1063 users online (235 members and 828 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 64 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 953
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161

    AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #4

    I'm starting a new thread. I will send the mods a note to lock the Thread 3 and I will go get the first 3 threads and post the links here.

    Thread #1: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ght=8-year-old
    Thread #2: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=75684&page=43
    Thread #3: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76097

    Salem
    Last edited by Salem; 01-13-2009 at 12:45 AM. Reason: add links

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    agreed! and his mother would be shouting it from the rooftops
    Even if she wanted to, she can't. There's that nasty little thing holding her back called a Gag Order.
    "I went to the bank and asked to borrow a cup of money. They said, "What for?". I said, "I'm going to buy some sugar".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161
    In the two other cases that I have seen where very young children confessed to killing someone, there was never any mention that the children later recanted their confessions. However, in both cases, it was shown through DNA evidence that the children did not commit the killings. Maybe the kids did recant - but the articles I saw did not say that.

    And OL - I agree, the gag order does keep important information from us.....

    Salem

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,812
    Honestly - I don't believe anyone involved really knows what to do. Nothing about this case is ordinary. I don't think any of the principles can play this "by the book" because there is no book!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,917
    The gag order in place means his mother cannot discuss the specifics of the crimes themselves. It does not prevent her from proclaiming his innocence, even if she wanted to do so night and day to the media.

    In the MS. case that was just aired on TruTV last week where the young boy confessed to murdering his brother in law, he recanted that confession within 4 days, irrc

    Thankfully, he was acquitted and his sister sits on death row.

    imoo
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    In the two other cases that I have seen where very young children confessed to killing someone, there was never any mention that the children later recanted their confessions. However, in both cases, it was shown through DNA evidence that the children did not commit the killings. Maybe the kids did recant - but the articles I saw did not say that.

    And OL - I agree, the gag order does keep important information from us.....

    Salem
    But there has been other youthful offenders that did confess to the crime and through DNA evidence and other evidence it was proved that they did commit them.

    So we will have to wait and see if the DA has evidence to prove this boy did this crimes, regardless if he confessed or not.



    imo
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    the fourth knuckle of your left hand
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    The gag order in place means his mother cannot discuss the specifics of the crimes themselves. It does not prevent her from proclaiming his innocence, even if she wanted to do so night and day to the media.

    imoo
    I double checked, because I wanted to be sure, but the gag order is NOT for the victims families. It states only "prosecution agencies, defense agencies, all LE organizations, DES, probation department, detention staff and the Attorney General's office. http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...NFORMATION.pdf

    Obviously, anyone who cares about justice in a case such as this, would limit their comments so as not to harm the proceedings. I think the "gag" order on the family is self-imposed...if not encouraged greatly by the attorneys involved. And personally, I wouldn't want to anger the judge.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,917
    Quote Originally Posted by SoobsinMI View Post
    I double checked, because I wanted to be sure, but the gag order is NOT for the victims families. It states only "prosecution agencies, defense agencies, all LE organizations, DES, probation department, detention staff and the Attorney General's office. http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...NFORMATION.pdf

    Obviously, anyone who cares about justice in a case such as this, would limit their comments so as not to harm the proceedings. I think the "gag" order on the family is self-imposed...if not encouraged greatly by the attorneys involved. And personally, I wouldn't want to anger the judge.
    I do know they must have some stipulations that directly applies to them. None of those who visit with him can talk about the case or the murders.

    I am not sure how proclaiming someone innocent would do harm to the proceedings.

    imoo
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean blue eyes View Post
    I do know they must have some stipulations that directly applies to them. None of those who visit with him can talk about the case or the murders.

    I am not sure how proclaiming someone innocent would do harm to the proceedings.

    imoo

    It wouldn't.

    You know she HAD to have talked with him about it when he was released to her for the holiday. It's inconceivable to think she didn't.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    You know she HAD to have talked with him about it when he was released to her for the holiday. It's inconceivable to think she didn't.
    I completely agree. If this were my child, I would not be able to contain myself.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    It wouldn't.

    You know she HAD to have talked with him about it when he was released to her for the holiday. It's inconceivable to think she didn't.
    Part of the agreement of letting the boy visit with her was she was NOT allowed to discuss the case with him.

    She's already been warned by the judge that if she were to take off with the boy she would be jailed. It's not beyond the imagination to understand this woman knows the judge means what he says. IF she were to break any part of the written agreement, she would go to jail, including discussing the case.

    I know I would have a hard time keeping ALL of that agreement, but IMHO, the judge expected her to keep her word and she probably did.

    JMHO
    fran

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    Part of the agreement of letting the boy visit with her was she was NOT allowed to discuss the case with him.

    She's already been warned by the judge that if she were to take off with the boy she would be jailed. It's not beyond the imagination to understand this woman knows the judge means what he says. IF she were to break any part of the written agreement, she would go to jail, including discussing the case.

    I know I would have a hard time keeping ALL of that agreement, but IMHO, the judge expected her to keep her word and she probably did.

    JMHO
    fran

    I ain't buying it. The boy certainly seemed eager to talk about it & justfy it.

    They both pretended nothing happened? If the boy started to mention it, his mother told him...sorry, can't listen, stuck her fingers in her ears and sang la la la? No way!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    I ain't buying it. The boy certainly seemed eager to talk about it & justfy it.

    They both pretended nothing happened? If the boy started to mention it, his mother told him...sorry, can't listen, stuck her fingers in her ears and sang la la la? No way!
    I have absoutely no doubt that rules made were followed through. If the child did even hint towards having a conversation with his Mom, I trust she put a nip to it quickly. Why would she want to ever risk not seeing and being with her son? The woman deserves a fair shake, imho, as a parent whose child is in trouble. If she had any evidence of being a "Jackie Peterson", she'd deserve the scrutiny. She hasn't and by all we have been able to read as available, she isn't.
    "I went to the bank and asked to borrow a cup of money. They said, "What for?". I said, "I'm going to buy some sugar".

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by OrdinaryLife View Post
    I have absoutely no doubt that rules made were followed through. If the child did even hint towards having a conversation with his Mom, I trust she put a nip to it quickly. Why would she want to ever risk not seeing and being with her son? The woman deserves a fair shake, imho, as a parent whose child is in trouble. If she had any evidence of being a "Jackie Peterson", she'd deserve the scrutiny. She hasn't and by all we have been able to read as available, she isn't.

    I agree with you OL. She loves her son and is doing everything she can to help him, including following court orders. She used to regularly drive a 1000 miles to see him for a weekend and spoke to him by phone regularly.

    Eryn has shown in NO WAY any disrespect for the law. I strongly doubt she would jeopradize her relationship with her son as well as being incarcerated, by going against the judge's orders.


    JMHO
    fran

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    The gag order in place means his mother cannot discuss the specifics of the crimes themselves. It does not prevent her from proclaiming his innocence, even if she wanted to do so night and day to the media.

    In the MS. case that was just aired on TruTV last week where the young boy confessed to murdering his brother in law, he recanted that confession within 4 days, irrc

    Thankfully, he was acquitted and his sister sits on death row.

    imoo
    I am not sure of that. She could have been told not to discuss the case at all by defense attorneys because of the gag order and I am sure she doe not want to do anything to hurt her son. If she started yelling from the rooftop that her son is innocent she would be asked to explain specifics by the media. Gag orders are imposed by judges so that either side stops talking to the media. If she kept appearing before the media and proclaiming her son's innocence the judge would not take kindly to this and could jeopardize future hearings. I don't think she would do anything to hurt her son.

Page 1 of 64 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #6
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 09-29-2015, 01:47 PM
  2. GUILTY AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #5
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1081
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 01:42 PM
  3. GUILTY AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #3
    By mostlylurking in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 919
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 12:29 AM
  4. GUILTY AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #2
    By Tricia in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1054
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 10:31 AM
  5. GUILTY AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #1
    By SuziQ in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1056
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 04:20 PM

Tags for this Thread