1/26 to 1/28

[ChildsVOICE]

The Chipmunk was VR's. Given to him when he was a boy.(as per Liz)
He gave it to CR on his 8th birthday (as per Liz)

I have no idea where Tiffany got a pea shooter. CR never mentions it.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
See page #8.
http://www.november2008stjohnsdouble...oad/womack.pdf
End Quote by Hawk

childsVOICE:
See referenced link above.

Womack: "I asked Dana if he had ever handled a 22 rifle at Vincent's. Dana replied, "Yes." I asked, when. Dana said he has handled Vincent's wife's rifle, a little pea shooter, .22 rifle at Vincent's place. He said Vincent brought it outside in the summer time and they went prairie dog hunting one time during the summer.
I asked Dana if Tim had any guns. Dana said Tim had a 357 mag. maybe. DanaSaid he never handled Tim's pistol. He said Tim kept the pistol behind the front seat of his truck."

childsVOICE: So, does this reference mean the "little pea shooter" is also the "Chipmunk" and was considered Tiffany's at any point and time? Also, does this statement gives us a clue/some proof of how little this gun was used by VR and TR? which would back up what my little birdie told me?
I know the Chipmunk was passed down from VR to CR.

[JusticeDawg©]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
See page #8.
http://www.november2008stjohnsdouble...oad/womack.pdf
End Quote by Hawk

childsVOICE:
See referenced link above.

Womack: "I asked Dana if he had ever handled a 22 rifle at Vincent's. Dana replied, "Yes." I asked, when. Dana said he has handled Vincent's wife's rifle, a little pea shooter, .22 rifle at Vincent's place. He said Vincent brought it outside in the summer time and they went prairie dog hunting one time during the summer.
I asked Dana if Tim had any guns. Dana said Tim had a 357 mag. maybe. DanaSaid he never handled Tim's pistol. He said Tim kept the pistol behind the front seat of his truck."

childsVOICE: So, does this reference mean the "little pea shooter" is also the "Chipmunk" and was considered Tiffany's at any point and time? Also, does this statement gives us a clue/some proof of how little this gun was used by VR and TR? which would back up what my little birdie told me?
I know the Chipmunk was passed down from VR to CR.

Pea shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKJ4TJoOnco

[ChildsVOICE]

They didn't take anything but the Chipmunk, and the Mossberg "case"

That is all I know. If they took more, I haven't seen it anywhere.

Ok. Thanks. I didn't remember any other either. Just double checking with you. :mellow:

[ChildsVOICE]

Pea shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKJ4TJoOnco

So, does that mean a "pea shooter" is a .22 caliber automatic?

[JusticeDawg©]

So, does that mean a "pea shooter" is a .22 caliber automatic?

yes it is.

[ChildsVOICE]

yes it is.

Check your PMs.

[Jacobtk]

Pea shooter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKJ4TJoOnco

Did the police take this rifle as well?

[ChildsVOICE]

yes it is.

check your PMs

[JusticeDawg©]

Did the police take this rifle as well?

You are joking right? They took the "Chipmunk". The murder weapon in their eyes. End of story.

It didn't matter that 2 men are dead, in two different spots, with an 11 minute timeframe, with a single bolt Chipmunk shotgun. Oh the 11 minutes included CR running to the neighbors.

[ChildsVOICE]

JusticeDawg,

I'm beginning to see more and more of your points regarding a certain person of interest.

[ChildsVOICE]

You are joking right? They took the "Chipmunk". The murder weapon in their eyes. End of story.

It didn't matter that 2 men are dead, in two different spots, with an 11 minute timeframe, with a single bolt Chipmunk shotgun. Oh the 11 minutes included CR running to the neighbors.

Don't forget the climbing over bodies and running around them both in circles since they were shot on three of their four sides and climbing up and down the stairs and going in and out of the house and..............

[Jacobtk]

You are joking right? They took the "Chipmunk". The murder weapon in their eyes. End of story.

Honestly, I am impressed. It takes effort for police to be this inept, so they deserve some credit for the job they have done. What this means then is that there were a potential of three possible .22 caliber weapons that could have been used and the police ignored (seemingly deliberately) the two most likely weapons because the boy's gun was sitting atop the dog cage.

This almost makes me want to see this go to trial just to hear the explanations for these oversights.

[JusticeDawg©]

JusticeDawg,

I'm beginning to see more and more of your points regarding a certain person of interest.

I hope a proper investigation leads to the arrest of the killer.
I'd hate to see them let it go and have it hang over CR's head for the rest of his life.

[JusticeDawg©]

Honestly, I am impressed. It takes effort for police to be this inept, so they deserve some credit for the job they have done. What this means then is that there were a potential of three possible .22 caliber weapons that could have been used and the police ignored (seemingly deliberately) the two most likely weapons because the boy's gun was sitting atop the dog cage.

This almost makes me want to see this go to trial just to hear the explanations for these oversights.

I hear ya!

[JusticeDawg©]

Don't forget the climbing over bodies and running around them both in circles since they were shot on three of their four sides and climbing up and down the stairs and going in and out of the house and..............

I've seen how tiny he is. No way he pulled that off.

moo

[ChildsVOICE]

Honestly, I am impressed. It takes effort for police to be this inept, so they deserve some credit for the job they have done. What this means then is that there were a potential of three possible .22 caliber weapons that could have been used and the police ignored (seemingly deliberately) the two most likely weapons because the boy's gun was sitting atop the dog cage.

This almost makes me want to see this go to trial just to hear the explanations for these oversights.

I'd like to go just to see the Prosecutor's trying to explain how he did it!

After all...how many of us on here has been trying to figure it out? for how long?:w00t:

[ChildsVOICE]

I hope a proper investigation leads to the arrest of the killer.
I'd hate to see them let it go and have it hang over CR's head for the rest of his life.

AMEN to that!

More importantly I want to prove to this little boy that he didn't do it. I bet because of the bull Avila was feeding him about having a witness and Tim saying so ...that he wonders if he really did do it?:mad:

[ChildsVOICE]

I've seen how tiny he is. No way he pulled that off.

moo

Awww! Come on now...you know he was doing all that while shooting backwards over his shoulder doing cartwheels. And don't forget about wearing the blindfold! LOL:laugh:

(Anybody reading this later...I'm KIDDING!)

[ChildsVOICE]

Well my pea shooter job is done for the night.

I've got to hit the hay.

Good night, All.

:sleep:

[muska]

In Brewer's response to the state's motion to dismiss, he writes that "counsel would object to this court setting a hearing on the motion to dismiss until competency is determined." In the sentence before that, it sounds like he's saying that once the motion is heard, it will be ruled on one way or the other.....like it can't be put off. Is that what everyone else thinks or am I wrong about that? If I'm right, will he rule right away on Thursday?

If Judge Roca could wait and has chosen not to............why would he do that?

Since Brewer's response said he would object, maybe there will be more from him today.

[wolfi_2]

As I said yesterday, that will be a very court site filling week, I think!

[GentleBreeze]

Everything when every aspect of the shooting is taken into consideration. There is not a snowballs chance in um, in Miami FL on a hot summer day that the boy could possibly have committed both murders in the time line. Where was Tiffany between the time she bought Donuts & milk and the second trip to the store for "dinner"? Who else had access to a gun capable of shooting .22 LR bullets and an automatic instead of a single shot gun in the length of time of the "time line"? That's how he could have been duped.

Yes, Iam, there was ample time to do the murders.

There was no time left for him to walk up the street toward the home, see Tim on the porch, go inside and see and do all he said he did.

There was just time for him to leave once he knew they both were dead, right after they had been shot.

And Judge Roca is not oblivious to that time line.

imoo

[freddief]

"What was Tiff buying at the grocery store?
I thought I read a post that the first time she was buying donuts for work the next day. Is this correct/fact?
If so, why would she be buying donuts in the p.m. of one day for the a.m. the next day to take to work? Isn't the whole reason of taking donuts to work is to impress the co-workers & boss? and to just make a good gesture? Who buys donuts in the p.m. to take to work the next day when they know they are going to be stale by the next day?
Also, didn't she work at a physical therapist office? My PT hates it when the co-workers bring in junk food because they are all exercise junkies and they talk about how many workout exercises they'll have to do."

You guys don't think very well. Wilburs, the only store in town, doesn't open until 8am. Physical therapy opens at 8am so you would have to be at work at about 7:45am. So Wilbur's wouldnt be open. This is a small town guys. The donuts wouldn't be for the employees since she is usually the only one there that early, and later comes the doctor. The clients are mostly old people. She would have spent the money for the donuts out of her own pocket to help old people out. She is a good person that helps out old people out of the kindness of her heart, not some demon. This isn't a exercise place but a place to help an old lady with a back problem, or an old man who had a kee injury rehabilitate. Think people.

Besides, didn't some family member post that the boy privately admitted to family members that he did it?

[muska]

I think the judge granted the DA's request for a hearing to dismiss. The judge will hear arguments for dismissal, however, that does not mean he has to rule right then after hearing arguments. He could tell them he will take it under advisement and issue a ruling later. Hopefully after the competency hearing next week.

But if he's going to wait and rule after the competency hearing, why not just wait until after the competency hearing to begin with? Why bother with the motion to dismiss right now?

Maybe he has to hear it in order to avoid a reason to appeal later on.......I just hope there's a good reason. It would be terribly unjust to dismiss one count now. IMO

[muska]

"What was Tiff buying at the grocery store?
I thought I read a post that the first time she was buying donuts for work the next day. Is this correct/fact?
If so, why would she be buying donuts in the p.m. of one day for the a.m. the next day to take to work? Isn't the whole reason of taking donuts to work is to impress the co-workers & boss? and to just make a good gesture? Who buys donuts in the p.m. to take to work the next day when they know they are going to be stale by the next day?
Also, didn't she work at a physical therapist office? My PT hates it when the co-workers bring in junk food because they are all exercise junkies and they talk about how many workout exercises they'll have to do."

You guys don't think very well. Wilburs, the only store in town, doesn't open until 8am. Physical therapy opens at 8am so you would have to be at work at about 7:45am. So Wilbur's wouldnt be open. This is a small town guys. The donuts wouldn't be for the employees since she is usually the only one there that early, and later comes the doctor. The clients are mostly old people. She would have spent the money for the donuts out of her own pocket to help old people out. She is a good person that helps out old people out of the kindness of her heart, not some demon. This isn't a exercise place but a place to help an old lady with a back problem, or an old man who had a kee injury rehabilitate. Think people.

Besides, didn't some family member post that the boy privately admitted to family members that he did it?

So why do you think she was buying donuts in the afternoon for work? Who knows? She is on Wilbur's security video buying them and in the transcript she says they were for work. I don't see your point.

As far as what someone posted, anyone can post whatever they want........one person saying something doesn't mean much.

[Kara]

So who owned the Mossberg .22 Plinkster?And which gun would have shot the ammo that was originally contained in the box that was photographed? Were they .17 caliber bullets? What weapon would fire those?

[GentleBreeze]

I think the question in everyone's mind is why did she buy donuts and then 20 minutes later go back and buy stuff to make dinner with when most would buy them at the same trip? Where was she during those 20 minutes?

Do you how far away Wilburs is from the Romero house?

Did she make two trips or did she just make two stops while she was downtown?

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

I bolded the part in the quote which gives you the reason.

Oh, my nic is IamIthink. There is an iamme on this board too, Breeze.

What reason, iamithink?

imoo

[muska]

Did she make two trips or did she just make two stops while she was downtown?

imoo

Two separate trips to Wilburs. On the second trip, she also went to NAPA. Is that what you're asking?

[GentleBreeze]

Two separate trips to Wilburs. On the second trip, she also went to NAPA. Is that what you're asking?

So she went home after she bought donuts? Then went back to get groceries and to get Vinnie the coveralls at NAPA?

[GentleBreeze]

The bolded part of your post, like I said. Go back and read that part of the post.

:laugh:Maybe I haven't had enough Coke Classic this morning but I am still not understanding your thoughts.

Would you explain a little more, please.

imoo

[muska]

So she went home after she bought donuts? Then went back to get groceries and to get Vinnie the coveralls at NAPA?

No one has said that she went home........that's the question though, isn't it?

She may have simply taken the donuts back to work. We don't have that information. At least, not that I'm aware of.

[GentleBreeze]

We don't know where she went. She wasn't asked.

Wasn't she out and about when Vinnie called her saying he had left work? Where was she around that time?

imoo

[wolfi_2]

No one has said that she went home........that's the question though, isn't it?

She may have simply taken the donuts back to work. We don't have that information. At least, not that I'm aware of.


I think, the investigation just failed to make sure she wasn´t at home, they don´t take any evidence like clothes and so on, from her, just only from the boy! If they are good and objective, they would have taken other possible suspect´s clothes also, even if they think that the chance is very low that the other suspect can be the shooter.

[JusticeDawg©]

Wasn't she out and about when Vinnie called her saying he had left work? Where was she around that time?

imoo

Yes, she is the only one who knew EXACLTY when he would be home.
Talk about Lying in wait.
I always wondered why she didn't tell him she was sorry in that phone call. She had time to do so, she didn't.
Although she did find time to send out a fax and tell co-workers she "felt she should have called VR and said she was sorry" all day long.

She had, M,M and O.

[muska]

I think, the investigation just failed to make sure she wasn´t at home, they don´t take any evidence like clothes and so on, from her, just only from the boy! If they are good and objective, they would have taken other possible suspect´s clothes also, even if they think that the chance is very low that the other suspect can be the shooter.

I agree. May go down as one of the worst investigations ever. Even if they believed the boy did it, why wouldn't they have been looking for accomplices immediately? The likelihood that the boy did it at all would be low and the likelihood that he did all on his own would be even lower. They should have collected everything; I think the chief was just happy to say 'case solved' and move on. Just didn't work out quite as smoothly as he planned.

[wolfi_2]

I agree. May go down as one of the worst investigations ever. Even if they believed the boy did it, why wouldn't they have been looking for accomplices immediately? The likelihood that the boy did it at all would be low and the likelihood that he did all on his own would be even lower. They should have collected everything; I think the chief was just happy to say 'case solved' and move on. Just didn't work out quite as smoothly as he planned.


maybe just to pin a easy target on the wall, but unfortunately there is a good attorney for the boy!

[muska]

maybe just to pin a easy target on the wall, but unfortunately there is a good attorney for the boy!

I don't understand why the media isn't giving this more coverage. At first, I wasn't sure how helpful that would be, but at this point, I think it would be very useful. I hope that something or someone will make this story catch on - is this really how we want to treat elementary school children in the United States?

[GentleBreeze]

Yes, she is the only one who knew EXACTLY when he would be home.
Talk about Lying in wait.
I always wondered why she didn't tell him she was sorry in that phone call. She had time to do so, she didn't.
Although she did find time to send out a fax and tell co-workers she "felt she should have called VR and said she was sorry" all day long.

She had, M,M and O.

What motive would she have? It certainly wasn't for money. The home they lived in was in her name.

But where was she when she knew about what time he would be home. It seems she did several errands. Like buying donuts for the next day, buying groceries, and going to get Vinnie's coveralls and talking to people that knew her when she was out and about?

imoo

[ChildsVOICE]

PORTIONS OF NEWS ARTICLE:

(RESOURCE:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/01/06/20090106stjohns.html )

Gunshot residue dots boy's clothing
Experts say evidence may have been tainted
by Dennis Wagner - Jan. 6, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona

"A report from the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab in Texas says more than three-dozen particles of lead, antimony and barium were found on a long-sleeved shirt and denim pants the boy wore the day his father and a friend were killed. .....

Steven Howard, a Michigan attorney and expert on shooting reconstruction, said tens of thousands of microscopic particles are expelled when a firearm is discharged. Upon learning that the St. Johns boy's clothes were collected a day after the crime - and that his skin was not tested at all - Howard criticized investigators. "Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . . This is just a case of poor police work." "

"Howard said gunshot residue has become controversial in the forensics world because innocent defendants can be tainted without firing a weapon, especially if they sat in a patrol car, touched a gun or were near the weapon when it was fired. The St. Johns boy was from a hunting family and had been in the room where his father died.
Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

"Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants."

childsVOICE: read the entire article using above link.

To me, the fact that they only found only a very small amount of GPR on the boy's clothes consistent with the possibility of transfer and NOT the "tens of thousands of microscopic particles " which would have been found on his clothing if he was the actual shooter, especially when we must consider residue from 10 shots, proves to me that he was NOT the shooter.


Put a check mark in the boy's column.

[JD1974]

So now there may be annother gun missing? Everytime you hear something more about what LE did before they questioned this kid it makes you believe more and more that they thought he was a suspect. I would really like to hear from witnesses that talked to LE about what they said about the boy before LE questioned him?

[wolfi_2]

I don't understand why the media isn't giving this more coverage. At first, I wasn't sure how helpful that would be, but at this point, I think it would be very useful. I hope that something or someone will make this story catch on - is this really how we want to treat elementary school children in the United States?

I'm hopeful that your new government and president would sign this UN convention soon!

Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_understanding.html

[GentleBreeze]

Even the outside expert not connected to the case, says:

Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

They did find dozens of particles on his clothing.

He also stated : Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants."

But that is not the case here at all. Gunshot residue was present.

imoo

[wolfi_2]

PORTIONS OF NEWS ARTICLE:

(RESOURCE:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/01/06/20090106stjohns.html )

Gunshot residue dots boy's clothing
Experts say evidence may have been tainted
by Dennis Wagner - Jan. 6, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona

"A report from the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab in Texas says more than three-dozen particles of lead, antimony and barium were found on a long-sleeved shirt and denim pants the boy wore the day his father and a friend were killed. .....

Steven Howard, a Michigan attorney and expert on shooting reconstruction, said tens of thousands of microscopic particles are expelled when a firearm is discharged. Upon learning that the St. Johns boy's clothes were collected a day after the crime - and that his skin was not tested at all - Howard criticized investigators. "Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . . This is just a case of poor police work." "

"Howard said gunshot residue has become controversial in the forensics world because innocent defendants can be tainted without firing a weapon, especially if they sat in a patrol car, touched a gun or were near the weapon when it was fired. The St. Johns boy was from a hunting family and had been in the room where his father died.
Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

"Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants."

childsVOICE: read the entire article using above link.

To me, the fact that they only found only a very small amount of GPR on the boy's clothes consistent with the possibility of transfer and NOT the "tens of thousands of microscopic particles " which would have been found on his clothing if he was the actual shooter, especially when we must consider residue from 10 shots, proves to me that he was NOT the shooter.


Put a check mark in the boy's column.

I like that-
Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . .

[muska]

Even the outside expert not connected to the case, says:

Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

They did find dozens of particles on his clothing.

He also stated : Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants."

But that is not the case here at all. Gunshot residue was present.

imoo

So he's saying there's nothing unusual in what has been found - not going to help either side. IMO

[muska]

I'm hopeful that your new government and president would sign this UN convention soon!

Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_understanding.html

I am hopeful but not overly optimistic. They have such a hard time getting things done in Washington.

[JusticeDawg©]

I like that-
Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . .

Judge can rule on MOTION TO SUPRESS ILLEGAL WARRANT.pdf on the 29th also.

Alls fair in Love and War now. :smile:

[JusticeDawg©]

What motive would she have? It certainly wasn't for money. The home they lived in was in her name.

But where was she when she knew about what time he would be home. It seems she did several errands. Like buying donuts for the next day, buying groceries, and going to get Vinnie's coveralls and talking to people that knew her when she was out and about?

imoo

Why was she fighting with him???

MOTIVE!

[GentleBreeze]

So he's saying there's nothing unusual in what has been found - not going to help either side. IMO

I think that will depend on which side it bolsters. If other evidence is there then the gunshot residue found on his clothing will carry more weight. It will be just one piece of circumstantial evidence.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

Why was she fighting with him???

MOTIVE!

I have no idea. Young people seem to get into arguments with each other quite often imo.

imo

[JusticeDawg©]

I think that will depend on which side it bolsters. If other evidence is there then the gunshot residue found on his clothing will carry more weight. It will be just one piece of circumstantial evidence.

imoo

He could have contracted that much GSR by hugging his step-mom. :wink:

[JusticeDawg©]

I have no idea. Young people seem to get into arguments with each other quite often imo.

imo

I see..... I am dealing with an older generations opinion here.

I will take it with a grain of salt. Times have changed.

[JD1974]

Didn't he say he sat down with his dad? If someone had just been shot 4 times in a small area like a stairwell couldn't someone have contaminated their clothes by sitting down on the stairwell? The GSR has to go somewhere...why not the stairwell?

[GentleBreeze]

He could have contracted that much GSR by hugging his step-mom. :wink:

Don't think so.:wink: He got it right inside that house where he was and she wasn't, at the time.

imo

[JD1974]

I see..... I am dealing with an older generations opinion here.

I will take it with a grain of salt. Times have changed.


I am their age, I am 34 and no not much has changed we do not just fight to fight.

[JD1974]

Don't think so.:wink: He got it right inside that house where he was and she wasn't, at the time.

imo

How can you be sure? When did they take his clothes? I thought it was the next day, he came into contact with a lot of people if that is true.

[JusticeDawg©]

I am their age, I am 34 and no not much has changed we do not just fight to fight.

So you agree with GB?

[GentleBreeze]

I see..... I am dealing with an older generations opinion here.

I will take it with a grain of salt. Times have changed.

Oh really? Well that is wonderful news that it never happens. Yippee!

I guess it must be a figment of my imagination when I see young married couples that are arguing with each other............even out in public. Imagine that.

imo

[JD1974]

So you agree with GB?


Nope she said younger people fight all the time, well in my case that isn't true..nor my friends that are my age. We do not fight just to fight, usually it takes more than usual lol

[JusticeDawg©]

Nope she said younger people fight all the time, well in my case that isn't true..nor my friends that are my age. We do not fight just to fight, usually it takes more than usual lol

EXACTLY! Thank you!:smile:

[JD1974]

Wasn't it Avila during the interview that said to the boy that if he shot the gun there would be a LOT of GSR, not just a little bit? I would think a LOT would mean thousands of particles. I would think a little bit would be a few dozen.
:shrug:

Yes she did. It bothers me that he had such a small amount after 10 shots fired? It seems more of a transfer to me, from where I can only speculate.

[GentleBreeze]

How can you be sure? When did they take his clothes? I thought it was the next day, he came into contact with a lot of people if that is true.

All I am sure of.... that even after all the hugging and touching the night before he still had dozens of gunshot particles found on his clothing that weren't taken until the next day.

[wolfi_2]

I think that will depend on which side it bolsters. If other evidence is there then the gunshot residue found on his clothing will carry more weight. It will be just one piece of circumstantial evidence.

imoo

The problem I have with that argument is: They got only the boys clothes, and that is not objective, his stepmom´s clothes can also have this residue on their clothes! If not OK, but they didn´t test it to make it sure!

[JusticeDawg©]

Oh really? Well that is wonderful news that it never happens. Yippee!

I guess it must be a figment of my imagination when I see young married couples that are arguing with each other............even out in public. Imagine that.

imoYou live in Philly? :w00t:

[GentleBreeze]

Nope she said younger people fight all the time, well in my case that isn't true..nor my friends that are my age. We do not fight just to fight, usually it takes more than usual lol

I didn't say ALL the time. I said they can have spats often.

I never said they fight just to fight either although I do think some love to argue about the slightest thing and make mountains out of mole hills.

imoo

[muska]

Yes she did. It bothers me that he had such a small amount after 10 shots fired? It seems more of a transfer to me, from where I can only speculate.

The expert said the amount found on the boy was insignificant and to be expected considering the boy was in the house. Since he's the expert and has no known connection to the case (he's from Michigan),I'll go with his opinion for now.

I did google him and he seems to have quite a lot of experience.

[GentleBreeze]

You live in Philly? :w00t:

Not hardly. I have never even been to Philly.

Why?

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

IMO it was found exactly where it would be expected to be found if he were the shooter...not walking through some cloud of smoke. It wasn't found on his butt from sitting either.

I have shot .22 rifles since I was 7 years old. I have never seen smoke come out of the barrel and I even did repetitive shots in competition shoots. :confused:

imo

[ChildsVOICE]

Even the outside expert not connected to the case, says:

Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

They did find dozens of particles on his clothing.

He also stated : Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants."

But that is not the case here at all. Gunshot residue was present.

imoo


It's the AMOUNT of gun shot residue that is important.

ONLY some "dozens" NOT "tens of thousands" were found

then consider "ten of thousands" times 10 (shots)= hundreds of thousands would be expected to be on the boy's clothing. It would be all over his clothing. They certainly wouldn't find JUST a few dozen.

The few dozen could have gotten there just by being next to his father, laying on the same carpeted stairs where the shooter had been standing, being in the smoke filled room immediately after the shots, OR from when the boy had used any of the guns to target shoot on previous occasions but the GPR didn't wash out of the clothing.

The MISSING hundreds of thousands of particles shows he didn't shoot a gun 10 times.

[muska]

The problem I have with that argument is: They got only the boys clothes, and that is not objective, his stepmom´s clothes can also have this residue on their clothes! If not OK, but they didn´t test it to make it sure!

Maybe they didn't take them because they didn't want to know. If Tiffany's clothes had an equal amount of GSR, they couldn't very well use that amount against the boy, could they?

Of course, that line of reasoning may be giving to much credit for forethought.

[JD1974]

The expert said the amount found on the boy was insignificant and to be expected considering the boy was in the house. Since he's the expert and has no known connection to the case (he's from Michigan),I'll go with his opinion for now.

I did google him and he seems to have quite a lot of experience.


I will too and not only because he is from Michigan...:laugh:

[wolfi_2]

you're wrong

imo


Why is she wrong ?

[JD1974]

Then why wasn't it found on the back of the boy? On his shoulders?

Why was it found in the places it would be found if he had shot the weapon????



Do we really know what he did, for arguments sake say he did come in and see his dad on the steps. So how would a person lean down to look or maybe even try to move a loved one in that situation...leaning on knees on the step (gsr on pants) trying to turn over loved one, or even touching loved ones clothes (gsr on shirt). Yeah all speculation but because no one asked this kid pertinent questions all we can do at the moment is speculate.

[bkwits]

I believe the boy did it too.

It sad to me that many don't even care if he did it, they want him to get a free pass reguardless.

It is sad to ME that you have so little compassion for this child. :sad:

[GentleBreeze]

I have a few questions for the guiltys that are really just for curiosity's sake. I am trying to understand where you guys are coming from. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the following questions?

1.) Do you think it is possible that someone other than the boy committed the crime?
2.) Do you think it is appropriate to leave an 8 year old home alone for several hours with weapons and ammo in the house?
3.) Do you think it is appropriate that Tiffany spanked her step son?
4.) Do you think it is appropriate to have a grown man living in your home that has a wife and a fiance and spends his evenings in the bar? This man sleeps in the room directly across from your 8 year old son.
5.) Do you think Tiffany and Vince were happily married?
6.) Do you think Tanya knew about the affair?
7.) If so, was she OK with it?
8.) Do you agree that TR had a lot of other people with motive to kill him besides the boy?
9.) Do you think it is appropriate that an 8 year old is shackled?
10.) Do you think the SJPD did a thorough investigation?
11.) Do you think the SJPD and the Prosecution is still investigating other suspects?

I have more...these are just off the top of my head.

Thanks!

1. If the gun was not the weapon used and the casings weren't fired from the chipmunk gun and his fingerprints aren't found overlayed over any other fingerprint that may have been there then I think that possibly someone else may have done the crime. But I have seen nothing that points away from this boy, yet.

2. No, I do not think it is appropriate to leave an 8 year old child alone, however it wasn't against the laws in Arizona to do so. I am not sure several hours were involved. We have no definite time when he got off the bus and his dad was there around 4:47.

3. I would not spank a stepchild especially when first marrying their father but each family has a right to their own ground rules even if I disagree with them. I guess it would depend on how long Tiffany was in his life and seen as a mother figure to him.

4. I doubt that this boy even knew that Tim had a girlfriend and what a boarder does outside of the home away from the family would be of no consequence.

5. I think they loved each other and it was a new marriage that can take some adjustments.

6. No, I don't.

7. Cant answer because I feel she had no clue about the affair that was taking place 170 miles away from her.

8. I see no motives for others to have done this right at the Romero home in broad daylight. Others if they had motives would have done this in a more secluded environment.

9. I think they have continued their investigation and have interviewed others and reinterviewed others.

10. Yes, I do, for if they don't, they know that the defense will.

The main key to me that he did this is the tight time line.

imo

[ChildsVOICE]

JusticeDawg & others,

Thank You for spending so much of your time and effort trying to figure this all out and for supporting this little fellow.

You all have become very dear to my heart. I'm so glad your doing what you are because it really helps me to continue working on the site.

You lift my spirts!...Especially when you spit on your screen!:laugh:

[JusticeDawg©]

exactly. just jump to the conclusion that the boy did it without checking out anyone else.

Homicide Investigation 101-The spouse is the first suspect. No matter how upset they appear, the spouse is the first suspect.

:beer::beer::beer:

[GentleBreeze]

There is no "missing" hundreds of thousands of particles.

IMO the GSR PATTERN indicates he was the shooter.


Right. Even the outside expert didn't say thousands of gunshot particles would be found but it would be dozens of particles found on his clothing.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

It is sad to ME that you have so little compassion for this child. :sad:

It is sad to most of us.

I totally believe in karma. :wink:

[JusticeDawg©]

Oh mercy. You're right! I forgot that she said that in her fax. Did Mr. Brewer get a copy of the fax?:thumbsup:

Of course he did.
That woman has now taken that page of her site down too. :lol::lol:

Guess they don't know how quick we are.

[JD1974]

Honestly if they would of even talked to any other suspects I would maybe wonder if he did it. Yet they never questioned anyone thouroughly...why is that? IMO as I have said before I think the DA seen this as an opportunity to get his 15 min of fame, he just didn't realize the backlash after releasing the video of the "confession" so now he has to save face and attempt to actually prove this kids did this instead of people just believing he did based on the confession. So far he is failing and making himself look worse by wanting a judgement on his motion to dismiss before the competency is finished...to me that shows he doesn't want justice he wants another notch in his belt. If this kid is incompetent age wise then it has to be dismissed with prejudice, he is trying to get around the law.

[JD1974]

I usually reserve my compassion for the victims. Don't you?

His age doesn't matter to me when I look at the circumstances and evidence surrounding this case.

If this child did this, I can't see how coddling and excusing it will benefit him in anyway. If this boy did what I believe he did....he doesn't need to be receiving tons of gifts from strangers, encouragement and support from people telling him that he's incapable of it and doesn't deserve to be held accountable for his actions.

IMO He would need intensive inpatient therapy for YEARS and I hope he gets it.


So if age doesn't matter to you, do you think the 4 year old should be charged for shooting the babysitter? I mean my 4 year old knows right from wrong, this 4 year old most likely does also.

I do agree that if he DID do this he does need therapy, but can you honestly say a 9 year old should be sent to juvenile?

[JD1974]

One other thing, if he wasn't capable shouldn't he be encouraged?

[GentleBreeze]

Honestly if they would of even talked to any other suspects I would maybe wonder if he did it. Yet they never questioned anyone thouroughly...why is that? IMO as I have said before I think the DA seen this as an opportunity to get his 15 min of fame, he just didn't realize the backlash after releasing the video of the "confession" so now he has to save face and attempt to actually prove this kids did this instead of people just believing he did based on the confession. So far he is failing and making himself look worse by wanting a judgment on his motion to dismiss before the competency is finished...to me that shows he doesn't want justice he wants another notch in his belt. If this kid is incompetent age wise then it has to be dismissed with prejudice, he is trying to get around the law.

15 minutes of fame? There isn't a DA in this country that would want this case. DAs seek justice for the murder victims in their county. Justice will most likely be denied for the victims, as well as all the victims' family members and friends who mourn their deaths and will always be haunted that justice never came.

If the negative attitude would change this DA and he was just in it for his 15 minutes of fame he darn sure wouldn't go forward trying the best he can to get some semblance of justice for the victims, who are now voiceless.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

Of course he did.
That woman has now taken that page of her site down too. :lol::lol:

Guess they don't know how quick we are.

Quick? :confused: That site has been up for months.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

Quick? :confused: That site has been up for months.

imoo

Where is the post about the fax now?

[GentleBreeze]

Where is the post about the fax now?

I don't know. I haven't looked for it.

imoo

[JD1974]

Yes. Absolutely.

Killing two men warrants far more than a time out.


Ok, so why is it that an adult who has the mentality of an 8 year old isn't mentally competent to stand trial, yet an 8 year old with the mentality within the range of an 8 year old can?

[dgfred]

I don't think we know if he has recanted. Perhaps he has to Wood/Brewer. Or to his family.
The time line puts him there though. Everyone knows he found the bodies. And then there was the 'interrogation'.

But probably the worst thing that happened against the boy was when Chief Melnick told the grandma that the boy had been charged. She became very upset and said "If any kid is capable of doing this it's (the boy). Grandpa agreed.
Of course she also said that she knew something like this would happen because "They were too hard on ..(the boy). I think that was what Chief Melnick went on more than anything else, in addition to the 'confession'.
And later a CPS worker claimed that he asked her, "Don't you want to know why I did it?"

Dang, I hadn't even heard of this grandparent angle. They sure helped out the boy didn't they :thumbdown: ???

Got any links about this?

[dgfred]

Right. Even the outside expert didn't say thousands of gunshot particles would be found but it would be dozens of particles found on his clothing.

imoo

Couldn't he have that much GSR just from being inside the house and near his dad for a short time?

[JusticeDawg©]

Dang, I hadn't even heard of this grandparent angle. They sure helped out the boy didn't they :thumbdown: ???

Got any links about this?

Chief Melnick told the grandparents "CR confessed to killing both men", they freaked. They believed it was a "true" confession.

Things have changed since they found out the truth .:thumbup:

[JusticeDawg©]

I don't know. I haven't looked for it.

imoo

That's right keep your eyes and mind closed. :rolleyes:

[dgfred]

Chief Melnick told the grandparents "CR confessed to killing both men", they freaked. They believed it was a "true" confession.

Things have changed since they found out the truth .:thumbup:

Thanks for setting me straight pal! :thumbup:

[JusticeDawg©]

Couldn't he have that much GSR just from being inside the house and near his dad for a short time?

Rubbing up against the door by Tim, and on walls and steps by his dad, yes.

[wolfi_2]

Yes. Absolutely.

Killing two men warrants far more than a time out.

To incarnate an 8 year old for years, without social contact to other children of the same age, is abuse; to withdraw any love from a kid is abuse; only noncontact visits with his mom is abuse; no freedom for under aged children is abuse. That all is not justice for the victim's, it's revenge! -So what do you expect if he once will be released when he is sentenced for a long time? I think, that would be not a normal human being!

[dgfred]

I have shot .22 rifles since I was 7 years old. I have never seen smoke come out of the barrel and I even did repetitive shots in competition shoots. :confused:

imo

I have (bolt action too) and some smoke does come out of the barrel
especially where the shell ejects from.

[GentleBreeze]

The boy never said he hugged his dead father. Kneeling would result in GSR below his knees only.

AND didn't he say he sat beside his father's side for 30 minutes? Was GSR found saturated on the seat of his pants?

imoo

[muska]

Does anyone really think this kid will be a safer person when he gets out?

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/story/Douglas-boy-who-killed-mom-ordered-to-juvenile/tqlVWMF72EC7oUr4fv1V8Q.cspx

There has to be a better way.

[GentleBreeze]

Rubbing up against the door by Tim, and on walls and steps by his dad, yes.


How did he rub up against the outside of the door where Tim was? When he went in the door, Tim was on the outside of the metal screen security door, not between the security door and the main entry door, where he said he went through. :confused:

[dgfred]

AND didn't he say he sat beside his father's side for 30 minutes? Was GSR found saturated on the seat of his pants?

imoo


Why would it be saturated on the seat of his pants anyway? If not much comes out... stated earlier and we are not sure exactly where the father was shot? I would expect only small amounts on the boy anyway, shooter or not. Really not sure what you are debating.

[Hawk]

15 minutes of fame? There isn't a DA in this country that would want this case. DAs seek justice for the murder victims in their county. Justice will most likely be denied for the victims, as well as all the victims' family members and friends who mourn their deaths and will always be haunted that justice never came.

If the negative attitude would change this DA and he was just in it for his 15 minutes of fame he darn sure wouldn't go forward trying the best he can to get some semblance of justice for the victims, who are now voiceless.

imoo

If this guy isn't interested in the attention he's getting from this once in a lifetime case, why isn't he at his new job, working for the people who elected him and who are now paying his salary?
I don't understand how he's legally allowed to do this.
Just asking.

http://brad4countyattorney.com/

[GentleBreeze]

Why would it be saturated on the seat of his pants anyway? If not much comes out... stated earlier and we are not sure exactly where the father was shot? I would expect only small amounts on the boy anyway, shooter or not. Really not sure what you are debating.

Posters have been saying huge amounts come out.

We have been debating all morning about 100s of thousands of gunshot particles would be found. So if that is true, then surely right around the victim, which usually has the most gunshot residue found on them since they were the one fired at, it seems very logical if he was in that location for any given length of time the backside of his clothing would be saturated with it.

[GentleBreeze]

If this guy isn't interested in the attention he's getting from this once in a lifetime case, why isn't he at his new job, working for the people who elected him and who are now paying his salary?
I don't understand how he's legally allowed to do this.
Just asking.

http://brad4countyattorney.com/

I thought he has been selected as a Special Prosecutor on this case.

I am sure it is perfectly legal or Wood would be standing on his head.

imoo

[Cherishlove]

The point is, the GSR didn't rule the boy out.

It's another piece of circumstantial evidence that points to the boy as the shooter.

imoGSR would of been on his clothing either way, it's just that there was not much GSR on his clothing that points more to his innocence, I feel.

[dgfred]

Posters have been saying huge amounts come out.

We have been debating all morning about 100s of thousands of gunshot particles would be found. So if that is true, then surely right around the victim, which usually has the most gunshot residue found on them since they were the one fired at, it seems very logical if he was in that location for any given length of time the backside of his clothing would be saturated with it.

No, it was stated that a 22 has been shot many times... and NEVER saw
any smoke coming from the barrel.

I don't agree with your post... we don't know where the shots were fired from exactly, or the exact location of the victims when hit. Too many unknowns to 'guess' on the GSR. It is right that the GSR doesn't rule him out, but it doesn't rule him IN either.

[mrrogers]

[QUOTE=ChildsVOICE;12707609]Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
See page #8.
http://www.november2008stjohnsdouble...oad/womack.pdf
End Quote by Hawk

childsVOICE:
See referenced link above.

its a semi auto and any one could have used it and left crs gun in plain sight but the bullet patterns wouldnt match unless crs gun was used:w00t:
its more plausible the number of shots was done with a semi auto than a single shot in the time indicated
if they wore gloves theyd leave no fingerprints.
i think whoever did this did have it planned out and with a semi auto it would be alot faster
the tests should tell which gun it was each guns barrel has a unique
pattern that can be matched to bullets shot thru it
pea shooter is a slang term given to any small caliber rifle even a pellet gun

[Cherishlove]

Does anyone really think this kid will be a safer person when he gets out?

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/story/Douglas-boy-who-killed-mom-ordered-to-juvenile/tqlVWMF72EC7oUr4fv1V8Q.cspx

There has to be a better way.I don't know too much about this story but wasn't he abused by his Mom, and was the gun his Mother's gun???? Parents who leave guns unlocked in there home and a child gets ahold of it they should be held responsible. She's not alive but if you ask me if she left the gun there she is responsible. Too bad he wasn't taken away from her prior to this if she was abusing him.

[mrrogers]

If this guy isn't interested in the attention he's getting from this once in a lifetime case, why isn't he at his new job, working for the people who elected him and who are now paying his salary?
I don't understand how he's legally allowed to do this.
Just asking.

http://brad4countyattorney.com/

a post on wmicentral.com a while back said hes a shark
look at his behavior he doesnt care about justice for cr he just wants
to make a name for himself and he has A++++++

[mrrogers]

No, it was stated that a 22 has been shot many times... and NEVER saw
any smoke coming from the barrel.

I don't agree with your post... we don't know where the shots were fired from exactly, or the exact location of the victims when hit. Too many unknowns to 'guess' on the GSR. It is right that the GSR doesn't rule him out, but it doesn't rule him IN either.

they only found 60 particles of gsr on cr as much as him and vincent shot
he could have got those walking around the house. if hed shot the 10 shots thered be alot more on him :w00t:

[Hawk]

No, it was stated that a 22 has been shot many times... and NEVER saw
any smoke coming from the barrel.

I don't agree with your post... we don't know where the shots were fired from exactly, or the exact location of the victims when hit. Too many unknowns to 'guess' on the GSR. It is right that the GSR doesn't rule him out, but it doesn't rule him IN either.

There's always 'smoke' from the end of a barrel when a gun is fired. It may not be very visible, especially in a .22, but there's always a bit of unburned powder. There's more, though, from the spent casings, causing the GSR to scatter went the shell is ejected. When you shoot a single shot that residue would be all over the hand you used to load with. Of course they didn't test the boys hands the day of the murder.

[Cherishlove]

Wow. So if the boy bashed her head in with a baseball bat his mother bought him, it would still be her fault. Lovely.No she should not have been abusing him though but if he used her gun it's her fault for leaving it out a loaded gun and it should be against the law there in Arizona to have guns/ammo unlocked sorry it just should. Why are you changing the story here it wasn't a baseball bat it was a gun used.

[dgfred]

There's always 'smoke' from the end of a barrel when a gun is fired. It may not be very visible, especially in a .22, but there's always a bit of unburned powder. There's more, though, from the spent casings, causing the GSR to scatter went the shell is ejected. When you shoot a single shot that residue would be all over the hand you used to load with. Of course they didn't test the boys hands the day of the murder.


That is exactly what I was saying... thanks. So it doesn't rule him in or out right? Not generous amounts, but some GSR.

[Hawk]

Justice can only come when the true facts of the murders are known. To suspect the boy isn't being mean spirited. After all he is the defendant.
The victims families and friends deserve compassion as well, and need to know the truth.
I don't see how us considering every possible angle of the circumstances surrounding the case is detrimental to anyone. It may even prove helpful. Who knows, it might have been already.

The age argument is, in a way, a separate debate.

Just my opinion.

[mrrogers]

There is no "missing" hundreds of thousands of particles.

IMO the GSR PATTERN indicates he was the shooter.

60 particles of gsr is far too little to have from 10 shots.
gsr can remain on clothes even after they have been washed so
i really dont think thats a trustworthy indictment of cr
somebody said it wouldnt take that many shots to kill the men.
true but if he wants to disguise his ability he could have just shot em
that much to throw investigators off the trail. whats the probablility that an 8 year old could have made all those head shots. small id say

[Cherishlove]

I hope he gets it too. He will definately need it because of all the hateful reation from people who do not know him, do not know for a fact he did it, have no recourse but to go out of their way to try, confict and sentence him on their own. If he is found innocent, it will be so sad that all his suffering and the damage done to his mental well being has been contributed to by folks who don't care about him as a human being and a child who will learn not to trust a soul. People behaving in such a manner does not bring back the victims. It just creates more infighting and discord and not to mention the hurt and anguish heaped on the the surviving loved ones left behind in this tragedy. The dead will not and cannot be brought back to us no matter how much people say they care about the victims but not the boy who may be innocent. Noone can be 100% sure until all the facts are in. Noone can be 100% sure he is guilty either until all the facts are in. There is more at stake here than speaking our opinions about what we think is so. Just because we think it does not make it so.

Have some compassion for this child. He is a child, not an adult. That much is fact. I'm sorry I don't have a link to that fact. But it is a fact.He will need intense therapy either way now, it's ashame they didn't do a proper investigation to begin with instead of arresting the boy in such a rush and make it known all over the world saying things like " 8 year old killer" ect. that is such BS. Now there are some real sicko's out there which makes me scared for his safety if they don't clear his name. People on this session even if we don't agree with what they say are very mild compared to a site I came across and it was so horrible I felt like it was the Devil himself writing such negative about this small child, it really scared me.

[FDInLaw]

He will need intense therapy either way now, it's ashame they didn't do a proper investigation to begin with instead of arresting the boy in such a rush and make it known all over the world saying things like " 8 year old killer" ect. that is such BS. Now there are some real sicko's out there which makes me scared for his safety if they don't clear his name. People on this session even if we don't agree with what they say are very mild compared to a site I came across and it was so horrible I felt like it was the Devil himself writing such negative about this small child, it really scared me.
Huggers! I share your concern. This boy needs real help, not a cell. A new investigation needs to be done by the state IMO.

[bkwits]

I usually reserve my compassion for the victims. Don't you?

His age doesn't matter to me when I look at the circumstances and evidence surrounding this case.

If this child did this, I can't see how coddling and excusing it will benefit him in anyway. If this boy did what I believe he did....he doesn't need to be receiving tons of gifts from strangers, encouragement and support from people telling him that he's incapable of it and doesn't deserve to be held accountable for his actions.

IMO He would need intensive inpatient therapy for YEARS and I hope he gets it.

I have compassion for the victims and their families. The child is part of a victim's family, in fact his friend and companion seems to have been his father.

I do believe there was a rush to judgment in this case. Consequently we may never know the truth. I do believe that the child was denied any rights and tricked into saying that he shot the two men.

I do believe that St. Johns LE should be held accountable for their actions.

IMO

[Cherishlove]

I have compassion for the victims and their families. The child is part of a victim's family, in fact his friend and companion seems to have been his father.

I do believe there was a rush to judgment in this case. Consequently we may never know the truth. I do believe that the child was denied any rights and tricked into saying that he shot the two men.

I do believe that St. Johns LE should be held accountable for their actions.

IMOI feel the same way!

[Cherishlove]

They did not have the GSR report when LE arrested and charged him with the murders.
I know it's all a bunch of BS what they did to this child no proper investigation just arrested him in less than 24 hours, it's horrible.

[FDInLaw]

Question: was anyone else tested for GSR???? I'm guessing not. What a shame, this case might have taken a different direction. JMO

LE was too quick to pin this on the boy.

[GentleBreeze]

I know it's all a bunch of BS what they did to this child no proper investigation just arrested him in less than 24 hours, it's horrible.

So does this apply when many other DAs/LE arrest and charge a suspect, less than 24 hours after the crime? They certainly aren't through with their investigation either nor have any of the evidence back.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

According to the reports we have, no one else was tested. Just the boys clothes. LE had decided to get his clothes before he was interrogated. Did not collect anyone else's clothes to test. Just the boys:confused:

Why did they get his underwear out of the case under his headboard. They weren't with the clothes they collected.

No word for GSR on his shoes yet either.
odd.

[Jacobtk]

They did find dozens of particles on his clothing ... But that is not the case here at all. Gunshot residue was present.

When quoting, it is always important to quote in context, not just select the parts that bolster your argument. Here is the statement in context:

Howard said gunshot residue has become controversial in the forensics world because innocent defendants can be tainted without firing a weapon, especially if they sat in a patrol car, touched a gun or were near the weapon when it was fired. The St. Johns boy was from a hunting family and had been in the room where his father died.

Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."

John Cayton, a firearms examiner and former chief criminalist with the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, said residue testing remains an important tool and described the number of particles found on the boy's clothes as "significant." But he also questioned whether the garments were contaminated elsewhere. Cayton added that it is not uncommon for small-town investigators to overlook evidentiary protocols because they often lack training and experience with homicides.

Boston police scrapped gunshot-residue tests in 2005 and the FBI followed suit a year later after acknowledging widespread contamination in its own lab, according to the Sun of Baltimore. Numerous other agencies have re-evaluated their validity.

Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants.

----

In context, Howard acknowledges that finding gunpowder residue on someone does not implicate them. Given that the boy is, according to the state, an avid hunter, one would expect to find gunpowder residue on him. Thirty particles is a rather small amount for ten separate gun shots. It is, however, consistent with gunpowder transfer.

[Jacobtk]

IMO it was found exactly where it would be expected to be found if he were the shooter...not walking through some cloud of smoke. It wasn't found on his butt from sitting either.

Actually, you do not know that because the state never released that information. They only stated that the residue was found on both his shirt and pants. They never stated whether the particles were grouped in one spot or spread all over. So all we know is that thirty particles of residue are on two articles of clothing. That would mean three particles per shot. That seems dubiously unrealistic, especially given that one shot expels thousands of particles. It is also seems odd that they apparently never tested the clothes of both men to determine whether the gunpowder residue patterns and compositions were the same.

[GentleBreeze]

Don't they usually check out other possible suspects before arresting anyone. They arrest when they think they have enough conclusive evidence, have eyewitnesses, more to go on to back them up rather than a gun on the dogs cage. Those casings could have come from any .22 gun. Anyone could have used a .22. I read somewhere that .22 are pretty common. I don't think that other investigations airest a suspect like they did this boy.

Probable cause is a very low burden to meet. They do not have to complete their investigation nor do they have to have conclusive evidence at the time of arrest and charge.

It was up to Judge Roca to decide if probable cause had been met and he did.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

Spin it anyway you'd like.

It didn't help the boy, that much is sure:wink:

Yes, let see exactly where the GSR was located on his clothing since he said he walked through white smoke. If true then it should have been filtering all around him and would land on the front and back of his clothing.

It will be interesting to learn if all found was on the front of his clothes.

imo

[Jacobtk]

Probable cause is a very low burden to meet. They do not have to complete their investigation nor do they have to have conclusive evidence at the time of arrest and charge.

It was up to Judge Roca to decide if probable cause had been met and he did.

That is the point. The standard is so low that if I accused you of raping me as a child and it sounded believable, you would be arrested, charged and would have to post bail based on the statement of a person who has never physically met you. Finding probable cause not mean the person is guilty. All of the cases the Innocence Project handles involves judges finding probable cause to indict innocence men.

[Jacobtk]

Spin it anyway you'd like.

It didn't help the boy, that much is sure:wink:

It is not spin. It is logical, objective thinking. Ten shots would produce a lot of gunpowder. The experts in the article acknowledge that dozens of particles are consistent with a gun shot. They did not state that ten shots would only leave thirty particles. And because the residue can be transferred that easily and we are dealing with a small amount of it, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that the residue is the result of transfer or from the boy previously shooting his gun and having his clothes washed. The point is that we cannot rule out transfer with this small amount of residue.

[Cherishlove]

Ummm they did. She has an alibi

An Alibi isn't good enough, a person could hire someone to do the job, and make sure they have an alibi. Let's hope they just didn't stop at a Alibi.

[GentleBreeze]

That is the point. The standard is so low that if I accused you of raping me as a child and it sounded believable, you would be arrested, charged and would have to post bail based on the statement of a person who has never physically met you. Finding probable cause not mean the person is guilty. All of the cases the Innocence Project handles involves judges finding probable cause to indict innocence men.

Actually if you accused me of raping you when you were a child the statute of limitations would have run out.

I don't think I have to be told that probable cause doesn't mean the person is guilty but thanks anyway. lol But it does show just like others that go through our court system, probable cause is the same burden as it is in this case.

How many cases has the Innocent Project produced to be completely innocent in over 20 years compared to the average of about 2.5 million inmates that are in our penal system?

imoo

[Jacobtk]

Actually if you accused me of raping you when you were a child the statute of limitations would have long run out.

It depends on the state. Many of the priests and nuns who are in prison now assaulted their victims before I was even born.

I don't think I have to be told that probable cause doesn't mean the person is guilty but thanks anyway. lol But it does show just like others that go through our court system, probable cause is the same burden as it is in this case.

Actually, it is not. Probable cause is based only on possibility, i.e. is it possible, not matter how unlikely, that a person committed the offense he is charged with. If the judge or grand jury finds that it is possible, the person will be indicted. Guilt or innocence play no role in the process and neither does reasonable doubt.

How many cases has the Innocent Project produced to be completely innocent in over 20 years compared to the average of about 2.5 million inmates that are in our penal system?

Do you believe every person convicted of a crime is guilty? Do you believe every person who pleads guilty or takes a deal is guilty? What about cases where there is no physical evidence to demonstrate guilt or innocence? As for your request, it is unrealistic to expect an organization that has existed for two decades with a small staff to have comparable results with a system that has existed for a hundred years. You can, however, views the cases (http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/National-View.php) state by state.

[GentleBreeze]

Actually, it is not. Probable cause is based only on possibility, i.e. is it possible, not matter how unlikely, that a person committed the offense he is charged with. If the judge or grand jury finds that it is possible, the person will be indicted. Guilt or innocence play no role in the process and neither does reasonable doubt.



Do you believe every person convicted of a crime is guilty? Do you believe every person who pleads guilty or takes a deal is guilty? What about cases where there is no physical evidence to demonstrate guilt or innocence? As for your request, it is unrealistic to expect an organization that has existed for two decades with a small staff to have comparable results with a system that has existed for a hundred years. You can, however, views the cases (http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/National-View.php) state by state.


Probable cause is based on a probability not a possibility.

No, I do not. I have been on the side of the defense in other cases that have been shown on IS and discussed here.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

What exactly is the reason you have for a person being possibly innocent?

May people have mercy on you if you are ever a suspect in a case and then you land in jail because of probable cause, and you are innocent. And don't feed me any oats about it wouldn't matter to you because that's how the justice system works. It would matter to you and your family. It would place an undo hardship on you, your family, and your sanity. You would not be human if you really believe it wouldn't bother you and did not try to do something to change it. I know your opinion is that this boy in this case is guilty, but you base that on "probable cause". I pray the truth comes out. The judge may have found probable cause, but he did not find the boy guilty. The facts have not come out yet. Only bits and pieces which promotes circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it when you are messing with an 9 year olds live. But if the judge says there's probable cause, then by all means throw him in jail and wreak his life. I hope folks can sleep at night when this boy ends up worse off when he is found innocent (I don't see how they would be able to sleep). Found innocent then does harm to himself as a result of the harshness demonstrated to him.

Of course it would matter to me but it is a little hard to place myself in that type of situation when it has never risen in my entire life or with anyone that I know. My major offense was getting a traffic ticket back in the 80s.

Circumstantial evidence is legally used evidence and it doesn't exclude this boy's case if it goes to trial.

I don't think Judges become emotional charged. It isn't about sleeping at night, it is about upholding the laws of their state, their oaths and what they are sworn to carry out, no matter the age of a defendant.

If he is exonerated and that is the only way he can be proved innocent of the crime then he will be afforded the right to sue or his mother can as his custodian.

I don't base his guilt on probable cause. I base it on the tight time line.

imoo

[mrrogers]

You are joking right? They took the "Chipmunk". The murder weapon in their eyes. End of story.

It didn't matter that 2 men are dead, in two different spots, with an 11 minute timeframe, with a single bolt Chipmunk shotgun. Oh the 11 minutes included CR running to the neighbors.

the chipmonk isnt a shotgun its a single shot bolt action 22

[GentleBreeze]

I wasn't speaking about court judges. I was speaking about armchair judges.

Sure, they can sue, however, no amount of money can replace the H--- they have put this child or family through. None. You go talk to survivors of abuse and see how much money could replace their childhood. NONE. Money is not the answer to everything.

Well we sure aren't to that point yet.

There is nothing pointing to his innocence.

If the defense had such information they would be requesting their own hearing date asking to dismiss, using the exonerating evidence.

imoo

[Hawk]

Here's a photo and some comments to show how tiny (yet still very lethal) a .22 is compared to other ammo.


http://nslog.com/2004/07/15/ammunition_comparison

[Jacobtk]

Probable cause is based on a probability not a possibility.

'Possibility' is a synonym for 'probability'.

The definition or probably (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm):

A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. [...] Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

The issue is whether it is reasonable (i.e. possible based on the available information) to believe a person committed a crime. It does not mean the person committed the crime or that those accusing the person are telling the truth or that any of the evidence actually points to the person. The only issue is whether it is possible that the suspicion is warranted.

[dgfred]

:confused: I would think after the first devastating incapacitating shot the rest would be much easier.

The boy being the shooter isn't far fetched at all.

What is far fetched, claiming a real killer disguised his abilities to frame a boy.
imo


Not much needed to frame him for this LE agency. Just happen to have a 22 Rifle, kill two guys, and the 22 you see at the scene... just leave it there. LE did most of the 'framing' for the killer(s) it would seem.

[Jacobtk]

Well we sure aren't to that point yet.

There is nothing pointing to his innocence.

If the defense had such information they would be requesting their own hearing date asking to dismiss, using the exonerating evidence.

They do not have to prove the boy is innocent. The state must prove he is guilty. Getting cases dismissed based on weak or non-existent evidence is extremely difficult and rarely happens. Presuming the boy is guilty because his attorneys are not asking for the case to be dismissed is not particularly wise. Presuming that his attorneys have no evidence pointing to another suspect because they have not filed a motion to dismiss is also unwise. It is possible that the state has not turned over all the evidence yet and given that the crime scene was cleaned before being released to the boy's attorneys, the chances of them coming across anything substantively exonerating is very unlikely.

[dgfred]

Here's a photo and some comments to show how tiny (yet still very lethal) a .22 is compared to other ammo.


http://nslog.com/2004/07/15/ammunition_comparison


Thanks for the link.

[GentleBreeze]

that we know of. there is nothing pointing to his guilt by reasonable doubt either. There is sooo much reasonable doubt this board has so many posts which show reasonable doubt. What has shown his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that is the legal standard. Reasonable doubt.

It doesn't matter what theories people put out here or how often. We aren't the court that is presiding over this case nor are any of us aware of all the evidence that has been uncovered. It is obvious as we put out our theories of coulda/woulda/shoulda it is because we do not have all the information that the interested parties do.

But there is nothing so far pointing away from this boy. As I have said, IMO, the time line will be one of the best pieces of evidence the state has against the boy. All we know now is that he did have GSR on him and his fingerprints were found on the box of bullets. Those two known things do not exonerate him or create reasonable doubt.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

Here's a photo and some comments to show how tiny (yet still very lethal) a .22 is compared to other ammo.


http://nslog.com/2004/07/15/ammunition_comparison

.22 is the preferred ammunition for actual hitmen. The little stingers are rather quiet, and they usually lack the power to penetrate more than one bone. This simply means that after breaking through one side of the skull, the bullets will ricochet around inside of the skull, making mincemeat of the grey matter inside.
-----------------

Yeah, CR knew this. ROFLMAO!

[GentleBreeze]

They do not have to prove the boy is innocent. The state must prove he is guilty. Getting cases dismissed based on weak or non-existent evidence is extremely difficult and rarely happens. Presuming the boy is guilty because his attorneys are not asking for the case to be dismissed is not particularly wise. Presuming that his attorneys have no evidence pointing to another suspect because they have not filed a motion to dismiss is also unwise. It is possible that the state has not turned over all the evidence yet and given that the crime scene was cleaned before being released to the boy's attorneys, the chances of them coming across anything substantively exonerating is very unlikely.


I know of no defense team that is allowed in until LE releases the home. What date did he request this and did he expect Tiffany should wait to clean up the blood in her own home?

Oh yeah, it would be extremely wise if his attorneys have uncovered exonerating evidence. They would be hailed as heroes.

And I wasn't talking about in criminal court. If he is found to be innocent and yes, he will have to prove that, then he can civilly sue for damages.

imo

[Hawk]

.22 is the preferred ammunition for actual hitmen. The little stingers are rather quiet, and they usually lack the power to penetrate more than one bone. This simply means that after breaking through one side of the skull, the bullets will ricochet around inside of the skull, making mincemeat of the grey matter inside.
-----------------

Yeah, CR knew this. ROFLMAO!

Yes, and if the bullets were used in a pistol, like a Ruger .22 Suppressor for instance, no one closer than about 20' would have heard the discharge (depends on the environment of course, could be much less).

[GentleBreeze]

'Possibility' is a synonym for 'probability'.

The definition or probably (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm):

A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. [...] Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

The issue is whether it is reasonable (i.e. possible based on the available information) to believe a person committed a crime. It does not mean the person committed the crime or that those accusing the person are telling the truth or that any of the evidence actually points to the person. The only issue is whether it is possible that the suspicion is warranted.

Most things are possible. IMO probable means more likely than not.

imoo

[freddief]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.

[Jacobtk]

I know of no defense team that is allowed in until LE releases the home. What date did he request this and did he expect Tiffany should wait to clean up the blood in her own home?

Apparently the house was released to her within a few days. However, my point is that it is very rare for the defense to go to a crime scene and find evidence left there by the police. So in order for the defense to have exonerating evidence they either a) got it from the state or b) got from someone who actually committed the crime or participated in hiding evidence. Since neither are likely, it is not realistic to expect the defense to suddenly happen upon such evidence. At best they may have circumstantial evidence pointing to someone else. Even if it is rather convincing, that would not mean the boy's case would be dismissed because such evidence is a matter for a jury/ bench trial judge to decide. The case would continue and the defense would have to present their position in court.

And I wasn't talking about in criminal court. If he is found to be innocent and yes, he will have to prove that, then he can civilly sue for damages.

In a civil court, he would not have to prove his innocent. He would have to show that the prosecutors and the police violated his rights. Based on the available information, that would be rather easy to do.

[Hawk]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.

Meaningless to you perhaps. The rest of us enjoy the discussion.
Look how they're going at it today!
Free speech is alive and well in the good ole USA!
Ain't it great?

[Cherishlove]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.I heard he was a nice child, no prior problems at all and a rather quite child - no problems at school, no sure where you got the bully part? I hope and pray he is released to his Mother very soon.

[Hawk]

He was somewhat of a bully at school
This is in total contrast to what everyone said about him at the school. Absolutely no problems at all. The kind of kid you want your kids to be around. A sweet little kid who you just want to hug. None of those quotes indicate he was a bully

Kinda small for a bully, ain't he?

[JusticeDawg©]

He was somewhat of a bully at school
This is in total contrast to what everyone said about him at the school. Absolutely no problems at all. The kind of kid you want your kids to be around. A sweet little kid who you just want to hug. None of those quotes indicate he was a bully

The smallest bully in his class. :tongueside:

[FDInLaw]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.How do we know this?


Welcome to the board! *wave*

[JusticeDawg©]

"What was Tiff buying at the grocery store?
I thought I read a post that the first time she was buying donuts for work the next day. Is this correct/fact?
If so, why would she be buying donuts in the p.m. of one day for the a.m. the next day to take to work? Isn't the whole reason of taking donuts to work is to impress the co-workers & boss? and to just make a good gesture? Who buys donuts in the p.m. to take to work the next day when they know they are going to be stale by the next day?
Also, didn't she work at a physical therapist office? My PT hates it when the co-workers bring in junk food because they are all exercise junkies and they talk about how many workout exercises they'll have to do."

You guys don't think very well. Wilburs, the only store in town, doesn't open until 8am. Physical therapy opens at 8am so you would have to be at work at about 7:45am. So Wilbur's wouldnt be open. This is a small town guys. The donuts wouldn't be for the employees since she is usually the only one there that early, and later comes the doctor. The clients are mostly old people. She would have spent the money for the donuts out of her own pocket to help old people out. She is a good person that helps out old people out of the kindness of her heart, not some demon. This isn't a exercise place but a place to help an old lady with a back problem, or an old man who had a kee injury rehabilitate. Think people.

Besides, didn't some family member post that the boy privately admitted to family members that he did it?

Your first post asks if he admitted it to family.
Your second post "states" he did.

It's about credibility around here.:patriot:

[Hawk]

freddief,

If you have information about the boy, please share it. It would be very much appreciated.

[GentleBreeze]

In a civil court, he would not have to prove his innocent. He would have to show that the prosecutors and the police violated his rights. Based on the available information, that would be rather easy to do.

I disagree. He would have to prove he was wrongly arrested and charged with these two murders.

imoo

[dgfred]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.

Moot..... uh no. Even if they don't have a trial for him, this will follow him the rest of his life. If he didn't do it, there are some dangerous person(s) roaming about that area that just might try something again in a similar manner. If that is not the gun... still got work to do.
Even if he was a tuff at school, a bully does not a murderer make. Why
even bother to post here, if it is all that meaningless???

[FDInLaw]

Armchair judges are just that, they have no effect on the outcome of this case or any other. Really? Oh ye of little faith. :biggrin:

[muska]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballastics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.

From what we've seen, I think they'd be perfectly happy to try a 9 year old and Mr. Carlyon would also likely be happy to try him again when he's about 15.

There have been no public comments suggesting the child was a bully. Actually, the neighbor, friends, and Sunday school teacher all said what a nice kid he was. Even Mr. Carlyon aknowledged there had been NO complaints about the child's behavior.

[Jacobtk]

Most things are possible. IMO probable means more likely than not.

So in the cases in which a person is acquitted or the charges are dropped because someone else confesses or the case is dismissed due to insufficient evidence, would that mean those demonstrably innocent people more likely than not committed the crimes they were accused of?

[muska]

Your first post asks if he admitted it to family.
Your second post "states" he did.

It's about credibility around here.:patriot:

You are too fast!!!

[GentleBreeze]

Firstly with the election there is a new County Attorney...so I see no vendetta by the prosecution.

Secondly all the ballistics and speculation, and crime scene info is all interesting, but it doesn't really matter whether they can prove or disprove the case because ultimately they are NOT going to try a nine year old.

Thirdly the boy admitted both publicly and privately that he did it. He was at the scene of the crime. He had motive in that he was mad at his dad. He was somewhat of a bully at school. He has a 22 that his father gave him, and if that's what killed the men than these arguments are all moot.

All these posts are interesting but meaningless, as the boy will be released and he and his mom will move to Mississippi.

So he will just be released with no therapy and just go on like nothing ever happened?

I sure hope you are wrong but I am afraid that you might be right.

I haven't heard one person from St. John speak up in support of this boy since he has been in juvie. What do they think about him just going scott free?

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

You are too fast!!!

Tricks of the trade my dear. :biggrin:

[dgfred]

Okay, I must be invisible or on everyone's iggy. (whistling) Okey dokey then. Anyone here who would be kind enough to send me a pm. let me know how we are progressing in this case and how little C is. I still care.

Iggy? No way Jan.

I believe the next big day is the 29th! We just debating over old details mostly.

[GentleBreeze]

So in the cases in which a person is acquitted or the charges are dropped because someone else confesses or the case is dismissed due to insufficient evidence, would that mean those demonstrably innocent people more likely than not committed the crimes they were accused of?

Not necessarily. OJ was found Not Guilty. Mel Ignato was found Not Guilty, yet after the trial they found a tape showing MI torturing and killing his girlfriend.

imo

[dgfred]

Something about the 'alibi' for Tiffany doesn't sit right with me but I can't quite figure it out??? :confused: Timing just seems suspect.

[Jacobtk]

I disagree. He would have to prove he was wrongly arrested and charged with these two murders.

It would depend on the complaint filed in the suit. If he complains that he was wrongfully arrested and prosecuted, the standard is whether his complaint is believable based on the preponderance of the evidence (http://www.scselfservice.org/civ/general/dayincourt.htm#evidence). He would not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why OJ was acquitted in criminal court, but held liable in civil court. The standards are different. In the boy's case, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that his rights were violated and that he is believably innocent and therefore wrongfully accused.

[JusticeDawg©]

Something about the 'alibi' for Tiffany doesn't sit right with me but I can't quite figure it out??? :confused: Timing just seems suspect.

You are now a member of our team then. :thumbsup:

[Hawk]

Okay, I must be invisible or on everyone's iggy. (whistling) Okey dokey then. Anyone here who would be kind enough to send me a pm. let me know how we are progressing in this case and how little C is. I still care.

The hearing on Thursday will include addressing the state's motion to dismiss count #1.
The 6 Feb hearing is about the defendant's competency to stand trial.

It's mostly just good healthy arguing right now!

[JusticeDawg©]

Not necessarily. OJ was found Not Guilty. Mel Ignato was found Not Guilty, yet after the trial they found a tape showing MI torturing and killing his girlfriend.

imo

I have no reason to believe OJ's jury was wrong.

[GentleBreeze]

Something about the 'alibi' for Tiffany doesn't sit right with me but I can't quite figure it out??? :confused: Timing just seems suspect.

What is suspicious about a wife/mother or co worker going to get donuts for the next day, buying groceries and buying her husband coveralls.:confused:

[JusticeDawg©]

Okay, I must be invisible or on everyone's iggy. (whistling) Okey dokey then. Anyone here who would be kind enough to send me a pm. let me know how we are progressing in this case and how little C is. I still care.

Where have you been?
And why aren't you hangin' with us?

[Cherishlove]

So he will just be released with no therapy and just go on like nothing ever happened?

I sure hope you are wrong but I am afraid that you might be right.

I haven't heard one person from St. John speak up in support of this boy since he has been in juvie. What do they think about him just going scott free?

imoo
I hope his Mother takes him far away from St. Johns, AZ and I would hope and assume she would get him Intense Therapy and all the Love and Support he will need.

[JusticeDawg©]

What is suspicious about a wife/mother or co worker going to get donuts for the next day, buying groceries and buying her husband coveralls.:confused:

Maybe she should have been home cleaning and taking care of te boy like a MOTHER should..

[GentleBreeze]

I have no reason to believe OJ's jury was wrong.


:lol::lol:

[Hawk]

I have no reason to believe OJ's jury was wrong.

You're joking, right???

[Jacobtk]

Really? I would think if the boys gun wasn't the murder weapon and the casings have someone else's fingerprints all over them, it would be rather obvious.

How would the boy's attorneys get that information? The state has all the evidence and it has not turned it over. The defense has only what is stated in the reports handed to them (assuming they got them all). Carlyon could and likely would withhold anything inconclusive or pointing away from the boy (he can do this legally by redacting certain information from the reports he gives to the defense).

[JusticeDawg©]

You're joking, right???

Can't figure out why RG was jumped as Nicole was opening the gate to get the sunglasses from him that her mother forgot when she had dinner with her.

[JusticeDawg©]

My goodness. I thought I was the only person in the country that thought that. I watched that trial from beginning to end and that's how I came up with the same conclusion as the jury.:thumbsup:

RG was the sunglass delivery boy that worked at the restaurant. No way anyone knew he was coming. :thumbsup:

[dgfred]

What is suspicious about a wife/mother or co worker going to get donuts for the next day, buying groceries and buying her husband coveralls.:confused:

Well in my area NOBODY buys donuts for the NEXT day... the good thing about donuts usually is that they are fresh donuts.
What groceries? I heard something about spagetti. What better alibi
than buying something for your soon-to-be-dead husband... that you love so dearly? See what I'm getting at?

[Jacobtk]

Case being dropped due to insufficient evidence does not mean a person is innocent. Just as a person being found "not guilty" does not mean the person is innocent.

Likewise, a case going forward with only circumstantial evidence does not mean a person is guilty. Just as a person being found "guilty" does not mean the person is guilty. That is the inherent flaw in our system. It is not based on fact, but assumption. The attempt to defend against the innocent being imprisoned is reasonable doubt. However, as we have seen on this board, people will set it aside quite quickly. And while you may be correct that this is not a jury box, we are all potential jurors and there is no reason to assume any of us would behave any differently when called to court.

[dgfred]

RG was the sunglass delivery boy that worked at the restaurant. No way anyone knew he was coming. :thumbsup:

RG was a surprise for OJ, he probably thought Nicole would be alone.
Recent rumor has it that OJ has said 'it wouldn't have happened but Nicole came at me with a knife'. I'd guess he had to kill RG once he saw
or heard what happened to Nicole.

You are my pal J D... but I can't agree with you on the OJ stuff. Maybe
we should discuss this in that thread, but then again I am no longer really interested in that case.

[Hawk]

Can't figure out why RG was jumped as Nicole was opening the gate to get the sunglasses from him that her mother forgot when she had dinner with her.

Now we know that there's 13 people in America that believe OJ's innocent of chopping two heads off!

[GentleBreeze]

Well in my area NOBODY buys donuts for the NEXT day... the good thing about donuts usually is that they are fresh donuts.
What groceries? I heard something about spagetti. What better alibi
than buying something for your soon-to-be-dead husband... that you love so dearly? See what I'm getting at?


From what another poster said the place that she works opens at 8 am and she has to be there by 7:45am. I don't see anything odd about getting the donuts. I think that may be the only store in that town and may not even open up until 8 am or later after she is already at work.

Well if something happens to my hubby, I guess I will look suspicious too because I buy all of his clothes, no matter if they are his dress clothes for work or for home chores or hunting or golf clothing. :smile:

imoo

[dgfred]

From what another poster said the place that she works opens at 8 am and she has to be there by 7:45am. I don't see anything odd about getting the donuts. I think that may be the only store in that town and may not even open up until 8 am or later after she is already at work.

Well if something happens to my hubby, I guess I will look suspicious too because I buy all of his clothes, no matter if they are his dress clothes for work or for home chores or hunting or golf clothing. :smile:

imoo

I would think if it was that important for her, she could leave work for a few minutes to get some 'fresh' donuts. Have you ever bought donuts for the NEXT day? I haven't, and nobody I know has either. If you are out buying him clothes and he is shot by an unknown intruder, you might look pretty suspicious too, so don't do that. :biggrin:

[Jacobtk]

It would be part of discovery and legally it would have to be handed over.

I think the defense HAS the reports.

Brewer and Woods might have all the reports and they might not. As per the evidence being part of the discovery, the legal mandate has not stopped Carlyon from stalling in handing over reports he intends to use, so he could be withholding evidence. Legality seems to be less of an issue with this case. It is a legal mandate to read someone his rights, but that was not done. It is a legal mandate to notify a person's attorney before attempting to have that person speak with a CPS worker, but that was not done either.

[GentleBreeze]

I would think if it was that important for her, she could leave work for a few minutes to get some 'fresh' donuts. Have you ever bought donuts for the NEXT day? I haven't, and nobody I know has either. If you are out buying him clothes and he is shot by an unknown intruder, you might look pretty suspicious too, so don't do that. :biggrin:

What if she is the only one there in the morning? The doctors may come in later.

LOL I'll keep that in mind.... however I have a long pattern of doing so.....so I will probably be okay.:wink:

imoo

[mrrogers]

If this guy isn't interested in the attention he's getting from this once in a lifetime case, why isn't he at his new job, working for the people who elected him and who are now paying his salary?
I don't understand how he's legally allowed to do this.
Just asking.

http://brad4countyattorney.com/

hes not being paid by apache co he being paid at his county atty rate from navao county where hes county atty

[mrrogers]

Posters have been saying huge amounts come out.

We have been debating all morning about 100s of thousands of gunshot particles would be found. So if that is true, then surely right around the victim, which usually has the most gunshot residue found on them since they were the one fired at, it seems very logical if he was in that location for any given length of time the backside of his clothing would be saturated with it.

the gsr is blown out of the gun when shot thered be less gsr on the victim

[muska]

I was succesful because I gave birth to two wonderful daughters. I was able to help people as the minister's wife. My joy was not my ex's to take. That's how I was sucessful. It was not wasted!

Not worth worrying about what offensive posters have to say. Just push ignore.....that battle isn't worth fighting.

[mrrogers]

The point is, the GSR didn't rule the boy out.

It's another piece of circumstantial evidence that points to the boy as the shooter.

imo

cr has been proven innocent if it ever goes to trial you ll hear how
according to a source speaking on the basis of anynomity

[mrrogers]

oh yeah...those anonymous sources are always so credible:rolleyes:

well this one is so im not really worried all i can say is wait and see
plus the phoenix atty has said that there is evidence to prove the boys
innocense so whatever . u can roll your eyes till the cows come home
doesnt bother me a bit !
the only reason i got the info is i promised not tell anyone who said it
so like i said wait and see. definetly keep those eyes rolling till then maybe youll go cross eyes who knows.
all the stuff youve been talking about doesnt amount to a hill of beans
they have no solid evidence to convict the boy on
rodriques lied in the the trail to decide whether there was enough
evidence to have probable kause. hes lied to bb so what can you
say
why do think they offered a plea deal so fast. they dont just handem
out to everyone they prosecute. they know they cant prove him guilty
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT if it goes to trial. the judge caught debbie neckle in a lie on the witness stand at the probable cause hearing
the question is : who if anyone told the truth at the probable cause hearing.
they stopped the investigation after avila and neckles got a cooerced confession that was thrown out now tell me what evidence do they have to show him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt :w00t:

[TaraCrazyHair]

I would think if it was that important for her, she could leave work for a few minutes to get some 'fresh' donuts. Have you ever bought donuts for the NEXT day? I haven't, and nobody I know has either. If you are out buying him clothes and he is shot by an unknown intruder, you might look pretty suspicious too, so don't do that. :biggrin:

If I want fresh donuts .. I head to Tim Horton's

But if I just want donuts for the week .. I head to the Krispy Kremes at Kroger

(:

So I think the donut thing is kind of moot

As for the NAPA trip .. I am curious if that was preplanned or spur of the moment

[JusticeDawg©]

well this one is so im not really worried all i can say is wait and see
plus the phoenix atty has said that there is evidence to prove the boys
innocense so whatever . u can roll your eyes till the cows come home
doesnt bother me a bit !
the only reason i got the info is i promised not tell anyone who said it
so like i said wait and see. definetly keep those eyes rolling till then maybe youll go cross eyes who knows.
all the stuff youve been talking about doesnt amount to a hill of beans
they have no solid evidence to convict the boy on
rodriques lied in the the trail to decide whether there was enough
evidence to have probable kause. hes lied to bb so what can you
say
why do think they offered a plea deal so fast. they dont just handem
out to everyone they prosecute. they know they cant prove him guilty
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT if it goes to trial. the judge caught debbie neckle in a lie on the witness stand at the probable cause hearing
the question is : who if anyone told the truth at the probable cause hearing.
they stopped the investigation after avila and neckles got a cooerced confession that was thrown out now tell me what evidence do they have to show him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt :w00t:

I feel an arrest will be made. They know who.

[TaraCrazyHair]

Hey, friend! The reason is two-fold: One, it's too heartwrenching on this board. I go to bed in tears every night thinking about this little boy. and B, I have been on the Caylee board where every day is a daytime soap episode. There are more twists and turns in that case than there are on Space Mountain. So I am still interested with what's going on. I read somewhere that there is some negative information being tossed around the internet about the boys natural mother and also about the step-mother whooping it up only a week or so after she buries her husband. What's up with that! And the boy is still sitting in jail alone. I hope they are treating him with TLC and remembering that he is just a heartbeat away from being just a baby. Danielle Van Dam was around his age when her tragedy struck and nobody said she was "old enough to deal with it." She was "just a baby". Why are they treating this boy any differently. I don't get it.


Because eight year olds are babies when they are the victim and old enough to know better when they are the perps?

(shrug)

To me, eight is eight no matter what the status

Mere children ..

[TaraCrazyHair]

cr has been proven innocent if it ever goes to trial you ll hear how
according to a source speaking on the basis of anynomity

If he has been proven innocent .. there should be no need for a trial?

[TaraCrazyHair]

I feel an arrest will be made. They know who.


One arrest or more than one?

[JusticeDawg©]

If I want fresh donuts .. I head to Tim Horton's

But if I just want donuts for the week .. I head to the Krispy Kremes at Kroger

(:

So I think the donut thing is kind of moot

As for the NAPA trip .. I am curious if that was preplanned or spur of the moment

Why did she go back and get spaghetti?

[JusticeDawg©]

One arrest or more than one?

Don't know yet.

Ballistics and fingerprints don't lie.

[JusticeDawg©]

cr has been proven innocent if it ever goes to trial you ll hear how
according to a source speaking on the basis of anynomity

Bump.

Ditto. Gag and all that Cr@p!

[JusticeDawg©]

for dinner iirc.

LOL, I didn't know if Tara knew Tiffany went to the same store twice, but was only on video once.

[TaraCrazyHair]

LOL, I didn't know if Tara knew Tiffany went to the same store twice, but was only on video once.

How come only on video once?

Did she have a receipt for the spaghetti?


As for the same store twice .. I actually just did that today so i cant say it is unusual?

Bought Risotto and shrimp, got home and seen I forgot to buy broth so back in the snow I trudge 6 miles to the store for the broth

(Hopefully I am on video in case there is a need! But I do have my receipt)

(:

[TaraCrazyHair]

Don't know yet.

Ballistics and fingerprints don't lie.

Prints on the gun(s)?

Or the shell casings?

Did the evidence come back today?

Sure hope so!!

[TaraCrazyHair]

Really. I heard about her being on video for donuts but not for the spaghetti. Nickel said Tiffany had the reciept for the spaghetti. I wonder if that was someone elses reciept she had since she wasn't on the video?


Hmmmmmm...

and what was the time on the receipt?

[TaraCrazyHair]

Can't even tell you how many times I've done that. lol:tongueside: I often run to the store to pick up ONE item....buy 20 and discover when I get home I forgot to get what I went for.:blushing:


You must have my sometimers disease

heard it is contagious for people over 25 lol

[freddief]

Justice Dawg has all the evidence to prove the Earth is flat.....This boy is GUILTY. Lets blame the police chief, Judge Roca...and ehile we're at it let's blame the dead people, after all they were the last people at the crime scene.

[JusticeDawg©]

Justice Dawg has all the evidence to prove the Earth is flat.....This boy is GUILTY. Lets blame the police chief, Judge Roca...and ehile we're at it let's blame the dead people, after all they were the last people at the crime scene.

Prove me wrong.

[JusticeDawg©]

Hmmmmmm...

and what was the time on the receipt?

The timestamp was IIRC 20-25 minutes later...

[TaraCrazyHair]

Justice Dawg has all the evidence to prove the Earth is flat.....This boy is GUILTY. Lets blame the police chief, Judge Roca...and ehile we're at it let's blame the dead people, after all they were the last people at the crime scene.

What makes him guilty?

The confession that was tossed out because LE violated all laws granted to citizens?

So far, that was all they had

:confused:

[TaraCrazyHair]

The timestamp was IIRC 20-25 minutes later...


Was anyone she knew seen on the video tape by chance?

[JusticeDawg©]

Was anyone she knew seen on the video tape by chance?

I don't know. I hope the defense looked.

[freddief]

The prosecution hasn't presented their case yet...bu the judge believed there was enough of a case to hold him over...and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence...besides you haven't proved anything either.

[JusticeDawg©]

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%209TH%20SUPPLEMENTAL%20DISCLOSURE.pdf

New filing anyone have any idea what the deal is with the myspace.com evidence...weird

myspace.com evidence Not weird:

Candy
Cody

[muska]

The prosecution hasn't presented their case yet...bu the judge believed there was enough of a case to hold him over...and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence...besides you haven't proved anything either.

If nothing has been proven either way, why not give a little kid the benefit of the doubt? Why not look for reasons to find him innocent? Why are you so sure he's guilty?

[TaraCrazyHair]

The prosecution hasn't presented their case yet...bu the judge believed there was enough of a case to hold him over...and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence...besides you haven't proved anything either.


At the time, his confession would have been enough

[GentleBreeze]

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%209TH%20SUPPLEMENTAL%20DISCLOSURE.pdf

New filing anyone have any idea what the deal is with the myspace.com evidence...weird

WOW! Almost 400 pages from the DPS Investigation.

imoo

[muska]

The prosecution hasn't presented their case yet...bu the judge believed there was enough of a case to hold him over...and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence...besides you haven't proved anything either.

Would you want to be convicted on what is thus far pretty weak circumstantial evidence? This kid is in third grade. Would you really want a third grader convicted if there was any doubt?

[JusticeDawg©]

Was it that time that Kirk and some other paramedic were out in the parking lot talking to her? or did they talk to her earlier. Paramedics were called while she was talking to them, but for some strange reason she went to NAPA. I still can't believe she didn't hear her address. Those things (dispatch radios) are loud.

You and I have been spouting that to deaf ears huh? :angry:

[JusticeDawg©]

WOW! Almost 400 pages from the DPS Investigation.

imoo

If it was so cut and dry pointing to CR, it would have been 5 pages, tops.

moo

[TaraCrazyHair]

Was it that time that Kirk and some other paramedic were out in the parking lot talking to her? or did they talk to her earlier. Paramedics were called while she was talking to them, but for some strange reason she went to NAPA. I still can't believe she didn't hear her address. Those things (dispatch radios) are loud.

Wait

I am not sure i understand

She was talking to paramedics but went into NAPA?

[JusticeDawg©]

Wait

I am not sure i understand

She was talking to paramedics but went into NAPA?

She sure did. :thumbdown:

[freddief]

Finally, the prosecution is presenting some evidence.

[muska]

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%209TH%20SUPPLEMENTAL%20DISCLOSURE.pdf

New filing anyone have any idea what the deal is with the myspace.com evidence...weird

Any idea when it will be posted to read?

[Hawk]

937 pages? Perhaps LE's investigation has been greatly underestimated!

[GentleBreeze]

If it was so cut and dry pointing to CR, it would have been 5 pages, tops.

moo

No it wouldn't, it would be very detailed. We see how thick the files are when these kind of witnesses testifies. Their notebooks are like thick books.

And isn't it strange that they turned over a CD from myspace and in the same disclosure they turned over an interview done with Eyrn.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

Finally, the prosecution is presenting some evidence.

Yep, I think it is heating up now.

imoo

[TaraCrazyHair]

She sure did. :thumbdown:

Hold on!!!

She learned her husband was shot but had to go to the store and nobody found that suspicious??

Are you kidding me?!

She can be in shock and act weird but an eight year old can't?

[GentleBreeze]

Hold on!!!

She learned her husband was shot but had to go to the store and nobody found that suspicious??

Are you kidding me?!

She can be in shock and act weird but an eight year old can't?

There is no evidence anywhere, Tara, that she knew where the paramedics were going when they left.

She found out about it when the boy called her on a cell phone from the scene.

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

Anyone know who Jaylyn Romero is?

VR's daughter isn't ist?

[GentleBreeze]

who is carol alder and Jaylyn Romero?

I don't know. Maybe new witnesses or two more they interviewed?

imoo

[JusticeDawg©]

They didn't tell her, they got the call to go to her home. I just can't believe she didn't hear it.

I can't wait to see their statements.

[GentleBreeze]

why would the DA wait until the end of the day 2 days before the hearing to dismiss count #1 to disclose so much? kinda an unfair advantage, doesn't really give the defense much time to prepare, eh?

Prepare for what? What does this have to do with dismissing count one?

imoo

[Hawk]

Anyone know who Jaylyn Romero is?

He is survived by his wife, Tiffany Romero of St. Johns; son Christian Romero of St. Johns; daughter Faith Chavez Romero of Tucson; father LeRoy Romero of St. Johns; mother Liz Castillo of St. Johns; sisters, Franchesca Romero and (Ryon Scarbrough) of St. Johns; Michelle and (Alex) Schaper of Panama; niece and nephew Nathalia and Jacob Scarbrough of St. Johns; and many other family members.


No mention of Jaylyn. Maybe a cousin sister?

[GentleBreeze]

Like should wouldn't recognize her own address or at least the neighborhood. I know when I hear a siren in my neighborhood I always wonder if it one of my driving kids...heck even at the intersections near my house I look to make sure it is not one of them.

Why would she suspect anything was wrong with Vinnie. She had just talked to him and he was fine then, heading home just like any other day and she sure wouldn't think there had been a murder imo. They haven't had a murder there in years.

imoo

[TaraCrazyHair]

There is no evidence anywhere, Tara, that she knew where the paramedics were going when they left.

She found out about it when the boy called her on a cell phone from the scene.

imoo

Are there transcripts and times?

[Hawk]

I'm pretty sure Carol Alder was the CPS worker that interviewed the boy in detention but I could be wrong.

I think she's Mr. Romans mother. Officer Jones spelled her name Alden in his report.

[JusticeDawg©]

Yep, I think it is heating up now.

imoo

yep

http://www.myspace.com/oneshotcody

[JusticeDawg©]

I think she's Mr. Romans mother.

Correct.:thumbsup:

[TaraCrazyHair]

Like should wouldn't recognize her own address or at least the neighborhood. I know when I hear a siren in my neighborhood I always wonder if it one of my driving kids...heck even at the intersections near my house I look to make sure it is not one of them.

Small town right?

No way somebody say ... hey isnt that your address?


Or close to it?

We hear that here all the time

I live in a small town where everyone knows when you go to bed and wake up

Nosey yes, but in time of crime ... i am glad they are there

[JusticeDawg©]

Small town right?

No way somebody say ... hey isnt that your address?


Or close to it?

We hear that here all the time

I live in a small town where everyone knows when you go to bed and wake up

Nosey yes, but in time of crime ... i am glad they are there

Exactly! :wink:

[JusticeDawg©]

Maybe not. It was how many pages that were the transcript of the boys "confession".

Could those 937 pages also point to someone else. Could these be what mrrogers eluded to earlier?

Could be. :wink:

[JusticeDawg©]

everything is relevant. the DA wants to dismiss so they can refile. The defense would be deraleck in their duties if they did not prepare for what the DA may present.

Refile as an accomplice maybe?

[Hawk]

Maybe not. It was how many pages that were the transcript of the boys "confession".

Could those 937 pages also point to someone else. Could these be what mrrogers eluded to earlier?

It could do a lot if things. But there is 937 pages worth. Someone has been busier than they've been credited with.
That's a lot of information, even though much of it is redundant.

[muska]

Refile as an accomplice maybe?

What does that mean? Who would be the accomplice?

[JusticeDawg©]

It could do a lot if things. But there is 937 pages worth. Someone has been busier than they've been credited with.
That's a lot of information, even though much of it is redundant.

Where are you getting 937 pages today?

[JusticeDawg©]

What does that mean? Who would be the accomplice?

refile saying CR was an accomplice.

[muska]

refile saying CR was an accomplice.

If they should ever actually charge an adult, I would hope and pray that they would not continue after the child as well.

[bkwits]

Now we know that there's 13 people in America that believe OJ's innocent of chopping two heads off!

I understand that some of the jury has since changed their minds, as well as everyone that I know personally who once believed he was NG.

[muska]

It could do a lot if things. But there is 937 pages worth. Someone has been busier than they've been credited with.
That's a lot of information, even though much of it is redundant.

Any idea when we might see any of it?

[JusticeDawg©]

If they should ever actually charge an adult, I would hope and pray that they would not continue after the child as well.

DA's don't like to be wrong.

[Hawk]

Where are you getting 937 pages today?

I ain't smart as you, but I can read.