8-Year-Old Boy Arrested In Double-Homicide - Arizona

[William Anthony]

exactly how I feel Joseph. this has so many rumors and doubts I am very angry and hope LE and social workers know what the heck they are doing. Glad the car is fine. you should post a picture. I am jealous.

You are quite correct and there is no need for any poster to stoop to name calling and personal attacks as all we have is information, which may or may not be correct and to stoop to such a level shows a desire of a poster to wannabe more knowledgeable than they are, and may express a profound sense of inferiority, imho. Thanks for the civil manner in which you have been expressing yourself.

[SaraSidle]

You are quite correct and there is no need for any poster to stoop to name calling and personal attacks as all we have is information, which may or may not be correct and to stoop to such a level shows a desire of a poster to wannabe more knowledgeable than they are, and may express a profound sense of inferiority, imho. Thanks for the civil manner in which you have been expressing yourself.

My first concern of course is if there was any coaching by adults on the scene before LE arrived. IMO

[Jacobtk]

JI have provided information that the alleged confession would not be used and a link, showing what the prosecution agreed to as to not using the tape before the previous link. Therefore, I stand behind my position that some agreement has been reached but my information, as well as any othe poster's might be incorrect. Please, provide a link that states they are still seeking to have the alleged confession ruled illegal that is dated after the link I provided and we should then be able to agree.

Read the Reply To Response To Motion To Suppress Statements And Motion To Strike (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/) pdf. In it the attorney states that the only matter left is whether the statements were illegally obtained.

As for an agreement, strategically speaking it would be greatly unwise. By the state conceding this point but not agreeing that the confession was illegally obtained they prevent the boy from ever claiming that he did not do or claiming that someone else did it. They prevent the boy from stating that he felt coerced or compelled to make a false confession. In short, they have effectively prevented the boy from speaking in his own defense. Granted, the boy does not have to take the stand and there are ways to introduce the boy's position about what happened without him ever testifying. However, this move is rather slick.

I have some questions about the confession being voluntary in that the child may not have felt he was free to leave, despite, if as LE alleges, he was not a suspect at the time he made the initial statement. I have provided the link on the Nevada law that states, IIRC, a juvenile does not need representation when questioned by LE, if the child is not a suspect.

Arizona law allows children to be questioned outside of a parent's presence regardless of whether they are witnesses or suspects. However, by virtue of the boy's age it is completely unrealistic to believe that he knew his rights and understood them. The interview, both in its questionable legality and the impressively poor nature of it (I remain astounded that they asked the boy if he shot his father, but never asked what gun he used, where he got the gun from or where he put when he was done) is a legal nightmare for the state on several levels, which is probably why they conceded the point.

[William Anthony]

My first concern of course is if there was any coaching by adults on the scene before LE arrived. IMO

That is also a concern of mine. As I have said, I have known of adults who get juveniles to commit crimes, because the law is more lenient with them and the same would hold true for getting a juvenile to falsely confess.

[William Anthony]

Read the Reply To Response To Motion To Suppress Statements And Motion To Strike pdf. In it the attorney states that the only matter left is whether the statements were illegally obtained.

As for an agreement, strategically speaking it would be greatly unwise. By the state conceding this point but not agreeing that the confession was illegally obtained they prevent the boy from ever claiming that he did not do or claiming that someone else did it. They prevent the boy from stating that he felt coerced or compelled to make a false confession. In short, they have effectively prevented the boy from speaking in his own defense. Granted, the boy does not have to take the stand and there are ways to introduce the boy's position about what happened without him ever testifying. However, this move is rather slick.

Of course it was a tactic on the part of the prosecution and I believe the defense would be on slippery ground. I asked you to supply a link, showing that the motion to suppress the statement was filed after the link I supplied, indicating that the alleged confession would not be used, so that we can reach an agreement and I repeat my request.

[William Anthony]

I have some questions about the confession being voluntary in that the child may not have felt he was free to leave, despite, if as LE alleges, he was not a suspect at the time he made the initial statement. I have provided the link on the Nevada law that states, IIRC, a juvenile does not need representation when questioned by LE, if the child is not a suspect.

Arizona law allows children to be questioned outside of a parent's presence regardless of whether they are witnesses or suspects. However, by virtue of the boy's age it is completely unrealistic to believe that he knew his rights and understood them. The interview, both in its questionable legality and the impressively poor nature of it (I remain astounded that they asked the boy if he shot his father, but never asked what gun he used, where he got the gun from or where he put when he was done) is a legal nightmare for the state on several levels, which is probably why they conceded the point.

I did not say parents. I said representation. I agree that part of the statements the child made are not admissible. I think both parties realized the effect that this is going to have on the child and are mindful of that but, at the same time, the prosecution has a responsibility to society. I think calmer heads are starting to prevail as it should be and, although I want to know more and feel the public has a right to know, I am torn as to which is more important.

[William Anthony]

That issue was addressed in the motion to suppress the statements. In Arizona, the law is that all confessions must be proven to be voluntary. The police must show that a person understands he has the right to representation, understands that he does not have to give a statement and understands that he is allowed to leave at any time. The problem with the police claiming the boy did understand this is that the officers interrogating him never stopped to explain anything to him on video and they claim the questioning began only after the camera was turned on. They also admitted in sworn statements that they never told the boy anything about his rights. Under their own admission, they simply assumed he understood. Technically, that makes the confession inadmissible, which is probably why the prosecutors conceded the use of it.

Forgive me if I have not welcomed you before or if I have and am just being redundant.:) I enjoy posting with you as you seem knowledgeable on the law and you uphold your position, based on the information that you have received, in a manner that is civil and polite. We are all going on the information we have received and forming opinions on that information. I respect your right to voice your opinion and look forward to gathering more information and agreeing upon things we can and disagreeing civilly. I hope we will not allow anyone to cause friction between us where there should be none. Thanks.

[Its just me]

Read the Reply To Response To Motion To Suppress Statements And Motion To Strike (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/) pdf. In it the attorney states that the only matter left is whether the statements were illegally obtained.

As for an agreement, strategically speaking it would be greatly unwise. By the state conceding this point but not agreeing that the confession was illegally obtained they prevent the boy from ever claiming that he did not do or claiming that someone else did it. They prevent the boy from stating that he felt coerced or compelled to make a false confession. In short, they have effectively prevented the boy from speaking in his own defense. Granted, the boy does not have to take the stand and there are ways to introduce the boy's position about what happened without him ever testifying. However, this move is rather slick.



Arizona law allows children to be questioned outside of a parent's presence regardless of whether they are witnesses or suspects. However, by virtue of the boy's age it is completely unrealistic to believe that he knew his rights and understood them. The interview, both in its questionable legality and the impressively poor nature of it (I remain astounded that they asked the boy if he shot his father, but never asked what gun he used, where he got the gun from or where he put when he was done) is a legal nightmare for the state on several levels, which is probably why they conceded the point.

I appreciate you posting on this case. Thank You. I fully agree with your thoughts on what the child understood and didn't understand.

I know little about the law and even less about court proceeding for a case to go to trial. I can only hope what is going on is normal procedure in case by some outrageous decision this child will be tried as an adult and this goes before a jury. I believe the correct thing to do (legally, morally) is for the child to be tried as a juvenile and I hope after everyone has their say that will happen.

It is mind blowing to know that any adult would even entertain the thought.....much less request this be handled in a courtroom before a jury where laws are designed for adults. I don't know and I'm not accusing anyone but since this is small town and there is evidence the victim (s?) knew at least the magistrate I question if personal feelings are not over riding common sense in the request for the child to be tried as an adult then proceed to make it impossible for the child to speak in his own defense. This is sickening....what happened to justice.

Again Welcome to CL. fep

[William Anthony]

That issue was addressed in the motion to suppress the statements. In Arizona, the law is that all confessions must be proven to be voluntary. The police must show that a person understands he has the right to representation, understands that he does not have to give a statement and understands that he is allowed to leave at any time. The problem with the police claiming the boy did understand this is that the officers interrogating him never stopped to explain anything to him on video and they claim the questioning began only after the camera was turned on. They also admitted in sworn statements that they never told the boy anything about his rights. Under their own admission, they simply assumed he understood. Technically, that makes the confession inadmissible, which is probably why the prosecutors conceded the use of it.

After going back and reading the link you supplied and I thank you for it and reading the link I supplied, I now understand the source of our confusion and differences on this. The motion to suppress the statement was filed after the date of my link. My link only said that the alleged confession would "likely be suppressed." This is also what my link said.

“Prosecutors said unless the boy takes the stand in his own defense and contradicts the statements, they had no objections to the motion.”

The hourlong interview was one of the first items released by prosecutors, and it wasn't long before the country learned about the shocking double homicide in the small eastern Arizona community of St. Johns.

Defense attorney, Benjamin Brewer, questioned the validity of the so-called confession early on and said detectives lied to the child in pursuit of incriminating statements. Prosecutors said although they agreed to suppress the statements, their decision doesn't mean they agree the statements were illegally obtained.

“Along with the police interview, defense lawyers also want the judge to throw out any evidence gathered from the crime scene, including a weapon, spent cartridges, blood samples, photographs and forensic material. The attorneys claim the search warrant is invalid because the magistrate who signed it was a friend of the Romero family.”

On the point of the defense acquiescing, you seem to be correct, because I have seen no stipulation on the link you provided. This is what caused me to believe that an arrangement had been reached, when I tried to reconcile the information.

The videotaped 'confession' has been thrown out by Judge Roca as inadmissible. It should never have been done. Totally inexcusable.

I should have questioned that statement and the fact that in that post, IIRC, there was additional misinformation that the alleged confession would not be used, which that misinformation came after my link and caused me to believe that an agreement had been reached, and the judge had decided to suppress the alleged confession. I should have taken my own advice and considered the source and it was not until your statement that seemed very logical and comported with my understanding that the judge was awaiting the results of a competency evaluation that caused me to go back and reread the links and posts. Thank you for trying to keep the information as correct as possible. I find the link to the actual court documents filed very informative and thanks again. Thanks for putting me on the correct path and countering the misinformation that has been posted. If this does go to trial, I think a judge will have to rule on what parts, if any, of the interview are admissible

[William Anthony]

I appreciate you posting on this case. Thank You. I fully agree with your thoughts on what the child understood and didn't understand.

I know little about the law and even less about court proceeding for a case to go to trial. I can only hope what is going on is normal procedure in case by some outrageous decision this child will be tried as an adult and this goes before a jury. I believe the correct thing to do (legally, morally) is for the child to be tried as a juvenile and I hope after everyone has their say that will happen.

It is mind blowing to know that any adult would even entertain the thought.....much less request this be handled in a courtroom before a jury where laws are designed for adults. I don't know and I'm not accusing anyone but since this is small town and there is evidence the victim (s?) knew at least the magistrate I question if personal feelings are not over riding common sense in the request for the child to be tried as an adult then proceed to make it impossible for the child to speak in his own defense. This is sickening....what happened to justice.

Again Welcome to CL. fep

I agree with your post for the most part and something in the child's statement in one of the court documents, cause me further suspicion as Sara said on coaching. The child said that he knew he would go to "juvie". I find that language suspect for a child. I have heard LE and other professionals involved in the legal system use that word. The only portion with which I might have some questions is that there was something untoward in the judge knowing anyone in the small town and I read a link where the Romero family was a large and well liked family, and, understanding that a witnesses credibility is at issue, while I do not like the tactic it is a legal one, which prevents a defendant from making self-serving statements invoking the sentiments of the trier of fact without subjecting himself to being impeached.

I am torn and truly do not know how this case should proceed. My heart goes out to the child and the victim's family and the cold calculated brutality of the murders is the only thing that causes me to be torn. I truly hope that the child is proven innocent and just not guilty.

[FDInLaw]

I agree with your post for the most part and something in the child's statement in one of the court documents, cause me further suspicion as Sara said on coaching. The child said that he knew he would go to "juvie". I find that language suspect for a child. I have heard LE and other professionals involved in the legal system use that word. The only portion with which I might have some questions is that there was something untoward in the judge knowing anyone in the small town and I read a link where the Romero family was a large and well liked family, and, understanding that a witnesses credibility is at issue, while I do not like the tactic it is a legal one, which prevents a defendant from making self-serving statements invoking the sentiments of the trier of fact without subjecting himself to being impeached.

I am torn and truly do not know how this case should proceed. My heart goes out to the child and the victim's family and the cold calculated brutality of the murders is the only thing that causes me to be torn. I truly hope that the child is proven innocent and just not guilty. "Juvie" is a slang term commonly used by some teens/preteens. Depending on this child's interaction with older kids, I don't find his use of the word odd. IMO

[SaraSidle]

"Juvie" is a slang term commonly used by some teens/preteens. Depending on this child's interaction with older kids, I don't find his use of the word odd. IMO

he also could have been told by an adult he was going to the juvy system. easier for a child than an adult going to prison. I am still suspicious. IMO

[William Anthony]

"Juvie" is a slang term commonly used by some teens/preteens. Depending on this child's interaction with older kids, I don't find his use of the word odd. IMO

That may have been the case. The question then would be his associations and what ideas he may have formed because of them. It has not been my experience that children of that age use that expression, although last night while sitting in my car, I heard some children, who appeared to be near teenage years, refer to the police as five O.

[William Anthony]

he also could have been told by an adult he was going to the juvy system. easier for a child than an adult going to prison. I am still suspicious. IMO

I am also. It just sort of stood out to me.

[FDInLaw]

That may have been the case. The question then would be his associations and what ideas he may have formed because of them. It has not been my experience that children of that age use that expression, although last night while sitting in my car, I heard some children, who appeared to be near teenage years, refer to the police as five O.
It really does all depend on who he hung out with. I doubt my nine year old knows the term. . . I'll ask! It is a common expression for older kids though. I used it when I was a teen (but then I knew people in "juvie" :o ).

[William Anthony]

It really does all depend on who he hung out with. I doubt my nine year old knows the term. . . I'll ask! It is a common expression for older kids though. I used it when I was a teen (but then I knew people in "juvie" :o ).

I guess it is that anal retentive thing of mine.:)

[FDInLaw]

I guess it is that anal retentive thing of mine.:)



You? Anal retentive? NEVER! :biggrin:


Thinking back, I'm pretty sure I knew the term in Jr. High.

In some small towns there isn't much for kids to do other than grow up too fast. . . from what this boy is accused of, premeditated murder, I bet he knew it.

"Five O". . . I use to sneak up on the teens I worked with and whisper that to give them a chuckle (it is used for police, but in this setting the kids used it when staff came around).

[William Anthony]

You? Anal retentive? NEVER! :biggrin:


Thinking back, I'm pretty sure I knew the term in Jr. High.

In some small towns there isn't much for kids to do other than grow up too fast. . . from what this boy is accused of, premeditated murder, I bet he knew it.

"Five O". . . I use to sneak up on the teens I worked with and whisper that to give them a chuckle (it is used for police, but in this setting the kids used it when staff came around).

You may be right that I am not anal retentive but I believe I am. I guess I will just have to spend hours and hours researching the information and then come to the correct conclusion, if that is possible, :).

[FDInLaw]

You may be right that I am not anal retentive but I believe I am. I guess I will just have to spend hours and hours researching the information and then come to the correct conclusion, if that is possible, :).

Now, I didn't say you weren't. . . sarcasm can be sneaky lol! :tongue:

j/k



:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Now, I didn't say you weren't. . . sarcasm can be sneaky lol! :tongue:

j/k



:seeya:

Oh, so now you are saying that I am or might be. I guess I will have to spend endless hours researching the information to see, if you and I might be correct.:) :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

The Mother of the boy has set up a MySpace page for following this case. Might be a good page to keep an eye on!


http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=435515258

[One2Snoop]

The Mother of the boy has set up a MySpace page for following this case. Might be a good page to keep an eye on!


http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=435515258

Good deal - thanks for the link! Anyone have a myspace that can tell her we have a discussion going here at CL which is Insessions sister site? Not as busy nor overwhelming for the newbie who may feel intimated about posting at IS.

[FDInLaw]

Good deal - thanks for the link! Anyone have a myspace that can tell her we have a discussion going here at CL which is Insessions sister site? Not as busy nor overwhelming for the newbie who may feel intimated about posting at IS.
Ugh. I shut my MySpace page down ages ago. Good idea though! I hope it was okay for me to post the link here. She has it set up as a public page. I know it is against TOS to post info from private pages. . . have had my hand slapped there before (lol :o ).

[Its just me]

The Mother of the boy has set up a MySpace page for following this case. Might be a good page to keep an eye on!


http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=435515258

Thank you for the link. I'm copying and posting here some of what is posted on the MySpace page page because it's interesting and good reading.

Defense wants St. Johns boy's confession tossed

by Dennis Wagner - Dec. 26, 2008 03:53 PM The Arizona Republic

Lawyers for an 8-year-old St. Johns boy accused of killing his father and another man last month have asked a judge in the case to throw out the boy's confession along with evidence gathered at the crime scene.
In motions filed this week, attorneys Benjamin Brewer and Ronald Wood contend that incriminating statements made by the child to detectives and a Child Protective Services worker should be suppressed because the suspect was not given a Miranda warning.
The boy was questioned Nov. 6 by two armed, uniformed officers in a 10-by-10 room. Defense attorneys argue that investigators already had determined that the boy might be a suspect before they interviewed him one day after the slayings, based on other witness statements. Despite objections from family members, the motion alleges, detectives interrogated the boy without informing him of his rights or allowing an adult advocate in the room.
"The officers exerted improper influence on (the defendant) to obtain statements," says the motion filed Tuesday.
Detectives in the case have asserted that they considered the boy a witness at the time. Defense attorneys contend police already suspected the child of lying in an earlier interview, and discussed his possible guilt. They also note that detectives lied to the child in pursuit of incriminating statements.
A separate defense motion says fingerprints, shell casings, blood and other evidence from the crime scene should be suppressed because a warrant issued for the search was signed by town Magistrate Butch Gunnells, a friend to the boy's father, who could not be considered neutral.
The Arizona Republic is not identifying the defendant because of his age.
The third-grader, who turns 9 on Monday, is accused in Apache County juvenile court of shooting his 29-year-old father and a friend, Tim Romans, 39, who lived at the family residence.
Prosecutors are considering adult charges, but the boy's ability to participate in his own defense has emerged as a key legal question. Motions filed by the defense this week say that at least one psychological examiner has concluded the boy is not competent to stand trial. The boy's attorneys also applied to hire one of the nation's pre-eminent experts on false confessions, University of California, Berkeley, Prof. Richard Ofshe, as an expert witness in the case.

(resource: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/26/20081226stjohns.html )


Experts Doubt That 8-Year-Old’s Taped Confession in Double Killing Is Admissible

By JOHN DOUGHERTY Published: November 21, 2008

PHOENIX — It is very unlikely that the videotaped confession of an 8-year-old Arizona boy who is charged with killing his father and another man will be admissible in court, legal and child-psychology experts say.

And, they say, contrary to the preference of the police force that investigated the case, it would be extremely unusual for the child to be tried as an adult.

The boy is charged with premeditated murder in the Nov. 5 shooting of his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, a boarder in the Romeros’ two-story home in St. Johns, a rural community of about 4,000 residents 170 miles east-northeast of Phoenix.

The case has attracted renewed international attention after prosecutors released to news organizations this week a videotape of an hourlong police interview with the boy.

On the video, the boy at first repeatedly denies firing the gun that killed his father and Mr. Romans. But after continued questioning, he eventually admits shooting each of them twice, saying he had found them already wounded.

“I think I shot him because I think he was suffering,” he says of his father.

A few minutes later, the boy says his stepmother, at his father’s request, had spanked him five times the day before the shootings. An officer then asks whether he was angry at his father the day the men were shot. “The first time I was mad at him,” he says, “but he was already shot, and I shot him again.”

Legal experts doubt that the confession will be admissible in court, because the police never told the boy of his right to silence and to a lawyer, and because he was interviewed without a parent or a lawyer present.

Prosecutors say the reason is that he was initially being interviewed as a victim and did not become a suspect until he gave contradictory statements during questioning.

But Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender in Phoenix, said, “At the point where the police decided the boy was no longer a victim and was a suspect, that’s when the questioning should have stopped.”

Judy Stinson, a clinical law professor at Arizona State University and former juvenile prosecutor, said the legal issue centered on when the interview became a “custodial interrogation” from which he was not free to leave.

“The level of forcefulness used by the police includes the defendant’s perception about whether he is free to go and able to leave,” Ms. Stinson said. “An 8-year-old child is not free to go.”

Any statements made by the child after the point at which the interview became a custodial interrogation would most likely be inadmissible in court, she said.

The lack of parental presence during the interview is not as critical a factor as the absence of a lawyer, said Steve Drizen of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law.

“Parental representation does not adequately protect the child,” Mr. Drizen said. “What is needed with children of this age is an attorney.”

Even if the boy had been read his rights and been free to leave, it is doubtful that his confession would stand up in court, given the susceptibility of young children to confessing crimes they did not commit, child psychologists said.

“Just because this 8-year-old said he shot the father and the other man gives us no great confidence that he really did,” said one leading expert in child confessions, Steve Ceci, professor of developmental psychology at Cornell. “We can take most 8-year-olds off the street and get them to eventually admit they did this as well.”

The boy is being held in a juvenile detention center, though he is to spend Thanksgiving with his mother on a 48-hour furlough. The St. Johns police have urged prosecutors to try him as an adult, but no decision has been made.

Trying an 8-year-old as an adult would be unprecedented in modern jurisprudence, said Thomas Grisso, director of the law-psychiatry program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

“I have never heard of an 8-year-old being tried as an adult,” Dr. Grisso said. “It would be more than extraordinary. It would be totally unique.” More Articles in US » A version of this article appeared in print on November 22, 2008, on page A10 of the New York edition.

(resource: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/22arizona.html)

[Its just me]

Note what is in blue in the above post is opinions of the child and case given by professionals in the field which they give their opinion. I think they are correct. fep

[Its just me]

I am so glad people are begining to speak out on this case. What I'm reading lets me know I'm not alone in my feelings. The last paragraph is interesting. I hope the LE who questioned the boy and those who up hold them will realize....you can't do anything you want to just because you carry a badge and gun and expect the law to uphold you but who knows they may be trying to update the Arizona law. fep

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/39742 (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/39742)



Taking candy from a baby: the confession of an 8 year old


The video of the now-infamous 8-year-old in St. Johns is chilling.
“Did you shoot your dad,” an armed, uniformed sheriff's deputy asks the pajama-clad boy, at the end of an hour-long interview in which he was led ever-so-gently down the primrose path.
The boy rubs his eyes and he covers his face. “I think so,” he says softly.
I want to personally thank the prosecutors in Apache County for releasing the tape of the child's supposed confession to the world this week. I, for one, learned a few things about the criminal justice system in Arizona.
I learned that it's a place where little children don't have any constitutional rights. How else could police keep at the kid for over an hour, while his mother was told to wait outside, and never offer the boy any adult help?
I learned that it's place where it is apparently OK to apply the same interrogation techniques to a third grader that you would to a 30 year old.
A place where you may get a confession.
But will you get the truth?
Jaws have been dropping all over the country this week as we watched criminal justice at work in Arizona. Several nationally recognized experts in the art of police interrogation were stunned at the events in St. Johns, especially in this, a state that was once “ground zero” for constitutional rights for juveniles, due to a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Arizona case.
Everyone I talked to – experts, attorneys, judges -- was appalled by what they'd seen in excerpts from the St. Johns interview. The leading questions. The cops appearing to coax the boy into saying what they wanted to hear.
“Taking candy from a baby,” I believe one person called it.
“They're using tactics that are designed to facilitate compliance and what they've got is an eight-year-old kid who is complying…” said Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist from UC Berekley and one of the nation's foremost experts in the area of forced confessions. “They're being nice to him and he's being nice to them. And if that's all this is and they don't realize that and they haven't put any of the safety checks (to make sure he's telling the truth) into the interrogation … then all they have is an eight-year-old agreeing with everything, including the fact that this was done on a spaceship on the dark side of the moon, if that's what they suggest.”
Both Ofshe and Steven Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern University and director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told me it was outrageous to use such techniques on a child so young. But not necessarily unusual.
Only 13 states require that police allow a parent in when they interrogate a child. That leaves 37, including Arizona, where police are allowed to keep parents – or any adult advocate -- out.
“I can't tell you how many police interrogations I have seen in which kids confess to murder or other serious crimes while their parents are sitting in the lobby…It happens every single day in police stations throughout this country …,” Drizin said, adding that he's seen dozens of such confessions that ultimately proved to be false over the last 10 years.
Mara Siegel, a Maricopa County deputy juvenile public defender who is working with the defense team in this case, said there is reason to believe that the boy didn't kill his father and another man. But she can't talk about it.
Judge's gag order. Interesting, isn't it, that we can see and hear the “confession” but not the other side of the story?
Even if the boy told the truth and if by some miracle it's admissible in court – hardly likely given that they didn't even bother to read the kid his Miranda rights -- both Siegel and Drizin say it's unlikely the boy will face trial. For hundreds of years, we've presumed that kids his age are incapable of forming the criminal intent necessary to commit murder.
Those days, however, are apparently gone – in Apache County, at least. The St. Johns police chief has said that not only should the boy be tried for premeditated murder but that he should be tried as an adult.
Yeah, that's a brilliant idea. Let's get an eight year old in a room alone and get the kid to confess to something he might – or might not – have done and then let's put him on trial and sentence him to life in prison.
And then, some day -- say maybe like this week -- a court – say maybe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- will throw out that life sentence. Maybe the court will say that sheriff's deputies coerced a kid into confessing while his parents waited outside.
Jonathan Doody's nine life sentences in the infamous 1991 Buddist monk murders were thrown out on Thursday, by a court that cited a long ago landmark Arizona ruling, one which says “admissions and confessions of juveniles require special caution.”
“Even though Doody agreed at the outset to speak to officers without his parents present,” the Ninth Circuit said, “the absence of a friendly adult is a factor in assessing the voluntariness of the juvenile's confession.”
Doody, at the time, was 17.
More than twice the age of a certain little boy in St. Johns.
(Column published Nov. 22, 2008, The Arizona Republic)

[FDInLaw]

Thank you for the posts Fep.

This case gives me the chills. . . if LE was all too quick to pin the murders on this child, the question remains; WHY? Mere laziness or is there something more? Gosh, they seemed to have this one in the bag from the beginning. How well did they even check out other possibilities???

[Its just me]

Thank you for the posts Fep.

This case gives me the chills. . . if LE was all too quick to pin the murders on this child, the question remains; WHY? Mere laziness or is there something more? Gosh, they seemed to have this one in the bag from the beginning. How well did they even check out other possibilities???

YW FDInLaw. I don't know why they ignored the law when they questioned the boy but they did. IMHOO it could be anything including your suggestion and ignorance of the law but it makes it look suspicious on their part. When they got called on it they gave the excuse he was being questioned as a witness when they got the confession but according to the boys attorney there is information the officers suspected the boy "before" they started to interview him. This just stinks imhoo and it's not an isolated case of misconduct with LE. No offense toward the good LE but not all are good. fep

[William Anthony]

Thank you for the posts Fep.

This case gives me the chills. . . if LE was all too quick to pin the murders on this child, the question remains; WHY? Mere laziness or is there something more? Gosh, they seemed to have this one in the bag from the beginning. How well did they even check out other possibilities???

There may have been a rush to judgment on LE's part. There may well be something more than we know from the information received.

[William Anthony]

YW FDInLaw. I don't know why they ignored the law when they questioned the boy but they did. IMHOO it could be anything including your suggestion and ignorance of the law but it makes it look suspicious on their part. When they got called on it they gave the excuse he was being questioned as a witness when they got the confession but according to the boys attorney there is information the officers suspected the boy "before" they started to interview him. This just stinks imhoo and it's not an isolated case of misconduct with LE. No offense toward the good LE but not all are good. fep

I understand your sentiments and I have struggled with the terms, person of interest, potential suspect and suspect, which LE uses quite often to make a distinction on how they consider someone. I think that they will try to use all of those terms to refer to the boy at different times during the questioning. I think the admissibility of the tapes turns not only on the point of when LE considered the boy a suspect but also when the boy felt free to leave or, if he did at all.

I can see the term person of interest being used to refer to someone that might have knowledge of the crime. However, when they use the term potential suspect and then question the person, I believe at that point the person has become a suspect.

[Its just me]

I understand your sentiments and I have struggled with the terms, person of interest, potential suspect and suspect, which LE uses quite often to make a distinction on how they consider someone. I think that they will try to use all of those terms to refer to the boy at different times during the questioning. I think the admissibility of the tapes turns not only on the point of when LE considered the boy a suspect but also when the boy felt free to leave or, if he did at all.

I can see the term person of interest being used to refer to someone that might have knowledge of the crime. However, when they use the term potential suspect and then question the person, I believe at that point the person has become a suspect.

Thanks, It would be a case in a million if it's even possible for the child to have had an ounce of knowledge that he could have left. He probably thought he would really go to juvie if he did...as you know this was a little boy talking to people who was said to be wearing guns. fep

[William Anthony]

Thanks, It would be a case in a million if it's even possible for the child to have had an ounce of knowledge that he could have left. He probably thought he would really go to juvie if he did...as you know this was a little boy talking to people who was said to be wearing guns. fep

You are correct. I struggle with the idea that the boy has not recanted his confession to anyone after LE's questioning or allow me to say that I have no information that he did. That concerns me and I wonder what he said during his visits with his mother. Perhaps, he has and we just haven't heard.

[FDInLaw]

You are correct. I struggle with the idea that the boy has not recanted his confession to anyone after LE's questioning or allow me to say that I have no information that he did. That concerns me and I wonder what he said during his visits with his mother. Perhaps, he has and we just haven't heard.

Excellent point. Has the boy recanted?

Being that this is a small town/area we may just be dealing with green LE when it comes to dealing with a homicide. When dealing with a minor the need for extra care cannot be understated.

It's a shame when officers get so caught up in solving the crime that they ignore individual's rights and the fact that justice is a process that only starts with them. In the real world, there is no whodunit ending where all stand in awe of the clever investigator at the close of the case. . . because that is not the end of the “story.” Too many times clumsy work results in evidence being thrown out. . .

This is a topic I can get carried away on. . . gonna step away from my keyboard. . .

[William Anthony]

Excellent point. Has the boy recanted?

Being that this is a small town/area we may just be dealing with green LE when it comes to dealing with a homicide. When dealing with a minor the need for extra care cannot be understated.

It's a shame when officers get so caught up in solving the crime that they ignore individual's rights and the fact that justice is a process that only starts with them. In the real world, there is no whodunit ending where all stand in awe of the clever investigator at the close of the case. . . because that is not the end of the “story.” Too many times clumsy work results in evidence being thrown out. . .

This is a topic I can get carried away on. . . gonna step away from my keyboard. . .

In regard to LE being green to murders, I found this link and you need to scroll almost to the bottom but it appears you are quite correct.

http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Johns-Arizona.html

[Jacobtk]

The judge agreed to allow (http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9674206&nav=menu613_2_6) the boy to have a therapist visit with him in jail.

[SaraSidle]

The judge agreed to allow (http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9674206&nav=menu613_2_6) the boy to have a therapist visit with him in jail.

that is wonderful news. i sure hope the therapist is objective and does not know anyone related to the case. I am worried tho about the FDI juvie connection more than the Obsession William had to detail. JK you guys are wonderful posters and thsnks for all the updates on this case. it is very disturbing to say the least. IMO sara

[FDInLaw]

that is wonderful news. i sure hope the therapist is objective and does not know anyone related to the case. I am worried tho about the FDI juvie connection more than the Obsession William had to detail. JK you guys are wonderful posters and thsnks for all the updates on this case. it is very disturbing to say the least. IMO sara

Most of us have a past here. ;)



















ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[FDInLaw]

The judge agreed to allow (http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9674206&nav=menu613_2_6) the boy to have a therapist visit with him in jail.

I wonder which company will be providing these services? I use to work for one that provided in-home therapy statewide.

(PACT/Providence)

[SaraSidle]

Most of us have a past here. ;)



















ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D


LOL I hope it counts I was kicked out of HS in my senior year for 3 days due to smoking in the yearbook room. please let it count:cool:

[William Anthony]

LOL I hope it counts I was kicked out of HS in my senior year for 3 days due to smoking in the yearbook room. please let it count:cool:

Depends on what you were smoking and whether you inhaled or not if you intend to be Madam President. :) Does your other post mean that you consider me annal retentive? I am still researching the issue and can decide if I am correct or not as I tend to want to be perfect. :)

[FDInLaw]

LOL I hope it counts I was kicked out of HS in my senior year for 3 days due to smoking in the yearbook room. please let it count:cool:
I was suspended from seventh grade for one day for drinking Coors Light behind the gym during lunch recess. It was just a sip and I haven't touched the nasty stuff since. :o

If mine counts yours does! :D

[FDInLaw]

Depends on what you were smoking and whether you inhaled or not if you intend to be Madam President. :) Does your other post mean that you consider me annal retentive? I am still researching the issue and can decide if I am correct or not as I tend to want to be perfect. :)
Why don't you change your location to “anal retentive” and be done with it?!! :D

[William Anthony]

Why don't you change your location to “anal retentive” and be done with it?!! :D

You ladies are just too wild for me. I think I'd better stay in love everlasting.:)

[FDInLaw]

You ladies are just too wild for me. I think I'd better stay in love everlasting.:)Suit yourself. You are one of the few gents I know that can reject a lady with a smile on your face. *sigh*

Going to head back over to the gym after I swing by the yearbook room.

[William Anthony]

Suit yourself. You are one of the few gents I know that can reject a lady with a smile on your face. *sigh*

Going to head back over to the gym after I swing by the yearbook room.

I smile although my heart is breaking.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jacobtk View Post
The judge agreed to allow the boy to have a therapist visit with him in jail.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Pun unintentional, smile.

[SaraSidle]

Depends on what you were smoking and whether you inhaled or not if you intend to be Madam President. :) Does your other post mean that you consider me annal retentive? I am still researching the issue and can decide if I am correct or not as I tend to want to be perfect. :)

cigarettes of course. and you can call yourself whatever you want. I have no doubt you are a perfectionist and the world must have these or we would be in trouble. IMO

[SaraSidle]

I was suspended from seventh grade for one day for drinking Coors Light behind the gym during lunch recess. It was just a sip and I haven't touched the nasty stuff since. :o

If mine counts yours does! :D

cool. I am in a gang and should be in juvy. I do not understand how William can resist us but more power to him. IMO

[William Anthony]

cigarettes of course. and you can call yourself whatever you want. I have no doubt you are a perfectionist and the world must have these or we would be in trouble. IMO

By allowing me to call myself what I want, that confuses me more, as an annal retentive type must be sure. Was that your intention?:)

[William Anthony]

cool. I am in a gang and should be in juvy. I do not understand how William can resist us but more power to him. IMO

It is easier to stay out than get out.
Mark Twain

[SaraSidle]

By allowing me to call myself what I want, that confuses me more, as an annal retentive type must be sure. Was that your intention?:)

LOL William no need for confusion. I do not know you enough to label you anything and I am not a labeler to start with. The one thing I can say which is a compliment is your attention to details and I think this case is a good examaple. we may get only bits and pieces of information and evidence but I have no doubt by your posts that as long as you are interested you will keep track of everything. that is all I meant. You label yourself. I label myself as waaay too complicated. not good. sara

[William Anthony]

LOL William no need for confusion. I do not know you enough to label you anything and I am not a labeler to start with. The one thing I can say which is a compliment is your attention to details and I think this case is a good examaple. we may get only bits and pieces of information and evidence but I have no doubt by your posts that as long as you are interested you will keep track of everything. that is all I meant. You label yourself. I label myself as waaay too complicated. not good. sara

I sense that you are not a labeler. Thank you for the compliment but I am not as good at details as I would like to be. You have made me consider things that I probably would not have. To be complicated is a very good thing, imho. Sometimes an easy read is not the best read and there is not mystery as to the bottom of a shallow pond, although you may be on safer footing. :)

[SaraSidle]

I sense that you are not a labeler. Thank you for the compliment but I am not as good at details as I would like to be. You have made me consider things that I probably would not have. To be complicated is a very good thing, imho. Sometimes an easy read is not the best read and there is not mystery as to the bottom of a shallow pond, although you may be on safer footing. :)

well there is certainly some truth to that. I am truthful to the bone. I just think you have done a great job on this case and look forward to your posts. that is why I think you are good at detail. I have never read any of your other posts on other threads but I have learned a lot from you here. IMO sara

[William Anthony]

well there is certainly some truth to that. I am truthful to the bone. I just think you have done a great job on this case and look forward to your posts. that is why I think you are good at detail. I have never read any of your other posts on other threads but I have learned a lot from you here. IMO sara

Thanks again.

[sharlock]

Awwgh! I duck out for a minute and return to find a love fest! What is going on, doesn't anyone love me? I perhaps could be labelled needy lol! J/K Lots of interesting stuff on here since I last visited you guys obviously haven't been spending to much time hanging out at the sports shed!

[sharlock]

I have requested an add to the myspace page and mentioned this site. Some interesting snippets are there and I thought I would share them.
http://www.myspace.com/childshopeandvoice
"I was thinking, 'What the heck is going on?'" the boy said in the video released to The Associated Press and other media. "'Who did this? Why would anyone do this?'" the little 8 year old boy told police."

(Resource:http://www.examiner.com/a-1698450~8_year_old_admits_double_shooting_in_polic e_video.html?cid=temp-popular)
He, repeatedly, told the police over and over again about a solid WHITE, SMALL CAR that "looked like Grandpa's car only it didn't have any rims"..."going very fast away from the house" as he had been walking home. He was fixated on this car and told the police he saw someone coming from the car going into the house and then the car speeding down the road as he approached the house where he then found Romans "lying there" and then, calling "Dad! Dad!, ran into the house and found his father "upstairs...with blood all over his face". He told police "and I saw the blood and then I cried for like 30 mins just crying right next to him."..."I ran to a girl's house I know...and I talked to her brother and told him 'My dad is dead and I told him Tim is dead."

The little boy told police "...I checked to see if he (Dad) was a little bit alive..."

"Why would I shoot Tim?!" he, SHOCKINGLY, asked the police interrogators when they suggested he had. When the police SUGGESTED he shot his dad, he responded, "HUH?!" "Shot who?" as if he didn't feel that he heard them correctly. He sat there stunned. He looked at the other officer with apparent confusion and shock. "I'm not. I'm not lieing!" He looked back and forth from one officer to the other, looking for help in understanding their accusations...

[sharlock]

ST. JOHNS - Roy E. Melnick accepted a conditional offer to serve as police chief for the City of St. Johns. His planned start date is April 28.
After extending the offer, City Manager Greg Martin commented, "We were fortunate to have a number of very qualified candidates apply for the position. Roy brings impressive credentials to the City of St. Johns, including extensive law enforcement experience, superb education and training and demonstrated leadership skills.
"We are fortunate to attract a candidate of his caliber to our organization, and I am confident that he will make a good fit to the community as well."
Melnick has over 28 years of law enforcement experience, having served most recently for 6 1/2 years as the police chief for the Town of Ashland, Mass. Prior to his service in Ashland, he served 22 years with the Londonderry Police Department in Londonderry, N.H., starting as patrolman and working his way up to captain, second in command and assistant to the chief of police.
In 2003, the director of the U.S. Department of Justice recruited him to serve in Iraq as a senior police advisor to the Iraqi National Police in Baghdad, Iraq. While there, he helped write the Iraqi National Police Policies and Procedures Operations Manual and helped set up the Iraqi Police Internal Affairs Command Staff and Investigators unit.
"Throughout his career, Melnick has had the opportunity to manage nearly every aspect of police work," Martin said. "We are extremely glad he has decided to put his knowledge and experience to work for the City of St. Johns, to guide our department through the challenges we face, now and in the future."
Melnick holds a juris doctorate degree from Massachusetts School of Law, a master's degree in business administration, a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and two associate's degrees in law enforcement and applied science. He is also a graduate of the FBI National Police Academy in Quantico, Va., graduating first in his class and earning an advanced certificate in law enforcement executive leadership from the University of Virginia.
Those who have known, supervised and worked for Melnick stated that he is an "excellent leader" and that he is an "extremely knowledgeable, tremendously qualified, hard-working community policing professional."
Melnick was also described as a "true professional," one who would be "an asset and a role model for other employees."
Mayor Ross Overson commented, "The City Council is pleased with the selection process City Manager Greg Martin came up with and carried out for the recruitment of a new chief of police. I want to commend the review committee and Manager Martin for their efforts in helping the city select a highly qualified and well-respected professional to lead our police department in the years to come.
"I look forward to Roy joining our management team and providing the needed leadership to this very important arm of our city government."

(resource: http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19461644&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=506182&rfi=6)
I hope this is brought to a close soon and the child is allowed home to receive help with the support of his Mum.

[FDInLaw]

Awwgh! I duck out for a minute and return to find a love fest! What is going on, doesn't anyone love me? I perhaps could be labelled needy lol! J/K Lots of interesting stuff on here since I last visited you guys obviously haven't been spending to much time hanging out at the sports shed!
Welcome back! :seeya:

We did go a little off topic. . . :o

[William Anthony]

I hope this is brought to a close soon and the child is allowed home to receive help with the support of his Mum.

Ditto.

[William Anthony]

Awwgh! I duck out for a minute and return to find a love fest! What is going on, doesn't anyone love me? I perhaps could be labelled needy lol! J/K Lots of interesting stuff on here since I last visited you guys obviously haven't been spending to much time hanging out at the sports shed!

You always post information that is needed on this case and I thought it was axiomatic that you were loved. I think the only label that would be proper to your being needy is to say that we need you to need us to need you. :)

[Its just me]

I have requested an add to the myspace page and mentioned this site. Some interesting snippets are there and I thought I would share them.
http://www.myspace.com/childshopeandvoice
"I was thinking, 'What the heck is going on?'" the boy said in the video released to The Associated Press and other media. "'Who did this? Why would anyone do this?'" the little 8 year old boy told police."

(Resource:http://www.examiner.com/a-1698450~8_year_old_admits_double_shooting_in_polic e_video.html?cid=temp-popular)
He, repeatedly, told the police over and over again about a solid WHITE, SMALL CAR that "looked like Grandpa's car only it didn't have any rims"..."going very fast away from the house" as he had been walking home. He was fixated on this car and told the police he saw someone coming from the car going into the house and then the car speeding down the road as he approached the house where he then found Romans "lying there" and then, calling "Dad! Dad!, ran into the house and found his father "upstairs...with blood all over his face". He told police "and I saw the blood and then I cried for like 30 mins just crying right next to him."..."I ran to a girl's house I know...and I talked to her brother and told him 'My dad is dead and I told him Tim is dead."

The little boy told police "...I checked to see if he (Dad) was a little bit alive..."

"Why would I shoot Tim?!" he, SHOCKINGLY, asked the police interrogators when they suggested he had. When the police SUGGESTED he shot his dad, he responded, "HUH?!" "Shot who?" as if he didn't feel that he heard them correctly. He sat there stunned. He looked at the other officer with apparent confusion and shock. "I'm not. I'm not lieing!" He looked back and forth from one officer to the other, looking for help in understanding their accusations...

Thanks for the posts. It's impossible to see the whole picture with snips of information but with what we know so far I have to repeat things look suspicious to me. It was reported that the LE arrived soon after the shooting. The way I understand things is the boy went to a neighbors house and they called 911 and it's also reported that someone else called 911 because they heard the shots fired. It wasn't told how close together the shots were but if there was not a span of time between some of the shots things doesn't add up when I factor in the wife of the friend said she heard the boy calling Tim (from inside the house ?) that something had happened or something was wrong with his dad. If this is true it would indicated that Tim was not home when the boy shot his dad or he would have heard the shots...if the boy did the shooting. Also to me it would mean the first shot that hit Tim had to have been fatal enough for him not to be able to defend himself because the gun had to be reloaded for the second shot. I’m only thinking and trying to make some sense of all of this but I guess that is impossible with so little known. fep

[FDInLaw]

Thanks for the posts. It's impossible to see the whole picture with snips of information but with what we know so far I have to repeat things look suspicious to me. It was reported that the LE arrived soon after the shooting. The way I understand things is the boy went to a neighbors house and they called 911 and it's also reported that someone else called 911 because they heard the shots fired. It wasn't told how close together the shots were but if there was not a span of time between some of the shots things doesn't add up when I factor in the wife of the friend said she heard the boy calling Tim (from inside the house ?) that something had happened or something was wrong with his dad. If this is true it would indicated that Tim was not home when the boy shot his dad or he would have heard the shots...if the boy did the shooting. Also to me it would mean the first shot that hit Tim had to have been fatal enough for him not to be able to defend himself because the gun had to be reloaded for the second shot. I’m only thinking and trying to make some sense of all of this but I guess that is impossible with so little known. fep
Lot's of unanswered questions to be sure. I wonder if the neighbors were asked about the white car the boy reported seeing??? Did LE just blow it off? It would be interesting to know what the neighbors feel about this case. Also, since homicides are a rare occurrence in this area, has the State Police taken on an active role? If local LE is wise they will be seeking as much assistance as they can.

[Its just me]

Lot's of unanswered questions to be sure. I wonder if the neighbors were asked about the white car the boy reported seeing??? Did LE just blow it off? It would be interesting to know what the neighbors feel about this case. Also, since homicides are a rare occurrence in this area, has the State Police taken on an active role? If local LE is wise they will be seeking as much assistance as they can.

Here is an interview Brewer the attorney for the boy did with one of the officers who interviewed the boy and doing the investigation. It sheds some light on what went on in the investigation and what was being worked on at the time of this interview. It is long but worth reading. imhoo fep

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf

[FDInLaw]

Here is an interview Brewer the attorney for the boy did with one of the officers who interviewed the boy and doing the investigation. It sheds some light on what went on in the investigation and what was being worked on at the time of this interview. It is long but worth reading. imhoo fep

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdfInteresting read. . . I'm working on it! :read:

Thanks! :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

BB = Benjamin Brewer, Attorney, Wood Law Office
DN: Deborah Neckel, Officer, St. Johns Police Dept.
BB: Um, and, um, and, and, ya, a, uh, well, let me ask ya this was, was there anyone, that you interviewed, or anyone that you have, come ta know, through your investigation, was, wiped down fer, gun, fer gunshot residue?
DN: No.
BB: Um, and, were there any, re, requests by you or, people that you were directing, to, uhh, have anybody, demonstrate an alibi fer where they were?
DN: Um, well, yeah, I was asking people, basically in there, um, when they gave me a written statement, ta tell where they, they had been from such (unk), and, I wasn’t thinkinon the suspects, but I knew we would hafta get every single person’s whereabouts for, the, the time of the crime.
BB: Okay and, and were any of those statements, where they indicated they were, verified?
DN: Um, we’ve, yeah, we’ve verified some of em, and some of em we haven’t verified yet. We’re not finished.
BB: Okay. Um, and there’s still, there’s still, investigation going on.
DN: Yes, sir.
BB: Still interviews going on.
DN: Yes.
BB: Um, w-w-when um, apparently the, the people across the street are Kevin and Chelsea Armijo?
DN: Yes.
BB: And, are those both adults?
DN: Yes.
BB: Um, and the indicated they heard three shots?
DN: Um, yes.
BB: Now was that their words, or did they, did they say, a popping sound, and, and, or did, or did you indicate shots, who, who ended up saying shots? Do you remember?
DN: I, you know what, I’d hafta re-listen to the tape, um, on that, and I haven’t listened ta their, the short interview I had with them yet, um, but, I really don’t remember if I asked first or if they told me first.
BB: But that would be on there if they said it?
DN: Yes, it would be.
BB: Okay. Um, awright. Um, as far as, information that you, obtained, before, conducting the interview with, *****, I just wanna try ta get an idea what information you had about, him, um, my understanding is there was an interview conducted with, uh, Matt, Avila, is that right?DN: Avilla. I pronounced it wrong before the, case, too, so, that’s okay.
BB: And, and she, had conducted an interview with him.
DN: Yes.
BB: And, and to yer knowledge, is that recorded?
DN: Um, ta my knowledge, that was not recorded, notes were taken. Is it me, or is "green" a fair assessment? If the boy's clothes would have tested positive for gun shot residue we might not have so much to discuss. JMHO

[SaraSidle]

Sorry Sharlock just a little Off topic humor. we always need you and I love your latest posts. thanks so much for the information!!! sara

[FDInLaw]

BB = Benjamin Brewer, Attorney, Wood Law Office
DN: Deborah Neckel, Officer, St. Johns Police Dept.
Is it me, or is "green" a fair assessment? If the boy's clothes would have tested positive for gun shot residue we might not have so much to discuss. JMHO

Later the link mentions two police officers packing up the boys clothes to be sent off and tested. Unless I missed it, there is no mention of a residue test at this point either. Just blood splatter????

The link does mention the boy's statement about seeing a white car, in my speed reading I didn't catch whether or not the neighbors were asked about it though.

[SaraSidle]

Later the link mentions two police officers packing up the boys clothes to be sent off and tested. Unless I missed it, there is no mention of a residue test at this point either. Just blood splatter????

The link does mention the boy's statement about seeing a white car, in my speed reading I didn't catch whether or not the neighbors were asked about it though.

You know there is so much more I would like to know but because of his age at this time I think it is going to be difficult. sara

[Its just me]

This is the interview by attorney Brewer with Therese Avilla who assisted with the interview with the child and investigation.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Avilla.pdf

IN RE THE MATTER OF: *************
A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS
BB = Ben Brewer, Attorney, Wood Law Office
TA = Commander Therese Avilla, Apache County Sheriff’s Department
CC = Chris Candelaria, Apache County Attorney’s Office
BC = Bill Cloud, Apache County Attorney’s Office
(unk) = unknown

[Its just me]

In reading to two interviews the attorney did with Avilla and Neckel about them finding and bagging the clothes I noticed where the clothes were found is somewhat different....One stated at the bottom of the bed on top of the bed and the other stated at the bottom of the bed on the floor. Kind of interesting since both claim to have been there and both collected the clothes. fep


Avilla's statement:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Avilla.pdf (page 23-24)

BB: Um, and there was, um, prior to this you had collected some clothing? Of, *****’s?
TA: Yes.
BB: And, describe that for me if you would. How ya, how that happened. How you got it.
TA: Umm, we had just thought if he was sittin there that, um, there might be something on his, clothes fer DNA or something, from, from someone else, at that time. So we, asked him, could, uh, we asked Liz, um, can we have his clothing, and, um, she said sure and she says but I think they’re over at Francesca’s, and they live catty-corner from each other. So we went over ta Francesca’s, she took us over, Francesca did and, couldn’t find em so went back over and, um, tore, told Liz that, they weren’t there, and she says oh, she says, lemme check and then, we, walked back and they, they were in her room, at the bottom of the bed, and we took those.
BB: Okay. And, it was her room specifically?
TA: Yes.
BB: Um, and, and the, um, had you talked to Tiffany about that? Collecting his clothes at all?
TA: I believe we did. On the way over, when Tiffany, when we took her over to the, uh, Castillo residence, I believe we told her we were gonna do that fer the, we were tryin ta collect, um, ta see if there was anything on clothes that might help us, uh, figure out who it was. At this point, um, our thoughts were that he was, uh, that Chrstian, was, basically, there was someone else in that home, and we, our, our thoughts were that there wa, he was covering fer someone.
BB: And, and, um, did you ever ask ***** about it, gettin his clothes?
TA: No.
BB: Um, as far as the, so the clothes were ultimately in, in the, grandmother’s, house, in her bedroom?
TA: Yes.
23
BB: They were in the, on the, on the floor?
TA: No, her, they were at the bottom ‘a the bed. Just on top ‘a the bed.
BB: Okay. And, and who, collected those?
TA: Uh, O-Detective Neckel and myself.

--------------------------------------------------------


Neckel's statement:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Neckel.pdf (page 32)
DN: Yes, he’s Vincent’s father.
BB: Awright.
DN: Um, he’s the first one that came, and we, we told him that, um, we’d like to speak to, um, *****, ta see if he remembered anything, and, that he had, possibly forgotten, um, that if his, his memory was any better than the night before. And, we also asked, if, we could, um, have his clothes, that he had worn, from the night before. I think Francesca came out, Francesca’s Vincent’s, sister, Francesca Romero, she came out at that point, um, and, we explained it ta her, and, um, she said, oh, yeah, he, you know, he, he took off his clothes last night and I, I know where they’re at, um, and then, um, we actually went, and picked up, um, Tiffany. Tiffany got in the car with us, we drove back over ta the residence, and, we started ta look fer the clothing, and, they thought they were in one room, they weren’t there, so, we were, checking, different areas and, found the clothing, at the bottom of the bed on the floor.
BB: Okay. Uh, and so, whose, whose home was the, whose home was the clothes in?
DN: His grandmother, Liz’s.

[Its just me]

Later the link mentions two police officers packing up the boys clothes to be sent off and tested. Unless I missed it, there is no mention of a residue test at this point either. Just blood splatter????

The link does mention the boy's statement about seeing a white car, in my speed reading I didn't catch whether or not the neighbors were asked about it though.

Reading the whole article helps to understand gunshot residue. fep

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

Clothing worn by a child accused of murder in St. Johns tested positive for gunshot residue and his fingerprints were found on a box of ammunition, according to lab reports disclosed Monday.
But independent experts question the significance of both pieces of evidence.
The boy's clothing was not collected until the day after his father and a friend were shot and killed, and his skin was never tested for traces of gunshot residue. The boy, who turned 9 last month, frequently hunted with his father and could have held the box of .22-caliber cartridges or come into contact with residue at any time.

A report from the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab in Texas says more than three-dozen particles of lead, antimony and barium were found on a long-sleeved shirt and denim pants the boy wore the day his father and a friend were killed. Michael Martinez, a forensic scientist who analyzed the garments, concluded that the clothing may have come in contact with, or been close to, a discharged firearm.
However, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have stopped using gunshot-residue tests because cross-contamination and other problems can lead to dubious conclusions.
The St. Johns boy is not being identified by The Arizona Republic because of his age.
Police accuse him of killing his 29-year-old father and 39-year-old Tim Romans with a .22 rifle on Nov. 5.
In a videotaped interview, the child first denied responsibility for the killings, then told police that he shot the men to end their suffering after they had been wounded by someone else.
Police reports said the boy later told a social worker that he had kept a tally of his spankings and vowed that 1,000 "would be his limit."
Steven Howard, a Michigan attorney and expert on shooting reconstruction, said tens of thousands of microscopic particles are expelled when a firearm is discharged. Upon learning that the St. Johns boy's clothes were collected a day after the crime - and that his skin was not tested at all - Howard criticized investigators. "Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . . This is just a case of poor police work."
St. Johns police, who viewed the boy as a victim at first, are under a gag order and could not be reached for comment. Prosecutors and defense attorneys also are prohibited from commenting on the case.
Residue controversial
Howard said gunshot residue has become controversial in the forensics world because innocent defendants can be tainted without firing a weapon, especially if they sat in a patrol car, touched a gun or were near the weapon when it was fired. The St. Johns boy was from a hunting family and had been in the room where his father died.
Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."
John Cayton, a firearms examiner and former chief criminalist with the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, said residue testing remains an important tool and described the number of particles found on the boy's clothes as "significant." But he also questioned whether the garments were contaminated elsewhere. Cayton added that it is not uncommon for small-town investigators to overlook evidentiary protocols because they often lack training and experience with homicides.
Boston police scrapped gunshot-residue tests in 2005 and the FBI followed suit a year later after acknowledging widespread contamination in its own lab, according to the Sun of Baltimore. Numerous other agencies have re-evaluated their validity.
Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants.
Proceedings against the boy have been suspended until his competency to stand trial is determined. Because he may be found incapable of understanding the legal system, Apache County prosecutors have sought to dismiss one homicide count, allowing them to charge him with that crime years from now, when he has matured.
Judge Pro Tem Michael Roca refused to allow the dismissal, prompting prosecutors to file an appeal with the state Court of Appeals. That issue is pending.

[sharlock]

You always post information that is needed on this case and I thought it was axiomatic that you were loved. I think the only label that would be proper to your being needy is to say that we need you to need us to need you. :)
LOL:tongue: I'm not really that needy I just want total world domination...that's all:punch:

[sharlock]

Reading the whole article helps to understand gunshot residue. fep

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

Clothing worn by a child accused of murder in St. Johns tested positive for gunshot residue and his fingerprints were found on a box of ammunition, according to lab reports disclosed Monday.
But independent experts question the significance of both pieces of evidence.
The boy's clothing was not collected until the day after his father and a friend were shot and killed, and his skin was never tested for traces of gunshot residue. The boy, who turned 9 last month, frequently hunted with his father and could have held the box of .22-caliber cartridges or come into contact with residue at any time.

A report from the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Lab in Texas says more than three-dozen particles of lead, antimony and barium were found on a long-sleeved shirt and denim pants the boy wore the day his father and a friend were killed. Michael Martinez, a forensic scientist who analyzed the garments, concluded that the clothing may have come in contact with, or been close to, a discharged firearm.
However, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have stopped using gunshot-residue tests because cross-contamination and other problems can lead to dubious conclusions.
The St. Johns boy is not being identified by The Arizona Republic because of his age.
Police accuse him of killing his 29-year-old father and 39-year-old Tim Romans with a .22 rifle on Nov. 5.
In a videotaped interview, the child first denied responsibility for the killings, then told police that he shot the men to end their suffering after they had been wounded by someone else.
Police reports said the boy later told a social worker that he had kept a tally of his spankings and vowed that 1,000 "would be his limit."
Steven Howard, a Michigan attorney and expert on shooting reconstruction, said tens of thousands of microscopic particles are expelled when a firearm is discharged. Upon learning that the St. Johns boy's clothes were collected a day after the crime - and that his skin was not tested at all - Howard criticized investigators. "Number 1, they're stupid," he said. "Number 2, they're stupid. Number 3, they're stupid. . . . This is just a case of poor police work."
St. Johns police, who viewed the boy as a victim at first, are under a gag order and could not be reached for comment. Prosecutors and defense attorneys also are prohibited from commenting on the case.
Residue controversial
Howard said gunshot residue has become controversial in the forensics world because innocent defendants can be tainted without firing a weapon, especially if they sat in a patrol car, touched a gun or were near the weapon when it was fired. The St. Johns boy was from a hunting family and had been in the room where his father died.
Police records say the boy's pants and shirt were retrieved from a relative's home the day after the slayings. Howard said he would expect to find dozens of particles under those circumstances, "even if he took the clothes and hung them in a closet."
John Cayton, a firearms examiner and former chief criminalist with the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, said residue testing remains an important tool and described the number of particles found on the boy's clothes as "significant." But he also questioned whether the garments were contaminated elsewhere. Cayton added that it is not uncommon for small-town investigators to overlook evidentiary protocols because they often lack training and experience with homicides.
Boston police scrapped gunshot-residue tests in 2005 and the FBI followed suit a year later after acknowledging widespread contamination in its own lab, according to the Sun of Baltimore. Numerous other agencies have re-evaluated their validity.
Howard contends that gunshot residue is virtually useless in proving guilt, but the lack of particles may exonerate defendants.
Proceedings against the boy have been suspended until his competency to stand trial is determined. Because he may be found incapable of understanding the legal system, Apache County prosecutors have sought to dismiss one homicide count, allowing them to charge him with that crime years from now, when he has matured.
Judge Pro Tem Michael Roca refused to allow the dismissal, prompting prosecutors to file an appeal with the state Court of Appeals. That issue is pending.
Thankyou IJM,
I read an FBI report that showed how easily residue can be transferred and how unreliable it is because even sitting in the back of a police car can put adequate amounts of residue on someone to show up. If the FBI don't use this anymore (and this report is extensive and connclusive so it is not just because of financial reasons they stopped using it), it seems to me that LE should rethink their position on its use as well.

[sharlock]

Sorry Sharlock just a little Off topic humor. we always need you and I love your latest posts. thanks so much for the information!!! sara
Oh don't take me seriously Sara I was just attempting to join in on the merrymaking lol. I guess my sense of humour is a little off if you thought I was serious.:o

[SaraSidle]

Oh don't take me seriously Sara I was just attempting to join in on the merrymaking lol. I guess my sense of humour is a little off if you thought I was serious.:o

I really did not take you seriously Just wanted to put in my 2 cents worth. I think you are a great poster and I may be more sarcastic than you!

[SaraSidle]

LOL:tongue: I'm not really that needy I just want total world domination...that's all:punch:
Can I help?

[William Anthony]

LOL:tongue: I'm not really that needy I just want total world domination...that's all:punch:

Oh no, I am not that submissive. I found love on a two way street and lost it on a lonely highway. :)

[William Anthony]

Can I help?

You all can rock it but you can't own it. :)

[SaraSidle]

You all can rock it but you can't own it. :)

I will defer to Sharlock on that one William and I am sorry you lost your love:):):)

[William Anthony]

I will defer to Sharlock on that one William and I am sorry you lost your love:):):)

John Donne

Batter My Heart

Batter my heart, three person'd God; for, you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurpt town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue,
Yet dearely I love you, and would be lov'd faine,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy,
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast, except you ravish me.

send with a basketful of smiles.

[FDInLaw]

Been keeping an eye out for news articles to post in hopes of getting this thread back on topic. . . but nothing. Guess I might have to join the lonely hearts club after all (lol). :D


Still working through your posts and links, Fep! You're the best! :seeya:

[SaraSidle]

Been keeping an eye out for news articles to post in hopes of getting this thread back on topic. . . but nothing. Guess I might have to join the lonely hearts club after all (lol). :D


Still working through your posts and links, Fep! You're the best! :seeya:

I just hate it when a case like this just disappears. Yes fep thank you very much. sara

[SaraSidle]

I just hate it when a case like this just disappears. Yes fep thank you very much. sara

lots of good info on Insessions FDI and William

[Its just me]

Been keeping an eye out for news articles to post in hopes of getting this thread back on topic. . . but nothing. Guess I might have to join the lonely hearts club after all (lol). :D


Still working through your posts and links, Fep! You're the best! :seeya:


:seeya: Hey my friend. TY and you are "super" yourself and you have a great sense of humor that often adds some sunshine to my days. :)

I've been very busy lately and have only checked this thread for any news but Joseph Bell has been great to give us updates on this case, hopefully he will soon pop in with another one. It was good to read the opinions of some of the best experts in fields that is a part of this case.

Hope everyone has a great day. fep

[FDInLaw]

lots of good info on Insessions FDI and William

Thanks! I will check it out.

[FDInLaw]

:seeya: Hey my friend. TY and you are "super" yourself and you have a great sense of humor that often adds some sunshine to my days. :)

I've been very busy lately and have only checked this thread for any news but Joseph Bell has been great to give us updates on this case, hopefully he will soon pop in with another one. It was good to read the opinions of some of the best experts in fields that is a part of this case.

Hope everyone has a great day. fep
Been missing Joe. . . he was helping me on the Meredith Kercher thread too. :(

[William Anthony]

lots of good info on Insessions FDI and William

Thank and I have checked some of those posts out. Has anyone heard anything on the other competency evaluation that the judge was awaiting?

[SaraSidle]

Thank and I have checked some of those posts out. Has anyone heard anything on the other competency evaluation that the judge was awaiting?

no but that little boy should not be jailed. 2 different shooters? get out of here. Let the boy go!!!!!!!!!

[William Anthony]

no but that little boy should not be jailed. 2 different shooters? get out of here. Let the boy go!!!!!!!!!

I hope and pray that it is not jail as we typically think of it. I do believe that the boy should be supervised and evaluated at this point, with the foremost consideration being the child's best interest.

[SaraSidle]

I hope and pray that it is not jail as we typically think of it. I do believe that the boy should be supervised and evaluated at this point, with the foremost consideration being the child's best interest.

No kidding. at least psychologically interviewed but should not be locked up till we get more info.; On the other hand I am pretty sure he should not be spending time with close relatived who are coaching either.....IMO

[FDInLaw]

I took your advice, Sara, and have been posting over on In Session. . . less poetry and more on topic chat. ;)





:hat:

[William Anthony]

No kidding. at least psychologically interviewed but should not be locked up till we get more info.; On the other hand I am pretty sure he should not be spending time with close relatived who are coaching either.....IMO

I understand your point and I do not know how much information those with inside information have. I agree with you on both points, which is what I meant by the resolution of this case calls on someone with the wisdom of Solomon. Lives will be changed forever.

[William Anthony]

No kidding. at least psychologically interviewed but should not be locked up till we get more info.; On the other hand I am pretty sure he should not be spending time with close relatived who are coaching either.....IMO

I just wanted you to know that I enjoy the advice and poetry in your signature.

[SaraSidle]

I took your advice, Sara, and have been posting over on In Session. . . less poetry and more on topic chat. ;)





:hat:

thought you might like it. first time I heard more than one shooter. what has happened to this boy?

[SaraSidle]

I just wanted you to know that I enjoy the advice and poetry in your signature.
thanks William From what I have read on other sites I agree with you. thanks for the compliment on my signature. I am very serious about not letting threads I use be closed. Most posters who know me know that also. Probably the biggest time I am a -itch but I feel everyone has the right to speak just not antagonize. Is today not a wonderful day? what a wonderful inaugeration. I wish I had been there. just to give him a hug.

[William Anthony]

thanks William From what I have read on other sites I agree with you. thanks for the compliment on my signature. I am very serious about not letting threads I use be closed. Most posters who know me know that also. Probably the biggest time I am a -itch but I feel everyone has the right to speak just not antagonize. Is today not a wonderful day? what a wonderful inaugeration. I wish I had been there. just to give him a hug.

You are very welcome. Yes, I consider this a wonderful and fully heart-warming emotional day. I would have settled for his hand shake and a hug from Michelle.:) IIRC, there is supposed to be some action on the case today, as it has been said in some of the information received.

[FDInLaw]

This was posted over on In Sessions by the same person that is running the MySpace page (I believe). For anyone interested. . .


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-release-9-year-old-child-romero

[William Anthony]

I have watched the video of the alleged confession. I had some questions about the mother having the receipt handy for the second time she went to the store. When I watched the video, the boy said his mother told him she went to the store and this was after the shooting. The boy repeatedly says he thought he shot, as if he was trying to remember something rehearsed, imho.

[SaraSidle]

You are very welcome. Yes, I consider this a wonderful and fully heart-warming emotional day. I would have settled for his hand shake and a hug from Michelle.:) IIRC, there is supposed to be some action on the case today, as it has been said in some of the information received.

Oh my I cried all day watching the TV and inauguration. If he sticks to his goals he may save this country. and Michelle was so beautiful all day and all night. both of them have more class than anyone else. Really would like to hear more on this case. Way too strange.

[SaraSidle]

This was posted over on In Sessions by the same person that is running the MySpace page (I believe). For anyone interested. . .


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-release-9-year-old-child-romero

I tried and could not get to it. Might be part of my computer cause I cannot open all links which is why I visit other boards for one reason. Hey and Circuit City where I bought it is closed. Life is good.

[SaraSidle]

I have watched the video of the alleged confession. I had some questions about the mother having the receipt handy for the second time she went to the store. When I watched the video, the boy said his mother told him she went to the store and this was after the shooting. The boy repeatedly says he thought he shot, as if he was trying to remember something rehearsed, imho.

I find the interview very disturbing. I hope it is not used in the trial.

[William Anthony]

I find the interview very disturbing. I hope it is not used in the trial.

I realize that I was not clear. According to the video, when LE asked the boy where his mother was he said she told me she went to the store. Then LE said, so your mother was not home at the time of the shooting. I am trying to remember the sequence. Anyway, the video left me feeling that there may have been a story concocted. I got the feeling that the boy was told to say that his mother went to the store and may have been present at the time of the shooting. I guess this would be the stepmother. I will have to watch the video again.

[FDInLaw]

Well, I'm back. . . if you'll have me.

*tail between legs*

Apparently it is not wise to post about belly dancers over on In Sessions. . . trust me, it will land you in time out. :o


Question: Was the boy's journal ever found? The one where he stated his alleged intentions?

[Its just me]

Well, I'm back. . . if you'll have me.

*tail between legs*

Apparently it is not wise to post about belly dancers over on In Sessions. . . trust me, it will land you in time out. :o


Question: Was the boy's journal ever found? The one where he stated his alleged intentions?


Ohhhh your in the dog house. :seeya: Welcome back. I don't read at IS but I'm sure the mods made a mistake. :D

[FDInLaw]

Ohhhh your in the dog house. :seeya: Welcome back. I don't read at IS but I'm sure the mods made a mistake. :D

It's sweet of you to think so, but I'm afraid CW had a point. :o

*rocking* "I will NOT post about Belly Dancers, I will NOT post about Belly Dancers!"
:biggrin:

[SaraSidle]

I realize that I was not clear. According to the video, when LE asked the boy where his mother was he said she told me she went to the store. Then LE said, so your mother was not home at the time of the shooting. I am trying to remember the sequence. Anyway, the video left me feeling that there may have been a story concocted. I got the feeling that the boy was told to say that his mother went to the store and may have been present at the time of the shooting. I guess this would be the stepmother. I will have to watch the video again.

I completely understood you. as I have stated I think the confession was coached. I would love to see him free and talking with lawyers and professionals. IMO

[SaraSidle]

It's sweet of you to think so, but I'm afraid CW had a point. :o

*rocking* "I will NOT post about Belly Dancers, I will NOT post about Belly Dancers!"
:biggrin:

LOL I cannot believe this has happened with my CL mentor. I may just have to stop posting for a while to get over it. :D:D

[SaraSidle]

Sorry people. You have to be on topic consistently. It's looking likely that CR is going to be released. Can't give you any more info at the moment but I will if it happens.

Poetry? You're joking. On a crime library forum?

We are not joking and it is about time you gave us more information. you are a slacker. Or is the new car taking you places you have never been before.
Good thing I like you. did you see any of the inauguration here?

[SaraSidle]

It's pretty well set I think. If it's not I'll let you know. CR will be released. It's about time.

pretty well set is not a lot of info JB dude. what do you know we do not?

[SaraSidle]

It's pretty well set I think. If it's not I'll let you know. CR will be released. It's about time.

ahhh when are you going to give me a ride in the new car??? We can go pick up Susie and Brandy and Kaleb when you get here....................sara:cool:

[SaraSidle]

The truth, for a start. Not poetry.

whatever. I have missed you way too much JB. You have the dryest sense of humor of anyone I know. might be the Austrailian in you. Have you found a place for me to work and live yet over there?

[SaraSidle]

Sara, this thread is about the double murder.

Please don't start to be as topic as the poet.

OK

Oh my Joseph. I was so happy to read you I forgot where we were. Please give me some forgiveness so I can get some rest and continue to post because we look forward to you every word..........IMO sara

[Its just me]

Sorry people. You have to be on topic consistently. It's looking likely that CR is going to be released. Can't give you any more info at the moment but I will if it happens.

Poetry? You're joking. On a crime library forum?

Thanks Joseph. Maybe we will soon learn he has been released. fep

[William Anthony]

The truth, for a start. Not poetry.

The truth as opposed to misinformation.
I think that this is CL's proper function.

Oops, smile.

[William Anthony]

pretty well set is not a lot of info JB dude. what do you know we do not?


Are we talking the setting of bail?:shrug:

[William Anthony]

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20242285&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=506182&rfi=6

“Roca has said that any substantive matters in the case will be held from discussion until the competency exams of the juvenile have been completed and a ruling on his competency is made.
Prosecutors objected to this and filed a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One, challenging Roca's decision.
Earlier this week, the Court of Appeals considered the special action, originally filed Dec. 23. As of now, according to the court's Web site at www.cofad1.state.az.us, the case is under advisement and a decision has not been reached.
Another status conference is set for Thursday, Jan. 29, at 10 a.m.”

[FDInLaw]

Welcome back Joseph! :seeya:

Tell us more about the release situation if you can.

[William Anthony]

Welcome back Joseph! :seeya:

Tell us more about the release situation if you can.

We wait with baited breath
to hear more about the deaths
Please fill our dire needs
with truth and deliberate speed.

[FDInLaw]

We wait with baited breath
to hear more about the deaths
Please fill our dire needs
with truth and deliberate speed.
Well, at least you are on topic this time. . . I'll give you that (lol).


Being academically challenged do to my learning modality (have a hard time visualizing what I read). . . I wish there was some way we could get a picture/diagram of the crime scene layout. Where the bodies and casings where found, etc. Doors, windows. . . all that jazz. Has anyone seen anything like this on the web????

[FDInLaw]

When Sergeant Rodriguez testified at the 7 November, 2008 detention hearing to hold the child for murder, he testified that the boy had told his grandmother that his father didn’t suffer because the father had been shot in the chest. This was based upon the grandmother’s statement. Rodriguez testified that the father was found face down and had not been moved. Apache County Attorney Brad Carylon implicated that the child suspect had special knowledge which incriminated him. But, there was no chest wound.
The copper coated projectiles noted by Dr. Porterfield are important. A return of search warrant report dated 06 November, 2008, stated that item 7A, a shell, was found in the assumed murder weapon. A scene photograph shows a cartridge laying loose in the breech of the Chipmunk youth rifle. The bullet is not copper coated. The other recovered projectiles might not have been copper coated. That requires examination.

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/st-johns-arizona-double-homicide-autopsies.html

[FDInLaw]

Romero’s autopsy report reveals he was shot four times.

A bullet grazed his left arm, and penetrated the top of his head, the left side of his head, and the right side of his upper back.

Two of those gunshot wounds caught the eye of Yavapai County’s Medical Examiner Philip Keen.

Keen is Arizona’s senior forensic pathologist.

He said the shape of the wound on Romero’s back may indicate the assailant was slightly to the right and below Romero.

Romero was found face down on a flight of stairs leading to the second floor of his home.

That would place the gunman at the bottom of the staircase.

The shooting happened after Romero came home from work .

In crime scene photos he is shown wearing a hard hat and safety goggles.

He may have a gunshot wound in his back but the report also indicates that “on the front of the hard hat there is a round defect.”

After reading the report Doctor Keen said that tells him a bullet went through the front of his hard hat placing a gunman in front of him.

Tim Roman’s autopsy report outlines six gun shot wounds.

Saint Johns Police found him outside on the front porch.

One bullet struck the right top of his head, a bullet grazed the left side of his head, then there is a wound in the back of his head.

His lung and heart were hit by two bullets, one entered the right side of his chest, the other the left side.

He also has a gunshot would to his forearm.

Pima County Pathologist Cynthia Porterfield wrote “Examination of the entrance wound reveals no evidence of close range firing” for three of Romero’s gunshot wounds and five of Roman’s gunshot wounds.

Doctor Keen says they define “close range”, in part, by determining if there was any gun power residue on the victim’s skin.

He said since there is no gun powder residue it is not in “close range” which would mean the gunman was at least two to two-and-a-half feet away.

Pima County also released the toxicology reports which shows a check for alcohol and drugs in both men came back negative.

Saint Johns Police say the 8-year-old used a single shot 22-caliber rifle to shoot both men.

That means he would have had to reload and fire before each of the ten shots.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/northernarizona/story/Autopsy-St-Johns-murder-victims-shot-in-the-head/gsb18gJlwkizzVprKFwW0A.cspx

[Its just me]

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/st-johns-arizona-double-homicide-autopsies.html

When Sergeant Rodriguez testified at the 7 November, 2008 detention hearing to hold the child for murder, he testified that the boy had told his grandmother that his father didn’t suffer because the father had been shot in the chest. This was based upon the grandmother’s statement. Rodriguez testified that the father was found face down and had not been moved. Apache County Attorney Brad Carylon implicated that the child suspect had special knowledge which incriminated him. But, there was no chest wound.
The copper coated projectiles noted by Dr. Porterfield are important. A return of search warrant report dated 06 November, 2008, stated that item 7A, a shell, was found in the assumed murder weapon. A scene photograph shows a cartridge laying loose in the breech of the Chipmunk youth rifle. The bullet is not copper coated. The other recovered projectiles might not have been copper coated. That requires examination.


-----------------------------------------------

So we have officer (Rodriquez) who testified that the child had special knowledge that incriminated him because he said his dad was shot in the chest and the body had not been moved and was found face down...meaning the child would have had to have done the shooting to know this....but he wasn't shot in the chest. I wonder where the LE officer got their training...Surely to goodness the child has not be held in jail all this time because of this kind of evidence.
Where is Barney Fife when he's needed. :shrug:

Thanks for the post FDInLaw. fep

[FDInLaw]

When Sergeant Rodriguez testified at the 7 November, 2008 detention hearing to hold the child for murder, he testified that the boy had told his grandmother that his father didn’t suffer because the father had been shot in the chest. This was based upon the grandmother’s statement. Rodriguez testified that the father was found face down and had not been moved. Apache County Attorney Brad Carylon implicated that the child suspect had special knowledge which incriminated him. But, there was no chest wound.
The copper coated projectiles noted by Dr. Porterfield are important. A return of search warrant report dated 06 November, 2008, stated that item 7A, a shell, was found in the assumed murder weapon. A scene photograph shows a cartridge laying loose in the breech of the Chipmunk youth rifle. The bullet is not copper coated. The other recovered projectiles might not have been copper coated. That requires examination.


-----------------------------------------------

So we have officer (Rodriquez) who testified that the child had special knowledge that incriminated him because he said his dad was shot in the chest and the body had not been moved and was found face down...meaning the child would have had to have done the shooting to know this....but he wasn't shot in the chest. I wonder where the LE officer got their training...Surely to goodness the child has not be held in jail all this time because of this kind of evidence.
Where is Barney Fife when he's needed. :shrug:

Thanks for the post FDInLaw. fep
It's this sort of thing that makes you wonder if they do have anything on this poor kid. . .

[William Anthony]

It's this sort of thing that makes you wonder if they do have anything on this poor kid. . .

Unfortunately, probable cause is far less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[FDInLaw]

Unfortunately, probable cause is far less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has there been much discussion about other possible perpetrators? I've been searching the Internet for chat spots and it appears that In Session has the most activity. . . but, unfortunately, I am unable to even read there. :(

[William Anthony]

Has there been much discussion about other possible perpetrators? I've been searching the Internet for chat spots and it appears that In Session has the most activity. . . but, unfortunately, I am unable to even read there. :(

I haven't visited that board, today. I am sure that there is a feeling that someone else committed the crimes. I am trying to get out of that annal retentive thing-not really. There is something about the step mother's second trip to the store and the handiness of the receipt and the statement's on the video of the alleged confession that just does not sit right with me. I wonder if someone can place her as having left for the store before the child got home.

[FDInLaw]

I haven't visited that board, today. I am sure that there is a feeling that someone else committed the crimes. I am trying to get out of that annal retentive thing-not really. There is something about the step mother's second trip to the store and the handiness of the receipt and the statement's on the video of the alleged confession that just does not sit right with me. I wonder if someone can place her as having left for the store before the child got home.
Interesting thought. I'd like to look in to this sort of thing more tomorrow.

Good Night! :seeya:

[SaraSidle]

Well, at least you are on topic this time. . . I'll give you that (lol).


Being academically challenged do to my learning modality (have a hard time visualizing what I read). . . I wish there was some way we could get a picture/diagram of the crime scene layout. Where the bodies and casings where found, etc. Doors, windows. . . all that jazz. Has anyone seen anything like this on the web????

you are so not kidding. and you are one of the smartest posters so do not every say "do to my learning modality' but you can say "due to my learning modality"'. not to mention I think you are up too late and have to get up early.................. miss you

[SaraSidle]

It all depends on Roca now and his ruling. I believe CR wil be out of custody soon. Romans and Romero's autopsies show that most of their wounds were on a downward trajectory. Romans: 2 chest wounds and right top of head were downwards. Romero: 2 head wounds, 1 back wound also downward. There is also the fact that 2 different types of bullets are identified, one being copper. Doesn't that point you to 2 shooters? It does to me.

CR is about 4ft tall. How is he going to be shooting down at 2 adult men. Was he upstairs when he shot his father? On the balcony when he shot Romero? He's a real sharpshooter, this 8 year old. Or maybe he just lugged a step ladder around with him while the men lay conveniently on the ground waiting for him to shoot them again.

Oh wait. This is the same child who then spilled his guts to Officer Avila, she of the incredibly effective interrogation method, less than a day later.

The whole thing stinks. CR is innocent and has always been. 2 shooters, 2 adult shooters, each taking out one of the victims. The motive? IMO take your pick: drug related (and no, it's not necessary they were both king pins in the drug trade). Very interesting personal relationships among the adults. Anyone got any other ideas? Not the boy. There are online petitions you can join if you want to help in any way. You can go on-line to Apache County 'police' and make your thoughts known there. E-mail DA Carlyon and tell him your thoughts.

Even an on-line discussion of the case will help.

Oh jB this makes me feel so good. I cannot go online or do links with my puter which is supposedly fixed. but i trust you and thank god you have told me this . this whole case has me seriously worried about this poor boy. i have not felt he has been guilty at all. only in my gut mind you.thanks agian for all you have to offer.

[SaraSidle]

Sara, if you can't go on-line, how can you be replying to this?

If you can't help then maybe others can.

This is a travesty of justice. CR has been in 'custody' since November. If you believe, as I do, that a great injustice has been done to this 9 year old, then make your voice heard. Don't just read, participate. Believe me, boards like this matter.

OK Joseph I lied but everything I try to do on the internet takes for ever since I got the puter back. And I do not have a lot of details on this one cause I cannot do links for real. and the store that sold it to me and fixed it for me has shut down because we have such a great economy in the US. I told you even before the "interview" that something was not right. I totally know it is an injustice but I just cannot telll everyone it is my gut feeling.I am sitting here in MI with no information. we are freezing and waiting for DH to lose his job also. and then we will lose the house.... anything I can do for you I would. Just let me know. I cannot open petitions or anything but if you think LE will listen to me I am there sara

[William Anthony]

OK Joseph I lied but everything I try to do on the internet takes for ever since I got the puter back. And I do not have a lot of details on this one cause I cannot do links for real. and the store that sold it to me and fixed it for me has shut down because we have such a great economy in the US. I told you even before the "interview" that something was not right. I totally know it is an injustice but I just cannot telll everyone it is my gut feeling.I am sitting here in MI with no information. we are freezing and waiting for DH to lose his job also. and then we will lose the house.... anything I can do for you I would. Just let me know. I cannot open petitions or anything but if you think LE will listen to me I am there sara

I also have serious doubts about the boy being the murderer. However, I do not know for a fact that he is not. At this point, I think and presume the boy is innocent. However, I am not privy to all the information LE has. I think there is a general opinion that LE acts in a respectable manner and I don't know why the feeling is that they have not in this case, other than the boy is so young. Regardless of whether the boy did the shooting or not, his mental and emotional needs are being addressed, which he would need even if he just saw the bodies. I think that to release the child into the hands of those that might be coaching him may have a negative effect on the child. I have all the sympathy in the world for this child but I don't know what is in the child's best interest.

There are some interesting things in the autopsy report. However, the trajectory of the wounds can easily be explained as some came from an upward angle and other from a downward one. The most obvious explanation is that the victims were shot while laying down. I have not heard where two different weapons were alleged to have been used. At this point, I must believe that there was probable cause to believe that the child committed the murders as the judge indicated, otherwise this is turning into a grand conspiracy. The existence of probable cause does not equate to guilty and this is why I hope we can all get more information so that we can make an informed personal decision as to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like I said while my heart goes out to the child, I think at this point we must believe that all professionals, LE and the judicial system is working in the child's best interest. I am encouraged to see that there are those that are questioning the evidence as it will hold the prosecution to its burden of proof, while remaining torn between the rights of society and the rights of the child. I am not Solomon and realize that there are others more experienced in handling children that are accused of such crimes.

I don't know what is right in this instance.

[William Anthony]

OK. So the 2 male adults just kept lying down while they were shot? As you do.

The judge has indicated CR murdered both men? Where? Give me the link?

For anyone who is really interested I'll post the link again..

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=435515258

Be involved. Don't just read. Participate. He's 9 years old. He's been in 'custody' since Nov.

There is really no need to stoop to insults. I have taken enough. We do not know the order that the wounds were inflicted. The first could have caused them to fall and the second, third, fourth or fifth could have been to the head. All of us can not walk around with bullets in our heads as you do.

The link has been posted and I never said the judge indicated the child murdered both men. The link said that the judge ruled there was probable cause to believe the child murdered both men.

[SaraSidle]

Sorry. Wrong on both counts. No even I couldn't walk around with bullet holes in my head.

You posted the judge indicated the child murdered both men. You posted it. I have the number of the post.

You know you both have to get along to post on this case. I just gave up the Caylee thread and would like to see justice done here. Please remember my computer was broke for 2 months. Now that I have it back I cannot use shift,control or open links. so mostly the case is over my head and I still do not believe this boy is guilty. but your arguing will never help me so please just stop. and heck if you do not this whole thread will be shut down and that is so not fair for this boy. help

[William Anthony]

Sorry. Wrong on both counts. No even I couldn't walk around with bullet holes in my head.

You posted the judge indicated the child murdered both men. You posted it. I have the number of the post.

Nor would I lie down as someone shot me, unless I was unable to move. Let me assure you that I adhere to the fight or flight response, in that order.

It must be that Australian thing. Let me see if I can analyze the sentence for you. The conversation was about the child being released and I said, "At this point", meaning point in time, and "I must believe that there was probable cause to believe that the child committed the murders", meaning I must trust that there is probable cause that the child committed the crimes, and "as the judge indicated", meaning the judge found probable cause to believe the crimes were committed by the child and his arrest and detention was warranted, and "otherwise this is turning into a grand conspiracy", meaning that, if I did not trust the judge or the judge did not believe there was probable cause, then that would indicate a grand conspiracy. I think a judge understands the difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I do and would never expect a judge to indicate his/her feelings on guilt or innocence during a case over which they presided, although it has happened, imho. If you will look at my post to FDinLaw, you will understand. I understand that you did not understand. You see, this is the object, " probable cause" to believe that the child committed the murders" and "as the judge indicated" are modifiers of the object in the form of prepositional phrases.

[William Anthony]

You know you both have to get along to post on this case. I just gave up the Caylee thread and would like to see justice done here. Please remember my computer was broke for 2 months. Now that I have it back I cannot use shift,control or open links. so mostly the case is over my head and I still do not believe this boy is guilty. but your arguing will never help me so please just stop. and heck if you do not this whole thread will be shut down and that is so not fair for this boy. help

I am not arguing and sorry you took it that way. I just did not see the sense in posting insults so soon after a hiatus. I have been able to post to others on this board in a civil manner and ignored an obvious baiting post. Out of respect for you, I will try harder to ignore the uncalled for comments. I am truly interested in this case and want to see it decided correctly, irrespective of passion. Thanks for the advice and I agree with it.

[FDInLaw]

you are so not kidding. and you are one of the smartest posters so do not every say "do to my learning modality' but you can say "due to my learning modality"'. not to mention I think you are up too late and have to get up early.................. miss youhahahaha :o

me no right english well

[SaraSidle]

hahahaha :o

me no right english well

LOL that might be a preference on this thread if we cannot get Joseph and WIlliam to get along. miss you hope things are okay. you stay up to late and get up to early. You better still be young:seeya:

[SaraSidle]

I am not arguing and sorry you took it that way. I just did not see the sense in posting insults so soon after a hiatus. I have been able to post to others on this board in a civil manner and ignored an obvious baiting post. Out of respect for you, I will try harder to ignore the uncalled for comments. I am truly interested in this case and want to see it decided correctly, irrespective of passion. Thanks for the advice and I agree with it.

I did see it that way and you all need to be civil so the thread does not get shut down. need to step out of ourselves and worry about facts and the boy. nothing else really matters. egos are gone. case is here.

[William Anthony]

LOL that might be a preference on this thread if we cannot get Joseph and WIlliam to get along. miss you hope things are okay. you stay up to late and get up to early. You better still be young:seeya:

We do not have to get along, only respect the rules, if not each other. :)

[SaraSidle]

No I've got your post. Full of .... as so many others. You don't wriggle out of this one.

And I don't need snide remarks about Aus whatever. You've made what we call a blue. And no, I'm not going to explain the term. But it's a big one. And I'm enjoying it.

For anyone who's interested I've posted the web site twice. Please visit.

oh come on Joseph this is not the gentleman I know. can't we just get along??????????? or try to???????? how about if we all agree to post evidence from LE and what we know without beating each other up?????

[William Anthony]

No I've got your post. Full of .... as so many others. You don't wriggle out of this one.

And I don't need snide remarks about Aus whatever. You've made what we call a blue. And no, I'm not going to explain the term. But it's a big one. And I'm enjoying it.

For anyone who's interested I've posted the web site twice. Please visit.

If a blue is a claim of nothing, then I agree that is what you have. Some can be satisfied with nothing and that is admirable. I commend you. There was no snide remark. I am unfamiliar with Australian things but I did pick up on the difference in spelling and speaking through your posts. I have analyzed the sentence for you and the probable cause was the object of the passive verb, was. To be more accurate and I did not want to confuse you further, I believe was a sentence but, in this case it must be combined with there was probable cause.... IIRC, in America we call those compound sentences with the word that used to connect two independent sentences, or clauses, if you will. You see then that the clause that there was probable cause becomes the object of the verb believe. Is that the way it is taught in Australia?

[William Anthony]

oh come on Joseph this is not the gentleman I know. can't we just get along??????????? or try to???????? how about if we all agree to post evidence from LE and what we know without beating each other up?????

I am known to bring out a person's true colors and I agree that we should be discussing the case.

[William Anthony]

I did see it that way and you all need to be civil so the thread does not get shut down. need to step out of ourselves and worry about facts and the boy. nothing else really matters. egos are gone. case is here.

You are right and I must try to forget that line from Rambo about, who drew first blood. :)

[FDInLaw]

Sara, if you can't go on-line, how can you be replying to this?

If you can't help then maybe others can.

This is a travesty of justice. CR has been in 'custody' since November. If you believe, as I do, that a great injustice has been done to this 9 year old, then make your voice heard. Don't just read, participate. Believe me, boards like this matter.
It's been in the news that discussion on the In Session board has lead the family of one victim to question if the boy is responsible. The simple truth is this. . . since this boy was suspect number one from the beginning, LE has not investigated this case fully. This family needs ideas. WE CAN HELP in this area!

[FDInLaw]

Absolutely FD. Why can't we be as proactive as IS?

I'm trying. I've posted links. Come on people. He's a 9 year old child.
Let's go. You can make a difference. I'd like to see that changed to WE . . . Sara is right, we need to work together on this one!

Will be back in a bit. . .

[William Anthony]

It's been in the news that discussion on the In Session board has lead the family of one victim to question if the boy is responsible. The simple truth is this. . . since this boy was suspect number one from the beginning, LE has not investigated this case fully. This family needs ideas. WE CAN HELP in this area!

The truth is that the boy is innocent at this point and will remain so until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that St. John's LE is cognizant of the fact that the eyes of the world are upon them and one of the detectives does not believe the boy did this. I think LE will do a comprehensive investigation based on the above information. I still do not know what is in the child's best interest at this point and my caution is with whether or not the child will receive the necessary help required if, when, and after he is released. I feel that the child needs more than love and do not know where he will best receive the additional support necessary.

[Its just me]

I only have time to scan what was posted last night and it was good to see that the family have questions. I am only going on memory but I believe both officers who interviewed the boy stated that they were the first officers on the scene along with Rodriquez and he immediately sent them away from the scene to interview neighbors. I thought it was odd when I read their interviews that they never got close to the bodies and after reading that Rodriquez is the one that testified in court about the boy saying his dad was shot in the chest and he wasn't...I'm seeing a bigger red flag. I'm pretty sure one of the two officers stated they were investigation the death of their neighbors....It would be interesting to know if Rodriquez knew the two victims or is friends with someone who had an axe to grind with the victims. I'm pretty sure I've read there were problems between the victims and others. I don't think this was a ramdom killing....there is motive and I'm yet to by the 1000 spanking or was it 100. If it's 1000 the child had start counting a long time ago. Had to have been 4/5/early 6 years old. 1000 = approx 2.75 years of spanking and that's a lot of whooping.

Gonna be out today and busy as a bee so I can't discuss my post. Hopefully I don't have information wrong...just typing what's between my ears and not checking the written information. fep

[FDInLaw]

The truth is that the boy is innocent at this point and will remain so until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that St. John's LE is cognizant of the fact that the eyes of the world are upon them and one of the detectives does not believe the boy did this. I think LE will do a comprehensive investigation based on the above information. I still do not know what is in the child's best interest at this point and my caution is with whether or not the child will receive the necessary help required if, when, and after he is released. I feel that the child needs more than love and do not know where he will best receive the additional support necessary.
I wish I could share your optimism, but from personal experience, I just can't.

It's my conviction that vital information may have been overlooked.

[FDInLaw]

Another study spot:

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/11/09/8-year-old-arizona-boy-accused-of-killing-father-and-another-man-with-22-caliber-rifle/#more-6262

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/11/27/grandmother-of-8-year-old-arizona-boy-who-killed-father-friend-says-boy-was-capable-of-murder-mom-says-he-loved-his-dad/

[FDInLaw]

In documents released Wednesday by the Apache County prosecutor’s office, St. Johns police Chief Roy Melnick said that Liz Romero, also known as Liz Castillo, shouted out angrily when she was told the boy would be arrested in the Nov. 5 killings.

“I knew this would happen,” she said. “They were too hard on (the boy). I knew (the boy) did it. He spent the night in my bed cuddling up to me. I had a feeling he did it. If any 8-year-old boy is capable of doing this it’s (the boy).”


The boy’s grandfather, Leroy Romero, echoed the statement and pushed his ex-wife to tell police more. But Melnick said she was overcome with emotion and he and another officer were asked to leave.

Before they did, Liz Romero said the boy’s stepmother, who he was living with, “had a feeling (the boy) did it.” as well.

From link above.

I hope these folks are checked out fully too. I'm just saying. . .

[SaraSidle]

From link above.

I hope these folks are checked out fully too. I'm just saying. . .

No kidding. how bizarre. :shrug:

[SaraSidle]

William and Joseph please get along. neither one of you are new or baiters. you have to get over it whatever it is. this is a new thread for a new start and very professional posters. FDI has given us good information to work with. sara

[FDInLaw]

No kidding. how bizarre. :shrug:
In documents released Wednesday by the Apache County prosecutor’s office, St. Johns police Chief Roy Melnick said that Liz Romero, also known as Liz Castillo, shouted out angrily when she was told the boy would be arrested in the Nov. 5 killings.

“I knew this would happen,” she said. “They were too hard on (the boy). I knew (the boy) did it. He spent the night in my bed cuddling up to me. I had a feeling he did it. If any 8-year-old boy is capable of doing this it’s (the boy).”


The boy’s grandfather, Leroy Romero, echoed the statement and pushed his ex-wife to tell police more. But Melnick said she was overcome with emotion and he and another officer were asked to leave.

Before they did, Liz Romero said the boy’s stepmother, who he was living with, “had a feeling (the boy) did it.” as well.

The 8 year old boy’s defense attorney, Benjamin Brewer, stated that the boy’s grandmother likely was stressed and that he would interview her to see what she has to say. Actually Mr. Defense attorney, that is called an utterance. Usually what people have at the tip of their tongue is unrehearsed and true rather than the fabricated stories and attempts at creating plausible deniability that Defense liars are so known to do.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/11/27/grandmother-of-8-year-old-arizona-boy-who-killed-father-friend-says-boy-was-capable-of-murder-mom-says-he-loved-his-dad/
This section is interesting too. After following the Caylee Anthony case you have go to ponder whether or not the author has a point here. Cindy Anthony gave, what I believe was a very telling utterance (". . . it smells like there has been a dead body in the back of the d*** car!"). . . so I wonder.

Still, even if Granny felt the boy was capable of this it still has not been proven that he actually did (IMO).

[SaraSidle]

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/11/27/grandmother-of-8-year-old-arizona-boy-who-killed-father-friend-says-boy-was-capable-of-murder-mom-says-he-loved-his-dad/
This section is interesting too. After following the Caylee Anthony case you have go to ponder whether or not the author has a point here. Cindy Anthony gave, what I believe was a very telling utterance (". . . it smells like there has been a dead body in the back of the d*** car!"). . . so I wonder.

Still, even if Granny felt the boy was capable of this it still has not been proven that he actually did (IMO).

man this poor boy. I hope to heck he gets real help soon.I cannot believe the way he is being set up if he is innocent

[FDInLaw]

man this poor boy. I hope to heck he gets real help soon.I cannot believe the way he is being set up if he is innocent

That there is the tragic other side of the coin. . . :(

[SaraSidle]

That there is the tragic other side of the coin. . . :(

I know but I want to go with the innocent side for now. Like an Anthony I may be in denial. you back yet on IS

[tv]

I got FDI's call for help and will try to get up to date on this case. I've been doing a fair amount of lurking and have missed out on some things. One thing's for sure -- there is a lot wrong with this case and it's only going to get worse.

[susie31023]

Good on you tv. All the addresses you need are on that site. St. John's 'police', Carlyon, Brewer. There's a great deal wrong with this case. But I will disagree with you on one point. It's not going to get worse. The more people become aware of the injustices heaped upon this child in the name of justice, the sooner real justice will be served.

Don't just read. Participate. You can make a difference.


Thanks JB, I'm on my way there now. This child deserves to be treated correctly by the LE. There are worse people let out till their trials and yet they treat this child like this. That is utterly disgusting. Everyone of these s ocalled LE should be fired for treain this child like this:flamemad:.

[susie31023]

Sorry I tried to edit my spelling but time ran out. It's alls JB's falt he wont teech me to pell. And yes I am off topic. Sorry wont happen again...~Suz

[FDInLaw]

I know but I want to go with the innocent side for now. Like an Anthony I may be in denial. you back yet on IS

I just checked and it looks like I still need to wait out my sentence:

"Date the ban will be lifted: 01-26-2009, 04:00 PM"

I'm not going to complain, CW is just trying to do her job but I am a little bummed.


It's good to have you TVDinner!!! :seeya:


Been working on getting a crime scene diagram for us to work with. Not an easy task. . . need to find someone that knows the layout of the house.

Thank you for bumping the link JB! Personally, I am not certain if this child is the perpetrator or not. But it is obvious that there have been some serious mistakes, going with the broken window theory, the thought of what we may not know is even scarier. This case needs a thorough investigation. I also wonder if house arrest might be a better plan for the boy in the mean time. This is just one messed up situation and it's hard to know where to begin.

[SaraSidle]

I just checked and it looks like I still need to wait out my sentence:

"Date the ban will be lifted: 01-26-2009, 04:00 PM"

I'm not going to complain, CW is just trying to do her job but I am a little bummed.


It's good to have you TVDinner!!! :seeya:


Been working on getting a crime scene diagram for us to work with. Not an easy task. . . need to find someone that knows the layout of the house.

Thank you for bumping the link JB! Personally, I am not certain if this child is the perpetrator or not. But it is obvious that there have been some serious mistakes, going with the broken window theory, the thought of what we may not know is even scarier. This case needs a thorough investigation. I also wonder if house arrest might be a better plan for the boy in the mean time. This is just one messed up situation and it's hard to know where to begin.

wow honey I cannot believe she is being so harsh with you. I told her how professional you are. this is not right. you really are the best poster and O2S. and this should not be happening. yes it would be nice for the child to be in a home with someone. I cannot say if he is innocent or not but come on 8-9 yrs old. think about it..........

[sharlock]

This was posted over on In Sessions by the same person that is running the MySpace page (I believe). For anyone interested. . .


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-release-9-year-old-child-romero

Thanks FD! I am getting to the point where I beleive this police dept needs to receive serious admonishment for their handling of this case, it makes me feel ill how they have gone about this. I actually applaud the mum for showing restraint that I just know I couldn't muster.

[FDInLaw]

wow honey I cannot believe she is being so harsh with you. I told her how professional you are. this is not right. you really are the best poster and O2S. and this should not be happening. yes it would be nice for the child to be in a home with someone. I cannot say if he is innocent or not but come on 8-9 yrs old. think about it..........

The post I am being disciplined for would appear completely off topic to someone that is whizzing through. I'm a big girl and will take my lumps. :) Thank you for writing CW!

:seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Thanks FD! I am getting to the point where I beleive this police dept needs to receive serious admonishment for their handling of this case, it makes me feel ill how they have gone about this. I actually applaud the mum for showing restraint that I just know I couldn't muster.
It's good to see you here! :seeya:


When I first happened upon this case it seemed like a done deal. . . the kid did it. But as time has gone by and more details emerge the questions are deafening! I still can't believe they questioned this boy for so long with no lawyer or parent present. What we they thinking???

[sharlock]

It's good to see you here! :seeya:


When I first happened upon this case it seemed like a done deal. . . the kid did it. But as time has gone by and more details emerge the questions are deafening! I still can't believe they questioned this boy for so long with no lawyer or parent present. What we they thinking???
They were thinking this is a small town the step mum implicated the child lets drill him. Totally inappropriate behaviour in my books. Do you know that they claim to have refused the grandparents request to be present because they believed the grandad might have been the killer. Insane!

[FDInLaw]

They were thinking this is a small town the step mum implicated the child lets drill him. Totally inappropriate behaviour in my books. Do you know that they claim to have refused the grandparents request to be present because they believed the grandad might have been the killer. Insane!
:eek: Where did you read that??? :read:

What motive did grandad have???

[SaraSidle]

The post I am being disciplined for would appear completely off topic to someone that is whizzing through. I'm a big girl and will take my lumps. :) Thank you for writing CW!

:seeya:

you are not bigger than me and not older either. I am waiting for you to bow down in respect................................... I just love posting witn you. I really miss the posts you made when I was first here with a broken foot. I felt cared about by a woman who did not know me. anyways get rid of all nostalgia and I cannot believe really anything you posted was so bad. bite my tongue but I wonder if sometimes mods are just tired. I mean CW is on her 14th great grand child. I totally respect her but I just wonder and I know you know what I mean.

[SaraSidle]

They were thinking this is a small town the step mum implicated the child lets drill him. Totally inappropriate behaviour in my books. Do you know that they claim to have refused the grandparents request to be present because they believed the grandad might have been the killer. Insane!

great post sharlock. I hope your resouces are correct.

[sharlock]

Guys I know that the article that said that the officers when explaining why they wouldn't allow the grandparents to be present mentioned that they were concerned he might have been with the murderer is somewhere in this thread already but I will look for it when I have a bit more time. I am multitasking at the moment.
I am a bit upst that the link to the motions names the child in full. That just shouldn't happen. I had noticed once his first name was there but it appeared to be just a lapse. This is no lapse it even has his middle name. That poor kid.

[SaraSidle]

Go visit.

http://www.myspace.com/childshopeandvoice

He's 9 years old. He's lost his dad. He's been railroaded.

Don't just read. Participate. You can make a difference.

thank you so much for all the information Joseph. I agree with you Sharlock about using his name but JB is righgt about getting around it IMO

[William Anthony]

There is no doubt that this case evokes all types of emotions. I have been waiting for calmer heads to prevail. I think there is one in the form of the judge. If the child is ruled incompetent to stand trial, then all other issues are moot, until such time the child is ruled competent.

However, let's not stop there. Let's consider some of the circumstances involved. The child's step mother and grandmother have indicated some knowledge that the child was mistreated. Yet, no reports filed with the child protective agencies. The grandfather has urged the grandmother to say more, which to me indicates he had some knowledge of the child's alleged treatment.

You have a prosecution and a defense that are both posturing. Under Nevada law there is no statute of limitations to the crime of murder. The motion of the defense to dismiss the charges without prejudice, imho, is a matter of form over substance. The prosecution's offer to drop the murder charge against the child for his father's death is plainly an attempt to try the child at a later date. Both sides are appealing to emotions.

I have watched the child's mother on television and she obviously loves her child. However, IIRC, she was basically unaware what was going on with her child as it related to his home life. No teachers or neighbors have said that they suspected the child was abused to my knowledge. The child seemed to have been to some extent ignored, if what it alleged is true.

We then have a judge being called upon to decide what is in the child's best interest and balance that interest against the state's interest, given the above information. What happens, if the child is judged incompetent to stand trial, due to a mental defect? Here is a case that will show what will likely happen.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo61&invol=2

What will happen , if the child is ruled incompetent to stand trial due to the level of his maturity? Does the judge return the child to the custody of the stepmother, the grandmother or the mother? Is it more cruel to release the child into the custody of those, who may not have previously had his best interest at heart? Is it more cruel to release the child into the custody of his mother and have the child tried later and all involved must relive the tragedy?
Will there be prejudice to the child, when the trier of fact is looking at a much larger child or adult, when he was accused of murder at the age of 8. If the tape is dismissed and he is later tried, will the jury be deprived of seeing the small child at that tender age? Is this a part of the prosecution's strategy? If the defense is successful and get's both the alleged confession dropped and the evidence collected pursuant to the search warrant and the child truly did commit the murders, is there any assurance that the child will receive the help he desperately needs, or that society will be protected?

Is this child, who may have been failed by society, a pawn in a game of chess or is there a genuine interest in the child's well being and the protection of society? I don't have the answers. Do any of You? We may not agree with the judge's course of action but is he wrong? Should the judge act hastily to appease emotions?

[William Anthony]

Well, that's a very nice post. Unfortunately, this is an Arizona case. Not Nevada.
And I'm not so sure I agree with you about Judge Roca. But we'll see.

“If Roca grants the motion, it would allow prosecutors to refile the charge when the boy is older and try him as an adult. Prosecutors say they are limited in the time in which they can refile charges in the juvenile system, while there's no statute of limitations for filing an adult murder charge.”

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/23/20090123stjohns-boy0123-ON.html

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/42leg/2R/laws/0359.htm

I am sure that you realize that Nevada, California and Arizona comprise the ninth circuit. I am sure you have heard of persuasive authority. I am sure that you have heard of cases of first impression and in that vein I did a search of Arizona cases and couldn't come up with one that specifically addressed the issues presented in the Nevada case. However, my reference to the Nevada case shows how the appellate court has handled issues of defendants' with mental defects, if that should be an issue in the child's case.
Having found the Arizona statue on what the judge is allowed to do when a child is found incompetent and accused of committing a serious crime, I think that the judge must exercise caution as his decision will have a serious impact upon the child's future. Given the gravity of his decision, I think he should remove emotion, as much as possible, from his decision.

I do give you credit for thinking about my link being a Nevada case. However, there are things called primary, secondary authority and persuasive authority. I should have cited the primary authority (statute) in my original post but I tend to rely more on my first research on case law as the court interprets that authority as to how the apply to particular circumstances.

[Its just me]

Thanks JB for the link to the Superior Court. Too much to read at one time but I've started. :) My last post expressed my concern with LE Rodriquez sending the first two officers on the scene away so fast and I thought it odd they did not view the surrounding of the victims....and my concern he testified that the dad had been shot in the chest when he had not. Below is the link to Rodriquez being questioned in court about him calling EMS. It's down 4 pages. It's very interesting to know that the EMS "did not" go to the body of the Dad inside the house because Rodriquez explained "he was dead" and the appearance of the body. "Really" I've not seen anything concerning a coroner or ME coming to the scene but all states have laws stating how a death should be handled and I think I'm correct to say all states pretty much have the same laws whether a county has a coroner or ME. This must be an issue with the defense because it was part of Brewer's questions to Rodriquez and mhoo is it certainly should be. I'm very familiar with a Georgia case where LE also practiced such nonsense.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/TRANSCRIPT%20OF%20DETAINED%20ADVISORY%20HEARING%20 NOV%202%202008_VOL2%20PARTB.pdf (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/TRANSCRIPT%20OF%20DETAINED%20ADVISORY%20HEARING%20 NOV%202%202008_VOL2%20PARTB.pdf)

[susie31023]

JB, thank you for the site link. I have emailed the clerk of the Superior court, signed the petition and emailed all the others that I could. The more I read on this case makes me think this whole police department needs to be investigated by internal affairs. If they did this to an 8 year old what else have they done and bragged about? Grrrr, I am so angry and believe me I let the ones I emailed know that many many are watching and taking note of how this child has been treated. I am trying to find out who the attorney general for Arizona is. If I find out I will email him also. Someone has to use some common sense in this case. shackles on a 9 year old CHILD? How ridiculous is that. Are they so afraid of a child that grown men need to shackle him so he doesn't run off or attack them, come on people. If they can manage to quit bragging about how great they are maybe they would see how utterly ridiculous they sound and look to the rest of the world. Yeppers Suz is really angry on this one. And believe me I have my warpaint on and I'm ready to do some good old fashioned butt kicking:flamemad:. Someone is going to listen to us one way or another.

[susie31023]

Here is the Attorney General's website. I have emailed them also. I'm posting it in case anyone wants to email him his name is Terr Goddard....

http://www.azag.gov/contact.html

[Its just me]

I stopped shaking my head over the 'police' investigation in St John's months ago. Avila, Rodruguez, Melnick. They give the word 'amateur' a bad name. Where's Police Chief Clancy Wiggum and son Ralph when you need them? They would do a more professional job.

Here's the link for the petition. Don't just read. Participate.



http://www.myspace.com/childshopeandvoice

Thanks for posting the link...I signed it a few days ago and plan on contacting officials...at least it will let them know the public is focused on the case.

I read the court room testimony of several LE officers this afternoon. It's pretty clear these officers are not top notch LE but that's typical for small towns. No offence intended. I live in a small town area and lots of our LE lacks the experience to handle some cases. Without cross referencing every word…it’s also pretty clear some of the testimony does not correspond with what has been stated elsewhere including the autopsy. (According to my memory) The one thing I would bet the farm on is the investigation is beyond the capabilities of the local LE.
Maybe they will prove me wrong and they did not jump the gun and the child was prematurely charged with the murder of two men... and the decision of the court to detain the child was based on truthful information presented to the court and all avenues for other possibilities were actually looked into. Very sad and somewhat alarming situation.
fep

[susie31023]

Here are links to the editors of two Tucson newspapers. I have emailed them and am looking for more. I will post them as I find them.

dysmith@tucsoncitizen.com

bolton@azstarnet.com

[William Anthony]

Miranda rights only apply when a person has been detained, of under custodial arrest, if you will. I would agree that the child may have felt that he was not free to leave. I would think that there is more incriminating evidence than the alleged confession. I find Ms. Roman's statement to be more damaging. I also find the information about the time of the shootings to be damaging. Depending on the time it would take Ms. Romero to get to the store, it would appear that she was not there, although I believe the defense will be able to cross, if it goes to a trial, on the time as to whether or not it was an approximation. I have questions about the child's statement that he waited 30 minutes before going to the neighbor. If that statement is true and Ms. Romero was at home before going to the store, then she would have seen the bodies. Did Mr. Romans hang the phone up after the child allegedly called him to come see about his father? If he did not, then why didn't Ms. Romans hear shots as the neighbors did? Why would Ms. Romans lie? If she is telling the truth, then the child must have seen who killed Mr. Romans. Were the neighbors so accustomed to hearing gun shots that they did not look out? Did any of the neighbors see a white car speeding away?
I think that all the are questions that LE asked themselves. Due to the gag order we may not know the extent of their investigation. I hope that more information will be forthcoming.

[susie31023]

Good stuff Susie. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833372.html

This link explains all about Miranda rights. I'll just share these snippets.


Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a “Miranda warning”: that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney.

Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.

:eek: I'm amazed. You mean to say that not only could St. John's police refuse to allow any of CR's family to be with him while he was 'interviewed' - and yes, that's the truth, they did refuse- not only could they not read him his Miranda rights and explain them - they did this and got away with it.

For now. Now's the time to help him. Don't just read. Participate.

http://www.azag.gov/contact.html Att Gen Goddard's address

http://www.myspace.com/childshopeandvoice the petition

On the myspace site are all the addresses you need for the people involved in this case.

He's 9 years old. He's been in custody since November. Make a difference.

Thank you JB, for posting that. I am still looking up sites but am getting a little tired so may have to do more tomorrow.,LOL. I have emailed everyone I can think of so far but am not going to stop till someone listens to me. I really figured if we all wrote the attorney General that may help. so thats why I posted it. Just let him know him and his state are being watched. I don't mean to be rude to him of course. You know the old saying you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, LOL...I promise when I can think more clearly I will post some more sites. But I'm still here for a while though. So I will be pestering yall some more tonight. hehehe:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

yes, we have previously had the discussion that LE were within their legal rights to question the child without parents or representation, if he was not a suspect at the time. LE may have been considering another family member(s) to be the killer when they questioned the child and may have not wanted his information to be influenced by having that person present, because they may have thought the boy witnessed the murders or knew more than what he was telling.

[lighthousedazy]

I would definately consider this boy a child. I am 57 years old, and I was taught in school that a child 7 years of age or younger could not be charged with a crime. I don't know if that is still the case or not. So sad, but I think this child should be thoroughly evaluated and also the abuse should be checked out. jmo :(

[susie31023]

I would definately consider this boy a child. I am 57 years old, and I was taught in school that a child 7 years of age or younger could not be charged with a crime. I don't know if that is still the case or not. So sad, but I think this child should be thoroughly evaluated and also the abuse should be checked out. jmo :(

I agree LHD. It seems that they decided on the spot this child was guilty and from what I have read so far there were many inconsistancies between what is in the report of LE and the coroners report. Someone needs to stand up for this child. And that is what he is a child.

[William Anthony]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=1

“The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in such proceedings: "an admission by the juvenile may [not] be used against him in the absence of clear and unequivocal evidence that the admission was made with knowledge that he was not obliged to speak and would not be penalized for remaining silent." "[T]he availability of the privilege does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites. . . . [J]uvenile proceedings to determine `delinquency,' which may lead to commitment to a state institution, must be regarded as `criminal' for purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination." Furthermore, experience has shown that "admissions and confessions by juveniles require special caution" as to their reliability and voluntariness, and "[i]t would indeed be surprising if the privilege against self-incrimination were available to hardened criminals but not to children." "[S]pecial problems may arise with respect to waiver of the privilege by or on behalf of children, and . . . there may well be some differences in technique � but not in principle � depending upon the age of the child and the presence and competence of parents. . . . If counsel was not present for some permissible reason when an admission was obtained, the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary. . . ." Gerald's admissions did not [387 U.S. 1, 3] measure up to these standards, and could not properly be used as a basis for the judgment against him. Pp. 44-56.”

[William Anthony]

Great care must be shown to this child and to the loved ones and family members of the two slain victims, who were murdered in such a brutal, cold and calculated way, imho.

[Its just me]

The testimony I read yesterday cleared up that both men came home together. It was stated that Mr. Roman told his wife that the dad had gotten out of the vehicle...may have said gone inside. This would mean the Dad was shot while Roman's was sitting in his truck talking to his wife if she heard the child calling him to come see about his dad. I'm not familiar with the kind of rifle said to be used but it is interesting Romans didn't mention hearing any shots. (According to testimony)
Also it was stated there was a trickle of blood that lead from the driveway to where Roman's was found...with his head next to the front screen door. I've not seen any information if the blood was determined to be Roman's. IIRC it was stated the screen door was partially open when Rodriquez arrived and Rodriquez said there was a hole in the bottom of the screen that appeared to be a bullet hole with the shot coming from the outside going into the house....the bullet for that was reported not to be found.
The Dad was found on the top flight of stairs. The stairway was described as beginning IIRC in sight of the front door went up halfway...had a small landing and the second flight started with a 180 degree turn. The upstairs was reported to have bedrooms and one bath. Not much was told about the downstairs except I got the living room to be next to the bottom of the stairs...which is reasonable and what I consider normal. The only gun taken by LE was the 22 rifle and it was reported to be found on a wire dog kennel between the stairs and front door. ??? It was reported where the shell casings were found but my memory is not clear on where...Seems like they were at the top of the stairs...on the stairs and outside close to where Romans' was found. For some reason I have doubts the child's finger prints will be found on the shell casings. Hopefully we will know one day but I don't think it will be anytime soon.
The neighbors across the street are the only ones reported hearing any shots...IIRC it was reported none of the other close neighbors were home but we know the child went to one to report the shooting. I don't think it was brought out exactly where their house was in relation to the crime scene. Rodriquez stated it was the Dad of this household who called 911 but the transcript of the 911 was not available at the time of the court hearing. IMHOO the 911 call and Roman's cell phone records can prove to be important. IIRC the call to Romans is said to be around 5:00 pm and I'm remembering Rodriquez stated he arrived at the scene just a few minutes after 5. I'll check the time he said but my memory has 5:06/5:07. If my memory is correct...all I can say right is there was a heck of lot that happened in those few minutes. The child kills Romans walks to the neighbors...the child's friend calls his Dad who is not home...the Dad calls 911 and is back at the scene with the child and the son (who was home when the child went for help) when the police arrive. It was reported the child was at the scene with the teenager and one or two adults when the police arrive.
It was reported the child's Dad still had on his hard hat and goggles and the LE officer who was standing guard where the bodies had been taken testified that he was present when the Medical Examiner came the next morning. If I'm not mistaken he testified that the Dad was shot in the chest 2 or 3 times and said the Dad continued to have on the hard hat and goggles at that time. Continuing to have on work goggles makes zero sense...the hard hat maybe but even that is questionable considering there was brain matter on the wall. I guess its possible there was a chin strap to hold the hat on when he fell on the stairs.
Just sharing my memory of the testimony I read and an opinion here and there. fep

[Its just me]

During the court proceeding to establish who could visit the child, His Mom and I believe the step mom, the grandmother and an aunt were allowed. Someone suggested the grandpa but Brewer the child's attorney objected and he is/was not allowed. IIRC it was the grandpa who requested to be with the child when questioned but he wasn't allowed. fep

[Its just me]

The dismissial of count one against the child will be addressed on the 29th is I'm reading this right. fep

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20TO%20ITS%20RENEWED%20MOTION%20TO% 20DISMISS%20COUNT%20ONE.pdf

[Its just me]

Sorry JB if I'm posting things you've already posted. The defense have filed a motion for the boy to be released. I don't see a date set for this to be ruled on but it could be on the 29th. Please make those contacts and let your voice be heard. It wouldn't hurt to express your opinion about dropping the charges of count one. My opinion is....if it's dropped it should be dropped and not allowed to be brought up again when the child is older. fep

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20QUASH%20CONFINEMENT%20ORDER.pdf

[Its just me]

It appears the government concedes that the statements made by the child were taken in violation of Miranda but are having difficulty explaining. :shrug: fep


http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20QUASH%20CONFINEMENT%20ORDER.pdf (http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/MOTION%20TO%20QUASH%20CONFINEMENT%20ORDER.pdf)

[Its just me]

I checked on the timing: The call with Romans and is wife is reported to be at 5 oclock and the 911 call is reported to be at 5:06 or 5:07. Rodriques didn't know. The Police department is approx 1 mile from the scene and Rodriques was at the Department when he got the call....Rodriques reports the child and teenager was at the scene when he arrived. fep

[William Anthony]

I think that the state is conceding that some of the statement will not be admissible due to the Miranda violation. I do not think they have conceded the entire interview and all the statements were. I do think they may feel they will loose on the issue of the statement being given voluntarily. They have conditionally offered to not use the statements, according to my understanding. IMHO, this indicates to me that they feel their other evidence is strong. Whether it is or not is another question.

[lorettalockhorn]

Way behind in this thread and looking forward to catching up on y'alls' comments, but I have read several newspaper articles, the autopsy report, watched part of the interviews, and read some comments online; my impression is that the child would not have the strength, coordination, and stamina to fire the rounds effectively, let alone in rapid enough succession to have taken Mr. Romans unawares. LE seems to be discounting the jacketed ammo; that tells me that there is the possibility of two shooters. The evidence gathering seems slipshod with regard to ammunition gathered at the site. I find it hard to believe that any eight year old has the ability to successfully pull off a murder of both men, and if this child did, why he blew it by reporting the shootings. If neighbors heard gunfire, why didn't the second victim?

I haven't found a timeline anywhere, but I do wonder the whereabouts of friends, family (and enemies) of either of the two men before, during and after the crime. I wonder if it is common for the boy to have walked around instead of coming straight home from school, and what time the bus normally drops him off. And I think it's possible that what with the underhanded and questionable manner and tactics of the interrogation, if LE couldn't have gotten just about any grade-school child to confess to the crime.

I find it hard to believe that the prosecution was so willing to file charges based on the evidence and lack thereof. Either this child is the reincarnation of Charles Whitman with his super marksmanship skills, or someone(s) else did it. What about motive? If this situation resulted from family discord and discipline, why wasn't the stepmother killed? There needs to be a fresh eye on this entire investigation before any more damage has been done to this child.

[Its just me]

Thank you JB for the compassion you have for this child. In my view and the law backs me up...The child in innocent until proven guilty. Period. Being proven guilty of anything is yet to happen and it’s so sad the LE blotched this investigation from the get go and it’s even sadder how the child has been treated.

FWIW. In the motion to suppress the child’s statements Brewer stated there was more than one family member who asked to be present with him when these so called professionals interviewed the child. Yet they tell Brewer no one asked.

On the surface it may appear that there is credibility to LE’s claim they only wanted to question the child as a witness but by reading deep enough it pretty clear they wanted to do the taped interview because he was a suspect. I comment Brewer for doing more than filing motions. If it wasn't a young child involved I'd like to see this presented to a jury for the enjoyment because I think he can rip the investigation and testimony of the LE to shreds.

We can only hope the law is applied on future rulings….and if the public gives enough input the officials overseeing this case will know what ever is done there are eyes watching.


People listen to Joseph...Participate and Make a difference. fep

[William Anthony]

I agree that investigations conducted by LE should be thoroughly exposed by cross examination as to sloppiness, rush to judgment, the handling, collection and storage of evidence and the mindset of those involved in the investigation, so that there is reliability placed on verdicts, or that the prosecution is held to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am elated to hear that in this case people are upholding the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty and that LE is being questioned an not that the presumption is guilty until proven innocent.

I still believe that the victims (family members, love ones and society) have rights in this case and that the law requires a balancing test as it pertains to those interest. Yes, LE often lies to people. I do not find it untoward that they lied to this child. I think that it may show he was a suspect or it may show that they truly believed that the child saw something more than he was telling. I think that the issue of the admissibility of the video interview will turn on who the trier of fact finds more credible. However, that may not end the case, as the strength of other evidence will have to be tested. The issue of the search warrant and the evidence collected pursuant thereto is the far more interesting issue, imho. The question in my mind is whether or not if it is ruled that the alleged confession was unlawfully obtained does that negate the probable cause required to obtain the warrant. However, they did have Ms. Romans' statement that the child was there, called Mr. Roman's into the house and Mr. Romans was killed thereafter.

I found this, which indicates that a search is lawful, if the totality of the circumstances can constitute probable cause.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ONheic_xH0wJ:https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/feb04.doc+arizona+case+law+that+elements+leading+u p+to+probable+cause+were+unlawfully+obtained+negat es+search+warrant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[William Anthony]

I agree that investigations conducted by LE should be thoroughly exposed by cross examination as to sloppiness, rush to judgment, the handling, collection and storage of evidence and the mindset of those involved in the investigation, so that there is reliability placed on verdicts, or that the prosecution is held to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am elated to hear that in this case people are upholding the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty and that LE is being questioned an not that the presumption is guilty until proven innocent.

I still believe that the victims (family members, love ones and society) have rights in this case and that the law requires a balancing test as it pertains to those interest. Yes, LE often lies to people. I do not find it untoward that they lied to this child. I think that it may show he was a suspect or it may show that they truly believed that the child saw something more than he was telling. I think that the issue of the admissibility of the video interview will turn on who the trier of fact finds more credible. However, that may not end the case, as the strength of other evidence will have to be tested. The issue of the search warrant and the evidence collected pursuant thereto is the far more interesting issue, imho. The question in my mind is whether or not if it is ruled that the alleged confession was unlawfully obtained does that negate the probable cause required to obtain the warrant. However, they did have Ms. Romans' statement that the child was there, called Mr. Roman's into the house and Mr. Romans was killed thereafter.

I found this, which indicates that a search is lawful, if the totality of the circumstances can constitute probable cause.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ONheic_xH0wJ:https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/led/2004/feb04.doc+arizona+case+law+that+elements+leading+u p+to+probable+cause+were+unlawfully+obtained+negat es+search+warrant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Corrections

I am elated to hear that in this case people are upholding the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty and that LE is being questioned and not that the presumption is guilty until proven innocent.

I still believe that the victims, family members, love ones and society have rights in this case and that the law requires a balancing test as it pertains to those interest.

[Its just me]

http://www.juvenile.state.az.us/policy/Files/Procedures/PR116102.htm

http://www.juvenile.state.az.us/policy/Files/Procedures/adjclogo-2IN.gifPolicy:1161Effective:07/27/08Procedure:1161.02Replaces:1160.08Chapter:Inspect ions and InvestigationsDated:03/27/06Rule:Juvenile Interviews and Interrogations

Purpose:

The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) secure facilities shall provide access to juveniles to be interviewed and/or interrogated by any law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity and conducting an official criminal investigation and/or inquiry. This accommodation could include the secure transportation of the juvenile to an offsite location for the interview/interrogation and/or investigatory purpose. This does not apply to ADJC normal programmatic interviews; i.e., placement interviews, psychological evaluations, or interviews associated with an ADJC approved research project.

Rules:

1.EMPLOYEES shall direct all outside law enforcement requests for an interview/interrogation to the juvenile’s Superintendent or designee. EMPLOYEES shall:
a.Forward incoming phone calls with such a request to the Superintendent;
b.If the Superintendent is unavailable, the EMPLOYEE RECEIVING THE REQUEST shall:
i.Take appropriate information, juvenile name and the affiliation and the phone number of the requesting party, and forward this information to the Superintendent;
ii.Advise the requestor that all arrangements shall be made by the Superintendent or designee.

2.The SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE shall reasonably accommodate the interview of the juvenile by Law Enforcement Officers or ADJC Special Investigators.

3.The application of the Miranda Rights to juvenile suspects is governed by Arizona case law and best practices.
a.This practice applies only to juveniles, and it restricts the way an officer shall interview a juvenile;
b.The practice is:
i.No extra-judicial statement to a peace officer or court officer by the child shall be admitted into evidence in juvenile court over objection unless the person offering the statement demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that:
(1)The statement was voluntary;
(2)Before making the statement, the juvenile was informed and intelligently comprehended that s/he need not make a statement;
(3)That any statement made might be used in a court proceeding;
(4)That s/he had the right to consult with counsel prior to making a statement and during the taking of the statement; and
(5)That, if s/he or his/her parents, guardian, or custodian could not afford an attorney, the court would appoint one for him/her, prior to questioning.
c.The practice requires clear proof that a juvenile knowingly and intelligently waived all of the Miranda Rights prior to being questioned or making an admission that can be used in court.

4.The ADJC Investigator shall provide the Miranda Rights to the juvenile.
a.If an explanation is needed for the juvenile to understand the rights, then the investigator shall provide the explanation;
b.If the juvenile invokes his/her Miranda rights, the Investigator shall cease all questioning.

5.The Investigator shall take into consideration the age and psychological state of the juvenile when conducting the interview and keep the duration of the interview a reasonable length.
a.If an Investigator believes the juvenile is incapable of intelligently understanding the Miranda Rights due to age or mental condition, s/he shall not question the juvenile.

6.When a juvenile commits a serious offense, the possibility exists that s/he may be remanded to adult court for prosecution. In these situations the Investigator shall advise the juvenile of the remand possibility.

[William Anthony]

"The Wong decision was one of a series of key findings made by the Warren Court in the 1960s, during what was perceived as a "revolution" in the development of criminal procedure. Another landmark case was the Miranda v. Arizona decision in 1966 requiring police to advise suspects of their rights prior to questioning. The Court, by limiting police powers to investigateand prosecute crimes, sought to balance the need to gather evidence against invasion of privacy.
More conservative Supreme Courts since the 1960s sought to limit the exclusionary rule by narrowing the range of evidence considered "fruit" of a Fourth Amendment violation. In United States v. Leon (1984) the Court held that if officers acted with a reasonable belief their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment then the search was legal. This amounted to a generalized"good faith" or "reasonableness" exception to the exclusionary rule. In Nix v. Williams (1984), the Court recognized the "inevitable-discovery" exception by holding that illegally gathered evidence could still be used if thegovernment could demonstrate that such evidence would have been "inevitably"discovered through other lawful sources anyhow. The Court further expanded the exception to the "independent source" exception in Murray v. United States in 1988."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13008/Wong-Sun-v-United-States.html

[susie31023]

http://www.juvenile.state.az.us/policy/Files/Procedures/PR116102.htm

http://www.juvenile.state.az.us/policy/Files/Procedures/adjclogo-2IN.gifPolicy:1161Effective:07/27/08Procedure:1161.02Replaces:1160.08Chapter:Inspect ions and InvestigationsDated:03/27/06Rule:Juvenile Interviews and Interrogations

Purpose:

The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) secure facilities shall provide access to juveniles to be interviewed and/or interrogated by any law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity and conducting an official criminal investigation and/or inquiry. This accommodation could include the secure transportation of the juvenile to an offsite location for the interview/interrogation and/or investigatory purpose. This does not apply to ADJC normal programmatic interviews; i.e., placement interviews, psychological evaluations, or interviews associated with an ADJC approved research project.

Rules:

1.EMPLOYEES shall direct all outside law enforcement requests for an interview/interrogation to the juvenile’s Superintendent or designee. EMPLOYEES shall:
a.Forward incoming phone calls with such a request to the Superintendent;
b.If the Superintendent is unavailable, the EMPLOYEE RECEIVING THE REQUEST shall:
i.Take appropriate information, juvenile name and the affiliation and the phone number of the requesting party, and forward this information to the Superintendent;
ii.Advise the requestor that all arrangements shall be made by the Superintendent or designee.

2.The SUPERINTENDENT OR DESIGNEE shall reasonably accommodate the interview of the juvenile by Law Enforcement Officers or ADJC Special Investigators.

3.The application of the Miranda Rights to juvenile suspects is governed by Arizona case law and best practices.
a.This practice applies only to juveniles, and it restricts the way an officer shall interview a juvenile;
b.The practice is:
i.No extra-judicial statement to a peace officer or court officer by the child shall be admitted into evidence in juvenile court over objection unless the person offering the statement demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that:
(1)The statement was voluntary;
(2)Before making the statement, the juvenile was informed and intelligently comprehended that s/he need not make a statement;
(3)That any statement made might be used in a court proceeding;
(4)That s/he had the right to consult with counsel prior to making a statement and during the taking of the statement; and
(5)That, if s/he or his/her parents, guardian, or custodian could not afford an attorney, the court would appoint one for him/her, prior to questioning.
c.The practice requires clear proof that a juvenile knowingly and intelligently waived all of the Miranda Rights prior to being questioned or making an admission that can be used in court.

4.The ADJC Investigator shall provide the Miranda Rights to the juvenile.
a.If an explanation is needed for the juvenile to understand the rights, then the investigator shall provide the explanation;
b.If the juvenile invokes his/her Miranda rights, the Investigator shall cease all questioning.

5.The Investigator shall take into consideration the age and psychological state of the juvenile when conducting the interview and keep the duration of the interview a reasonable length.
a.If an Investigator believes the juvenile is incapable of intelligently understanding the Miranda Rights due to age or mental condition, s/he shall not question the juvenile.

6.When a juvenile commits a serious offense, the possibility exists that s/he may be remanded to adult court for prosecution. In these situations the Investigator shall advise the juvenile of the remand possibility.Feppy:rose: the bolded part says it all. Thank you for finding this. Did you happen to send it to the Attorney General? If not I will myself. We have to find someone to help this child. I have emailed all I can find. I must admit I haven't been able to search a lot because of my own situation, but I do try to do something each day for this young child.

I also told the Attorney General this whole police force should be investigated by Internal Affairs. Who knows what they have done in other cases. I'm gonna try and find out the Governors email and send him this also. Thank you JB for all of your hard work on this case. It is much appreciated. ~Suz

Feppy I hope you don't mind. I emailed this to the governors office.


Here is the address is in case anyone wants to add their voice also...http://www.azgovernor.gov/ she is Jan Brewer....Please contact her also..

[William Anthony]

I do believe that the bold part of the link refers to the ADJC (Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections) investigator and the link is only guidelines and not mandates for LE, who did the interview with the child. I am not saying that efforts in this area will not help.

http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/profiles/AZ06.asp

[FDInLaw]

and it's great to find that y'all have been busy! :hat:

Just checked the childsVOICE myspace page and wanted to post this here too;

The next status hearing in the case is scheduled for

Jan. 29th.

The Judge will hear the Defense and Prosecutor's experts' opinions on the boy's competency on:

Feb. 6th.

The AZ state Court of Appeals recently said Apache County Superior Court Judge Michael Roca CAN rule on the Prosecutors' request to drop a murder charge against the boy. This does NOT mean the Judge MUST rule only that he CAN (is allowed to) rule on this issue. In previous hearings, Judge Roca has stated he will not rule on any substantial issues until the matter of the boy's competency has been resolved. The decision whether to rule on the Prosecutor's request is back in Judge Roca's hands.
He may. He may not.

See news article at:

http://www.kpho.com/news/18549439/detail.html#comment_cA5OOG6Bar3yUbaby-QDNi

Prosecutor Michael Whiting is pushing for Judge Roca to reconsider motion to dismiss the charge re: VR at the next court hearing, Jan 29th. See court doc:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/REQUEST%20FOR%20HEARING.pdf
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=435515258

Actual court site: http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/

[FDInLaw]

Why the *beep* is this boy's name still available to the public??? :flamemad:

[SaraSidle]

Way behind in this thread and looking forward to catching up on y'alls' comments, but I have read several newspaper articles, the autopsy report, watched part of the interviews, and read some comments online; my impression is that the child would not have the strength, coordination, and stamina to fire the rounds effectively, let alone in rapid enough succession to have taken Mr. Romans unawares. LE seems to be discounting the jacketed ammo; that tells me that there is the possibility of two shooters. The evidence gathering seems slipshod with regard to ammunition gathered at the site. I find it hard to believe that any eight year old has the ability to successfully pull off a murder of both men, and if this child did, why he blew it by reporting the shootings. If neighbors heard gunfire, why didn't the second victim?

I haven't found a timeline anywhere, but I do wonder the whereabouts of friends, family (and enemies) of either of the two men before, during and after the crime. I wonder if it is common for the boy to have walked around instead of coming straight home from school, and what time the bus normally drops him off. And I think it's possible that what with the underhanded and questionable manner and tactics of the interrogation, if LE couldn't have gotten just about any grade-school child to confess to the crime.

I find it hard to believe that the prosecution was so willing to file charges based on the evidence and lack thereof. Either this child is the reincarnation of Charles Whitman with his super marksmanship skills, or someone(s) else did it. What about motive? If this situation resulted from family discord and discipline, why wasn't the stepmother killed? There needs to be a fresh eye on this entire investigation before any more damage has been done to this child.

ITA loretta IMO

[William Anthony]

It is my understanding that this thread is about a double murder case, in which an 8 year old has been accused of the crime. While the treatment of the child is relevant to the discussion, so is the concept of a just resolution of the case made in consideration of the rights of the the child, victims, family members and society and the law, imho.

[William Anthony]

Miranda rights only apply when a person is being questioned as a suspect.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Miranda-rights

[SaraSidle]

Just for CR.

Do you think we have enough information to do that JB :shrug: sara

[William Anthony]

Why not start a thread just for the child?

[William Anthony]

It's being done on other sites. Why not here?

Az double murder site?

I truly understand your desire and, as much as it pains me to say this, I admire your dedication in this instance to the rights of the accused and think that a separate thread would address your concerns.

I have done some further research about Miranda rights and juveniles, which reinforces my belief that the determination of the admissibility of the alleged confession will be decided on the issue of whether or not the statements of the child were voluntarily given and at what point did LE consider the child a suspect and whether or not the child felt he was free to leave. I could only post a part, because I am not a member of the site and have limited access to the information contained thereon.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1142632

[William Anthony]

I've asked for this before. A thread just for this topic.

Say yes people.

You are confusing me. Why not start the thread and those that want to post on it can or has the moderator told you that you are not allowed?

[William Anthony]

Because I've asked and had no reply. So have others.
Reckon that's right?

Perhaps, the moderator is otherwise occupied but may respond shortly. I guess there would be force in numbers. I was able to get a link to the case cited in my previous link. I see some confusion in the dicta. If you will pay close attention to section II and footnote #4, you may see the source of my confusion. I will try to see if that case is still good law.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:By_GfBUUwBsJ:law.uark.edu/documents/fare_v_michael_c.pdf+Fare+v.+Michael+C.+99+S.+Ct.+ 2560&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[Its just me]

I've asked for this before. A thread just for this topic.

Say yes people.

YES. That makes 2 and enough for conversation....LOL I have been known to talk to myself when things are dull. ;) fep

[Its just me]

Because I've asked and had no reply. So have others.
Reckon that's right?

Joseph I think it will be ok to start the tread and if you don't feel free to...Give me a name and I will. I admit I have not ventured out beyond the Tara board until recently so I don't know of anything that would prevent me from starting the thread.

[Its just me]

Brewer added lots of case law to support why the tape with the child should not be admitted. There is a strong one supporting the so called confession was NOT voluntary but involuntary and that case was against a much older juvenile. I read all the available testimony and it pretty clear to me they suspected the child was involved before the interview started. Common sense tells me LE is not going to admit this was the case....but when you add 2 plus 2 you'll get four every time.

In the interview with one of the coworkers...the person said they had handled the guns in the house and said one was the step mom’s 22 rifle. There was only one 22 rifle taken and it is said to belong to CR. Could be the same gun but could not be.
fep

[William Anthony]

You go for it. The board fron my side of the Pacific is very fluid.
I don't know what's going on.

At this point, neither do I. There have been many posts about the child's constitutional rights being violated as it pertains to his right to receive the Miranda warnings and how LE acted. Once those issues are raised, I think they become fair game for discussion or any other issues that are relevant to the double murders. If, however, your new thread is to discuss only the child and how he is being treated and to express feelings about his innocence, then I understand.

[Its just me]

Another thing I found interesting is the neighbor across the street said when questioned he was leaving his home at the same time (to the minute) Romans had to have been shot according to the time used in all testimony..... but he didn't see anything. I'll go back and read up on this again and make a correction if I'm wrong...right now I don't think I am. The Dad wearing his hard hat and goggles bothers the heck out of me. fep

ETA: IIRC the child stated that a neighbor (s) were mean or bad people...Will research that when time premits but I think it is the same neighbor above. fep

[William Anthony]

Brewer added lots of case law to support why the tape with the child should not be admitted. There is a strong one supporting the so called confession was NOT voluntary but involuntary and that case was against a much older juvenile. I read all the available testimony and it pretty clear to me they suspected the child was involved before the interview started. Common sense tells me LE is not going to admit this was the case....but when you add 2 plus 2 you'll get four every time.

In the interview with one of the coworkers...the person said they had handled the guns in the house and said one was the step mom’s 22 rifle. There was only one 22 rifle taken and it is said to belong to CR. Could be the same gun but could not be.
fep

You may be very well right in your suspicions. However, the onus will be on the defense to prove this, which might be an uphill battle. The one thing that I am uncertain about is when the child made the statement that he committed the murders, meaning was the intent to get the child to say someone else was present or was he truly a suspect. I repeat that once he made that statement he should have been given his Miranda rights. You are correct that the juvenile in the link was older but they were both considered juveniles and the United Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. There was a case that was mentioned in the research I was doing to see, if the case had been overturned and the case was Atonio v. Wards. However, the only case I could find was an older civil case with that citation. The Atonio case was said to be decided in 2001. I am not sure, if the overturning was to the earlier Antonio case. The larger question in my mind is whether or not the statements were given voluntarily, which the Court seemed to indicate was the major concern and should be decided on a case by case basis in Fare.

[Its just me]

JB I started a new thread. If you think the title should be different let me know. I'm sure I can get it changed. fep

[William Anthony]

JB I started a new thread. If you think the title should be different let me know. I'm sure I can get it changed. fep

I have asked for clarification of your statement on the thread you started as I just want to be sure of your intentions and nothing more. If we are discussing things related to the charge of double murder allegedly committed by the child, then I think that this thread allows for this. However, if it was you intention to limit the topic to just the child, then I think some clarification is needed. Thanks.

[FDInLaw]

I've had some not so on topic replies.

I'll ask here. Can we have a thread just for CR?What you are asking for is for this case to have it's own forum. Something only DW can do. It would be nice to have a thread for news links only. Also, I've seen a lot of chat about guns on other sites. That might be a good topic for a thread. I'll write and ask DW. . .

[susie31023]

[quote=FDInLaw;915776you are asking for is for this case to have it's own forum. Something only DW can do. It would be nice to have a thread for news links only. Also, I've seen a lot of chat about guns on other sites. That might be a good topic for a thread. I'll write and ask DW. . .[/QUOTE]

Thank you FD. I really think we need a forum for this case as it has so many different things trying to be posted here and it's hard to keep up with news reports/ laws/ info on CR..It would be much easier to have a chance to post on which ever thread we chose to so we could always keep up with all that is going on.


I would like to thank everyone for trying so hard to make sure this child gets justice. I must admit the shackles are what hits me the most. Hardened criminals aren't hardly ever put in them. So why is a 9 year old CHILD put in them? My blood pressure goes up every time I come to this thread or read about how they are treating him. And Yes everyone I have emailed I have told this same thing to. Including the Attorney General and the Governor. Sorry for the rant but I'm having a rough day:(~Suz

[Its just me]

Thank you FD. I really think we need a forum for this case as it has so many different things trying to be posted here and it's hard to keep up with news reports/ laws/ info on CR..It would be much easier to have a chance to post on which ever thread we chose to so we could always keep up with all that is going on.


I would like to thank everyone for trying so hard to make sure this child gets justice. I must admit the shackles are what hits me the most. Hardened criminals aren't hardly ever put in them. So why is a 9 year old CHILD put in them? My blood pressure goes up every time I come to this thread or read about how they are treating him. And Yes everyone I have emailed I have told this same thing to. Including the Attorney General and the Governor. Sorry for the rant but I'm having a rough day:(~Suz

Thank you Susie for caring and thanks for all you have done. I do agree that a forum would be much better to discuss this case because there are many topics on this one thread. It's hard not to get lost. love fep

[Its just me]

What you are asking for is for this case to have it's own forum. Something only DW can do. It would be nice to have a thread for news links only. Also, I've seen a lot of chat about guns on other sites. That might be a good topic for a thread. I'll write and ask DW. . .

Thank you FDInLaw. If any of us can help....please post what we need to do. fep

PS. I've just started to read some at IS. :)

[William Anthony]

What you are asking for is for this case to have it's own forum. Something only DW can do. It would be nice to have a thread for news links only. Also, I've seen a lot of chat about guns on other sites. That might be a good topic for a thread. I'll write and ask DW. . .

Thank you and I am glad you figured out what was being requested.

[FDInLaw]

It wouldn't hurt if y'all wrote and asked too.

While we wait we can think up some thread topics.

[susie31023]

Thank you Susie for caring and thanks for all you have done. I do agree that a forum would be much better to discuss this case because there are many topics on this one thread. It's hard not to get lost. love fep

Oh Feppy, I can't help but to love and care for this child. I honestly don't think he did it but even if he did the procedures the LE used on him should be fully investigated and if they aren't talking to the step mother or whoever the heck she is then they have done a sloppier job than I at first thought. There are many red Flags flying here in this case and someone somewhere is going to step up and do something or else I will keep emailing till they do it just to shut me up:D. Love you much my friend:rose:~Susie

[Its just me]

It wouldn't hurt if y'all wrote and asked too.

While we wait we can think up some thread topics.

Okey Dokey. I'll do. fep

[lorettalockhorn]

Thank you FD. I really think we need a forum for this case as it has so many different things trying to be posted here and it's hard to keep up with news reports/ laws/ info on CR..It would be much easier to have a chance to post on which ever thread we chose to so we could always keep up with all that is going on.


I would like to thank everyone for trying so hard to make sure this child gets justice. I must admit the shackles are what hits me the most. Hardened criminals aren't hardly ever put in them. So why is a 9 year old CHILD put in them? My blood pressure goes up every time I come to this thread or read about how they are treating him. And Yes everyone I have emailed I have told this same thing to. Including the Attorney General and the Governor. Sorry for the rant but I'm having a rough day:(~Suz

Susie, I've sent the following to the Governor of Arizona and will modify it for the AG:

I respectfully request that the office of the Governor of the State of Arizona please protect its citizen Child Romero, as it would appear that not only have his rights been violated, but that the investigation was conducted in a rash and slipshod manner. Please consider a review of this case by neutral parties.
Please refer this plea to the proper department and add your determination to see that this child is given every benefit of the doubt, and in the meantime allowed to await legal conclusions in home confinement.

Susie, Godspeed to your family and especially your grandson.

[Its just me]

Susie, I've sent the following to the Governor of Arizona and will modify it for the AG:

I respectfully request that the office of the Governor of the State of Arizona please protect its citizen Child Romero, as it would appear that not only have his rights been violated, but that the investigation was conducted in a rash and slipshod manner. Please consider a review of this case by neutral parties.
Please refer this plea to the proper department and add your determination to see that this child is given every benefit of the doubt, and in the meantime allowed to await legal conclusions in home confinement.

Susie, Godspeed to your family and especially your grandson.

Thanks Loretta for writing the Gov and AG. Super job in writing it. I really like the last paragraph. TY fep

[SaraSidle]

Another thing I found interesting is the neighbor across the street said when questioned he was leaving his home at the same time (to the minute) Romans had to have been shot according to the time used in all testimony..... but he didn't see anything. I'll go back and read up on this again and make a correction if I'm wrong...right now I don't think I am. The Dad wearing his hard hat and goggles bothers the heck out of me. fep

ETA: IIRC the child stated that a neighbor (s) were mean or bad people...Will research that when time premits but I think it is the same neighbor above. fep

I heard the same thing on your first post fep and felt the same way and I cannot remember where I heard it. Does this screen look different in the last 2 days or is it just me?

I do not care what we with the threads. If the majority wants it I am all for it. double triple whatever you all want vote me in. IMO sara

[SaraSidle]

Susie, I've sent the following to the Governor of Arizona and will modify it for the AG:

I respectfully request that the office of the Governor of the State of Arizona please protect its citizen Child Romero, as it would appear that not only have his rights been violated, but that the investigation was conducted in a rash and slipshod manner. Please consider a review of this case by neutral parties.
Please refer this plea to the proper department and add your determination to see that this child is given every benefit of the doubt, and in the meantime allowed to await legal conclusions in home confinement.



Susie, Godspeed to your family and especially your grandson.

Great letters loretta. I hope many are doing the same thing. sara

[Its just me]

I heard the same thing on your first post fep and felt the same way and I cannot remember where I heard it. Does this screen look different in the last 2 days or is it just me?

I do not care what we with the threads. If the majority wants it I am all for it. double triple whatever you all want vote me in. IMO sara

Thanks Sara, Your are the greatest for support. I think a forum would work better but I'm only one voice and would never want to go against what is best. My heart is broken with Susie's news and I can't think of much else right now. feppy

PS. My screen looks the same to me...but that doesn't mean it's not different. LOL

[William Anthony]

I do not care what we with the threads. If the majority wants it I am all for it. double triple whatever you all want vote me in. IMO sara

Is this a majority rule forum or one of equal participation? :) Seriously, I do not care how the discussions are handled. My interest is seeing a fair resolution that is in line with the child's and society's best interest. I believe the prosecution should have society's best interest in mind, the defense should have the child's best interest in mind and the court should balance those issues.

[SaraSidle]

Thanks Sara, Your are the greatest for support. I think a forum would work better but I'm only one voice and would never want to go against what is best. My heart is broken with Susie's news and I can't think of much else right now. feppy

PS. My screen looks the same to me...but that doesn't mean it's not different. LOL

Well all my lettering is large and bold all of a sudden and I did not do anything. easier to read though. God is helping me. I just hope we can get more information on this case and I cannot it see because of the age. that maybe a difficult thing to do but a forum would be good if we could pull it off. I know what you mean about Susie's and Brandy's Kaleb. very hard to think at all. I wish there some churches and charities that would help even though times are tough for all. IMO sara

[SaraSidle]

Is this a majority rule forum or one of equal participation? :) Seriously, I do not care how the discussions are handled. My interest is seeing a fair resolution that is in line with the child's and society's best interest. I believe the prosecution should have society's best interest in mind, the defense should have the child's best interest in mind and the court should balance those issues.

I am certainly not disagreeing with you William but that phrase "should have the best child's interest" scares me when involving the entire court system. imo Sara

[William Anthony]

I am certainly not disagreeing with you William but that phrase "should have the best child's interest" scares me when involving the entire court system. imo Sara

I understand and I truly do not know what is in the child's best interest. Let me use Solomon as an example and the baby. Solomon ruled that one woman was the child's mother. He never said she was the biological mother. He placed the child's best interest as paramount in deciding to give custody to the woman. That is why I said it would take someone with Solomon's wisdom to decide this case.

[lorettalockhorn]

Is this a majority rule forum or one of equal participation? :) Seriously, I do not care how the discussions are handled. My interest is seeing a fair resolution that is in line with the child's and society's best interest. I believe the prosecution should have society's best interest in mind, the defense should have the child's best interest in mind and the court should balance those issues.

All parties should have society's bests interests in mind or at heart, not just the prosecution. This has the possibility of being a precedent setting case, and all citizens should bear in mind that however this case goes beginning with the interview/interrogation, lays ground for how all, including the least of its citizenry may be treated and handled in the future. This is very thin ice.

You cannot unring a bell.

[William Anthony]

All parties should have society's bests interests at mind, not just the prosecution. This has the possibility of being a precedent setting case, and all citizens should bear in mind that however this case goes beginning with the interview/interrogation, lays ground for how all, including the least of its citizenry may be treated and handled in the future. This is very thin ice.

You cannot unring a bell.

I think you are speaking morally. However, ethically speaking the prosecution represents the state (society). The defense represents the child and the judge's role is to make sure that both sides receive a fair verdict and resolution within the confines of the law. I don't understand what makes you say that this case may become a precedent and wish you would explain further. There are many issues that have been previously decided. The problem that I see most have is the child's age in regard to his treatment. I think that the concern here is that the law should be changed. I think that the state legislature is the place for that but the courts may render a decision as to how the law is to be applied in this instance that may ease all concerns.

[Its just me]

I know there was a court document posted concerning this but I don't remember this particular document being posted. Sorry if it has been. fep

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/memod/SA/SA080294.pdf


NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. CRISS ) No. 1 CA-SA 08-0294
E. CANDELARIA, Apache County )
Attorney, ) DEPARTMENT C
)
Petitioner, )
)

v. )
MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL ROCA, ) (Not for Publication -
Judge Pro Tem of the SUPERIOR ) Rule 28, Arizona Rules of
COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Civil Appellate Procedure)
in and for the County of APACHE, )
)
)

FILED 1-20-09

Respondent Judge, )
)
C.R., a juvenile, )
)
Real Party in Interest. )
__________________________________)
Petition for Special Action from
the Superior Court in Apache County
Cause No. JV 2008-065
The Honorable Michael Roca, Judge Pro Tempore
JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART
Apache County Attorney’s Office St. Johns
By Criss E. Candelaria
Bradley W. Carlyon
Michael B. Whiting
Attorneys for Petitioner
The Wood Law Office Show Low
By Ronald D. Wood
Benjamin Brewer
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 2

H A L L, Judge


he issue presented by this special action is whether the juvenile court is precluded by statute or rule of procedure from considering the State’s motion to dismiss one of the two counts of first-degree murder while C.R., the juvenile defendant, is undergoing a competency evaluation. We hold that the juvenile court was not precluded from determining the State’s motion.
n November 7, 2008, the State filed a delinquency petition charging C.R. with two counts of first-degree murder involving two victims. During a detention hearing held the same day, the juvenile court sua sponte ordered that C.R. be evaluated to determine his competency to stand trial.


See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-291.01(A) (2007) ("A juvenile shall not participate in a delinquency, incorrigibility or criminal proceeding if the court determines that the juvenile is incompetent to proceed.").1 The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the petition without prejudice. C.R. responded, requesting any dismissal be with prejudice. During a status conference held December 8, the juvenile court declined to consider the motion to dismiss until it had determined C.R.’s competency because "statutes
--------------------
continued in next post.

[Its just me]

1 A.R.S. § 8-291(2) (2007) defines "incompetent" as meaning "a juvenile who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the juvenile’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against the juvenile." It also provides: "Age alone does not render a person incompetent." 3

controlling the issue or addressing the issue of competency presuppose that nothing will happen while an individual is incompetent" and the State’s motion dealt with a "substantive" issue. The court also cited what it referred to as "the parallel . . . . adult practice or the criminal court practice under [Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure] 11" of staying proceedings while a competency determination is pending and stated, "The equivalent is, and I feel should be, true in juvenile matters." The State then filed this special action asking us to vacate the juvenile court’s ruling and direct the court to rule on the State’s motion before it had determined C.R.’s competency.
¶3 In the exercise of our discretion, we accept jurisdiction of the State’s special action because it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-291.08(D) (2007), the juvenile court would be required to dismiss both counts of the petition with prejudice should it find that C.R. "is incompetent and there is not a substantial probability that [he] will be restored to competency within two hundred forty days . . . ." Although the State has the right to appeal a dismissal order, see A.R.S. § 8-235(A) (2007); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A), there is a likelihood that such an appeal would be limited to whether reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding of incompetency. See, e.g., State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211, 212, 848 P.2d 296, 297 (App. 1992) (stating that
4
appellate review of the denial of a motion for redetermination of probable cause must be brought by special action and is not available on appeal). In addition, the issue here does not depend on contested facts and is one of pure law. See Finck v. Superior Court, 177 Ariz. 417, 418, 868 P.2d 1000, 1001 (App. 1993) (accepting jurisdiction because petitioner had no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal and because question raised was one of pure law).
¶4 The juvenile court apparently believed that it was precluded by A.R.S. § 8-291.01(A) from considering the State’s motion. We disagree. That statute only comes into play after the court has actually found that a juvenile is incompetent to proceed and not when, as here, the court has determined only that there are reasonable grounds to order a competency evaluation. Although it may be the better course of action in many circumstances to delay the consideration of substantive matters until the issue of competency is resolved, no statute or rule requires the court to do so. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, which the juvenile court relied on by analogy, similarly contains no provision that prevents a court from timely addressing a motion to dismiss filed after reasonable grounds for a mental evaluation have been found to
2 Although criminal proceedings are not automatically suspended when the court orders a competency evaluation, Rule 8.4(a) provides that any delay caused by an examination and hearing to determine a defendant’s competency is excluded from the computation of speedy trial limits under Rules 8.2 and 8.3. See also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 17(B)(1) (same).

exist but before the court has held a hearing to determine a defendant’s competency.2

n conclusion, the juvenile court was not, as it believed, precluded by statute and/or court rule from addressing the State’s motion to dismiss Count I without prejudice. We therefore grant relief in part by vacating the court’s contrary ruling and returning this matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
_____________________________

PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
_______________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
_______________________________
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge

[SaraSidle]

1 A.R.S. § 8-291(2) (2007) defines "incompetent" as meaning "a juvenile who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the juvenile’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against the juvenile." It also provides: "Age alone does not render a person incompetent." 3

controlling the issue or addressing the issue of competency presuppose that nothing will happen while an individual is incompetent" and the State’s motion dealt with a "substantive" issue. The court also cited what it referred to as "the parallel . . . . adult practice or the criminal court practice under [Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure] 11" of staying proceedings while a competency determination is pending and stated, "The equivalent is, and I feel should be, true in juvenile matters." The State then filed this special action asking us to vacate the juvenile court’s ruling and direct the court to rule on the State’s motion before it had determined C.R.’s competency.
¶3 In the exercise of our discretion, we accept jurisdiction of the State’s special action because it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-291.08(D) (2007), the juvenile court would be required to dismiss both counts of the petition with prejudice should it find that C.R. "is incompetent and there is not a substantial probability that [he] will be restored to competency within two hundred forty days . . . ." Although the State has the right to appeal a dismissal order, see A.R.S. § 8-235(A) (2007); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A), there is a likelihood that such an appeal would be limited to whether reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding of incompetency. See, e.g., State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211, 212, 848 P.2d 296, 297 (App. 1992) (stating that
4
appellate review of the denial of a motion for redetermination of probable cause must be brought by special action and is not available on appeal). In addition, the issue here does not depend on contested facts and is one of pure law. See Finck v. Superior Court, 177 Ariz. 417, 418, 868 P.2d 1000, 1001 (App. 1993) (accepting jurisdiction because petitioner had no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal and because question raised was one of pure law).
¶4 The juvenile court apparently believed that it was precluded by A.R.S. § 8-291.01(A) from considering the State’s motion. We disagree. That statute only comes into play after the court has actually found that a juvenile is incompetent to proceed and not when, as here, the court has determined only that there are reasonable grounds to order a competency evaluation. Although it may be the better course of action in many circumstances to delay the consideration of substantive matters until the issue of competency is resolved, no statute or rule requires the court to do so. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, which the juvenile court relied on by analogy, similarly contains no provision that prevents a court from timely addressing a motion to dismiss filed after reasonable grounds for a mental evaluation have been found to
2 Although criminal proceedings are not automatically suspended when the court orders a competency evaluation, Rule 8.4(a) provides that any delay caused by an examination and hearing to determine a defendant’s competency is excluded from the computation of speedy trial limits under Rules 8.2 and 8.3. See also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 17(B)(1) (same).

exist but before the court has held a hearing to determine a defendant’s competency.2

n conclusion, the juvenile court was not, as it believed, precluded by statute and/or court rule from addressing the State’s motion to dismiss Count I without prejudice. We therefore grant relief in part by vacating the court’s contrary ruling and returning this matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
_____________________________

PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
_______________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
_______________________________
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge

excellent info fep thank you very much. sara

[lorettalockhorn]

I think you are speaking morally. However, ethically speaking the prosecution represents the state (society). The defense represents the child and the judge's role is to make sure that both sides receive a fair verdict and resolution within the confines of the law. I don't understand what makes you say that this case may become a precedent and wish you would explain further. There are many issues that have been previously decided. The problem that I see most have is the child's age in regard to his treatment. I think that the concern here is that the law should be changed. I think that the state legislature is the place for that but the courts may render a decision as to how the law is to be applied in this instance that may ease all concerns.

Of course I'm speaking from a moral standpoint. And how can anyone say that The State doesn't have a moral obligation to its citizens, nor officials to their constituents? Won't explain how this case could become a precedent as you should be able to figure out that if this particular child's rights can be violated (with regard to the interview turning into an interrogation without benefit of Miranda), this can happen to any citizen of lesser age or mental capability. That should be obvious. At the point the interview turned (which I haven't determined, but wonder if the interviewers were communication telepathically), the child should have Mirandized and a guardian notified. My feeling is that the interviewers purposely led the child in the direction of a confession.

[susie31023]

Susie, I've sent the following to the Governor of Arizona and will modify it for the AG:

I respectfully request that the office of the Governor of the State of Arizona please protect its citizen Child Romero, as it would appear that not only have his rights been violated, but that the investigation was conducted in a rash and slipshod manner. Please consider a review of this case by neutral parties.
Please refer this plea to the proper department and add your determination to see that this child is given every benefit of the doubt, and in the meantime allowed to await legal conclusions in home confinement.

Susie, Godspeed to your family and especially your grandson.

Loretta thank you so much. Both for the letter and for the wishes for my grandson. I am not thinking too clearly now so am not able to do much but read .Please forgive me that I can't research any more right now. Love~Susie

[susie31023]

Of course I'm speaking from a moral standpoint. And how can anyone say that The State doesn't have a moral obligation to its citizens, nor officials to their constituents? Won't explain how this case could become a precedent as you should be able to figure out that if this particular child's rights can be violated (with regard to the interview turning into an interrogation without benefit of Miranda), this can happen to any citizen of lesser age or mental capability. That should be obvious. At the point the interview turned (which I haven't determined, but wonder if the interviewers were communication telepathically), the child should have Mirandized and a guardian notified. My feeling is that the interviewers purposely led the child in the direction of a confession.

I couldn't agree more Loretta. These investigators lied telling the child they had a witness that he did it. What was that child supposed to think. He isn't an adult doesn't know that LE lies and says all kinds of things to make people confess. this was handled wrong and they know it, now someone needs to make them pay for their actions. I don't believe they had this childs interests at heart at any time. They were determined to make him "confess" and they did. Period.

[William Anthony]

They may not have had the child's best interest at heart but they said they thought that the child was covering for someone else. All adults do not know that police lie. I once had a forty year old person tell me what went on during questioning with him, claiming they saw him do something but later released him. He was very upset, until I explained that, if they had seen him, he would not be out now. He tried to get a tape from a bar to prove he did not do what they said but was not successful. He eventually, with the aid of a public defender (joke) plead guilty to a lesser charge, when he was not guilty of anything and received two months probation (another joke) but he has a felony conviction on his record. Unfortunately, LE is allowed to do this.

[susie31023]

They may not have had the child's best interest at heart but they said they thought that the child was covering for someone else. All adults do not know that police lie. I once had a forty year old person tell me what went on during questioning with him, claiming they saw him do something but later released him. He was very upset, until I explained that, if they had seen him, he would not be out now. He tried to get a tape from a bar to prove he did not do what they said but was not successful. He eventually, with the aid of a public defender (joke) plead guilty to a lesser charge, when he was not guilty of anything and received two months probation (another joke) but he has a felony conviction on his record. Unfortunately, LE is allowed to do this.

From the questions and answers JB posted from the interrogation it seems as if they were less than being honest. In my opinion they are now trying to say they didn't think he was a suspect. But in reality they knew this was not the right way to go about it. It makes me wonder exactly how many other people have been treated in this manner. Alsp I know LE is permitted to lie, but this child didn't know he could walk out of that room and was not aware of what he was doing. Just my honest opinion

[Its just me]

I'm reposting a snip from my post on the Appeals Court ruling:

¶3 In the exercise of our discretion, we accept jurisdiction of the State’s special action because it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-291.08(D) (2007), the juvenile court would be required to dismiss both counts of the petition with prejudice should it find that C.R. "is incompetent and there is not a substantial probability that [he] will be restored to competency within two hundred forty days . . . ." Although the State has the right to appeal a dismissal order, see A.R.S. § 8-235(A) (2007); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A), there is a likelihood that such an appeal would be limited to whether reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding of incompetency. See, e.g., State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211, 212, 848 P.2d 296, 297 (App. 1992) (stating that
4
appellate review of the denial of a motion for redetermination of probable cause must be brought by special action and is not available on appeal). In addition, the issue here does not depend on contested facts and is one of pure law. See Finck v. Superior Court, 177 Ariz. 417, 418, 868 P.2d 1000, 1001 (App. 1993) (accepting jurisdiction because petitioner had no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal and because question raised was one of pure law).

[Its just me]

I made a request to Deepwater to change this to a forum. I got a PM from Deepwater stating I was not the only one to make the request...She told me she would have it done by this afternoon. Hopefully we can have several threads including one for BullS*&T. No pun intended. fep

[William Anthony]

Of course I'm speaking from a moral standpoint. And how can anyone say that The State doesn't have a moral obligation to its citizens, nor officials to their constituents? Won't explain how this case could become a precedent as you should be able to figure out that if this particular child's rights can be violated (with regard to the interview turning into an interrogation without benefit of Miranda), this can happen to any citizen of lesser age or mental capability. That should be obvious. At the point the interview turned (which I haven't determined, but wonder if the interviewers were communication telepathically), the child should have Mirandized and a guardian notified. My feeling is that the interviewers purposely led the child in the direction of a confession.

Thank you for explaining. The issues presented in this case in regard to the admissibility of the alleged confession have been addressed previously, meaning that there is precedent. I have said previously and, therefore, agree that the child should have been given his Miranda rights at the point where the interview turned. Not having a complete record of the child's statements, meaning other than what is provided on the tapes, I am unable to decisively decide when the interview turned. My larger concern is should any of the child's statements be admitted, due to the requirement of the alleged confession being voluntary. There are areas in which the law has legislated morality, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. However, that is not normally the case. If you are saying that you feel it should do so in this case, I am torn. I agree that at some point the interviewers led the child to an alleged complete confession but am not sure at what point. Of course the state has an obligation to its citizens. However, the state has its own legitimate interest in protecting all of its citizens and that protection may or may not be found in morality.

[Its just me]

Another snip for the Court ruling: Tomorrow is going to be interesting. Wonder what will come first the chicken or the egg. Will the States request of count one be dimissed without prejudice be ruled on before CR's competency. :shrug: Remember there is "always" the possibility I have things screwed up to the point my post is Void.

In conclusion, the juvenile court was not, as it believed, precluded by statute and/or court rule from addressing the State’s motion to dismiss Count I without prejudice. We therefore grant relief in part by vacating the court’s contrary ruling and returning this matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

[William Anthony]

I made a request to Deepwater to change this to a forum. I got a PM from Deepwater stating I was not the only one to make the request...She told me she would have it done by this afternoon. Hopefully we can have several threads including one for BullS*&T. No pun intended. fep

Great. I hope everyone finds there proper thread to state their opinions.

[William Anthony]

Another snip for the Court ruling: Tomorrow is going to be interesting. Wonder what will come first the chicken or the egg. Will the States request of count one be dimissed without prejudice be ruled on before CR's competency. :shrug: Remember there is "always" the possibility I have things screwed up to the point my post is Void.

In conclusion, the juvenile court was not, as it believed, precluded by statute and/or court rule from addressing the State’s motion to dismiss Count I without prejudice. We therefore grant relief in part by vacating the court’s contrary ruling and returning this matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

You do realize that the court was saying that the court was saying that the juvenile court could allow the state to refile the charges. I am not sure, if that same option would be available if the child was found incompetent from your link.