Dec. 22nd thru 12/29

[Crispy]

Starting a new thread for the new week!! Hopefully with the status hearing and competency testing on Monday we will get news this week.

[IAMME]

I dont remember now who said this, but i think it was gentle, that the tox reports would take weeks... Why would you think that? I have sent and received tox reports in a hospital setting and had results back in less than 30 minutes.........

Originally Posted by IAMME

I dont remember now who said this, but i think it was gentle, that the tox reports would take weeks... Why would you think that? I have sent and received tox reports in a hospital setting and had results back in less than 30 minutes.........

What tox reports?

It is day 45.

The boys right to a speedy trial has been delayed.

Do the right thing at the status hearing today Judge...Let the boy go home with his mother.

[Pag Boi]

Originally Posted by IAMME

I dont remember now who said this, but i think it was gentle, that the tox reports would take weeks... Why would you think that? I have sent and received tox reports in a hospital setting and had results back in less than 30 minutes.........

Tox reports on the victims or the 8yo?

IIRC, the ME said that drug and alcohol tests on the victims were negative. It did take several weeks after the autopsy was completed to get the results back. Several weeks for a tox report on a victim seems fairly normal.

Your experience with tox reports could be different to to the reason for testing, the extent of the testing, the importance of it. Could be your hospital lab is simply more efficient and/or adept than a state crime lab. JMOO

(carrying over from the Dec 15th thread)

Pag Boy and FurtherBB:

Your reluctance to lend credence to Tanya's statements about what her husband told her on the phone begs the question: when do you believe eyewitness testimony? Your statements seem to imply that you never really believe any eyewitness testimony, because really, it all boils down to he said/she said. Are there factors in this case that cause you to disbelieve her?

[wolfi_2]

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

It is day 45.

The boys right to a speedy trial has been delayed.

Do the right thing at the status hearing today Judge...Let the boy go home with his mother.

I can’t say it better

[fairlaw]

Pat, I neither believe, nor disbelieve, anyone who says anything about this case. In my Memory, this is the most bizarre case I have ever, ever heard of.

I think it was impossible for this 8 year old child to keep reloading the weapon to kill two grown men.

What ever happens from here, this human life is destroyed, the boy, no matter if guilty or innocent, this kid has no chance in life at all. I wish I could take him into my home and let him know how a child DESERVS to be treated.

[Pag Boi]

Originally Posted by patschican

(carrying over from the Dec 15th thread)

Pag Boy and FurtherBB:

Your reluctance to lend credence to Tanya's statements about what her husband told her on the phone begs the question: when do you believe eyewitness testimony? Your statements seem to imply that you never really believe any eyewitness testimony, because really, it all boils down to he said/she said. Are there factors in this case that cause you to disbelieve her?

Eyewitness testimony is faulty. This has been discussed on other threads here. You can search the topic. I agree with others that posted regarding Tanya. If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, how confident can one be about 3rd party voice testimony? I don't believe Tim was one the phone, didn't hear the gunshots fired at Vince but his estranged wife could clearly hear the child calling him from inside the house. She said she had been in the house once, IIRC, and knew the child's voice. I don't believe she could clearly hear what was said. Much less ID the voice of someone she met once. But I could be wrong. I need evidence to back up her statements.

Tim had a girlfriend. He moved out of the family house. There is a stray bullet in the truck. Is there any evidence they talked every day when Tim got off work? Where were the cell phone pings at the time of call? Do they have pings from other calls? Why was Tanya initially uncooperative? What does Tanya gain from Tim's death?

All above JMOO and just a few of the Q's I need answered. Not that they will come via LE. I feel like this 8yo is going to be forced to prove his innocence. Any adult would be assumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

The rapid release of the video snippet backed up by the "we have strong FE" statements from LE just reeks. JMOO someone in that community is being protected at the expense of this child. Until they show me evidence that he committed the crime, I will assume him innocent.

Originally Posted by fairlaw

Pat, I neither believe, nor disbelieve, anyone who says anything about this case. In my Memory, this is the most bizarre case I have ever, ever heard of.

I think it was impossible for this 8 year old child to keep reloading the weapon to kill two grown men.

What ever happens from here, this human life is destroyed, the boy, no matter if guilty or innocent, this kid has no chance in life at all. I wish I could take him into my home and let him know how a child DESERVS to be treated.

You are so sweet! He does have a chance, his mother loves him dearly. I am sure she will make sure he gets the best of care/help for whatever trauma/s he has been through.

Originally Posted by patschican

(carrying over from the Dec 15th thread)

Pag Boy and FurtherBB:

Your reluctance to lend credence to Tanya's statements about what her husband told her on the phone begs the question: when do you believe eyewitness testimony? Your statements seem to imply that you never really believe any eyewitness testimony, because really, it all boils down to he said/she said. Are there factors in this case that cause you to disbelieve her?

Yes, there are.
She doesn't mean squat. Tanya's "husband" had just asked his girlfriend "Candy" to marry him the night before. (That argument to discredit a witness is a defense attorneys dream)

What this case will boil down to is forensics/ballistics
If the boy fired the gun, GSR will be all over his cloths.
If he shot each bullet, his prints will be on each and every casing.
Ballistics will have to match his chipmunk gun.
The trajectory of the bullets will have to match shots from his height.
Then prosecutors have a timeline to contend with..and it's one of the tightest timelines I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by Pag Boi

Eyewitness testimony is faulty. This has been discussed on other threads here. You can search the topic. I agree with others that posted regarding Tanya. If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, how confident can one be about 3rd party voice testimony? I don't believe Tim was one the phone, didn't hear the gunshots fired at Vince but his estranged wife could clearly hear the child calling him from inside the house. She said she had been in the house once, IIRC, and knew the child's voice. I don't believe she could clearly hear what was said. Much less ID the voice of someone she met once. But I could be wrong. I need evidence to back up her statements.

Tim had a girlfriend. He moved out of the family house. There is a stray bullet in the truck. Is there any evidence they talked every day when Tim got off work? Where were the cell phone pings at the time of call? Do they have pings from other calls? Why was Tanya initially uncooperative? What does Tanya gain from Tim's death?

All above JMOO and just a few of the Q's I need answered. Not that they will come via LE. I feel like this 8yo is going to be forced to prove his innocence. Any adult would be assumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

The rapid release of the video snippet backed up by the "we have strong FE" statements from LE just reeks. JMOO someone in that community is being protected at the expense of this child. Until they show me evidence that he committed the crime, I will assume him innocent.

Bravo!!!!

Evaluation for charged 8-year-old murder suspect
Associated Press - December 22, 2008 7:34 AM ET

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=9563640

I find it odd that AP didn't write anything about the autopsy results.

[ALL RISE]

on Fox Phoenix News this a.m. they stated that the boy said, 'that if he was spanked one more time'...

He was spanked last by his mother because he didn't bring home his homework.

Very sorry there is no link.

[FurthurBB]

Originally Posted by patschican

(carrying over from the Dec 15th thread)

Pag Boy and FurtherBB:

Your reluctance to lend credence to Tanya's statements about what her husband told her on the phone begs the question: when do you believe eyewitness testimony? Your statements seem to imply that you never really believe any eyewitness testimony, because really, it all boils down to he said/she said. Are there factors in this case that cause you to disbelieve her?

It depends on who is making the statement and how easily they could be mistaken. Tanya did not see anything. She had met this boy one time and over a cell phone identified his voice. That is questionable in itself. Also, she has gotten a lawyer and is not cooperating with police. She has motive to kill her husband, or hire someone to kill him. She seems to believe that she can sue someone and get a large sum of money if the boy is found guilty of killing him. All these factors make it very hard to take her statement as gospel truth. IMO

Originally Posted by ALL RISE

on Fox Phoenix News this a.m. they stated that the boy said, 'that if he was spanked one more time'...

He was spanked last by his mother because he didn't bring home his homework.

Very sorry there is no link.

One more time and What??? he'd run away from home? Spit on them? Hide the belt?
DOES HE EVER SAY "I'LL KILL THEM??" and if he did, why didn't he kill TIFFANY? The one who we know spanked him?

I thought when that first came out he said his "1000 spanking would be his last."

I hate the media.

[bkwits]

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

One more time and What??? he'd run away from home? Spit on them? Hide the belt?
DOES HE EVER SAY "I'LL KILL THEM??" and if he did, why didn't he kill TIFFANY? The one who we know spanked him?

I thought when that first came out he said his "1000 spanking would be his last."

I hate the media.

Mornin' all,

It seems like they are really reaching for a motive We never get the exact quote from the child, do we? It almost seems like the boy is trying to come up with something to please the adults.

No one, in the media or DA, ever speculates as to the child's motive for killing Tim. In fact, the child says, "Why would I shoot Tim?" It is truly disgraceful what they have done to this child. IMO

Originally Posted by bkwits

Mornin' all,

It seems like they are really reaching for a motive We never get the exact quote from the child, do we? It almost seems like the boy is trying to come up with something to please the adults.

No one, in the media or DA, ever speculates as to the child's motive for killing Tim. In fact, the child says, "Why would I shoot Tim?" It is truly disgraceful what they have done to this child. IMO

Morning! or should I say "Good Day"? LOL, I sure hope it will be a good day!

ITA It sure is a disgrace!

Why would he shoot Tim at all let alone 6 times??

Whoever did this has BIG kahoonas to shoot a man in broad daylight 6 times.

[muska]

I've been wondering about the very early reports that VR was shot in the chest. I think that must have originated with the boy's comment to his grandmother on the night of the shootings that his father had been shot in the chest. It seems that either the grandmother or the boy's aunt(Francesca?) told the police about the comment. The next day (Fri.,11/7) Carlyon treated the boy's comment as fact when he questioned Rodriquez during the Advisory Hearing. He basically asked if anyone other than the shooter could have known VR had been shot in the chest. Rodriquez replied that no one else could have known because VR was lying face down and had not been moved. The chest wound was some of the "evidence" that was used to hold the boy. Problem is - VR was never shot in the chest! I think that Carlyon and the police dept took a traumatized child's comment as fact, just as in the "confession" and used it against him. They could not have had any other evidence that VR was shot in the chest because he wasn't.

Transcript dated 11/2 but really 11/7, p.105-106

I wonder how the boy's family feels about this. It seems that they were allowed to think the boy knew about a wound that only the shooter could have known about.

Originally Posted by muska

I've been wondering about the very early reports that VR was shot in the chest. I think that must have originated with the boy's comment to his grandmother on the night of the shootings that his father had been shot in the chest. It seems that either the grandmother or the boy's aunt(Francesca?) told the police about the comment. The next day (Fri.,11/7) Carlyon treated the boy's comment as fact when he questioned Rodriquez during the Advisory Hearing. He basically asked if anyone other than the shooter could have known VR had been shot in the chest. Rodriquez replied that no one else could have known because VR was lying face down and had not been moved. The chest wound was some of the "evidence" that was used to hold the boy. Problem is - VR was never shot in the chest! I think that Carlyon and the police dept took a traumatized child's comment as fact, just as in the "confession" and used it against him. They could not have had any other evidence that VR was shot in the chest because he wasn't.

Transcript dated 11/2 but really 11/7, p.105-106

I wonder how the boy's family feels about this. It seems that they were allowed to think the boy knew about a wound that only the shooter could have known about.

Oh GREAT CATCH! Kudos to you for the day!

Originally Posted by Pag Boi

Eyewitness testimony is faulty. This has been discussed on other threads here. You can search the topic. I agree with others that posted regarding Tanya. If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, how confident can one be about 3rd party voice testimony? I don't believe Tim was one the phone, didn't hear the gunshots fired at Vince but his estranged wife could clearly hear the child calling him from inside the house. She said she had been in the house once, IIRC, and knew the child's voice. I don't believe she could clearly hear what was said. Much less ID the voice of someone she met once. But I could be wrong. I need evidence to back up her statements.

Tim had a girlfriend. He moved out of the family house. There is a stray bullet in the truck. Is there any evidence they talked every day when Tim got off work? Where were the cell phone pings at the time of call? Do they have pings from other calls? Why was Tanya initially uncooperative? What does Tanya gain from Tim's death?

All above JMOO and just a few of the Q's I need answered. Not that they will come via LE. I feel like this 8yo is going to be forced to prove his innocence. Any adult would be assumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

The rapid release of the video snippet backed up by the "we have strong FE" statements from LE just reeks. JMOO someone in that community is being protected at the expense of this child. Until they show me evidence that he committed the crime, I will assume him innocent.

Eyewitness testimony absolutely can be unreliable, therefore, it must be viewed in conjunction with other evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that anyone else was in the house -- within minutes of receiving the 911 call the police were there and cordoned off the area. In addition, they did a search of the area and surrounding areas; nothing suspicious was found. The boy initially said that he simply found the bodies, then changed his story that he may have gunshot residue on him from the smoke in the house, then, when it was explained to him how gunshot residue works, changed his story again and said that he may have shot his father to end his suffering. Rapid story alteration is the first red flag that something is amiss.

Yes, of course we all have to wait for the evidence to come back -- gunshot residue from his clothing, the angle at which both men were shot, fingerprints on bullet casings, phone records (determining if Romans was indeed on the phone with his wife)...etc. And yes of course, legally, this boy is considered innocent until proven guilty. But that does not prohibit one from coming up with a theory and a main suspect, and by its nature, naming someone as the primary suspect means that you have a suspicion of guilt. So please, you and others, stop batting around the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra...this is a discussion board and we have a right to state our suspicions based on the information available to us.

As I have stated before, no one wants to believe this child did this, but right now, in my opinion, based upon the information available to me, he is the prime suspect.

Originally Posted by patschican

Eyewitness testimony absolutely can be unreliable, therefore, it must be viewed in conjunction with other evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that anyone else was in the house -- within minutes of receiving the 911 call the police were there and cordoned off the area. In addition, they did a search of the area and surrounding areas; nothing suspicious was found. The boy initially said that he simply found the bodies, then changed his story that he may have gunshot residue on him from the smoke in the house, then, when it was explained to him how gunshot residue works, changed his story again and said that he may have shot his father to end his suffering. Rapid story alteration is the first red flag that something is amiss.

Yes, of course we all have to wait for the evidence to come back -- gunshot residue from his clothing, the angle at which both men were shot, fingerprints on bullet casings, phone records (determining if Romans was indeed on the phone with his wife)...etc. And yes of course, legally, this boy is considered innocent until proven guilty. But that does not prohibit one from coming up with a theory and a main suspect, and by its nature, naming someone as the primary suspect means that you have a suspicion of guilt. So please, you and others, stop batting around the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra...this is a discussion board and we have a right to state our suspicions based on the information available to us.

As I have stated before, no one wants to believe this child did this, but right now, in my opinion, based upon the information available to me, he is the prime suspect.

I couldn't agree more.

[muska]

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

Oh GREAT CATCH! Kudos to you for the day!

Thanks, this is just one of the many things that's been bothering me about this case. I taught elementary school for 12 years, mostly third and fourth graders, and it's really difficult for me to understand how anyone could treat a child this way.

Originally Posted by mzmarymac

In my opinion, that family of his is completely worthless. Grandma threw him under the bus, Grandpa and stepmom turned on him and none of them have even visited him in jail. They do not care about this boy.

The only family member who seems to care is his mother, who the rest of them have spent years alienating.

IMO

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Filing up
From Eryn's attorney.

[Crispy]

I'm sure this was filed because they have probably asked for him to released for Christmas and the mother wants to be involved with the decision. How in the world is Santa going to get in juvenile detention with all those people still awake?

Originally Posted by Crispy

I'm sure this was filed because they have probably asked for him to released for Christmas and the mother wants to be involved with the decision. How in the world is Santa going to get in juvenile detention with all those people still awake?

It says "Release OR furlough"

[PensiveOne]

Video from today...
http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepag....394067bb.html

I hope they update it after the hearing.

[bkwits]

Originally Posted by patschican

Eyewitness testimony absolutely can be unreliable, therefore, it must be viewed in conjunction with other evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that anyone else was in the house -- within minutes of receiving the 911 call the police were there and cordoned off the area. In addition, they did a search of the area and surrounding areas; nothing suspicious was found. The boy initially said that he simply found the bodies, then changed his story that he may have gunshot residue on him from the smoke in the house, then, when it was explained to him how gunshot residue works, changed his story again and said that he may have shot his father to end his suffering. Rapid story alteration is the first red flag that something is amiss.

Yes, of course we all have to wait for the evidence to come back -- gunshot residue from his clothing, the angle at which both men were shot, fingerprints on bullet casings, phone records (determining if Romans was indeed on the phone with his wife)...etc. And yes of course, legally, this boy is considered innocent until proven guilty. But that does not prohibit one from coming up with a theory and a main suspect, and by its nature, naming someone as the primary suspect means that you have a suspicion of guilt. So please, you and others, stop batting around the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra...this is a discussion board and we have a right to state our suspicions based on the information available to us.

As I have stated before, no one wants to believe this child did this, but right now, in my opinion, based upon the information available to me, he is the prime suspect.

I have no problem with the child being a suspect. BUT he has been thrown in jail, in solitary, interrogated illegally. Led into a so-called confesssion while the PO's lied to him. No one to look out for his rights or his well-being.

What kind of a society are we to treat a child this way?

Originally Posted by PensiveOne

Video from today...
http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepag....394067bb.html

I hope they update it after the hearing.

Is anyone else annoyed that they transcribed the interrogation according to the people's accents, instead of transcribing it in English? Ta? Yer? Fer? Come on...

It's pretty clear though that the interviewers started suspecting him sooner than they admit, and instead of doing the right thing and informing him that he was becoming a suspect, reading him his rights...etc., they chose to proceed hoping they could get away with the "viewing him as a victim" defense.

[Crispy]

The transcripts do bug the crap out of me. Makes it hard to read. It surprises me that they don't have a live court reporter there during these hearings.

Originally Posted by bkwits

I have no problem with the child being a suspect. BUT he has been thrown in jail, in solitary, interrogated illegally. Led into a so-called confesssion while the PO's lied to him. No one to look out for his rights or his well-being.

What kind of a society are we to treat a child this way?

Well, that's a difficult situation to deal with. In the latest article posted by Pensive One, the judge admits that they are treading new waters and no one really knows how to handle this. On the one hand, if he's guilty, can you safely release him? Detention does seem necessary due to the violent nature of the crimes. On the other hand, he is a child, and a young one at that, so the thought of putting him in solitary confinement seems unfathomable. What is the answer?

Family members could be visiting to offer support, but they are angry with him, so their feelings are understandable. Interestingly, for those who think he is covering up for someone, like Tiffany or Tanya, why wouldn't that person be visiting him, if for no other reason than to ensure that he keep up the ruse? Assuming Tiffany/Tanya/whomever had a hand in it and convinced him to take the blame because he couldn't be tried as an adult, wouldn't you think they would be constantly at his side, reassuring him that things were going well? That amount of time in detention/solitary confinement, particularly with the notion of him being tried as an adult floating around, would cause anyone to recant if they were innocent, I would think. And were I the adult who really committed the crime and was counting on this boy to take the heat, I would do everything I could to comfort and reassure him on a regular basis. So the absence of adult presence in his life right now does not support the notion of him taking the rap for someone else...imo.

I concur that his rights were violated by him not being mirandized, and the confession should be inadmissible should this go to trial.

Originally Posted by Crispy

The transcripts do bug the crap out of me. Makes it hard to read. It surprises me that they don't have a live court reporter there during these hearings.

So the court reporter could correct their english as she goes. What a job with these people! LOL

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

So the court reporter could correct their english as she goes. What a job with these people! LOL

It's not correcting English, it's clear that this is an accent. We all have accents, unless you're from the midwest, and even then, it's an accent, just one that society has deemed to be the proper way to speak.

It's clear that they mean "to", "for", and "your".

Originally Posted by patschican

It's not correcting English, it's clear that this is an accent. We all have accents, unless you're from the midwest, and even then, it's an accent, just one that society has deemed to be the proper way to speak.

It's clear that they mean "to", "for", and "your".

I was born and raised in Jersey. That thing would have a field day with me!

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

I was born and raised in Jersey. That thing would have a field day with me!

Right? I'm in Boston but I'm a transplant, so I don't have the accent. But I was thinking how ridiculous trying to transcribe conversation by native Bostonians would be...

This link has video footage of some of the boy's interview, and I just watched it with chills:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/no...T72oUiQkA.cspx

Now I'm getting confused about this case. The autopsy report states that Romero was shot four times and Romans was shot six times:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/no...VprKFwW0A.cspx

So why would the boy say he shot each man only twice? I'm starting to agree with the skeptics here...something is very wrong about this...

It is so ordered granting money for shooting incident specialist.

Files up.

Originally Posted by patschican

Right? I'm in Boston but I'm a transplant, so I don't have the accent. But I was thinking how ridiculous trying to transcribe conversation by native Bostonians would be...

This link has video footage of some of the boy's interview, and I just watched it with chills:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/no...T72oUiQkA.cspx

Now I'm getting confused about this case. The autopsy report states that Romero was shot four times and Romans was shot six times:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/no...VprKFwW0A.cspx

So why would the boy say he shot each man only twice? I'm starting to agree with the skeptics here...something is very wrong about this...

Very wrong.

[bkwits]

Originally Posted by patschican

Well, that's a difficult situation to deal with. In the latest article posted by Pensive One, the judge admits that they are treading new waters and no one really knows how to handle this. On the one hand, if he's guilty, can you safely release him? Detention does seem necessary due to the violent nature of the crimes. On the other hand, he is a child, and a young one at that, so the thought of putting him in solitary confinement seems unfathomable. What is the answer?

Family members could be visiting to offer support, but they are angry with him, so their feelings are understandable. Interestingly, for those who think he is covering up for someone, like Tiffany or Tanya, why wouldn't that person be visiting him, if for no other reason than to ensure that he keep up the ruse? Assuming Tiffany/Tanya/whomever had a hand in it and convinced him to take the blame because he couldn't be tried as an adult, wouldn't you think they would be constantly at his side, reassuring him that things were going well? That amount of time in detention/solitary confinement, particularly with the notion of him being tried as an adult floating around, would cause anyone to recant if they were innocent, I would think. And were I the adult who really committed the crime and was counting on this boy to take the heat, I would do everything I could to comfort and reassure him on a regular basis. So the absence of adult presence in his life right now does not support the notion of him taking the rap for someone else...imo.

I concur that his rights were violated by him not being mirandized, and the confession should be inadmissible should this go to trial.

With all due respect, in our justice system we don't lock everyone we suspect of violent crimes. The only cause, apart from the illegal, coerced confession, was Tanya's statement about the phone conversation. That is it.

He should not have been locked up, at least until the evidence came back. That is backbone of our justice system.

There is plenty of precedent on how to treat youg children. You do not interrogate them without an adult to look out for them.

Chief of Police Melnick got them into this muddle with his statement he is charging the child with murder and will seek to try him as an adult. This craziness has completely gotten out of hand, as the judge implied. IMO