for Tiffany's recovery. She really has already been through enough without this.

sincerely,
fran

Oh, wow.... This is so sad. Here's prayers that all will be okay.