Guilty of Negligent Homicide [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 08:22 PM

Not sure if everyone has quit discussing the case .. but I was sick yesterday and never had the chance to hear opinions here

How does everyone feel about the fact under Arizona law, a nine year decides his own legal fate and his mother really has no say so in the matter?

Do you think the child understood the proceedings yesterday and the possible ramifications?

Curious

I did think he understood it and Judge Roca did too.

Roca also felt that he understood his charges and his rights when he addressed him in the probable cause hearing.

IMO, the boy knows he is guilty of this and he did not want to face a trial where there was a possibility that he could be sent to prison when he was an adult for murdering his father.

The boy's own attorney, who has been with him since the beginning, thought this boy did understand the conditions of the guilty plea deal.

imoo

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:29 PM

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:33 PM

No, I don't think that he understand all, I think, they coerced a lie from him in both way's if he do it or not, all what they want was a lie, so he lied. I don't know if they told him that he probably must go back in juvi or in some kind of closed facility without his mom, I know he would stand with his mom, that's why he change the plea. All IMO

His attorney said he understood it. It doesn't make sense that an attorney would tell his client to lie to me. I think this was the best deal he could get. I don't think he wanted to be tried as an adult. From what I understand of the plea, if he does anything wrong they can bring the charges back on the 2nd charge, and then he would also have a prior.

My opinion

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:38 PM

I am not 100% certain he technically understood .. after all, that would be difficult enough for an adult to decide

I think he understood it meant "no juvie" which seems to really scare him and that he could go home with his Mother .. and that was basically all he wanted to hear

I just cannot believe that is how the juvenile system works in Arizona. The child makes his/her own legal decisions and the parents do not.

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:40 PM

His attorney said he understood it. It doesn't make sense that an attorney would tell his client to lie to me. I think this was the best deal he could get. I don't think he wanted to be tried as an adult. From what I understand of the plea, if he does anything wrong they can bring the charges back on the 2nd charge, and then he would also have a prior.

My opinion

I agree the DA did give him a good deal .. great deal actually short of the innocent factor.

I do not think the murder charges never come back once he is disposed

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:42 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:45 PM

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty certain the parent makes the choice.

Not in Arizona

His mother is on record for disagreeing but the Judge took the child's change of plea because that is their law

My above most is supposed to read the murder charges do not ever come back once he is disposed

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:49 PM

Not in Arizona

His mother is on record for disagreeing but the Judge took the child's change of plea because that is their law

My above most is supposed to read the murder charges do not ever come back once he is disposed

Other than her mother saying it, do you know where it is written so I read it myself? I still do not believe that is true.

My opinion

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:52 PM

Other than her mother saying it, do you know where it is written so I read it myself? I still do not believe that is true.

My opinion

It is in every news story on the subject matter

?

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:53 PM

It is in every news story on the subject matter

?

Other than the mother saying it can you direct me to any legal source which can confirm if this is true or not? Even though the mother said it, I do not believe it is correct.

tricwebs

02-20-2009, 08:56 PM

I still say there may be a matter for the courts of appeal to resolve if the mother choses to go that route. How can the 9 year old be competent enough to enter into a plea agreement when the very issue of his competency to stand trial was not officially determined?

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:57 PM

Other than the mother saying it can you direct me to any legal source which can confirm if this is true or not? Even though the mother said it, I do not believe it is correct.

Not sure what your asking for?

The news has her lawyer stating her objection in Court (Steve Williams), every media outlet in the Court reported her objection

Here is the child's lawyer talking about the case and he mentions it as well

http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=19706@knxv.dayport.com

A child being prosecuted in Arizona makes their own legal decisions

hooked2

02-20-2009, 08:58 PM

I think that what we have to remember is that this child was 8, now 9. So there's 'understand' and there's understand.

Does this 9 year old boy fully understand the ramifications of a trial vs. a plea? Does he fully understand this plea agreement? I certainly don't think so. He understands all of this only as much as a 9 year old can. If he committed this crime, he did it within the framework of an 8 year old taking such action. It can in no way be compared to an adult taking the same actions.

But isn't that kind of the way it is with any juvenile case? Hmmm, maybe, but this one is particularly young so it's further convoluted. His understanding, at best, is worlds away from our own understanding of all of this. He simply doesn't have the mental or emotional development to really 'get it.' Just as he didn't have the development or coping skills at age 8 which, unfortunately and apparently, lead him to shoot his father and Tim.

curtis

02-20-2009, 08:58 PM

It is in every news story on the subject matter

?

This source says a parent has legal authority to make any legal decision for a child, unless you have a better source.

http://www.legalexplorer.com/resources/database

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 08:59 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:04 PM

This source says a parent has legal authority to make any legal decision for a child, unless you have a better source.

http://www.legalexplorer.com/resources/database

Not in Arizona!

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:07 PM

curtis

02-20-2009, 09:08 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:09 PM

:blushing:

Sorry curtis ..

This link

http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=19706@knxv.dayport.com

(tail end of the flu -- still fuzzy)

curtis

02-20-2009, 09:09 PM

Curtis ..

This link has the mother's lawyer stating her unhappiness with her child's decision to take the plea

This lawyer was the one to put her objection to his accepting the plea on the record in Court yesterday

After listening to it, my take on that was she was saying she believed him to be incompetent. JMO

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:12 PM

I think that by not completely understanding, that also works to the child's benefit so he is not tried as an adult. It seems the court and prosection attorney took that greatly into account.

My Opinion

The plea took him being tried as an adult now or in the future off the table for good

What he did lose was his chance to prove his innocence and I think that is what is upsetting his mother

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:14 PM

After listening to it, my take on that was she was saying she believed him to be incompetent. JMO

Basically, yes

He was far too young to understand what he agreed to

But the Judge felt otherwise, took the plea from the child and the rest is history

hooked2

02-20-2009, 09:17 PM

Other than her mother saying it, do you know where it is written so I read it myself? I still do not believe that is true.

My opinion

I read the same thing... she didn't want the plea. It wasn't on the board, I believe I saw it on arizona news online. I can't remember which though.

curtis

02-20-2009, 09:18 PM

hooked2

02-20-2009, 09:21 PM

After listening to it, my take on that was she was saying she believed him to be incompetent. JMO
Yep. Essentially, he is. It's a catch 22 when dealing with this case, isn't it?

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:23 PM

That makes no sense to me, if he is innocent he should plea not guilty.

IMO

Things are just not that easy

If he was an adult -- I bet he would have fought for his life but he is a little boy stuck in a situation where no investigation was done on his behalf, the DA had enough CE to proceed and then he would have lived in hell for the next 5-6 years waiting to go on trial for murder in the first degree and face 25 to life in prison

The deal was a good one for him all around short of admitting to a crime he may or may not have done

tricwebs

02-20-2009, 09:24 PM

I thought about the appeal issue but I do not think it will go that route .. it could actually backfire

IMO

I'm not so sure. If the mother files an appeal of the plea based on the premise that the child was not competent to agree to the plea, then the court can only rule in one of two ways. The court can find the child competent to agree to the plea, in which case the plea agreement stands as is. Or, the court could rule that the child is incompetent to agree to the plea, which could effectively end this case altogether since if the child is not competent to to accept the plea then he should also then be not competent to go to trial. Thus the DA would not be able to drop the charges without prejudice after the child had been determined to be found incompetent.

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 09:27 PM

That makes no sense to me, if he is innocent he should plea not guilty.

IMO

I agree and children even as young as two begin to know if they are guilty of something or not and begin to learn right from wrong. Since 8 year olds in Arizona can be tried for crimes imo this is not the first young juvenile's case that plead out.

IMO he knew he did these crimes and he is smart enough to know what possible no juvie time means over a long prison term when he becomes an adult.

IMO, Eryn is never going to appeal this decision. There is too much at stake and it would put the father's murder right back on the table.

She needs to thank her lucky stars it ended this way for him imo.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:29 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:32 PM

I agree and children even as young as two begin to know if they are guilty of something or not and begin to learn right from wrong. Since 8 year olds in Arizona can be tried for crimes imo this is not the first young juvenile's case that plead out.

IMO he knew he did these crimes and he is smart enough to know what possible no juvie time means over a long prison term when he becomes an adult.

IMO, Eryn is never going to appeal this decision. There is too much at stake and it would put the father's murder right back on the table.

She needs to thank her lucky stars it ended this way for him imo.

imoo

Any age can be tried for crimes, but only in Arizona (at least) can a child that young make legal decisions on their own

The parent has no say so ... I am not sure what the mother objected to the most ... the fact he does not understand what negligent homicide means?

Or the fact he can not prove his innocence in a court of law?

bonniez45

02-20-2009, 09:33 PM

My question is due to the things that I've read will there be a relocation for this child I cannot but, worry due to the hostility that has been written about this child that some harm could come to him.
IMO the holstility about this child on the boards has been worse than CA.
I cannot see treatment or anything else working for him unless they move.

tricwebs

02-20-2009, 09:35 PM

If he was to be found incompetent on appeal, the plea is gone and the refiling of murder one, tried as an adult is back on the table?

I don't know. The question is would vacating the plea return the minor to the charges as filed before the plea, or would there be no charges filed and then require the DA to file an entirely new set of charges?

I'm not a lawyer (I've already indicated I was a COTA), so maybe some of those with actual legal backgrounds could fill us in on what might happen.

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 09:36 PM

I'm not so sure. If the mother files an appeal of the plea based on the premise that the child was not competent to agree to the plea, then the court can only rule in one of two ways. The court can find the child competent to agree to the plea, in which case the plea agreement stands as is. Or, the court could rule that the child is incompetent to agree to the plea, which could effectively end this case altogether since if the child is not competent to to accept the plea then he should also then be not competent to go to trial. Thus the DA would not be able to drop the charges without prejudice after the child had been determined to be found incompetent.

I think what made them all get very serious about the plea deal was when the Appellate court ruled that Roca did not have to wait for the age competency issue to be finalized before he could rule on the motion to dismiss. From then on every hearing date Roca set up had the motion to dismiss count one before the competency hearing date.

It is obvious to me that the defense was not assured at all that Roca would rule in their favor. Being the boy's attorneys they had to stress to him what could happen if Roca ruled against him.

I think the boy is of higher intelligence than the average 9 year old and understood this was the best he was going to get and he took it.

Now the question is in the next 9 long years can he adhere to the tight guidelines he must follow.

imoo

hooked2

02-20-2009, 09:42 PM

His attorney said he understood it. It doesn't make sense that an attorney would tell his client to lie to me. I think this was the best deal he could get. I don't think he wanted to be tried as an adult. From what I understand of the plea, if he does anything wrong they can bring the charges back on the 2nd charge, and then he would also have a prior.

My opinion
Source: Apache county superior court record website

From the Memorandum of Agreement:

"The state will dismiss:
Remaining charges - Offense 13-1105(A)(1)

The state will not file the following charges:
Any charges the State is aware of related to the juvenile and the events of November 5, 2008 involving or concerning either victim."

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:44 PM

I think what made them all get very serious about the plea deal was when the Appellate court ruled that Roca did not have to wait for the age competency issue to be finalized before he could rule on the motion to dismiss. From then on every hearing date Roca set up had the motion to dismiss count one before the competency hearing date.

It is obvious to me that the defense was not assured at all that Roca would rule in their favor. Being the boy's attorneys they had to stress to him what could happen if Roca ruled against him.

I think the boy is of higher intelligence than the average 9 year old and understood this was the best he was going to get and he took it.

Now the question is in the next 9 long years can he adhere to the tight guidelines he must follow.

imoo

He was already ruled incompetent once, other record is under seal

Odds he would have been ruled incompetent are pretty solid but it left the charge until he was older

Not a good thing to have looming

The guidelines in his probation will be tight at first then get more lenient as he progresses through the tiers

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 09:47 PM

The plea took him being tried as an adult now or in the future off the table for good

What he did lose was his chance to prove his innocence and I think that is what is upsetting his mother

It actually didn't take his father's murder off of the table for good.

The plea agreement must be upheld fully and if he is involved in another criminal act during these 9 years, the murder of his father can be reinstated.

I feel sorry for Eryn. She is going to have to watch this boy every minute hoping and praying he doesn't get into any kind of trouble in the next 9 years.

imoo

hooked2

02-20-2009, 09:48 PM

As I have stated earlier one time this is a board with some scary people on here for me.
My question is due to the things that I've read will there be a relocation for this child I cannot but, worry due to the hostility that has been written about this child that some harm could come to him.
IMO the holstility about this child on the boards has been worse than CA.
I cannot see treatment or anything else working for him unless they move.

His mother lives in a different state. The terms of his plea allows the possibility of relocating to a state other than arizona. :smile:

interested

02-20-2009, 09:49 PM

Not sure if everyone has quit discussing the case .. but I was sick yesterday and never had the chance to hear opinions here

How does everyone feel about the fact under Arizona law, a nine year decides his own legal fate and his mother really has no say so in the matter?

Do you think the child understood the proceedings yesterday and the possible ramifications?

Curious

They first brought up the possibility of a plea less than a month after the killings. The entire reason for the delay was concern for whether the boy was competent to understand the proceedings and the charges.

I don't see any reason to doubt it at this point given the judge spent a half hour talking to him in the court room before he accepted the plea & his own attorney now agrees he is competent.

As for the mother, she wasn't his guardian at the time of the crime and I think a Guardian ad litem is in a better position to judge what is or isn't in the best interest of this child. I have to believe one was assigned.

TaraCrazyHair

02-20-2009, 09:51 PM

It actually didn't take his father's murder off of the table for good.

The plea agreement must be upheld fully and if he is involved in another criminal act during these 9 years, the murder of his father can be reinstated.

I feel sorry for Eryn. She is going to have to watch this boy every minute hoping and praying he doesn't get into any kind of trouble in the next 9 years.

imoo

No that is not how it works

The murder charge against VR is dismissed .. gone forever

The murder charge against TR is gone for good after his disposition

The child cannot do a single wrong in the next 60 days or that charge comes back and the plea is null and void

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 09:53 PM

He was already ruled incompetent once, other record is under seal

Odds he would have been ruled incompetent are pretty solid but it left the charge until he was older

Not a good thing to have looming

The guidelines in his probation will be tight at first then get more lenient as he progresses through the tiers

The legal one to deem him incompetent is Judge Roca. It is his final call and we don't know if the State expert agreed with the defense. Often times there are differing opinions.

Yes and the thing about it I do think Roca was seriously considering dismissing count one since he has stated that crimes like this are not meant for the juvenile system.

Now had the ruling been that he was mentally incompetent due to a mental defect that would be one thing but this was an age incompetency issue and whether he at his age could understand the ends and outs of a lengthy trial and assist in his defense.

I don't think so, I think as he becomes a teenager they may even watch him closer.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 10:04 PM

No that is not how it works

The murder charge against VR is dismissed .. gone forever

The murder charge against TR is gone for good after his disposition

The child cannot do a single wrong in the next 60 days or that charge comes back and the plea is null and void

OK but if he bobbles just once and commits another crime imo his probation will be revoked and he will do the remainder in juvie.

So she still has to see he walks the straight and narrow and in today's time imo that is very hard for many kids and this one has already been known to break the law at a young age.

The recidivism rate for youthful offenders is 50/50.

That is a lot of weight for Eryn to carry around and from what I have read she is already or soon to be a single mom. So she will have to work to support them and cant be with him every second.

imo

hooked2

02-20-2009, 10:05 PM

Any age can be tried for crimes, but only in Arizona (at least) can a child that young make legal decisions on their own

The parent has no say so ... I am not sure what the mother objected to the most ... the fact he does not understand what negligent homicide means?

Or the fact he can not prove his innocence in a court of law?
He had a court appointed advocate iirc, so perhaps once they're in place, it trumps the parents?

hooked2

02-20-2009, 10:09 PM

OK but if he bobbles just once and commits another crime imo his probation will be revoked and he will do the remainder in juvie.

So she still has to see he walks the straight and narrow and in today's time imo that is very hard for many kids and this one has already been known to break the law at a young age.

The recidivism rate for youthful offenders is 50/50.

That is a lot of weight for Eryn to carry around and from what I have read she is already or soon to be a single mom. So she will have to work to support them and cant be with him every second.

imo
Part of the plea indicates he will recieve whatever therapy the psychiatrist deems necessary and take any meds prescribed. That tells me he will be in therapy until at least 18. He definitely has a leg up on other juvies as far as that goes, so I'm very much hoping he can be successfully rehabilitated :smile:

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 10:14 PM

Part of the plea indicates he will receive whatever therapy the psychiatrist deems necessary and take any meds prescribed. That tells me he will be in therapy until at least 18. He definitely has a leg up on other juvies as far as that goes, so I'm very much hoping he can be successfully rehabilitated :smile:

I sure am too and I think it is good that he has to be reassessed every three years.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 10:24 PM

lurkinghere2

02-20-2009, 11:17 PM

Other than the mother saying it can you direct me to any legal source which can confirm if this is true or not? Even though the mother said it, I do not believe it is correct.

It is only the child's signature and the atty signature on docs. No mother's signature anywhere. She is on record from during the court proceedings via her atty that she did not agree with it. I do not know if that transcript has been published yet. There was a statment from her atty also, in an interview (I think), that she legally had no position allowed in this plea.

This is my recollection. If I find the links, I will post them.

Annie143

02-20-2009, 11:18 PM

I think a Guardian ad litem is in a better position to judge what is or isn't in the best interest of this child. I have to believe one was assigned.We hope. But, little Chandler Grafner had one and she sent him to his murderer and then CPS kept returning him to same, even with all signs of abuse.

Part of the plea indicates he will recieve whatever therapy the psychiatrist deems necessary and take any meds prescribed. That tells me he will be in therapy until at least 18. He definitely has a leg up on other juvies as far as that goes, so I'm very much hoping he can be successfully rehabilitatedthis is often a hit or miss prospect, in my experience and I hope they dont try and drug him up, unless he is hearing voices or something.

It worries me that his mother must try and be up to this. He has a long way to go to reach 18. If she is working, it will hard unless she can reach him with the magnitude of what has happened. I will be praying very hard for this mother and child and will put them on every pray list that I know of. I hope someone manages to make contact with the mother so that we may know in the future what is happening and offer support.

Ninja108

02-20-2009, 11:27 PM

I'm still amazed that people think this boy fully understands what he is agreeing to. We have trouble understanding it yet we expect the boy does?

GentleBreeze

02-20-2009, 11:49 PM

I'm still amazed that people think this boy fully understands what he is agreeing to. We have trouble understanding it yet we expect the boy does?

I don't have a hard time understanding it and Judge Roca spoke to him in a language a child could understand.

He knew all about what it entailed. His lawyer, who has been by his side from the beginning, knows how to talk to this kid and explained it to him where he could understand imo.

IMOO

hooked2

02-20-2009, 11:56 PM

I'm still amazed that people think this boy fully understands what he is agreeing to. We have trouble understanding it yet we expect the boy does?
Ditto :read:

Streetdreamer

02-21-2009, 02:38 AM

I'm still amazed that people think this boy fully understands what he is agreeing to. We have trouble understanding it yet we expect the boy does?

The where, whats, and hows are missing from a guilty plea. I dont for 1 minute believe this child could produce the evidence on the scene. This is not based on emotion or a gut feeling or even based on a "cant believe an 8yr old can do this". This is based on the simple logic of an 8yr old being able to load and reload a rifle and then knowingly kill Tim Romans after his own father.

The conveniance of the guilty plea, which isn't hard to get out of a 9yr old in isolation and away from family, is that they dont have to explain how he could've done it. IMO. Or better yet, he doesn't have to demonstrate how he could've done it. So no one gets fired or even jail time for the mishandling of the case. I can only imagine that with the shackles and the accusations, he probably believed no one out there thought he was innocent or he thought he would never be believed.

I believe law enforcement has a meglomanishly narcissistic view that public faith in the CJS is far more important than actual justice being dispensed. I believe thats what happened here after that mishandling.

Another issue. Since I believe in his innocence, I also believe he will end up in juvie for refusing to admit his guilt after the fact. That also applies to refusing to admit guilt about his father too. He's got a tough road, welcome to the American CJS.

trofanji

02-21-2009, 02:55 AM

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 05:16 AM

I read the same thing... she didn't want the plea. It wasn't on the board, I believe I saw it on arizona news online. I can't remember which though.

http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=19706@knxv.dayport.com

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 05:21 AM

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 08:18 AM

so your saying dr cady the psychologist that deemed him incompetent is wrong?

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 08:35 AM

I did think he understood it and Judge Roca did too.

Roca also felt that he understood his charges and his rights when he addressed him in the probable cause hearing.

IMO, the boy knows he is guilty of this and he did not want to face a trial where there was a possibility that he could be sent to prison when he was an adult for murdering his father.

The boy's own attorney, who has been with him since the beginning, thought this boy did understand the conditions of the guilty plea deal.

imoo
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/525929
this article is in regard to the finding of dr cady the defenses expert that the boy is incompetent to stand trial

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 08:38 AM

so your saying dr cady the psychologist that deemed him incompetent is wrong?

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/525929

mrrogers

02-21-2009, 08:45 AM

I don't have a hard time understanding it and Judge Roca spoke to him in a language a child could understand.

He knew all about what it entailed. His lawyer, who has been by his side from the beginning, knows how to talk to this kid and explained it to him where he could understand imo.

IMOO

so dr cady who prounced him unfit to stand trial is wrong?

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/525929

interested

02-21-2009, 09:42 AM

so dr cady who prounced him unfit to stand trial is wrong?

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/525929

Don't you think, since this was a defense expert, and now the defense attorney is saying the child is competent, that perhaps the defense is suggesting he was wrong?

The defense, in any criminal case will find experts that will say what the defense wants them to say & that's a fact. Enough money or potential for future gain will buy whatever opinion you need.

Brings to mind the defense "expert" in the Peterson W case, who was laughed out of the courtroom under cross.

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:08 AM

It is only the child's signature and the atty signature on docs. No mother's signature anywhere. She is on record from during the court proceedings via her atty that she did not agree with it. I do not know if that transcript has been published yet. There was a statment from her atty also, in an interview (I think), that she legally had no position allowed in this plea.

This is my recollection. If I find the links, I will post them.

It does state on the document that a parent does not need to sign if the attorney does but her not signing also backs up her claim that she is not in acceptance of the plea

Since the attorney is not a custodial parent or court appointed guardian, it seems to me that there should be another signature required in the best interest of the child not just in the best interest of the client

I hope that maybe this case can bring about some changes in Arizona law on how children under a certain age can decide major legal decisions on their own.

I think it is atrocious personally

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:11 AM

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 10:13 AM

so dr cady who prounced him unfit to stand trial is wrong?

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/525929

You need to ask Wood/Brewer and Judge Roca.

Evidently they do not agree with Cady and agree that he is competent to understand a very simple plea deal.

But who knows, when the experts testify imo, they will both say he does have the understanding to accept this plea deal.

A long trial and all the legalese in it is one thing. This is not about him being age incompetent to stand trial.

I highly doubt that either expert found him unable to know right from wrong or that he doesn't have the capacity to know he is guilty of these crimes.

IMO, he got a sweetheart deal and should be thankful that both the State and defense's main concern is too see he gets extensive mental treatment to uncover why he was capable of doing these violent acts. It seems both the defense and state have not uncovered the why and are only left hoping the psychiatrists can peel the onion skin back and find it.

imo

interested

02-21-2009, 10:22 AM

He was determined by one expert to be incompetent to stand trial and the other conclusion is under seal since the plea

How can you be incompetent to stand trial yet be competent enough to understand the plea agreement?

Again, you can get a paid expert to say whatever you need them to say. This is a defense expert and it doesn't matter a twit what he said, it doesn't make if fact any more than the many other defense witnesses over time who the courts and juries have chosen not to find credible.

The defense experts opinion is just that, opinion & it appears even the guys that hired him now don't agree with his opinion. Clearly the judge doesn't, otherwise he couldn't have accepted the plea.

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 10:36 AM

For all here who desperately want only the truth coming out (me too), they must be very unhappy. the boy plead guilty with a lie that the DA and his Attorney give him, he plead guilty with a lie and the judge accept it!
they forced the boy into a lie and not to say the truth.
The truth might be never come out because a lot of documents stay sealed, a lot of documents will never be available for the public. the DA had their child who plead guilty, they know his childhood and youth is destroyed, he must undergo some psychological evaluations, he must always stay with the lie and explain it to the people who do the evaluations. He had never even the chance to get a fair trial when maybe more evidence come to the light that would exordinate him.
So I like to ask, why did the DA hide the rest of the evidence? isn't it logic to show the public, here that’s all the evidence we have, it shows us, the boy is the killer so he is guilty, but we are the good boy's and give him a chance! why didn't they do it. Is there maybe evidence that goes in favor for the boy? I think, now there would always be doubt's !
for example, there are still not the boy's fingerprints on the weapon, there are only two shell casings found with his prints. Ok there is a lot evidence against the boy, but a lot goes also in favor for the boy I think.
But again for all who want the truth, you will never know the real truth, you will never know what has really happened on this bad day in November. Nobody will know what was going on there and if the boy did it, what forced him to do it, nobody will know it ever. We all, me too, believe in some kind of theory about what is going on, I still believe he is innocent, and a few of you believe he is guilty, we all never will know the whole truth and that make me sad. At last, the really bad thing, the Victims families wouldn't know the whole truth also. They are still not satisfied with the plea!
this post is IMO

Since Wood commented that the evidence may never come out, I think he has a lot to do with why it isn't out. That could have been one of the negotiations going on behind the scene between him and the Prosecutor and if the boy plead guilty he wanted the rest of the evidence sealed. Having it out there could further harm the boy, if it is known. I think both the defense and state knows this is not going to sit well with some in the community of St. John and they both are trying to calm things down.

I do believe it is there and in great numbers. Once a plea deal has been signed, especially in a juvenile case, it usually stops further evidence records from becoming public record.

By releasing all they have on this boy it also could cause more unrest in the community of St. John if they found out that the State had the evidence against him yet gave him a sweetheart deal, although I do think most there realize this was done solely because he was the age he was and it would never be considered if the killer had been some big bad adult brute.

I think both families know the truth already and have been told, maybe even by the boy himself. And they are the only ones that really matters. Now they are left to deal with it the best they can.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:05 AM

You need to ask Wood/Brewer and Judge Roca.

Evidently they do not agree with Cady and agree that he is competent to understand a very simple plea deal.

But who knows, when the experts testify imo, they will both say he does have the understanding to accept this plea deal.

A long trial and all the legalese in it is one thing. This is not about him being age incompetent to stand trial.

I highly doubt that either expert found him unable to know right from wrong or that he doesn't have the capacity to know he is guilty of these crimes.

IMO, he got a sweetheart deal and should be thankful that both the State and defense's main concern is too see he gets extensive mental treatment to uncover why he was capable of doing these violent acts. It seems both the defense and state have not uncovered the why and are only left hoping the psychiatrists can peel the onion skin back and find it.

imo

I think the only thing he understands about the plea was that it would mean no more juvie and he got to home with his mom

That would be the only thing a nine year old boy would care about in the long run

I think at that age they do know right from wrong ... but the fact he will be forced into mental health will the positive measure to either uncover why he did if he did and what happened if he didn't do it

RomansFamily

02-21-2009, 11:08 AM

Since Wood commented that the evidence may never come out, I think he has a lot to do with why it isn't out. That could have been one of the negotiations going on behind the scene between him and the Prosecutor and if the boy plead guilty he wanted the rest of the evidence sealed. Having it out there could further harm the boy, if it is known. I think both the defense and state knows this is not going to sit well with some in the community of St. John and they both are trying to calm things down.

I do believe it is there and in great numbers. Once a plea deal has been signed, especially in a juvenile case, it usually stops further evidence records from becoming public record.

By releasing all they have on this boy it also could cause more unrest in the community of St. John if they found out that the State had the evidence against him yet gave him a sweetheart deal, although I do think most there realize this was done solely because he was the age he was and it would never be considered if the killer had been some big bad adult brute.

I think both families know the truth already and have been told, maybe even by the boy himself. And they are the only ones that really matters. Now they are left to deal with it the best they can.

imoo

It's sad that little boy did this to Tim! There will be no justice if he is not in jail until 18. In My Opinion

RomansFamily

02-21-2009, 11:10 AM

It does state on the document that a parent does not need to sign if the attorney does but her not signing also backs up her claim that she is not in acceptance of the plea

Since the attorney is not a custodial parent or court appointed guardian, it seems to me that there should be another signature required in the best interest of the child not just in the best interest of the client

I hope that maybe this case can bring about some changes in Arizona law on how children under a certain age can decide major legal decisions on their own.

I think it is atrocious personally

I hope she does appeal so he can be convicted of a higher crime, then true justice can happen.

RomansFamily

02-21-2009, 11:18 AM

This is discrimination. If Tim wasn't a Native American, more people would care and something would be done. We always get shafted by white people. In my opinion.

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:30 AM

I hope she does appeal so he can be convicted of a higher crime, then true justice can happen.

Once he is disposed the original charges are gone, dropped, dismissed never to arise again

So if she were to appeal, he could not be recharged on the double murder one charges

As long as it is after he is disposed

That is my understanding ... but who knows about Arizona and their juvenile system

RomansFamily

02-21-2009, 11:34 AM

White man laws to protect white men and their possessions.

interested

02-21-2009, 11:52 AM

I think the only thing he understands about the plea was that it would mean no more juvie and he got to home with his mom

That would be the only thing a nine year old boy would care about in the long run

I think at that age they do know right from wrong ... but the fact he will be forced into mental health will the positive measure to either uncover why he did if he did and what happened if he didn't do it

Did you listen to the interview with the defense attorney after the hearing?

Trying to be clear, I think this boy did the shooting, I have no idea why but there is a reason. At the same time, 8 is far to young to throw away the key regardless of the crime. That having been said, I certainly didn't want to see this child in adult court, and I don't want to see him in a detention center for any length of time. A hospital specializing in children, perhaps, but I'm not close enough to the situation to know if that's needed. An evaluation perhaps first and go from there.

Obviously, something is very wrong when an 8 year old would do this, so I think it's good that there will be court oversight of this child until he's 18. Not incarceration, oversight, which could just mean keeping his doctors appointments and reporting his progress to the court periodically. There are people more skilled and informed than me when it comes to such matters and this case in particular.

I want to see this child get the care he needs, no excuses about the parents not being able to afford any medications or treatment he may need. If the courts need to provide that care, so be it. This child deserves a chance at as normal a life as possible, not condemnation.

This could be an emotional imbalance or it could have something to do with his upbringing, I don't know. I don't need to know. I only want to know that he'll get the care & the chance he deserves.

All that having been said, his defense attorney says he's very aware his decision to take this plea has made his mother very unhappy with him. He made a decision that he knows his mother does not approve. The child is aware, he understands what he's done and he didn't do it to please anyone, IMO. He did it because he knew his risks & options and considered them carefully before making his decision.

interested

02-21-2009, 11:58 AM

Once he is disposed the original charges are gone, dropped, dismissed never to arise again

So if she were to appeal, he could not be recharged on the double murder one charges

As long as it is after he is disposed

That is my understanding ... but who knows about Arizona and their juvenile system

Tara, an appeal could result in overturning the plea agreement and order for a trial, I think.

IOW, back to the beginning because the plea itself didn't meet legal standards for one reason or another.

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 12:44 PM

Why come here and complain? If you feel you've been "shafted" call a news conference.

Are you saying they have no right to complain anywhere they choose?

That seems highly unfair, Donuts. They have just as much rights as any of us here does imo.

Maybe this is just one outlet that they use to voice their despair at the injustices they see and feel deeply?

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 12:47 PM

This is discrimination. If Tim wasn't a Native American, more people would care and something would be done. We always get shafted by white people. In my opinion.

Well I care RF.

I am so sorry for the tragic loss of Tim Romans and Vinnie Romero.

imo

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 12:51 PM

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 01:18 PM

Their loss is tragic but I think what's even more tragic is a 9yr. old boy taking the fall for someone else. I still do not believe this boy is the killer. I don't care what he agreed too. It's pretty sad when 9 yr. old children can sign their own plea agreements. The kid didn't even realize he should have been read his Miranda rights before agreeing to speak to the two cops yet he's capable of comprehending a legal agreement. Oh brother:rolleyes:

I can understand why anyone would want to believe this kid could not do something this heinous however that doesn't mean he didn't.

I think the family members of the lost loved ones, the true victims in this case left behind to deal with it all, imo know much more than any of us know about this boy.

imoo

Toysoldier

02-21-2009, 01:43 PM

I think because the State were so concerned from the beginning about the possibility that this boy could walk away with no mental therapy treatment, they threw him a bone, and he took it, rather than face adult court later on and be tried for his father's murder.

I don't think the state cared about the boy at all. I think they were only concerned with not looking like they got the wrong person. That's typical in most cases where police and prosecutors play the case in the media. Once they say it's this person, it's hard for them to later admit they made a mistake. The Ramsey case is a good example of that. It gets worse when a person confesses, takes a plea deal or gets convicted and it later turns out the state had nothing on the person or evidence is later found or another person confesses therein proving that person's innocence.

I think the state just wanted the boy to take the fall so that all of them, Whiting, Roca and Carlyon, could get re-reelected. I don't think any of them care at all about the boy or this crime.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,937201.story

"Part of the problem is I don't think any of us know what his problems are, if any, and how to solve them," Ron Wood said.

To me this shows all along that both sides have wrestled to find a logical explanation why this boy did these crimes and have come up empty.

In an interview (http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=333431) Wood said he wanted treatment for the boy because so many people, the step-mother, the officers who coerced a confession out of him and the detention staff, may have convinced the boy of things that weren't true and treatment would help the boy remember what really happened, if anything happened. Wood's never publicly said the boy did any of this and in another interview (http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=19706@knxv.dayport.com) yesterday he implied that he convinced the boy to take the deal even though he knew the boy didn't understand what he was agreeing to because the boy didn't want to go prison again and wanted to stay with his mother.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that they've got the wrong person, but there's too much involved with admitting that and Wood wasn't interested in fighting for the boy any longer, so they pushed the deal. I spoke with some friends about the case yesterday and I agree with what they said. I think that they're right that because this happened in small town there's probably a lot going on behind the scenes and I think perhaps some backdoor dealing to scapegoat the boy.

Oddly enough, when I just told them about the crime scene itself, without any explanation of what the boy's gun looks like, they immediately said they thought it looked like a drug hit. When I described the wounds, literally pointing them out on my own body, they said they thought a semi-automatic weapon was used.

Can't say that's what actually happened, but I thought it was interesting that three guys immediately came to the same conclusion a few of the officers in the case initially believed when they arrived on the scene. I think a lot of people just want it to be the boy because that's the easiest thing to believe and they don't want to admit that there's a chance a mistake was made. That's really typical of people. Happens in foster care case, adoption cases and other juvenile cases. I think some people, especially some people on this board, don't really care about how this kind of thing affects children and some may even want bad things to happen to the boy.

FurthurBB

02-21-2009, 02:27 PM

[QUOTE=Toysoldier;12813094]I

In an interview (http://www.azfamily.com/video/localnews-index.html?nvid=333431) Wood said he wanted treatment for the boy because so many people, the step-mother, the officers who coerced a confession out of him and the detention staff, may have convinced the boy of things that weren't true and treatment would help the boy remember what really happened, if anything happened. Wood's never publicly said the boy did any of this and in another interview (http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=19706@knxv.dayport.com) yesterday he implied that he convinced the boy to take the deal even though he knew the boy didn't understand what he was agreeing to because the boy didn't want to go prison again and wanted to stay with his mother.

QUOTE]

I agree that he might not even know the truth now, which is very sad. It is very easy to convince a small child that something is true when it is not. At this point we might never know the truth, but, hopefully one day he will know the truth again. IMO

Ninja108

02-21-2009, 02:42 PM

Sorry, with over 300 documents still unreleased, I don't buy his guilt. If they have such an ironclad case, they would release them. The only documents that have been released have of course pointed to this boy. And I'm sorry, labeling this kid as a psychopath based on that "confession" tape and heresay statements while ignoring evidence that Tim Romans(which opens up a big suspect pool) was a drug dealer and had gotten threats imo just shows that those declaring this boy guilty will always believe that. I don't buy that he understands this plea agreement. If he does, does that mean he can sign all legal documents and contracts in the future? Get his own medication etc.
Heck maybe I'll eat crow but for now I will say this is easily one of the worst injustices I've yet to witness

Streetdreamer

02-21-2009, 02:45 PM

I think most people would have to admit, they don't REALLY remember all that much about being 8 or 9. I really do NOT believe this child is some phenomenal master mind, capable of such a crime. AND you posters know he was ALSO co-erced into this plea deal. Eventually the truth will come out.

Definately a coerced confession whether he's guilty or not the confession is a lie based on what he is accused of doing. Does that really sound like justice to impose that on an 8yr old. Tell a lie and you get to go home to your mom. This really demonstrates that a guilty plea was far more important than getting to the truth.

I can prove it with the use of reason. If you actually believe he is guilty, then you would actually believe that he was a subject of some sort of abuse from his dad or family. Much like the officers who taped the so-called confession was implying. If thats true, then under Arizona law he could plead not guilty or justifiable homocide because of that abuse. But law enforcement couldn't have it that way, otherwise they would have to explain how he did it and their violation of the law in obtaining the so-called confession. LE needed a guilty plea.

eagargal

02-21-2009, 02:51 PM

His mother may not be happy with it, but she would be a complete and total fool to appeal it, in my opinion. She may have objected publicly in court...behind close doors with the boy's attorney she may have be singing a completely different tune....and she was according to the boy's lawyer the day before the court hearing.

She did leave a comment on the child's myspace page stating she was against the plea agreement and that she would probably do another interview to voice her concerns. I guess we will just have to see what happens.

On another note, I just found this on the news:

Pa. boy, 11, charged with killing pregnant woman

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PREGNANT_WOMAN_KILLED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

lurkinghere2

02-21-2009, 02:59 PM

Have you ever bothered to consider that perhaps he plead guilty because he KNOWS he's guilty?

Have you ever bothered to consider that there are many reasons a person takes a plea deal & that not all of them are because a person is guilty.

Also, Linda. While I was not the recipient, it has been reported that you sent a PM to another poster asking them something like "how the eating crow was going?" Is that an appropriate way to discuss this case with other posters? It begs the question just who is in denial about the process of our justice system in the case of this child & probably many others in this country.

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 03:07 PM

Have you ever bothered to consider that there are many reasons a person takes a plea deal & that not all of them are because a person is guilty.

Also, Linda. While I was not the recipient, it has been reported that you sent a PM to another poster asking them something like "how the eating crow was going?" Is that an appropriate way to discuss this case with other posters? It begs the question just who is in denial about the process of our justice system in the case of this child & probably many others in this country.

I thought PMs aren't to be discussed on a board?:confused:

That is why they are private.

imoo

lurkinghere2

02-21-2009, 03:11 PM

I thought PMs aren't to be discussed on a board?:confused:

That is why they are private.

imoo

My mistake, then & I apologize.

hooked2

02-21-2009, 03:45 PM

Don't you think, since this was a defense expert, and now the defense attorney is saying the child is competent, that perhaps the defense is suggesting he was wrong?

The defense, in any criminal case will find experts that will say what the defense wants them to say & that's a fact. Enough money or potential for future gain will buy whatever opinion you need.

Brings to mind the defense "expert" in the Peterson W case, who was laughed out of the courtroom under cross.
Actually, you would be hard pressed to find ANY mental health experts that would say this 9 year old is legally competent to stand trial for this crime.

Why? Because anyone with an education and experience in the mental and behavioral sciences have studied the scientific differences between children and adults. Know that there are a multitude of physiological and psychological stages that children go through in order to process and live in the world around them. They have a clear understanding that 8 or 9 year olds, regardless of their maturity, intelligence, or cunning manipulative abilities--- still are not mini-adults. They are in the process of forming and being molded into their 'self.'
I mean, ya know, they still have to bring their papers home for the approval of their parents and that, to them, is one of the worst things they can imagine. I don't know many adults like that.

We have a sense of self, understand we have rights and boundaries, understand we have options. We are no longer at the 'mercy' of our parents' world. We have the option of walking away from a home that has a multitude of guns around, with various dropped bullets lying around the floors of the home like they were crumbs or something. We have the option of leaving a home that recently welcomed a mid level meth dealer to live their because this man is a good friend of dad's.

8 and 9 year olds are in the midst of developing... it's fact... they offer a multitude of university classes on that very subject and I've even taken a few :wink:.

hooked2

02-21-2009, 04:00 PM

Well, it looks like states better figure out quick what to do with these young children that murder. There certainly seems to be an increase!

(snip)
Precisely! Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why?

Do you think kids are just 'born evil'?

Or do you think perhaps we adults in this society are making some very poor choices that the children in our society are paying the price for?

Or is it all okay so long as victims get 'justice' and perps get punished?

eagargal

02-21-2009, 04:18 PM

This pretty much sums up why I don't post here much anymore, the likes of GB and L(HN, alias SOB, etc). Looks like many others have agreed, from the size of the threads. Not much INTELLIGENT discussion anymore. Where did they all go?

On the contrary, when I first started reading this board, I found the majority of the accusations came from posters who felt strongly that the boy was innocent. It was an intimidating prospect to come on the board and admit my conclusions were in the minority.

I came to my conclusions from reading the published reports, from personal knowledge and from reading all of the comments expressed here and on other boards. I appreciate all of the input and knowledge gained from those who know how to look up court information and who have knowledge of the law.

I was always open to the possibility of CR being innocent and am interested in new developments that may point to that conclusion. However, it would seem that those posters who still feel CR is innocent would rather post on a board of like minds and exclude dissenting opinions. That is certainly their perogative, but it does a disservice to those who appreciate the discussion and would like to continue to receive information from both sides of the debate. How is one to make informed decisions if only one side is represented? How does one come up with solutions if no debate exists?

RomansFamily

02-21-2009, 05:04 PM

Definately a coerced confession whether he's guilty or not the confession is a lie based on what he is accused of doing. Does that really sound like justice to impose that on an 8yr old. Tell a lie and you get to go home to your mom. This really demonstrates that a guilty plea was far more important than getting to the truth.

I can prove it with the use of reason. If you actually believe he is guilty, then you would actually believe that he was a subject of some sort of abuse from his dad or family. Much like the officers who taped the so-called confession was implying. If thats true, then under Arizona law he could plead not guilty or justifiable homocide because of that abuse. But law enforcement couldn't have it that way, otherwise they would have to explain how he did it and their violation of the law in obtaining the so-called confession. LE needed a guilty plea.

As part of my culture, we are taught to tell the truth. Listening to all the lies this boy speaks, especially in his confession, he truly speaks with a "forked tongue!"

eagargal

02-21-2009, 05:19 PM

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find ANY mental health experts that would say this 9 year old is legally competent to stand trial for this crime.

Why? Because anyone with an education and experience in the mental and behavioral sciences have studied the scientific differences between children and adults. Know that there are a multitude of physiological and psychological stages that children go through in order to process and live in the world around them. They have a clear understanding that 8 or 9 year olds, regardless of their maturity, intelligence, or cunning manipulative abilities--- still are not mini-adults. They are in the process of forming and being molded into their 'self.'
I mean, ya know, they still have to bring their papers home for the approval of their parents and that, to them, is one of the worst things they can imagine. I don't know many adults like that.

We have a sense of self, understand we have rights and boundaries, understand we have options. We are no longer at the 'mercy' of our parents' world. We have the option of walking away from a home that has a multitude of guns around, with various dropped bullets lying around the floors of the home like they were crumbs or something. We have the option of leaving a home that recently welcomed a mid level meth dealer to live their because this man is a good friend of dad's.

8 and 9 year olds are in the midst of developing... it's fact... they offer a multitude of university classes on that very subject and I've even taken a few :wink:.

At the beginning of your post, you speak for yourself. In your second paragraph, you take on the persona of a child. Is that how you view yourself?

Personally, I see a disturbing trend not in children being treated like adults, but rather adults becoming children and trying to be their children's friends, rather than parents. I see parents every day conceding to most of their children's wishes, starting from a very early age, for the following reasons:

-guilt; they are divorced, they have to work, etc.
-they genuinely feel the child deserves everything they can give them
-exhaustion; they don't want to argue
-they want to relate to the child as friend
-they want to keep up with the status quo
-they are afraid to be seen as stingy or hard

In doing so, they may not be preparing their children for the disappointments that we all inevitably face at many points in our lives. If a child is never given the opportunity to deal with disappointment or not having everything go exactly to their wishes, how will they be able to cope when an "inevitable no" comes along? We've all seen how angry a two-year old can get when they don't get their way, what if that anger is always dealt with by giving the child what it wants? What if you have an older child who has never had to compromise, who has never had to deal with that natural anger, and he is put into a situation that he does not like but that is inevitable, such as a move across the country or a parent getting remarried? Would that child, more intelligent, more dexterious but every bit as angry as a two year old, be able to do whatever it took to get his way?

It's not always and only about the child. It is also about the village that raises him. JMO.

And on that note, I really must do something besides sit in front of the computer all day. Happy posting!

Toysoldier

02-21-2009, 05:40 PM

I think the defense atty put it well, he said the boys not incompetent in the real sense. He says his understanding of the legal system is coming along well and after another 6 months he would probably be pretty competent of the the legal system. He said he felt he understood the plea and was comfortable with that. IMO

Where did Wood or Brewer say that? In the interviews Wood gave (which I linked to above) he said that there were tons of things about pleading out that his client didn't understand, from waiving his right to a trial to having his brain poked and prodded for years.

I think it's just wishful thinking that this boy understood anything because it makes it easier for those who know this was wrong to sleep at night. I think it sounds a lot like the things people who rape children say when they get caught too. I think it's pretty so many people think like that.

hooked2

02-21-2009, 05:46 PM

On the contrary, when I first started reading this board, I found the majority of the accusations came from posters who felt strongly that the boy was innocent. It was an intimidating prospect to come on the board and admit my conclusions were in the minority.

I came to my conclusions from reading the published reports, from personal knowledge and from reading all of the comments expressed here and on other boards. I appreciate all of the input and knowledge gained from those who know how to look up court information and who have knowledge of the law.

I was always open to the possibility of CR being innocent and am interested in new developments that may point to that conclusion. However, it would seem that those posters who still feel CR is innocent would rather post on a board of like minds and exclude dissenting opinions. That is certainly their perogative, but it does a disservice to those who appreciate the discussion and would like to continue to receive information from both sides of the debate. How is one to make informed decisions if only one side is represented? How does one come up with solutions if no debate exists?

I personally haven't made up my mind as to guilt or innocence regarding the shooting.

I am of the strong belief that, even if he did, he is still 'innocent' in many potential aspects.

The problem is, we will not know the truth. The truth may come out somewhere along the line if the boy is able to form a healthy bond with a therapist and they can dig through this mess --and we'll never hear about it. I'm okay with that, I just want to know this child is being handled with extreme finesse and a wealth of knowledge.

Unfortunately, the way this case unfolded is a travesty. The 'interview' or 'confession' was a travesty. If you watch the interview and pay attention to what the detectives are saying, it is crystal clear. The dynamics in that room were shocking and appalling. Not because the detectives are bad people, but because they didn't have the skills and knowledge to deal with this situation. They were authoritative figures posing as saviors. And their intitial intent was to 'save' this child. To do that, they admittedly lied to him and clearly fed him information. That alone is enough to keep him 'on the couch' for years.

I personally have a difficult time believing this 8 year old child was able to reload a gun 9 times during the commision of these murders that felled two grown men. Not saying it didn't happen, simply that I'm not convinced. I'm still going through the info because I resisted for so long due to the tragedy of this entire situation.

What I know is this. Take this boy as an infant and raise him with different people in a different environment and he would be completely different. Take a model child, put him in this home and he may well have committed this exact crime.

Honestly, what were the responsibilities of an 8 year old vs. those of the parents? Children learn to control impulses and master coping skills as their brain and bodies age. As they gain life and social experiences. What was he exposed to and what was left at his disposal that could have been prevented? Guns for one thing. Parents who couldn't or wouldn't recognize red flags for another. And corporal punishment that may or may not have been excessive, but corporal punishment none the less. Only he didn't say 'spank' in his interview, he said 'hit.' That makes me go 'hmmmm.' So many things about this case make me go 'hmmmm.' Not the least of which is an alleged meth dealing, bar hopping, adulteror for a roommate.

Toysoldier

02-21-2009, 05:49 PM

I watched the interview and he said he felt the boy understood the plea and in 6 months he probably would be competent in the legal system.

That was Whiting's interview after he forced an innocent boy to confess and practically admitted on live TV imo. Wood hasn't ever said the boy was actually competent. He keeps dancing around that saying that the judge is the one who makes that decision.

Like I said, I think it's just wishful thinking that this boy understood anything because it makes it easier for those who know this was wrong to sleep at night.

hooked2

02-21-2009, 05:59 PM

I believe some kids are simply wired wrong, so yes, some are born that way.

I believe some kids experience profound abuse, neglect and every imaginable hardship a child could experience.

There have been murderers in society as long as society existed. Prisons are full of murderers.........

Yes, I am curious as to why, but 5000 plus years hasn't yielded a solution. They all can't be fixed. I'd love to have a magic wand and fix them all and understand "why"

THIS boy because of his plea agreement at least was given the chance to change. I hope he does. If he will or not, I am not even certain that's up to him. He may be one of the children born "evil" as you termed it and is a budding psychopath? Maybe he suffers from severe attachment issues or/ and abandonment issues because of his biological mother?

I don't have the answers. The way it is now, the victims get justice and the perps get punished. This boy, needs punishment AND treatment.

IMO
Well, it has been 5000 years of punishment and incarceration that hasn't worked. The threat is statistically not a deterrent :confused:

Mental health science is a mere 100 years old, it is my hope that these new understandings of mind, body, and behavior will have an impact on the penal system.

I have to run to dinner with family, but will be back later! :smile:

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 06:13 PM

Linda, did JEM just call you a SOB? That's not right!

Ummmm, yes, but don't ya know, Jem is just exhibiting intellectual prowess. :lol::lol:

imo

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 07:52 PM

WHAT?????????????:confused:

:confused::shrug:

interested

02-21-2009, 08:21 PM

Perhaps one of the problems facing so many children in society is many adults just don't give them the credit they deserve. They're not even half as stupid as so many here claim. In my opinion.

I would venture to state just about every single 8 year old of normal intelligence knows murder is wrong and picking up and gun and firing 10 times into two men would probably kill them. I would also think that every other 8 year old would know there would be serious consequences for doing so.

It's not rocket science.

This kid knew, that's why he lied and lied and lied to cover his own butt. IMO

One thing is certain, many of the problems facing society today is that parents don't expect enough of their children. They're not required to mind manners, respect adults, follow rules, do their homework or their chores, all things that were expected of children not so long ago, but suddenly children can't be expected to do any of those things.

It wasn't long ago that children not only did all of those things, but tended the farm & farm animals. So much so that school vacations were scheduled around the planting and harvest.

The dumbing down of America is exactly that and the low expectation parent is to blame. I believe I've read the posts of some of them, they mostly go along the lines of "I still don't believe"..............

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 10:19 PM

hooked2

02-21-2009, 10:24 PM

(snip)

I don't understand the point of a message board discussion if everyone is of a single mind and in agreement. :confused:

If I didn't welcome the challenge of new and different ideas I wouldn't join, I'd simply talk to myself:biggrin:

Ditto :beer:

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:41 PM

Tara, an appeal could result in overturning the plea agreement and order for a trial, I think.

IOW, back to the beginning because the plea itself didn't meet legal standards for one reason or another.

Any appeal on a plea agreement is hard to do .. but from I what I understand, if it is filed and accepted before being disposed then the original charge could come back into fact .. I think!

If filed after being disposed, the original charges are long gone and cannot be refiled but the plea could be realigned

Frankly, this is the best deal considering the original charges but if the mom wants to fight for total acquittal ... then she needs to fight to have the plea tossed now

That is a risky gamble and I for one would not do it

What I would do if I were her is change the law in Arizona regarding children being the ones to make their own legal decisions

I think that is blatantly wrong

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:46 PM

Very interesting poll over at

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/02/21/2009-02-21_boy_11_charged_with_killing_fathers_fian.html

Poll Results
Thank you for voting.

What should happen to children who commit murder?

They should get help but be locked up 70%
They should get only therapy and rehab 10%
If guns were used, owners get punished 20%

Seems like I, and a few others here are actually in the majority despite what so many here had claimed.

Oh my!

What a tragic story!!

11 years old is not 8 years old though ..

Difference in maturity level there

Before this case came about, when i thought or read of children and murder, I thought of gang related killings

That was sad enough but times are truly changing

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:51 PM

Even if he was guilty and they actually had ZERO evidence he should have plead not guilty.

Just goes to show you, I think, the prosecution had plenty of evidence and it all pointed to the boy.

We already know they had CE to work with ... but even with zero evidence, to wait until he was 15 to bring him into an adult court for trial is asinine

The DA did not want to try him in juvenile court at his present age .. they wanted the older almost man child in court for a trial 6 years from now

If I were a defense attorney, I would not want that to happen

Innocent or not -- what a risk!

I would have demanded to try him as charged right now

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:53 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 10:56 PM

IMO, he knows he is guilty and he also knew this was a great deal, especially considering what all he had done.

imoo

And maybe he only thinks he is guilty of shooting his gun at men who were already shot at?

The "end their suffering" part that is in his head

(Which also fits the charge he plead to)

hooked2

02-21-2009, 10:58 PM

At the beginning of your post, you speak for yourself. In your second paragraph, you take on the persona of a child. Is that how you view yourself?

(snipped for space)

It's not always and only about the child. It is also about the village that raises him. JMO.

And on that note, I really must do something besides sit in front of the computer all day. Happy posting!

You mean here?

We have a sense of self, understand we have rights and boundaries, understand we have options. We are no longer at the 'mercy' of our parents' world....etc.(snip)

Uhh, no. :confused: 'We' as adults who are independent as compared to a child who is dependent.

I don't see myself as a child, but I think I was one a long time ago and I do have parents. As far as I can tell, that's pretty typical. :wink:

I agreed with the rest of what of you said though!

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:04 PM

Psychologically, I can see the boy blocking out that he killed them, trying to think up an alternative scenario in his mind so he doesn't go through horrible and intense guilt for cold bloodedly killing his dad.

My opinion

And I see a different child -- one that if he calculated the murders and was able to do it so cold heartedly, have said "yeah, I killed them .. so what!"

But he doesn't .. he stumbles, he "thinks" ... is like he is not sure

Almost like his mindset is in a movie and not in reality

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:07 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:13 PM

I knew Tim and Vinnie from work and they were good people and didn't deserve this. At one time, Tim may have done drugs, but he was a totally changed person and good father. I don't know anyone who disliked him. And i think you posters that badmouth these 2 are not good people.

I did not know either one, and if you honestly worked with them, then I am sorry for your loss

But the reports made public showed that Tim made a statement to one of his drug people the week before his murder that somebody wanted him dead

So either that person was making up a story for LE or he was dealing, even if he didn't use drugs himself any longer?

When discussing a case that people are interested in, that are out of the circle of the victims and accused, all we have to go with are the public documents and the media

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:15 PM

You don't see the conflict? He cold bloodedly kill him and another man whose only crime was being there and felt zero remorse. He would have to care to feel horrible...he didn't. IMO he didn't block out anything. He knows exactly what he did, that's why, dispite his mother's objections, he did exactly what he wanted to do. He likes getting his own way and don't like being told what to do.

IMO

Where is his bragging?

Kids love to brag about their feats

Especially children with no heart, soul or conscience

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:19 PM

An article on lies by Shreve says, "Someone telling a lie will also leak verbal clues that point to dishonesty. Since he or she has to invent an answer, a lie-teller will often spend more time searching for the right word in the course of telling a story. The person might take too long to provide an answer or get words mixed up. There are often pauses so the lie-teller can think of an appropriate answer"

just like you said, he stumbles and thinks....

a sign of a liar.

Actually I was referring to how he kept saying "I think" .. instead of yeah, I did that or I might have done that

I think i did ..

But I also keep in mind he was eight

Not very accomplished liars at that age

Most anyway .. there are always exceptions

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:21 PM

He isn't stupid, he wanted to get away with it. He doesn't want to be accountable. When I think of the way he twisted his lies to make himself out to be some sort of twisted hero for ending their suffering....I shiver! IMO

Who placed that idea in his head?

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:24 PM

He justified it to the CPS worker and to the boy he insisted follow him back to the scene to look.

IMO

There was no back up to the claim by the CPS worker

And he wanted to the boy next door to come .. what else was he supposed to do?

Somebody asked a long time ago a question that I am not sure we ever saw an answer to ... did he have a home phone or his own cell phone?

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:25 PM

Well...he certainly appeared cool as a cucumber...right up until he knew he was caught....but still still did his best to minimize his deeds.IMO

It is amazing how we see the "confession" video so differently

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:27 PM

Linda ...

Do you feel that a child of eight or nine should be allowed to make their own legal decisions .. be their own advocate in a court of law?

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:48 PM

Even though you say that, you know the defense attorney goes over this a million times with the kid and mom, before they go to the plea hearing. All 3 thoroughly knew what he was getting into.

IMO

Woods said he explained it three times

I have to explain a math problem to my eight year old (gifted) grandson way more than that before the light finally comes on in his head and he understands

How long would it take me to explain the legal terms of a plea agreement to him that most adults have admitted they could not comprehend?

muska

02-21-2009, 11:50 PM

"The last decade has seen the emergence of an inescapable and terrifying reality: a dramatic surge of juvenile crime that threatens to overwhelm our social institutions. Children under the age of ten who are capable of the sort of mindless violence that once was reserved for hardened adult criminals. At this writing, a small town in a western state is frantically searching for ways to deal with a nine-year-old who allegedly rapes and molests other children at knife point. He is too young to be charged and cannot be taken into care because "such action may only be taken when the child is in danger, not his victims," according to a child protection official". ~ Dr. Robert Hare

States better figure out something QUICK
.

Is this quote from the book "Without Conscience?" If so, it was published in 1999. That is a long time ago. The quote claims that in the previous decade there was a "dramatic surge of juvenile crime." A lot of people, during the 90s, predicted and wrote about a terrible youthful crime rate to come. John Dilulio and Wm Bennett wrote "Body Count."

Both Dilulio and Bennett have admitted that they were wrong. The crime wave never occurred. Juvenile crime increased, fairly dramatically, from the late 80s through 1994, but for the following 10 years, through 2004, juvenile crime decreased. The rate for the past several years has been steady or increased slowly. According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, if the rate of increase continues at the 2004-2005 rate, it would take 19 years for the juvenile crime rate to reach the 1994 level.

At any rate the quote, I believe, is out of date and says nothing about juvenile crime rates today.

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:52 PM

Linda---don't you honestly believe the defense attorney would have coached the mom and boy thoroughly well before they went to that hearing. I mean that's there job. PR is another part of their job.

You would think!

Three times is not nearly enough in my mind

The child heard only .. no juvie .. go home with Mom

Mom heard more than that but she had no say so in the matter

I think that is what really upsets me!

Just turning nine years old should not have been allowed to decide that .. no matter how sweet the deal

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 11:55 PM

Linda or GentleBreeze--

When Judge Roca has the sentencing hearing, do you believe the boy will apologize to the Roman's family?

In most adult cases, the offender shows remorse, to get lighter sentencing from the judge.

I think, if he apologizes, he won't say anything the Romeros, but would say something to the Romans. Any opinions?

I was quiet shocked actually to learn that he was chatting away and laughing before the hearing. It isn't that he doesn't know what he did, for IMO he does, but for some reason I think this boy just does not care.

How can he show remorse if he feels none?

I sincerely hope that Judge Roca lets the Romans' family give their victim impact statements. Their loved one sure didn't get justice so I think he owes them that at least.

imo

TaraCrazyHair

02-21-2009, 11:57 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

His own lawyer was singing a different tune the day before the plea hearing. I'd link it for you but ...my lap top is acting up. The link is the very last one I posted in the links thread. In it..he said the decision was HIS and HIS MOTHERS and THEY made it.

Defense lawyers...gotta love em:tongueside: the tales they can tell!

finally...here's the link
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/s...a.cbaf956.html

No, he stated as a matter of fact she was very upset about it in every interview after the fact

So what changed in the agreement from the "day before" and the day of?

How confused was she about it?

If an adult was confused before consulting her lawyer ... how well did the child understand?

muska

02-21-2009, 11:57 PM

GentleBreeze

02-21-2009, 11:59 PM

Is this quote from the book "Without Conscience?" If so, it was published in 1999. That is a long time ago. The quote claims that in the previous decade there was a "dramatic surge of juvenile crime." A lot of people, during the 90s, predicted and wrote about a terrible youthful crime rate to come. John Dilulio and Wm Bennett wrote "Body Count."

Both Dilulio and Bennett have admitted that they were wrong. The crime wave never occurred. Juvenile crime increased, fairly dramatically, from the late 80s through 1994, but for the following 10 years, through 2004, juvenile crime decreased. The rate for the past several years has been steady or increased slowly. According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, if the rate of increase continues at the 2004-2005 rate, it would take 19 years for the juvenile crime rate to reach the 1994 level.

At any rate the quote, I believe, is out of date and says nothing about juvenile crime rates today.

I sure would like to see the statistics that include the years of 2006 through 2008.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:01 AM

I was quiet shocked actually to learn that he was chatting away and laughing before the hearing. It isn't that he doesn't know what he did, for IMO he does, but for some reason I think this boy just does not care.

How can he show remorse if he feels none?

I sincerely hope that Judge Roca lets the Romans' family give their victim impact statements. Their loved one sure didn't get justice so I think he owes them that at least.

imo

Chatting away was most likely because he was told no matter what he could go home with Mom afterwards

Then the Judge spoke and he listened and he got "visibly upset"

Once again, he heard detention and that is scaring him the most

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:01 AM

Even though the attorney said three, I'm sure they went over this like a bank heist, well planned. the defense attorney looked pretty good at PR to me.

I agree. He was completely satisfied that the boy understood everything and he has been talking with this boy for over three months.

imo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:05 AM

On average, juveniles were involved in one-quarter of serious violent victimizations annually over the last 25 years

Known juvenile offenders were involved in atleast 1,043 murders in the U.S. in 2006– 10% of all murders

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03105.asp?qaDate=2006

That's not enough for you? You're missing the point, don't ya think? :confused:

When will it be an unacceptable amount to you? Should we close our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears and pretend there isn't a problem?

OMG! Youthful offenders commit 1043 murders a year! :ohmy: I bet that figure has gone up since 2006 too.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:07 AM

If that's true good for her, but I tend to be skeptical. I believe these things are well planned. I believe the mom knew she couldn't make the plea. Defense attorneys tend to be very deliberate and leak out things to make their clients look good. It looks great for the boy and the mom to say how can an incompetent kid make a plea, and the mom didn't agree to it, even if she did.

That way everyone smells like a rose. It's called PR. And defense attorneys tend to be very slimy about these things.

IMO

Me too. I think she knew she would be making the media circuit afterward and this would look better for her, when she does.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:08 AM

If the family could have afforded an attorney not with the PD office, we would not be discussing any of this right now

We would still be rehashing .. "did he do it, did he not do it, will he confess, will he be exonerated"

I do not think he had the best representation

But this is what we have, this is the result and I am still very upset that Arizona allowed a boy of nine to decide his life on his own and his mother's decision was not held in account

That is my beef with the legal maneuvering of this case

I know kids of that age who still cannot tie their shoes!

It is just very sad

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:11 AM

muska doesn't seem to have a problem with it:shrug:

Well I find it frightening and quite appalling.

But then lately I have read cases where youthful offenders have beaten someone to death and someone took pictures of it on their cell phone. Sometimes it is even one of them or their buddies who takes the pictures.

Surreal.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:13 AM

Do I hear mucho paid interviews and a book deal???
I'm just a skeptical person about these things!

IMO

Nothing would shock me. Eryn isnt even working is she?

imo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:15 AM

I think his legal team was "top knotch", with lots of help. He fared much better than the 99% of the rest of the population that would have plead guilty to 1st or 2nd degree murder.

ITA If it has been an adult defendant they most likely would have plead guilty to two 1st degrees to save themselves from the death penalty.

He had good attorneys and he got a sweetheart deal.

imo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:18 AM

Do I hear mucho paid interviews and a book deal???
I'm just a skeptical person about these things!

IMO

Would she risk her life for such things?

If I was in her place and my child had supposedly coldbloodly killed two human beings, regardless who they were, I would not for one single second feel safe with that child in my home

No way in Hades!

She obviously believes 100% in his innocence

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:21 AM

It shouldn't take anyone a statistician to see the violent offenders are getting younger and younger...8, 9, 10, 11, 12 year old cold blooded murderers are now a reality.

Discipline has resistantly been removed from the parents and into the hands of the state

That is my opinion why crime among youth has risen so drastically

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:22 AM

Most mothers do! Denial is a powerful thing.

I do not think she is denial

She must know more than we do

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:25 AM

I do not think she is denial

She must know more than we do

People tend to believe what they seek to believe, not necessarily what is.

She is a mother. They could lay it all out in front of her and she would be in denial. He has even admitted he killed Tim Romans and yet she still denies it. His own lawyer has said that the boy has talked about it to him and I am sure he has to his mother.

Just a typical mother and this one has to have much guilt already imo.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:26 AM

I attribute it to violent rap. look at Chris Brown & Rihanna. They call all women bitches and ho-s, slap em, make em your sex toy, etc.

I do not blame just the music or video games etc ...

I blame it on false accusations of child abuse and careless CPS workers and the trend of parents killing and abusing their children to the point nobody really understands who has control

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:28 AM

People tend to believe what they seek to believe, not necessarily what is.

She is a mother. They could lay it all out in front of her and she would be in denial. He has even admitted he killed Tim Romans and yet she still denies it. His own lawyer has said that the boy has talked about it to him and I am sure he has to his mother.

Just a typical mother and this one has to have much guilt already imo.

imoo

He HAD to admit to it .. it was part of the plea

His own lawyer never said he admitted to killing anyone?

And she was not allowed to speak of it to him ... during his furlough

Where did you read or hear that he admitted he murdered anyone to his lawyer or Mother?

All I know is what he had to admit in Court in order to make the plea valid?

muska

02-22-2009, 12:30 AM

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:31 AM

She's a mother. enough said.

I so disagree!

Mothers are not just mothers anymore!!

Heck .. mothers kill their children!

I am a mother of five .. if one of them would have done this crime he was accused of, I would love him still but would I feel 100% safe?

No way

I would have precautions

Unless I knew he did not do the accused crime

Catch-22 really

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:32 AM

He HAD to admit to it .. it was part of the plea

His own lawyer never said he admitted to killing anyone?

And she was not allowed to speak of it to him ... during his furlough

Where did you read or hear that he admitted he murdered anyone to his lawyer or Mother?

All I know is what he had to admit in Court in order to make the plea valid?

His lawyer has his own guarded speakisms, Tara. He said he has talked to him about his involvement in the crime. That is just a nice vague way of saying the boy has told him he did it.

He admitted that he killed Tim Romans because it is true.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:33 AM

Again, if he's innocent he shouldn't have confessed. He should have plead not guilty.

That is what his Mom wanted

All he heard was no juvie and go home with Mom .. say Guilty

Adult reasoning vs child reasoning

That is my whole point!!

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:36 AM

I so disagree!

Mothers are not just mothers anymore!!

Heck .. mothers kill their children!

I am a mother of five .. if one of them would have done this crime he was accused of, I would love him still but would I feel 100% safe?

No way

I would have precautions

Unless I knew he did not do the accused crime

Catch-22 really

She really doesn't even know this child well. A mother has to be there for their child on a consistent basis to know them. She pretends or thinks she knows him. It is much better for her to deny. It is a coping mechanism where she doesn't have to think of the things that you have listed in your post.

I don't think anyone can say what a mother would do, if God forbid they were in this situation. I have seen mothers' of murder defendants who have proclaimed their child was innocent when the evidence told a much different story.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:38 AM

His lawyer has his own guarded speakisms, Tara. He said he has talked to him about his involvement in the crime. That is just a nice vague way of saying the boy has told him he did it.

He admitted that he killed Tim Romans because it is true.

imoo

I strongly disagree

Woods has not a clue what happened, if the child really killed either of the men, if he shot at a man or both man who were "shaking" ..

Woods is clueless because the child does not remember

Therapy will help recover memory on this .. and hopefully therapy will help him get over it either way

But Woods has no idea

He stated explicitly .. his job was to to do what he could for his client

He is nothing but a text book lawyer ... he said as much when he stated he is "not his father"

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:39 AM

That is what his Mom wanted

All he heard was no juvie and go home with Mom .. say Guilty

Adult reasoning vs child reasoning

That is my whole point!!

You really have no idea if this was the case or not, Tara. I think this boy is highly intelligent. I heard the attorney talking about trying to get him a scholarship to a private school. He is no dummy or pushover.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:41 AM

I respectfully, and wholeheartedly DISAGREE...

At least we can agree to disagree in a mature manner

I respect that

(:

This board has lacked respect lately

This conversation has been quite nice tonight

I need the alternative point of view to keep mine in perspective

Kudos!

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:42 AM

I think you're being a liittle hard on Woods, you're making a lot of assumptions about Woods based on nothing. IMO

Not really

All I can say about that

It is not assumption

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:44 AM

I strongly disagree

Woods has not a clue what happened, if the child really killed either of the men, if he shot at a man or both man who were "shaking" ..

Woods is clueless because the child does not remember

Therapy will help recover memory on this .. and hopefully therapy will help him get over it either way

But Woods has no idea

He stated explicitly .. his job was to to do what he could for his client

He is nothing but a text book lawyer ... he said as much when he stated he is "not his father"

Where has it been stated he didn't remember?

From the defense lawyer? LOL Yet the boy gets up there and admits to JR he killed TR? Come on Tara, there is nothing wrong with this boy's memory.

He said he had discussed with him his involvement in the crimes, Tara. He has to remember to tell him that.

Well of course he is not his father. The boy has no father. He killed him. But what Woods was saying that he had no say so in the plea deal because he is not his father.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:45 AM

Goodnight to all, glad this has been civil. Have fun, it's early on a Saturday night!

Good night, Yazzie! :smile:

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:45 AM

Goodnight to all, glad this has been civil. Have fun, it's early on a Saturday night!

LOL

I wish it was early!

Almost midnight here ... just came off three days of the flu into a 12 hour work day today and headed into another 12 hour tomorrow!

You go have fun ... i will seek out my Nyquil and sleep

(:

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:47 AM

Finally! Something we can all agree on:)

:beer:

Let me toast to that.

:beer:

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:48 AM

Good Night everyone!:tongueside:

Good night everyone!:seeya: I am turning in too. It is almost midnight here.

imoo

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 12:49 AM

Where has it been stated he didn't remember?

From the defense lawyer? LOL Yet the boy gets up there and admits to JR he killed TR? Come on Tara, there is nothing wrong with this boy's memory.

He said he had discussed his involvement in the crimes, Tara. He has to remember to tell him that.

Well of course he is not his father. The boy has no father. He killed him. But what Woods was saying that he had no say so in the plea deal because he is not his father.

imoo

From all accounts ... he does not remember. That I do believe regardless if he did the crime or not.

As far as Woods go .. it is almost like he detached himself in this case once the gag order was issued

He did his job .. he patted himself on the back and he walks away

I really do not like this man at all

I wish Brewer would have been a bit more outspoken ... I liked him better

tricwebs

02-22-2009, 12:49 AM

OMG! Youthful offenders commit 1043 murders a year! :ohmy: I bet that figure has gone up since 2006 too.

imoo

OMG! the FBI statistics (as taken from table 32 of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program) (http://http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_32.html) lists the number of persons under 18 years of age arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide as 753 for 2007. This represents a 23% decrease as compared to data reported in 1997 and only a 2.8% increase from data collected in 2006 (which was 774, not the 1043 listed from the other site). The 2007 statistics lists that only 85 people under the age of 15 were arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide. Out of a total of 8,177 people arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide, only 1% were under 15. Of course, there is no data collected to seperate out those age groups to determine just how many 8 year olds were in that category.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:56 AM

OMG! the FBI statistics (as taken from table 32 of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program) (http://http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_32.html) lists the number of persons under 18 years of age arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide as 753 for 2007. This represents a 23% decrease as compared to data reported in 1997 and only a 2.8% increase from data collected in 2006 (which was 774, not the 1043 listed from the other site). The 2007 statistics lists that only 85 people under the age of 15 were arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide. Out of a total of 8,177 people arrested for murder or nonnegligent homicide, only 1% were under 15. Of course, there is no data collected to seperate out those age groups to determine just how many 8 year olds were in that category.

That is still alarming. That is over two murders a day committed by juvenile offenders.

imoo

tricwebs

02-22-2009, 01:40 AM

That is still alarming. That is over two murders a day committed by juvenile offenders.

imoo
Yep, 711 murders or nonnegligent homicides were committed by juveniles age 15 to 17 in 2007. 85 were committed by juveniles under 15. That data is still down 23% compared to 10 years prior, and only up less than 3% from the previous year. Sure, it's not good news, but it isn't the doom and gloom that some of you posters make it out to be.
As for this situation, there are no released (or compiled) statistics to indicate how many 8 year olds were arrested. An 8 year old does not have the mental capacity to be held to the same standards as a 15 year old, a 17 year old, or an adult. It's basic physiology. Unless this kid was some sort of super-mutant, his brain was no where near the physiological development to be considered competent to plan and committ a murder. Now, can an 8 yr old kill? Sure, but you'll need much more than what appears to be nothing short of a coerced confession (come on, the kid basically kept guessing what to say trying to please the authority figures in the room) and an insignificant amout of GSR on his clothing (especially considering he's supposed to have shot 10 rounds).

But what's the point. It's obvious that you (and the other people who think this kid should be treated as a full grown adult) clearly have more knowledge about developmental childhood behavior and must have a vast experience of dealing with the numerous pre-adolescent murders that get arrested every day.[/end sarcasm]

hooked2

02-22-2009, 01:54 AM

How would you like this little darling in your neighborhood?

"A 10-year-old boy from Orange, N.J., was charged today with murder and aggravated sexual assault in the brutal beating death of a 4-month-old boy who had been left in his care late Saturday night while the baby's mother went to a local fast food restaurant 10 minutes away, Essex County prosecutors and investigators said."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E3DD1238F933A05754C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
First off, your story was from 1998, which I didn't realize while reading it.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: July 30, 1998

Second, I just don't see the need for sarcasm when referring to the children in these horrific cases.

And third, there were several points of issue:

-The boys mother is 26, her child is 10. So she may have been as young as 15 when getting pregnant and gave birth at 16.

-They call the location a 'project' which indicates poverty.

-The 10 year old was left to care for the babies, when he was so young that she, in fact, was supposed to be babysitting him.

-There's probably about a 99% chance that a 10 year old committing a sexual assault was previously sexually assaulted himself.

-The boy is possibly neurologically impaired as told to authorities.

-The boys mother wasn't there for the interrogation, nor did he have a lawyer or advocate.

Yes indeed, I feel the same way about this child as I do about CR.

muska

02-22-2009, 01:58 AM

Yep, 711 murders or nonnegligent homicides were committed by juveniles age 15 to 17 in 2007. 85 were committed by juveniles under 15. That data is still down 23% compared to 10 years prior, and only up less than 3% from the previous year. Sure, it's not good news, but it isn't the doom and gloom that some of you posters make it out to be.
As for this situation, there are no released (or compiled) statistics to indicate how many 8 year olds were arrested. An 8 year old does not have the mental capacity to be held to the same standards as a 15 year old, a 17 year old, or an adult. It's basic physiology. Unless this kid was some sort of super-mutant, his brain was no where near the physiological development to be considered competent to plan and committ a murder. Now, can an 8 yr old kill? Sure, but you'll need much more than what appears to be nothing short of a coerced confession (come on, the kid basically kept guessing what to say trying to please the authority figures in the room) and an insignificant amout of GSR on his clothing (especially considering he's supposed to have shot 10 rounds).

But what's the point. It's obvious that you (and the other people who think this kid should be treated as a full grown adult) clearly have more knowledge about developmental childhood behavior and must have a vast experience of dealing with the numerous pre-adolescent murders that get arrested every day.[/end sarcasm]

Thanks for the help, I was trying to show that juvenile crime rates have decreased. You have done a better job than I did of showing that. I think that because the media reports so much on crime rates, people tend to think things are worse than they actually are. As you said, not that it is good, but it is not worse than it has been in the past.

muska

02-22-2009, 02:03 AM

First off, your story was from 1998, which I didn't realize while reading it.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: July 30, 1998

Second, I just don't see the need for sarcasm when referring to the children in these horrific cases.

And third, there were several points of issue:

-The boys mother is 26, her child is 10. So she may have been as young as 15 when getting pregnant and gave birth at 16.

-They call the location a 'project' which indicates poverty.

-The 10 year old was left to care for the babies, when he was so young that she, in fact, was supposed to be babysitting him.

-There's probably about a 99% chance that a 10 year old committing a sexual assault was previously sexually assaulted himself.

-The boy is possibly neurologically impaired as told to authorities.

-The boys mother wasn't there for the interrogation, nor did he have a lawyer or advocate.

Yes indeed, I feel the same way about this child as I do about CR.

I liked your idea about the panel of judges and psychiatrists that you posted on the old thread. If you have a chance, you should repost it. It would be interesting to hear how others feel or if anyone has ideas to add.

hooked2

02-22-2009, 02:32 AM

hooked2

02-22-2009, 02:43 AM

I liked your idea about the panel of judges and psychiatrists that you posted on the old thread. If you have a chance, you should repost it. It would be interesting to hear how others feel or if anyone has ideas to add.

Oh, thanks! I can't believe that nothing has been done as of yet. Lawmakers are desperately behind the times on this gap in the judicial system. The first time I heard the words 'tried as an adult' I was like, 'what?' Now years later, it is just plain frustrating that they continue on this either/or path. Automatic release simply because someone turns 18 is senseless. Trying and putting a minor into the adult system is ludicrous. And putting children in juvie or locking them away without attempting serious rehabilitation is pointless because they'll cycle back in.

mrrogers

02-22-2009, 04:29 AM

You need to ask Wood/Brewer and Judge Roca.

Evidently they do not agree with Cady and agree that he is competent to understand a very simple plea deal.

But who knows, when the experts testify imo, they will both say he does have the understanding to accept this plea deal.

A long trial and all the legalese in it is one thing. This is not about him being age incompetent to stand trial.

I highly doubt that either expert found him unable to know right from wrong or that he doesn't have the capacity to know he is guilty of these crimes.

the article sez dr cady pronounced him unfit to stand trial
u
IMO, he got a sweetheart deal and should be thankful that both the State and defense's main concern is too see he gets extensive mental treatment to uncover why he was capable of doing these violent acts. It seems both the defense and state have not uncovered the why and are only left hoping the psychiatrists can peel the onion skin back and find it.

imo

the article sez dr cady pronounced him unfit to stand trial
u

interested

02-22-2009, 08:58 AM

So what should we do with all of them?

What if they're STILL dangerous at 18? Then what?

Let them all go and cross our fingers?

I've been trying so hard to remember the name of a RI boy, the case was years and years ago. He killed a neighbor in her home, he was a bit older than this child. Every once in a while we see his name come back up in the news. It was a vicious crime, and that was exactly the worry, that he would be released when he reached 21 by RI law at the time.

They did hold him in a juvenile facility until he turned 18, he was transferred to an adult facility & they petitioned the court to hold him until 21 in a dangerousness hearing. They prevailed.

While in the adult facility he attacked a prison guard. They charged him with that as an adult. Every now and then he comes up for parole/release. As far as I know he's yet to be released. He keeps getting in trouble in prison and they keep charging him. Somehow I think his name is Price.

Suffice to say, if he's still dangerous by the time he's 18 they'll know and take action to keep him confined. They do have the ability to do so. I wish I could remember his name. It was a totally different type of case than the AZ boy, the one I'm thinking of may have been salvageable had someone done something when he was 8, but he was a bit older.

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 09:38 AM

I've been trying so hard to remember the name of a RI boy, the case was years and years ago. He killed a neighbor in her home, he was a bit older than this child. Every once in a while we see his name come back up in the news. It was a vicious crime, and that was exactly the worry, that he would be released when he reached 21 by RI law at the time.

They did hold him in a juvenile facility until he turned 18, he was transferred to an adult facility & they petitioned the court to hold him until 21 in a dangerousness hearing. They prevailed.

While in the adult facility he attacked a prison guard. They charged him with that as an adult. Every now and then he comes up for parole/release. As far as I know he's yet to be released. He keeps getting in trouble in prison and they keep charging him. Somehow I think his name is Price.

Suffice to say, if he's still dangerous by the time he's 18 they'll know and take action to keep him confined. They do have the ability to do so. I wish I could remember his name. It was a totally different type of case than the AZ boy, the one I'm thinking of may have been salvageable had someone done something when he was 8, but he was a bit older.

Craig Price and the Heaton murders?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/craig_price/index.html

If this is who your speaking of, he was 15 when he murdered a young mother and her two young daughters back in 1989 ... and had killed another woman when he was 13

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 10:25 AM

Yep, 711 murders or nonnegligent homicides were committed by juveniles age 15 to 17 in 2007. 85 were committed by juveniles under 15. That data is still down 23% compared to 10 years prior, and only up less than 3% from the previous year. Sure, it's not good news, but it isn't the doom and gloom that some of you posters make it out to be.
As for this situation, there are no released (or compiled) statistics to indicate how many 8 year olds were arrested. An 8 year old does not have the mental capacity to be held to the same standards as a 15 year old, a 17 year old, or an adult. It's basic physiology. Unless this kid was some sort of super-mutant, his brain was no where near the physiological development to be considered competent to plan and commit a murder. Now, can an 8 yr old kill? Sure, but you'll need much more than what appears to be nothing short of a coerced confession (come on, the kid basically kept guessing what to say trying to please the authority figures in the room) and an insignificant amount of GSR on his clothing (especially considering he's supposed to have shot 10 rounds).

But what's the point. It's obvious that you (and the other people who think this kid should be treated as a full grown adult) clearly have more knowledge about developmental childhood behavior and must have a vast experience of dealing with the numerous pre-adolescent murders that get arrested every day.[/end sarcasm]

First, I never said I thought this boy should be tried as an adult. I do believe he should have been given juvenile incarceration until the age of 18 and given rehabilitation and extensive mental treatment during those 9 years.

Lawmakers all across this country nor the courts agrees with your assessment about adolescent children. They are trying juvenile murder offenders under the age of 15 as an adult. Even as young as 11, 12 and the cases that i have read about, the court is upholding those convictions. If overturned it was not due to them being tried as an adult.

No, fortunately, I have come across a vast amount of children in my life time but have never known any of them to commit an act of murder, much less double homicide.

imo

interested

02-22-2009, 10:39 AM

Craig Price and the Heaton murders?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/craig_price/index.html

If this is who your speaking of, he was 15 when he murdered a young mother and her two young daughters back in 1989 ... and had killed another woman when he was 13

TY so much Tara, it's been driving me crazy trying to remember his name. Yes, that's the case.

tricwebs

02-22-2009, 12:11 PM

First, I never said I thought this boy should be tried as an adult. I do believe he should have been given juvenile incarceration until the age of 18 and given rehabilitation and extensive mental treatment during those 9 years.

Lawmakers all across this country nor the courts agrees with your assessment about adolescent children. They are trying juvenile murder offenders under the age of 15 as an adult. Even as young as 11, 12 and the cases that i have read about, the court is upholding those convictions. If overturned it was not due to them being tried as an adult.

No, fortunately, I have come across a vast amount of children in my life time but have never known any of them to commit an act of murder, much less double homicide.

imo

Placing this child into a juvenile correctional facility for the next 9 years would do nothing more than ensure he becomes a "hardened criminal". At age 9, his brain hasn't reached the physiological development necessary to truly process what has happened to him and by placing him into detention he will become a product of his environment.

As for the courts and lawmakers, they are a reactionary bunch of individuals with no real knowledge of childhood behavioral development. Just because "we" (and I use the term loosly because very rarely does the candidate I vote for win an election) vote them into a position of authority doesn't make them qualified to exercise that authority appropriately in all decisions. They usually pass laws and render jugements based upon placating the majority of a population (let's face it, they want to get reelected), and in many times that majority just wants to "feel" safe even if it is only a false sense of security.

I've also met many children in my lifetime. Those whom some would call "evil" (like how so many claim about this child) either have some form of physiological problem with their brain, or are the product of an extremely dysfunctional environment, or both. At 8 years old, it's not his fault if he did shoot these two men (which I have a hard time believing he did it) however, if he did it he needs intensive counseling, a change of environment, and the last thing he needs to become a productive member of society is incarceration. Hell, he's gonna need some intensive counseling as it is just because of the situation he's already gone through.

tricwebs

02-22-2009, 12:22 PM

Letting him out, allows him to do it again, what a concept! IMo
It's ironic that you would choose the username you have. You do of course have some facts to back up your opinion, or is your crystal ball just that good?

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 12:57 PM

Letting him out, allows him to do it again, what a concept! IMo

Yes it seems that some think the answer is just letting them all out without serving any time for the crime they committed. The punishment should always fit the crime imo and this case was more heinous than most, yet no justice or punishment is likely to occur. I think that sends a very dangerous message to our children, who do not read or look at the news, but are very aware of the conversations held in the homes by their family members and acquaintances, when talking about such cases.

I guess in the near future it wont be the older sibling murdering off their parents, they will instead talk their younger sibling into doing it knowing that they will not be punished at all for it if they do it.

If we go around thinking that detention time or prison time creates harden criminals then I guess we have to assume no one should be punished for any crime whatsoever.

And speaking of hardened criminals, imo the very essence of these crimes that this boy has already committed shows he is "hardened", in order for him to make a leap to the ultimate violent act of homicide times two.

imo

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 12:59 PM

His lawyer has his own guarded speakisms, Tara. He said he has talked to him about his involvement in the crime. That is just a nice vague way of saying the boy has told him he did it.

Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, where'd Wood say anything like that? I think that's just you putting words in Wood's mouth to explain what you personally believe, about the boy and about children in general. Like I said before, people who say and think like you scare. I think when anybody's this certain about something they have no real knowledge of it shows how little they actually think about anything.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:07 PM

Make him worse than he already is? I think, he's already coldly murdered two people. How much worse can he get? He'd have to murder three people at a time to be any worse, in my opinion. If he does go on to kill again after age 18, who will you think is to be to blamed then, if he receives therapy and treatment? At what age should a murderer be responsible for their own actions?

Placing him into detention?

I know I've stated no less than 20 times that I believe he needs to be placed in a secure residential TREATMENT facility for the next 9 years.

I do agree that he should be housed in a secure residential treatment facility. IMO, he does not deserve to be allowed freedom to go on with his life as if he did nothing wrong and just report to the psych doc every now and then.

He took away these two victims' freedom and he also should lose his freedom while they closely monitor him to uncover why he was capable of doing such horrifying deeds so that hopefully he can be treated successfully, which I have my doubts.

imoo

interested

02-22-2009, 01:10 PM

Me either. I don't know Linda, I might want him around my worst enemy.
This boy is just plain "creepy" IMO

I don't know this boy, I'm not willing to say he's creepy, I'm not willing to make any judgment at all about what should or shouldn't be done going forward because I am willing to say "I don't know".

Don't get me wrong, I believe he killed two men, I think he did it intentionally and one of them was his own father.

However, I'm also willing to accept that this is a child. What he did could be a product of his upbringing, something that happened to him that none of us are aware of, or because he has some deep psychological impairment.

There are people more skilled than I, and closer to the situation to make the determination as to what should happen now. JMHO

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 01:20 PM

Yes it seems that some think the answer is just letting them all out without serving any time for the crime they committed.

We're one of the few countries in the world who treat children this way. It just shows how little people actually think of kids. People who say things like the punishment should always fit the crime are just talking about revenge. I think there's really no difference between people who say things like that and people who think other human beings are apes or animals and deserve to be killed.

Severe laws have never deterred crime. All the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. States with three-strike laws have the highest inmate population rates. States with the stiffest drug laws have the most frivolous arrests for drug possession. No child is going to see what happened here and go "I better not kill anybody" the same way that the state murdering some serial killer with drugs doesn't stop other serial killers.

If we go around thinking that detention time or prison time creates harden criminals then I guess we have to assume no one should be punished for any crime whatsoever.

It's a fact, not an opinion. The longer children are placed in prison, the worse they come out. I think you already know that and I think may you may like that bad things happen to children in those places or maybe you don't care. Like I said before, it's scares me because it leads to very horrible things happening.

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 01:21 PM

People who believe this boy an want him out, scare me. IMO

People who believe this boy did this and want him to get abused in prison scare me. IMO

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 01:24 PM

By the way, is it me or does it seem like there's one person having three "conversations" with herself?

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:44 PM

We're one of the few countries in the world who treat children this way. It just shows how little people actually think of kids. People who say things like the punishment should always fit the crime are just talking about revenge. I think there's really no difference between people who say things like that and people who think other human beings are apes or animals and deserve to be killed.

Severe laws have never deterred crime. All the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. States with three-strike laws have the highest inmate population rates. States with the stiffest drug laws have the most frivolous arrests for drug possession. No child is going to see what happened here and go "I better not kill anybody" the same way that the state murdering some serial killer with drugs doesn't stop other serial killers.

It's a fact, not an opinion. The longer children are placed in prison, the worse they come out. I think you already know that and I think may you may like that bad things happen to children in those places or maybe you don't care. Like I said before, it's scares me because it leads to very horrible things happening.

Punishment is not to deter crime and never has been imo. It is a form of individual punishment of criminals who have broken the law and based on their INDIVIDUAL crime and not based on the entire group as a whole.

You try to say it is every juvenile that comes out worse than before and that is not true. If so then the recidivism rate would be at 100% not 50/50 and most of these crimes do not pertain to double homicides.

"I think you may like that bad things happen to children in those places" :no::no:

I suggest that you back off from your BS spill :no: and don't try to "think" for me. You scare me, so I guess we are even.

BTW/ has anyone seen Jacobtk around lately?

IMO

.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:49 PM

And just who are "those people"???

I don't know any.

:confused::shrug:

I sure would be very interested in seeing "those people" and their posts, wouldn't you? A sort of put up or shut up thingy.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:53 PM

It's you..... They're probably the same three imaginary people that you know that want to see the boy abused in prison.

:smile::lol:

I think you must be right.

imo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:55 PM

Who in their right mind would want any boy, girl or any human being or Ape be abused in prison? Besides what makes you think he's going to prison...I think they call it a juvenile detention center, not PRISON.

And if he even gets detention it will be at a local county detention and the one in St. John's houses about 13 kids.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 01:59 PM

Linda, I've been thinking of the apology angle at the sentencing hearing. If the boy apologizes to the Roman family, I'm thinking it will be a scripted, politician type apology, where you really don't admit you did it, where you're general...

something like...

"Your honor, I feel bad for the Romans family and I promise to be good"

something where you don't really apologize or show remorse. IMO

I do think he will make a statement or read it and his lawyer will help him write it. I think he has to knowing that JR will consider that when ruling.

imoo

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 02:03 PM

Hardly San Quentin or Angola Prison :rolleyes:

I bet they are pretty laid back there.

Although I would think if he is housed there he is the only one that has been accused of double homicide or even one homicide for that matter.

A little scary that his teachers said he is a leader and can sway other children his way.:ohmy:

imo

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 02:15 PM

Punishment is not to deter crime and never has been imo. It is a form of individual punishment of criminals who have broken the law and based on their INDIVIDUAL crime and not based on the entire group as a whole.

Right... That's why the laws about charging children as adults say that it's only supposed to apply in "individual cases" and not that the laws say something like "Any felony committed by a juvenile 14 or older automatically moves to adult court." That sounds like they treat children based on the entire group as a whole.

You can try to spin the reality of prison all you want, but the fact is it makes people harder. You can go to Just Detention and read the stats. Making up statistics about the recidivism rate doesn't change that.

And I'm just stating my opinion. In my opinion I think you like that bad things happen to children in prison or that you don't care that they happen. Or maybe you don't believe anybody ever does abusive things to children. I'm not really sure. IMO

You scare me for a very different reason than you think.

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 02:17 PM

I sure would be very interested in seeing "those people" and their posts

Read the posts from the last two pages. Sounds a lot like the same person posting under two other name IMO

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 02:31 PM

i think what LE & this boy's lawyer did to him is wrong.
i stand with the boy's mother on this. i dont agree with the plea bargain at all. JMO

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 02:35 PM

And I'm just stating my opinion. In my opinion I think you like that bad things happen to children in prison or that you don't care that they happen. Or maybe you don't believe anybody ever does abusive things to children. I'm not really sure. IMO

It is against TOS here to make an opinion about another poster. The opinions expressed are supposed to be about THE CASE............not about what other "THINK" about other posters.

So please stop it.:no: It shows pettiness and immaturity imo.

I certainly have my own opinion about you as well but I am very aware I am not to personally attack another poster for any reason, so I will refrain.

imo

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 02:36 PM

What's going here now's pretty ridiculous. I think this board should just be closed. There's a lot of things being said about the kid that cross the line. It's not serving anybody at this point.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 02:39 PM

What's going here now's pretty ridiculous. I think this board should just be closed. There's a lot of things being said about the kid that cross the line. It's not serving anybody at this point.

So because you don't agree with differing opinions from yours, you are now wanting to be Hall Monitor for all?:confused:

This board does not need to be closed imo. There is a hearing on March 5th concerning this case.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 02:46 PM

Gotta go Linda, I don't want to be a bad influence on you, GentleBreeze and this board. I sure miss Denise.....

JMO

Oh good grief, you aren't, TheTruth. I miss denisel too.

But I am taking a break too.......

Be back in a little while.

imoo

Blessed

02-22-2009, 04:21 PM

This boy "scares" me. And "bad things" can happen to victims. Letting a boy like this out before 18 can create more victims. IMOThe boy most likely didn't even commit these crimes, there is no proof of that, so you can't say if this boy did or did not commit these crimes, no one knows what happened, all the little boy remembers is seeing his dad and dad's friend shot, from my understanding, what is really scary is someone assuming guilty when they have no proof.

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 05:25 PM

I think it's obvious the kid was guilty, especially to anyone that followed the case and read the documents. He would have been convicted if the judge agreed to drop a charge to be refiled later, he knew it and so did his lawyer. It wasn't a chance they wanted to take. There was nothing to exonerate him because he did it. imo

i believe IF this kid did it then it was because he walked in, saw them wounded/suffering & he was probably taught by his father to shoot to kill the wounded to end their suffering. childrens minds dont work like adults. he would of been in shock right away when he walked in & saw them all bloody & hurt so he would not of been able to think straight.
so if the above that i posted is correct then someone else was the one who shot them first. the boy would of only did what his father & maybe other hunters taught him. this is all JMO/IMO.

tricwebs

02-22-2009, 05:47 PM

1. who says he isn't already a hardened criminal? He killed 2 people already, that seems pretty hardened to me.

2. who says going to jail will make him hardened? IMO it will make him a better person, to pay for his crime, and protect society.

3. Who says his brain isn't developed? Seems preety developed to me, to make this elaborate scheme to kill two.

4 there is no evidence incarceration will make this boy worse. I believe it will make him better.

5. Since when did courts and lawmakers become a reactionary bunch? That is bull.

6 What makes them not qualified, do you have a law degree, or law experience to make you qualified?

7. Why can't an evil get just be evil? They can and are.

8. Of course, it's his fault, no one pulled the trigger for him.

This boy needs to learn taking responsibilty for his own actions. IMO

1. There is no actual proof that he murdered 2 people. The best you can get is that he plead guilty to one count of negligent homicide. If you don't understand the difference, then I truly feel sorry for you. Besides, just because he pled guilty to anything doesn't mean he's guilty, there are plenty of people who have pled guilty to a lesser charge and have later been found not to be guilty. Expecting a nine year old child to really understand what the plea means is more than unrealistic.
2. Any expert on childhood development will tell you that incarcerating this child for the next 9 years will make him a "hardened criminal".
3. Basic biology. His brain isn't fully developed no matter how much you think it is. If you can't even accept this scientific fact, then you really don't know what "TheTruth" means.
4. There is no known study to indicate that subjecting a 9 year old boy to juvenile incarceration will do anything but make him "worse".
5. Courts and lawmakers are always reactionary, it's their very nature. Most laws are written "after the fact" as a reaction to something that has occured and judges don't hear cases before they happen. Sorry, but we don't have a "pre-crime" division that can see into the future and act on an event before it happens; we react to the events after they happen.
6. By the same token, are any of the lawmakers and judges you put so much faith into professionals in childhood development or even human behavioral sciences? No, they are not. If they were, they wouldn't even bother to ask for a professional's opinion on the competency of anyone.
7. Because "good" and "evil" are moral constructs created and defined by society. They do not exist on their own and no human is just "inherently evil". Human behavior is an end result of the environment of which we are raised combined with the physiological development of our brains.
8. Again, you lack any evidence to put the gun in this child's hands or prove that he pulled the trigger. We will never know what evidence, or more likely lack of evidence, exists in the situation. You base your opinion on what, all the experts I've heard say, is a coerced confession of an 8 year old child. I base my opinion on the false confession, the lack of any appreciable amount of GSR on the child's clothing, and the very fact that nothing in the publicized confession is a match for any of the crime scene evidence that has been released to date.

Ninja108

02-22-2009, 05:50 PM

Those who still have doubts about the boy's innocence despite this plea agreement are being rude?? We have been greeted with snide and sarcastic remarks to valid criticisms about this case. I was insulted by another poster when I pointed out many factors that are present in this case have been a factor in many cases where people who were "guilty" (they confessed, plead guilty etc) turned out to be INNOCENT. Nobody's mind is going to change here but for those believe the boy did it, there may have been mud thrown from people who think he's innocent but please don't portray yourselves as being civil in this debate. Because you havn't been.

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 06:25 PM

Again, he shouldn't have confessed...and he should have pled inncoent if he was innocent. He did have a choice, like the choice he made with the 2 men. IMO

the problem is, he wasnt able to choose for himself, he's only 9 & just turned 9. was only 8 when he gave a half confession. his lawyer made the choice for him & against his mothers wishes & the boy went along with it because the lawyer is an adult. JMO

Ninja108

02-22-2009, 06:28 PM

How did your conversation go with the Innocence Project folks? or didn't you call them?

Like I said, rude and conscending remarks.

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 06:33 PM

You think he's 100% innocent?

not sure if he is 100% innocent of shooting them BUT if he isnt, then its because he was only doing what he was taught.
please read my post #340.
and you'll understand why i am saying taught.
i really dont think he did it tho.

Ninja108

02-22-2009, 06:35 PM

I don't believe there is such a word.

Do you mean condescending?

Guess you should look it up on the internet before you post it?

That way people won't be rude or condescending to you.

JMO

Proofreading is what I need to do on occasion.

Ninja108

02-22-2009, 06:37 PM

Making a call would be tricky without having all the evidence wouldn't it. And heck maybe he could be guilty but I'd like to see ALL the evidence. Tim Romans was a drug dealer which opens up a big suspect pool if you ask me.

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 06:42 PM

the problem is, he wasn't able to choose for himself, he's only 9 & just turned 9. was only 8 when he gave a half confession. his lawyer made the choice for him & against his mothers wishes & the boy went along with it because the lawyer is an adult. JMO

Of course he was and by law he can and did. Even if his lawyer had stood on his head and pleaded with him not to do it, would make no difference, it isn't the lawyers choice to plead but the defendant's.

imoo

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 06:48 PM

I respectfully think you're wrong. The boy could have pled not guilty. Even the Defense Atty said he would have accepted a not guilty plea from the boy to the very end.

yeah but the lawyer made him think that the only way he could be with his mother would be if he pled guilty. his lawyer knew all the boy wanted was to be with his mama. IMO/JMO

GentleBreeze

02-22-2009, 06:51 PM

I've even wondered about that, he may have been, but I think it was "suspected" dealer who possessed meth. I don't know if they ever established that he in fact was a dealer. Either way he didn't deserve to die from the boy's .22.

I have thought about that too and I don't think there is any evidence that he was dealing drugs around the time of his death. They found no drugs and I am sure they even tested sites to see if there were any residuals, like in his truck and found nothing. $500 bucks left in his wallet that would only taken seconds to lift? I see no connection to drugs being involved in this case.

If he had been in trouble the year before then mostly likely he was on probation and would have stayed away from drugs. I know he died clean as a whistle with not a hint of alcohol or drugs in his system.

That is like saying if a prostitute is murdered it has to be her **** when it could actually be someone else entirely.

There is no way that JR would accept a false plea deal and have that done on his watch imo. JR does have the evidence and IMO he knows very well that this boy did do these crimes.

He was given a sweetheart deal due to his young age.

imoo

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 06:55 PM

His dad taught him to be disrepectful, and to bite the hand that feeds him?

I don't think so.

i wasnt talking about him being taught to be disrepectful & him being taught to bite the hand that feeds him. please read my post #340. sometimes kids get things mixed up. please read it & you'll undestand what i was talking about. JMO

interested

02-22-2009, 07:06 PM

i wasnt talking about him being taught to be disrepectful & him being taught to bite the hand that feeds him. please read my post #340. sometimes kids get things mixed up. please read it & you'll undestand what i was talking about. JMO

So again I'll ask although I don't actually expect an answer at this point:

Why is it you think that?

Less than a century ago, children were expected to hunt and add to the family food reserves.

They were expected to work the family farm or ranch.

They scheduled school vacations around the planting, harvest & round up.

So why exactly is it that children today are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions when they've been afforded the advances of technology, improved education and all the advantages this nation has to offer?

Why are children of the USA somehow inferior to children of other less "advanced" nations who are expected to do today what we stopped expecting of our children in only three generations of time?

interested

02-22-2009, 07:16 PM

ty Linda, yes I know you did, and I responded. Thank you.

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 07:26 PM

So again I'll ask although I don't actually expect an answer at this point:

Why is it you think that?

Less than a century ago, children were expected to hunt and add to the family food reserves.

They were expected to work the family farm or ranch.

They scheduled school vacations around the planting, harvest & round up.

So why exactly is it that children today are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions when they've been afforded the advances of technology, improved education and all the advantages this nation has to offer?

Why are children of the USA somehow inferior to children of other less "advanced" nations who are expected to do today what we stopped expecting of our children in only three generations of time?

well i believe alot of it is due to parents not spending enough time with their children & their children being exposed to violence from their own family, other adults, tv, video games & other kids. we live in a sad world that is full of hate & violence. the answer to problems we face are solved thru violence. kids learn this from an early age when they are exposed to it. IMO/JMO
The WE i'm talking about is not meaning everyone, just some.

hooked2

02-22-2009, 07:27 PM

I think he would want him to go to jail til 18 and get treatment. He had principles. IMO

There was a movie titled "Defending your life" years ago which starred Meryl Streep and Albert Brooks. Though it was considered a comedy, this movie had a very serious message and impact. It was kind of in the vain of 'A Christmas Carol' in which the characters review certain life events and consider what their actions were, what their percieved limitations were, what perhaps they could have done differently which would have presented a wholey different outcome.

Based on this same line of thinking which tends to be a common vain throughout society and in people's lives at one time or another, I believe 100% that knowing every parent has limited knowledge and experience but could always employ a different set of skills or a different approach to parenting... Vinnie, as his father, and Tim as a father of other children, not only would have done things differently in their lives but would have wanted this 8 year old boy to be given every opportunity to get help and hopefully live a respectful, loving, and responsible life and 'punishment' would have been a very minute part of his future. 100%, that is what I believe.

In terms of a 'punishment' for this child or 'justice for the victims' ---
Adults are not supposed to punish their children to inflict pain or suffering on a child, they do so to teach the child how to function in society and get along with others so they do not infringe on another person's rights. Children have limited understanding of the true impact their actions can have and the true 'finality' of finality. That understanding comes with consistent teaching throughout their childhood and gaining life experience.

For those on this thread who think some of us think children are 'stupid,' I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. What some of us have is an educated scientific knowledge of the maturation of this species. As a result of this education and the broadening of our understandings of development, we believe children have reasonable limited responsibilty for their actions. Did this child 'know right from wrong?' Yes, he did! Did he know that shooting two people was 'wrong?' Absolutely! Did he fully comprehend the impact of his actions and what the true outcome of his actions would bring? Not even close!

Adulthood is only defined as such because it is the point at which our systems and bodies are fully developed and we have completed the initial 'life course' which deems us able to understand how our lives, decisions, and actions can and do impact those around us.

Adults punish other adults to inflict suffering, revenge, 'justice' and for retribution in this world. Because it is understood that other adults either had the knowledge or had the opportunity to gain such knowledge that would open up an avenue of choices to deal with any given situation.

A child's knowledge is limited to his exposure to the limited environment in which he lives, his perception at a given age, his processing of that information, and the implementation of the skills he has learned up until that point to deal with any situation.

To our knowledge, this child has not been clinically diagnosed as a 'psychopath' a 'sociopath' or anything else. Unless that is done, he deserves the opportunity to pay a reasonable, age appropriate penalty and to get whatever help is needed for him to grow and learn and become a functioning member of society. He is so young! There may be nothing wrong with this child other than his limited understanding of his world, his anger and how to deal with it appropriately, and the choices he did have and will have as a person.

He may very well be guilty of making a seriously poor decision with the intent of changing his circumstances which had horrific results. But it cannot be disputed, he was 8 years old. No child is cemented into form at 8 years old.

These are only my opinions and beliefs :smile:

interested

02-22-2009, 07:34 PM

well i believe alot of it is due to parents not spending enough time with their children & their children being exposed to violence from their own family, other adults, tv, video games & other kids. we live in a sad world that is full of hate & violence. the answer to problems we face are solved thru violence. kids learn this from an early age when they are exposed to it. IMO/JMO
The WE i'm talking about is not meaning everyone, just some.

I agree, so what's to be done? When do we start holding the parents who don't bother to parent responsible for the negative result of their failure to live up to their responsibility which impacts society as a whole?

When will we start holding them responsible for the small things rather than waiting until the situation degrades to this level?

Or do we continue to accept unacceptable behavior from both the children and the adults until our entire way of life is destroyed?

This spiral cannot continue. These children are fully capable of understanding their actions. Be it the parents fault that they haven't been taught, or the childs fault for knowing but believing there are no consequences to their actions, it's not acceptable to simply continue on suggesting no one is at fault and there isn't a price to be paid.

I live in this society, I shouldn't be put at risk by a child who wasn't taught. Therefore, if the parent can't or won't properly bring their child to adulthood, it's up to the court system to do just that.

These children will one day be adults and they'd better learn cause/effect long before then or heaven help us all.

*Spike*

02-22-2009, 07:40 PM

Hooked2, i agree with your post #370.

lurkinghere2

02-22-2009, 07:41 PM

I answered ya on the other thread...I'll move it opver here:)

Back then they weren't exposed to 24/7 violence packaged and sold as "entertainment" It wasn't cool to be a criminal or a thug.

My husband just took my son and 3 of his friends to the movies for "guys night". One mother wanted to know what we were seeing because she didn't want her son to be exposed to NUDITY but said her son wanted to see Friday the 13th and that was perfectly acceptable to her???

So non stop killing, blood, guts and gore are fine...as long as her little darling doesn't see boobs??

They're seeing the new 3-d kids flick.

and

IMO Way too many children are raised having everything handed to them and no expectations placed on them. There's not given the credit they deserve and are infantized throughout their childhood. Sadly, some even into adulthood. Ethics, morals have been traded for video-games and parents that would rather be their child's friends then suffer the thought of being temporarily disliked by their children.

Too many parents now have know idea how to be a parent....They rely too much on daycare, tv, and video games. They have no real meanful true relationship with their children. Maybe spend a grand total of 40 minutes a day actually talking to them.

My son sometimes tells me I am being mean...I smile on the inside....knowing I'm doing my job, not running a popularity contest.

IMO

I would like to say that this is one post of yours with which I can agree.

hooked2

02-22-2009, 07:44 PM

Placing this child into a juvenile correctional facility for the next 9 years would do nothing more than ensure he becomes a "hardened criminal". At age 9, his brain hasn't reached the physiological development necessary to truly process what has happened to him and by placing him into detention he will become a product of his environment.

As for the courts and lawmakers, they are a reactionary bunch of individuals with no real knowledge of childhood behavioral development. Just because "we" (and I use the term loosly because very rarely does the candidate I vote for win an election) vote them into a position of authority doesn't make them qualified to exercise that authority appropriately in all decisions. They usually pass laws and render jugements based upon placating the majority of a population (let's face it, they want to get reelected), and in many times that majority just wants to "feel" safe even if it is only a false sense of security.

I've also met many children in my lifetime. Those whom some would call "evil" (like how so many claim about this child) either have some form of physiological problem with their brain, or are the product of an extremely dysfunctional environment, or both. At 8 years old, it's not his fault if he did shoot these two men (which I have a hard time believing he did it) however, if he did it he needs intensive counseling, a change of environment, and the last thing he needs to become a productive member of society is incarceration. Hell, he's gonna need some intensive counseling as it is just because of the situation he's already gone through.

:beer:

If I had it my way, I think I'd send him to a reputable and responsible(non-abusive) wilderness and ropes course camp for a year or so, then slowly and with careful monitoring, begin reintroducing him to his new life with his mother. I find it hard to believe that she can be equipped to adequately deal with him at this point. It's a huge and delicate task for anyone.

hooked2

02-22-2009, 08:07 PM

I'm not going to bet my life or anyone elses that he won't repeat, are you? IMo
Society does that everyday when they let convicted killers out on parole due to nothing more than 'time served.'

Do you think they should simply throw away the key for this child?

The juvenile system releases children at 18. If he committed this crime 2 years later in life, based on age progression and development, he would have more understanding of his crime, have greater responsibility for his actions, yet do less jail time.

That indicates clearly to me that the system is random, without merit, erroneous and in great need of an overhaul. So while we're at it, let's take a look at age appropriate punishment for the crimes children commit. Because newsflash... it is statistical fact that incarceration is not a deterrent to crime. Perhaps it's time to try some rehabilitation in this country, and rehabilitation doesn't adhere to term limitations, it's an individual process!

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 08:57 PM

:beer:

If I had it my way, I think I'd send him to a reputable and responsible(non-abusive) wilderness and ropes course camp for a year or so, then slowly and with careful monitoring, begin reintroducing him to his new life with his mother. I find it hard to believe that she can be equipped to adequately deal with him at this point. It's a huge and delicate task for anyone.

Good luck finding one of those, especially in Arizona. I think best thing for the boy is outpatient therapy to deal with the trauma he's gone through, both from finding his father and the housemate dead and then having every adult around him betray and lie to him just to cover up for bad police work. The more he has the closest thing to a normal life, the better it'll be for him. His mother also needs to push for an appeal after the travesty that happened in court on Thursday. Even the former Attorney General said on a radio interview that the state screwed the boy by finding him competent. imo

hooked2

02-22-2009, 09:06 PM

So....just so I get this straight, child abusers don't get a free pass, your compassion or any understanding from you, but murderers do?

Wasn't that you that claimed there was a 99% chance the boy in that other case( earlier linked article) was a victim of sexual abuse himself? You were ready to defend him based on that false reasoning.

At what age are murderers and child sexual abusers responsible for their own actions? and when are they no longer deserving of sympathy & compassion and understanding from you????
No, that was me and I said 'probably' because I was in fact using a 'cliche' I didn't research the exact numbers, but I know they are much much higher than average when looking at a 10 year old.

The numbers you recited of 40-45% were based on sex offenders of all ages. I wasn't talking about all sex offenders nor statistics for adults who commit crimes against children. Adults who were abused as children have the same option as every other adult in this society... they have the choice to go to therapy to try and work out their abuse issues, read self-help books, talk to their minister, etc... which is why they're not given a free pass on becoming abusive simply because they were once victimized themselves.

These are the very things that distinguish children from adults. Knowledge, maturity, and choices!

What I said was with respect to that child and any other 10 year old child who commits sexual assault. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of a child perp having been the prior victim of sexual assault is higher! Period. The reason the percentage would greatly increase is because they are so far from the statistical average and/or median age of a sex offender. On the flip side, the likelihood that any prepubescent or pubescent 10 year old child will commit that crime is very very slim!

I don't have a bell curve in front of me, nor do I have the numbers, but we talked about these issues in classes repeatedly throughout the years while I was pursuing a degree in Behavioral Science. I'm not making this stuff up. I learned it in university classes taught by psychologists, sociologists, and various phd's with supporting information taken from books written by scentists who had done the research as well as the math. That is where I formed my opinions on these issues and I can assure you, I don't have a clue where you formed yours--- but if you are so inclined, visit your nearest university and the doctors/professors there will not only support what I'm saying about children, they will tell you they hold opinions similar to if not exactly the same as mine and the others on this board who apparently have also been educated on these subjects.

lurkinghere2

02-22-2009, 10:03 PM

THUD!

:w00t:

:beer: Must be a full moon or something! lol

Ha!
The next full moon will be Mar 11th

Just goes to show that differences of opinion on one issue, does not mean it applies to all issues.

Toysoldier

02-22-2009, 10:08 PM

:laugh:

I still believe CR is innocent.:wink:

I know he took a plea...but if he belonged to me - I would never have let him agree to it.

I know his mother was in a tough spot - and the boy - he just wanted his mom. I hope it works out for them.

His mother didn't have a choice. The only person's signature who was needed was the boy's lawyer.

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 10:20 PM

His mother was unable or unwilling to parent him in the past, what makes you so confident she can now? Realistically, how can she give this boy the constant supervision he will require? How will she support herself, care for him, and ensure her other child's safety?

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Her history, in my opinion, demonstrates she's severely lacking.

IMO

What exactly do we know about the mother?

Something must be alright with her -- the Court has trusted her with the child

(anyone watching the Oscars? I lost control of the buttons and am curious who is winning what!)

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 10:24 PM

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 10:28 PM

Heck...I remember once posting on opposite sides of a case with Gentlebreeze!

I never take online stuff personally & get all worked up over it. It's an extremely rare day I even get angry over something someone posted. Only one time was I angry and had to walk away from posting on the 8 yr old's case.

Sooner or later we all gotta agree on something!

lol

Isn't that the truth!

I have posted on here for a few years now, only really been sucked into a few cases and sometimes people agree and sometimes they don't

So far the closest case everyone seems to agree on is the Anthony case

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 10:36 PM

Ok .. caught up on a few posts .. some really thoughtful!

But I am of the opinion when the child id disposed in April, he will receive ISP for no less than one year before he can drop to a lower tier, be in the custody of his mother, no detention time and possibly a 30 day inpatient treatment before outpatient begins

That is what I think will happen

TaraCrazyHair

02-22-2009, 10:39 PM

I try very hard to review the evidence to form an opinion on this case, as I'm sure most of us do. But I am troubled by a couple of things:

1. There are several posters who claim to have known the victims. However, they rely on this to justify their opinions, without giving the rest of us any evidence or even concrete information. I can't possibly base my opinions on this type of statement and lack of supporting evidence.

2. I know our posts are just our opinions, but it seems to me posters on both sides of this issues rely more on stories they have dreamed up instead of the evidence.

3) As an example of inadequate use of evidence I offer this: We know that 2 bullets (Or casings) came from the chipmunk 22. But do we know where those bullets ended up? Is there one bullet in each victim? Or are there 2 bullets in one victim? Or did those shots miss completely? I don't have the answer and so I can't use that evidence to bolster any theory of the crime.

As always, jmo

I was not aware that the chipmunk was even determined to have been physically tied through ballistics?

lurkinghere2

02-22-2009, 10:46 PM

OK, so now I want to make some comments. I tried earlier & accidentally lost the whole diatribe before hitting <submit>.

I think that everything Linda described in the post that I shockingly (to some) supported is part of why I feel so strongly that this child was a product of his environment – as all children ultimately are. I also think that it is an example of what has gone horrifically wrong with our justice system, which IMO continues to fail those it is intended to protect. This child’s case, IMO, is an example of just how wrong it can be. I have maintained all along, relative to him, that there was not enough tangible evidence to prove or disprove his involvement in this incident. I still maintain that position. (Not intending to restart the debate of circumstantial v tangible or people's opinions of what it means.)

Just consider for a moment: (I do not pose this for further disagreement of the hows & whys of the case, but a point on the legal system.)
What if he came upon the scene after the fact and did in fact shoot to end suffering. That in fact would make the plea of negligent homicide legitimate. Yet, if he is thown into juvenile dentention, then his “treatment” or “therapy” will not be geared toward healing in the fashion that he might truly need. Or, what if he really did both of the shootings as some suppose. The end result of this plea does not really successfully address that either.

Long and short, from where I sit, is this: As a result of this case, I have come to believe that I don’t believe a juvenile should be tried as an adult under the age of 15. I think, also, that there should not be the option of a “plea agreement” when it comes to juvenile cases. I believe someone else posted that there should be a panel of psychological professionals making the determination of what treatment would best fit the needs of the child. After all the evidence is collected and all options of what caused the incident are fully examined, then this panel should meet. When it comes to a child, I do believe it should be viewed as rehabilitation or treatment, not incarceration. I’m just not ready to take the step of believing that children are “just born that way”. And this comes from someone whose father was diagnosed as a bonafide sociopath, who yes, spent most of his life in and out of the penal system.

I have sent letters/e-mails to appropriate folks regarding this case. Not to ask for anything to happen because of my request – as I think that is up to the mother for any specific requests for assistance, ie Innocence Project or appeals, etc. – but to ask for a high profile view of what is wrong with our justice system relative to children to be looked at. It is failing them and it is therefore failing us as a society – something that we are failing at in so many other ways already.