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

[Linda7NJ]

Little refresher.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/18/arizona.boy.murder/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

[southcitymom]

It's interesting to me how each of us have different interpretations of the video. I didn't find it frightening and didn't think the child seemed, for lack of a better word, "soul-less" at all. He seemed like such a normal, regular child, and I genuinely believe that in many ways, he absolutely was/is.

For some time, the most confusing aspect of this case to me personally was that normality I saw coupled with the fact that there is nothing to indicate that his father and the housemate were abusing him. But I know that some abuse doesn't leave physical scars, and I now believe that this child reacted aberrantly to some very specific dynamics to which we'll never be fully privy.

This was a child undergoing major psychic stress and feeling hopelessly trapped in it. And an 8-year-old boy simply doesn't have the tools to manage that type of stress. Children constantly do strange crazy things (by mature adult standards) in reaction to their feelings.

Now, my opinion is not meant to gloss over the fact that what the child did was so extreme that it's not difficult to understand WHY people think he must be a young sociopath. But in my gut, I've never gotten that sense in this case.

 

[southcitymom]

Completely aside from this case, we know people are released into the community (parole, etc), and they sometimes go on to commit more crimes. So what would make you think this particular boy would not be released to his mother unless it was believed he wasn't a danger to anyone?

You ask a good question, jjenny, and I don't know how well I can answer it. More than anything, it's my gut feeling that, as a general rule, Judges don't release a person accused of killing two people in cold blood back into the community without some further information that makes them feel "comfortable" doing so. Parole and making bail seem to fall under into a different category in my mind than what happened in this case.

I think the Court has information that favors the idea that this child is not a random, violent killer.

Certainly the child's age must have factored into this as well. If he was even just a teen, I believe he may still be in jail. Also, had he killed two strangers, I believe he may still be in jail.

Perhaps the closest other case along these lines that I can recall is the James Bulger case. IIRC, his young killers remained in jail until their trail, but someone please correct me if I am mistaken about that.

In any event, this case is so very unique to the annals of children who kill that there is no real precedent to look to regarding releasing him or keeping him locked up.

 

[sdn8tv]

Respectfully, I still disagree with your opinions. In my experience, those closest to the situation, especially when emotionally invested in the defendant, are often prevented from being objective.

I still don't believe the defendant "went through he$$." We know of no evidence that supports that, none, zero. There wasn't a mark on the child. His "spanking log" was just another fabrication.....right along with the "getaway car" and his many many laps around the block.

I know what I saw when watching that hour long video tape. It was FRIGHTENING! This wasn't self defense. This was cold premeditated murder.

Being concerned isn't a hobby for me. For you to insinuate that *I* or anyone else doesn't really care, because we don't share your opinions.... is frankly, insulting.

Absolutely...you don't know! That stuff has not be released.

I guess I question what exactly is your motive of concern...typically when one is concerned with something they do something about it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Absolutely...you don't know! That stuff has not be released.

I guess I question what exactly is your motive of concern...typically when one is concerned with something they do something about it.

What my motives are and what I do, or don't do, in real life......... is really none of your business.

 

[sdn8tv]

Thanks Linda for your open discussion.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks Linda for your open discussion.

You said, "I am privvy to more information and I should not interfere with the discussion of others. I will not post what I know (on a public site) or what we are doing or what is really happening, so I will leave the discussions."

open discussion???? I think not:snooty:

I'm ready when you are...............

 

[OrdinaryLife]

I would like to be clear in regards to my thoughts regarding armchair psychologists.

Every case is different. Some cases are more complex than others. I have shared, many times, my thoughts here and there regarding mindsets or behaviours. But, each case is different than the other. Some are truly beyond our "within home diagnosis". This is one of them.

I will wait for proven proof of the child and said "disorder". Nothing is there at this moment and as such I will not judge him. This still is, for me, a case that has been screwed up from the beginning. There is nothing that tells me or convinces me to believe differently.

imvho

 

[colette]

Both attorneys want the judge removed:

Under the plea, which had been accepted by Apache County Superior Court Judge Michael Roca, the boy would not be imprisoned.

But Ronald Wood, the boy's lawyer, said in a petition filed last week that Roca intends to reject that deal and put Christian behind bars. Wood claimed the judge is acting on information from outside the court, rather than testimony or evidence.

During an Oct. 22 hearing, the judge announced that he could not support intensive probation because the St. Johns community would be "poison" for Christian.

Roca then declared the boy should be held by the Arizona Department of Corrections for an unspecified period of time, the motion said.



Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting said he will support efforts to remove the judge because Roca reversed himself, potentially starting the case over seven months after accepting the plea.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/11/05/20091105stjohns1105.html

 

[southcitymom]

Thanks for this update. i was surprised to see the child's name used in the article. I thought because of his age and the nature of the crimes, he was to remain anonymous in the press. I saw his name mentioned once or twice at the very beginning of this case, but, until this article, I haven't seen him named since then.

It's interesting that both sides are in agreement that Roca should be recused. I would really like to know the Judge's reasoning for wanting to put the child in jail. What outside information led to his change of heart? Or is it truly, as the defense attorney says, due to political pressure from those who want their pound of flesh?

I actually agree that living in the St. John's community would be poisonous for this child. Still, I do not wish to see him incarcerated. This really is an odd turn of events.

 

[jjenny]

Thanks for this update. i was surprised to see the child's name used in the article. I thought because of his age and the nature of the crimes, he was to remain anonymous in the press. I saw his name mentioned once or twice at the very beginning of this case, but, until this article, I haven't seen him named since then.

It's interesting that both sides are in agreement that Roca should be recused. I would really like to know the Judge's reasoning for wanting to put the child in jail. What outside information led to his change of heart? Or is it truly, as the defense attorney says, due to political pressure from those who want their pound of flesh?

I actually agree that living in the St. John's community would be poisonous for this child. Still, I do not wish to see him incarcerated. This really is an odd turn of events.

You were arguing that the judge wouldn't release the boy into the community unless the judge believed the boy wasn't the danger to anyone. What say you now that the judge apparently doesn't want to release him into the community? Are you still going to argue the child is not a danger to anyone?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I read the plea agreement...It is what it is. It stated there was a possibility of juvenile detention.

Here's the agreement:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MEMORANDUM%20OF%20AGREEMENT.pdf

IMO It's a little late to be crying foul now.

 

[southcitymom]

You were arguing that the judge wouldn't release the boy into the community unless the judge believed the boy wasn't the danger to anyone. What say you now that the judge apparently doesn't want to release him into the community? Are you still going to argue the child is not a danger to anyone?

From the article:

"During an Oct. 22 hearing, the judge announced that he could not support intensive probation because the St. Johns community would be "poison" for Christian."

jjenny - that indicates to me that the Judge is more concerned about the community's negative effect on the child than the child being dangerous to the community. That's one of the things that is so curious. If the Judge was concerned that this child is a danger to the community, you'd think he would say the child would be poison to St. John's.

I can't make out from the article what the Judge's thought process is for wanting to set aside the plea agreement and incarcerate the child. We don't know why the Judge reversed himself - other than he thinks the child is in peril from the community.

I have argued that there's no way the Judge would release this child if the Judge thought he was dangerous to others, and I still believe that is true.

In his Motion, the child's attorney states, ""No expert, no doctor and no one that has had any prolonged contact with the juvenile has suggested that this (ie - incarcerating the child) is an appropriate sentence....." The Prosecutor supports the child's attorney's efforts to get rid of the Judge - he obviously thinks the Judge's reversal is the wrong course of action.

All of this continues to support my belief that the child was a danger to two men specifically, but is not a danger to society at large.

 

[southcitymom]

I read the plea agreement...It is what it is. It stated there was a possibility of juvenile detention.

Here's the agreement:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MEMORANDUM%20OF%20AGREEMENT.pdf

IMO It's a little late to be crying foul now.

Thanks Linda - I will go read this again! Why do you think both the Pros and the Defense are unhappy with the Judge's decision to incarerate the boy?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks Linda - I will go read this again! Why do you think both the Pros and the Defense are unhappy with the Judge's decision to incarerate the boy?

Apparently, funding isn't the issue. I am a tad confused. But it sure sounds to me like the kid is surely a danger. The evulations are complete and I would bet they weren't "good"

I found this press release:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/Press%20Releases/JV2008065%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20OCTOBER%2022,%202009.pdf

Next hearing is NOVEMBER 10th

 

[Linda7NJ]

Here's another press release. This one really seems to spell it out.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/doc.../JV2008065 PRESS RELEASE October 21, 2009.pdf

 

[southcitymom]

Apparently, funding isn't the issue. I am a tad confused.

I found this press release:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/doc.../JV2008065 PRESS RELEASE OCTOBER 22, 2009.pdf

I'm more than a tad confused. The only reason attributed to Judge Roca reversing his position is his belief that the community is a poison to the boy. You'd think if one of the medical experts deemed the boy a danger to the community, Roca would point to that.

Although a Judge can, of course, do what he wants per the plea agreement, counsel for both sides obviously feel like the Judge is now saying something different than he was saying when the plea was first presented to the Court. Counsel for both sides obviously think the Judge is in error as they are united in their desire for his dismissal.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks Linda - I will go read this again! Why do you think both the Pros and the Defense are unhappy with the Judge's decision to incarerate the boy?

I can't figure out the source for the newly linked news article. It's nowhere on the courts site that I have found. Motions are usually uploaded.

 

[southcitymom]

Apparently, funding isn't the issue. I am a tad confused. But it sure sounds to me like the kid is surely a danger. The evulations are complete and I would bet they weren't "good"

I found this press release:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/Press%20Releases/JV2008065%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20OCTOBER%2022,%202009.pdf

Next hearing is NOVEMBER 10th

Here's another press release. This one really seems to spell it out.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/doc.../JV2008065 PRESS RELEASE October 21, 2009.pdf

I just don't know, Linda. If the evaluations which are available to everyone involved weren't "good," why do you think Pros and Defense want the Judge removed? That doesn't make sense.

Do you think the Judge could possibly be bowing to political pressure?

 

[southcitymom]

I can't figure out the source for the newly linked news article. It's nowhere on the courts site that I have found. Motions are usually uploaded.

I would love to read the full Motion. The initial article Colette posted indicates that the Motion says the Judge is being swayed by others not intimately involved in the case.