1-12 - 1/15

[Details]

He couldn't have put a round in each with his slow loading single shot rifle. They had about 4 seconds between shots to react.

By the way, someone did see OJ. She was a neighbor of Nicole's.You don't know that it was a single shot rifle. It could have been an autoload. Only your presumed sequence of shots makes it a single shot. And with the number of casings in one spot in question (one in a photograph, two in a report - I always believe the photo first) - event he number is in question.


Obviously they didn't see OJ - they saw someone they couldn't ID - or the court case would have been quite different. In every criminal case I've been involved with, someone always lists all the ways the suspect has to have gotten lucky in order to have gotten away with it - you know, the die hard NG who never sees a guilty man - and it's always a fair sized list like yours. It's no shock - but if he hadn't gotten lucky this way, he'd just have done the killings another way - or maybe someone would have gotten away.

[PensiveOne]

because of what hawk posted "But in this case the hitman (junkie, flunky, or boyfriend) would have had to of placed the evidence in the exact locations to match the childs statements, a day before the boy talked. That would really be weird."

would have had to of placed the evidence in the exact locations that is my point. the boy said he put the gun in the closet. it was on the cage. shells casings were where the shooters left them, before they coerced a confession out of the boy

Oh, sorry about that. Sarcasm is hard to read.:thumbup:

[bkwits]

Dowaliby...I hate the message is too short error!

I believe it is generally held that a relative of the bio father did it. I don't think he was charged, but he had told several people. David Dowalibly was cleared. There was really no evidence against him. He spent time in prison. The case against Mrs. Dowalibly was dismissed, no evidence at all.

[suzanne]

Exact? I think you're forgetting 3 things.

First - the child saw the crime scene. No doubt about that - he found the bodies.

Second - the child's statements do not match the crime scene - can you give me any example where his description is an exact match - I've yet to see anything at all that is even a good match? It's wrong on number of gunshots, placement of the gun, all kinds of stuff.

Third - the child is working with what the police told him - his statements match what police asked him to say.


A nonprofessional hitman seems likely to me too. A boyfriend, junkie, drifter, etc. Most people don't have access to mob ties and professional hitmen - they find someone sleazy in their area, and figure they might do it. The house is a good spot - men are off guard, you know when they're supposed to be home - much easier than on the road where the intended victims have a 2 ton weapon at their disposal.

I was thinking does any one remember this.I really do not want to see the confession again please.It upsets me.The little boy in the confession tape said a friend?or the name Leroy?had a gun just like his?Same bullets.Do you remember this?Who was he talking about?

[Details]

A perspective on luck - the odds against drawing a Royal Flush are - what, some millions to one? So if you do so, it's luck. But it's the same odds against drawing a 2 of hearts, 3 of spades, 8 of diamonds, jack of clubs, and king of hearts - or any other randomly selected hand. Whatever you draw, the odds were a million to one.

The way this murder went down, what order the men entered in, where the wife and boy were - you can consider that as being something where the odds were against it - but the same goes for every possible location of those people. If the boy was home, we could say that was an unlikely case since he liked to run about. If they both entered at the same time so the killer didn't have to shoot Tim outside and risk being seen, we could call that one the unlikely case. Every possibility has the odds against it - but one of those possibilities has to happen. Picking the one that did, and figuring it's odds - it's meaningless unless it was highly unusual for the men to enter separately, for the boy to run around and play, for the mom not to be home yet - and from what I can tell, it wasn't.

The killer didn't get the worst possible situation - but nor did they get the best, with Tim outside. It's nothing odd, nor is it any particularly suspicious coincidence - it's just what happened that day.

[Hawk]

You don't know that it was a single shot rifle. It could have been an autoload. Only your presumed sequence of shots makes it a single shot. And with the number of casings in one spot in question (one in a photograph, two in a report - I always believe the photo first) - event he number is in question.


Obviously they didn't see OJ - they saw someone they couldn't ID - or the court case would have been quite different. In every criminal case I've been involved with, someone always lists all the ways the suspect has to have gotten lucky in order to have gotten away with it - you know, the die hard NG who never sees a guilty man - and it's always a fair sized list like yours. It's no shock - but if he hadn't gotten lucky this way, he'd just have done the killings another way - or maybe someone would have gotten away.

A neighbor was walking her dog and saw OJ in his white Bronco. Later she was interviewed by a National Enquirer reporter and stated what she saw.
Marsha Clark and company knew about it but didn't present it as evidence (one of many, many Marsha Clark mistakes) because the paper is such a sleaze rag and Johnny Cochran would have claimed the lady got paid. She didn't get paid, she was just answering questions. It's unlikely someone living in that high dollar area would need the little bit of money the Enquirer pays.


Sorry to be off topic.

[bkwits]

Sometimes I think Hawk just enjoys screwing with us.:tongueside:

Absolutely :thumbsup:

[JusticeDawg©]

A neighbor was walking her dog and saw OJ in his white Bronco. Later she was interviewed by a National Enquirer reporter and stated what she saw.
Marsha Clark and company knew about it but didn't present it as evidence (one of many, many Marsha Clark mistakes) because the paper is such a sleaze rag and Johnny Cochran would have claimed the lady got paid. She didn't get paid, she was just answering questions. It's unlikely someone living in that high dollar area would need the little bit of money the Enquirer pays.


Sorry to be off topic.

Then stop, it's driving me nuts. :cursing:

[Jacobtk]

The night of the murder, Alvia talked to the boy. Tiffany was present. Alvia told the boy right then and there he would be in BIG trouble with Tiffany if he didn't tell what happened.

This kid didn't stand a chance.

I have to say, that was perhaps the first idiotic decision the police made. Once they assumed the boy knew who the shooter was they should have had him placed into foster care and then interviewed him a few days later while disallowing any contact with his family members outside of his mother. That way they could have been sure that he was safe and no longer under anyone's control. They could have had him removed on the basis of his protection. By allowing him to have constant contact with people they apparently suspected were murders, they undermined their own theory.

[Details]

A neighbor was walking her dog and saw OJ in his white Bronco. ..No problem, thanks for the answer, that was dumb, I never heard about that - although I was referring to the luck in not being seen during the murder, not afterwards.

[JusticeDawg©]

I have to say, that was perhaps the first idiotic decision the police made. Once they assumed the boy knew who the shooter was they should have had him placed into foster care and then interviewed him a few days later while disallowing any contact with his family members outside of his mother. That way they could have been sure that he was safe and no longer under anyone's control. They could have had him removed on the basis of his protection. By allowing him to have constant contact with people they apparently suspected were murders, they undermined their own theory.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

[Details]

We should contact that guy on that tv show "Numb3rs" to figure the odds for us.Like I said - people have trouble with odds - they think the odds mean something different than what they mean. I could flip a coin 10 times right now, and whatever sequence of heads and tails I get - the odds against that are .5^10. Does that mean I did magic to get that sequence? Nope - just that some sequence or other has to happen, and the odds against all of them are the same .5^10 - or a mere 0.098% chance of happening.

If I predict it - then it's amazing. But if it just happens, and someone looks at it and figures I've done a trick because I just got an occurrence that has a chance in a thousand of happening - they don't understand statistics and odds.


The odds that the father goes inside, Tim stays outside, the mother doesn't come home - who knows exactly what they are - this could be the routine that you could see happen every single night, or could be one of several variations that happens once a week or month. But some variation had to happen - the fact that this one did doesn't have any particular significance, more likely than not.

[Hawk]

Like I said - people have trouble with odds - they think the odds mean something different than what they mean. I could flip a coin 10 times right now, and whatever sequence of heads and tails I get - the odds against that are .5^10. Does that mean I did magic to get that sequence? Nope - just that some sequence or other has to happen, and the odds against all of them are the same .5^10 - or a mere 0.098% chance of happening.

If I predict it - then it's amazing. But if it just happens, and someone looks at it and figures I've done a trick because I just got an occurrence that has a chance in a thousand of happening - they don't understand statistics and odds.


The odds that the father goes inside, Tim stays outside, the mother doesn't come home - who knows exactly what they are - this could be the routine that you could see happen every single night, or could be one of several variations that happens once a week or month. But some variation had to happen - the fact that this one did doesn't have any particular significance, more likely than not.

So, doesn't that show that these killing were impulsive and not planned by a logically thinking person?

[suzanne]

Leroy. I think that's his grandfather.

So Leroy wasn't his friend he was talking about in the confession tape?You think he was talking about his father in the confession tape?Did you hear he said Leroy?had the same gun as he did and used the same bullets?Do they use the same bullets?

[Details]

So, doesn't that show that these killing were impulsive and not planned by a logically thinking person?How do you get that from my post? Just because the order of entry and time of arrival would likely have some flexibility doesn't mean the killer didn't plan out exactly what they were doing. They may have planned, they may have figured, "I have a gun, I can handle whatever happens", they may have stumbled in drunk, they may have been a cold blooded sharpshooter. There's nothing to the crime to give the answers to any of these questions. You can look at it and see it was a bit overkill, someone wanted to be very sure that both, and particularly Tim, were dead - and you can see that whoever did it, if they used a single shot, didn't drop a shell. That's about what we know. Could have been someone impulsive and angry, who had steady hands and excellent coordination, could have been someone logical and cold, taking care of all of this in order. The shots from both above and below on the stairs suggest they checked the upstairs after killing the father - and dropped another round in him from up there, or were laying in wait upstairs, and stepped over the body before pumping two more rounds into it.

I'm working on potty training a toddler right now. Just because her schedule is a bit random doesn't mean my training is. The odds are random, what happened is what happened - and none of that has anything to do with what the killer's plans were.

[tif]

He couldn't have put a round in each with his slow loading single shot rifle. They had about 4 seconds between shots to react.

Hawk, I can be dense sometimes but I make up for it with persistence. I'm going to keep asking the same question until you answer it. I'm really not trying to be argumentative; I would just like the answer. My prior post:

Hawk, are the locations of the shell casings the evidence you are talking about? If so, I still don't get how you can rely on the casings staying where they were ejected. We know the boy was running around inside the house, along with the real killer if the boy didn't do it and possibly the dog. Don't forget the careless cops. Any of these people could have kicked the casings around.

If you're not talking about the locations of the casings, then I'm really lost.

[suzanne]

iirc, his friends name is Cage.
Leroy I believe is the boy's grandfather. iirc, the grandfather had a gun which shot the same ammo as the boy's. grandfather's gun was kept at the boy's house, and is missing from the boy's house. don't quote me on the last statement, i read that somewhere and don't remember if it was credible info or not.

Uh-oh.It looks like grandpa,sounds like grandpa.It must be grandpa.I would like to know more about all this.

[Hawk]

Hawk, I can be dense sometimes but I make up for it with persistence. I'm going to keep asking the same question until you answer it. I'm really not trying to be argumentative; I would just like the answer. My prior post:

Hawk, are the locations of the shell casings the evidence you are talking about? If so, I still don't get how you can rely on the casings staying where they were ejected. We know the boy was running around inside the house, along with the real killer if the boy didn't do it and possibly the dog. Don't forget the careless cops. Any of these people could have kicked the casings around.

If you're not talking about the locations of the casings, then I'm really lost.

The giveaway is that five casings were found inside the house and five outside.

[tif]

The giveaway is that five casings were found inside the house and five outside.

How does that implicate the boy?

[suzanne]

iirc, his friends name is Cage.
Leroy I believe is the boy's grandfather. iirc, the grandfather had a gun which shot the same ammo as the boy's. grandfather's gun was kept at the boy's house, and is missing from the boy's house. don't quote me on the last statement, i read that somewhere and don't remember if it was credible info or not.Ok,Thankyou.who is his friend cage?

[JD1974]

but wasn't Tim shot 6 times (outside) and Vincent 4 (inside)? That doesn't add up to 5 + 5

It does if the first shot on Tim came from the inside..


OR whoever did it ejected the last shot on Tim inside the house..

I am confusing myself

[Perplexed1]

True.But I don't know.They are saying Casey Anthony is like this (smart, Self absorbed, devious and selfish.)

Jumping back in. My dang job was holding me.
Narssasistic is the word here.

[JD1974]

Ok I have a new theory. Suppose TR gets shot first, he is not dead though. He is trying to make it into the house, maybe crawling, who knows. Anyway when the killer enters the house he or she ejects the last shot they used to hit TR with. While VR is trying to get upstairs to his gun, he gets shot..all 4 shots. When the killer goes to leave, realizes TR isn't dead and shoots him however many more times. 5 shells inside, 5 shells outside.

[Details]

Ok I have a new theory. Suppose TR gets shot first, he is not dead though. He is trying to make it into the house, maybe crawling, who knows. Anyway when the killer enters the house he or she ejects the last shot they used to hit TR with. While VR is trying to get upstairs to his gun, he gets shot..all 4 shots. When the killer goes to leave, realizes TR isn't dead and shoots him however many more times. 5 shells inside, 5 shells outside.Exactly - it's all about order. To assume we know the type of gun from the casings, we would have to know the order of the shots - and we don't have that info.

And 1 of the 5 is that weird round that is not in the photo, but is in a description - is it real or not?

[Perplexed1]

A perspective on luck - the odds against drawing a Royal Flush are - what, some millions to one? So if you do so, it's luck. But it's the same odds against drawing a 2 of hearts, 3 of spades, 8 of diamonds, jack of clubs, and king of hearts - or any other randomly selected hand. Whatever you draw, the odds were a million to one.

The way this murder went down, what order the men entered in, where the wife and boy were - you can consider that as being something where the odds were against it - but the same goes for every possible location of those people. If the boy was home, we could say that was an unlikely case since he liked to run about. If they both entered at the same time so the killer didn't have to shoot Tim outside and risk being seen, we could call that one the unlikely case. Every possibility has the odds against it - but one of those possibilities has to happen. Picking the one that did, and figuring it's odds - it's meaningless unless it was highly unusual for the men to enter separately, for the boy to run around and play, for the mom not to be home yet - and from what I can tell, it wasn't.

The killer didn't get the worst possible situation - but nor did they get the best, with Tim outside. It's nothing odd, nor is it any particularly suspicious coincidence - it's just what happened that day.

It seems like if the boy received his last spanking from Tiffany- and maybe most of them- Dad's like to pass the buck-seems he would have been out for her, instead of his buddies.

[JD1974]

Exactly - it's all about order. To assume we know the type of gun from the casings, we would have to know the order of the shots - and we don't have that info.

And 1 of the 5 is that weird round that is not in the photo, but is in a description - is it real or not?


I don't know, LE down there really seems to have botched a lot.

[tif]

I have to go be productive for a while. If anyone has the time and inclination, I would appreciate it if you would beat a complete answer out of Hawk for me.:smile:

[JD1974]

It seems like if the boy received his last spanking from Tiffany- and maybe most of them- Dad's like to pass the buck-seems he would have been out for her, instead of his buddies.


The stranger thing is TR was shot more times than VR, usually that would lead you to believe he was the target and VR just happened to be an unlucky witness so he had to be killed also.

[JD1974]

I have to go be productive for a while. If anyone has the time and inclination, I would appreciate it if you would beat a complete answer out of Hawk for me.:smile:

LOL Tif, see you later.

[JD1974]

[quote=JD1974;12649660]Could that be the mother of his daughter?[/QUOT

I think I missed something. I wasn't aware that VR had a second daughter. Could that be the little girl in the wedding pictures dancing behind the boy that looks ALOT like him. He only had a picture of the boy in his wallet.
Also, from what I read they were planning this wedding for two years and going to all the catholic classes, etc. I would have thought it would have come out long before then that he didn't want more kids.
Maybe he strung her along all this time and when she finally came to resolution he didn't want more kids this was the only way out of it...




Yes he has a daughter, for the life of me I cannot remember her name, but iirc she was mentioned in the obit.

[JD1974]

Hey, I just noticed something. Tell me if it is a typo or not. For the DA's sake it had better be a typo.

The petition for delequent petition, the statement says "Petitioner this 5th day of November, 2008 alleges that said child is delinquent or complains that in the State of Arizona, Apache County Arizona:
Count I
First Degree Murder" yada, yada yada.

the murders were on nov. 5th, the boy so called confession wasn't until the 6th. what's with this petition??

Maybe it is just based on the date of the murder and not the date it was filed? Wait, that does look kind of strange...

[suzanne]

May I please ask will they be able to tell if all the bullets came from that one particular gun?Can they tell if another gun may have been used also?Why do you think they are getting more ballistics test done?

[JD1974]

[QUOTE=JD1974;12650846]

Man this just keeps getting more wacked out.
I took a nap for two hours and I have all this reading I need to do now just to catch up with you guys. Glad I stumbled upon you all!


I know it is really strange all around. Judges handing out warrants when they know they shouldn't....LE members questioning this kid who are friends with Tiffany Romero, Avila..I don't even know what to say about her, the whole way the interroRgation played out, not grabbing everyones clothes right after the murder, 1st person you look at it the spouse...thats another thing...why not question the family before you move on to the 8 year old? I mean they did some questioning but nothing like if they had thought the boy witnessed a family member killing these guys..which is the reason they give for questioning him to begin with. They say they thought he was a witness and was covering for someone, yet didn't talk to any of the people he would be covering for??

[Hawk]

How does that implicate the boy?

Because he said that he shot Mr. Romero first. Then Mr. Romans.

Marker V One Shot from the upstairs hallway to Mr. Romero's right arm bounced off bone exited and stopped at the rib cage, but not entering causing the victim to grasp his chest. Round ejected. Gun reloaded.
One head shot above left ear fragmented in brain. The victim fell across the top step and landing.
Marker U Shooter stepped over victim and ejected shell on the 4th step up on the second flight of stairs. Casing landed next to the south (right side wall when descending) wall.


Marker X Mr. Romans was first shot from near the front door, the bullet entered the right arm, exited the top of the right forearm then went into his ribs. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Marker T Romans was shot in the right lung. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Front door mat Romans was shot in the heart and collapsed. Shooter ejected and reloaded. This shot was only 3-4 inches from the lung shot.
Behind the front door (?) A shot grazed Mr. Romans head.
Door mat Two shots hit Mr. Romans in the back of the head. (Six shots. Eight wounds).


Shooter paused, then went back inside.

Marker E (This is the telling one) Shooter ejected on 2nd step of the 1st flight of stairs while ascending. The casing hit the south (right hand going up) wall. The shooter reloaded as he climbed up and over Mr. Romero. He then shot Mr. Romero again hitting him in the back near the center of the right shoulder blade. The shooter ejected, this round landing near Marker V, reloaded, then shot Mr. Romero through his hardhat and into his brain. The shooter then went back down the stairs, over the body, and ejected the last shell (Marker F) on the 3rd step from the bottom at Mr. Romero's feet. (Four shots. Six wounds).

He reloaded and left the rifle on the dog cage.

[Details]

Because he said that he shot Mr. Romero first. Then Mr. Romans.

Marker V One Shot from the upstairs hallway to Mr. Romero's right arm bounced off bone exited and stopped at the rib cage, but not entering causing the victim to grasp his chest. Round ejected. Gun reloaded.
One head shot above left ear fragmented in brain. The victim fell across the top step and landing.
Marker U Shooter stepped over victim and ejected shell on the 4th step up on the second flight of stairs. Casing landed next to the south (right side wall when descending) wall.


Marker X Mr. Romans was first shot from near the front door, the bullet entered the right arm, exited the top of the right forearm then went into his ribs. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Marker T Romans was shot in the right lung. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Front door mat Romans was shot in the heart and collapsed. Shooter ejected and reloaded. This shot was only 3-4 inches from the lung shot.
Behind the front door (?) A shot grazed Mr. Romans head.
Door mat Two shots hit Mr. Romans in the back of the head. (Six shots. Eight wounds).


Shooter paused, then went back inside.

Marker E (This is the telling one) Shooter ejected on 2nd step of the 1st flight of stairs while ascending. The casing hit the south (right hand going up) wall. The shooter reloaded as he climbed up and over Mr. Romero. He then shot Mr. Romero again hitting him in the back near the center of the right shoulder blade. The shooter ejected, this round landing near Marker V, reloaded, then shot Mr. Romero through his hardhat and into his brain. The shooter then went back down the stairs, over the body, and ejected the last shell (Marker F) on the 3rd step from the bottom at Mr. Romero's feet. (Four shots. Six wounds).

He reloaded and left the rifle on the dog cage.None of this other than the order, is in the boy's confession. And he was prompted to say he had shot his father first, only added Tim after he was prompted to do so. So the order is not relevant. Nor do we have anything to say which was shoot first, other than theories that can go either way.


And he said, twice, that he left the gun in the closet. Or rather, like his entire confession, that he thought or guessed he left the gun in the closet. Not on the dog cage.

[Hawk]

None of this other than the order, is in the boy's confession. And he was prompted to say he had shot his father first, only added Tim after he was prompted to do so. So the order is not relevant. Nor do we have anything to say which was shoot first, other than theories that can go either way.


And he said, twice, that he left the gun in the closet. Or rather, like his entire confession, that he thought or guessed he left the gun in the closet. Not on the dog cage.


The casings locations are not theory. They are evidence.

[muska]

Because he said that he shot Mr. Romero first. Then Mr. Romans.

Marker V One Shot from the upstairs hallway to Mr. Romero's right arm bounced off bone exited and stopped at the rib cage, but not entering causing the victim to grasp his chest. Round ejected. Gun reloaded.
One head shot above left ear fragmented in brain. The victim fell across the top step and landing.
Marker U Shooter stepped over victim and ejected shell on the 4th step up on the second flight of stairs. Casing landed next to the south (right side wall when descending) wall.


Marker X Mr. Romans was first shot from near the front door, the bullet entered the right arm, exited the top of the right forearm then went into his ribs. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Marker T Romans was shot in the right lung. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Front door mat Romans was shot in the heart and collapsed. Shooter ejected and reloaded. This shot was only 3-4 inches from the lung shot.
Behind the front door (?) A shot grazed Mr. Romans head.
Door mat Two shots hit Mr. Romans in the back of the head. (Six shots. Eight wounds).


Shooter paused, then went back inside.

Marker E (This is the telling one) Shooter ejected on 2nd step of the 1st flight of stairs while ascending. The casing hit the south (right hand going up) wall. The shooter reloaded as he climbed up and over Mr. Romero. He then shot Mr. Romero again hitting him in the back near the center of the right shoulder blade. The shooter ejected, this round landing near Marker V, reloaded, then shot Mr. Romero through his hardhat and into his brain. The shooter then went back down the stairs, over the body, and ejected the last shell (Marker F) on the 3rd step from the bottom at Mr. Romero's feet. (Four shots. Six wounds).

He reloaded and left the rifle on the dog cage.

Saying who he shot first is a 50-50 guess - Avila wanted to know how it happened and he made something up - could have just as well said the opposite.

[muska]

The casings locations are not theory. They are evidence.

but they don't prove who left them - also I've read some articles that suggesst that casings bounce around, ricchochet etc - again, not an exact science

[Crispy]

The casings locations are not theory. They are evidence.

They are evidence that a weapon was fired, not who fired the weapon

[muska]

This discussion about the "confession" and what the child might or might not have meant just goes to show that prosecution accomplished what it wanted in releasing a coerced confession. People are going to remember and believe the words the child said even if there is no reason to believe them. Prosecution knew the tape would never be admissable so they released it so they could have a public trial and conviction. Seems like there should be some charge for misconduct there.

[Hawk]

This discussion about the "confession" and what the child might or might not have meant just goes to show that prosecution accomplished what it wanted in releasing a coerced confession. People are going to remember and believe the words the child said even if there is no reason to believe them. Prosecution knew the tape would never be admissable so they released it so they could have a public trial and conviction. Seems like there should be some charge for misconduct there.

Throw out the interrogation, look at the available evidence, then figure out a rational scenario. It's quite a puzzle. And there is an answer.

[Details]

The casings locations are not theory. They are evidence.The casings are not numbered. Any decision about what order they were fired in is indeed theory - or less - a wild guess.

[suzanne]

why reload and then leave it on the dog cage.

now let me try to get this straight; he (an 8/9 yo little boy) was supposed to have done this within 7 minutes and with a gun he had to empty, and reload before shooting each time?

I can see how that is possible. (not)

I don't think he had time enjoying watching them die either.

[Details]

i think someone said earlier that the pins (from the bullet or casings?) didn't match up so they are sending them out for further testingIt's all guesswork right now. We know they're going for extra testing - we don't know why.

[suzanne]

It's all guesswork right now. We know they're going for extra testing - we don't know why.
Who's asking for extra testing?

[muska]

Throw out the interrogation, look at the available evidence, then figure out a rational scenario. It's quite a puzzle. And there is an answer.

Too much of a puzzle for me. I'm not sure that it will ever really be solved. I guess time will tell.

[Details]

Who's asking for extra testing?IIRC, Prosecution.

[Details]

Too much of a puzzle for me. I'm not sure that it will ever really be solved. I guess time will tell.Right now there are many possible answers - gunman starting on 2nd floor, gunman starting in house first floor, gunman starting outside, two gunmen with 22 rifles, etc. Each of these has many variables about if all shots were fired into each victim at once, or if say, half the shots were fired into each victim, then the next victim, then the killer came back to each to finish the job for sure. The casings cannot tell us this - they're information - but they don't make anything sure.

[wolfi_2]

Throw out the interrogation, look at the available evidence, then figure out a rational scenario. It's quite a puzzle. And there is an answer.

I think Hawk is right about the casings theories, it’s well figured out, but just based on the fact’s we have. I just imagine he is right, every time I come to the same conclusion, I go and look for a reason, had the boy any reason to shoot Tim? to shoot his dad? And I still can’t find any, not without any heavy abuse! He had more a reason to shoot Tiffany, but Tiffany had probably a reason, more than the boy, to shoot the man, but the timeline for Tiffany is very tough too. -Granddad Leroy had he a reason? For me the first suspect in line would be still Tiffany, Yes she had a good alibi, but how true is it? I still can’t believe that they didn’t take any clothes and fingerprints from Tiffany also.

[Perplexed1]

Because he said that he shot Mr. Romero first. Then Mr. Romans.

Marker V One Shot from the upstairs hallway to Mr. Romero's right arm bounced off bone exited and stopped at the rib cage, but not entering causing the victim to grasp his chest. Round ejected. Gun reloaded.
One head shot above left ear fragmented in brain. The victim fell across the top step and landing.
Marker U Shooter stepped over victim and ejected shell on the 4th step up on the second flight of stairs. Casing landed next to the south (right side wall when descending) wall.


Marker X Mr. Romans was first shot from near the front door, the bullet entered the right arm, exited the top of the right forearm then went into his ribs. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Marker T Romans was shot in the right lung. Shooter ejected and reloaded.
Front door mat Romans was shot in the heart and collapsed. Shooter ejected and reloaded. This shot was only 3-4 inches from the lung shot.
Behind the front door (?) A shot grazed Mr. Romans head.
Door mat Two shots hit Mr. Romans in the back of the head. (Six shots. Eight wounds).


Shooter paused, then went back inside.

Marker E (This is the telling one) Shooter ejected on 2nd step of the 1st flight of stairs while ascending. The casing hit the south (right hand going up) wall. The shooter reloaded as he climbed up and over Mr. Romero. He then shot Mr. Romero again hitting him in the back near the center of the right shoulder blade. The shooter ejected, this round landing near Marker V, reloaded, then shot Mr. Romero through his hardhat and into his brain. The shooter then went back down the stairs, over the body, and ejected the last shell (Marker F) on the 3rd step from the bottom at Mr. Romero's feet. (Four shots. Six wounds).

He reloaded and left the rifle on the dog cage.

A lot of manuevering for a little boy, in such a short time.

[suzanne]

IIRC, Prosecution. Ok,Thank you.May I please ask who had it tested the first time?Why do you and others think they want to retest it?Shouldn't this be cut and dry if the gun shot those bullets.(Did I say that right?)

[Perplexed1]

Time to leave my job. You guys will probably have it all figured out by the time I get home in 45 min.!:loveeyes:

[wolfi_2]

Hm, there are still a lot of “I think” and “if ´s” in the whole case. The only things we know is, that the little boy is still sitting in a single cell without help and visits are none contact .:sad:

[Details]

Ok,Thank you.May I please ask who had it tested the first time?Why do you and others think they want to retest it?Shouldn't this be cut and dry if the gun shot those bullets.(Did I say that right?)Prosecution both times.

[suzanne]

Prosecution both times.

Ok,Thank you.Does any one have any idea's of why they would do this.:confused:

[Hawk]

I think Hawk is right about the casings theories, it’s well figured out, but just based on the fact’s we have. I just imagine he is right, every time I come to the same conclusion, I go and look for a reason, had the boy any reason to shoot Tim? to shoot his dad? And I still can’t find any, not without any heavy abuse! He had more a reason to shoot Tiffany, but Tiffany had probably a reason, more than the boy, to shoot the man, but the timeline for Tiffany is very tough too. -Granddad Leroy had he a reason? For me the first suspect in line would be still Tiffany, Yes she had a good alibi, but how true is it? I still can’t believe that they didn’t take any clothes and fingerprints from Tiffany also.


I can't figure out a motive for anyone to murder these two men, either.
If someone could answer that we could jump ahead a few spaces. Set aside the evidence for awhile, that's the easy part. A reasonable motive (if there is such a thing) is much harder to explain. And why LE threw their hands up so soon.
Just my opinion.

[secrets]

Mainly @ Hawks

I appreciate thinking and having different opinion, but I just have this feeling that behind your "playing for both sides", is you trying to convince more people in the child's guilt, as in fact you believe he is guilty.
If I'm wrong, I apologize.

I thought, and started to write all the reasons I think that is the case, but it just seemed like an attack, and not a discussion, so I gave up. So, I decided I will try in my next post to just put some thoughts I have , something like a list of important facts, or/and things that LE screwed up.
I hope other posters will add things I missed.

[Hawk]

But I thought they found blood leading to the front porch six feet away from the truck for Romans?

I thought there were six wounds on Romans and 4 on Romero. Where is the link to the autopsy report?

Mr. Romans was shot six times. Mr. Romero four.

http://www.november2008stjohnsdoublehomicide.com/applications/DocumentLibraryManager/upload/Guinn.pdf

[Details]

I can't figure out a motive for anyone to murder these two men, either.
If someone could answer that we could jump ahead a few spaces. Set aside the evidence for awhile, that's the easy part. A reasonable motive (if there is such a thing) is much harder to explain. And why LE threw their hands up so soon.
Just my opinion.Motive is sadly the easiest bit to answer here, as I see it. There's an overabundance of motives - in no particular order:

- Child custody - the boy's mother may have wanted more custody.
- Jealousy - the boy's mother could have been jealous at her ex moving on; Tim's wife could have heard or figured out about Tim's mistress or girlfriend, could have heard about the reported proposal; Tim's mistress or girlfriend could have found out about his wife and been ticked off that they didn't know.
- Financial - Tim's the main income for Tim's wife, according to her - if he was indeed proposing to another woman, that'd go away soon.
- Drugs - there's a history of drug dealing, and several hundred dollar bills on one of the men - if they were getting back into it, a competing dealer could have decided to take out the competition.
- Work conflicts - there were some strong work conflicts - it's been a motive for murder in the past, could have been here.
- Bar fight - there are reports of bar conflicts - strong enough that a shot was fired into Tim's truck - the bullet hole was still there.


Any of the people with these motives could have done it themselves, or hired it done, or had a friend or family member help them out with it.

Why LE threw up their hands so soon - again, we've got plenty of possible reasons. Because they were just lazy and didn't believe in false confessions (as many people don't). Because they knew someone who might be a suspect, and didn't want to investigate them (small town, lots of interconnections, as we've already seen).

[Cherishlove]

A hitman probably would have used weapons and things from the victims house to point away from him or herself. The hit man made it look like the boy did it, right now I'm wondering if the Step Mom had something to do with this? If she's not there for this child right now as they say she is not she is my #1 suspect.

[Details]

The hit man made it look like the boy did it, right now I'm wondering if the Step Mom had something to do with this? If she's not there for this child right now as they say she is not she is my #1 suspect.I don't think a hitman would have been aiming at making it seem the child did it - nor do I see any evidence of framing in that way. But they might have figured it'd work well to use a gun from inside the house, the missing mossberg or the chipmunk, so their own gun would not implicate them, if ever found.

[Details]

Don't forget random acts. Burglary gone wrong. Who knows?

By the way...while motive is a great investigative tool and also helps to prove guilt, it is NOT a necessary component of a guilty verdict. Sometimes people kill for no reason at all. :crying:And often for no motive we can discover, or for no motive we can comprehend.

[Hawk]

Motive is sadly the easiest bit to answer here, as I see it. There's an overabundance of motives - in no particular order:

- Child custody - the boy's mother may have wanted more custody.
- Jealousy - the boy's mother could have been jealous at her ex moving on; Tim's wife could have heard or figured out about Tim's mistress or girlfriend, could have heard about the reported proposal; Tim's mistress or girlfriend could have found out about his wife and been ticked off that they didn't know.
- Financial - Tim's the main income for Tim's wife, according to her - if he was indeed proposing to another woman, that'd go away soon.
- Drugs - there's a history of drug dealing, and several hundred dollar bills on one of the men - if they were getting back into it, a competing dealer could have decided to take out the competition.
- Work conflicts - there were some strong work conflicts - it's been a motive for murder in the past, could have been here.
- Bar fight - there are reports of bar conflicts - strong enough that a shot was fired into Tim's truck - the bullet hole was still there.


Any of the people with these motives could have done it themselves, or hired it done, or had a friend or family member help them out with it.

Why LE threw up their hands so soon - again, we've got plenty of possible reasons. Because they were just lazy and didn't believe in false confessions (as many people don't). Because they knew someone who might be a suspect, and didn't want to investigate them (small town, lots of interconnections, as we've already seen).

Good points. There's also a possibilty of a husband or boyfriend of one of Mr. Romans close 'friends'.

[PensiveOne]

What I want to hear is somebody, anybody in that family stand up and say that this boy is innocent. That he did not do this. That doesn't prove innocence or guilt, it is just something I would expect to hear. I don't think a gag order would prevent anybody from doing that.

[Cherishlove]

I can't figure out a motive for anyone to murder these two men, either.
If someone could answer that we could jump ahead a few spaces. Set aside the evidence for awhile, that's the easy part. A reasonable motive (if there is such a thing) is much harder to explain. And why LE threw their hands up so soon.
Just my opinion. They had problems with people at the bar, Mexican Internationals. Tim was having an affair, the Dad/Step Mom fought all the time, Problems with people at work, Drug Dealings, Tim's car was shot at a few months prior, probally other things we don't know as well, there is quit a list of people that had motive. Why LE threw there hands up so soon???? Who knows maybe the Coached Confession, that is something I've been wondering myself.

[PensiveOne]

One more thing. There is a Roman's family spokesman. Why isn't there a Romero family spokesman?

[suzanne]

The hit man made it look like the boy did it, right now I'm wondering if the Step Mom had something to do with this? If she's not there for this child right now as they say she is not she is my #1 suspect.

LOL.I never said there was a hit man.Other people were just talking about it.

[wolfi_2]

If there is no motive, it would be an accident, that’s hard to believe! So for me always comes the motive first, than look for the fact’s and if the fact’s fit the motive, bingo. But in this case both don’t fit in all parts together. So why LE took there hands up that fast is a very good question!

[Hawk]

What I want to hear is somebody, anybody in that family stand up and say that this boy is innocent. That he did not do this. That doesn't prove innocence or guilt, it is just something I would expect to hear. I don't think a gag order would prevent anybody from doing that.

There again, why isn't a local AZ reporter hounding these 'non-gag-order' individuals. Seems like a reporter would jump at the chance to make national news.
Everything about this case bothers me.

[Details]

Good points. There's also a possibilty of a husband or boyfriend of one of Mr. Romans close 'friends'.Ah yes, I forgot about them. Oh, or an outraged brother or father of a wife or girlfriend.

Although with the number of shots they took at him, I'm thinking this was pretty personal. The father - they just made sure he was dead. Tim - that was overkill, that feels personal. So I'd go for husband or boyfriend or lover or drug dealer (they'll go overkill to make a point to their enemies). Maybe that bar brawl, somewhat less likely on the employees - although many of us know how nuts an unpleasant coworker or worse, boss, can make you when you have no choice but to go work with them every single day.

[suzanne]

Mr. Romans was shot six times. Mr. Romero four.

http://www.november2008stjohnsdoublehomicide.com/applications/DocumentLibraryManager/upload/Guinn.pdf

Am I missing it.Where does the ME say it's all the same bullets from the same gun?:confused:

[PensiveOne]

If there is no motive, it would be an accident, that’s hard to believe! So for me always comes the motive first, than look for the fact’s and if the fact’s fit the motive, bingo. But in this case both don’t fit in all parts together. So why LE took there hands up that fast is a very good question!

I think LE threw up their hands because they had a prosecutor who wanted to move ahead with what they had.

[Details]

LOL.I never said there was a hit man.Other people were just talking about it.I wouldn't think a classic hit man (a full or part time professional killer) - but an individual paid or voluntarily killing for someone else with a motive - it's not impossible.

[PensiveOne]

There again, why isn't a local AZ reporter hounding these 'non-gag-order' individuals. Seems like a reporter would jump at the chance to make national news.
Everything about this case bothers me.

I am bothered about it, too. I hope in the next couple of weeks somebody breaks a story or two.

[Details]

Am I missing it.Where does the ME say it's all the same bullets from the same gun?:confused:They don't. They do say same caliber, same type of bullet, directly or implicitly. But it's not for the ME to say if it's the same gun. That's for the ballistics lab.

[Cherishlove]

I think Hawk is right about the casings theories, it’s well figured out, but just based on the fact’s we have. I just imagine he is right, every time I come to the same conclusion, I go and look for a reason, had the boy any reason to shoot Tim? to shoot his dad? And I still can’t find any, not without any heavy abuse! He had more a reason to shoot Tiffany, but Tiffany had probably a reason, more than the boy, to shoot the man, but the timeline for Tiffany is very tough too. -Granddad Leroy had he a reason? For me the first suspect in line would be still Tiffany, Yes she had a good alibi, but how true is it? I still can’t believe that they didn’t take any clothes and fingerprints from Tiffany also. She could of hired to have it done? That is a thought anyway. I hate to accuse anyone but she has been a suspect of mine from day one,now I hear she's not there for the boy? Makes me wonder even more.

[Hawk]

Am I missing it.Where does the ME say it's all the same bullets from the same gun?:confused:

No one has said that (except Avila in the interrogation). The casings test results aren't known yet. At least to the public.

Oops. Details beat me to it.

[bkwits]

Don't forget random acts. Burglary gone wrong. Who knows?

By the way...while motive is a great investigative tool and also helps to prove guilt, it is NOT a necessary component of a guilty verdict. Sometimes people kill for no reason at all. :crying:


My thoughts exactly. Often burglary is an impulsive act, nIot well-thought out. I believe the front door was prob left unlocked. The house is a corner house, a popular target for petty burglary.

If it was a burglary, the burglar or burlglars may have used a gun from the Romero house.

IMO

[suzanne]

They don't. They do say same caliber, same type of bullet, directly or implicitly. But it's not for the ME to say if it's the same gun. That's for the ballistics lab.

Ok,Thank you.

[Hawk]

I agree!

Who benefits the most with VR out of the picture?

And that's a hard spot. Who benefits the most from Mr.Romans demise? Why would anyone want both these men dead?

[suzanne]

I wouldn't think a classic hit man (a full or part time professional killer) - but an individual paid or voluntarily killing for someone else with a motive - it's not impossible.

Yes,that's possible.

[secrets]

1. Who was shot first?
By Hawks, and LE's theory, VR and second TR were shot, and according to Hawk, VR for the last time.
How could we know that? Why not the shooter shoots TR first, and he does that shooting at TR standing by the wall of the house, outside, and that could explain why was TR shot from the front, why he was running to the house, and than why was the last casing inside the house - the shooter went after VR, and shot him second, 5 casings are inside, VR has his goggles on, running for the guns upstairs. By, the way, shooting from the outside, by the house wall, could also explain the hole in the door that goes outside-in, if I understood the photos, and statement correctly.
The shooter could be also shooting from the street, in that case, TR is going back to the car, is shot front, turns around back to the house, and ............same as above.
So, we should not really view as fact that VR was shot first, because that has not been proven and stated as a fact yet.
If anybody wants to dispute this, remember, TR does not have to be dead, for the shooter to go after VR, he only has to be down, than he could be finished of with one or two last bullets, after VR is dead.
2. GSR - I really think it is crazy that we are discussing this, and belive this should be trown out as evidence, but SJ law and order seems stuck in the gutter here, so...
The clothes the boy has were collected the day after. So, he was hugging people, relatives, possibly neighbors, and maybe even LE. Than, he slept at relatives house in a family of avid hunters, left the clothes thrown somewhere, and than picked up by LE bagged together in a bunch, not to mention the warrant.
Come on, badges should be flying here, and what is wrong with the judge (Roca) in SJ?
3. Where was Tiffany?
Come one, she was a hunter, a fisherman (there was a web site where she, her father and VR applied for some kind of reward for fishermen), and etc. I don't know how good shooter she was, but I'm guessing she was better than a boy that just recently was introduced to shooting with guns.
I cannot believe she is not being investigated, if she was, that would have been firmly stated somewhere by LE, and not mumbled up, that all the timing did not checked out or something like that. If her friend "detective" DN did not unquestionably confirmed where she was at all time, something may be wrong here.
She wants kids, VR doesn't. She goes to the doc, has cervical cancer, is not at work. Speaks on the phone with VR, just 30 mins or so before he gets killed. Than she screams something like they were going to have children together..... How come, since she just came from the doctors, and knowing she had the cervical cancer, could she be sure 100% they were going to have kids? And, to say that after VR openly stated that he does not want more kids? And did she not know he does not want more kids since before, after all they were together for about 2 years before they got married?

There is more, but it already is a long post, I will try to add other thoughts later, and hope you will too.

[suzanne]

No one has said that (except Avila in the interrogation). The casings test results aren't known yet. At least to the public.

Oops. Details beat me to it.

Ok,thank you.I do not like that woman.:angry:

[Details]

And that's a hard spot. Who benefits the most from Mr.Romans demise? Why would anyone want both these men dead?IMO, someone wanted one of these men dead - and wanted there to be no witnesses. That's what killed the other one (unless this is a burglary situation - in which case they were both killed for being possible witnesses). There are plenty of reasons someone would want one of them dead.

The bar fight might have a few people who would want both of them dead. But I think only one was the target. And there are so many with a motive for one of them.

[Details]

Nothing in TOS says we have to discuss only evidence that will be admitted or admissible. IMO, the confession is near exculpatory evidence - it shows the boy's initial story, it shows it only changed in the directions the police indicated, shows even when confessing as they direct, he still cannot match the facts of the crime, and it shows the police's bias to having the boy be the killer.

I'd almost think, were this a jury trial, it'd be worth putting up to the jury, by the defense. But, of course, there are those few who don't believe in false confessions - they'll believe they can convince a child that Santa is real - and still not understand false confessions.

[Jacobtk]

A couple of questions:

when was the crime scene released?

could the gsr on the boys clothing have rubbed off of Tiffinay when she hugged him when she arrived on the scene?

was the boy wearing a jacket at anytime between the murders and the time he removed his clothing?

I do not know the answer to your first and last question. I recall Brewer asking to view the crime scene during the pre-adjudication hearing, but I do not know if it was released. According to the reports, the boy was in the clothing he came home in until he went to his grandparents' home.

As for the middle question, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that if Tiffany had any gunpowder on her person that it would rub off onto the boy's clothes when she hugged him. However, the problem we have is that we do not know where on his clothing the residue was found. Its location could tell us a lot about whether he was firing a gun or simply standing near one. The other problem is that the residue is difficult to wash out of clothing. So it is possible for the residue that was found to have been deposited at a previous time. Like fingerprints, there is no way to determine when it was deposited, and because the state contends that the boy was an avid hunter, finding it and his fingerprints on a box of bullets proves nothing.

[Details]

Speaking of the confession - Hawk, I'm still hoping to hear what it is you mean when you speak of how the boy's confession matches the crime scene. So far, you haven't provided anything - other than the order in which they were shot - which is something we don't actually know, and came from police prompting.

[Details]

I do not know the answer to your first and last question. I recall Brewer asking to view the crime scene during the pre-adjudication hearing, but I do not know if it was released. According to the reports, the boy was in the clothing he came home in until he went to his grandparents' home.

As for the middle question, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that if Tiffany had any gunpowder on her person that it would rub off onto the boy's clothes when she hugged him. However, the problem we have is that we do not know where on his clothing the residue was found. Its location could tell us a lot about whether he was firing a gun or simply standing near one. The other problem is that the residue is difficult to wash out of clothing. So it is possible for the residue that was found to have been deposited at a previous time. Like fingerprints, there is no way to determine when it was deposited, and because the state contends that the boy was an avid hunter, finding it and his fingerprints on a box of bullets proves nothing.And we've got less than nothing on this, because the boy's clothes were put together in one bag, allowing cross contamination - who knows where the GSR was initially deposited on those clothes, and which ones.

[PensiveOne]

:confused:I have a serious thought here. Since the prosecution has taken the "confession" off the table, I was wondering if there might be something in our TOS that might disallow us from talking about it. It seems inappropirate to me that we keep discussing what the boy said during that interview when even the state is saying it won't be part of the evidence.

I propose that we just stop talking about it altogether. It is unfair in so many ways and just speaks volumes about how LE put that out to the media to sway public opinion.

Without the "confession" it would appear to me they have nothing but Tanya's statement about the phone call and GSR on his clothes which is dubious at best. The FBI has stopped using GSR and we all know that he could have easily picked it up from being in contact with the bodies, the real killer or even from playing with his gun earlier (when he shouldn't have been.)

So my other question is: why are they holding this boy again?

mzmary...It is not officially off the table, yet. The judge has not ruled on that yet. There are motions from the defense to throw it out, and a motion from the prosecutors to agree to not use it with strings attached. So until the judge rules on something it is not off the table.

[Jacobtk]

May I please ask will they be able to tell if all the bullets came from that one particular gun?Can they tell if another gun may have been used also?Why do you think they are getting more ballistics test done?

If and when they actually do a ballistics test (it has not been done yet), it would tell them whether the casings came from the boy's gun. This is done by matching the scratches on the spent casing to the inside of the barrel of the gun. Each gun is unique, so they should have no problem determining if there is a match. If there is not a match, then the state as a problem.

If there is, the next step would be to test the casings for fingerprints. Given that the boy's print was found on a box of bullets, it is possible that the casings have already been tested. It is not very likely that the state would publicize exculpatory evidence, so if no prints were found or another person's prints were found they would not say anything, including withholding that information from the boy's attorney. While technically illegal, it happens quite frequently.

[PensiveOne]

That is true, I guess. It just seems so wrong to be talking about it. It's out there I guess, so it is fair game for both sides. It is just so upsetting to me. The judge is sitting on this kid, IMO.

:crying:

I agree somewhat, but the judge has a HUGE decision to make and I don't think he will take it lightly. He wants to weigh all of the evidence. I wonder why he won't make decisions on things that are not substantive, like the boy having a picture of his mother or the need for the boy to have therapy. Hence, Mr. Brewer's last two motions. Sad.

[Jacobtk]

And we've got less than nothing on this, because the boy's clothes were put together in one bag, allowing cross contamination - who knows where the GSR was initially deposited on those clothes, and which ones.

I honestly have to wonder how it is possible that anyone could doing anything that inept. These are mistakes that just ruin the state's case. Someone should suggest that theses officers watch just half a season of Law and Order. Even though the show gets quite a few things wrong, the actors on those shows would probably conduct an better investigation.

[Hawk]

:confused:I have a serious thought here. Since the prosecution has taken the "confession" off the table, I was wondering if there might be something in our TOS that might disallow us from talking about it. It seems inappropirate to me that we keep discussing what the boy said during that interview when even the state is saying it won't be part of the evidence.

I propose that we just stop talking about it altogether. It is unfair in so many ways and just speaks volumes about how LE put that out to the media to sway public opinion.

Without the "confession" it would appear to me they have nothing but Tanya's statement about the phone call and GSR on his clothes which is dubious at best. The FBI has stopped using GSR and we all know that he could have easily picked it up from being in contact with the bodies, the real killer or even from playing with his gun earlier (when he shouldn't have been.)

So my other question is: why are they holding this boy again?


I can't speak for anyone else, or course, but I reference the interrogation from an evidentiary perspective simply to satisfy personal curiosity as to what actually happened.
I believe most everyone who posts here, myself included, thinks the recording will never be presented to a jury, if it comes to that. Right now, though, the case is in Judge Roca's court and he has already seen it.

[Details]

I can't speak for anyone else, or course, but I reference the interrogation from an evidentiary perspective simply to satisfy personal curiosity as to what actually happened.
I believe most everyone who posts here, myself included, thinks the recording will never be presented to a jury, if it comes to that. Right now, though, the case is in Judge Roca's court and he has already seen it.I'm pretty sure the prosecution knew it would never be admissible in court, and that's why it was released. After all, initially they were going for trying him as an adult, and that would mean a jury, and thus from a pool that may have seen the confession tape. It's a way to get it out there, when it's totally and completely inadmissible for so many reasons.

And there are those who just don't believe false confessions happen, who still think Stephanie Crowe's brother killed her, because he confessed! That the blood on the transient's shirt came from him dumpster diving where the brother threw out the murder weapon, is the completely hypothetical scenario. It's pretty astonishing. Even when it's a child, even when the police use unethical tactics, even when the confession doesn't match the crime scene, it's as simple as, "They confessed - end of story".

[Details]

I don't think they are having trial by jury.Doesn't look like it now, but it'd have been a very strong possibility back when they were pushing and talking about trying this child as an adult. And that's when they released the video.

[Hawk]

I'm pretty sure the prosecution knew it would never be admissible in court, and that's why it was released. After all, initially they were going for trying him as an adult, and that would mean a jury, and thus from a pool that may have seen the confession tape. It's a way to get it out there, when it's totally and completely inadmissible for so many reasons.

And there are those who just don't believe false confessions happen, who still think Stephanie Crowe's brother killed her, because he confessed! That the blood on the transient's shirt came from him dumpster diving where the brother threw out the murder weapon, is the completely hypothetical scenario. It's pretty astonishing. Even when it's a child, even when the police use unethical tactics, even when the confession doesn't match the crime scene, it's as simple as, "They confessed - end of story".

I don't know anything about trials and such. If the boy is convicted, or whatever they call it in juvenile court, can't Mr. Brewer appeal? Would there be a jury then, or are there never juries in juvenile cases?

If there is a jury where do they find a pool of peers for a nine year old?
Down at the playground?

[Hawk]

Speaking of the confession - Hawk, I'm still hoping to hear what it is you mean when you speak of how the boy's confession matches the crime scene. So far, you haven't provided anything - other than the order in which they were shot - which is something we don't actually know, and came from police prompting.

The boy said he shot his dad first, went downstairs and shot Mr. Romans then went back upstairs and shot his dad again.
The casings U, F, and E verify that to be what the shooter did. They were photographed and collected before the boys interrogation.

Just an observation, nothing more.

[Details]

I don't know anything about trials and such. If the boy is convicted, or whatever they call it in juvenile court, can't Mr. Brewer appeal? Would there be a jury then, or are there never juries in juvenile cases?

If there is a jury where do they find a pool of peers for a nine year old?
Down at the playground?There is never a jury, IIRC, for juvenile cases. I don't know how appeals work, but no reason there'd be a jury then.

But when this started, they were making a lot of noise about trying the child as an adult. And that would almost certainly have a jury.

[Details]

The boy said he shot his dad first, went downstairs and shot Mr. Romans then went back upstairs and shot his dad again.
The casings U, F, and E verify that to be what the shooter did.No - they don't. First off - they were shot more than twice - he says only twice. Second, if adapted to multiple shots, it's one scenario that fits - out of many. And the shooter didn't do that - not by the casings being both above and below the father. The shooter went above the father and below. How does that match this?

The casings aren't numbered - you don't know what order the men were shot. Nor do we know the gun, depending on the order of the shots, it could be a single shot, could be something with a magazine like that good old Mossberg.

[Perplexed1]

They had problems with people at the bar, Mexican Internationals. Tim was having an affair, the Dad/Step Mom fought all the time, Problems with people at work, Drug Dealings, Tim's car was shot at a few months prior, probally other things we don't know as well, there is quit a list of people that had motive. Why LE threw there hands up so soon???? Who knows maybe the Coached Confession, that is something I've been wondering myself.

A volatile situation, to say the least. I think this is why Eryn wanted the little boy, and was coming to visit so often, to check on things. I also think she just hasn't had the funds to fight to get him

[Hawk]

There is never a jury, IIRC, for juvenile cases. I don't know how appeals work, but no reason there'd be a jury then.

But when this started, they were making a lot of noise about trying the child as an adult. And that would almost certainly have a jury.

Right. Chief Melnick even stated publicly that he wanted the boy charged as an adult. What a nice guy.

But now that it's all up to Judge Roca why does it matter to Mr. Brewer if the interrogation tape (DVD) and 1st search warrant items be inadmissible? I mean if the case doesn't go any further than Apache County court and Judge Roca, and Roca already knows?
Is Judge Roca suppose to pretend that he doesn't know? He can un-ring a bell?

[Details]

Right. Chief Melnick even stated publicly that he wanted the boy charged as an adult. What a nice guy.

But now that it's all up to Judge Roca why does it matter to Mr. Brewer if the interrogation tape (DVD) and 1st search warrant items be inadmissible? I mean if the case doesn't go any further than Apache County court and Judge Roca, and Roca already knows?
Is Judge Roca suppose to pretend that he doesn't know? He can un-ring a bell?That's what a judge is supposed to be able to do - to consider only the admissible evidence in his judgments. He's more likely to be able to do it than a member of the general public - but he can still be influenced, consciously or subconsciously.

[Hawk]

I just find it difficult to believe an 8 yr. old child could shoot his dad - see the blood, etc. and not freak out.

Seeing a gun shot victim on television is one thing but real ones....OMG:sad:

Me too. But most of this to hard to believe.

[Details]

Me too. But most of this to hard to believe.A double murder isn't hard to believe - they happen all the time. Whether as part of a love triangle, jealousy, work conflicts, drug dealing issues, burglary gone wrong, or random killer - this, sadly, is not all that unique, nor hard to believe, of a crime. And they happen with all kinds of weapons - knives, guns, rifles, shotguns, anything that comes to hand. The only unusual aspect is the person that the DA has decided to prosecute, and the limited to nonexistent investigation of the other suspects in this case.

[secrets]

Right. Chief Melnick even stated publicly that he wanted the boy charged as an adult. What a nice guy.

But now that it's all up to Judge Roca why does it matter to Mr. Brewer if the interrogation tape (DVD) and 1st search warrant items be inadmissible? I mean if the case doesn't go any further than Apache County court and Judge Roca, and Roca already knows?
Is Judge Roca suppose to pretend that he doesn't know? He can un-ring a bell?

Maybe because that way, the case would be most likely dismissed.
Anyway, no matter if it is only the judge or jury, the final decision from the judge could not be based on the confession and the evidence gathered by the 1st warrant, and thus any future complaint due to unfavorable decision from the judge regarding the boy. I believe also because if once dismissed, they could not be used in any future trial, if for example the count one is dismissed without prejudice, and the boy is retried later in the future for that count.
Of course, it is the duty of every advocate to defend his client in every way by law, in every other case that advocate would kiss his future career goodbye.

[Jacobtk]

I don't know anything about trials and such. If the boy is convicted, or whatever they call it in juvenile court, can't Mr. Brewer appeal? Would there be a jury then, or are there never juries in juvenile cases?

There is never a jury, IIRC, for juvenile cases. I don't know how appeals work, but no reason there'd be a jury then.

But when this started, they were making a lot of noise about trying the child as an adult. And that would almost certainly have a jury.

Judge Roca already stated that there would not be a jury trial. If I recall correctly, he stated this in the hearing following the release of the interrogation video, most likely because of the release contaminated the jury pool. If the there is an appeal, there would not be a jury. It is a set of judges who would decide whether a conviction would be overturned.

[Hawk]

A double murder isn't hard to believe - they happen all the time. Whether as part of a love triangle, jealousy, work conflicts, drug dealing issues, burglary gone wrong, or random killer - this, sadly, is not all that unique, nor hard to believe, of a crime. And they happen with all kinds of weapons - knives, guns, rifles, shotguns, anything that comes to hand. The only unusual aspect is the person that the DA has decided to prosecute, and the limited to nonexistent investigation of the other suspects in this case.


Well, it's hard for me to believe, anyway.

[Hawk]

Maybe because that way, the case would be most likely dismissed.
Anyway, no matter if it is only the judge or jury, the final decision from the judge could not be based on the confession and the evidence gathered by the 1st warrant, and thus any future complaint due to unfavorable decision from the judge regarding the boy. I believe also because if once dismissed, they could not be used in any future trial, if for example the count one is dismissed without prejudice, and the boy is retried later in the future for that count.
Of course, it is the duty of every advocate to defend his client in every way by law, in every other case that advocate would kiss his future career goodbye.

Thanks.
So if the 'confession' and all the evidence obtained from the first search warrant are thrown out (which includes the rifle and casings) all they have left is Mrs. Romans testimony?
Of course, he may throw out one and not the other.

[secrets]

Thanks.
So if the 'confession' and all the evidence obtained from the first search warrant are thrown out (which includes the rifle and casings) all they have left is Mrs. Romans testimony?
Of course, he may throw out one and not the other.

Yes, and that is also questionable, since after her statement, they aired the "confession", so the boy's voice is herd all around, and Mrs. Romans can not claim she knew his voice undoubtedly, can she?

And second, if they drop count one now, without the confession and the evidence, they can't try him as adult later, when he becomes competent to stand trial.

[Hawk]

Yes, and that is also questionable, since after her statement, they aired the "confession", so the boy's voice is herd all around, and Mrs. Romans can not claim she knew his voice undoubtedly, can she?

And second, if they drop count one now, without the confession and the evidence, they can't try him as adult later, when he becomes competent to stand trial.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to ask if Judge Roca can throw out the tape and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant or vice versa.
This legal stuff makes my head hurt.
So, if the judge throws out the confession the boy can't be tried as an adult at a later date? Wouldn't Mr. Brewer want that?

[suzanne]

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to ask if Judge Roca can throw out the tape and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant or vice versa.
This legal stuff makes my head hurt.
So, if the judge throws out the confession the boy can't be tried as an adult at a later date? Wouldn't Mr. Brewer want that?

LOL.All of this hurts my head trying to figure all this out.:crying:

[Details]

yes, that is possible, but he also said he came home and they were already down on the ground. he just shot them to put them out of their suffering.He said a lot of things - whatever direction the questioning was going at the time. But when they just asked him what happened, he gave the same story - came home, white car, they were dead.

[suzanne]

yes, that is possible, but he also said he came home and they were already down on the ground. he just shot them to put them out of their suffering.
They ask him a few times how he first saw them.He always said they were on the ground and on the floor.

[Perplexed1]

He said a lot of things - whatever direction the questioning was going at the time. But when they just asked him what happened, he gave the same story - came home, white car, they were dead.

The more they quizzed him, the more he fabricated.:crying:

[Perplexed1]

Which is what 8 yr old's do. send him home to mommy.

[Hawk]

Which is what 8 yr old's do. send him home to mommy.

Send him home with momma. Yes. ASAP.
But lets find out what happened if we can.

[Perplexed1]

Send him home with momma. Yes. ASAP.
But lets find out what happened if we can.

EVEN if it can't be figured out................right now, anyway. some crimes take awhile to figure out.

[Details]

Send him home with momma. Yes. ASAP.
But lets find out what happened if we can.Send him home now - he's 8 - his first story is the only thing remotely trustworthy - after that, he's as likely to be making up some story as telling the truth. Keeping him now does nothing for the investigation, and is horrible child abuse IMO. Keep investigating the evidence - only that will tell the truth here. And interview and look for alibis and patterns and problems.

[Perplexed1]

Send him home now - he's 8 - his first story is the only thing remotely trustworthy - after that, he's as likely to be making up some story as telling the truth. Keeping him now does nothing for the investigation, and is horrible child abuse IMO. Keep investigating the evidence - only that will tell the truth here. And interview and look for alibis and patterns and problems.

Can there be a lawsuit for holding him so long?

[wolfi_2]

has anyone heard anything from the supreme court yet?

No, nothing new yet
http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/sa080294.pdf

Also no answer about the “request for a ruling”

[SaraSidle]

You know what really bothers me the most about this case? The law says that if the boy is incompetent he cannot be charged, yet if he can be deemed competent within 240 days they can bring the charges. The part that bothers me is this, if he was incompetent when he committed the crime that should be the end of it. Whether he can be deemed competent almost a year later still does not alter the fact that when he actually committed the crime he was not.

This has bothered me from the beginning. It also bothers me when people are found to be incompetent because of a mental illness, they just wait until they are medicated and then charge them. The problem with both of these scenarios is the fact that after time passed these people changed, of course as the little boy gets older he will become competent, but was he when the murder was committed?

This little boy IF guilty will eventually realize the ramifications of what he has done when he is older, but we should not let our govt hold charges over your head until you understand what is going on. The whole point is when the crime was committed YOU DIDN'T!!!

You make wonderful points. i can tell you are from A2. IMO

[suzanne]

Well.I'm going to go to sleep early.I really do have a headache.I have to get up too early every morning.:sad:

[Jacobtk]

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to ask if Judge Roca can throw out the tape and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant or vice versa. This legal stuff makes my head hurt. So, if the judge throws out the confession the boy can't be tried as an adult at a later date? Wouldn't Mr. Brewer want that?

Yes, the judge can throw out the confession, but allow in the other evidence. It would then be on the state to prove that they can demonstrate the boy was the shooter. As for the boy being tried as an adult, the confession would have nothing to do with that. The judge could throw it out and still move the boy into adult court. The state could also bring charges against him later if the judge allows the one count to be dropped.

The problem with the latter is that both murders are part of the same crime, so if the boy was incompetent at the time of the killings, it would be difficult to argue that since he is older he should be accountable. Actually, it would violate his right to due process on both a federal and state level. The prosecutors did that as a threat in order to try to wrap the case up by getting a plea deal. If they actually tried it, it would likely be thrown out. Worse yet, if the boy were to be found not guilty (or not delinquent) in one case, because the murders are part of the same crime, the state would have to demonstrate how he managed not to kill one man, but killed the other. If you place that in front of a jury, it would be a pretty good case for acquittal. If it actually did result in a conviction, the boy would have a pretty good case for an appeal, especially since the same evidence would be used in both cases.

[Hawk]

Yes, the judge can throw out the confession, but allow in the other evidence. It would then be on the state to prove that they can demonstrate the boy was the shooter. As for the boy being tried as an adult, the confession would have nothing to do with that. The judge could throw it out and still move the boy into adult court. The state could also bring charges against him later if the judge allows the one count to be dropped.

The problem with the latter is that both murders are part of the same crime, so if the boy was incompetent at the time of the killings, it would be difficult to argue that since he is older he should be accountable. Actually, it would violate his right to due process on both a federal and state level. The prosecutors did that as a threat in order to try to wrap the case up by getting a plea deal. If they actually tried it, it would likely be thrown out. Worse yet, if the boy were to be found not guilty (or not delinquent) in one case, because the murders are part of the same crime, the state would have to demonstrate how he managed not to kill one man, but killed the other. If you place that in front of a jury, it would be a pretty good case for acquittal. If it actually did result in a conviction, the boy would have a pretty good case for an appeal, especially since the same evidence would be used in both cases.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Now, if the state's mental evaluation matches the defence mental evaluation, that the child is incompetent to stand trial and not likely to be rehabilitated within the time allowed, is the judge legally bound by those findings and does he have to let the boy go?

[Details]

I believe so. Not competent, can't be made competent - he cannot be convicted.

[Hawk]

I believe so. Not competent, can't be made competent - he cannot be convicted.

Okay. So if that happens, and I hope it does, how is this case recorded? The investigation obviously stops (like it hasn't already). Will it be deemed unsolved?
How does that work?

[PensiveOne]

Thanks for clearing that up!

Now, if the state's mental evaluation matches the defence mental evaluation, that the child is incompetent to stand trial and not likely to be rehabilitated within the time allowed, is the judge legally bound by those findings and does he have to let the boy go?

No he is not bound to a decision by the evalutations legally. He uses those to make his decision. It was in the document that I linked to yesterday.

[PensiveOne]

The opinions of mental health experts are
not binding on the trial court, although such opinions may assist
its determination. State v. Lara, 179 Ariz. 578, 580-81, 880 P.2d
1124, 1126-27 (App. 1994), vacated in part, 183 Ariz. 233, 902 P.2d
1337 (1995).

[Hawk]

No he is not bound to a decision by the evalutations legally. He uses those to make his decision. It was in the document that I linked to yesterday.

Right. But how likely is it that Judge Roca would go against both mental health experts? Does that happen?

Sorry to be so ignorant about these things.

[muska]

Okay. So if that happens, and I hope it does, how is this case recorded? The investigation obviously stops (like it hasn't already). Will it be deemed unsolved?
How does that work?

I saw an article that said Carlyon expects to go to trial by mid March or April unless the boy is found incompetent but possibley restorable in 240 days. I wonder what that means? Does he expect to go to trial even if the boy is found incompetent and not restorable by the judge?

Does anyone know what Carlyon would have meant?

[PensiveOne]

Right. But how likely is it that Judge Roca would go against both mental health experts? Does that happen?

Sorry to be so ignorant about these things.

Yes, it does happen, that's why that document was written, as an opinion to the state's appeal. He can rule any way he wants. Usually though they will ask for a third opinion if the first don't agree. I haven't seen the court order a third opinion, but he may.

[PensiveOne]

I saw an article that said Carlyon expects to go to trial by mid March or April unless the boy is found incompetent but possibley restorable in 240 days. I wonder what that means? Does he expect to go to trial even if the boy is found incompetent and not restorable by the judge?

Does anyone know what Carlyon would have meant?

If they find him incompetent but restorable, they would put him through a kind of "training" to restore him to competency. So the trial couldn't happen until he was deemed competent. They would have to reevaluate him at the end of the 240 days. He would then either be competent or not.

[Hawk]

Yes, it does happen, that's why that document was written, as an opinion to the state's appeal. He can rule any way he wants. Usually though they will ask for a third opinion if the first don't agree. I haven't seen the court order a third opinion, but he may.

Another stupid question: If the judge has both experts say a defendant is incompetent and hires a third that disagrees and the score is 2 to 1 would the judge go with the court appointed expert? What if all three agree? The judge would appear pretty incompetent himself if he deemed the kid competent. Wouldn't he?

[PensiveOne]

Another stupid question: If the judge has both experts say a defendant is incompetent and hires a third that disagrees and the score is 2 to 1 would the judge go with the court appointed expert? What if all three agree? The judge would appear pretty incompetent himself. Wouldn't he?

I would think he would make a logical decision...but who knows. But if he doesn't like one opinion because he doesn't think it was done with the right testing or wasn't thorough enough or whatever, he would give the other evaluation more weight in his decision.

[mina]

posted earlier by me:
oh, i have an answer to one of my questions, sorta. the hearing of nov. 10, the da said the crime scene had been released to the Romero family and there had been some cleaning done. the defense had made a request on nov. 9th to have access to the crime scene so they could conduct a proper defense investigation.

how long do murder scenes in a home before they are released to families?
__________________

Neckle said here (IMO) that she went to the scene on Thursday after the "confession" and after the scene had been released to Tiffany:

NECKLE.PDF - page 20

BB: *Um, have you, did you ever go in the house?
DN: Um, I did, Thursday, after my interview with *****. And, the bodies had been removed, s’um, Wednesday night, so…
BB: Okay. And was that, uh, was that one ‘a the search warrant that was done?
DN: Um, no, I went after the home had been released.
BB: Okay. And, and who was it realeased to?
DN: Um, I believe, back ta Tiffany.
BB: Okay.
DN: It’s, in her name.
BB: And, um, and when you went, back there what was your purpose?
DN: Um, I needed ta get, set in my mind what had happened.
BB: Okay.
DN: I, I just went, purely because my mind wasn’t grasping what had happened.

Could be I'm reading it wrong, but my interpretation is that the crime scene was released sometime on Thursday 11/6, likely less than 24 hours after the crime took place around 5:00 pm Wed. 11/5.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
Page 20

[Hawk]

I would think he would make a logical decision...but who knows. But if he doesn't like one opionion because he doesn't think it was done with the right testing or wasn't thorough enough or whatever, he would give the other evaluation more weight in his decision.

Then why in the h.. didn't they have this done two months ago? I know that Apache County is the 10th poorest county in America, but good grief, if everything hinges on the boys mental capacity to stand trial they should have had this done immediately. I read where it only takes a few hours to do an evaluation. They could have done 50 of them by now and taken a vote. What kind of legal system do we have? I know now why Lady Justice has her eyes covered.

[PensiveOne]

Then why in the h.. didn't they have this done two months ago? I know that Apache County is the 10th poorest county in America, but good grief, if everything hinges on the boys mental capacity to stand trial they should have had this done immediately. I read where it only takes a few hours to do an evaluation. They could have done 50 of them by now and taken a vote. What kind of legal system do we have? I know now why Lady Justice has her eyes covered.

I would expect it has to do with the budget. Sad, but true. Why order a 3rd evaluation if the first two agree. I think they are denying him medical treatment by not appointing the therapist, too. I would think they could appeal on that. Of course, if he is ruled incompetent and not restorable they wouldn't have to pay for any therapist. They could commit him though. It's all up to the judge. Personally, I think he is playing with fire. I read another judge said he should be removed from the bench because of his decision on the therapist. So many opinions...it all gets blurry. Our justice system for juveniles sucks. IMO of course:crying:

[muska]

Neckle said here (IMO) that she went to the scene on Thursday after the "confession" and after the scene had been released to Tiffany:

NECKLE.PDF - page 20

BB: *Um, have you, did you ever go in the house?
DN: Um, I did, Thursday, after my interview with *****. And, the bodies had been removed, s’um, Wednesday night, so…
BB: Okay. And was that, uh, was that one ‘a the search warrant that was done?
DN: Um, no, I went after the home had been released.
BB: Okay. And, and who was it realeased to?
DN: Um, I believe, back ta Tiffany.
BB: Okay.
DN: It’s, in her name.
BB: And, um, and when you went, back there what was your purpose?
DN: Um, I needed ta get, set in my mind what had happened.
BB: Okay.
DN: I, I just went, purely because my mind wasn’t grasping what had happened.

Could be I'm reading it wrong, but my interpretation is that the crime scene was released sometime on Thursday 11/6, likely less than 24 hours after the crime took place around 5:00 pm Wed. 11/5.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf
Page 20

Hard to believe! They did lots of things so fast - had and released the "confession", got that social service person in there, and even released the house back to Tiffany. Seems like they wanted as many questionable actions out of the way as possible before the boy could have a pesty lawyer getting in their way!

[muska]

I would expect it has to do with the budget. Sad, but true. Why order a 3rd evaluation if the first two agree. I think they are denying him medical treatment by not appointing the therapist, too. I would think they could appeal on that. Of course, if he is ruled incompetent and not restorable they wouldn't have to pay for any therapist. They could commit him though. It's all up to the judge. Personally, I think he is playing with fire. I read another judge said he should be removed from the bench because of his decision on the therapist. So many opinions...it all gets blurry. Our justice system for juveniles sucks. IMO of course:crying:

I'm really bothered by the probation officer as a counselor as that person can report what the boy has said. How does that work? I don't see why Judge Roca would have the right to assign such a person. Do you think Mr. Brewer has that somehow under control so it won't be a problem? Thanks!

[Hawk]

I would expect it has to do with the budget. Sad, but true. Why order a 3rd evaluation if the first two agree. I think they are denying him medical treatment by not appointing the therapist, too. I would think they could appeal on that. Of course, if he is ruled incompetent and not restorable they wouldn't have to pay for any therapist. They could commit him though. It's all up to the judge. Personally, I think he is playing with fire. I read another judge said he should be removed from the bench because of his decision on the therapist. So many opinions...it all gets blurry. Our justice system for juveniles sucks. IMO of course:crying:

I haven't followed many criminal cases but if our states justice system for kids doesn't work any better than the one in AZ we all need to contact our respective state representatives and get these laws changed.
Maybe a lawyer can understand all this, but it sure seems like major foolishness to me. And grossly unfair.

Sorry for the rant. I just never understood how this stuff works. Now I kinda wish I didn't. Ignorance is bliss and that sort of thing......

[PensiveOne]

I'm really bothered by the probation officer as a counselor as that person can report what the boy has said. How does that work? I don't see why Judge Roca would have the right to assign such a person. Do you think Mr. Brewer has that somehow under control so it won't be a problem? Thanks!

It seems like the judge wants to get more out of the boy. I don't know if it is because he doesn't think the boy did it, did it with someone else, was put up to it, or if he just wants more evidence. I don't think Mr. Brewer has it under control, that's why his is legally screaming with his motions and requests. I definately think the judge is not playing fair and he could not possibly be concerned about the boy's mental health. Just my opinion though. I am not an expert.

[Details]

I'm really bothered by the probation officer as a counselor as that person can report what the boy has said. How does that work? I don't see why Judge Roca would have the right to assign such a person. Do you think Mr. Brewer has that somehow under control so it won't be a problem? Thanks!I don't think it's under control in any sense of the word. I think Brewster knows what he can and cannot get changed, and he has protested this.

I don't think the judge is all that good - IMO, sounds like the whole justice system there is oriented around speed, charge them, convict them, jail them. He's not being overly biased any direction - but he's not looking at the case with much of an eye to this being an 8 year old child, nor pushing for what is right much - just going for speed and cheap.

[PensiveOne]

I haven't followed many criminal cases but if our states justice system for kids doesn't work any better than the one in AZ we all need to contact our respective state representatives and get these laws changed.
Maybe a lawyer can understand all this, but it sure seems like major foolishness to me. And grossly unfair.

Sorry for the rant. I just never understood how this stuff works. Now I kinda wish I didn't. Ignorance is bliss and that sort of thing......

I agree with you Hawk. For one thing why should the minimum age for being charged, or charged as an adult be different in different states? It is beyond comprehension. In one state it is 6, another 8, another 12...just ridiculous. They are all states of one country. That's why they are called the UNITED STATES.

End of my rant:biggrin:

[muska]

It seems like the judge wants to get more out of the boy. I don't know if it is because he doesn't think the boy did it, did it with someone else, was put up to it, or if he just wants more evidence. I don't think Mr. Brewer has it under control, that's why his is legally screaming with his motions and requests. I definately think the judge is not playing fair and he could not possibly be concerned about the boy mental health. Just my opinion though. I am not an expert.

That can't be legal! If he's convicted, he'll likely have grounds for appeal but that could take years!! You hear about these kids, every now and then, who are falsely convicted and later exonerated....lives pretty much ruined though.

[wolfi_2]

I agree with you Hawk. For one thing why should the minimum age for being charged, or charged as an adult be different in different states? It is beyond comprehension. In one state it is 6, another 8, another 12...just ridiculous. They are all states of one country. That's why they are called the UNITED STATES.

End of my rant:biggrin:

I don´t use to say much:thumbsup:

[Hawk]

I don't think it's under control in any sense of the word. I think Brewster knows what he can and cannot get changed, and he has protested this.

I don't think the judge is all that good - IMO, sounds like the whole justice system there is oriented around speed, charge them, convict them, jail them. He's not being overly biased any direction - but he's not looking at the case with much of an eye to this being an 8 year old child, nor pushing for what is right much - just going for speed and cheap.

Cheap I guess! They don't even have a court reporter. The released transcripts are pitiful and should be an embarrassment for the county. At the first hearing Judge Roca spent more time saying "excuse me" as though he wasn't listening to the proceedings, and reminding everyone to "Speak up so the thing (voice recorder) will work", than he did addressing issues.

[Hawk]

I agree with you Hawk. For one thing why should the minimum age for being charged, or charged as an adult be different in different states? It is beyond comprehension. In one state it is 6, another 8, another 12...just ridiculous. They are all states of one country. That's why they are called the UNITED STATES.

End of my rant:biggrin:

I'm not one for more laws, but maybe the federal government should mandate a legal age for minors to be charged along with strict guidelines.

[muska]

I don't think it's under control in any sense of the word. I think Brewster knows what he can and cannot get changed, and he has protested this.

I don't think the judge is all that good - IMO, sounds like the whole justice system there is oriented around speed, charge them, convict them, jail them. He's not being overly biased any direction - but he's not looking at the case with much of an eye to this being an 8 year old child, nor pushing for what is right much - just going for speed and cheap.

Why can't Brewer put a stop to it? Or how about Eryn? Aren't either or both of them able to decide what is best for the boy? It's just absurd!

Maybe the national media will catch on to the story soon...that might be the boy's best chance at fair treatment.

In the meantime, who knows what the boy is saying to the friendly probation officer. He has to be lonely; he could probably be more easily manipulated than on the 6th of November.

[PensiveOne]

iirc from my juvie delinquency class, there was a case that found that children placed in detention while awaiting ajudication, if it is longer than 30 or maybe 45 (i can't remember which) days they had to be provided treatment. that was in ny state. not sure if the decision ended up as a fed rule or not. but i think since the boy has a counselor they can count that as treatment. it's not confidential like we would like but the court and pros would say it is still treatment.
I don't know what the probation counselors job requirements are, or if they are trained to be mental health therapists or not. If not then it is more dangerous to the child than helpful. A counselor is not the same as a therapist, I wouldnt think. Otherwise, he would be charging $100 an hour, too! Obviously a child that has been through what this one has is in need of some serious help. Like I said there was a Phoenix judge who was ranting about the judge's decision. He said a complaint should be filed. I can't find that link either. I have read so much lately...I don't think it should have anything to do with confidentiality and Brewer even said he didn't care what the judge changed in his request. I am thinking the boy must be having a tough go of it.

[Details]

He's in the judicial system - only they get to decide what is 'best' (minimum care, minimum rights, minimum costs, and keep them locked up so you can't be accused of being soft on crime in the next election, imo)for him right now.

[ChildsVOICE]

Hi All!

found another interesting news video considering INTENT:

http://www.kpho.com/video/18014765/index.html

[muska]

He's in the judicial system - only they get to decide what is 'best' (minimum care, minimum rights, minimum costs, and keep them locked up so you can't be accused of being soft on crime in the next election, imo)for him right now.

Regardless of what his lawyer wants? I can see that the court wouldn't have to approve a therapist, but I don't see how they can appoint their own counselor when the counseling might end up being detrimental to the child.

[PensiveOne]

Hi All!

found another interesting news video considering INTENT:

http://www.kpho.com/video/18014765/index.html

I think this must be the wrong link. It is about the rail system in Mesa.

[Details]

Regardless of what his lawyer wants? I can see that the court wouldn't have to approve a therapist, but I don't see how they can appoint their own counselor when the counseling might end up being detrimental to the child.His lawyer can only protest - he can't do anything else. If the judge doesn't care, that's the end of it. He can appeal - but that takes a bit of time, and isn't likely to succeed.

[muska]

His lawyer can only protest - he can't do anything else. If the judge doesn't care, that's the end of it. He can appeal - but that takes a bit of time, and isn't likely to succeed.

Wow! I'm surprised. So whatever the child says can be used for or against him? Makes Judge Roca seem pretty untrustworthy...isn't a judge suppose to be fair?

[muska]

Hi All!

found another interesting news video considering INTENT:

http://www.kpho.com/video/18014765/index.html

This worked for me....too bad more of the involved adults don't watch.

I wonder how long it will take to hear about today's appeal decision.

Late for me....good night all!

[PensiveOne]

This worked for me....too bad more of the involved adults don't watch.

I wonder how long it will take to hear about today's appeal decision.

Late for me....good night all!

Well, that's weird it won't work for me...Goodnight.

[bookie]

That is true, I guess. It just seems so wrong to be talking about it. It's out there I guess, so it is fair game for both sides. It is just so upsetting to me. The judge is sitting on this kid, IMO.

:crying:



The DA will use the "confession" if the boy testifies so technically it isn't off the table. It's going to be lurking in the background.

[Details]

Wow! I'm surprised. So whatever the child says can be used for or against him? Makes Judge Roca seem pretty untrustworthy...isn't a judge suppose to be fair?that's the way it's going here. The defense could protest further, should this get to trial - but normally if jail personel hear you say something incriminating, they can pretty much talk about it.

I'm no lawyer - but that's how the judge's rulings, when the defense protests, have been going.

[Jacobtk]

I don't know what the probation counselors job requirements are, or if they are trained to be mental health therapists or not.

They are not (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/profiles/AZ06.asp):

COPE also coordinates statewide training for Arizona probation officers. New juvenile probation officers must attend a mandatory orientation within the first 30 days of employment that covers major probation subjects and the practical skills needed to perform the job. Individual probation departments conduct the orientation. All probation officers are also required to successfully complete a 40-hour Defensive Tactics Academy and participate in on-going refresher training. Officers requesting authorization to be armed must also successfully complete a 40-hour Firearms Academy, participate in on-going practices, and re-qualify annually. In addition, juvenile probation officers are required to have 16 hours a year of continuing education, which may be provided in-house or outside of the department. Training may cover new developments in the probation field and procedural developments in the judicial system, as well as any training that is necessary to improve probation officers' abilities.

Like I said there was a Phoenix judge who was ranting about the judge's decision. He said a complaint should be filed. I can't find that link either. I have read so much lately...I don't think it should have anything to do with confidentiality and Brewer even said he didn't care what the judge changed in his request. I am thinking the boy must be having a tough go of it.

The confidentiality would not be an issue because a therapist cannot testify in court about what their client says. Likewise, it is not illegal to deny the boy therapy regardless of his mental state. Given that the boy is apparently very religious, I think Brewer could get around this issue by requesting that the boy be allowed to speak with his priest. Those conversations would fall under the religious protection and could not be used in court.

[Details]

The DA will use the "confession" if the boy testifies so technically it isn't off the table. It's going to be lurking in the background.Yep, simple little trick - he says he'll use it to contradict any testimony from the boy - so if he goes on to say he didn't do it, the prosecutor will play that tape.

If allowed - that tape is so obviously a violation of the boy's rights, that while the prosecutor is offering not to use it except in this circumstance - that doesn't mean the judge will agree.

[PensiveOne]

<snip>

The confidentiality would not be an issue because a therapist cannot testify in court about what their client says. Likewise, it is not illegal to deny the boy therapy regardless of his mental state. Given that the boy is apparently very religious, I think Brewer could get around this issue by requesting that the boy be allowed to speak with his priest. Those conversations would fall under the religious protection and could not be used in court.

Yes, we catholics on the board have been saying that for quite awhile.

Well, I have to get to bed...g'night all:seeya:

[ChildsVOICE]

they should have continued with what they were doing when the officer was called off his interviewing co-workers. He was told to leave what he was doing because the boy had just "confessed".

Heads should roll with this one.
The real shooter could be in Canada or South America by now.

or Mexico or a Reservation (per police interviews)

[ChildsVOICE]

They are not (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/profiles/AZ06.asp):

COPE also coordinates statewide training for Arizona probation officers. New juvenile probation officers must attend a mandatory orientation within the first 30 days of employment that covers major probation subjects and the practical skills needed to perform the job. Individual probation departments conduct the orientation. All probation officers are also required to successfully complete a 40-hour Defensive Tactics Academy and participate in on-going refresher training. Officers requesting authorization to be armed must also successfully complete a 40-hour Firearms Academy, participate in on-going practices, and re-qualify annually. In addition, juvenile probation officers are required to have 16 hours a year of continuing education, which may be provided in-house or outside of the department. Training may cover new developments in the probation field and procedural developments in the judicial system, as well as any training that is necessary to improve probation officers' abilities.



The confidentiality would not be an issue because a therapist cannot testify in court about what their client says. Likewise, it is not illegal to deny the boy therapy regardless of his mental state. Given that the boy is apparently very religious, I think Brewer could get around this issue by requesting that the boy be allowed to speak with his priest. Those conversations would fall under the religious protection and could not be used in court.

About two weeks after the crime, I had spoken with the priest. According to the priest, the boy had asked for him but he claims the defense attorney and mother would not allow it. The priest believed the boy committed this crime because he stated "it was the boy's gun". I think he was just going with what the police said so it must have been gospel truth. (sarcasim there)

[ChildsVOICE]

If and when they actually do a ballistics test (it has not been done yet), it would tell them whether the casings came from the boy's gun. This is done by matching the scratches on the spent casing to the inside of the barrel of the gun. Each gun is unique, so they should have no problem determining if there is a match. If there is not a match, then the state as a problem.

If there is, the next step would be to test the casings for fingerprints. Given that the boy's print was found on a box of bullets, it is possible that the casings have already been tested. It is not very likely that the state would publicize exculpatory evidence, so if no prints were found or another person's prints were found they would not say anything, including withholding that information from the boy's attorney. While technically illegal, it happens quite frequently.

The defense keeps filing motions for release of information and findings.

[ChildsVOICE]

Speaking of Melnick..I wonder how many crimes he solved during his career in less than 48 hrs.:rolleyes:

I realize LEO's are human beings so mistakes can be made but I think they really screwed up this case by not hauling more people to the Police Station to be interviewed and recorded.

They never hauled them to the police station to interview them. They were interviewed at their workplaces, homes and the boy was interrogated at the local HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

What a bunch?!

[ChildsVOICE]

I wouldn't think a classic hit man (a full or part time professional killer) - but an individual paid or voluntarily killing for someone else with a motive - it's not impossible.

In my opinion....

The manner in which this crime was committed called for someone with extensive experience both in the physical act of shooting the weapon(s) used and shooting humans.

i.e. To eject and reload, acurately aim and successfully hit two moving targets, inside and outside, upstairs and downstairs...in such a short amount of time while having to climb up and down a staircase while stepping over or jumping over an adult 5'11" man sprawled out over the narrow stairwell, while carring a weapon and ammunition without spilling any unspent shells. Also, to hold the front door open while either ejecting a shell or shooting Tim (shell in between door jam).

The short time frame between shots (3-4 seconds) and the short time frame for the entire event (approximately 11 mins), also, shows that there was no hesitation of fear on the part of the shooter. That he/she/they were used to hunting HUMANS instead of just animals. By profile...This person had killed before. This was not an uncommon event for this killer(s).

The fact that both men were hit in the chest and head with most likely the chest first then the head, shows, again, this is someone who has been trained to execute a human. Hitmen, assassins, soldiers, are trained to shoot at the chest first (to incapacitate the victim) and larger target to hit to prevent victim from fleeing; then finish with the head.

Whoever this was, he/she/they were trained to use whatever they found at their disposal and to use the minimum of environmental factors to use as a shield as not to be seen by the victims, neighbors or people coming home at the 5 o'clock hour. The neighbor who heard the shots and called police did eventually look outside (per transcripts).

[Jacobtk]

About two weeks after the crime, I had spoken with the priest. According to the priest, the boy had asked for him but he claims the defense attorney and mother would not allow it. The priest believed the boy committed this crime because he stated "it was the boy's gun". I think he was just going with what the police said so it must have been gospel truth. (sarcasim there)

Then that is probably why he has not been allowed to speak with the boy.

The defense keeps filing motions for release of information and findings.

Well, there is a strategic reason for doing this. It forces the state to give an explanation in court, which puts it on record. If the boy's attorneys find out that the state had evidence back before then and refused to hand it over, there could be a mistrial, especially if it is exculpatory evidence. So every time Brewer asks he is setting up potential grounds for a mistrial or appeal.

[Jacobtk]

The manner in which this crime was committed called for someone with extensive experience both in the physical act of shooting the weapon(s) used and shooting humans.

There is a simpler explanation: a single-shot rifle was not used. There was a manual for a semi-automatic Mossberg 702 Plinkster found in the home, but the rifle was not recovered. Its magazine holds exactly ten .22 caliber rounds. It is capable of producing the grouped wounds found on both men. Some skill would be required, but it would not take that long for someone to kill two men and then leave.

[ChildsVOICE]

[quote=JD1974;12649660]Could that be the mother of his daughter?[/QUOT

I think I missed something. I wasn't aware that VR had a second daughter. Could that be the little girl in the wedding pictures dancing behind the boy that looks ALOT like him. He only had a picture of the boy in his wallet.
Also, from what I read they were planning this wedding for two years and going to all the catholic classes, etc. I would have thought it would have come out long before then that he didn't want more kids.
Maybe he strung her along all this time and when she finally came to resolution he didn't want more kids this was the only way out of it...




Yes he has a daughter, for the life of me I cannot remember her name, but iirc she was mentioned in the obit.



Catholics do believe that the only reason for divorce is adultery. If there is no adultery, then "till death us do part".

[ChildsVOICE]

Then that is probably why he has not been allowed to speak with the boy.



Well, there is a strategic reason for doing this. It forces the state to give an explanation in court, which puts it on record. If the boy's attorneys find out that the state had evidence back before then and refused to hand it over, there could be a mistrial, especially if it is exculpatory evidence. So every time Brewer asks he is setting up potential grounds for a mistrial or appeal.

Yeah! Mr. Brewer!

[ChildsVOICE]

To all newcomers,

visit http://www.myspace.com/childsHOPEandVOICE to show your support for the little boy and his family or to view multiple links to this case, police reports, and news reports; to find out what the boy needs and contact information to get care packages to the boy and more.

[ChildsVOICE]

Hitting the hay, you all. Good night.

[wolfi_2]

the Arizona Court of Appeals

Reply in Support of the Petition For Special Action (Petitioner)

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/sa080294.pdf

[muska]

the Arizona Court of Appeals

Reply in Support of the Petition For Special Action (Petitioner)

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/sa080294.pdf

So does this mean prosecution won? :sad:

[muska]

the Arizona Court of Appeals

Reply in Support of the Petition For Special Action (Petitioner)

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/casefiles/sa/sa080294.pdf

I think I misunderstood this when I first looked at it. It's just the paperwork, no conclusion - right? Thanks!

[muska]

Wasn't the boy appointed a GAL. A GAL is supposed to look out for the best interest of the child. They aren't supposed to care about anyone else involved, just the child's best interest. Judges usually goes with the GAL's recomendations. Has anyone heard anything about the GAL?

Only that his opinions are private/not made public. I had forgotten about him - hope he's doing a good job!

[wolfi_2]

I think I misunderstood this when I first looked at it. It's just the paperwork, no conclusion - right? Thanks!


I don´t know, but it has changed since yesterday

[muska]

I don´t know, but it has changed since yesterday

What has changed? I haven't noticed anything different. I'll look again, but if you could point out what you think has changed, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

I am comparing the one you posted on the 12th with this one.

[JD1974]

What has changed? I haven't noticed anything different. I'll look again, but if you could point out what you think has changed, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

I am comparing the one you posted on the 12th with this one.


The prosecution filed a reply is what it looks like to me.

[wolfi_2]

What has changed? I haven't noticed anything different. I'll look again, but if you could point out what you think has changed, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

I am comparing the one you posted on the 12th with this one.

sorry, the last line is new, -I don't think it´s really important, I´m just waiting for the 13th January filling, -and I like to post the link again because this thread moved that fast forward, I can´t believe, more than 800 replays in two day´s!

[wolfi_2]

Wasn't the boy appointed a GAL. A GAL is supposed to look out for the best interest of the child. They aren't supposed to care about anyone else involved, just the child's best interest. Judges usually goes with the GAL's recomendations. Has anyone heard anything about the GAL?


Just want to know, what is a GAL?

[bkwits]

Just want to know, what is a GAL?

Guardian ad Litem -- He looks after the child's interest

[JD1974]

Guardian ad Litem -- He looks after the child's interest


Yeah where the he$$ is he????

[wolfi_2]

Guardian ad Litem -- He looks after the child's interest

ah, thank´s

[Perplexed1]

In my opinion....

The manner in which this crime was committed called for someone with extensive experience both in the physical act of shooting the weapon(s) used and shooting humans.

i.e. To eject and reload, acurately aim and successfully hit two moving targets, inside and outside, upstairs and downstairs...in such a short amount of time while having to climb up and down a staircase while stepping over or jumping over an adult 5'11" man sprawled out over the narrow stairwell, while carring a weapon and ammunition without spilling any unspent shells. Also, to hold the front door open while either ejecting a shell or shooting Tim (shell in between door jam).

The short time frame between shots (3-4 seconds) and the short time frame for the entire event (approximately 11 mins), also, shows that there was no hesitation of fear on the part of the shooter. That he/she/they were used to hunting HUMANS instead of just animals. By profile...This person had killed before. This was not an uncommon event for this killer(s).

The fact that both men were hit in the chest and head with most likely the chest first then the head, shows, again, this is someone who has been trained to execute a human. Hitmen, assassins, soldiers, are trained to shoot at the chest first (to incapacitate the victim) and larger target to hit to prevent victim from fleeing; then finish with the head.

Whoever this was, he/she/they were trained to use whatever they found at their disposal and to use the minimum of environmental factors to use as a shield as not to be seen by the victims, neighbors or people coming home at the 5 o'clock hour. The neighbor who heard the shots and called police did eventually look outside (per transcripts).

Summed up nicely:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[dgfred]

I just find it difficult to believe an 8 yr. old child could shoot his dad - see the blood, etc. and not freak out.

Seeing a gun shot victim on television is one thing but real ones....OMG:sad:

The reloading part is the most difficult for me to understand.

[JD1974]

The reloading part is the most difficult for me to understand.


Mine also, he dropped no bullets as he was frantically loading them? You know he was scared to death of what he was doing, yet never dropped a bullet? No way would he stop to pick one up before firing another shot. Afterwards do you really think he thought about dropped bullets so he went and picked them up?

[dgfred]

Holding the extras, ejecting, taking one and reloading, shooting (accurately), ejecting, walking up/down stairs, taking one and reloading,
shooting, etc and on and on to ten shots?!? No way, no how.

[JD1974]

Not to mention running to the neighbors house, all of this in a roughly 11 min time frame? No way!

[Crispy]

OK silly question because my gun nut husband is outside and I can't ask him.

Is there any way to test the boys pants pockets to see if he had bullets in them? If they are just in there do they leave any kind of residue?

[bkwits]

Mine also, he dropped no bullets as he was frantically loading them? You know he was scared to death of what he was doing, yet never dropped a bullet? No way would he stop to pick one up before firing another shot. Afterwards do you really think he thought about dropped bullets so he went and picked them up?

YES, and there were bullets all over the floor of the master bedroom. Tiffany said Vincent dropped them all over, yet no unspent bullets anywhere else. I wonder if someone loaded a semi auto in the bedroom.

Maybe the Mossburg?

[bkwits]

Is the 11 minute time frame from when the cell phone call between Tim and Tonya started talking at 4:52 pm until Mr. Davis (the neighbor) called 911at 5:03pm?

[Details]

and two shots to Roman in the chest so close together they formed one wound? Could not have been a single load shot gun. imoWhy sure it could have - he was shot in the chest, and just stood there, perfectly still, no curling up in pain, no dropping to the floor and dying, waiting for the killer to reload, right? :rolleyes:

[Details]

Is the 11 minute time frame from when the cell phone call between Tim and Tonya started talking at 4:52 pm until Mr. Davis (the neighbor) called 911at 5:03pm?Yep.

And it includes time for the boy to go across the street, his friend calls his dad (Mr. Davis), Mr. Davis comes home, checks the situation out, then calls.

[GentleBreeze]

Is the 11 minute time frame from when the cell phone call between Tim and Tonya started talking at 4:52 pm until Mr. Davis (the neighbor) called 911at 5:03pm?

The time line would have to be a little longer than that though because when Tim first started talking to his wife he told her Vincent had already gone inside.

Since Vincent was killed in his full construction gear and on the stairs I think it shows he was killed quickly after coming inside. So by 4:52 VR could have already been shot and killed.

imoo

[JD1974]

Details I just think it is impossible for one person to do all of this in 11 min, especially a child!

[JD1974]

The time line would have to be a little longer than that though because when Tim first started talking to his wife he told her Vincent had already gone inside.

Since Vincent was killed in his full construction gear and on the stairs I think it shows he was killed quickly after coming inside.

imoo



So that just begs the question of how Tim heard no shots, yet him and his wife both heard the kid calling for him? If he did hear shots WHY would he go into the house unarmed...

[GentleBreeze]

So that just begs the question of how Tim heard no shots, yet him and his wife both heard the kid calling for him? If he did hear shots WHY would he go into the house unarmed...

The door could have been shut at the time of the killing and then opened afterward and the neighbors didn't hear the shots either. Imo the ones they heard were the ones being fired at Romans outside not Romero.

Many people don't hear gunshots even those that may live in an apartment adjacent to them. Many variables why a shot wasn't heard inside a home. That is why many times in other cases a family member will not hear from a loved one and go there to find that they were shot with a firearm yet no one heard anything before they were found.

imoo

[Details]

Details I just think it is impossible for one person to do all of this in 11 min, especially a child!An interesting element of the timeline that they should be able to get - at what time did the son call Mr. Davis? That'd eliminate some unknown variables (how long to drive home from work, how long after did he call 911).

[bkwits]

The time line would have to be a little longer than that though because when Tim first started talking to his wife he told her Vincent had already gone inside.

Since Vincent was killed in his full construction gear and on the stairs I think it shows he was killed quickly after coming inside. So by 4:52 VR could have already been shot and killed.

imoo

Iirc, Tim was reported to have said that Vinnie was just now walking into the house. That would have been at or slightly after 4:52 pm, prob slightly after.

IMO

[bkwits]

An interesting element of the timeline that they should be able to get - at what time did the son call Mr. Davis? That'd eliminate some unknown variables (how long to drive home from work, how long after did he call 911).


Yes it appears that the timeline is definitely shorter than 11 minutes for the shootings.

[Hawk]

The boy finally got a friend!

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/ORDER%20APPOINTING%20BETTY%20BEAUMONT%20MA.pdf

[Perplexed1]

The door could have been shut at the time of the killing and then opened afterward and the neighbors didn't hear the shots either. Imo the ones they heard were the ones being fired at Romans outside not Romero.

Many people don't hear gunshots even those that may live in an apartment adjacent to them. Many variables why a shot wasn't heard inside a home. That is why many times in other cases a family member will not hear from a loved one and go there to find that they were shot with a firearm yet no one heard anything before they were found.

imoo

A stairwell would be pretty well insulated with close walls/ carpet/pad. Especially higher up on the steps. The pictures showed a narrow stairwell, with side walls. How on earth could an 8 yr. old jump over VR quickly?

[Perplexed1]

The boy finally got a friend!

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/ORDER%20APPOINTING%20BETTY%20BEAUMONT%20MA.pdf

Well, the whole world now knows his full name.:glare:

[Hawk]

The time line would have to be a little longer than that though because when Tim first started talking to his wife he told her Vincent had already gone inside.

Since Vincent was killed in his full construction gear and on the stairs I think it shows he was killed quickly after coming inside. So by 4:52 VR could have already been shot and killed.

imoo

The cell phone call began at 4:52 and ended two and a half minutes later. Mr. Romero could not have been killed before 4:52 because Mrs. Romans said her husband told her '(Vinnie) is going in the house right now'.

[GentleBreeze]

Iirc, Tim was reported to have said that Vinnie was just now walking into the house. That would have been at or slightly after 4:52 pm, prob slightly after.

IMO

It is very hard to ascertain what Tim actually meant since he is dead and can't talk. He may have said that conveying that VR had just gone in the home a couple of minutes or so. If someone I was riding with had just gone into their home a couple of minutes before and if I was telling someone then I would have also said they just walked in the door, even though it wasn't that exact minute.

I think LE has the time line down pretty tight. They will also have Vinnie's cell phone records and the ping will show, when he talked to his wife and how close he was to his home.

imoo

[bkwits]

The boy finally got a friend!

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/ORDER%20APPOINTING%20BETTY%20BEAUMONT%20MA.pdf


Thanks, Hawk, I've been checking the site all day but hadn't seen it yet. You must have been doing the same. Now this counselor does not have to testify, is that correct?

[Hawk]

Well, the whole world now knows his full name.:glare:

And have since this thing began.

[Perplexed1]

The cell phone call began at 4:52 and ended two and a half minutes later. Mr. Romero could not have been killed before 4:52 because Mrs. Romans said her husband told her '(Vinnie) is going in the house right now'.

Why did he say that? Was there a concern in the house?

[Details]

The cell phone call began at 4:52 and ended two and a half minutes later. Mr. Romero could not have been killed before 4:52 because Mrs. Romans said her husband told her '(Vinnie) is going in the house right now'.If her statements are accurate. That phone call is one thing I'd love to have solid facts on. Do we have all the times - both from his and her phone? Do we know if his phone really picked up, or went to voice mail?

It's something I'd like to be sure of, because with the murder scene as it is, Mrs. Romans would have been a top suspect - so her statements should be very thoroughly verified.

[bkwits]

It is very hard to ascertain what Tim actually meant since he is dead and can't talk. He may have said that conveying that VR had just gone in the home a couple of minutes or so. If someone I was riding with had just gone into their home a couple of minutes before and if I was telling someone then I would have also said they just walked in the door, even though it wasn't that exact minute.

I think LE has the time line down pretty tight. They will also have Vinnie's cell phone records and the ping will show, when he talked to his wife and how close he was to his home.

imoo

Well, of course I don't know what Tim actually said, but Tonya reported that she asked, where is Vinnie?

She reported that Tim answered that, Vinnie is just now walking into the house.

Tim was speaking to his wife from his truck parked in front of the Romero home. He was most likely sitting on the passenger side with the door open, having a smoke.

If you don't want to believe what Tim's wife reported that he said, well you just don't believe her. That's your option.

IMO

[Hawk]

If her statements are accurate. That phone call is one thing I'd love to have solid facts on. Do we have all the times - both from his and her phone? Do we know if his phone really picked up, or went to voice mail?

It's something I'd like to be sure of, because with the murder scene as it is, Mrs. Romans would have been a top suspect - so her statements should be very thoroughly verified.

They got the times off Mr. Romans' cell phone, of course, which is simple. Judge Roca also signed a warrant to get all the phone records from the cell phone companies? of most everyone involved (including Mrs. Romero). That was in Nov. so I suppose both sides have the info by now.

[GentleBreeze]

The cell phone call began at 4:52 and ended two and a half minutes later. Mr. Romero could not have been killed before 4:52 because Mrs. Romans said her husband told her '(Vinnie) is going in the house right now'.

Ok, thanks. I couldn't remember her exact words but 2.5 minutes later Tim was telling her he had to go because the boy was calling him saying something bad had happened to his dad, right?

imoo

[Hawk]

Can any of you legal eagles explain what this means?

Thanks.



http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20QUASH%20CONFINEMENT%20ORDER.pdf

[Perplexed1]

Well, of course I don't know what Tim actually said, but Tonya reported that she asked, where is Vinnie?

She reported that Tim answered that, Vinnie is just now walking into the house.

Tim was speaking to his wife from his truck parked in front of the Romero home. He was most likely sitting on the passenger side with the door open, having a smoke.

If you don't want to believe what Tim's wife reported that he said, well you just don't believe her. That's your option.

IMO

If she were upstairs in the house, she'd want to know where VR
was. TR hear gunshots, through the phone, and head to the house?

[GentleBreeze]

Well, of course I don't know what Tim actually said, but Tonya reported that she asked, where is Vinnie?

She reported that Tim answered that, Vinnie is just now walking into the house.

Tim was speaking to his wife from his truck parked in front of the Romero home. He was most likely sitting on the passenger side with the door open, having a smoke.

If you don't want to believe what Tim's wife reported that he said, well you just don't believe her. That's your option.

IMO


I do believe her. I just did not remembered exactly what she said happened about Viinnie just walking in the door.

Sorry.

imo

[Good_Gawd]

Can any of you legal eagles explain what this means?

Thanks.



http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20QUASH%20CONFINEMENT%20ORDER.pdf

I could, but I won't.

[JD1974]

OK...I'll bite....what is that supposed to mean???:blink:

Means the same thing we have been asking, why is this kid dealing with probation when he has not been found guilty of a crime. Probation dept should not be involved.

Read the last sentence,....the order from Jan 6 seems to convey authority where there is none, guilt where there is none, supervisory powers that do not exist.

[Perplexed1]

I just listened to the end of the inTerrorgations, and it sure sounded like CR said "she went to the store after it happened", when asked where was your mom?

[JD1974]

I was actually referring to the rude comment by Gawd...

Oh LOL I seen you had asked what it meant..then Gawd says they could tell you but won't. I was just letting you know what it meant

[JD1974]

I just listened to the end of the inTerrorgations, and it sure sounded like CR said "she went to the store after it happened", when asked where was your mom?



What about the she told you she was at the store...

[Perplexed1]

What about the she told you she was at the store...

The woman asked (Avila?) was your mom there? And he said, no. When asked where was your mom, sounded like he said 'she went to the store after it happened'.

[JD1974]

The woman asked (Avila?) was your mom there? And he said, no. When asked where was your mom, sounded like he said 'she went to the store after it happened'.



For some reason I remember commenting on that. No way am I going looking for it lol I do remember at one time when he was asked he said she told you she was at the store....strange way to say it. Instead of just saying at the store.

[bkwits]

The woman asked (Avila?) was your mom there? And he said, no. When asked where was your mom, sounded like he said 'she went to the store after it happened'.

Yes, I have certainly been wondering about that. :confused:

[Crispy]

Minute entry of hearing on Jan. 6

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf


ETA: Is Mr. Lassen the GAL?

[bkwits]

Minute entry of hearing on Jan. 6

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MINUTE%20ENTRY%20STATUS%20HEARING%20JAN%206%202009 .pdf


ETA: Is Mr. Lassen the GAL?


Yes he is.

[Hawk]

I just listened to the end of the inTerrorgations, and it sure sounded like CR said "she went to the store after it happened", when asked where was your mom?

Don't know if you have the transcript or not. It's easier to follow. It is to me anyway.

http://www.november2008stjohnsdoublehomicide.com/applications/DocumentLibraryManager/upload/InterviewDVDChristian.pdf

[Jacobtk]

Means the same thing we have been asking, why is this kid dealing with probation when he has not been found guilty of a crime. Probation dept should not be involved.

Read the last sentence,....the order from Jan 6 seems to convey authority where there is none, guilt where there is none, supervisory powers that do not exist.

I am just glad that this was challenged because I honestly could not make heads or tails of the judge's order. It read like the boy was to be released on probation, but was to be confined indefinitely. That is well beyond Roca's power as a judge, particularly since the boy has not been convicted, plead guilty or even entered a plea yet.

[Crispy]

Yes he is.


Thanks! After I went back and read I seen that. I wonder what he wanted to meet in chambers about?

[Jacobtk]

Thanks, Hawk, I've been checking the site all day but hadn't seen it yet. You must have been doing the same. Now this counselor does not have to testify, is that correct?

Based on the order, it would appear so. If Roca based his decision on Brewer's last motion then the therapist will be able to speak with the boy at least three times a week in a space provided by the detention officials where no one can hear the conversation. Unless the boy reports being abused, the therapist does not have to testify about anything the boy said to her. She would have to testify about his general demeanor, psychology and behavior.

[Hawk]

Based on the order, it would appear so. If Roca based his decision on Brewer's last motion then the therapist will be able to speak with the boy at least three times a week in a space provided by the detention officials where no one can hear the conversation. Unless the boy reports being abused, the therapist does not have to testify about anything the boy said to her. She would have to testify about his general demeanor, psychology and behavior.


There's a step forward. It should have been done two months ago!
I think this whole proceeding shows the blatant inexperience of everyone involved.

[muska]

The boy finally got a friend!

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/ORDER%20APPOINTING%20BETTY%20BEAUMONT%20MA.pdf

This is good news - he finally gets a therapist! The letter says something about session frequency being increased upon consultation and agreement of the Juvenile Probation Dept. I wonder if Brewer is unhappy with that language considering the other motion.

I wonder if his conversations with this counselor will be private.

[muska]

Based on the order, it would appear so. If Roca based his decision on Brewer's last motion then the therapist will be able to speak with the boy at least three times a week in a space provided by the detention officials where no one can hear the conversation. Unless the boy reports being abused, the therapist does not have to testify about anything the boy said to her. She would have to testify about his general demeanor, psychology and behavior.

The order does say, "to provide counseling..........to the minor on the same basis as other contract providers of similar services."

Wonder what the 'same basis' is.

[Jacobtk]

The order does say, "to provide counseling..........to the minor on the same basis as other contract providers of similar services."

Wonder what the 'same basis' is.

To be honest, I do not know. I suspect it refers to the general requirements therapists have in terms of reporting what is stated to them by their clients. However, I cannot be sure. I am certain that either Brewer or Wood will ask for clarification if they do not understand what the wording means.

[muska]

I just listened to the end of the inTerrorgations, and it sure sounded like CR said "she went to the store after it happened", when asked where was your mom?


He said, "I think she told me she was at the store." Then he said something like she came home after it happened.

It seems a little strange to me that he said, "I think she told me..." Like he's really not that sure where she was or if it's the truth..of course, at this point, I don't think he was sure of anything.

[Hawk]

You know, if nurse Cratchett had let this boy finish just one thought, on one issue, LE may have actually gotten some useful information from him. Every single time he tries to explain himself she cuts him off and changes direction. She's pitiful. A real criminal would dance rings around this dunce.

Just my humble opinion.

[muska]

You know, if nurse Cratchett had let this boy finish just one thought, on one issue, LE may have actually gotten some useful information from him. Every single time he tries to explain himself she cuts him off and changes direction. She's pitiful. A real criminal would dance rings around this dunce.

Just my humble opinion.

I think a lot of that was intentional. I don't think she wanted him to say things that didn't fit. That's how it seemed to me.

[muska]

Brewer wants an updated evidence list because items 37 - 99 are missing from the one he got from Carlyon. If it wasn't so important, it would be pretty funny.

[Hawk]

I think a lot of that was intentional. I don't think she wanted him to say things that didn't fit. That's how it seemed to me.

I agree. She wanted a confession, any other information was irrelevant. If this doesn't show he was THE (only) suspect, at least to nurse Cratchett, what would?

[Good_Gawd]

Based on the order, it would appear so. If Roca based his decision on Brewer's last motion then the therapist will be able to speak with the boy at least three times a week in a space provided by the detention officials where no one can hear the conversation. Unless the boy reports being abused, the therapist does not have to testify about anything the boy said to her. She would have to testify about his general demeanor, psychology and behavior.

Hi! I enjoy your posts on the Newpaper sites.

[PensiveOne]

He said, "I think she told me she was at the store." Then he said something like she came home after it happened.

It seems a little strange to me that he said, "I think she told me..." Like he's really not that sure where she was or if it's the truth..of course, at this point, I don't think he was sure of anything.

Muska, I don't think that is what he said. I know that is what the transcript says, but iirc he said I think she told YOU she as at the store...I will have to go listen again. I hate listening to it...but you have a good point.

[secrets]

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to ask if Judge Roca can throw out the tape and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant or vice versa.
This legal stuff makes my head hurt.
So, if the judge throws out the confession the boy can't be tried as an adult at a later date? Wouldn't Mr. Brewer want that?

Ok, I know you got your answer, I will just explain my thoughts.
If the judge throws out the confession and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant, he can use it at a later date. Whether he keeps any or both, the boy could still be tried as an adult at a later date, just without both the tape and the evidence, they (the state) would not have much to go with, so they would likely dismiss the case.
So, even if they can drop count one before the evaluation, without both the tape and search warrant they would likely have no trial. That's why they are now saying they will not use the tape unless the boy testifies, they are trying to have the judge not trow it out completely, so they could use in the future for count one. IMO

[Hawk]

Lawyering is a sneaky sport ain't it!

[Hawk]

Why would one doctor need the results of another in order to do their own mental evaluation?
I know I ask dumb questions. Thank you for your tolerance.

[secrets]

Maybe this has been discussed already, but i couldn't find it so:
Regarding TR's wife Tanya (or Tonya?), she claims she spoke with TR while he had a smoke in the car. At that same time VR is walking to the house. TR finishes the call, and goes to the house and things happen, as LE would like us to believe. The way TR was found on the ground with all the stuff next to his body (the cigarettes, the lighter etc.), that did not make sense, because it looked like someone was going through his pockets and emptied them. It could be maybe an attempt to give grounds to Tanya's claims that TR really did smoke in the car after work while on the phone with her. So, it can be that everything is staged to look certain way, to back her statement.
Her statement, as told by LE, is "clicking" with me (I'm not American nor English, sorry for the poor english), it is just too much, just like the items around TR.
Her lawyering up so fast is not encouraging either. JMO

[wolfi_2]

Ok, I know you got your answer, I will just explain my thoughts.
If the judge throws out the confession and keep the evidence obtained from the first warrant, he can use it at a later date. Whether he keeps any or both, the boy could still be tried as an adult at a later date, just without both the tape and the evidence, they (the state) would not have much to go with, so they would likely dismiss the case.
So, even if they can drop count one before the evaluation, without both the tape and search warrant they would likely have no trial. That's why they are now saying they will not use the tape unless the boy testifies, they are trying to have the judge not trow it out completely, so they could use in the future for count one. IMO

But if the evidence is not legal gotten how they can use it? Normally for legal evidence are rules to follow, if they don’t follow the rules it’s not legal, and a sentence based on illegal gotten evidence? How long will that last?

[muska]

Muska, I don't think that is what he said. I know that is what the transcript says, but iirc he said I think she told YOU she as at the store...I will have to go listen again. I hate listening to it...but you have a good point.

Now that I am reminded, I think you are right...at least that's how it sounded on the tape. The last few times I've looked at his words, it's always been the transcript. That's an interesting change in words...for sure...I'll have to go back and listen too. Do you think they just made a mistake?

[Hawk]

Maybe this has been discussed already, but i couldn't find it so:
Regarding TR's wife Tanya (or Tonya?), she claims she spoke with TR while he had a smoke in the car. At that same time VR is walking to the house. TR finishes the call, and goes to the house and things happen, as LE would like us to believe. The way TR was found on the ground with all the stuff next to his body (the cigarettes, the lighter etc.), that did not make sense, because it looked like someone was going through his pockets and emptied them. It could be maybe an attempt to give grounds to Tanya's claims that TR really did smoke in the car after work while on the phone with her. So, it can be that everything is staged to look certain way, to back her statement.
Her statement, as told by LE, is "clicking" with me (I'm not American nor English, sorry for the poor english), it is just too much, just like the items around TR.
Her lawyering up so fast is not encouraging either. JMO

The lighter, etc, may have been in his hand when he collapsed.
The first blood drop was about 20' from the front door.
His wallet, easily accessed due to him being face down, contained over $500.00 in cash when LE checked it.

By the way, since you are neither American nor English, you may want to know that there ain't so such english word as lawyering.
But let's use it anyway.

[Hawk]

I asked the same thing yesterday. No answer yesterday.
But, I'm thinking because he didn't want to administer the test again. However, I think all the pros is asking for is the scores for that IQ test. That might be ok since the defense report came back as incompetent. On the other hand the pros expert may just want to get paid for doing less than required.

Now that makes sense. Money. Money. Money. Little kids welfare are secondary.