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

[Fairy1]

Like they say, there's two sides to every story. It's about time this defense attorney speaks up for this boy!

JMHO
fran



Response to Request to Incarcerate

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO INCARCERATE 06102009.pdf

Thank you, fran! Yes, there are two sides to every story. Eryn and CR are quite obviously living in a hostile environment and the court is dragging this out unnecessarily - for which they should be ashamed. Mr. Wood makes some great points in his response with respect to the FACT that CR is not in control of his own situation.

I'm confused about the "victim" who fears this child. Who is the "victim" and in what way, exactly, are they a victim???

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Like they say, there's two sides to every story. It's about time this defense attorney speaks up for this boy!

JMHO
fran



Response to Request to Incarcerate

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO INCARCERATE 06102009.pdf

Sounds like typical defense speakisms to me.

The point is not about the child being responsible for the violations. Eryn stepped up and told the court she would be responsible and would make sure he followed all guidelines of the court plea deal. Just because he cannot drive himself to NM doesn't mean he isn't in violation of the court order. Since Eryn is the legal adult and has been approved by the court then if she does not adhere to the guidelines he is indeed in violation.

Maybe she has found out she really doesn't want to be the one to raise this boy. If she was concerned about him or his safety he wouldn't be running into a dugout with other children that evidently did not want him to be there. If he had been under adult supervision this could never have happened. So what will it be the next time he has a hankering to break free from his probation restraints?

And imo this boy knows the rules as well as Eryn does but then when one gets away with murder maybe they think rules just don't apply to them.

To me it shows this boy does not need to be with Eryn or Granny get a gun either.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you, fran! Yes, there are two sides to every story. Eryn and CR are quite obviously living in a hostile environment and the court is dragging this out unnecessarily - for which they should be ashamed. Mr. Wood makes some great points in his response with respect to the FACT that CR is not in control of his own situation.

I'm confused about the "victim" who fears this child. Who is the "victim" and in what way, exactly, are they a victim???

It isn't the court. It is the doctors who are analyzing him.

What has been spent so far? 12,500K or something similar.

These doctors sure must be dissecting this boy closely trying to find out what makes him tick. Makes me think he is a unique killer especially for his age. We will never learn what they diagnosed him with imo because that will remain hidden from the public but it sure is intriguing why it is taking so long to assess him.

Sounds like the victim lives right there in St. John.

imo

 

[Fairy1]

It isn't the court. It is the doctors who are analyzing him.

What has been spent so far? 12,500K or something similar.

These doctors sure must be dissecting this boy closely trying to find out what makes him tick. Makes me think he is a unique killer especially for his age. We will never learn what they diagnosed him with imo because that will remain hidden from the public but it sure is intriguing why it is taking so long to assess him.

Sounds like the victim lives right there in St. John.


imo

Um, the court IS in charge. They just authorized additional payment for the evaluation - at the taxpayer's expense. We're talking about a child here. It's not rocket science and since he's not deceased, I don't believe any "dissecting" is required. He's 9. I don't believe there's anything complicated about him.

I realize you want to believe this boy is a mastermind, diabolical, cold-blooded murderer. But the very fact that he is a child really does not support that theory. He's just a little boy. IMO, of course.

No, we will likely never know anything about his psychological evaluation. I'm ok with that. He's a child and NONE OF US KNOW what was happening in that house leading up to the murders of VR and TR. WE DO NOT KNOW how TIFFANY WAS WITH CR.

Some of the posters on this case maintain that CR had an unconrollable an deep-seeded rage against his father. I have yet to see any evidence of that. So, they went to his school? So, he was - reportedly - seen with Tiffany frequently. We still do not know what was happening in that home, between CR and VR and TR. This is no different than so many cases we see on WS where friends, family and neighbors are befuddled by what has transpired. NO ONE knows what goes on behind closed doors and people can make things appear just as they wish to on the outside.

And who cares if they took him to the dentist? How is that relevant? Lots of abusers are well-to-do and go through the motions of "caring" for their children.

And, IIRC, the "victims" in this case are deceased. I don't believe there are any recent victims of the murderer. I'm sensing a lynch mob here....

IMHO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Um, the court IS in charge. They just authorized additional payment for the evaluation - at the taxpayer's expense. We're talking about a child here. It's not rocket science and since he's not deceased, I don't believe any "dissecting" is required. He's 9. I don't believe there's anything complicated about him.

I realize you want to believe this boy is a mastermind, diabolical, cold-blooded murderer. But the very fact that he is a child really does not support that theory. He's just a little boy. IMO, of course.

No, we will likely never know anything about his psychological evaluation. I'm ok with that. He's a child and NONE OF US KNOW what was happening in that house leading up to the murders of VR and TR. WE DO NOT KNOW how TIFFANY WAS WITH CR.

Some of the posters on this case maintain that CR had an unconrollable an deep-seeded rage against his father. I have yet to see any evidence of that. So, they went to his school? So, he was - reportedly - seen with Tiffany frequently. We still do not know what was happening in that home, between CR and VR and TR. This is no different than so many cases we see on WS where friends, family and neighbors are befuddled by what has transpired. NO ONE knows what goes on behind closed doors and people can make things appear just as they wish to on the outside.

And who cares if they took him to the dentist? How is that relevant? Lots of abusers are well-to-do and go through the motions of "caring" for their children.

And, IIRC, the "victims" in this case are deceased. I don't believe there are any recent victims of the murderer. I'm sensing a lynch mob here....

IMHO

Actually...hmmm, no, I would rather believe he was not capable of such heinous crimes. However I do believe him very much guilty. I do not base that on my "want to believe" but from the evidence that has been revealed including the very very small window of opportunity for these murders to occur.

Yes, the Court most certainly did allocate more money for his evaluation doctors. Which leads me to believe they are struggling to make sense with what they have uncovered already and think they need additional time to further assess him. I was not using the word "dissecting" literally.

I do believe his problem began to simmer and fester through the years because he was abandoned by his mother at a very early age. I also believe that circumstance caused the boy to shut down any feelings he had for others, even those who loved him dearly that had never abandoned him not once.

Psychiatrists and psychologists both have studied case histories for decades and when the violent defendant has been abandoned by the mother during the most important years of their lives it leaves them unable to feel love, even if given by others and they have an inability to love and bond with others. A mother teaches by example how to love and for the child to feel they are nurtured so they in turn know how to love others. Those who do not have that relationship can become unto themselves and only think of them. The hate can be so great that the defendant learns to hate all women or they place no value on human life at all whether it be a male or female.

And respectfully you are wrong Fairy, a victim can be anyone who was victimized by the loss of their loved one due to them being killed. To not do so would be like saying Sharon Rocha and her family weren't left as victims after SP shattered their world nor Sheri Coleman's family. There are many who are victims left behind when anyone is killed. That is why these type of victims have rights in courthouses all across this country.

imo

 

[dgfred]

Sounds like typical defense speakisms to me.

The point is not about the child being responsible for the violations. Eryn stepped up and told the court she would be responsible and would make sure he followed all guidelines of the court plea deal. Just because he cannot drive himself to NM doesn't mean he isn't in violation of the court order. Since Eryn is the legal adult and has been approved by the court then if she does not adhere to the guidelines he is indeed in violation.

Maybe she has found out she really doesn't want to be the one to raise this boy. If she was concerned about him or his safety he wouldn't be running into a dugout with other children that evidently did not want him to be there. If he had been under adult supervision this could never have happened. So what will it be the next time he has a hankering to break free from his probation restraints?

And imo this boy knows the rules as well as Eryn does but then when one gets away with murder maybe they think rules just don't apply to them.

To me it shows this boy does not need to be with Eryn or Granny get a gun either.

imo

Are you so sure he went into the dugout? I think not.

Are you so sure he didn't have adult supervision that day? I think not.

Do you have any clue as to why Granny wanted a gun? I think not.

To me this shows you do not know what you are talking about. imo

Maybe you should have waited a bit this time before jumping onto the hate bandwagon, as you will soon see the accusations will be put to rest in the next court session.

Some poster's holier than thou attitudes need to think about if you were in the mother's situation. Son accused of this crime, can't get job because son has to be under constant supervision, can't be at school with other children, no money for tudors, no money for alot of other things, etc... got to be tough.

 

[southcitymom]

Like they say, there's two sides to every story. It's about time this defense attorney speaks up for this boy!

JMHO
fran



Response to Request to Incarcerate

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO INCARCERATE 06102009.pdf

I like the defense's response and am curious to learn more about what really happened. I find it particularly head-scratching that the State says the child's mother is afraid of him without a statement from the mother.

All along, I have felt that the child is best served being in his parent/family's custody. Perhaps I have missed something, but in all these many threads, I don't recall reading anything that leads me to believe his mother is abusive or neglectful in any real way.

I am always a bit curious when a Father and not a Mother has custody of a young child. That's not fair, of course - I am just being honest. It's a subtle prejudice I bring to this case.

Also - what am I missing about the dugout? - I could not seem to find the accusation of why he shouldn't be in a dugout watching a ball game.

 

[southcitymom]

....... think about if you were in the mother's situation. Son accused of this crime, can't get job because son has to be under constant supervision, can't be at school with other children, no money for tudors, no money for alot of other things, etc... got to be tough.

I couldn't agree with you more about this Mother's unenviable situation.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Um, the court IS in charge. They just authorized additional payment for the evaluation - at the taxpayer's expense. We're talking about a child here. It's not rocket science and since he's not deceased, I don't believe any "dissecting" is required. He's 9. I don't believe there's anything complicated about him.

I realize you want to believe this boy is a mastermind, diabolical, cold-blooded murderer. But the very fact that he is a child really does not support that theory. He's just a little boy. IMO, of course.

No, we will likely never know anything about his psychological evaluation. I'm ok with that. He's a child and NONE OF US KNOW what was happening in that house leading up to the murders of VR and TR. WE DO NOT KNOW how TIFFANY WAS WITH CR.

Some of the posters on this case maintain that CR had an uncontrollable an deep-seeded rage against his father. I have yet to see any evidence of that. So, they went to his school? So, he was - reportedly - seen with Tiffany frequently. We still do not know what was happening in that home, between CR and VR and TR. This is no different than so many cases we see on WS where friends, family and neighbors are befuddled by what has transpired. NO ONE knows what goes on behind closed doors and people can make things appear just as they wish to on the outside.

And who cares if they took him to the dentist? How is that relevant? Lots of abusers are well-to-do and go through the motions of "caring" for their children.

And, IIRC, the "victims" in this case are deceased. I don't believe there are any recent victims of the murderer. I'm sensing a lynch mob here....

IMHO

He's not just a "little boy" IMO He's severely disturbed and in need of supervision and residential treatment. The boy murdered two people, and was all prepared with his lies.

This boy is rare only as far as age goes. He needs to be thoroughly evaluated. Frankly, I shocked they aren't having him medically evaluated for an organic cause as well.

His mother has proven she is not the one to raise him.

I don't doubt for a second that if CR had any issue with Tiffany at all...she would be dead too.

We do know there was zero evidence of sexual abuse and zero evidence of any sort of physical abuse.

I am a little confused by your dentist comment?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Are you so sure he went into the dugout? I think not.

Are you so sure he didn't have adult supervision that day? I think not.

Do you have any clue as to why Granny wanted a gun? I think not.

To me this shows you do not know what you are talking about. imo

Maybe you should have waited a bit this time before jumping onto the hate bandwagon, as you will soon see the accusations will be put to rest in the next court session.

Some poster's holier than thou attitudes need to think about if you were in the mother's situation. Son accused of this crime, can't get job because son has to be under constant supervision, can't be at school with other children, no money for tudors, no money for a lot of other things, etc... got to be tough.

Even the boy's own attorney hasn't denied the allegations. That should tell you something.

It really doesn't matter WHY granny wanted the gun. The fact is the boy can NOT be in a house with a gun. Period. Granny knew that.

The boy can NOT associated with felons. Period. His mother knew that and was warned before.

Yes, life must be tough for poor Eryn. :sick: She whines the boy isn't being educated, she can't homeschool him...arrangements are made for his education....and the kids a no show.

She whines she can't transport the kid to appointments...state gives her money.

She's whining she can't take him to the dentist

She can't work

She can't provide a home

What is it she IS doing???

Because she certainly is not following the rules mandated by the court as part of her son's plea agreement. She's been a poor role model making one bad decision after another.

Why can't she work at night while the boy sleeps at Liz's house? IMO His mother is a loser. Plain and simple and she's the last person that should be responsible for this boy. She can't even take care of herself!!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I couldn't agree with you more about this Mother's unenviable situation.

Her situation is her own fault.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I like the defense's response and am curious to learn more about what really happened. I find it particularly head-scratching that the State says the child's mother is afraid of him without a statement from the mother.

All along, I have felt that the child is best served being in his parent/family's custody. Perhaps I have missed something, but in all these many threads, I don't recall reading anything that leads me to believe his mother is abusive or neglectful in any real way.

I am always a bit curious when a Father and not a Mother has custody of a young child. That's not fair, of course - I am just being honest. It's a subtle prejudice I bring to this case.

Also - what am I missing about the dugout? - I could not seem to find the accusation of why he shouldn't be in a dugout watching a ball game.

I am missing something...Where does the state say the mother is afraid of him?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Are you so sure he went into the dugout? I think not.

Are you so sure he didn't have adult supervision that day? I think not.

Do you have any clue as to why Granny wanted a gun? I think not.

To me this shows you do not know what you are talking about. imo

Maybe you should have waited a bit this time before jumping onto the hate bandwagon, as you will soon see the accusations will be put to rest in the next court session.

Some poster's holier than thou attitudes need to think about if you were in the mother's situation. Son accused of this crime, can't get job because son has to be under constant supervision, can't be at school with other children, no money for tudors, no money for alot of other things, etc... got to be tough.

I think she is trying to get the gun on the pretense that she feels threatened by having the boy there because some citizens in that town have made it known they don't want him there. But IF she keeps this boy inside her home then she can have no weapons of any kind in her home and if she does go against the guidelines of the probation it makes him in violation of his probation. If she can go to the police about this then I am sure she can call 911 and they will come immediately should she need them. I also think LE is very aware of the unrest it is causing citizens by CR being out on the streets in St. John.

Are you saying he DID have adult supervision but he disobeyed the adult and ran into the dugout anyway causing a disruption?

If she has no money then how did she afford to go to NM?

So she was there every minute with him yet he still did not go to his expected detention school classes? Why didn't she leave the boy with Liz rather than taking him to the convicted felon's house knowing she would be in violation of her son's probation? Maybe she thinks one felon hanging around another felon is cool, she had already been warned about associating with the felon once before.

If I was this mother then I would do everything in my power to see that each and every prong of my son's probation was done to the letter of the court. If she is watching him 24/7 every minute then why is there a motion to revoke his furlough?

imo

 

[OrdinaryLife]

None of this is the mother's fault. There has been absolutely nothing that points to this young boys mother as being abusive, neglectful, or taking advantage of the Courts decree given her. Frankly, this sounds like a witch hunt and without more true facts, I am not going to slam this woman nor this boy.

I know there is much more to this recent story. Time will prove this out as there are two sides to every story. We've seen it before in cases and I believe will see it in this one. There is much more to this case. I have absolutely no doubt. Still.

It disturbs me, greatly, when I read such hate at other sites regarding this case as well as others. ~shudder~ It tends to trickle to other places. Like here at times. Major reason why I am not a member at any of those "places" and prefer to stay here. Thank goodness for WS's.

imvho

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I like the defense's response and am curious to learn more about what really happened. I find it particularly head-scratching that the State says the child's mother is afraid of him without a statement from the mother.

All along, I have felt that the child is best served being in his parent/family's custody. Perhaps I have missed something, but in all these many threads, I don't recall reading anything that leads me to believe his mother is abusive or neglectful in any real way.

I am always a bit curious when a Father and not a Mother has custody of a young child. That's not fair, of course - I am just being honest. It's a subtle prejudice I bring to this case.

Also - what am I missing about the dugout? - I could not seem to find the accusation of why he shouldn't be in a dugout watching a ball game.

The dugout is a place for the actual players and coaches to sit. Why would he be in the dugout in the first place? It wasn't like he was sitting on the bleachers like all the other spectators were.

From what I have read she also did not get physical custody of her 5 year old daughter either and the father has primary custody.

imo

 

[southcitymom]

Her situation is her own fault.

In the course of my life, most terrible and difficult situations I have found myself in have been my own fault - I am still always deeply grateful when compassion is offered to me while I struggle through.

 

[southcitymom]

I am missing something...Where does the state say the mother is afraid of him?

My bad Linda - I misread something in the Defense Motion. The State did NOT say or imply the Mom is afraid of the child.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The dugout is a place for the actual players and coaches to sit. Why would he be in the dugout in the first place? It wasn't like he was sitting on the bleachers like all the other spectators were.

From what I have read she also did not get physical custody of her 5 year old daughter either and the father has primary custody.

imo

She won't be paying support for her daughter either.

The boy is entitled to SSI...what is she doing with that money? Besides taking the boy out of state without permission.........

 

[Linda7NJ]

In the course of my life, most terrible situations I have found myself in have been my own fault - I am still always deeply grateful when compassion is offered to me while I struggle through.

Very true ...but ...you missed the point...while you & I struggle through....his mother just struggles. She never learns from her mistakes. She believes rules do not apply to her, nothing is her responsibility and she does exactly as she pleases.

The boy shares a few of her traits...is she really who you want to be raising him?

 

[Linda7NJ]

My bad Linda - I misread something in the Defense Motion. The State did NOT say or imply the Mom is afraid of the child.

Whew...I went back and was reading and reading and re-reading..lol Thought ya had more access than me

I don't understand who the "victim" is in the defense motion...do you?