1/26 to 1/28

One thing that has always bothered me...

The boy said he did NOT see anybody LEAVING the house.

Here's some possibilities why:

1) boy is blocked by obsticles as he's coming home, perhaps he's on another street and only sees "truck through so & so's trees" must be walking past houses, cars, trees, etc. that are blocking his view.

2) boy sees TR getting shot doesn't realize what he is seeing because the shooter is hiding at column/ bush doesn't understand why TR is disappearing toward the ground or doesn't see it because truck or other things are blocking his view.

3) shooter leaves the house by some other means perhaps the back door OR through other window, over the balcony, etc.

4) the shooter ducks somewhere in the house to hide from boy as the boy checks out the house, calling for dad and finds dad, cries for dad then runs away. After boy leaves, Shooter leaves and runs toward the back of house or other location where the driver is awaiting him.
They heard the boy calling and coming tell each other to meet at the back of the house & down the street or other location so boy doesn't see them both. They don't expect the boy to notice the vehicle.

5) boy blocks out what he witnessed

[fairlaw]

I've not been able to keep up on all of the goings on in this case.

Is that little boy still in jail?

Do they still think he killed two grown men?

Any convincing evidence that he could/would have done it?

I don't know anything about his mother, would she be ok to take care of him?

I guess that's the most important stuff, thanks in advance.

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by fairlaw

jd, (no spitting please), et al, roflmao

i've not been able to keep up on all of the goings on in this case.

Is that little boy still in jail?yes

do they still think he killed two grown men? it has been so quiet. The state appealed the court judges decision to not rule on substantive issues before competency is established. They won, in part. Forcing the judge to rule on motion to dismiss count 1
any convincing evidence that he could/would have done it? nothing in evidence yet. Not even if the boys gun was the murder weapon. They have until the 30th.

i don't know anything about his mother, would she be ok to take care of him? gardian ad litem involved. His mother now has custody of him.

i guess that's the most important stuff, thanks in advance

yw!!!!!!!!

[GentleBreeze]

Originally Posted by iamithink

From your post above

The way I read it, it doesn't really force the judge to rule. He can still rule as he did. The way I read the sc's decision, I think it means he is not precluded from ruling because there is a competency issue, but doesn't necessarily mean he has to rule. The judge can still wait if he so chooses, imo.

I will be the first to say, I do not exactly understand what the Court was really trying to say but it seems they only gave a partial ruling due to the fact that no appealable error had occurred yet.

Ruling on a motion to dismiss after he decides the competency issues seems to be odd and backward. If he ruled that the boy is age incompetent then how could he then rule on the motion to dismiss? And I think all motions have to have a ruling one way or the other by Judges. They are valid issues that have to be addressed and it just makes sense that it happens before he finalizes the issue on competency because if he deems him age incompetent and cannot be reassessed in 240 days then the case is dead from that point on.

It also made me think that the Court thought that JR was applying the rules used for an adult court competency issue and not one that is trying to determine age competency in a juvenile.

Just my interpretation though.

imoo

[Cherishlove]

Originally Posted by minnesotamom

good morning it is -11 here and cold!
dear eryn:
god doesn't give you the people you want, he gives you the people you need. to help you, to hurt you, to leave you, to love you and make you into the person you were meant to be. dear god help her son to excel above his expectations. help him shine in the darkest places where it is impossible to love. protect him at all times, lift him up when he needs you the most, and let him know when he walks with you. let him always be safe. god bless!

That was a really sweet thing for you to say. I keep praying for the little boy everyday, it's hard to imagine a small child of that age being locked up and isloated it really bothers me, there is no excuse for it at all, they did it within 24 hours made up there mind without properly investigating, which is unreal and inhumane to say the least to do that to anyone let alone a small child. I read childsvoice website today, I bet his Mom could use some help financially.

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by iamithink

Those are excellent questions. Why didn't the officers during their hour long coerced interrorgation as those questions rather than leading him down the path of confessing? These are questions that I hope the defense asks the officers involved during the trial (if there is one), and pursue those questions with a vengence.

Questions should also be asked concerning LE "investigation" regarding searching the mobile home in the back yard, the dead bolt lock issue, and searching on the balcony for any trace evidence (i.e. hair and fiber). LE should be nailed to the wall on those types of neglegent investigation.

They didn't want the facts of the matter, they wanted a "confession". Of course they did help CR's case. They treated him like the baby that he is.

LE and the illegal search warrant keeps popping in my head for some reason. LOL

[wolfi_2]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

I will be the first to say, I do not exactly understand what the Court was really trying to say but it seems they only gave a partial ruling due to the fact that no appealable error had occurred yet.

Ruling on a motion to dismiss after he decides the competency issues seems to be odd and backward. If he ruled that the boy is age incompetent then how could he then rule on the motion to dismiss? And I think all motions have to have a ruling one way or the other by Judges. They are valid issues that have to be addressed and it just makes sense that it happens before he finalizes the issue on competency because if he deems him age incompetent and cannot be reassessed in 240 days then the case is dead from that point on.

It also made me think that the Court thought that JR was applying the rules used for an adult court competency issue and not one that is trying to determine age competency in a juvenile.

Just my interpretation though.

imoo

If he ruled about the incompetence in favor to the boy, there is no need to rule on the motion to dismiss because it doesn't make sense. If he ruled about the incompetence in favor to DA he must try to make him competent during the next 240 days, imo useless. If If he ruled on the motion to dismiss one charge before he ruled about the competence to stand trial, he produced a loophole for the DA and that is unfair !

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by wolfi_2

If he ruled about the incompetence in favor to the boy, there is no need to rule on the motion to dismiss because it doesn't make sense. If he ruled about the incompetence in favor to DA he must try to make him competent during the next 240 days, imo useless. If he ruled on the motion to dismiss one charge, he produced a loophole for the DA and that is unfair !

It is unethical to rule on a motion submitted AFTER a competency evaluation has been ordered.
I think this Judge is doing the right thing.

moo

[wolfi_2]

Originally Posted by JusticeDawg©

It is unethical to rule on a motion submitted AFTER a competency evaluation has been ordered.
I think this Judge is doing the right thing.

moo

Again, why are the most country´s of the world don't try such young children in court? -and why did the most of them draw the line around 12 years? I think , because it´s useless to try a child before 12 and it is against common sense!

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by wolfi_2

Again, why are the most country´s of the world don't try such young children in court? -and why did the most of them draw the line around 12 years? I think , because it´s useless to try a child before 12 and it is against common sense!

I totally agree.
Welcome to good old USA!

Originally Posted by wolfi_2

Again, why are the most country´s of the world don't try such young children in court? -and why did the most of them draw the line around 12 years? I think , because it´s useless to try a child before 12 and it is against common sense!

We suffer from too much education and not enough salvation.

[muska]

Originally Posted by wolfi_2

Again, why are the most country´s of the world don't try such young children in court? -and why did the most of them draw the line around 12 years? I think , because it´s useless to try a child before 12 and it is against common sense!

The United States and Somalia are the only countries that have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That has to say something.

[muska]

Originally Posted by Hawk

We suffer from too much education and not enough salvation.

and not enough common sense.

[muska]

Originally Posted by iamithink

which illegal search warrant? (which one?)

I would have thought they would have included the trailer and confescated the truck as well in the search warrant or at least a separate one. Where did the LE get their education? The NAPA store?

They should have required the troops to watch Law and Order more often.

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by iamithink

which illegal search warrant? (which one?)

I would have thought they would have included the trailer and confescated the truck as well in the search warrant or at least a separate one. Where did the LE get their education? The NAPA store?

The main one LOL
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/
MOTION TO SUPRESS ILLEGAL WARRANT.pdf

They did not do a complete investigaion, if we can see that, don't you think Judge Roca can see it too?

NAPA

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by muska

They should have required the troops to watch Law and Order more often.

I needed these giggles on a Monday.

[muska]

Originally Posted by JusticeDawg©

I needed these giggles on a Monday.

Do you think Judge Roca will rule one way or the other on the 29th or do you think he'll wait until after the competency hearing to rule. I've seen both opinions - that he has to rule before the competency hearing and also that it's his choice. Not sure what to believe. What do you think?

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by muska

Do you think Judge Roca will rule one way or the other on the 29th or do you think he'll wait until after the competency hearing to rule. I've seen both opinions - that he has to rule before the http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/ hearing and also that it's his choice. Not sure what to believe. What do you think?

I think Judge Roca already knows what his ruling is on competency.
He is not a stupid man.
Either way the Motion to dismiss without prejudice will not fly.

moo

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by iamithink

too much education?? from the sound of things LE didn't get enough education.

Hey! They watched Barney!

[muska]

Originally Posted by JusticeDawg©

I think Judge Roca already knows what his ruling is on competency.
He is not a stupid man.
Either way the Motion to dismiss without prejudice will not fly.

moo

I hope you're right! If the judge surprises us and rules in favor of Carlyon, do you think Brewer could appeal that or challenge it in some way?

Did you follow the King case back 6 or 7 years ago? That judge just seemed to go along with the prosecutor on everything. That worries me. In the end, though, the prosecutor went too far and the verdict was thrown out.

[Cherishlove]

Originally Posted by minnesotamom

yeah i was at the my space page and i hope she gets some help financially,too. i really don't have the extra cash to send her because we are paying our bills and trying to save for summer vacation. although my son, who is 9 years old wants to send this little boy a few extra dollars to buy ice cream when he gets out and you know i will let him send it and the thought of that about makes me wanna cry. i just thought that was the sweetest gesture i've heard in a while. i totally agree with you the thought of the little boy still being isolated makes me sick to my stomach. i hope this is the week we hear good solid news of that little boy going home to be with his mother for good! its been waaaaaaay to long for him to be there and its over time for the judge to get off his butt and do some good for that llittle boy and his family.

You have a nice little boy there he is thinking of doing something nice for someone else that needs it, it really made me a bit choked up myself to think a little boy same age wants to help this little boy too.

[Cherishlove]

Originally Posted by minnesotamom
its been waaaaaaay to long for him to be there and its over time for the judge to get off his butt and do some good for that llittle boy and his family.

I 100% agree this has gone on too long for that small child, it's hard to understand it, I just simply don't, he's not going to be competent he's 9years old, anyone in there right mind knows that.

The right thing would of been the Ankle Bracelet/Monitor the Child while they properly investigated, I don't even want the Ankle Braclet but you know to follow the law they could of done that. Let's hope we hear some good news soon for this little boy.

[muska]

Originally Posted by iamithink

When has ethics been a priority in this case. The interrorgation of the boy was unethical.

and the release of the interrorgation

Originally Posted by HotNostril

I thought you implied Tiffany was as much responsible for the boy as his father. So what's wrong with her giving LE permission to interview the boy?

She isn't the boys next of kin, or legal guardian. LE should have checked before they asked her. They assumed she was the boys mother.

[dgfred]

Originally Posted by JusticeDawg©

Hey! They watched Barney!

Barney Fife or Barney the Dinosaur?

Originally Posted by HotNostril

imithiunk granted her as much status in an earlier post. I was just asking for some clairifcation.

Sorry. Didn't mean to get in the middle.

[Jacobtk]

Originally Posted by muska

I hope you're right! If the judge surprises us and rules in favor of Carlyon, do you think Brewer could appeal that or challenge it in some way?

I think he could, but it probably would be denied. Appeals courts are not keen on reversing the rulings of judges unless they are bizarrely egregious.

[muska]

Originally Posted by Jacobtk

I think he could, but it probably would be denied. Appeals courts are not keen on reversing the rulings of judges unless they are bizarrely egregious.

So if Carlyon wins, the state can bring charges whenever it wants? What are the chances that charge could eventually be heard in adult court? I wonder if Carlyon is trying to get Brewer to agree to a plea deal this week.

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by muska

So if Carlyon wins, the state can bring charges whenever it wants? What are the chances that charge could eventually be heard in adult court? I wonder if Carlyon is trying to get Brewer to agree to a plea deal this week.

If JR was going to dismiss count 1, he would have done it already.

[Jacobtk]

Originally Posted by muska

So if Carlyon wins, the state can bring charges whenever it wants? What are the chances that charge could eventually be heard in adult court? I wonder if Carlyon is trying to get Brewer to agree to a plea deal this week.

Yes, if Roca rules in Carlyon's favor Carlyon could refile the charges at any point. Carylon's intent appears to be to wait until the boy could reasonably be found competent and automatically charged as an adult, which in Arizona is at the age of 15.

Carlyon probably is pushing for the plea deal because his case in general is weak (if not non-existent) and a gamble. However, the plea deal is not really a deal. He did not guarantee the boy would remain in the juvenile court system. He stated that he would decide that based on the results of the competency hearing. If the boy takes the deal and is found incompetent to stand trial, he could be placed in prison until 18 instead of released because he accepted the deal.

[dgfred]

Originally Posted by Boltzfan

I thought I read somewhere that Brewer would not entertain any plea bargain that involved any custody or detention.

Why would the defense entertain a plea deal at all?

[Jacobtk]

Originally Posted by Boltzfan

I thought I read somewhere that Brewer would not entertain any plea bargain that involved any custody or detention.

He did. I was stating what Carlyon's deal really is. It is not a deal or a promise. It is akin to Harvey Dent flipping his coin.

[muska]

Originally Posted by Jacobtk

He did. I was stating what Carlyon's deal really is. It is not a deal or a promise. It is akin to Harvey Dent flipping his coin.

So sounds like there's nothing to consider........at least that makes it easy.

[muska]

Originally Posted by iamithink

taking responsibility for a child's behavior living with you is one thing, she was involved in parenting the child when she spanked him. Legalities are another.

IMO, you were not asking for clarification, you were trying to pick an argument. I'm not playing your game anymore.

I agree with everything you've said here!!!

[Jacobtk]

Originally Posted by muska

So sounds like there's nothing to consider........at least that makes it easy.

There really is not. It makes me wonder about the deals Carlyon offers in general. It is at least unethical to entrap someone in the manner Carlyon is attempting to do.

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by Jacobtk

There really is not. It makes me wonder about the deals Carlyon offers in general. It is at least unethical to entrap someone in the manner Carlyon is attempting to do.

He needs a slap right in the face. I'll go do it! Youse guys can call me anything you want.

[Perplexed1]

Originally Posted by iamithink

Thank you.

I think that hot nostril dude took a hike with gentle (not) breeze

[JusticeDawg©]

Originally Posted by Perplexed1

I think that hot nostril dude took a hike with gentle (not) breeze

[mrrogers]

Originally Posted by HotNostril

I thought you implied Tiffany was as much responsible for the boy as his father. So what's wrong with her giving LE permission to interview the boy?

once vinny was dead she had no authority to so her ok is null and void just like it never was given. a smart cop would have or should have known that.

[Jacobtk]

Originally Posted by JusticeDawg©

He needs a slap right in the face. I'll go do it! Youse guys can call me anything you want.

I would like to ask Carlyon just how stupid he thinks Woods and Brewer are. He has to have a fairly low opinion of them to think that he can push this kind of deal and assume they would take it.