Ha, I remember quite well you stating that the judge would scold the mom for breaking the guidelines... didn't happen. Well if it is for the DENSE then maybe Whiting and crowd can now tell what the difference is between breaking an agreement and doing nothing wrong. Too bad they had to file falsly to get the judge to explain it to them.
AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #5
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
Ha, I remember quite well you stating that the judge would scold the mom for breaking the guidelines... didn't happen. Well if it is for the DENSE then maybe Whiting and crowd can now tell what the difference is between breaking an agreement and doing nothing wrong. Too bad they had to file falsly to get the judge to explain it to them.
OrdinaryLife
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,675
- Reaction score
- 36
I know that I "Thanked" your post, but I just had to tell ~in person~ that I agree totally, completely, and whole heartedly, with your above post!!!!
Thank you for putting it out there so well, OM.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,781
I don't recall seeing anyone here who thought his furlough would be revoked.
Now it is much more detailed so one cant say it was too vague and they really didn't understand.
imo
I've followed this case closely and am convinced that this is not the end of it. He cannot go to a public event, cannot have visitors w/o permission, must attend school at the detention center. Not a great life. As he matures, he's going to become more discontent staying home with mom. IMO the boy will be before the judge again.
I don't recall seeing anyone here who thought his furlough would be revoked.
Now it is much more detailed so one cant say it was too vague and they really didn't understand.
imo
Yeah right. How is it much more detailed? What part was violated?
Well it seems that was more for Whiting than the mom and boy, since it must have been so vague that he didn't understand what would meet the requirements of a revocation and what would not. Rumor does not fit the bill by the way imo.
Hopefully the mom and boy can move far, far away and start over. Maybe able to go to regular school, but getting counciling/treatment all the while.
MeoW333
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,761
- Reaction score
- 81
I agree with restrictions as such, he will violate that as he gets older. They are going to have to make it extremely structured for him, and even then..
It is such a rare case, with the boy being so young, that a lot of them are probably "learning as they go", as they did make exceptions due to his young age.
Well the case has been a mess from the start. Video released of 8yr old being interrogated without representation of family or a lawyer. Releasing the crime scene too early and sealing the investigation. Tid-bits of information released showing the boy 'could' have done this or is 'consistant' with him doing the shooting... but no other facts and especially none released that might point in another direction. Now this farse of a filing by the prosecution that further ruins the public's perception of the mom/boy... the boys rights were trampled on and it seems to be business as usual for this prosecution team. Also the chief of police has relocated I believe... so he started this mess and then left it to his successor to deal with the mishandling of the case. Several excellent leads were available, but none seemed to be followed up on with earnest.
Common sense says this boy did not suddenly become a psychotic killer... there is no evidence of this in the family's history is there? If he is the shooter then something HAD to cause this explosion of violence. What could it have been?
Common sense says this boy did not suddenly become a psychotic killer... there is no evidence of this in the family's history is there? If he is the shooter then something HAD to cause this explosion of violence. What could it have been?
fran
Former Member
Like I've said before, there's always two sides to every story. This is the mother's response, via her attorney, to the recent bogus filings and accusations against this mother and child.
For goodness sakes! All it would have taken is one or two phone calls to have cleared this matter up. He didn't even check his facts with people who SHOULD have known, ie. the po officer who sees the boy every day and the school which he attends as instructed.
IMHO, IF this pros could be sooooo wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? What other allegations has he NOT had investigated to a satisfactory conclusion? When it comes to murder, ASSumptions just aren't good enough.
JMHO
fran
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/n...-year-old-back-in/VZhOJvsP506EraIgOIrRRQ.cspx
State withdraws request to put 9-year-old back in AZ jail
...........................snip...........................
In an e-mail Williams explained how he feels that, "A picture is being painted that the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions reached by the attorneys involved, and the State's decision to withdraw their Request to Terminate Furlough, which was filed on June 5th, are somehow related. This simply is not accurate.
The State pitched the idea to the three other attorneys involved (attorney for Mother, attorney for juvenile and Guardian Ad Litem - attorney appointed to look out for the "best interest" of the juvenile) that all terms and conditions of the juvenile's furlough be consolidated into one document. Up to that point in time, release conditions had been handed down from the court through a few separate court hearings. While there really wasn't any significant confusion as to the juvenile's release conditions, all parties saw the benefit to compiling those conditions into one document, and were fine with the request to do so.
However, the stipulation to those terms, as relayed at the hearing on June 16th, had nothing to do with the State's oral motion to withdraw their previous Request to Terminate Furlough. The State still had the opportunity to call witnesses and put on evidence to support the allegations made against the juvenile and his mother. They claimed to have subpoenaed witnesses, but never formally disclosed what witnesses they planned on calling. The hearing came and went without the State even attempting to substantiate one of the allegations made against the juvenile and his mother, and then attempted to somehow connect their withdrawal of the Request to Terminate Furlough with the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions.
The State filed a Request to Terminate Furlough and painted a very inaccurate and unfair picture of the boy's mother and her actions while her son has been on furlough. In truth, she has complied with everything the court and the probation department has asked of her."
Williams said the hearing came and went without the State substantiating allegations made against the boy and his mother, and then attempted to somehow connect their withdrawal of the Request to Terminate Furlough with the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions.
Williams also said the State filed a Request to Terminate Furlough and painted a very inaccurate and unfair picture of the boy's mother and her actions while her son has been on furlough. In truth, she has complied with everything the court and the probation department has asked of her.
Williams believes the State is simply trying to gracefully bow out of a motion that should have never been filed.
He said the filing did upset the boy's mother and it was a frustrating experience.
Whiting believes the result of Tuesday's hearing, an order of furlough conditions, will help all parties because it is the first such comprehensive outline of all the conditions.
He said this will make it easier for the mom to understand and easily identify what her son is and is not allowed to do.
The document does include a new condition which states that the boy will not be allowed to, "attend any formal public events (fairs, parades, celebrations, etc.) until you are determined to not pose a threat to yourself or the public and such determination is submitted to the Court in writing by your evaluating psychiatrist and the State and the defense and victims are given the opportunity to object at a hearing before this Court."
Another issue the court tackled on Tuesday was the expected completion date of two psychological reports.
Two board-certified psychiatrists were assigned the task of evaluating the boy.
It is not until the Judge reviews these reports that the disposition hearing can be scheduled.
In juvenile court, disposition is considered equivalent to "sentencing" in adult court.
Back in February, it was estimated that this sentencing would happen in 60 days, which would place it in April.
But as of Tuesday's hearing, the reports are still not complete.
The Judge asked that they be completed and turned into the court by Wednesday, July 8.
The disposition is scheduled at 11:30 a.m. on July 16.
The boy's mother never agreed to the plea agreement.
Now she's just hoping the case wraps up soon.
According to statements made at previous hearings, she can request for his probation to be moved to a different City or State after disposition.
For goodness sakes! All it would have taken is one or two phone calls to have cleared this matter up. He didn't even check his facts with people who SHOULD have known, ie. the po officer who sees the boy every day and the school which he attends as instructed.
IMHO, IF this pros could be sooooo wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? What other allegations has he NOT had investigated to a satisfactory conclusion? When it comes to murder, ASSumptions just aren't good enough.
JMHO
fran
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/n...-year-old-back-in/VZhOJvsP506EraIgOIrRRQ.cspx
State withdraws request to put 9-year-old back in AZ jail
...........................snip...........................
In an e-mail Williams explained how he feels that, "A picture is being painted that the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions reached by the attorneys involved, and the State's decision to withdraw their Request to Terminate Furlough, which was filed on June 5th, are somehow related. This simply is not accurate.
The State pitched the idea to the three other attorneys involved (attorney for Mother, attorney for juvenile and Guardian Ad Litem - attorney appointed to look out for the "best interest" of the juvenile) that all terms and conditions of the juvenile's furlough be consolidated into one document. Up to that point in time, release conditions had been handed down from the court through a few separate court hearings. While there really wasn't any significant confusion as to the juvenile's release conditions, all parties saw the benefit to compiling those conditions into one document, and were fine with the request to do so.
However, the stipulation to those terms, as relayed at the hearing on June 16th, had nothing to do with the State's oral motion to withdraw their previous Request to Terminate Furlough. The State still had the opportunity to call witnesses and put on evidence to support the allegations made against the juvenile and his mother. They claimed to have subpoenaed witnesses, but never formally disclosed what witnesses they planned on calling. The hearing came and went without the State even attempting to substantiate one of the allegations made against the juvenile and his mother, and then attempted to somehow connect their withdrawal of the Request to Terminate Furlough with the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions.
The State filed a Request to Terminate Furlough and painted a very inaccurate and unfair picture of the boy's mother and her actions while her son has been on furlough. In truth, she has complied with everything the court and the probation department has asked of her."
Williams said the hearing came and went without the State substantiating allegations made against the boy and his mother, and then attempted to somehow connect their withdrawal of the Request to Terminate Furlough with the stipulated Order Regarding Furlough Conditions.
Williams also said the State filed a Request to Terminate Furlough and painted a very inaccurate and unfair picture of the boy's mother and her actions while her son has been on furlough. In truth, she has complied with everything the court and the probation department has asked of her.
Williams believes the State is simply trying to gracefully bow out of a motion that should have never been filed.
He said the filing did upset the boy's mother and it was a frustrating experience.
Whiting believes the result of Tuesday's hearing, an order of furlough conditions, will help all parties because it is the first such comprehensive outline of all the conditions.
He said this will make it easier for the mom to understand and easily identify what her son is and is not allowed to do.
The document does include a new condition which states that the boy will not be allowed to, "attend any formal public events (fairs, parades, celebrations, etc.) until you are determined to not pose a threat to yourself or the public and such determination is submitted to the Court in writing by your evaluating psychiatrist and the State and the defense and victims are given the opportunity to object at a hearing before this Court."
Another issue the court tackled on Tuesday was the expected completion date of two psychological reports.
Two board-certified psychiatrists were assigned the task of evaluating the boy.
It is not until the Judge reviews these reports that the disposition hearing can be scheduled.
In juvenile court, disposition is considered equivalent to "sentencing" in adult court.
Back in February, it was estimated that this sentencing would happen in 60 days, which would place it in April.
But as of Tuesday's hearing, the reports are still not complete.
The Judge asked that they be completed and turned into the court by Wednesday, July 8.
The disposition is scheduled at 11:30 a.m. on July 16.
The boy's mother never agreed to the plea agreement.
Now she's just hoping the case wraps up soon.
According to statements made at previous hearings, she can request for his probation to be moved to a different City or State after disposition.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,781
I do believe LE mishandled this case at the beginning. It was not with a purposeful intent toward the boy imo but because they had never dealt with a murder there in years much less two homicides and they stumbled when trying figure out how to handle this and him. I am not so sure that before these murders if they didn't customarily turn over videos to the media. They certainly messed up when he confessed to being involved and should have immediately stopped the interview from that point on imo.
I think we just aren't that use to seeing plea deals and plea deals seal the evidence when they are agreed upon. IMO, the time lines were notated in hearings and that has always been the crux of the case for me. So whatever is out there sealed the time line was the best information revealed in this case, imo.
I do not think Whiting did anything unethical. Even Judge Roca said ALL PARTIES should do a better job of sharing information each one of them has with the others so there want be misinformation. It sure seems those that are suppose to inform weren't doing exactly what they should have been doing and thankfully that is all cleared up now.
I am not sure commonsense and someone who murders can be meshed together. Murders to logical individuals are very illogical acts without commonsense applied. Due to his age he did not have the history to review that most have when they commit murder at an older age. And we have seen countless murder defendants that showed no red flags, those even way up into their 50s and 60s who led exemplary lives until their ultimate act of homicides.
I see no reason why he would need to have someone in his family history that has shown this level of violence. There is a first time for everything. We have even seen family members who were parents of serial killers or other murderers who led an upstanding life.
I just think this boy is an enigma. Just different and totally different than an average 9 year old boy.
imo
I think we just aren't that use to seeing plea deals and plea deals seal the evidence when they are agreed upon. IMO, the time lines were notated in hearings and that has always been the crux of the case for me. So whatever is out there sealed the time line was the best information revealed in this case, imo.
I do not think Whiting did anything unethical. Even Judge Roca said ALL PARTIES should do a better job of sharing information each one of them has with the others so there want be misinformation. It sure seems those that are suppose to inform weren't doing exactly what they should have been doing and thankfully that is all cleared up now.
I am not sure commonsense and someone who murders can be meshed together. Murders to logical individuals are very illogical acts without commonsense applied. Due to his age he did not have the history to review that most have when they commit murder at an older age. And we have seen countless murder defendants that showed no red flags, those even way up into their 50s and 60s who led exemplary lives until their ultimate act of homicides.
I see no reason why he would need to have someone in his family history that has shown this level of violence. There is a first time for everything. We have even seen family members who were parents of serial killers or other murderers who led an upstanding life.
I just think this boy is an enigma. Just different and totally different than an average 9 year old boy.
imo
fran
Former Member
With the track record this pros has, I wonder if we're just supposed to ASSume that he's resolved all of the 'lingering' questions regarding this case. Has LE REALLY investigated this case to the fullest extent of the law. IF a judge, no offense, but ANOTHER judge were to look at this case, would he be satisfied that this case has been investigated FULLY and there's no other possibility except this child did this crime?
I'm seriously NOT CONVINCED this child did this crime. I'm not saying he couldn't have done it, but, I'm just not feelin' it.
JMHO
fran
1. Where was Tiffany at the time of the crime? Were there witnesses that actually saw her IN the store at the TIME of the murders? Ok, I know her car was there, but the TWO witnesses that saw her car there, did NOT see her in the store........so this is just a question to tie loose ends....
2. Was Nicole REALLY at practice as she CLAIMS? After all, this was the FIRST time Tiffany had asked her to stay until the boy came home, yet she CLAIMS she didn't.
3. Have they ever found the missing 22, automatic rifle that was usually kept at the murder scene home? Which grandpa's gun was that?
4. Where was Tiffany's dad when he spoke to Vince? Tiffany claimed her dad spoke to Vince 15 minutes after she did, which would make him the last person to speak to Vince before he was murdered?
5. How could only TWO shells out of TEN be connected to the ALLEGED murder weapon? WHO or WHERE did the other EIGHT shells come from?
6. WHO's prints were on the alleged murder weapon? They don't have evidence they were the boys?
7. Tiffany and Vince had a HUGE argument the night before the crime. When Vince and she talked on the phone after he got off work that day, did they make up? Why did she fax to friends that she wished she'd called him? because of the argument?
8. Did you follow-up with Tim's drug dealing connections?
9. Who wanted to kill Tim just the week prior? He told one of his dealers someone wanted to kill him. Are you just going to let that lie?
10. Did you follow up further with the former fellow employee, that more than one person told you didn't like the two victims?
11. Did you follow up with this same person who didn't like the victims that had a white car? Oh, yeah, he told you he left it with his daughter for the past few months and was driving a different vehicle. But..................he had only been gone from the local power plant for three weeks and up to that time he WAS driving a SMALL WHITE PICK UP????????????
Was he lying to you?
12. This SAME person put himself in St. Johns at the time of the murder. Did you follow up on that?
13. This SAME person also said he had a 22 rifle.............oh,..........but he said he hadn't EVER fired it since he had purchased it. Did you believe him? Did you check it out?
14. You didn't think it 'coincidental' that this SAME person had talked to Tim just the week before and it was just the WEEK BEFORE that Tim had told his drug dealer someone wanted to kill him? Did you even bother to follow up on it?
15. Did you question the girl who claimed Tim assaulted her?
16. Did you question, was it Misty the bartender's? b/f? You know, Misty the OTHER girl Tim was seeing?
17. What about Candy? Does she KNOW anyone on the 'loco' gang or whatever that was trying to get Tim to join?
18. Did you ever check out this supposed 'loco' gang or whatever?
19. How did that crime scene re-inactment go? Was it POSSIBLE for this 8 yo child to shoot......load..........shoot.........load..........shoot.........load.......shoot........load, beckon Tim, shoot.........load...........shoot.........load..........shoot........load........shoot.......load............shoot............load........shoot.......
before either one of these grown men could have gotten to him? Do you have that re-inactment on film that you could release, you know, like you did the bogus confession?
20.............Oh, and about Nicole???????? Did you ask her what she wanted those 22 bullets for? Did she STILL HAVE THEM?????
21...Just for my own curiousity, since Tim was known to carouse around, did you ask Nicole if she'd ever had a thing with Tim? Did she get along with Tim? Did he rebuff her?............just wonderin''''
I'm seriously NOT CONVINCED this child did this crime. I'm not saying he couldn't have done it, but, I'm just not feelin' it.
JMHO
fran
1. Where was Tiffany at the time of the crime? Were there witnesses that actually saw her IN the store at the TIME of the murders? Ok, I know her car was there, but the TWO witnesses that saw her car there, did NOT see her in the store........so this is just a question to tie loose ends....
2. Was Nicole REALLY at practice as she CLAIMS? After all, this was the FIRST time Tiffany had asked her to stay until the boy came home, yet she CLAIMS she didn't.
3. Have they ever found the missing 22, automatic rifle that was usually kept at the murder scene home? Which grandpa's gun was that?
4. Where was Tiffany's dad when he spoke to Vince? Tiffany claimed her dad spoke to Vince 15 minutes after she did, which would make him the last person to speak to Vince before he was murdered?
5. How could only TWO shells out of TEN be connected to the ALLEGED murder weapon? WHO or WHERE did the other EIGHT shells come from?
6. WHO's prints were on the alleged murder weapon? They don't have evidence they were the boys?
7. Tiffany and Vince had a HUGE argument the night before the crime. When Vince and she talked on the phone after he got off work that day, did they make up? Why did she fax to friends that she wished she'd called him? because of the argument?
8. Did you follow-up with Tim's drug dealing connections?
9. Who wanted to kill Tim just the week prior? He told one of his dealers someone wanted to kill him. Are you just going to let that lie?
10. Did you follow up further with the former fellow employee, that more than one person told you didn't like the two victims?
11. Did you follow up with this same person who didn't like the victims that had a white car? Oh, yeah, he told you he left it with his daughter for the past few months and was driving a different vehicle. But..................he had only been gone from the local power plant for three weeks and up to that time he WAS driving a SMALL WHITE PICK UP????????????
Was he lying to you?
12. This SAME person put himself in St. Johns at the time of the murder. Did you follow up on that?
13. This SAME person also said he had a 22 rifle.............oh,..........but he said he hadn't EVER fired it since he had purchased it. Did you believe him? Did you check it out?
14. You didn't think it 'coincidental' that this SAME person had talked to Tim just the week before and it was just the WEEK BEFORE that Tim had told his drug dealer someone wanted to kill him? Did you even bother to follow up on it?
15. Did you question the girl who claimed Tim assaulted her?
16. Did you question, was it Misty the bartender's? b/f? You know, Misty the OTHER girl Tim was seeing?
17. What about Candy? Does she KNOW anyone on the 'loco' gang or whatever that was trying to get Tim to join?
18. Did you ever check out this supposed 'loco' gang or whatever?
19. How did that crime scene re-inactment go? Was it POSSIBLE for this 8 yo child to shoot......load..........shoot.........load..........shoot.........load.......shoot........load, beckon Tim, shoot.........load...........shoot.........load..........shoot........load........shoot.......load............shoot............load........shoot.......
before either one of these grown men could have gotten to him? Do you have that re-inactment on film that you could release, you know, like you did the bogus confession?
20.............Oh, and about Nicole???????? Did you ask her what she wanted those 22 bullets for? Did she STILL HAVE THEM?????
21...Just for my own curiousity, since Tim was known to carouse around, did you ask Nicole if she'd ever had a thing with Tim? Did she get along with Tim? Did he rebuff her?............just wonderin''''
fran
Former Member
With regard to my just previous post about the lingering questions I have about this case. I know this case file is now sealed. But, you see, that's just it, without the answers to these questions, I honestly don't see how anyone can truthfully say this child did it.
I'm not going to ASSume the LE checked all these out and the pros is NOT holding back exculpatory evidence. After all, this judge and this def attorney and this pros, accepted the plea deal from this 9 yo child, when they had the work-up from the def doctor saying he was incompetent to stand trial and that was on file, AND the pros doctor had turned in his report as well, or at the least, they KNEW his results.
You see, the very next day the guardian ad lidum spilled the beans the second doctor's report was in, so just because it wasn't on file with the court, doesn't mean all involved didn't know the answer.
They rushed this through, to the detriment of this child,.........and POSSIBLY to the detriment of justice for these two men.
JMHO
fran
I'm not going to ASSume the LE checked all these out and the pros is NOT holding back exculpatory evidence. After all, this judge and this def attorney and this pros, accepted the plea deal from this 9 yo child, when they had the work-up from the def doctor saying he was incompetent to stand trial and that was on file, AND the pros doctor had turned in his report as well, or at the least, they KNEW his results.
You see, the very next day the guardian ad lidum spilled the beans the second doctor's report was in, so just because it wasn't on file with the court, doesn't mean all involved didn't know the answer.
They rushed this through, to the detriment of this child,.........and POSSIBLY to the detriment of justice for these two men.
JMHO
fran
# 19 is the one I could never get right with myself.
I have almost the exact kind of rifle as the boys, except a little longer. It is bolt-action single shot .22 and I know how difficult it is to load/fire/eject/reload/etc... when you have to be holding the extra shells or have them in your pocket, much less under stress and trying to fire quickly and accurately. I just can not see it, and have actually walked around my house messing around with the idea... I still don't think it was possible imo.
I have almost the exact kind of rifle as the boys, except a little longer. It is bolt-action single shot .22 and I know how difficult it is to load/fire/eject/reload/etc... when you have to be holding the extra shells or have them in your pocket, much less under stress and trying to fire quickly and accurately. I just can not see it, and have actually walked around my house messing around with the idea... I still don't think it was possible imo.
fran
Former Member
This is ONE of my biggest questions????????
I know people say that there's no way it could have been anyone else because of the length of time from Tim hanging up the phone with Tanya to the 911 call coming in.............................BUT...........................
IF it were the child, WHY??????? didn't Tim hear the gun shot from just outside the house????????? IF Tanya could allegedly hear the boy calling Tim, then she WOULD have also, and Tim also WOULD have heard the shots........
OTOH, IF the crime was by someone already in the house when the two victims arrived, and he used an automatic, bam,bam,bam,bam............Tim hearing a noise and not realizing what's going on, 'gotta go, sumthin's up!' TIM may have mentioned the boy's name, thus Tanya THOUGHT it was the boy, and Tim goes towards the house, someone begins firing, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam,................
The child saw Tim's truck from four doors down, he saw someone going toward the house, it was MOST LIKELY Tim,.........he then saw someone run from the house and a car speed away fast around the corner, he approaches the house, sees Tim's body from two doors down and the rest of the story,..............
I totally see how that COULD be what happened.
JMHO
fran
PS...........people do realize, don't they, that the guns that were SUPPOSED to be under the bed in the master bedroom, were NOT under the bed when LE arrived. They were lying on the floor either by the window or door? Can't remember which...............anyway, like someone MAY HAVE been in the process of STEALING them????????? The master bedroom is the FIRST place thieves go to when robbing a house. That's where there's usually $$ and GUNS.
My theory is kinda like this: Somebody using the automatic .22 shot the men, CR comes home as that person(s) either run out back or as CR goes up the stairs- sneak out the front and on to a waiting vehicle. CR finds the men, goes to his dad and MAYBE even as he said- 'made him not suffer' (or not) and the same for Tim. Also remember the round still in the chamber which he said 'in case the bad guys come back'... which makes some sense. So little GSR on the boy means he couldn't have done much, unless he washed up or switched clothes that they didn't bother to check for.
I am confused about where the boy says he 'saw someone going toward the house' as he was walking up- Was this Tim moving toward the house? Could the person have been moving away instead? Was someone shooting at Tim from a vehicle? Did they slip out the back? Was the back door open or unlocked?
I also am not sure about the stacked weapons by the upstairs window. Was someone looking out of there and saw the men drive up? Was CR checking out the weapons when he wasn't supposed to mess with them? I am still confused over this scenario. Maybe one day the plea deal will be dropped, and a big evidence dump follows thereafter... then we can get down to some real sluething :Justice: .
I am confused about where the boy says he 'saw someone going toward the house' as he was walking up- Was this Tim moving toward the house? Could the person have been moving away instead? Was someone shooting at Tim from a vehicle? Did they slip out the back? Was the back door open or unlocked?
I also am not sure about the stacked weapons by the upstairs window. Was someone looking out of there and saw the men drive up? Was CR checking out the weapons when he wasn't supposed to mess with them? I am still confused over this scenario. Maybe one day the plea deal will be dropped, and a big evidence dump follows thereafter... then we can get down to some real sluething :Justice: .
fran
Former Member
FWIW, from what I've read, in order for a judge to sign off on a plea deal, he must feel that the crime was investigated to the fullest and ALL other avenues have been eliminated.
To be quite honest, with the questions I have about this case, IMHO, IF this judge signs off on this, WITHOUT answers to ALL these questions, He SHOULD fear being called on the carpet at a later date.
Although the pros is NOT SUPPOSED to withhold exculpatory information, they do it all the time. That's why some convicted people get off later. I've even seen where the pros knew darn well there was exculpatory stuff. Their stupid excuse years later was, 'uh.......I didn't know I had to give them that.' In that particular case, I feel he should have been charged with a crime, but he wasn't.
The fact that they withheld the report of the second doctor, makes me pause, BIG TIME!
They're playing foot-loose on this because they can because he's a little boy. A little boy that they talked into taking a plea deal.
They didn't even ask him if he "KILLED TIM?"
No, they asked him if his "ACTIONS THAT DAY CAUSED THE DEATH OF TIM?"
To a 9 yo boy who found his dad and friend murdered and he was SUPPOSED to be home and he DIDN'T PREVENT their murder, "SURE HIS ACTIONS THAT DAY CAUSED HIS DEATH." Why? Because he didn't get the bad guys. He didn't help his dad and friend.
Anyway, this is just my take on this case. I just worry that we're letting a killer go loose. Because, IF this child did NOT in fact kill these two men, then the citizens of St. John should be afraid..............VERY afraid.
JMHO
fran
To be quite honest, with the questions I have about this case, IMHO, IF this judge signs off on this, WITHOUT answers to ALL these questions, He SHOULD fear being called on the carpet at a later date.
Although the pros is NOT SUPPOSED to withhold exculpatory information, they do it all the time. That's why some convicted people get off later. I've even seen where the pros knew darn well there was exculpatory stuff. Their stupid excuse years later was, 'uh.......I didn't know I had to give them that.' In that particular case, I feel he should have been charged with a crime, but he wasn't.
The fact that they withheld the report of the second doctor, makes me pause, BIG TIME!
They're playing foot-loose on this because they can because he's a little boy. A little boy that they talked into taking a plea deal. They didn't even ask him if he "KILLED TIM?"
No, they asked him if his "ACTIONS THAT DAY CAUSED THE DEATH OF TIM?"
To a 9 yo boy who found his dad and friend murdered and he was SUPPOSED to be home and he DIDN'T PREVENT their murder, "SURE HIS ACTIONS THAT DAY CAUSED HIS DEATH." Why? Because he didn't get the bad guys. He didn't help his dad and friend.
Anyway, this is just my take on this case. I just worry that we're letting a killer go loose. Because, IF this child did NOT in fact kill these two men, then the citizens of St. John should be afraid..............VERY afraid.
JMHO
fran
fran
Former Member
When the GSR expert released info to the press, he had the opportunity to say that the child had fired a weapon. But, he did NOT say that. No, he said,
"he was in close proximity to a weapon as it was fired or he MAY HAVE handled a fired weapon."
That is a FAR CRY from declaring he had fired ONE shot, much less TEN.
Experts discussing this case on tv said that because this was a 'hunting household' and there were guns and ammunition throughout the house, you could most likely examine just about anything in that home and it would have GSR on it.
JMHO
fran
PS.......I'm confused about the child seeing someone coming towards the house too and seeing SOMEONE else. But you see, the officers didn't do follow up questions because they were too intent on talking this little boy into confessing. They were just to stoooopid to realize he NEVER even described the wounds nor the crime scene accurately and he ALWAYS claimed BOTH men were already DOWN when he FIRST saw them......it's in the transcripts..........fran
"he was in close proximity to a weapon as it was fired or he MAY HAVE handled a fired weapon."
That is a FAR CRY from declaring he had fired ONE shot, much less TEN.
Experts discussing this case on tv said that because this was a 'hunting household' and there were guns and ammunition throughout the house, you could most likely examine just about anything in that home and it would have GSR on it.
JMHO
fran
PS.......I'm confused about the child seeing someone coming towards the house too and seeing SOMEONE else. But you see, the officers didn't do follow up questions because they were too intent on talking this little boy into confessing. They were just to stoooopid to realize he NEVER even described the wounds nor the crime scene accurately and he ALWAYS claimed BOTH men were already DOWN when he FIRST saw them......it's in the transcripts..........fran
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,781
I suppose it is the way each person perceives things. I have shot the very same type of youth model this boy did. Mine was like CRs, handed down and had been used very frequently over the years. It makes the mechanism of the gun very easy. Nothing is stiff due to constant use and caring for the weapon.
This did not happen in a few short seconds total time. Vinnie walked into his home at 4:52 and the boy did not call out for Tim for almost 180 seconds or 3 minutes. That is more than ample time to shoot this weapon 4 times. It takes about 6 seconds to go through all of the stages from ejecting, reloading, aiming and firing.
Watch how quickly kids do it when they are at a turkey shoot contest and have to hit the bullseye as many times as they can in a minute. It is not only doable it is very doable imo. It not only gave him time to follow through with the shooting but to maneuver himself each time to give himself the best advantage. I have always felt CR was hidden somewhere in the house in line with the stairwell and Vinnie never exactly knew what was happening until it was too late. That is why he had no close up shots. The boy kept his distance imo.
And he kept his distance when it came to Tim except the one shot when Tim was no longer able to resist. I believe where Tim lay dead on the porch by the greenery is where CR was standing when Tim fell there and never advanced anymore. At his height and as thick as the greenery is it would be hard for Tim to see exactly where the shots were coming from and it would work as a perfect blind for CR. He hunted small game he knew how to stand behind an obstruction until right before he stepped out to take his shot. This was the gun that CR said was easy to use. He was very familiar with the gun.
imo
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 109
- Guests online
- 2,533
- Total visitors
- 2,642