1/23 thru 1/25

[Jacobtk]

What law would the Judge use to do that if he only deems him age incompetent and he has no mental illness?

Statute 8-291.08 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/8/00291-08.htm&Title=8&DocType=ARS): D. If the court initially finds that the juvenile is incompetent and there is not a substantial probability that the juvenile will be restored to competency within two hundred forty days, the court shall dismiss the matter with prejudice and shall initiate civil commitment proceedings, if appropriate. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to proceed with a dependency investigation.

In short, If Roca finds the boy incompetent he can put the boy away even if the evidence exonerates the boy.

[Jacobtk]

They already said there would be NO civil commitment.:smile:

I recall Carlyon stating that Arizona's program might not be able to address the boy's "needs", but I do not recall Roca stating that he would not commit the boy if he finds him incompetent.

[Jacobtk]

Da has to go for civil commitment. Carlyon said he would not go for it.

It is to hard to get. :smile:

That does not mean he will not try. He seems to want this boy locked away without ever getting a chance to speak honestly about what he did or did not witness.

[GentleBreeze]

The key words are, If appropriate. In this case, it may not be appropriate.

I agree and the DA even mentioned it was highly unlikely that the defendant would have a mental illness.

I don't think JR will institutionalize this boy at all if he just deems him to be age incompetent.

The DA also spoke about that and he would not get the therapy therapy he needed if he is just let go because civil commitment is highly unlikely.

imoo

[Jacobtk]

I do not think the boy will be committed, only that it is within the judge's power to have him committed. I also doubt that Carlyon would not ask for it even if it is a not likely to be granted.

[Annie143]

The only comment I am going to make right now is that I do not think the boy committed this crime from what I am reading.

I have read the Myspace page and signed the petition.

Thanks for all your efforts.

[GentleBreeze]

i am sorry to hear that eryn has gotten hate mail i just hope its isolated, but people can be cruel! i had left the petition infor on az family site and some jerk has said to me if this was your family that was allegedly murdered you wouldn't be seeking the petition. well... i just don't know what i would do nobody knows what they would do unless it happened to them besides i don't believe nor convinced this little boy committed those terrible crimes. then freddead had said if the boy is released hopefully the mother will move back to ms and take her son with him because mormons in this town don't want him there. is the town of st.johns filled with mormons? i just can't get over the hatefulness towards this little boy. you know i would want eryn and her son to know i would welcome them here in mn and try to help as much as i could.


I also find that very distressing. Wouldn't she have to know the emailer for them to have her email addy? So it makes me wonder if it is family members of the victims or friends of the victims.:confused:

While I do believe that this boy did these crimes, I have nothing but compassion for Eryn. The pain it has to cause any mother in situations such as these has to be deep wounding and profound.

imo

[mrrogers]

Who said he wouldn't? I am sure his mom would make sure of it. Whether he is innocent or guilty, he has been traumatized.

hes innocent until proven guilty and yes he ll probably need counseling for at least a year or 2
so nobody is considering tiffany as a suspect . theyd been fighting that nite before then she goes and faxes a friend shes sorry. thats lame as it gets i think

[Jacobtk]

I don't understand why the would not get the therapy he needed if he is let go. That just doesn't make sense to me. A person does not need to be commited to an institution in order to get therapy. People get therapy everyday without having to be commited.

The "therapy" Carlyon is speaking of is not therapy. It is the general psychological reconditioning juveniles and certain adults are subjected to once they are convicted. The reconditioning is designed to force them to accept responsibility for their crimes. In some states their completion or refusal to cooperate can affect their parole or release. That is what Carlyon wants for the boy. Carlyon is not concerned with the boy's mental health or physical safety if placed in prison.

[mrrogers]

The "therapy" Carlyon is speaking of is not therapy. It is the general psychological reconditioning juveniles and certain adults are subjected to once they are convicted. The reconditioning is designed to force them to accept responsibility for their crimes. In some states their completion or refusal to cooperate can affect their parole or release. That is what Carlyon wants for the boy. Carlyon is not concerned with the boy's mental health or physical safety if placed in prison.

sounds like brainwashing to me or just a step below it
i think that therapist bb got will help him alot
i was gonna write him will they just send it back ?

[Jacobtk]

sounds like brainwashing to me or just a step below it
i think that therapist bb got will help him alot
i was gonna write him will they just send it back ?

Write to Brewer? I doubt he will reply. If you mean writing to the boy, then it is best to send the letter to his aunt or his mother and let them forward it to him.

[Hawk]

Write to Brewer? I doubt he will reply. If you mean writing to the boy, then it is best to send the letter to his aunt or his mother and let them forward it to him.

You can write an e-mail to Mr. Brewer, or the judge, or the prosecution, at; azcrimedog.net.
Someone from there will reply to your message.

[wolfi_2]

That does not mean he will not try. He seems to want this boy locked away without ever getting a chance to speak honestly about what he did or did not witness.


IMO they (DA) all want only to win, doesn't matter how, as -details - stated before it's to be tough on law. So the higher sentence the better sentence, they don't use common sense about a case. Shown with the 12 year old boy case who shoot his mother, he was mental and physical abused by his mom, the mom doesn’t like to life with the boy, once the boy had the chance to get on a weapon and shoot his pain out…., wrong indeed! but avoidable if the adult´s react early. The DA would try him as adult, abuse doesn´t really matter. The judge was a bit more human, but just a little bit, he sentenced him in juvenile court for four to five years. His life was a pain and will be a pain the next year´s, so what do they expect when he will be released?

[ChildsVOICE]

Looks like the new prosecutor Michael Whiting is learning quick how to go through the back door when he wants something done. Check out this article. He's eliminating two jobs and creating two others to save money but that means the well respected man near retirement looses out.:thumbdown:

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20247180&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

[ChildsVOICE]

I kept reading the report Avila handed in which was when she and Neckels interrogated CR and she must have reiterated ITs important to tell us the truth, at least 10 times. Each time he gave an answer, which wasnt good enough again,the phrase, Its important to tell us the truth was used or we tell each other the truth in here, over and over and over again. finally breaking him down and to please them each time he was led into giving them a little bit mistruths, just because they /(she) was pushing to hear what she wanted to hear. that kid was bullied not in the way of being threatened physically, but in the way of showing him his most favorite toy/game in the world (possibly a video game) and saying if you want it you can have it just say what I want to hear and it'll be yours. Also, I in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)
You might think I'm nuts or just reaching, but I think thats significant.


Yeah! I had forgotten about that. I noticed it too when I first heard it. I even wondered if I heard him right. I didn't know why he said that when he had called her at 5:12 and 5:14 p.m. Wouldn't she have said she was at the store and would be there asap?

It definately raised my eyebrows on that one. ?????:confused:

[GentleBreeze]

I thought it was standard to put spouses at the top of any murder investigation. Then comes girlfriends, exs and family.

Not necessarily the spouses but to work their way out starting with family members of the victims.

Imo

[mrrogers]

oh i have considered both women who happen to be spouses of the deceased number 1 and number 2 of suspects on the list.
tiffany
1 goes back to maiden name
2.takes ring off
3. is out partying in flagstaff that i know of
http://axtonromero.blogspot.com/2008/11/tiffany-romero-in-town.html
no telling what else we dont no about

[mrrogers]

Write to Brewer? I doubt he will reply. If you mean writing to the boy, then it is best to send the letter to his aunt or his mother and let them forward it to him.

o i know the wood law firm will reply friendly bunch of people actually
i guess ill send the letter to his aunt probably better

[Jacobtk]

tiffany
1 goes back to maiden name
2.takes ring off
3. is out partying in flagstaff that i know of
http://axtonromero.blogspot.com/2008/11/tiffany-romero-in-town.html
no telling what else we dont no about

She is using her maiden name again? How is it that this would not strike any of St. Johns' investigators as at least mildly suspicious?

[mrrogers]

theyre all scum bags that will do anything to get a conviction
carlyon is dirty so is avila
i wonder what kind of talk avilla and neckles got after the interview was thrown out. not a very friendly one i ll bet
they began there game on crr the minute he sit down
i dont know why they took him to the health center to that was weird to me.
on this site two different post accuse tiffany and her new boyfriend of the murder
http://axtonromero.blogspot.com/2008/11/tiffany-romero-in-town.html
the most important thing is getting cr out.
does any one have suspicions about anyone else besides tiffany
i think tanya was way to far away and didnt know what was up with time :thumbup:

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=mgal;12699157]I kept reading the report Avila handed in which was when she and Neckels interrogated CR and she must have reiterated ITs important to tell us the truth, at least 10 times.

well the world now nows they coerced the confession

[Perplexed1]

i know lastnight as i was tucking in my son i thought about how hard it must be for eryn not able to do that as of now when her son needs her more now than ever before, and that alone can be very heartbreaking. i know she hasn't been there in the past, but what matters now she is there and very loving and supporting of her son and i hope she continues to be.

I think she was there for him in the past as much as she could be, with him living in another household. I read somewhere early on that she came to see him once a month, and they talked on the phone. And CR was telling her of things going on in the home, and Tiffany told him to keep quiet about what goes on in the Romero home. Eryn's hands were tied somewhat.

[Hawk]

in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)

Page 62 Line 11 of transcript;

Avila: "Where was your mom?"
Child: "I think she told me she was at the store."

[Perplexed1]

I kept reading the report Avila handed in which was when she and Neckels interrogated CR and she must have reiterated ITs important to tell us the truth, at least 10 times. Each time he gave an answer, which wasnt good enough again,the phrase, Its important to tell us the truth was used or we tell each other the truth in here, over and over and over again. finally breaking him down and to please them each time he was led into giving them a little bit mistruths, just because they /(she) was pushing to hear what she wanted to hear. that kid was bullied not in the way of being threatened physically, but in the way of showing him his most favorite toy/game in the world (possibly a video game) and saying if you want it you can have it just say what I want to hear and it'll be yours. Also, I in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)
You might think I'm nuts or just reaching, but I think thats significant.

Exactly. :thumbup:

[Perplexed1]

Bolded by me. :biggrin:
I have been trying to point that out forever. Eveyone skips over it. Thank you for putting it out there again!

I can't help but wonder how much racism enters in with some folks rush to judgement, and determanation that he is guilty, and nothing but.

[Hawk]

She is using her maiden name again? How is it that this would not strike any of St. Johns' investigators as at least mildly suspicious?

She was married for only a couple of months. The house is in her maiden name. Even her hunting permit found in Mr. Romero's wallet was in her maiden name. She may not have changed the name on her drivers license.

What's so odd?

[muska]

in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)

Page 62 Line 11 of transcript;

Avila: "Where was your mom?"
Child: "I think she told me she was at the store."

The transcript does not match the actual interview. I know we've talked about that here and I've checked it. His actual words are "she told you she was at the store." He says you, not me.

Don't know if there's any significance but it is one more kind of strange discrepancy.

[Jacobtk]

She was married for only a couple of months. The house is in her maiden name. Even her hunting permit found in Mr. Romero's wallet was in her maiden name. She may not have changed the name on her drivers license.

What's so odd?

She may not have changed her all her documents, but her legal name would be Romero. One would think that she would use that name rather than her maiden name. Even if married for only a few months, it is odd that she would abandon her husband's name that quickly.

[muska]

Hawk,

Can you please send me the link to where you got that from.

Because what I'm reading from, is the report prepared by Detective Avila which she states in this report she got right off of the taped recorded interview released to the county attorney, and it clearly states: Detective Neckel asked CR if his mom was in the home when this happened. He said no. Detective Neckel asked him if he knew where she was. He said "I think she told you she was at the store".

These are the correct words - they match the tape. The transcript is wrong.

[muska]

She may not have changed her all her documents, but her legal name would be Romero. One would think that she would use that name rather than her maiden name. Even if married for only a few months, it is odd that she would abandon her husband's name that quickly.

I think it would be odd but we don't really know if she did or did not go back to her maiden name. I think it's really all only rumor.

[Jacobtk]

theyre all scum bags that will do anything to get a conviction
carlyon is dirty so is avila

While I am inclined to agree, I would call Carlyon an opportunist. He seems to be used to winning easy cases by getting plea deals. This case is one that he could use to bring some attention to himself. Avila strikes me as someone who enjoys having power over others. I am not surprised with what she did to the boy. I am also not surprised that when Brewer would not bend for her she turned. I doubt there is any specific malice on either of their parts. However, their actions and behavior are certainly malicious.

[Hawk]

These are the correct words - they match the tape. The transcript is wrong.

No they don't. The transcript is correct. Those may be subtitled words on a newscast version of the video, but it isn't in the court transcript or the actual tape. Please go to the 24 min 13 second part of the following. His words are clear.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix-local-news-110708-double-murder.18c702709.html

[Perplexed1]

theyre all scum bags that will do anything to get a conviction
carlyon is dirty so is avila
i wonder what kind of talk avilla and neckles got after the interview was thrown out. not a very friendly one i ll bet
they began there game on crr the minute he sit down
i dont know why they took him to the health center to that was weird to me.
on this site two different post accuse tiffany and her new boyfriend of the murder
http://axtonromero.blogspot.com/2008/11/tiffany-romero-in-town.html
the most important thing is getting cr out.
does any one have suspicions about anyone else besides tiffany
i think tanya was way to far away and didnt know what was up with time :thumbup:

Why on earth would they allow this site to remain up, with all the comments against Tiffany? :confused:

[Hawk]

Hawk,

Can you please send me the link to where you got that from.

Because what I'm reading from, is the report prepared by Detective Avila which she states in this report she got right off of the taped recorded interview released to the county attorney, and it clearly states: Detective Neckel asked CR if his mom was in the home when this happened. He said no. Detective Neckel asked him if he knew where she was. He said "I think she told you she was at the store".

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

[Hawk]

She may not have changed her all her documents, but her legal name would be Romero. One would think that she would use that name rather than her maiden name. Even if married for only a few months, it is odd that she would abandon her husband's name that quickly.

I don't see it. But okay. If all her paperwork say Devall and her friends and coworkers know her by that name................

[muska]

No they don't. The transcript is correct. Those may be subtitled words on a newscast version of the video, but it isn't in the court transcript or the actual tape. Please go to the 24 min 13 second part of the following. His words are clear.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix-local-news-110708-double-murder.18c702709.html

He says, "I think she told you she was at the store." I just listened to the part you said to listen to and that's what I heard. Maybe I'm just confused about what you're saying. If so, sorry!!

We talked about this though, a few days ago. He says "you" on the tape but "me" is recorded in the transcript. I doubt if it means anything anyway. All it suggests to me is that they were talking to him at some time before the camera was turned on and they told him what his step-mom told them. I just wondered what else might have been said in any earlier conversation.

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=Jacobtk;12699808]She may not have changed her all her documents, but her legal name would be Romero. One would think that
Sheriff Joseph Dedman Jr. but on that website i posted a few times back
2 differnt bloggers accuse her of murder on vincent and her new bf as an accomplice

[Jacobtk]

No they don't. The transcript is correct. Those may be subtitled words on a newscast version of the video, but it isn't in the court transcript or the actual tape. Please go to the 24 min 13 second part of the following. His words are clear.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix-local-news-110708-double-murder.18c702709.html

It may be a because of the sound quality, but I heard "I think she told you..."

[Hawk]

He says, "I think she told you she was at the store." I just listened to the part you said to listen to and that's what I heard. Maybe I'm just confused about what you're saying. If so, sorry!!

Sounds like 'me' to me. And that isn't what's in the court document. But I'll take your word for it. My ears are old. Don't think this case hinges on one word anyway, but we've about ran out of topics.

[muska]

Why on earth would they allow this site to remain up, with all the comments against Tiffany? :confused:

Good question!! It sure does make you wonder though, doesn't it?

[Hawk]

Good question!! It sure does make you wonder though, doesn't it?

Maybe their just stupid.

[dgfred]

[QUOTE=Jacobtk;12699808]She may not have changed her all her documents, but her legal name would be Romero. One would think that
Sheriff Joseph Dedman Jr. but on that website i posted a few times back
2 differnt bloggers accuse her of murder on vincent and her new bf as an accomplice

Who is her new boyfriend?

[muska]

Another comment from someone who knows the area and thinks something is up -

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20242285&brd=2264&pag=797&dept_id=506182&startrow=1&maxrows=10

Just the first comment - I think I'm seeing more like this one lately than a few weeks ago.

[GentleBreeze]

I can't help but wonder how much racism enters in with some folks rush to judgment, and determination that he is guilty, and nothing but.

Rush to judgment against who and what has race got to do with it?

One victim is Hispanic.
One victim is American Indian

And the defendant is the same race as one of the victims.:confused:

imo

[Perplexed1]

Maybe their just stupid.

That's funny. But I've looked at that site many times, and they seem like such sweet people, and supportive of Tiffany. Unless they no longer are supportive. :ohmy:

[Hawk]

That's funny. But I've looked at that site many times, and they seem like such sweet people, and supportive of Tiffany. Unless they no longer are supportive. :ohmy:

I agree. Is it possible that the site has been abandoned yet still up? There aren't any recent pictures. I don't know how that works. Or, in a sinister sort of way maybe they enjoy the drama.
Just guessing, as usual. They're probably good people.

[muska]

Looks like the new prosecutor Michael Whiting is learning quick how to go through the back door when he wants something done. Check out this article. He's eliminating two jobs and creating two others to save money but that means the well respected man near retirement looses out.:thumbdown:

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20247180&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=6

At the end of the article it says that hiring a new attorney was also approved. His name is Garrett Whiting at $72,000 salary. Wonder if he's related to Michael Whiting.

[Hawk]

Another comment from someone who knows the area and thinks something is up -

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20242285&brd=2264&pag=797&dept_id=506182&startrow=1&maxrows=10

Just the first comment - I think I'm seeing more like this one lately than a few weeks ago.


If the poster is genuine and in fact knows the family well, then the same poster should know the divorce circumstances and why the boy wasn't with his mom.
Those are some interesting posts on that site, though! Thanks.

[Perplexed1]

I agree. Is it possible that the site has been abandoned yet still up? There aren't any recent pictures. I don't know how that works. Or, in a sinister sort of way maybe they enjoy the drama.
Just guessing, as usual. They're probably good people.

It's still current. That is an old post from Thanksgiving.

[Perplexed1]

It's still current. That is an old post from Thanksgiving.

I just looked at todays view of that site, and I didn't see any of those comments on there. Maybe that is a page someone still is passing around, but the comments aren't currently on there.

[Hawk]

It's still current. That is an old post from Thanksgiving.

Wow. Well, they're sure not aiding Mrs. Romero's, uh, I mean Ms. Devall's popularity any. Don't know where she intends to live after this case is resolved. She'll need all the friends she can get I would think.

The boy with a new name, undoubtedly will be in MS, or parts unknown.

[Hawk]

I just looked at todays view of that site, and I didn't see any of those comments on there. Maybe that is a page someone still is passing around, but the comments aren't currently on there.

Well, here's an interesting post from that site. Don't know what to make of it:

Anonymous said...
wow, Tiffany sure doesn't look like a grieving widow to me.So she came to stay with you to escape the "drama"?You mean the MURDER of her new husband and subsequent jailing of her step-son.She should be there confessing to marrying a gay man for money and setting up a small emotionally deficient boy for the murders she set up. Got your way huh Tiff?Not for much longer!

January 23, 2009 7:51 PM

[Jacobtk]

Well, here's an interesting post from that site. Don't know what to make of it:

Anonymous said...
wow, Tiffany sure doesn't look like a grieving widow to me.So she came to stay with you to escape the "drama"?You mean the MURDER of her new husband and subsequent jailing of her step-son.She should be there confessing to marrying a gay man for money and setting up a small emotionally deficient boy for the murders she set up. Got your way huh Tiff?Not for much longer!

January 23, 2009 7:51 PM

That... seems like something that ought to be removed from that site.

[Hawk]

That... seems like something that ought to be removed from that site.

Knowledgeable comments from an acquaintance or just hate-speech from an outside observer?

[Jacobtk]

Knowledgeable comments from an acquaintance or just hate-speech from an outside observer?

I do not know, but I think comments like that are just as questionable as the pedophile comments that were floating around when the story first broke.

[mrrogers]

Good question!! It sure does make you wonder though, doesn't it?

yea id say any reasonable person would wonder about her
that with what crr says "i think she told you she was at the store" sounds like she called him an told him what to say then the fact that
she faxed a friend that her and vinny had fought and she wished she could have told him she was sorry is just lame to me
that sounds like a stage line in a:smile::smile: show to me
what makes it even worse is allegedly shes all ready engaged to this guy there calling the accomlice
i think that some extra weight should be given to the remarks on the blog since obviosly they seem to know alot about her.
i copied the site about 4 times in case they change it. i sure as heck would have taken the blog off of there
latest news here is a douglas boy was sentenced to 4 years in juvenile detention for shooting his mother EIGHT TIMES :w00t:

[mrrogers]

I based my statement on what Gentlebreeze said in post #407 "The DA also spoke about that and he would not get the therapy therapy he needed if he is just let go because civil commitment is highly unlikely."

My point was that I don't understand why the DA said that. I know the boy would get therapy without having to be committed. (I also think the boy is innocent) He most definately will need and needs therapy.

carylon is a slimeball thats why he will do or say anything to win this case and put c away as young as he is he could be in detention for 10 years
not that its really representative but carlyon divorced his wife who was 10 years older than him and then 2 years later married another attorney iun the same office who was 16 years younger
i just feel sorry for my friends in navajo county as this slimeball is going to be there county atty. he ran uncontested so thats about as easy as it gets. i
if carlyon gets his way cr would be in detention till hes 18 then theyll prosecute him for his dads murder IF ROCA LETS THEM DO IT :w00t:

[Jacobtk]

Unfortunately for Carlyon, many of his actions fit the requisite for prosecutorial misconduct, particularly if the boy is innocent or found incompetent. His dismissal request is obviously an attempt at persecution. He complained about the 45-day limit being unfair and threatened to drop and then refile the charges in an effort to get around because he would not have evidence back before the limit was up. His request to have documents pertaining to a juvenile court case is certainly questionable.

I hope Eryn sues the county and the state if the case is dismissed. Carlyon at least deserves to be prosecuted, if not disbarred, for his behavior in this case.

[Streetdreamer]

Unfortunately for Carlyon, many of his actions fit the requisite for prosecutorial misconduct, particularly if the boy is innocent or found incompetent. His dismissal request is obviously an attempt at persecution. He complained about the 45-day limit being unfair and threatened to drop and then refile the charges in an effort to get around because he would not have evidence back before the limit was up. His request to have documents pertaining to a juvenile court case is certainly questionable.

I hope Eryn sues the county and the state if the case is dismissed. Carlyon at least deserves to be prosecuted, if not disbarred, for his behavior in this case.


There is rarely repercussions for a prosecutor who disobeys the rules. Only if it should result in public attention. Despite violating laws that should have them disbarred, it rarely happens that they recieve any significant punishment. Thats what makes their actions and violations of the law, legal, sort to speak.

[Jacobtk]

There is rarely repercussions for a prosecutor who disobeys the rules. Only if it should result in public attention. Despite violating laws that should have them disbarred, it rarely happens that they recieve any significant punishment. Thats what makes their actions and violations of the law, legal, sort to speak.

I realize that. None of the prosecutors, detectives and officers involved in the Ryan Harris case lost their jobs immediately. However, suing the city was worth it for both the boys falsely accused because it sent a message that there are some penalties. Some of those involved were fired, others demoted and some had their entire caseloads reviewed.

I doubt Carlyon will be disbarred even though he has pulled something akin to what Nifong did in the Duke case. However, it worth bringing the complaint so that he understands that malicious (and potentially wrongful) prosecution has its consequences.

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=mrrogers;12699912]

Who is her new boyfriend?

check out that blog againt its on there first name is levi something from roundvalley
but get this the guy in the pic isnt him

there was some talk jordan romero talkiing on this blog i think and then someone sez o yea thats some chuck or chris somebody
there was a jordan romero involved in taking drugs to school i dont know if its the same one. it could be because a girl from safford has sued the school district over being strip searched after being mentioned by fellow students. its currently in the appeals court happened 4-5 years ago so this whole thing just keeps getting bigger. get this they strip searched her over her allegedly handing out 400 mg
motrin
life is crazy !!

[mrrogers]

She is using her maiden name again? How is it that this would not strike any of St. Johns' investigators as at least mildly suspicious?

i hear shes engaged and has already taken off her wedding ring 2
and the guy shes in the picture with isnt the one shes engaged too
i saw the dog its nice looking one i hope cr ends up with it :thumbsup:

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=Jacobtk;12700361]Unfortunately for Carlyon, many of his actions fit the requisite for prosecutorial misconduct, particularly if the boy is innocent or found incompetent. His dismissal request is obviously an attempt at persecution.

her and the boy deserve compensation for all this bs

[mrrogers]

There is rarely repercussions for a prosecutor who disobeys the rules. Only if it should result in public attention. Despite violating laws that should have them disbarred, it rarely happens that they recieve any significant punishment. Thats what makes their actions and violations of the law, legal, sort to speak.

i think rocas got it under control hes no ones fool(i think he knows what makes all the attornies on staff tick. i notice now whiting is trying to get another whiting hired in his office,if someone hadnt complianed about it publicly i never would have known that its against the personnel rules to hire some one related to you who you will be supervising. maybe they can get around it because he only wants to hire him for 1500 hours a year so much bull**** goes on in these little towns its amazing )
i doubt theyll even get a hearing on the motion to drop the one murder charge so they can come back on him when hes an adult . that kinda suks too he picked the murder charge of the boys father to drop just for the dramatic effect i think if he is found guilty of tims death then was successufully prosecuted for his dads hed be jail till retirement age . the people who really know whats up say the boy is not guilty of this and will walk i hope so hes been locked up a long time for an 8 year old

[Jacobtk]

I am curious about what will happen Thursday. The state has not released any new evidence findings to the public. This suggests to me that they either found nothing at all or what they found does not point to the boy. If that is the case, then I hope Judge Roca will dismiss the charges. I can understand why he would prefer to wait until Thursday rather than reschedule the hearing, but if there is no evidence, the boy ought to be released immediately. I also hope that Roca does not simply go through the process of listening to the competency reports if the evidence is not in the state's favor.

I would like to know what the state's evidence reports reveal, if anything. The casings and the ballistics report are of particular interest. It seems unlikely that these have not come back, so one must wonder why the state has remained silent about them.

[mrrogers]

It may be a because of the sound quality, but I heard "I think she told you..."

if thats true it was a conspiracy with tiffany telling cr what to do i cant believe that hed ever shoot his dad or tim :w00t: this is getting wierd

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=Jacobtk;12700773]I am curious about what will happen Thursday. The state has not released any new evidence findings to the public. This suggests to me that they either found nothing at all or what they found does not point to the boy. If that is the case, then I hope

well a buddy of mine whose an atty familar with the case feels he ll get off

[ChildsVOICE]

[Qoute:

01-24-2009, 11:21 PM
muska
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 636

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)

Page 62 Line 11 of transcript;

Avila: "Where was your mom?"
Child: "I think she told me she was at the store."

The transcript does not match the actual interview. I know we've talked about that here and I've checked it. His actual words are "she told you she was at the store." He says you, not me.

Don't know if there's any significance but it is one more kind of strange discrepancy.

Qoute]

[GentleBreeze]

I am curious about what will happen Thursday. The state has not released any new evidence findings to the public. This suggests to me that they either found nothing at all or what they found does not point to the boy. If that is the case, then I hope Judge Roca will dismiss the charges. I can understand why he would prefer to wait until Thursday rather than reschedule the hearing, but if there is no evidence, the boy ought to be released immediately. I also hope that Roca does not simply go through the process of listening to the competency reports if the evidence is not in the state's favor.

I would like to know what the state's evidence reports reveal, if anything. The casings and the ballistics report are of particular interest. It seems unlikely that these have not come back, so one must wonder why the state has remained silent about them.


I am not sure what is happening but imo something sure is happening. The DA is not filing supplemental discovery and Brewer/Wood aren't filing motions anymore demanding it like they have done in the past. There is a reason for the silence from both parties, imo.

But if Judge Roca dismisses count one and sides with Wood and does it with prejudice, what law is he going to use that confirms it meets the legal definition of "with prejudice"? How has he been prejudiced to a fair trial when no trial has even been held on either case yet and it seems that Roca is well within his rights for the delay in proceedings due to the fact that a hearing must held to determine the boy age incompetent or competent. It certainly wouldn't be double jeopardy imo.

imo

[TaraCrazyHair]

yea id say any reasonable person would wonder about her
that with what crr says "i think she told you she was at the store" sounds like she called him an told him what to say then the fact that
she faxed a friend that her and vinny had fought and she wished she could have told him she was sorry is just lame to me
that sounds like a stage line in a:smile::smile: show to me
what makes it even worse is allegedly shes all ready engaged to this guy there calling the accomlice
i think that some extra weight should be given to the remarks on the blog since obviosly they seem to know alot about her.
i copied the site about 4 times in case they change it. i sure as heck would have taken the blog off of there
latest news here is a douglas boy was sentenced to 4 years in juvenile detention for shooting his mother EIGHT TIMES :w00t:

I thought he said "I think she told me she was at the store"


Will have to read the transcript again as soon as I get a chance

[TaraCrazyHair]

[Qoute:

01-24-2009, 11:21 PM
muska
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 636

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
in the report CR was asked,if Tiffany was there and he answered, "I believe she told you she was at the store." Does that sound rehearsed to you? why not say, At the store I think, or I dont know, why use the words(I believe she told you)

Page 62 Line 11 of transcript;

Avila: "Where was your mom?"
Child: "I think she told me she was at the store."

The transcript does not match the actual interview. I know we've talked about that here and I've checked it. His actual words are "she told you she was at the store." He says you, not me.

Don't know if there's any significance but it is one more kind of strange discrepancy.

Qoute]

Thanks .. you just saved me the trouble (:

I think the significance is there ... for me if it is "she told you" ... did he overhear LE and her talking? How did he know what she told them?

If it was "she told me" .. I have to hmmm

[GentleBreeze]

[QUOTE=Jacobtk;12700773]I am curious about what will happen Thursday. The state has not released any new evidence findings to the public. This suggests to me that they either found nothing at all or what they found does not point to the boy. If that is the case, then I hope

well a buddy of mine whose an atty familiar with the case feels he ll get off

It sounds to me that the State has the evidence back now and it does point to the boy and they are not releasing that to the public just yet until the other matters are resolved in court. DAs in other cases are well known to release some of the evidence but hold their best evidence to their vest and will not publicly announce it before the trial.

It is up to JR to decide what should be disseminated to the public. He has a right to seal anything that he doesn't want out there just yet.

The defense team sure isn't screaming for more discovery either. I think they have it and they too aren't peeping a word about was uncovered.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

Thanks .. you just saved me the trouble (:

I think the significance is there ... for me if it is "she told you" ... did he overhear LE and her talking? How did he know what she told them?

If it was "she told me" .. I have to hmmm

In his interview he told them he already knew she was going to come home late that day. I am sure she told him she had to go to the store.

They said on the day of the murders, he was sitting right next to Tiffany on the couch, iirc. Also she was at the scene quickly after he called her and she was with him then because they said when he saw her drive up, he ran to her, hugged her and cried.

imoo

[ChildsVOICE]

little birdie: "take notice in one of the police reports, a witness statement after police asked 'Have you ever handled any of the guns in the house?"

My research:

from Cdr. James A. Womack, A50 report:

Interview with Dana:

VR & TR's good friend Dana= "three omegos"

Dana was in Show Low w/ his cousin brother.

TR told Dana "some hispanic guys wanted him to join their GANG called TEAM LOCO"

"VR told TR to 'stay away from them' "

This "happened about 1 1/2 to 2 months ago"

"TR was sleeping with Candy AND Misty"

"Tim talked about them at work."

"TR spent the night at one of their houses."

"TR said 'Misty had a psycho ex boyfriend".

Police asked: 'When were you last at VR's house?
Dana: "last Tuesday night."

Police asked: "Have you handled any of VRs guns?"
Dana: "Yes. A little pea shooter, .22 rifle at VRs place. VR brought it outside in the summer time and they went prairie dog hunting ONE time during the summer."

Police ask: "Tim have any guns?"
Dana: "a 357 mag. Maybe."
"i never handled Tim's pistol"
"Tim kept the pistol behind the front seat of his truck."
"Tim stayed at a motel when he 1st came to town"
TR stayed in "...spare guest room UPSTAIRS."
"TR pays VR $50 per week' "
"only time TR stays in motel when he's with Candy."

RE: bullet hole in TR's truck hood:

Dana: TR told Dana 'about 4 or 5 months ago that his cousin who was on DRUGS shot his truck when he was on the APACHE RESERVATION."

Dana: TR "usually parks truck in front" "same spot except front is usually pointing west."

[GentleBreeze]

Even if someone else handled the gun prior to the shooting the fingerprints of the suspect would be on top of those fingerprints because they were the last one to use the gun.

imoo

[ChildsVOICE]

Even if someone else handled the gun prior to the shooting the fingerprints of the suspect would be on top of those fingerprints because they were the last one to use the gun.

imoo

I agree. Just throwing info out there.

[ChildsVOICE]

little birdie: "take notice in one of the police reports, a witness statement after police asked 'Have you ever handled any of the guns in the house?"

My research:

from Cdr. James A. Womack, A50 report:

Interview with Dana:

VR & TR's good friend Dana= "three omegos"

Dana was in Show Low w/ his cousin brother.

TR told Dana "some hispanic guys wanted him to join their GANG called TEAM LOCO"

"VR told TR to 'stay away from them' "

This "happened about 1 1/2 to 2 months ago"

"TR was sleeping with Candy AND Misty"

"Tim talked about them at work."

"TR spent the night at one of their houses."

"TR said 'Misty had a psycho ex boyfriend".

Police asked: 'When were you last at VR's house?
Dana: "last Tuesday night."

Police asked: "Have you handled any of VRs guns?"
Dana: "Yes. A little pea shooter, .22 rifle at VRs place. VR brought it outside in the summer time and they went prairie dog hunting ONE time during the summer."

Police ask: "Tim have any guns?"
Dana: "a 357 mag. Maybe."
"i never handled Tim's pistol"
"Tim kept the pistol behind the front seat of his truck."
"Tim stayed at a motel when he 1st came to town"
TR stayed in "...spare guest room UPSTAIRS."
"TR pays VR $50 per week' "
"only time TR stays in motel when he's with Candy."

RE: bullet hole in TR's truck hood:

Dana: TR told Dana 'about 4 or 5 months ago that his cousin who was on DRUGS shot his truck when he was on the APACHE RESERVATION."

Dana: TR "usually parks truck in front" "same spot except front is usually pointing west."


MY RESEARCH PART 2:

from Cdr. James A. Womack, A50 report:

Interview with Mark Mercer:

" (he) was at VRs Saturday before wedding"
VR was showing him his rifles.
Mark said he handled "three of VRs rifles that day."

Mark said the weapons "were in the living room in hard shelled cases".

Mark "has prior law enforcement experience".


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Does anybody else on this board find any other statements of who handled the guns from the VR household?

[ChildsVOICE]

Rush to judgment against who and what has race got to do with it?

One victim is Hispanic.
One victim is American Indian

And the defendant is the same race as one of the victims.:confused:

imo

The Chief of Police has been going through a law suit from his previous employment regarding race issues. The person bringing forth the suit is a fellow law officer. "token jew" "token black" See the boy's myspace page/links blog to get the link to the news article.

The POSSIBILITY of a race issue would be in the fact of not investigating properly. Having a preconceived notion against the whole family and placing that notion onto the boy as an automatic reason for guilt.

[GentleBreeze]

Well, here's an interesting post from that site. Don't know what to make of it:

Anonymous said...
wow, Tiffany sure doesn't look like a grieving widow to me.So she came to stay with you to escape the "drama"?You mean the MURDER of her new husband and subsequent jailing of her step-son.She should be there confessing to marrying a gay man for money and setting up a small emotionally deficient boy for the murders she set up. Got your way huh Tiff?Not for much longer!

January 23, 2009 7:51 PM

Is this anonymous poster implying that Vinnie was gay? What money? I thought even the house is in Tiffany's name and was even before the marriage.

I think this is just typical behavior by those who must insert themselves into cases and strews rumor and gossip out there for the shock value.

I no more believe that Vinnie was gay than I believe this poster who hides in secret behind a monitor.

imo

[ChildsVOICE]

At the end of the article it says that hiring a new attorney was also approved. His name is Garrett Whiting at $72,000 salary. Wonder if he's related to Michael Whiting.

I wondered that too!!! hummm???:confused:

[GentleBreeze]

The Chief of Police has been going through a law suit from his previous employment regarding race issues. The person bringing forth the suit is a fellow law officer. "token jew" "token black" See the boy's myspace page/links blog to get the link to the news article.

I am aware of that but I still don't see how the race of the defendant is remotely connected to this case.

The victims themselves are American Indian and Hispanic. Melnick is very aware of their ethnicity.

So why would this even matter when the defendant is Hispanic/Caucasian?

imoo

[ChildsVOICE]

Red by me. :smile:

CODY- Candi's friend
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=14110682
His song is (Die MF , MF, Die MF Die!) Listen to his music!!
Has- http://teamloco.com/ and their Logo- on his myspace
CODY ~TL4L~'s Companies
Apache County Sheriffs Office
St. Johns, Arizona US
Detention Officer
County Jail/Detention

Yeah. I noticed that too.

Wonder WHICH detention center it is? Adult it appears. However, when I called the Apache County JUVENILE Detention Center for info about sending donations/packages the man told me to be sure to add the JUVENILE part because they have two "Apache County Detention Centers" and one is for adults. Sure HOPE its the adult one if you get my drift.

[shelby77]

I mean't to show you he is a member of Team Loco.
He was always at that bar.


Interesting. Wonder how it is ok that he is a member of a "gang" of known troublemakers and thieves apparently, while being in the profession he is in...hmmm. Things certainly seem to work differently there in Apache County, that's for sure lol.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but looks likes he's Rikki brother...

[ChildsVOICE]

Its my OPINION that whoEVER the shooter(s) were he/she/they were not locals. Because "they" were taking such a risk to committ this crime at the 5 o'clock hour when neighbors would be coming home from work and because at least one was outside shooting TR in the broad daylight. IMO...they were someone who was leaving the area asap..as soon as the job was done.

I believe it was some type of revenge killing due to the overkill of how many times these men were shot (4 and 6) not to mention the head and chest shots (duh!).

I'm sure the boy wasn't trained to shoot a prarie dog 4-6 times! (sarcasm there)

Somebody wanted these guys dead in a really big way.
Now, who was that? and why?

I believe whoever was the actual shooter(s) they were leaving town asap and most likely were going back over some border either from the U.S. to Mexico or from U.S. territory to Reservation.

To me that makes perfect sense how the shooter was not afraid of getting caught. They used the cover of the house and the front porch column/bush to hide in the immediate vecenity but I don't think they were too worried once they got out of that area. I don't see someone who was known locally doing the actual shooting. They'd be too afraid of being recognized, either at the time of the shooting or later in some local store/around town. IMO That's why they didn't care about doing it in the wide open at 5 o'clock when neighbors would be coming home.
I don't know if they would have thought being a few hours away (say in San Carlos, Tucson, Pheonix) would be far enough or safe enough to keep from being recognized.???

Now, whether someone was hired for the gunman/gunmen to do it , is another question.

Why was Tiff on the phone w/ VR? Did she ask him to go home to pick up something/check on the boy? Did she give him a reason to go to the house?

Did TR have a drug past/present history involvement with illegal drugs?
Why did TR move to the 2nd largest Meth capitol in AZ?
TR had a habit of pushing the limits and ignoring debts. Did he leave behind a bad drug debt? Was someone trying to keep him quite?

Did the arrest of Tiff's sister spook someone? Did this crime occur because someone was trying to send someone a message?

These are answers the police need to be answering.

After asking these types of questions with no answers it seems kinda LAME to be trying to convince people WORLDWIDE that a little 8 year old kid kills the ONLY means of support and existance he has because he had asked someone else to spank him over some school papers he had forgotten to bring home. :thumbdown:

[muska]

I am aware of that but I still don't see how the race of the defendant is remotely connected to this case.

The victims themselves are American Indian and Hispanic. Melnick is very aware of their ethnicity.

So why would this even matter when the defendant is Hispanic/Caucasian?

imoo

I think the idea is that the police might not take the case as seriously as they would if the victims were caucasians........I'm pretty sure a lot of people feel that way.

[ChildsVOICE]

IMO...A very big/HUGE thing I noticed the other day when I was listening to the interrogation again....


This little boy...even though throughout the statements he was speaking in PAST TENSE about everything else....when he talked about his dad....He spoke in the PRESENT TENSE.

as if it hadn't clicked that his dad was dead.

[Hawk]

And "TR was sleeping with Candy AND Misty"

Here is Misty next to Nicole Allen (scroll down), Tiffany's best friend.

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=8257645&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=8

This has to be a different Misty. These are high school kids!

[Hawk]

I think the idea is that the police might not take the case as seriously as they would if the victims were caucasians........I'm pretty sure a lot of people feel that way.

Caucasians are the minority (20%) in Apache county. The 'lead' detective is Hispanic! 78% are Native Americans.
The race card argument is very weak.

[ChildsVOICE]

I mean't to show you he is a member of Team Loco.
He was always at that bar.

Yes. I saw the "Team Loco" info on his site. I picked up on that and I also wondered about which center he worked at. I wonder if he'd be going back and forth between centers. People in this town seem to have double duty. Wonder how the boy is doing under the dentention center's care?

signing off now got to go birthday shopping

[Hawk]

That was the 2003 Graduating class and has been comfirmed that it is the Nicole CR talks about that is his step-mom's best friend. She DID live 2 houses down from the Romero home. Now, she lives with Tiffany. :w00t:

Then we now know who the killer is. The girl's dad. Good grief, Romans was 39 years old!

[mrrogers]

Yeah! I had forgotten about that. I noticed it too when I first heard it. I even wondered if I heard him right. I didn't know why he said that when he had called her at 5:12 and 5:14 p.m. Wouldn't she have said she was at the store and would be there asap?

It definately raised my eyebrows on that one. ?????:confused:

that doesnt sound like anything a kid his age would say this thing gets wierder and weider i think ill just get her phone number and call and ask if she did it lol. its wierd the house is in her name only gonna take a good lawyer to get anything for cr theyll say she had it before they got married so its sole and separate property i betcha. vinces estate what ever that turns out to be owns cr support till 18 and an inhearitance if theres ever enough for child support. my cousin died a few years ago and the ink wasnt dry on the death certificate before his x sued his estate for the kid :w00t:

[Hawk]

Good Grief go look at the witness list:

Misty Belote

I know she's on the list. Just didn't know her age. Plenty of perversion going in.

[muska]

Caucasians are the minority (20%) in Apache county. The 'lead' detective is Hispanic! 78% are Native Americans.
The race card argument is very weak.

But the police chief is causcasian and there is a lawsuit against him and he does call the shots as you have pointed out. I'm not saying racism is a factor in this case.......I really have no idea. I was just commenting on what I thought another poster might have meant about possible racism in this case.

[Hawk]

But the police chief is causcasian and there is a lawsuit against him and he does call the shots as you have pointed out. I'm not saying racism is a factor in this case.......I really have no idea. I was just commenting on what I thought another poster might have meant about possible racism in this case.

You're right about the chief. Who could trust him?
It's impossible to know the ethnicity (not that it matters) of most of the people involved by their last names.

[GentleBreeze]

I always respect and like to read your opinion ChildsVoice and I am sure this does not come as a shock to you but I must respectfully disagree.

I think the time of day shows just the opposite. This was crime where the shooter was in a rage and there was no waiting for him to carry it out.

I think they had already planned this to happen as soon as Vinnie walked through that door and that rage rose to a fevered pitch by the time these two men came home. It had to be done then. The rage and anger couldn't wait a minute longer, imo.

I don't think a non local would come into a tiny town to do this right in broad daylight. They would know that they would stick out like sore thumbs, especially in a small rural neighborhood.

This boy was taught to shoot the rabbit or prairie dog as many times as it took to end their suffering, making sure they were dead.

Murders are high risk takers and often it turns out to be someone known to the victim, like in their own family, that resides there too. Family members are killed by other family members at all times of the day. Killers don't go by a handbook of what is better to do or when and the crime happens when the killer decides the time is right, no matter when that time is.

Also overkill depicts that the shooter was filled with raw rage and personal emotions. IMO this tends to happen when the shooter has a close relationship with the victim.

But I don't think this was a purposefully overkill but done by someone that wouldn't really know how many shots it would take when killing a human being. Imo, the boy kept shooting until they were no longer quivering and shaking.

imoo

[mrrogers]

I faxed everybody his little ad for a new job.
Just in case they didn't know. :w00t:
what did you do fax em the newspaper article heck st johns would probably be glad to see him leave. i wonder how many times hes changed jobs because of screw ups like this one:w00t:

[Hawk]

I always respect and like to read your opinion ChildsVoice and I am sure this does not come as a shock to you but I must respectfully disagree.

I think the time of day shows just the opposite. This was crime where the shooter was in a rage and there was no waiting for him to carry it out.

I think they had already planned this to happen as soon as Vinnie walked through that door and that rage rose to a fevered pitch by the time these two men came home. It had to be done then. The rage and anger couldn't wait a minute longer, imo.

I don't think a non local would come into a tiny town to do this right in broad daylight. They would know that they would stick out like sore thumbs, especially in a small rural neighborhood.

This boy was taught to shoot the rabbit or prairie dog as many times as it took to end their suffering, making sure they were dead.

Murders are high risk takers and often it turns out to be someone known to the victim, like in their own family, that resides there too. Family members are killed by other family members at all times of the day. Killers don't go by a handbook of what is better to do or when and the crime happens when the killer decides the time is right, no matter when that time is.

Also overkill depicts that the shooter was filled with raw rage and personal emotions. IMO this tends to happen when the shooter has a close relationship with the victim.

But I don't think this was a purposefully overkill but done by someone that wouldn't really know how many shots it would take when killing a human being. Imo, the boy kept shooting until they were no longer quivering and shaking.

imoo

And not gonna jump up and get him. Or ran out of ammo.

[GentleBreeze]

And not gonna jump up and get him. Or ran out of ammo.

Yep and he made sure they weren't going to move ever again. He made sure of it by shooting each one of them multiple times, even shooting much more than necessary for death to result but he wasn't going to take any chances.

imoo

[mrrogers]

Wow. Well, they're sure not aiding Mrs. Romero's, uh, I mean Ms. Devall's popularity any. Don't know where she intends to live after this case is resolved. She'll need all the friends she can get I would think.

The boy with a new name, undoubtedly will be in MS, or parts unknown.

i dont think she cares shes got a house a job and a bf:w00t:

[wolfi_2]

Hm, would be interesting to know if there was a PC in the house and if anyone of LE had a look what was saved on it.

[Hawk]

What good is a cell phone that's on charge in a bedroom? As a parent would you not require your eight year old to have it in their book bag, or pocket, or belt holster at all times when unsupervised?
Keep it turned off during school then call you immediately upon arrival at home if your child is to be alone? If you didn't hear from him at the expected time wouldn't you call him? In the event there wasn't an answer wouldn't you drive the couple of miles home from work to either pick him up or at least check on him? An eight year old!
The phone would only call 911, dad, grandma, or step-mom. It isn't like he'd be talking on it constantly.

And why didn't the boy use it to call police instead of going to a neighbor's house? Two separate issues, but both have bothered me all along.

[muska]

A Laptop.

NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Go figure. :rolleyes:

I hadn't even thought of this but.............unbelievable!!!

IMO They will never really know what happened on Nov. 5.........too sloppy and too rushed.

[wolfi_2]

A Laptop.

NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Go figure. :rolleyes:


Not in the evidence =nobody looked in there! -If I found one, I would have a look at the saved files, just to know if there wasn’t anything that maybe can point to the murder.

[Crispy]

I've wondered why he didn't have his cell phone too. Then again, my 12 year old loses his phone and I can barely get my 8 year old to remember to wear his glasses to school. Maybe he just forgot that day. It might be interesting to see if he had any missed calls for that time period.

[Hawk]

I've wondered why he didn't have his cell phone too. Then again, my 12 year old loses his phone and I can barely get my 8 year old to remember to wear his glasses to school. Maybe he just forgot that day. It might be interesting to see if he had any missed calls for that time period.

Right, but if he didn't answer when expected to wouldn't you drive over to make sure he's okay?

[Jacobtk]

I am not sure what is happening but imo something sure is happening. The DA is not filing supplemental discovery and Brewer/Wood aren't filing motions anymore demanding it like they have done in the past. There is a reason for the silence from both parties.

At the last hearing Brewer complained about the state releasing information to the public before it was released to him. That marks the third time (by recollection) that he has made that complaint. The last one was in regards to the gunpowder residue. Since the transcript of the hearing has not been released, we cannot know what, if anything, the judge said about that. However, that might explain the absence of information coming from the state. Carlyon might not want to give what he has to the boy's attorneys so he may be holding back revealing what he has at the moment.

I will say that in every case I have followed since I was in high school, every time one side has been constantly vocal and then suddenly goes silent it means it does not look good for them. Case in point, Cassie Anthony's attorneys suddenly have nothing to say in her defense now that the little girl's remains were found. Prior to that, they could not keep their mouths shut. So I doubt that the evidence points to the boy and the state is just holding it back. Carlyon has released every police report, the autopsy report and released everything he thinks incriminates the boy. To stop suddenly suggests he has nothing or what he has does not point to the boy.

As for Roca deciding what goes to the public, he has already stated that the reports are public record. That means Carlyon can release whatever he wants.

But if Judge Roca dismisses count one and sides with Wood and does it with prejudice, what law is he going to use that confirms it meets the legal definition of "with prejudice"? ... It certainly wouldn't be double jeopardy.

It skirts very close to it. Under the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States), a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Holding back a charge until the results of a trial is complete and then filing or refiling that charge technically violates the double jeopardy provision (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm) in that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense:

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

In other words, Carlyon would have to show that the Romero's murder was a wholly separate crime than Romans, which is not his position. The complaint is that the boy shot both men in the same act. So he must present both charges at once or dismiss both charges at once. Think of it this way: if I steal your car and beat you up, the DA can just charge me with grand theft. He cannot, however, decide after I am acquitted to charge me with assault. That is essentially what Carlyon is attempting to do. He thinks the boy will be found incompetent, so he is trying to hold off on one charge in the hopes of going to trial later. That is double jeopardy and it is illegal.

[Hawk]

It was most likely dead. Tiffany told Neckels she put it on the charger when she got the house back right? (as she moved things around in his room) :cursing:

But if you knew your kid would be home alone that afternoon wouldn't you make darned sure he had the cell phone with him when he caught the school bus?
Sorry, to repeatedly pound the same rock. But it seems negligent parenting not to do so.

Never mind. You've already answered. (I gotta learn to type faster.)

[Crispy]

Right, but if he didn't answer when expected to wouldn't you drive over to make sure he's okay?


I would be there in a heartbeat!

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=ChildsVOICE;12701193]Its my OPINION that whoEVER the shooter(s) were he/she/they were not locals. Because "they" were taking such a risk to committ this crime at the 5 o'clock hour when neighbors would be coming home from work and because at least one was outside shooting TR in the broad daylight. IMO...they were someone who was leaving the area asap..as soon as the job was done.

where did u find out tiffanys sis was arrested and for what
meth wasnt it

[Hawk]

Not in the evidence =nobody looked in there! -If I found one, I would have a look at the saved files, just to know if there wasn’t anything that maybe can point to the murder.

That would require a competent investigation team and experienced leadership. Both very much lacking in this case.
It should have been turned over to the Arizona DPS.
In my opinion.

[mrrogers]

And "TR was sleeping with Candy AND Misty"

Here is Misty next to Nicole Allen (scroll down), Tiffany's best friend.

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=8257645&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=505965&rfi=8

thats the senior class ?:sneaky:

[wolfi_2]

But if you knew your kid would be home alone that afternoon wouldn't you make darned sure he had the cell phone with him when he caught the school bus?
Sorry, to repeatedly pound the same rock. But it seems negligent parenting not to do so.

Never mind. You've already answered. (I gotta learn to type faster.)

A short off topic,
I suggest, go into a PC store and test a few keyboards; I use a laptop style keyboard with a little bigger (male:wink:) keys. It help’s a lot! -And don’t buy a black one!

[Hawk]

A short off topic,
I suggest, go into a PC store and test a few keyboards; I use a laptop style keyboard with a little bigger (male:wink:) keys. It help’s a lot! -And don’t buy a black one!

Thanks for the advise. I'm old, tired, and half blind. Typing wasn't offered as a class at my high school, we did type setting. I think the typewriter was invented soon after I graduated though.

[mrrogers]

That was the 2003 Graduating class and has been comfirmed that it is the Nicole CR talks about that is his step-mom's best friend. She DID live 2 houses down from the Romero home. Now, she lives with Tiffany. :w00t:

DUH ME! MISTY is on the witness list
SAME last name.

6 years ago they were
this is getting wierder and wierder

[wolfi_2]

That would require a competent investigation team and experienced leadership. Both very much lacking in this case.
It should have been turned over to the Arizona DPS.
In my opinion.

about the Laptop

Looking for something that point to the murder, wouldn’t be the only reason, I would also look for a motive, if I suspect the boy.

[wolfi_2]

About the evidence: They don’t take any other clothes then the boy’s, just to make sure that there wasn’t any evidence that point to another person, they found a laptop and didn’t look in it for some evidence or motive? ……:thumbdown:

[Hawk]

about the Laptop

Looking for something that point to the murder, wouldn’t be the only reason, I would also look for a motive, if I suspect the boy.

Could the defence have it confiscated and sent out? Might be too late though. And the pitiful county budget probably wouldn't allow for an independent computer detective. Although they did in the Joel Barr case (but that was for the prosecution.)

[wolfi_2]

Could the defence have it confiscated and sent out? Might be too late though. And the pitiful county budget probably wouldn't allow for an independent computer detective. Although they did in the Joel Barr case (but that was for the prosecution.)

I think, it's to late now!

[wolfi_2]

Could the defence have it confiscated and sent out? Might be too late though. And the pitiful county budget probably wouldn't allow for an independent computer detective. Although they did in the Joel Barr case (but that was for the prosecution.)

I think the defence unfortunately can’t confiscate something!

[Hawk]

I think the defence unfortunately can’t confiscate something!

Wrong term. Can they subpoena it? At least to look at e-mails and browsing history. Don't need an expert for that (assuming they haven't been deleted.)

[wolfi_2]

Wrong term. Can they subpoena it? At least to look at e-mails and browsing history. Don't need an expert for that (assuming they haven't been deleted.)

If nobody worked with the laptop any more, or only a little bit, yes, they can restore all files, even if they are deleted. But that need some specialists work!

[Hawk]

This is some weak stuff:

Arizona's statutes (laws) do not designate an age when a child can be left alone. A parent is responsible for the decisions they make about their children being left alone.
The law does require however, that the Arizona Department of Economic Security Child Protective Services (CPS) investigate reports of neglect which include failure to provide supervision that places a child at substantial risk of harm. Leaving children alone is included in the category of supervision.
CPS has identified situations (that could cause a substantiated risk of harm to children who are alone) that are taken as reports for investigation. For example: - Children under the age of six; - A child of any age who cannot care for his or herself due to a physical, emotional or mental inability; - Children six to nine years of age, for three hours or longer; or it is unknown when the parent will return.
CPS understands there are times when school age children may have to be alone for a while. A call about these (latch key) children doesn't automatically mean a CPS report will be taken, however, anyone can call CPS when they know or believe children are alone.
When calls come into CPS, specific questions are asked to help determine if there is a problem for the child. These may include: Does the child know how to reach the parent? Does the child know how to get emergency help? Is there a neighbor to go to? Is someone checking in on the child?
Sometimes police are called to the home. Before removing children, often police will try to make contact with the parent or other responsible person to come and supervise the children. The police are required to make these reports to CPS. This could result in a CPS Specialist contacting the children and parent about the report and making an assessment of any needed services.

Parent's must use good judgment about their children's capabilities, as they are ultimately responsible.

[Hawk]

so, could tiffany be charged as an accessory to the murders since she is one of the responsible adults and the other is dead. Easy access to guns???


That's what I'm thinking, but someone more knowledgeable than me will have to answer.
Seems like a hard nosed DA could charge her with that. The actions, or in-actions of the parents enabled the child to have easy access to firearms and ammunition. Anyone could have been shot. Neighborhood kids even. Accidentally or intentionally.
And they left him alone with these weapons.

[Hawk]

apparently there were people outside the family that knew there were guns in the house.

Was Candi aware of the extra curricular activies of Tim and Misty?? Was Misty's crazy bf aware of them? Was Misty's crazy bf a memeber the gang that wanted Tim to join?? Sound really strange. Tim was 39 and Misty was only about 23. Something's up.

Misty was born 9 Nov 84 so she was only 23 when Mr. Romans was killed. His older daughter, Chantel, was 19. Younger daughter, Taylor, was 18.

[GentleBreeze]

At the last hearing Brewer complained about the state releasing information to the public before it was released to him. That marks the third time (by recollection) that he has made that complaint. The last one was in regards to the gunpowder residue. Since the transcript of the hearing has not been released, we cannot know what, if anything, the judge said about that. However, that might explain the absence of information coming from the state. Carlyon might not want to give what he has to the boy's attorneys so he may be holding back revealing what he has at the moment.

I will say that in every case I have followed since I was in high school, every time one side has been constantly vocal and then suddenly goes silent it means it does not look good for them. Case in point, Cassie Anthony's attorneys suddenly have nothing to say in her defense now that the little girl's remains were found. Prior to that, they could not keep their mouths shut. So I doubt that the evidence points to the boy and the state is just holding it back. Carlyon has released every police report, the autopsy report and released everything he thinks incriminates the boy. To stop suddenly suggests he has nothing or what he has does not point to the boy.

As for Roca deciding what goes to the public, he has already stated that the reports are public record. That means Carlyon can release whatever he wants.



It skirts very close to it. Under the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States), a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Holding back a charge until the results of a trial is complete and then filing or refiling that charge technically violates the double jeopardy provision (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm) in that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense:

Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.

In other words, Carlyon would have to show that the Romero's murder was a wholly separate crime than Romans, which is not his position. The complaint is that the boy shot both men in the same act. So he must present both charges at once or dismiss both charges at once. Think of it this way: if I steal your car and beat you up, the DA can just charge me with grand theft. He cannot, however, decide after I am acquitted to charge me with assault. That is essentially what Carlyon is attempting to do. He thinks the boy will be found incompetent, so he is trying to hold off on one charge in the hopes of going to trial later. That is double jeopardy and it is illegal.

It is two completely separate offenses. If it weren't, there wouldn't be but one charge.

He is charged equally with 2 Class A Felonies -premeditated homicides, not one offense of homicide.

Romero's murder was a totally separate crime of homicide than Romans.
It certainly is not the same crime nor even the same person who was murdered.

Right, if you steal my car and beat me up, then that is one case but if I have a passenger sitting in the seat and you also assault them too then the DA can try you on that offense, even after you have had your trial for the one that involved me, imo.:smile:

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

so, could tiffany be charged as an accessory to the murders since she is one of the responsible adults and the other is dead. Easy access to guns???

I really don't know. There is no AZ law that states firearms must be locked up.

It would be different imo if the safety issues was about the boy's safety and if he accidentally shot himself or a neighbor friend but that is not the case here.

Wouldn't that then make it a complex issue to discern? Whether parents have to keep everything put up and locked away that they think their children may murder them with? How would that work if the parents were killed with the mom's kitchen knife, which certainly is a dangerous weapon when used for that intent or a baseball bat that the parent had bought and left accessible in the home? Just about anything found in a home can be used as a murder weapon if the one who kills determines to make it into one.

So I think the merits of this case are much different than a typical case of a parent not locking the weapon up and the child got the weapon and was accidentally harmed or someone else. There was absolutely no safety issues concerning this boy. He was not harmed by any firearm.

imo

[wolfi_2]

This is some weak stuff:

Arizona's statutes (laws) do not designate an age when a child can be left alone. A parent is responsible for the decisions they make about their children being left alone.
The law does require however, that the Arizona Department of Economic Security Child Protective Services (CPS) investigate reports of neglect which include failure to provide supervision that places a child at substantial risk of harm. Leaving children alone is included in the category of supervision.
CPS has identified situations (that could cause a substantiated risk of harm to children who are alone) that are taken as reports for investigation. For example: - Children under the age of six; - A child of any age who cannot care for his or herself due to a physical, emotional or mental inability; - Children six to nine years of age, for three hours or longer; or it is unknown when the parent will return.
CPS understands there are times when school age children may have to be alone for a while. A call about these (latch key) children doesn't automatically mean a CPS report will be taken, however, anyone can call CPS when they know or believe children are alone.
When calls come into CPS, specific questions are asked to help determine if there is a problem for the child. These may include: Does the child know how to reach the parent? Does the child know how to get emergency help? Is there a neighbor to go to? Is someone checking in on the child?
Sometimes police are called to the home. Before removing children, often police will try to make contact with the parent or other responsible person to come and supervise the children. The police are required to make these reports to CPS. This could result in a CPS Specialist contacting the children and parent about the report and making an assessment of any needed services.

Parent's must use good judgment about their children's capabilities, as they are ultimately responsible.

So to try the eight year old boy is in my point of view inconsequent, they can´t say that a adult is responsible, and if something bad happened, the child is responsible. There can only one be responsible, not both! -disturbing !

[Hawk]

The point here is that the boy was not in a safe environment, regardless if he committed murder or not. There are more children and adults shot, and some killed from a child getting a hold of a firearm in the home than there are from a kitchen knife. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that harm to the child or anyone else is not caused from guns. That constitutes neglect or at the least negligence. I would think it could be classified as negligent homicide against Tiffany.

Kitchen knives are intended to prepare food. Ball bats are for sports. The gun was invented for one purpose only. To kill.
Wouldn't it be similar to if you had a pack of dangerous dogs in your backyard that had a gate without a keyed lock and your 8 year old let them out and someone was chewed to pieces? The neglect would be on the parent, not the child. Wouldn't it?

[Jacobtk]

It is two completely separate offenses. If it weren't, there wouldn't be but one charge.

You are correct that they are two separate offenses, but they are part of the same criminal act or transaction. Citing my example, assault and grand theft would be two separate offenses. However, they were both part of the same criminal act: me stealing your car.

This is one of the many confusing parts of the law, but the idea is that there is the criminal act itself and then the offenses that occur within that criminal act. Think of it like this: you go to a theater (criminal act or transaction). At the theater you buy tickets (offense), popcorn (offense), soda (offense) and after the movie you pay for parking (offense).

In this case, the criminal act or transaction is (according to the state) that the boy planned to kill both men as part of a cohesive plan. That makes it one criminal act or transaction. The result is two offenses of first-degree murder. In order to contend that Romero's murder was not part of the same transaction as Romans' the state would have to demonstrate that the factors leading to Romero's death were different from those leading to Romans'. In other words, they would have to prove separate motives. Otherwise, the two remain part of the same criminal transaction.

As a result, the state cannot withdraw a charge to file later on. All the charges must be brought up front or not at all. The state cannot wait for the result of one offense and then throw another charge related to the same crime out there when they do not get the result they want. It violates the Fifth Amendment. Had the state not brought the charge with Romero to begin with, then they would have some legal wiggle room. However, by bringing both charges at once and stating that they were part of the same criminal act, the state has tied its hands.

[wolfi_2]

didn't the boy say something about a computer in his parents room during his interagation?

well, I think he mean the laptop!
If not- lousy investigation , very lousy investigation !:thumbdown: If such a young child is involved, they had to go every possible way, really every possible way, before they are going to destroy a young life!

[Hawk]

Makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, some laws make absolutly no sense whatsoever.

Some of them make no sense to me, either. Some don't seem fair.
Maybe Gentlebreeze and JacobtK can hash it out for us.

[Hawk]

well, I think he mean the laptop!
If not- lousy investigation , very lousy investigation !:thumbdown: If such a young child is involved, they had to go every possible way, really every possible way, before they are going to destroy a young life!

What information might be found on the laptop that would exonerate the boy?
(That may make an interesting list!)

[GentleBreeze]

The point here is that the boy was not in a safe environment, regardless if he committed murder or not. There are more children and adults shot, and some killed from a child getting a hold of a firearm in the home than there are from a kitchen knife. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that harm to the child or anyone else is not caused from guns. That constitutes neglect or at the least negligence. I would think it could be classified as negligent homicide against Tiffany.

I do think that the Romans may have a civil case but if the laws of Arizona doesn't require locking up firearms then imo there will be no criminal charges lodged against Tiffany.

It doesn't matter if firearms are used more often than knives or bludgeoning weapons found in the home, it is done and if the parents are killed they are not blamed for their own deaths nor is the other parent who may have been left behind, if they weren't killed. Actually I just read an article not too long ago that juveniles are choosing knifes more than ever before to commit violent crimes.

Had this boy accidentally hurt someone with the firearm then I do think the parents may have been charged but this has nothing to do with an accident.

The only dangerous environment created in that home was when this boy made it one. We have never heard one thing that happened before then and Vinnie had had this gun ever since he was a small child.

[GentleBreeze]

IMO, any home with children and access to guns and ammo is a dangerous environment. Guns are meant to kill.



The gun collection that Vinnie had was for the sole purpose of hunting game, probably both small and large or used for target practicing. The intended purpose was never meant to kill human beings.

imo

[Hawk]

so what happened to all the guns in the house were they ever returned? to whom?

None were taken except the little Chipmunk.

[Hawk]

What if the dogs were taught to attack on command and a child let them loose while given that command deliberately to harm another person?

The liability would be on the adult dog owner. This is a pretty common occurrence.

[Hawk]

I would think the parents would be financially responsible but I would think charges would be filed against the boy.

I guess it's a state issue. Where I live it's happened (pit bulls mostly) many times. The owners are held criminally and financially responsible.

[GentleBreeze]

IMO, any home with children and access to guns and ammo is a dangerous environment. Guns are meant to kill.

Really?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.

That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

**************************************************

Guns aren't bad. It is the people that use them to harm others, that are bad.

imo

[ChildsVOICE]

[QUOTE=ChildsVOICE;12701193]Its my OPINION that whoEVER the shooter(s) were he/she/they were not locals. Because "they" were taking such a risk to committ this crime at the 5 o'clock hour when neighbors would be coming home from work and because at least one was outside shooting TR in the broad daylight. IMO...they were someone who was leaving the area asap..as soon as the job was done.

where did u find out tiffanys sis was arrested and for what
meth wasnt it

Justice Dawg, do you have the link to the news report on this?

[Hawk]

Really?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.

That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. [/B]

**************************************************

Guns aren't bad. It is the people that use them to harm others, that are bad.

imo

I'm with the article 100%.
But it has zero to do with kids having easy access to firearms. These groups believe in quite the contrary. Check with the NRA. They're adamant about it.

This boy should NEVER have been able to get to a gun while home alone without breaking glass or a trigger lock. But there was no amount of prevention at all by the parents. That's where the argument is.
Neglect in it's worst form.

[wolfi_2]

What information might be found on the laptop that would exonerate the boy?
(That may make an interesting list!)


some mail connection's, maybe drug related, or crime related, linking to other people they are also can be suspect or had a reason.

Or if you look for a motive. There are so much fine, very accepted people out there, from a simple worker to high regarded people, they all had very special interest's about children. On their PC's you can often find pictures! but maybe, that´s not in the victims' families best interest, if they find something like this. For me that would be a good motive for the killings. And You find those people everywhere!
That's why I would have a look at any available PC in the house, into each camera, into each video. and don´t come with "they didn´t find any sign of abuse"- if the ****** do it the right way you wouldn’t find anything.

[GentleBreeze]

I'm with the article 100%.
But it has zero to do with kids having easy access to firearms. These groups believe in quite the contrary. Check with the NRA. They're adamant about it.

This boy should NEVER have been able to get to a gun while home alone without breaking glass or a trigger lock. But there was no amount of prevention at all by the parents. That's where the argument is.
Neglect in it's worst form.

LOL! Yes, it reminds me of the tobacco companies that are always sending out little warnings about not smoking.

To me it has everything to do with it. If any of these legal gun owners' weapons had been forced to be locked up tight in their homes, the outcome would have been totally different for many of them and another victim would be added to the stats instead of the criminal stopped.

imoo

[Hawk]

I disagree, this family was well within their legal rights. Just because I didn't share their opinion doesn't mean I can't respect it.

Legal rights don't mean much to dead people!

[Hawk]

some mail connection's, maybe drug related, or crime related, linking to other people they are also can be suspect or had a reason.

Or if you look for a motive. There are so much fine, very accepted people out there, from a simple worker to high regarded people, they all had very special interest's about children. On their PC's you can often find pictures! but maybe, that´s not in the victims' families best interest, if they find something like this. For me that would be a good motive for the killings. And You find those people everywhere!
That's why I would have a look at any available PC in the house, into each camera, into each video. and don´t come with "they didn´t find any sign of abuse"- if the ****** do it the right way you wouldn’t find anything.

Right. I wish they had taken it. They might have at least found out what the Romero's were fussing about.

[Hawk]

LOL! Yes, it reminds me of the tobacco companies that are always sending out little warnings about not smoking.

To me it has everything to do with it. If any of these legal gun owners' weapons had been forced to be locked up tight in their homes, the outcome would have been totally different for many of them and another victim would be added to the stats instead of the criminal stopped.

imoo

You don't give kids, especially 8 year old boys, unsupervised access to guns and ammo. It may not be a law in AZ but a stump would have better sense. There probably isn't a law to cover every stupid thing a human can do. It has nothing to do with adults capability to get to their personal weapon when needed. I have a carry permit in my state and have been an NRA member for fifty years. My guns are locked in a cabinet and the ammo is locked in a safe. My personal carry weapon is always with or near me. Never out where on of my grand kids, or anyone else for that matter can get it.

[wolfi_2]

You don't give kids, especially 8 year old boys, unsupervised access to guns and ammo. It may not be a law in AZ but a stump would have better sense. There probably isn't a law to cover every stupid thing a human can do. It has nothing to do with adults capability to get to their personal weapon when needed. I have a carry permit in my state and have been an NRA member for fifty years. My guns are locked in a cabinet and the ammo is locked in a safe. My personal carry weapon is always with or near me. Never out where on of my grand kids, or anyone else for that matter can get it.


That´s well said, I totally agree!:biggrin:

[ChildsVOICE]

I faxed everybody his little ad for a new job.
Just in case they didn't know. :w00t:

:w00t::lol:

[GentleBreeze]

they need to re examine the gun laws in arizona!

They are pretty much the same in most states. They recommend that you use gun locks or lock your weapons up but it is not a requirement.

Restricting ones weapon gives them no access to it should they need it for protection right out of the blue. They have no time to fumble with a lock or go in another room in order to unlock a gun safe.

In my hometown a couple of years ago two thugs broke into a home. They were armed. If the homeowner had had no quick way to access his shotgun then he and his wife would have been dead, instead of one suspect dead and the other held at bay by pointing the weapon at him, while the man's wife called 911.

imoo

[ChildsVOICE]

Its my OPINION that whoEVER the shooter(s) were he/she/they were not locals. Because "they" were taking such a risk to committ this crime at the 5 o'clock hour when neighbors would be coming home from work and because at least one was outside shooting TR in the broad daylight. IMO...they were someone who was leaving the area asap..as soon as the job was done.

I believe it was some type of revenge killing due to the overkill of how many times these men were shot (4 and 6) not to mention the head and chest shots (duh!).

I'm sure the boy wasn't trained to shoot a prarie dog 4-6 times! (sarcasm there)

Somebody wanted these guys dead in a really big way.
Now, who was that? and why?

I believe whoever was the actual shooter(s) they were leaving town asap and most likely were going back over some border either from the U.S. to Mexico or from U.S. territory to Reservation.

To me that makes perfect sense how the shooter was not afraid of getting caught. They used the cover of the house and the front porch column/bush to hide in the immediate vecenity but I don't think they were too worried once they got out of that area. I don't see someone who was known locally doing the actual shooting. They'd be too afraid of being recognized, either at the time of the shooting or later in some local store/around town. IMO That's why they didn't care about doing it in the wide open at 5 o'clock when neighbors would be coming home.
I don't know if they would have thought being a few hours away (say in San Carlos, Tucson, Pheonix) would be far enough or safe enough to keep from being recognized.???

Now, whether someone was hired for the gunman/gunmen to do it , is another question.

Why was Tiff on the phone w/ VR? Did she ask him to go home to pick up something/check on the boy? Did she give him a reason to go to the house?

Did TR have a drug past/present history involvement with illegal drugs?
Why did TR move to the 2nd largest Meth capitol in AZ?
TR had a habit of pushing the limits and ignoring debts. Did he leave behind a bad drug debt? Was someone trying to keep him quite?

Did the arrest of Tiff's sister spook someone? Did this crime occur because someone was trying to send someone a message?

These are answers the police need to be answering.

After asking these types of questions with no answers it seems kinda LAME to be trying to convince people WORLDWIDE that a little 8 year old kid kills the ONLY means of support and existance he has because he had asked someone else to spank him over some school papers he had forgotten to bring home. :thumbdown:

OK.I don't know if my last reply went threw or not so I'll type it again...

I've been keeping a friend informed about this case. He has had a few "worldly" experiences in his past and has changed his ways. He knows what he's talking about.

I just told him today about the TEAM LOCO statements from Dana to police. My friend says that changes everything (his view on the case). He reminded me that gang members would not hesitate or think twice to commit a crime in such a fashion...right out in the open at 5 o'clock, ect. ect. and they wouldn't worry about being identified.

I had to concede. :blushing:

For those who know who you are...nanna nanna booboo.
Tag your it.:tonguewag:


Hey...either theory could be right! {I'd insert big smile here but I've used my limit. }

[Jacobtk]

The thing that keeps me from believing the boy did it is how many times both men were shot. If the boy were angry with his father for having Tiffany spank him, why would he shoot Romans six times, but only shoot his father four times? If this was an act of anger, one would think that the bulk of that, especially from a child, would be directed at the victim who the person thought was most at fault. Likewise, while the wounds to Romero were enough to kill him, they lack the overt intent of the wounds to Romans. Three shots to the head seems like whoever did that specifically wanted Romans dead. Again, what reason would this boy have to do that?

This makes me think that whoever did this was specifically after Romans and Romero was just collateral. It also makes me doubt the boy was present because it seems unlikely the shooter(s) would have left him alive.

[Crispy]

My own personal opinion is that you should lock your guns up if you have children around.

[GentleBreeze]

I think both men were shot until the shooter was confident they were dead..... when the shaking stopped.

I think the boy WAS there and the only reason he would be left alive is if he was the lone shooter.

I think so too and some can take longer to die. I think he just kept firing until neither one of them moved.

ITA! Anyone who was capable of doing this sure wouldn't have left anyone alive to tell about it.

imoo

[Hawk]

They are pretty much the same in most states. They recommend that you use gun locks or lock your weapons up but it is not a requirement.

Restricting ones weapon gives them no access to it should they need it for protection right out of the blue. They have no time to fumble with a lock or go in another room in order to unlock a gun safe.

In my hometown a couple of years ago two thugs broke into a home. They were armed. If the homeowner had had no quick way to access his shotgun then he and his wife would have been dead, instead of one suspect dead and the other held at bay by pointing the weapon at him, while the man's wife called 911.

imoo

My wife and I can both get to our respective legal pistols, no locks. No fumbling.
We just don't leave them and my other guns laying around for the kids to play with.

[Jacobtk]

I think both men were shot until the shooter was confident they were dead..... when the shaking stopped.

That I agree with.

I think the boy WAS there and the only reason he would be left alive is if he was the lone shooter.

The problem with the boy as the shooter is that he had no reason to kill either man. If there was abuse, then that would make the situation completely different and given the boy's age and his inability to correctly gauge time, it would be completely reasonable to state that he committed the acts in self-defense. And while I normally dislike the idea of killing child abusers, if there men were physically or sexually abusing him, this would be an excellent example of karma.

However, I doubt any abuse occurred and if Carlyon found evidence of it he certainly would never report it to anyone.

[Hawk]

That I agree with.



The problem with the boy as the shooter is that he had no reason to kill either man. If there was abuse, then that would make the situation completely different and given the boy's age and his inability to correctly gauge time, it would be completely reasonable to state that he committed the acts in self-defense. And while I normally dislike the idea of killing child abusers, if there men were physically or sexually abusing him, this would be an excellent example of karma.

However, I doubt any abuse occurred and if Carlyon found evidence of it he certainly would never report it to anyone.

If Mr. Carlyon had evidence, from the underwear, or whatever, that pointed to abuse, would he be bound by law to submit it?

[wolfi_2]

That I agree with.



The problem with the boy as the shooter is that he had no reason to kill either man. If there was abuse, then that would make the situation completely different and given the boy's age and his inability to correctly gauge time, it would be completely reasonable to state that he committed the acts in self-defense. And while I normally dislike the idea of killing child abusers, if there men were physically or sexually abusing him, this would be an excellent example of karma.

However, I doubt any abuse occurred and if Carlyon found evidence of it he certainly would never report it to anyone.

That’s what I think about, there is absolutely no motive for the boy to do so, and if there is a motive, it could be that someone don't like to know it, that´s why I would like to see any available PC, or camera.

[muska]

Here are state rankings according to the 2007 Brady Campaign for Safe Gun Laws:

http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/2007_scorecard_rankings.pdf

Doesn't say too much but can give you an idea where your own state stands in relation to others.

[mina]

where did u find out tiffanys sis was arrested and for what
meth wasnt it
Justice Dawg, do you have the link to the news report on this?

I'm not Justice Dawg, but here is the news clip about Debbie Devall's arrest.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2003/07/14/export1652.txt

It's a few paragraphs down and quoted below:

Mother, baby and drugs

Deborah Devall, 22, 1828 N. First St. #1, was arrested on July 12 at 4:27 p.m. and charged with possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia.

According to a Flagstaff police report, officers were dispatched to Devall's apartment regarding a 911 hang-up. When the officer arrived they noticed surveillance equipment outside the apartment and leading up to the second story of the building.

After the officer knocked on Devall's front door and received no response he went to Apartment 2 and talked with the resident, who was Devall's father. He took the officer over to his daughter's apartment and unlocked the door.

The officer reported that there was no one on the ground floor, and then went upstairs to find Devall on the floor in a room with a baby. Inside the room the officer found a propane torch, glass pipe, and a black metal box with a drug scale and methamphetamine on a table.

Devall was booked into Coconino County Jail.

[ChildsVOICE]

The thing that keeps me from believing the boy did it is how many times both men were shot. If the boy were angry with his father for having Tiffany spank him, why would he shoot Romans six times, but only shoot his father four times? If this was an act of anger, one would think that the bulk of that, especially from a child, would be directed at the victim who the person thought was most at fault. Likewise, while the wounds to Romero were enough to kill him, they lack the overt intent of the wounds to Romans. Three shots to the head seems like whoever did that specifically wanted Romans dead. Again, what reason would this boy have to do that?

This makes me think that whoever did this was specifically after Romans and Romero was just collateral. It also makes me doubt the boy was present because it seems unlikely the shooter(s) would have left him alive.

And the boy would have went after the stepmother instead of TR (if we were to go w/ the spanking motive...even if he was resentful to her for marrying his dad and taking away his attention, fighting with his dad, being otherwise mean to the child) He would have gone after Tiffany. Didn't he know she wouldn't be home till late? Wouldn't he have abandoned his plan until he could get her alone?

I, also, agree with the other poster who thinks the boy would have choosen to shoot them in their sleep= far less threat to boy.

Also, I don't see the boy thinking he could take on two adult men who were his superiors (for the lack of a better word). Especially when he's shooting VR and thinking TR could come inside and catch him/stop him at any moment AND when he would know that TR would have access to grabbing his own handguns out of his truck and coming after the boy. Kids this age thinks adults are superhumans, especially there dads.

I don't see anybody being that stupid trying to be one person shooter against two men with readily access to their own guns. Its another reason it would make better sense that there had to be at least two shooters. Too many people knew that both men had readily access to guns both in the truck and in the house.

It seems to me it would have to be a well planned out ambush with the shooters having plenty of back up.

And, guess what.. they would have to catch them between the guns in the house and the guns in the truck and that's what happened.

I really think there were two shooters and possibly a get-a-way driver who MAY have seen TR getting his gun out of the truck and heading for the house. This may be where the shot came from either from the roadway or from the left of the house into the door. The driver could have used the car to cut TR off from running to the left of the house and shot TR from the driveway.

TR could have been being shot from the doorway and tried to go to the left of the porch/house and a driver pulled up from the road to cut him off and took a shot.

I don't think the SJPD got all the shells/bullets and casings. They certainly did not do a very good job of logging other items. Why do we believe they got all the casings and bullets (1 missing bullet that we know of, already).

Who knows?:confused:

[Jacobtk]

If Mr. Carlyon had evidence, from the underwear, or whatever, that pointed to abuse, would he be bound by law to submit it?

By law he would have to turn that evidence over, however, based on how many times the boy's attorneys have had to ask for evidence, chances are Carlyon would not. It would kill his case to try to put the boy away for the rest of his life if he was victim of rape.

[wolfi_2]

If Mr. Carlyon had evidence, from the underwear, or whatever, that pointed to abuse, would he be bound by law to submit it?


If they are really looking for signs of abuse, they have to collect all clothes, not only the underwear, they had to collect all clothes in the boy´s room or in the laundry that are used by the boy.

-and for all who think, how I know that, I had a grandpa…..!

[Hawk]

That’s what I think about, there is absolutely no motive for the boy to do so, and if there is a motive, it could be that someone don't like to know it, that´s why I would like to see any available PC, or camera.

That's one of the major issues that no one has an answer to. Who had a motive to kill both these men, and if it wasn't the boy why do it during daylight at the victims residence?

[IAMME]

apparently there were people outside the family that knew there were guns in the house.

Was Candi aware of the extra curricular activies of Tim and Misty?? Was Misty's crazy bf aware of them? Was Misty's crazy bf a memeber the gang that wanted Tim to join?? Sound really strange. Tim was 39 and Misty was only about 23. Something's up.

Alot of men, especially the kind that cheat, tend to go after much younger women, sorta like the cliche of driving a red convertible, a typical mid-life crisis event.....and younger women are generally easier to fool, much more likely to believe "I am getting a divorce but (insert stupid excuse here)" I'm not saying that happened in this case, just that I am not sure the age difference really makes a difference....All IMO of course....

[ChildsVOICE]

I'm not Justice Dawg, but here is the news clip about Debbie Devall's arrest.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2003/07/14/export1652.txt

It's a few paragraphs down and quoted below:

Mother, baby and drugs

Deborah Devall, 22, 1828 N. First St. #1, was arrested on July 12 at 4:27 p.m. and charged with possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia.

According to a Flagstaff police report, officers were dispatched to Devall's apartment regarding a 911 hang-up. When the officer arrived they noticed surveillance equipment outside the apartment and leading up to the second story of the building.

After the officer knocked on Devall's front door and received no response he went to Apartment 2 and talked with the resident, who was Devall's father. He took the officer over to his daughter's apartment and unlocked the door.

The officer reported that there was no one on the ground floor, and then went upstairs to find Devall on the floor in a room with a baby. Inside the room the officer found a propane torch, glass pipe, and a black metal box with a drug scale and methamphetamine on a table.

Devall was booked into Coconino County Jail.


Thanks. I never thought I'd need the link so I didn't keep it but, wow, I sure think I need to keep it now. Boy, OH, Boy...what a mess?!!!:mad:

[Hawk]

personally i don't think tim romans was attractive and he got all the chicks? ruff!ruff!

My grown daughters (who have teenage daughters) tell me that women are attracted to power and money more than looks.
I'm glad their mother didn't feel that way.

[ChildsVOICE]

Wolfi 2,

Thank you for your input and interest in this case.

[wolfi_2]

personally i don't think tim romans was attractive and he got all the chicks? ruff!ruff!

-got all the chicks? ruff!ruff! -that's funny, I've never heard it before!:lol::lol::lol:

[ChildsVOICE]

My grown daughters (who have teenage daughters) tell me that women are attracted to power and money more than looks.
I'm glad their mother didn't feel that way.

Are you saying you are good looking but broke and powerless?:tonguewag::lol::lol: JUST KIDDING! I like you, Hawk. You're pretty cool even if I don't agree with you.

[ChildsVOICE]

Signing off for awhile. Good Night all.

p.s. Have this case solved by morning. OK?

[wolfi_2]

Are you saying you are good looking but broke and powerless?:tonguewag::lol: JUST KIDDING! I like you, Hawk. You're pretty cool even if I don't agree with you.

can you please make a short break and lock into your Childvoice site? have to speak in chambers.:wink:

[Hawk]

Signing off for awhile. Good Night all.

p.s. Have this case solved by morning. OK?

Good night. Keep up the good work! You're doing a fine job, and great service, for young Romero.
I hope he's freed soon.

[GentleBreeze]

And the boy would have went after the stepmother instead of TR (if we were to go w/ the spanking motive...even if he was resentful to her for marrying his dad and taking away his attention, fighting with his dad, being otherwise mean to the child) He would have gone after Tiffany. Didn't he know she wouldn't be home till late? Wouldn't he have abandoned his plan until he could get her alone?

I, also, agree with the other poster who thinks the boy would have chosen to shoot them in their sleep= far less threat to boy.

Also, I don't see the boy thinking he could take on two adult men who were his superiors (for the lack of a better word). Especially when he's shooting VR and thinking TR could come inside and catch him/stop him at any moment AND when he would know that TR would have access to grabbing his own handguns out of his truck and coming after the boy. Kids this age thinks adults are super humans, especially there dads.

I don't see anybody being that stupid trying to be one person shooter against two men with readily access to their own guns. Its another reason it would make better sense that there had to be at least two shooters. Too many people knew that both men had readily access to guns both in the truck and in the house.

It seems to me it would have to be a well planned out ambush with the shooters having plenty of back up.

And, guess what.. they would have to catch them between the guns in the house and the guns in the truck and that's what happened.

I really think there were two shooters and possibly a get-a-way driver who MAY have seen TR getting his gun out of the truck and heading for the house. This may be where the shot came from either from the roadway or from the left of the house into the door. The driver could have used the car to cut TR off from running to the left of the house and shot TR from the driveway.

TR could have been being shot from the doorway and tried to go to the left of the porch/house and a driver pulled up from the road to cut him off and took a shot.

I don't think the SJPD got all the shells/bullets and casings. They certainly did not do a very good job of logging other items. Why do we believe they got all the casings and bullets (1 missing bullet that we know of, already).

Who knows?:confused:

Maybe others knew that Tim carried a weapon in his truck but I highly doubt the boy did.

I don't think he was stupid but he was a child. He would not weigh all these possibilities and he got very lucky, which happens sometimes.

I even wonder if he thought when his dad came in by himself that he thought Tim had left to go somewhere. Maybe he realized he was still sitting there when he opened the door planning to leave to tell the neighborhood kid. If he saw him he would know he could not leave him alive to see Vinnie when he walked in that house. He also may have felt he had to lure Tim to the house because he only had that way out. I believe the back door was locked tight giving him no access to leave that way.

He couldn't shoot Vinnie in his sleep. Everyone in that home would have awakened when the gun was fired and he would be right there in the home holding the gun. It would leave possibly time for Tim to react and fight him for the weapon. He took them one by one. One inside, the other outside unaware of what had happened already.

I don't see that the raging anger was toward his stepmother. I think it was solely at his dad. I do wonder before Vinnie got married if this boy pretty much got his way about everything and was spoiled and doted on. Maybe when the new house rules were implemented after the marriage he just did not adjust and blamed his father for breaking up their relationship, which had only been the two of them. I think because he really didn't have a mother while growing up he may have been obsessively attached to his father and did not want to share him with anyone. He may have even resented Tim being there because Vinnie was doing things with him now and taking time away from the boy.

These men were no super humans and he knew it. They had no weapons in their hands to fight back just like the prairie dogs and rabbits.

imo

[IAMME]

My grown daughters (who have teenage daughters) tell me that women are attracted to power and money more than looks.
I'm glad their mother didn't feel that way.

Exactly, at 20 I was fooled by one of these predator type men,20 years my senior, he looks like Mr. Rogers, not of this thread but, of the neighborhood.......but hell he spent THOUSANDS of dollars on me in the first few months we were together, completely swept me off my feet, but once he knocked me up, he let his controlling and potentially abusive side peak out long enough for me to run.......Like I said younger women are easier to fool......:rolleyes: But thank God- we CAN be taught:tonguewag:

[Hawk]

Exactly, at 20 I was fooled by one of these predator type men,20 years my senior, he looks like Mr. Rogers, not of this thread but, of the neighborhood.......but hell he spent THOUSANDS of dollars on me in the first few months we were together, completely swept me off my feet, but once he knocked me up, he let his controlling and potentially abusive side peak out long enough for me to run.......Like I said younger women are easier to fool......:rolleyes: But thank God- we CAN be taught:tonguewag:

Yes, indeed. Sounds like you learned well!

[Cherishlove]

She was not his mother. The boy was never adopted by her. The boy HAS a mother whom I'm sure was equally aware of the situation with guns in the house and the boy's ownership of one. If his biological mother had any concerns, there was nothing from preventing her from doing something about it.

How would his real Mother know they had guns unlocked there, she did not live there. As his Step Mother being responsible for him while under her roof should of made sure they were locked up, also seems to me she would love the boy as her own, as a good Step Mother would be obviously she does not since she is not there for the boy from the sounds of things, and was capable of going out a partying 3 weeks after her husband was killed while her Step Son is accused and Isolated in Juvie, IMO anyway she sounds very cold hearted, I don't have a good feeling about her at all. Good thing he does have a Real Mother because his Step Mother isn't there for him by the sounds of things, I have a hard time understanding this if she loved her husband so much she'd be there for the boy IMO.

[IAMME]

Yes, indeed. Sounds like you learned well!

Yup, and got an absolutely beautiful daughter out of the deal! Every once in a while life rewards you your stupidity......

[Hawk]

How would his real Mother know they had guns unlocked there, she did not live there. As his Step Mother being responsible for him while under her roof should of made sure they were locked up, also seems to me she would love the boy as her own, as a good Step Mother would be obviously she does not since she is not there for the boy from the sounds of things, and was capable of going out a partying 3 weeks after her husband was killed while her Step Son is accused and Isolated in Juvie, IMO anyway she sounds very cold hearted, I don't have a good feeling about her at all. Good thing he does have a Real Mother because his Step Mother isn't there for him by the sounds of things, I have a hard time understanding this if she loved her husband so much she'd be there for the boy IMO.

This is just a gut feeling, but I think grandma Liz has been his maternal figure all his life. She's been there locally since his birth. Wish we could hear a candid TV interview with her. This case must be pure torture for her.
Just my opinion.

[Perplexed1]

The Chief of Police has been going through a law suit from his previous employment regarding race issues. The person bringing forth the suit is a fellow law officer. "token jew" "token black" See the boy's myspace page/links blog to get the link to the news article.

The POSSIBILITY of a race issue would be in the fact of not investigating properly. Having a preconceived notion against the whole family and placing that notion onto the boy as an automatic reason for guilt.

Thank you childsvoice, that explained exactly what I meant. I live in an area that has a very high crime rate among a minority group, and one does tend to think, well, violence BEGETS violence, when someting dreadful happens. As I've followed this case from day one, I in no way believe the child did this. When he said the 1,000th spanking would be the last, he could very well have just meant, 'because I'll run away'. 8 year olds don't plot murders. There are way too many adults here to point a finger at. :mad:

[GentleBreeze]

Yup, and got an absolutely beautiful daughter out of the deal! Every once in a while life rewards you your stupidity......

Times sure are changing though or it is at least more noticeable. So many women now have boyfriends or husbands that are waaaaaaaaaaaaay younger than they are. They drape them on their arm like they are some kind of trophy.

imoo

[TaraCrazyHair]

Resentment in a "step" situation is almost always geared to the newest parent ..

They intruded in the lifestyle the child was accustomed to ..

So I cannot see him angry at his father especially enough to kill him .. let alone Tim

He would planned the murder of his stepmother so he could get his Dad back

[GentleBreeze]

Resentment in a "step" situation is almost always geared to the newest parent ..

They intruded in the lifestyle the child was accustomed to ..

So I cannot see him angry at his father especially enough to kill him .. let alone Tim

He would planned the murder of his stepmother so he could get his Dad back

That is not the way that it works every time though. They take it out on the one they think was responsible for letting it happen.

The stepmother would be left knowing that she did not get to keep her husband because of someone else's control.

imoo

[TaraCrazyHair]

That is not the way that it works every time though. They take it out on the one they think was responsible for letting it happen.

The stepmother would be left knowing that she did not get to keep her husband because of someone else's control.

imoo


I do not think there is a child or teenager out there that would see it that way

The hate would go to the one intruding on "their family" .. to drive them away

[GentleBreeze]

I do not think there is a child or teenager out there that would see it that way

The hate would go to the one intruding on "their family" .. to drive them away


I don't think so. I think he was furious with his dad. His dad who now was engaging in new house rules set down for him to follow. His dad who was now letting the step mom spank him.

IMO the rage exploded and it was all toward his dad who was receptive and in agreement to things that were now being implemented.

imo

[TaraCrazyHair]

Hard to say in every situation .. I know in mine and others I know, it is towards the step

We have not heard of him having any hate towards his dad unless I missed something

Family would have seen it
:confused:

[Jacobtk]

I don't see that the raging anger was toward his stepmother. I think it was solely at his dad. I do wonder before Vinnie got married if this boy pretty much got his way about everything and was spoiled and doted on. Maybe when the new house rules were implemented after the marriage he just did not adjust and blamed his father for breaking up their relationship, which had only been the two of them. I think because he really didn't have a mother while growing up he may have been obsessively attached to his father and did not want to share him with anyone. He may have even resented Tim being there because Vinnie was doing things with him now and taking time away from the boy.

I have never seen that occur in any other case of children killing their parents. I have mentioned this before and I feel inclined to say it again: what you describe is a very adult way of thinking. Eight year olds do not think like that. They may undermine relationships, even behave rudely and cruelly to a person they want gone, but they do not plan in the way you describe above.

Likewise, the behavior you describe would be noticeable to everyone around the boy. People would notice him clinging to his father, his jealousy, his obsession. His bond with Tiffany would be virtually non-existent and he would not hesitate to talk about that. In fact, if he harbored the kind of anger you described, he would have mentioned in the interrogation when he was asked about his father.

I realize I am beating a dead horse, but I think it is necessary because people often forget that children are not adults. They may behave as if they are, but they do not think like adults do nor do they plan like adults do.

[Hawk]

Maybe others knew that Tim carried a weapon in his truck but I highly doubt the boy did.

I don't think he was stupid but he was a child. He would not weigh all these possibilities and he got very lucky, which happens sometimes.

I even wonder if he thought when his dad came in by himself that he thought Tim had left to go somewhere. Maybe he realized he was still sitting there when he opened the door planning to leave to tell the neighborhood kid. If he saw him he would know he could not leave him alive to see Vinnie when he walked in that house. He also may have felt he had to lure Tim to the house because he only had that way out. I believe the back door was locked tight giving him no access to leave that way.

He couldn't shoot Vinnie in his sleep. Everyone in that home would have awakened when the gun was fired and he would be right there in the home holding the gun. It would leave possibly time for Tim to react and fight him for the weapon. He took them one by one. One inside, the other outside unaware of what had happened already.

I don't see that the raging anger was toward his stepmother. I think it was solely at his dad. I do wonder before Vinnie got married if this boy pretty much got his way about everything and was spoiled and doted on. Maybe when the new house rules were implemented after the marriage he just did not adjust and blamed his father for breaking up their relationship, which had only been the two of them. I think because he really didn't have a mother while growing up he may have been obsessively attached to his father and did not want to share him with anyone. He may have even resented Tim being there because Vinnie was doing things with him now and taking time away from the boy.

These men were no super humans and he knew it. They had no weapons in their hands to fight back just like the prairie dogs and rabbits.

imo

Either the shooter waited upstairs for Mr. Romero to come inside using only his hearing, or I think, more likely, he was in the master bedroom watching through the sliding glass door (the only upstairs window on the front of the little house). He saw Mr. Romero exit the truck and readied himself. It would only be about five steps from the truck to the front door (in a straight line as opposed to Mr. Romans 24' route) then another five or six to the inside stairs. When Mr. Romero got to the 3rd step of the 2nd flight he was shot. Then shot again.
Then Mr. Romans was tricked and shot.
One thing, among many, that I don't understand is why the shooter went all the way back upstairs to shoot Mr. Romero again. It wasn't necessary and was time consuming, not much time, but too much to risk, knowing that Mrs. Romero could be home at any second.

[Hawk]

I have never seen that occur in any other case of children killing their parents. I have mentioned this before and I feel inclined to say it again: what you describe is a very adult way of thinking. Eight year olds do not think like that. They may undermine relationships, even behave rudely and cruelly to a person they want gone, but they do not plan in the way you describe above.

Likewise, the behavior you describe would be noticeable to everyone around the boy. People would notice him clinging to his father, his jealousy, his obsession. His bond with Tiffany would be virtually non-existent and he would not hesitate to talk about that. In fact, if he harbored the kind of anger you described, he would have mentioned in the interrogation when he was asked about his father.

I realize I am beating a dead horse, but I think it is necessary because people often forget that children are not adults. They may behave as if they are, but they do not think like adults do nor do they plan like adults do.

Keep beating that horse. We're all doing that. It ain't dead yet. The case is still developing and new stuff comes along every once in awhile.

[GentleBreeze]

I have never seen that occur in any other case of children killing their parents. I have mentioned this before and I feel inclined to say it again: what you describe is a very adult way of thinking. Eight year olds do not think like that. They may undermine relationships, even behave rudely and cruelly to a person they want gone, but they do not plan in the way you describe above.

Likewise, the behavior you describe would be noticeable to everyone around the boy. People would notice him clinging to his father, his jealousy, his obsession. His bond with Tiffany would be virtually non-existent and he would not hesitate to talk about that. In fact, if he harbored the kind of anger you described, he would have mentioned in the interrogation when he was asked about his father.

I realize I am beating a dead horse, but I think it is necessary because people often forget that children are not adults. They may behave as if they are, but they do not think like adults do nor do they plan like adults do.

There again I don't think anyone can compartmentalize ALL children to fit nicely in one group only.

We have no idea if anyone noticed. They may have understood why he had to be at his father's side very often. Even Eyrn said that he had a very close relationship with his father. People from St. Johns said Vinnie doted on his son. Having no mother imo certainly could have affected him when it came to the relationship with his only parent that had always raised him.

One common denominator in some of these juvenile offenders who kill their parents is they were extremely angry with them about something, even trivial nonsensical things.

The boy said when he first shot his dad he was angry with him.

I believe he indeed, was.

imoo

[TaraCrazyHair]

There again I don't think anyone can compartmentalize ALL children to fit nicely in one group only.

We have no idea if anyone noticed. They may have understood why he had to be at his father's side very often. Even Eyrn said that he had a very close relationship with his father. People from St. Johns said Vinnie doted on his son. Having no mother imo certainly could have affected him when it came to the relationship with his only parent that had always raised him.

One common denominator in some of these juvenile offenders who kill their parents is they were extremely angry with them about something, even trivial nonsensical things.

The boy said when he first shot his dad he was angry with him.

I believe he indeed, was.

imoo

No he didn't say that ...?

He never alluded to anything negative until the police made him?

[Jacobtk]

One common denominator in some of these juvenile offenders who kill their parents is they were extremely angry with them about something, even trivial nonsensical things.

The common denominator in those instances is that those children always show some disconnect or ambivalence or indifference or anger towards their parents to someone. Those children are also overwhelming older teenagers, so that would not be representative of this boy's possible behavior. Eight year olds do not think like teenagers either.

The boy said when he first shot his dad he was angry with him.

He stated that after Avila prompted him by asking if he was mad at his dad. That statement is about as trustworthy a child saying that he likes sex when a pedophile prompts him after having groomed the child for weeks.

[Perplexed1]

[QUOTE=GentleBreeze;12703133]There again I don't think anyone can compartmentalize ALL children to fit nicely in one group only.

We have no idea if anyone noticed. They may have understood why he had to be at his father's side very often. Even Eyrn said that he had a very close relationship with his father. People from St. Johns said Vinnie doted on his son. Having no mother imo certainly could have affected him when it came to the relationship with his only parent that had always raised him.

One common denominator in some of these juvenile offenders who kill their parents is they were extremely angry with them about something, even trivial nonsensical things.
The boy said when he first shot his dad he was angry with him.
imoo (?Quote)


The little boy didn't say, "I was angry with my dad, therefore I shot him". He said he shot him twice, to end his suffering. The interrogator then said were you angry with your dad because you got spanked. She was switching subjects. Just because 2 men died does not mean the child did it. There are way too many other people with better motives. As I said before, 8 yr olds plan to run away when they are upset. They don't plot murders. IMO

[GentleBreeze]

[QUOTE12703133](?Quote)

The little boy didn't say, "I was angry with my dad, therefore I shot him". He said he shot him twice, to end his suffering. The interrogator then said were you angry with your dad because you got spanked. She was switching subjects. Just because 2 men died does not mean the child did it. There are way too many other people with better motives. As I said before, 8 yr olds plan to run away when they are upset. They don't plot murders. IMO

We cannot say what all 8 year olds do or don't do. We can say the majority will not do or will do, but not all, because there are always anomalies in everything and there always will be.

It sure doesn't mean he didn't do it either.

Most people don't commit murder in our country but that never means that others don't. Just like most juveniles don't commit violent crimes but some, even at this young age, does.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

He stated that after Avila prompted him by asking if he was mad at his dad. That statement is about as trustworthy a child saying that he likes sex when a pedophile prompts him after having groomed the child for weeks.

That is your opinion only. You have no way of knowing if the statement he made was false.

imo

[Perplexed1]

We cannot say what all 8 year olds do or don't do. We can say the majority will not do or will do, but not all, because there are always anomalies in everything and there always will be.

It sure doesn't mean he didn't do it either.

Most people don't commit murder in our country but that never means that others don't. Just like most juveniles don't commit violent crimes but some, even at this young age, does.

imo

I'm talking about just this little boy. His circumstances as they've been discussed here. Yes, he could have commited this crime, if that is the way 8 yr olds are becoming in our society. But with the evidence, (or lack of), I'm not buying it.

[Perplexed1]

That is your opinion only. You have no way of knowing if the statement he made was false.

imo

You belie your moniker. IMO

[Hawk]

The intent of the killings was to get rid of Romero and Romans and make it look like the kid did it. Someone wanted all three out of the picture. Don't know who. Here's a wild guess on how, and maybe a stretch, that would fit some of the evidence pretty well:

The killer is dropped off near the house and hides in the RV out back. At around 4:30 he gets a cell phone call from his cronies saying that the men have left work and are en route. As cautious and quickly as he can he unlocks the back door with the key given to him by the same person who provided the RV key. A boxer puppy yelps inside a cage near the front door.
He hurries upstairs while putting on surgical gloves, finds the Chipmunk and ammo left exactly where he'd been told. He loads a round as he descends the stairs and waits at the first step for a call. If things go wrong he'll drop the rifle and run out the back door where he'll meet up with his friend. The phone rings. "Romero's getting out of the truck. Romans is on the phone!
The killer is almost to the top landing as Romero takes the first step. By the time Romero turns the corner and makes the 3rd step a bullet slams into his brain causing him to fall forward. The killer shoots him three more times. The last one for fun. On his way downstairs he speed dials his friend.
"Romans is still on the phone." the friend reports.
"Okay, don't move until you hear from me."
The killer goes to the front door and calls for Romans in a high pitched voice. Romans knows it isn't the boy but tells his wife it is because he senses trouble. He reaches for his big bore revolver in the console and gets out of the truck. Just as he passes around the front of the truck he sees the assailant pointing a rifle at him and raises his pistol. But he's too late. The killer shoots him in the right arm causing a devastating wound. The pistol drops to the ground. The killer shoots twice more as fast as he can recycle the little rifle. Romans falls to the ground where he is shot three times in the head, one a grazing wound. The killer quickly runs over and picks up the dropped pistol then goes back into the house. That's when the boy sees him.
The killer speed dials his friend. "Go by the store and honk twice, then meet me in 30 minutes" he says, "And take it easy!" The Chipmunk is placed on the dog cage. A car races up the street in front of the house and turns left toward the highway.
The killer locks the back door with the key as he returns to the RV. He watches as the boy goes out of sight around the house and sees him again in a few minutes running across the yard. The killer then eases out of the RV and walks to the main road where a small white car picks him up.

[mina]

snip...

The killer locks the back door with the key as he returns to the RV. He watches as the boy goes out of sight around the house and sees him again in a few minutes running across the yard. The killer then eases out of the RV and walks to the main road where a small white car picks him up.

I missed the report that said the back door was locked with a key instead of a deadbolt. Ground floor exits that require a key to open are fire hazards -- this could be another negligence issue.

Can you provide a link to that please? Thanks!

[TaraCrazyHair]

I am really curious as to how anyone really thinks an eight year old boy could pull off two murders this way

Even those poor kids brought into gangs at such a young age could not pull off what this little boy allegedly did with no prior history

I will be anxious to see the reasoning and thoughts behind it . especially malice aforethought

One or two shots at the victims might lean me toward it but repeatedly?

No way in my mind

Even a rabbit takes two at the most and they are not large parental figures

There was no mercy by the killer

None

[Hawk]

I missed the report that said the back door was locked with a key instead of a deadbolt. Ground floor exits that require a key to open are fire hazards -- this could be another negligence issue.

Can you provide a link to that please? Thanks!

The boy said that the back door is always locked. From the photos you can see the backdoor deadbolt lock just above the doorknob. Whether or not it requires a key on the inside I don't know. It could be a lever on the inside. I agree with you that if it's keyed inside that's very dangerous.
LE didn't check it or either did but didn't put it in any of the reports I've read.

[Hawk]

ITA with everything. Points straight to Tiffany and Nicole.
Except, a gun was found in the console. The gun from behind his seat is missing. :w00t:

As you know, pistols can be stashed anywhere and moved often. Maybe it was behind the seat.

[ChildsVOICE]

I am really curious as to how anyone really thinks an eight year old boy could pull off two murders this way

Even those poor kids brought into gangs at such a young age could not pull off what this little boy allegedly did with no prior history

I will be anxious to see the reasoning and thoughts behind it . especially malice aforethought

One or two shots at the victims might lean me toward it but repeatedly?

No way in my mind

Even a rabbit takes two at the most and they are not large parental figures

There was no mercy by the killer

None

Bolding done by me.

Exactly! and that goes against the boy's statements like "I didn't want him to suffer." and "I tried not to hit him (TR) with the door but I think I tapped his head just a little bit."

Plus, he would not have ran for help.

He would have sat and waited for Tiffany.

[Hawk]

How are we going to know? They didn't proccess the truck, did they?

Goobers.

I don't think they impounded it. It was turned over to Mrs. Romans. Only Items #2 and #3 were things taken from the truck as noted on the Property Supplement (Augustine Logan's Wells Fargo card and the EAA .45 ACP pistol). But my list may not be complete.

[Jacobtk]

That is your opinion only. You have no way of knowing if the statement he made was false.

And it is your opinion that the statement he made was true. Now that we have established that nothing the boy states can be taken as fact, let us move on to what is fact.

Fact: the boy never states he is mad at his father on his on accord. All six times being 'mad' is mentioned, the boy is prompted by Neckels or Avila and he repeats what they state. The transcript (http://www.november2008stjohnsdoublehomicide.com/applications/DocumentLibraryManager/upload/InterviewDVDChristian.pdf) proves this:

AVILA: Okay. So it's real important. Is this the truth? here. anything? CR: Yeah.
AVILA: Because you're changing your story
CR: This is the truth.
AVILA: This is the truth?
CR: Yeah.
AVILA: Okay.
NECKELS: Were you mad at your dad for
CR: No.
NECKELS: Were you mad at Tim for anything?
CR: I don't --no.
NECKELS: Did you get in trouble for anything recently?

----

AVILA: Okay. So you got spanked?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
NECKELS: Okay.
CR: Five times.
AVILA: Five times?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
AVILA: And what about your dad?
CR: He was the one that told her to.
AVILA: He did?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
AVILA: So you were mad at your dad for that?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
AVILA: Okay. And when was that, honey?
CR: The day before yesterday.
AVILA: The day before yesterday?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)

----

AVILA: So you were mad at your dad. That's why you shot him?
CR: Well, the first time, I was mad at him. So I --and --but he already was shot. So then I shot him again.

----

AVILA: Did you shoot your dad?
CR: I think so.
AVILA: You think so?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
AVILA: Okay. Did you shoot him because you were mad at him?
CR: Think so.
AVILA: You think so?
CR: (Nods head affirmatively.)
AVILA: Okay. I'll let you talk to him. I'm going to take a break.

While it is true that is my opinion that the boy's statements are false, I will say that I have experience with adults who manipulate children into doing things the children do not want to do and I am quite aware of the responses children have to that. What occurred above is no different than what I have seen. It is also incredibly ironic that every law enforcer officer, judge, attorney, therapist, psychologist and child psychiatrist who has viewed or read the interrogation reached the same conclusion I did. They all agree, even active officers, the boy was coerced and gave a false confession. I apology for the appeal to authority, but it seems incredibly unlikely that everyone with knowledge about confessions (true or false) would all collectively be wrong in this instance.

[mina]

The boy said that the back door is always locked. From the photos you can see the backdoor deadbolt lock just above the doorknob. Whether or not it requires a key on the inside I don't know. It could be a lever on the inside. I agree with you that if it's keyed inside that's very dangerous.
LE didn't check it or either did but didn't put it in any of the reports I've read.

I understand now - your scenario has the killer locking the deadbolt with a key from the outside. Not a big deal IMO, but it would help your scenario if the evidence indicated that the door was locked. Actually, it would be nice if there was evidence that SJPD bothered to see if the door was locked or not.

[Hawk]

I understand now - your scenario has the killer locking the deadbolt with a key from the outside. Not a big deal IMO, but it would help your scenario if the evidence indicated that the door was locked. Actually, it would be nice if there was evidence that SJPD bothered to see if the door was locked or not.

I'm just guessing, trying to come up with different possibilities that reflect something a little bit reasonable. I simply took it for granted that the deadbolt would be locked because of what the boy said. Maybe it wasn't.
I'd just never considered that big RV setting in the backyard so close to the door. What a great hiding place it would be. Don't know if LE considered it or not.

Just my opinion.

[Hawk]

What a great meth lab it would make.

Home delivery. Just like pizza! The market is certainly there.

[ChildsVOICE]

The intent of the killings was to get rid of Romero and Romans and make it look like the kid did it. Someone wanted all three out of the picture. Don't know who. Here's a wild guess on how, and maybe a stretch, that would fit some of the evidence pretty well:

The killer is dropped off near the house and hides in the RV out back. At around 4:30 he gets a cell phone call from his cronies saying that the men have left work and are en route. As cautious and quickly as he can he unlocks the back door with the key given to him by the same person who provided the RV key. A boxer puppy yelps inside a cage near the front door.
He hurries upstairs while putting on surgical gloves, finds the Chipmunk and ammo left exactly where he'd been told. He loads a round as he descends the stairs and waits at the first step for a call. If things go wrong he'll drop the rifle and run out the back door where he'll meet up with his friend. The phone rings. "Romero's getting out of the truck. Romans is on the phone!
The killer is almost to the top landing as Romero takes the first step. By the time Romero turns the corner and makes the 3rd step a bullet slams into his brain causing him to fall forward. The killer shoots him three more times. The last one for fun. On his way downstairs he speed dials his friend.
"Romans is still on the phone." the friend reports.
"Okay, don't move until you hear from me."
The killer goes to the front door and calls for Romans in a high pitched voice. Romans knows it isn't the boy but tells his wife it is because he senses trouble. He reaches for his big bore revolver in the console and gets out of the truck. Just as he passes around the front of the truck he sees the assailant pointing a rifle at him and raises his pistol. But he's too late. The killer shoots him in the right arm causing a devastating wound. The pistol drops to the ground. The killer shoots twice more as fast as he can recycle the little rifle. Romans falls to the ground where he is shot three times in the head, one a grazing wound. The killer quickly runs over and picks up the dropped pistol then goes back into the house. That's when the boy sees him.
The killer speed dials his friend. "Go by the store and honk twice, then meet me in 30 minutes" he says, "And take it easy!" The Chipmunk is placed on the dog cage. A car races up the street in front of the house and turns left toward the highway.
The killer locks the back door with the key as he returns to the RV. He watches as the boy goes out of sight around the house and sees him again in a few minutes running across the yard. The killer then eases out of the RV and walks to the main road where a small white car picks him up.
If your being serious, here's an addition to your theory:

OR possibly:

the front door was unlocked and they didn't need any key

AND

the lookout waiting down the street sees TR reaching for the gun & heading for the house, zooms up to the house to do what he can to stop/disarm/prevent/slow down TR from entering the house with his weapon. Meanwhile, the shooter at the doorway or column/bush is shooting TR .
TR tries to take cover by going left but the get-a-way driver/look out sees him heading to side of house and worries he's going to get away so he aims the car onto the driveway or other area blocking TR/cutting off his exit (possibly gets out with his own weapon). He's in a hurry now because his position/job has been compromised. He's no longer in a position to get and run.

TR must turn back to the house, trapped and injured, starts to collaspe onto porch. As the shooter from the doorway sees his back up coming to cover TR he decides to go back inside to check on VR opening the door and entering he does not realize the get-a-way driver is setting his sights on TR's head. TR is collapsing, driver shoots. The bullet grazes TRs head but the other shooter has not cleared the doorway, yet. The bullet goes through door and enters shooter's leg or does so on his way back out of the doorway.
He takes two more shots at VR because he's still moving or other reason (probably the two shots on the left side as VR lays on the stairs). He goes to porch where he shoots or the driver had already been shooting TR the remaining times.

One of the shooters pick up TRs gun and takes it with them.


FYI... just trying to think outload. IMO...This is not as far fetched as it may seem. Enforcers, gang members, ect. would have a look out and the look out would be expected to step in when things start to get hairy.

[Hawk]

I understand now - your scenario has the killer locking the deadbolt with a key from the outside. Not a big deal IMO, but it would help your scenario if the evidence indicated that the door was locked. Actually, it would be nice if there was evidence that SJPD bothered to see if the door was locked or not.

Yes. And if the truck was running.
And if Cage saw the boy walking.
Did the boy hear gunshots on his way home?
What did the person you saw go into your house look like?
Is the backdoor deadbolt usually engaged? Is a key needed on the inside?
What time does your mom get home on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday?
Are you home alone often?
Why didn't you use your cell phone?
Where did you put the .22 cartridges you used? Pocket or hand?

[mina]

Yes. And if the truck was running.
And if Cage saw the boy walking.
Did the boy hear gunshots on his way home?
What did the person you saw go into your house look like?
Is the backdoor deadbolt usually engaged? Is a key needed on the inside?
What time does your mom get home on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday?
Are you home alone often?
Why didn't you use your cell phone?
Where did you put the .22 cartridges you used? Pocket or hand?

Yes!!

Why on earth were those questions not asked??

[Hawk]

If your being serious, here's an addition to your theory:

OR possibly:

the front door was unlocked and they didn't need any key

AND

the lookout waiting down the street sees TR reaching for the gun & heading for the house, zooms up to the house to do what he can to stop/disarm/prevent/slow down TR from entering the house with his weapon. Meanwhile, the shooter at the doorway or column/bush is shooting TR .
TR tries to take cover by going left but the get-a-way driver/look out sees him heading to side of house and worries he's going to get away so he aims the car onto the driveway or other area blocking TR/cutting off his exit (possibly gets out with his own weapon). He's in a hurry now because his position/job has been compromised. He's no longer in a position to get and run.

TR must turn back to the house, trapped and injured, starts to collaspe onto porch. As the shooter from the doorway sees his back up coming to cover TR he decides to go back inside to check on VR opening the door and entering he does not realize the get-a-way driver is setting his sights on TR's head. TR is collapsing, driver shoots. The bullet grazes TRs head but the other shooter has not cleared the doorway, yet. The bullet goes through door and enters shooter's leg or does so on his way back out of the doorway.
He takes two more shots at VR because he's still moving or other reason (probably the two shots on the left side as VR lays on the stairs). He goes to porch where he shoots or the driver had already been shooting TR the remaining times.

One of the shooters pick up TRs gun and takes it with them.


FYI... just trying to think outload. IMO...This is not as far fetched as it may seem. Enforcers, gang members, ect. would have a look out and the look out would be expected to step in when things start to get hairy.

Anything is possible, of course. I was trying to set the stage using only the chipmunk and empty casing locations in order to frame the boy.
If it's proven the chipmunk wasn't used, or that two weapons, one being the Chipmunk, were used, all bets are off. The county attorney will have to go back to the drawing board.
Let's keep thinking out loud. LE apparently isn't. Then again, maybe some of them are, in private, and we just don't know it.

[wolfi_2]

Short answers from me,

a: unfortunately , Yes
b: I think, Yes
c: In my opinion: No
d: I'm sure, Yes.