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

[toysoldier]

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

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

That is actually how coerced confessions work. It usually involves two people, one person playing friendly while the other plays the bully. Neckels acted as the friendly person while Avilia acted as the bully. For the first ten minutes they simply asked him what happened and he explained it. They asked him the same things several times and his story did not change.

It was not until the officer and the detective for a day began telling him that he was lying that his story began to change. His story never 'unwound.' They simply lied to him and told him that they found gunpowder on him, that the bullets matched his gun and that someone had seen him.

Coincidentally, nothing he said in the interrogation other than the location of the bodies actually matched the crime scene. He not only got the number of shots wrong, but he also got the location of the wounds wrong.

To belief that he was able to maintain his lie while revealing the truth is ludicrous. Either the boy is a mastermind on par with fictional characters like Batman or he is simply a child.

If it is the former, then we have a problem because if he is smart enough not to tell the complete truth, why would it never occur to him to keep lying? Even if the police say they have proof, if he is that adept at lying, why stop? Better yet, since Neckels offered the possibility that he was being spanked, why would this mastermind not introduce that as a reason for killing them? Obviously he would have to be capable of thinking on his feet and smart enough to kill any witness to the act, so why would that slip his mind?

If it is the latter, then we have another problem because if he is simply a child, he is easily confused and biologically prone to pleasing adults, especially when frightened or in trouble. Avilia had her loaded gun only a few inches from him. Both officers had him trapped in a room. He heard them deny his grandfather and other family members access to the room so that they would be there for him. Every time he corrected them with what he stated happened, they kept telling him they had proof they did not have. No child that age is capable of maintaining the truth in that situation. They will say whatever the person wants them to say to be able to get out of the situation.

Of course, that is precisely how a coerced confession works. The officers kept going until they got exactly what they wanted: him saying that he killed both men because he was mad for being punished the night before. They did not stop until they got exactly what they wanted. And it is worth mentioning that every expert, every attorney, every judge, even the former Attorney General of Arizona consider the confession false and completely untrustworthy.

It takes an impressive amount of cowardice and utter patheticness to do that to a child. The problem the state has is that if there was anything conclusively proving the boy did this, it makes no sense for them not to have released it. It serves no one to hide that information, although it does serve the state not to actually investigate the crime, to ignore several statements from people who corroborated the boy's statements about seeing a white car drive away and it definitely helps when the state completely tramples a child's rights, ignoring the fact that both the defense's and the state's evaluators found the boy incompetent, and then lying to him and tricking him into signing a plea agreement his own lawyer admitted in an interview the boy could not even understand.

Ultimately, it takes very little to scapegoat a child, only the most minimal cowardice and general political self-interest.

 

[southcitymom]

......

Ultimately, it takes very little to scapegoat a child....

(respectfully snipped for length)

I agree with this 100% - I just don't believe that's what happened in this case.

Welcome to WS - I hope we hear more from you.

 

[mysteriew]

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

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

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

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

imo

Exactly, they didn't agree with his scenario and he was searching for a way to make them happy. So he kept it up until he got where they wanted him to go. Interviewing a child is very different than interviewing an adult. But even with adults, an experienced investigator would be cautious about this. This is the way many false confessions have ended up in court.

 

[mysteriew]

One of the things that has bothered me the most about this case is the seal the judge put on the information in this case. Perhaps if we would have had access to info about the evidence in the case maybe it would have been easier to accept, easier to believe. But no, the judge sealed it. The main piece of evidence we know about is a flawed interview with the child. So did they come up with any evidence that actually proved the child killed? Or was the main evidence just the interviews with the child? Did the child's story match the forensics in the case, or was that excused?

I don't know. I just don't have confidence in the case and to be honest it is mainly because of that flawed interiew with the child. My main problems are a very young child, no guardian or other person to watch out for the child's interests, no one experienced in child interviews, an inexperienced interviewer, leading questions that are a no no for a child. If they messed up the interview then could they have messed up other things in the case? If they based their case on that interview, I don't think they had a case.

But never the less, now he is convicted. The court believes in his guilt, even he evidently believes in his guilt. So unless something comes up in his counseling sessions that says different, he is now guilty. And that is what has to be dealt with now.

unless......


Has anyone considered approaching Project Innocence with this case?????

 

[oceanblueeyes]

One of the things that has bothered me the most about this case is the seal the judge put on the information in this case. Perhaps if we would have had access to info about the evidence in the case maybe it would have been easier to accept, easier to believe. But no, the judge sealed it. The main piece of evidence we know about is a flawed interview with the child. So did they come up with any evidence that actually proved the child killed? Or was the main evidence just the interviews with the child? Did the child's story match the forensics in the case, or was that excused?

I don't know. I just don't have confidence in the case and to be honest it is mainly because of that flawed interview with the child. My main problems are a very young child, no guardian or other person to watch out for the child's interests, no one experienced in child interviews, an inexperienced interviewer, leading questions that are a no no for a child. If they messed up the interview then could they have messed up other things in the case? If they based their case on that interview, I don't think they had a case.

But never the less, now he is convicted. The court believes in his guilt, even he evidently believes in his guilt. So unless something comes up in his counseling sessions that says different, he is now guilty. And that is what has to be dealt with now.

unless......


Has anyone considered approaching Project Innocence with this case?????

I think the Judge sealed this case because it was in the best interest of the child to do so.

The community doesn't need to know the graphic details on all they collected concerning this case.

And when any plea deal is struck usually that is one of the negotiation prongs that the defense will put forth to protect their client from further stress and possibly harm if the information was known. Once the plea all particulars are sealed because the case has been resolved in the justice system.

I think it was much better for the boy for it to remain hidden and it gave the town a chance to get on with their lives and begin to heal instead of building up further resentments and fury in the community in which the boy resides.

I am in agreement with Southcitymom. I saw nothing in the interview that showed me that this kid was coerced. Like other kids he thought he could tell him what he wanted and they would believe it even though it made no sense.

I think he lied with ease. No way he walked around the block 10 or 11 times that particular day still carrying his book bag and leaving Nellie still locked up that day for another 2.5 hours after he got off the bus. No one, and there were people coming in and out of the neighborhood, saw him until he left the premises shortly after the gunfire rang out.

IMO, he went directly home, got all the stuff he needed together, put his book bag under the kitchen table and waited for his dad and Tim to arrive home.

imo

 

[dgfred]

I think the Judge sealed this case because it was in the best interest of the child to do so.

The community doesn't need to know the graphic details on all they collected concerning this case.

And when any plea deal is struck usually that is one of the negotiation prongs that the defense will put forth to protect their client from further stress and possibly harm if the information was known. Once the plea all particulars are sealed because the case has been resolved in the justice system.

I think it was much better for the boy for it to remain hidden and it gave the town a chance to get on with their lives and begin to heal instead of building up further resentments and fury in the community in which the boy resides.

I am in agreement with Southcitymom. I saw nothing in the interview that showed me that this kid was coerced. Like other kids he thought he could tell him what he wanted and they would believe it even though it made no sense.

I think he lied with ease. No way he walked around the block 10 or 11 times that particular day still carrying his book bag and leaving Nellie still locked up that day for another 2.5 hours after he got off the bus. No one, and there were people coming in and out of the neighborhood, saw him until he left the premises shortly after the gunfire rang out.

IMO, he went directly home, got all the stuff he needed together, put his book bag under the kitchen table and waited for his dad and Tim to arrive home.

imo

I believe Roca sealed the case in the best interest of LE, not the boy. To basically hide what was a shoddy attempt at an investigation and one that didn't follow normal LE protecal.

'The community doesn't need to know the graphic details collected' WHAT???
If the boy is possibly innocent or others were involved, why not? What graphic details? I think if they can assume a 8yr old shot his dad and his friend in the head... it doesn't get too much more graphic. ALL the detail might bring to light MANY knew things that might be more than relevant to the case. Don't have to show blood and guts... just information and clues.

Of course a plea deal resolves a case... and of course it is offered if the prosecution doesn't have that strong a case too, not just to relieve stress to the client. And all that doesn't mean beans if a boy can't really understand what a plea deal is in the first place.

Yeah, it really looks like the community wants to get on with their lives and heal... by filing false claims of the boy violating his agreement and making it difficult for the boy to get on with his. He can't go anywhere, he can't go to school, etc.

No way the video does't show coercion and leading questions... not to mention lying to an 8yr old without a family member or an attorney present.

Interesting how you glean the truth from the lies with such ease... anything could have gone on during those 2+ hrs the boy's whereabouts were unknown. Interesting that because he was not seen before the shootings walking around the block... he is lying, BUT he was not seen at the house or actually doing the shooting either... which is assumed by you to be what happened. Why didn't the neighbors see him at home or shooting some then?
He is only seen after the fact. He could have gone home for a bit, messed around the house (maybe even with guns, which he was not supposed to do-thus the story) and then walked around the block and came upon the crime scene or not... we just don't know. Who were the witnesses "coming in and out of the neighborhood"?
Did anyone check on him during the day? Why would he want to shoot both men in the first place? So he "got all the stuff he needed together", but the dad was shot on the steps and the friend was shot outside. He must have had the 'stuff' right where he needed it. Did the step-mom know he was home from school already? Did she come by to pick him up or check on him?
If not why??? Was he threatened by phone and was scared what would happen to him? Why did the dad stop by anyway if he and the friend were going somewhere else to help another friend, was this a set-up????? I think many more facts/evidence/information need to be brought to light to either show the boy is in fact guilty, or possibly to reveal other suspects. Details are everything imo.

 

[toysoldier]

One of the things that has bothered me the most about this case is the seal the judge put on the information in this case. Perhaps if we would have had access to info about the evidence in the case maybe it would have been easier to accept, easier to believe. But no, the judge sealed it. The main piece of evidence we know about is a flawed interview with the child. So did they come up with any evidence that actually proved the child killed? Or was the main evidence just the interviews with the child? Did the child's story match the forensics in the case, or was that excused?

The judge did not seal any of the evidence. The only things that have been sealed are the competency hearing results, anything related to the guardian ad litem and the evaluation results. Everything else that has been submitted to the court has been released to the public. The state redacted certain interviews that were conducted and withheld the full interviews of the Romans and Romero families, but none of the evidence has been sealed.

Technically, he has not be convicted. He only plead guilty. He can withdraw that plea if he wants, or more specifically his mother or his lawyers can contend that due to his age he was unable to understand what he was pleading to and have the plea agreement tossed out. They could then petition the court to unseal the competency results and require the judge to make a ruling based on them. If they do this soon enough, they could even have the boy tested again. He would likely be found incompetent again and the charges would have to be dropped.

As for evidence, it is my firm belief that if the state had anything conclusive it would have leaked out by now or they would have reported it. The public in St Johns is so against the boy that it would be politically to the state's advantage to release that information. So I guess is that they have nothing conclusive, only a handful of particles of gunpowder and a fingerprint on a box of bullets, both of which could have been deposited at any time. They have no eye witnesses and the boy's "confession" does not even match the crime scene.

As for the boy stating he is guilty, given how easily he was manipulated by officers he did not know that well, it would not be surprising if his own lawyers and mother have basically forced him to say he did it to either easy their minds or to please the court. It is certainly probable that if he is in counseling that they would require him to admit he did it. The question I would have in that instance is whether he offers information that matches the crime scene and whether he does so freely or whether he simply repeats what he has heard in court and from his lawyers.

 

[mysteriew]

Innocence Project
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

[sdn8tv]

I wonder if anyone ever stops to think why.
Why do kids kill their parents...particularly an 8 year old. The answer is pretty obvious and if you go back and see the interviews with By Whiting after the evaluations came back even he said he couldn't discuss the evaluations but at least they are getting answers to the "why's"
There is so much evidence and research out there why kids...particularly young kids kill their parents.
The truth will come out...it always does. I'm not "talking bad about the dead" but eventually everyone will know that Mr. Romero and Mr. Romans were not quite the upstanding citizens many want to believe they were.
If this boy showed "bully" behavior...where does on think he learned it...who tought him to resolve his issues with violence? Wonder if anyone wonders why he tried so hard to have his teacher's approval...hmmm...wonder why the teacher "had a feeling" there was more going on in that home...that they were too hard on him...wonder why the teacher who is a "mandatory reporter" in the state of AZ did not report her concerns, yet she freely volunteered the information after the fact...which by the way is a class 1 misdameanor...

 

[sdn8tv]

The only information that has been sealed is the competency and psychiatric evaluations and medical information

I think the Judge sealed this case because it was in the best interest of the child to do so.

The community doesn't need to know the graphic details on all they collected concerning this case.

And when any plea deal is struck usually that is one of the negotiation prongs that the defense will put forth to protect their client from further stress and possibly harm if the information was known. Once the plea all particulars are sealed because the case has been resolved in the justice system.

I think it was much better for the boy for it to remain hidden and it gave the town a chance to get on with their lives and begin to heal instead of building up further resentments and fury in the community in which the boy resides.

I am in agreement with Southcitymom. I saw nothing in the interview that showed me that this kid was coerced. Like other kids he thought he could tell him what he wanted and they would believe it even though it made no sense.

I think he lied with ease. No way he walked around the block 10 or 11 times that particular day still carrying his book bag and leaving Nellie still locked up that day for another 2.5 hours after he got off the bus. No one, and there were people coming in and out of the neighborhood, saw him until he left the premises shortly after the gunfire rang out.

IMO, he went directly home, got all the stuff he needed together, put his book bag under the kitchen table and waited for his dad and Tim to arrive home.

imo

 

[Trino]

I wonder if anyone ever stops to think why.
Why do kids kill their parents...particularly an 8 year old. The answer is pretty obvious and if you go back and see the interviews with By Whiting after the evaluations came back even he said he couldn't discuss the evaluations but at least they are getting answers to the "why's"
There is so much evidence and research out there why kids...particularly young kids kill their parents.
The truth will come out...it always does. I'm not "talking bad about the dead" but eventually everyone will know that Mr. Romero and Mr. Romans were not quite the upstanding citizens many want to believe they were.
If this boy showed "bully" behavior...where does on think he learned it...who tought him to resolve his issues with violence? Wonder if anyone wonders why he tried so hard to have his teacher's approval...hmmm...wonder why the teacher "had a feeling" there was more going on in that home...that they were too hard on him...wonder why the teacher who is a "mandatory reporter" in the state of AZ did not report her concerns, yet she freely volunteered the information after the fact...which by the way is a class 1 misdameanor...

No. The teacher is not guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Teachers are to report suspected ABUSE, but they are not Nazi policemen who report w/o obvious physical symptoms.

As to Romero, I have not heard evidence that he was not a good parent. When is this expected to come out? And, Romans? There has never been evidence that he did anything negative to the boy.

 

[sdn8tv]

No. The teacher is not guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Teachers are to report suspected ABUSE, but they are not Nazi policemen who report w/o obvious physical symptoms.

As to Romero, I have not heard evidence that he was not a good parent. When is this expected to come out? And, Romans? There has never been evidence that he did anything negative to the boy.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03620.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
A. Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under section 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer or to child protective services in the department of economic security, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only....

For the purposes of this subsection, "person" means:

1. Any physician, physician's assistant, optometrist, dentist, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist, behavioral health professional, nurse, psychologist, counselor or social worker who develops the reasonable belief in the course of treating a patient.
2. Any peace officer, member of the clergy, priest or christian science practitioner.
3. The parent, stepparent or guardian of the minor.
4. School personnel or domestic violence victim advocate who develop the reasonable belief in the course of their employment...

O. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, except if the failure to report involves a reportable offense, the person is guilty of a class 6 felony.



My apologies...I should have said a class 6 felony...

Psychiatric evaluations and medical records are sealed.

 

[sdn8tv]

No. The teacher is not guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Teachers are to report suspected ABUSE, but they are not Nazi policemen who report w/o obvious physical symptoms.

As to Romero, I have not heard evidence that he was not a good parent. When is this expected to come out? And, Romans? There has never been evidence that he did anything negative to the boy.

Thankfully...this is "protected" information and the reasons why will not be discussed in public. The family knows what happened now...and they have to deal with it as a family. That's the only people who need to discuss it. I think people forget he is a juvenile. He plead guilty to negligent homicide in juvenile court...why is this a matter for public debate? No body outside of St. John's should even know this boys name...

 

[southcitymom]

No. The teacher is not guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Teachers are to report suspected ABUSE, but they are not Nazi policemen who report w/o obvious physical symptoms.

As to Romero, I have not heard evidence that he was not a good parent. When is this expected to come out? And, Romans? There has never been evidence that he did anything negative to the boy.

I agree with you, Trino. One of the things that makes this case so compelling and confusing is the fact that by all accounts he seemed like a normal young boy with no huge obvious problems at school, at home or in the community.

Yes, I know that he had some stressors - divorce, new step-parent, etc.... - but 8-year-olds live through those things every day without picking up a weapon.

And I don't for a second believe that any overwhelming negative information regarding the men who were killed has been (or even could be) covered up.

I understand that we don't know all the details here and I don't think we ever will and that is in the child's best interest, so I won't complain about it. But I do believe that if Romero and Romans did something heinous to "bring this on themselves", we'd have more than a whiff of it - people would be shouting it from the rooftops, IMHO.

 

[sdn8tv]

I agree with you, Trino. One of the things that makes this case so compelling and confusing is the fact that by all accounts he seemed like a normal young boy with no huge obvious problems at school, at home or in the community.

Yes, I know that he had some stressors - divorce, new step-parent, etc.... - but 8-year-olds live through those things every day without picking up a weapon.

And I don't for a second believe that any overwhelming negative information regarding the men who were killed has been (or even could be) covered up.

I understand that we don't know all the details here and I don't think we ever will and that is in the child's best interest, so I won't complain about it. But I do believe that if Romero and Romans did something heinous to "bring this on themselves", we'd have more than a whiff of it - people would be shouting it from the rooftops, IMHO.

By all accounts he was...and if all he had to live through was divorce, step parents he would have been just fine.
I sincerely ask, have you read the San Carlos police report about Tim Romans?
I am not saying at all this was drug related and any conspiracy theory or that Tim had anything to do with it.
I also wonder...who would be shouting from the rooftops? Don't most families try to cover up their dirty laundry. I also want to clarify that I don't think either of them did anything to "bring this on themselves", but I also know that this 8 year old boy was dealing with way more than divorce and new parents.

 

[sdn8tv]

Mrs. Trickey stated his problems seemed to be more with his homework at home and not his behavior in the classroom.
She stated he said "please I've got to have a paper today, if I don't have it today I'm going to get in so much trouble."
She stated he was very very smart but would sometimes have trouble focusing and finishing his work.
She stated things that happened at home seemed to be harder and it seemed she was in the middle between Tiffany and (the boy)
Mrs. Tricky told me that if he was misbehaving and she told him to pick up the phone and call his mother (Tiffany) he would start crying and she felt that was odd behavior. She also told me she was troubled by what might have been going on at home...

These statements are right from the public police reports. Supplement 14

Anything you read about abused children will show they have trouble focusing at school and finishing their work.

 

[southcitymom]

By all accounts he was...and if all he had to live through was divorce, step parents he would have been just fine.
I sincerely ask, have you read the San Carlos police report about Tim Romans?
I am not saying at all this was drug related and any conspiracy theory or that Tim had anything to do with it.
I also wonder...who would be shouting from the rooftops? Don't most families try to cover up their dirty laundry. I also want to clarify that I don't think either of them did anything to "bring this on themselves", but I also know that this 8 year old boy was dealing with way more than divorce and new parents.

I have read the police report about Romans - also, I have read his teacher's comments. I do believe that many abused children have trouble focusing and school and completing their work. I also believe that many children who are NOT abused have these issues.

I do believe his teacher (after the fact of him being accused of killing his Dad and the boarder) might have seen his behavior in a different light. Obviously, he was stressed about getting in trouble at home for acting up at school - I would consider that a pretty typical response!

I guess I am just saying most children this age who are freaked out about getting in trouble at home don't then do what he did to "solve" that problems. And while I HATE the fact that he felt so much stress about the discipline he was going to receive, I don't think that discipline rises to the level of what I would consider hardcore abuse.

Yes, I believe families try to hide their dirty laundry. I also believe that in a small community, that's almost impossible to do. My opinion is that if this child was being routinely physically, mentally, emotionally and/or sexually abused by the men he shot, SOMEONE knew something about it and would have said something in the media.

Even here on WS, when this story first broke, lots of people thought "Okay - those men must have been doing something awful to that child for him to have shot them!" I'm sure others in his family or extended community had the same thought and that if they knew about any such awfulness, they would talk about it loud and clear in defense of the child. That's what I mean when I said "shouting from the rooftops."

I mean, I'm not saying that abuse wasn't going on - maybe it was completely hidden. I doubt that, but I am open to the maybe of it. I am just saying I've seen nothing that leads me to believe abuse was going on.

 

[sdn8tv]

I have read the police report about Romans - also, I have read his teacher's comments. I do believe that many abused children have trouble focusing and school and completing their work. I also believe that many children who are NOT abused have these issues.

I do believe his teacher (after the fact of him being accused of killing his Dad and the boarder) might have seen his behavior in a different light. Obviously, he was stressed about getting in trouble at home for acting up at school - I would consider that a pretty typical response!

I guess I am just saying most children this age who are freaked out about getting in trouble at home don't then do what he did to "solve" that problems. And while I HATE the fact that he felt so much stress about the discipline he was going to receive, I don't think that discipline rises to the level of what I would consider hardcore abuse.

Yes, I believe families try to hide their dirty laundry. I also believe that in a small community, that's almost impossible to do. My opinion is that if this child was being routinely physically, mentally, emotionally and/or sexually abused by the men he shot, SOMEONE knew something about it and would have said something in the media.

Even here on WS, when this story first broke, lots of people thought "Okay - those men must have been doing something awful to that child for him to have shot them!" I'm sure others in his family or extended community had the same thought and that if they knew about any such awfulness, they would talk about it loud and clear in defense of the child. That's what I mean when I said "shouting from the rooftops."

I mean, I'm not saying that abuse wasn't going on - maybe it was completely hidden. I doubt that, but I am open to the maybe of it. I am just saying I've seen nothing that leads me to believe abuse was going on.[/QUOTE

So that leads me to why...why don't you think or believe there was "hard core" abuse. That is what the family is having deal with now..just like the teacher...there chain events that have happened now have led this family to look internally and now realize that the signs they saw were real. How about the comment from the grandma...if any kid could do it he could because they were too hard on him. I know most people have spun comment to support their position...but given what I know now...I know exactly what she meant...he could do it because they treated him wrong...Also remember right after the confession was released there was a gag order implemented. Also the family is not going to talk about...I wish they would, I wish they would scream from the rooftops that "all though the boy made a very bad decision...he felt that was his only way out of that dark place he was in"...of course they will not. There is already a lot a negativity this family is receiving in the press, marriages, divorces, illegitimate kids, infidelity, drugs...

 

[southcitymom]

I have read the police report about Romans - also, I have read his teacher's comments. I do believe that many abused children have trouble focusing and school and completing their work. I also believe that many children who are NOT abused have these issues.

I do believe his teacher (after the fact of him being accused of killing his Dad and the boarder) might have seen his behavior in a different light. Obviously, he was stressed about getting in trouble at home for acting up at school - I would consider that a pretty typical response!

I guess I am just saying most children this age who are freaked out about getting in trouble at home don't then do what he did to "solve" that problems. And while I HATE the fact that he felt so much stress about the discipline he was going to receive, I don't think that discipline rises to the level of what I would consider hardcore abuse.

Yes, I believe families try to hide their dirty laundry. I also believe that in a small community, that's almost impossible to do. My opinion is that if this child was being routinely physically, mentally, emotionally and/or sexually abused by the men he shot, SOMEONE knew something about it and would have said something in the media.

Even here on WS, when this story first broke, lots of people thought "Okay - those men must have been doing something awful to that child for him to have shot them!" I'm sure others in his family or extended community had the same thought and that if they knew about any such awfulness, they would talk about it loud and clear in defense of the child. That's what I mean when I said "shouting from the rooftops."

I mean, I'm not saying that abuse wasn't going on - maybe it was completely hidden. I doubt that, but I am open to the maybe of it. I am just saying I've seen nothing that leads me to believe abuse was going on.[/QUOTE

So that leads me to why...why don't you think or believe there was "hard core" abuse. That is what the family is having deal with now..just like the teacher...there chain events that have happened now have led this family to look internally and now realize that the signs they saw were real. How about the comment from the grandma...if any kid could do it he could because they were too hard on him. I know most people have spun comment to support their position...but given what I know now...I know exactly what she meant...he could do it because they treated him wrong...Also remember right after the confession was released there was a gag order implemented. Also the family is not going to talk about...I wish they would, I wish they would scream from the rooftops that "all though the boy made a very bad decision...he felt that was his only way out of that dark place he was in"...of course they will not. There is already a lot a negativity this family is receiving in the press, marriages, divorces, illegitimate kids, infidelity, drugs...

By hardcore abuse, I guess I mean longterm physical or sexual that would leave marks that could be seen.

Now, I understand that emotional/psychological abuse can and often does leave huge gaping wounds, but without more available information, I can't say that was going on here. I know parents who I think are "too hard on their kids," but do I think they are abusing their kids in such a way that they should be reported for abuse? - no, not in my opinion.

If friends or family members know of some level of abuse this boy was enduring that hasn't been revealed, I just can't be persuaded to believe they aren't talking about it. That's simply my opinion based on some years of observing humans. If a child does something awful in response to something awful being done to him by an adult, people defend the child if they know the adult was doing terrible things.

Yet not one person has come out talking about any terrible abuse this child might have suffered at the hands of his Dad, the boarder, the stepmom. Not one. "He (they) were too hard on the boy" doesn't rise to the level of disclosing terrible abuse.

I am sure those closer to the family and its situation than we are ARE reviewing things in a different light. That's only human nature too.

My family is chockful of marriages, divorces, illegitimate kids, infidelity, drugs, alcoholism, psychiatric problems and all sorts of other craziness and yet nowhere in our family's history has an 8-year-old gunned down two adults. I believe that this boy was feeling an incredible amount of stress and felt trapped in this stress - you and I are on the same page with that. But, I also believe that this child's response to the amount of stress he was feeling was completely aberrant (ie - most kids would not have behaved the way he behaved) and so that needs to be really looked at.

I have never "given up" on this boy and I see no reason to give up on him now. Although I do believe he did this, no piece of me is convinced that he's a young sociopath. Maybe he is, but I'm just not convinced of it based on what I know. But, I also don't see any level of hardcore abuse based on what I know.

 

[sdn8tv]

By hardcore abuse, I guess I mean longterm physical or sexual that would leave marks that could be seen.

Now, I understand that emotional/psychological abuse can and often does leave huge gaping wounds, but without more available information, I can't say that was going on here. I know parents who I think are "too hard on their kids," but do I think they are abusing their kids in such a way that they should be reported for abuse? - no, not in my opinion.

If friends or family members know of some level of abuse this boy was enduring that hasn't been revealed, I just can't be persuaded to believe they aren't talking about it. That's simply my opinion based on some years of observing humans. If a child does something awful in response to something awful being done to him by an adult, people defend the child if they know the adult was doing terrible things.

Yet not one person has come out talking about any terrible abuse this child might have suffered at the hands of his Dad, the boarder, the stepmom. Not one. "He (they) were too hard on the boy" doesn't rise to the level of disclosing terrible abuse.

I am sure those closer to the family and its situation than we are ARE reviewing things in a different light. That's only human nature too.

My family is chockful of marriages, divorces, illegitimate kids, infidelity, drugs, alcoholism, psychiatric problems and all sorts of other craziness and yet nowhere in our family's history has an 8-year-old gunned down two adults. I believe that this boy was feeling an incredible amount of stress and felt trapped in this stress - you and I are on the same page with that. But, I also believe that this child's response to the amount of stress he was feeling was completely aberrant (ie - most kids would not have behaved the way he behaved) and so that needs to be really looked at.

I have never "given up" on this boy and I see no reason to give up on him now. Although I do believe he did this, no piece of me is convinced that he's a young sociopath. Maybe he is, but I'm just not convinced of it based on what I know. But, I also don't see any level of hardcore abuse based on what I know.

Regardless of how much stress he was exposed to his response was completely aberrant...this he knows, his family knows. Please understand that I'm not trying to justify it and neither is the family. He is by no means a young sociopath. In fact most abused kids who kill their parents are not sociopath's. And unfortunately, physical, sexual, emotional or any other kids of abuse doesn't always leave "physical" marks. Often times they "emotinal" marks are the ones that don't heal without years of therapy of loving people in their lives.

Thank you for not giving up on the boy. The family as well as the boy knows that he needs help. He needs help to deal with the anger he has, the grief he has, the future he now has, how to live with him mom instead of his dad.

Oh I would really hate if God forbid that my family dirty laundry ever was aired for the public...although Oprah could spend an entire day on it.

This father and step mother were way more than "too hard on him". The family is not going to scream this from any rooftop. Oh I wish they would, I wish that during the sentencing they would spend sometime talking about what really happened to this young boy...but they will not. Unfortunaly for this boy, most people outside of family and close friends will not know the extent of what happened therefore will continue to speculate. Those records are sealed from the public...but they are there.