8-year-old boy charged with double homicide, St Johns, Az # 3

[oceanblueeyes]

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news....d=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

[MeoW333]

Good link, OBE!
I found these parts in it:

"Brewer also notified the court of defense's intent to file motions to suppress evidence. Brewer cited Fourth Amendment, Miranda and Voluntariness issues as reasons for any such motions.
After the hearing, Brewer said the Miranda and Voluntariness issues deal with the confession of the juvenile, as defense believes the boy was not read his rights and was not represented by a parent or attorney before the police interview that led to the confession. Officers with St. Johns Police and the Apache County Sheriff's Office contend they thought the boy was a victim and not a suspect at the time.
He said they are also trying to suppress the evidence taken with a search warrant, citing the Fourth Amendment. He said defense is arguing the judge who signed the warrant, Butch Gunnels, was not a "neutral and detached magistrate" as the amendment requires. Brewer also requested on behalf of the juvenile that he be allowed to have personal items back if they are no longer needed as evidence. He said the boy's items, including a wallet his dad gave him, a pet boxer and a snowboard, hold sentimental value to him."

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news....d=505965&rfi=6

I'm not sure how he'd keep his pet dog, Boxer, in any type of lock up. Or a snowboard for that matter. Maybe they are thinking of releasing him. Otherwise i see know idea why they would file to release those things. Supposedly Tiffany has the dog. (she had brought it to her friend's house when they were partying).
There was way to much shoddy work done by LE during this whole case, enough that it may get thrown out in court.

[Ms Suzanne]

Originally Posted by MeoW333

Should we be questioning the work of the small town police? We already seen the shoddy questioning of the boy. They should have checked every angle and not just focused completely on the boy. Where is Tiffany? We've not heard a peep from her; only in her friend's blog she was partying..

If the boy is guilty, then i'm sure the police could have used better tactic in catching their killer.

Yes,I do think we should be questioning the work of the small town police.They were pitiful.

[mostlylurking]

Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news....d=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

This is not a surprise. In one of the status hearings when the judge would not hear anything substantive, he said to the State something like " I assume you'll be filing for review" the state answered yes. I really paraphrased that. So, now they've filed for the next level up to review things, as has the defense.
At least this is one piece of protocal they seem to be following -- unlike so much of the rest of this investigation/case.

[azmama]

Originally Posted by MeoW333

I don't think any reservation police are involved at all.

Reservation police were there the day of the crime, assisting and interviewing family and witnesses.

[oceanblueeyes]

Originally Posted by azmama

Reservation police were there the day of the crime, assisting and interviewing family and witnesses.

Why would they come in immediately? The Romero home was not on a reservation.

Which officers were with the reservation police?

TIA

imoo

[Bobbisangel]

Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news....d=505965&rfi=6

Prosecutors file special action on earlier motion to dismiss.

ST. JOHNS - Prosecutors trying the case of an 8-year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man told the court during a status conference Monday that they would file a special action with an appellate court regarding an earlier motion. The motion asked for dismissal of one of the two murder charges against the boy.

Ocean...can you please explain what this is all about? Just the first part of it.
Does the Pros want to drop one of the charges or what? Did the judge they have been before until now not want them to do that? I'm confused.

[mostlylurking]

Originally Posted by Bobbisangel

Ocean...can you please explain what this is all about? Just the first part of it.
Does the Pros want to drop one of the charges or what? Did the judge they have been before until now not want them to do that? I'm confused.

Bobbisangel --
I'm not Ocean, but I'll take crack at this.
The pros wanted to drop the charge regarding the dad. The speculation is that it is so they could charge the boy later, when he's older, in an adult court. Because none of the competency evaluations were in on the child yet, the judge said he would not rule on anything substantive & dropping that charge was substantive. There are some other things that the judge would not rule on also, until the evals are done. So, the pros appealed to a higher court for their ruling/interpretations & that's what this is. The current judge expected them to appeal to a higher court on some of his rulings & his expectation of that is recorded in one of the status hearing transcripts.

That is my layman's understanding of this piece of it all. Hope it helps & if I've said it wrong, I'm sure others will correct or add.....

[Bobbisangel]

Originally Posted by mostlylurking

Bobbisangel --
I'm not Ocean, but I'll take crack at this.
The pros wanted to drop the charge regarding the dad. The speculation is that it is so they could charge the boy later, when he's older, in an adult court. Because none of the competency evaluations were in on the child yet, the judge said he would not rule on anything substantive & dropping that charge was substantive. There are some other things that the judge would not rule on also, until the evals are done. So, the pros appealed to a higher court for their ruling/interpretations & that's what this is. The current judge expected them to appeal to a higher court on some of his rulings & his expectation of that is recorded in one of the status hearing transcripts.

That is my layman's understanding of this piece of it all. Hope it helps & if I've said it wrong, I'm sure others will correct or add.....

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

[mostlylurking]

Originally Posted by Bobbisangel

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

Ya know, I don't get all the legal bruhaha of it all. I think somehow, the pros wanted to get the emotion of the boy shooting his dad out of things now, prosecute on the room mate & then at the end of the juvenile detention stuff prosecute on the dad. It would make the kid's time behind bars last longer. (That's at least my interpretation.) Also, they offer the plea deal, which the defense wouldn't take (or hasn't taken), before the competency results came back, 'cause if the deal was taken then it would not have to go to trial now & they could have the dad killing to try later. The defense seems to have held the position that without any proof of physical evidence & no forensics back yet, that there is not a reason to take a plea deal.

Again -- my layman's interpretation.... fwiw

[Chargergal]

Originally Posted by mostlylurking

Ya know, I don't get all the legal bruhaha of it all. I think somehow, the pros wanted to get the emotion of the boy shooting his dad out of things now, prosecute on the room mate & then at the end of the juvenile detention stuff prosecute on the dad. It would make the kid's time behind bars last longer. (That's at least my interpretation.) Also, they offer the plea deal, which the defense wouldn't take (or hasn't taken), before the competency results came back, 'cause if the deal was taken then it would not have to go to trial now & they could have the dad killing to try later. The defense seems to have held the position that without any proof of physical evidence & no forensics back yet, that there is not a reason to take a plea deal.

Again -- my layman's interpretation.... fwiw

Here's the link where a couple attorneys were interviewed in Phoenix when this first came out.
http://www.azfamily.com/video/localn...ml?nvid=307103

[oceanblueeyes]

Originally Posted by Bobbisangel

Thank you. That makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why the Pros couldn't just wait until the judge had decided if the boy is competent to help in his own trial though. Was there a big hurry for the decision to be made about dropping the charges for the dad?

I think it has something to do with the time constraints. The DA was the first to tell Judge Roca they were very concerned about the case being delayed and at a standstill. In juvenile cases if they want a speedy trial then they are to go forward to trial in 45 days not like it is in an adult court which is 180 days for a speedy trial. The 45 days in this case is causing a nightmare because cases of heinous double murder, rarely if ever, occurs in the juvenile system. The majority of cases they deal with are petty or non violent crimes and they don't have to wait for complex forensic evidence to come back, like they are having to do with this one.

They want him to go ahead and rule on the motion to dismiss because the way I understand it if they deem him age incompetent at this time both charges will still be attached to the case and the DA is wanting to withdraw it now, even if the boy is found age incompetent now or not.

imoo

[Chargergal]

Came across this today on youtube. It's a quick tour of the town of St. John's, AZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoOK1...eature=related

[oceanblueeyes]

Originally Posted by Chargergal

Came across this today on youtube. It's a quick tour of the town of St. John's, AZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoOK1...eature=related

Thank you. It seems to be a rather nice rural town. Very good roads and new businesses in the area. It is nice because it seems to be more spread out than a lot of tiny towns which can appear congested. Typical with older homes and newer homes in the area.

imoo

[fran]

I’ve finally had a chance to review a number of articles about this case as well as court documents filed up to Dec 23rd. I’m quite confident my position is not going to be very popular, but if anyone wants to blame NO justice being served for these two victims, one need not look any further than the St. Johns LE community, including the judge who signed the original SW. I normally try not to criticize LE because they have a difficult enough job as it is. But in this case, LE completely dropped the ball.

The 8 yo’s attorney has filed to have much of the initial evidence suppressed because the first judge who signed the original SW SHOULD HAVE excused himself BEFORE he even signed off on that SW. Even the attorney said in his brief, “unfortunately…” when referring to some of the evidence being disallowed, but he’s just doing his job for his client. Anything they obtained as a result of the first SW MAY be thrown out as ‘fruit from a poisonous tree…..’ That judge was acquainted with the victim Vincent Romero and the now accused as well. There’s a lot of precedent for having this ‘evidence’ disallowed.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...%20WARRANT.pdf

I know many will believe the attorney filed this motion BECAUSE the evidence points towards his client, but he doesn’t even know that YET. From what I can see, this attorney is just doing his job and would be remiss in his duty as an officer of the court if he didn’t file this motion. IF this attorney didn’t file this motion and this child is convicted of the crime and the circumstances of the original SW brought up later, I believe the lawyer could be sighted by whatever agency it is that overseas lawyers and such.
There’s reasons for laws, to protect the citizens. If anyone should follow the law, it would be LE and the judges. Laws were broken in this investigation. The unfortunate point is, it will be justice that will suffer.

If you go to the above link, you’ll see that the judge knew when he signed the SW that he needed to recluse himself from this case. YET, he went ahead and signed the first SW. What a HUGE mistake. That SW included the crime scene, discharged shells, EVERYTHING directly involved in the crime. He put in jeopardy, all that was gained from that search and POSSIBLY additional SW’s submitted as a result of info gained from the first SW.

HUGE, huge, mistake, IMHO.

JMHO
fran

[fran]

While reviewing the documents about this case, I came across the motion filed by the def attorney to throw out the child’s confession. LE claimed that their interview with the 8 yo suspect was originally as a witness. Unfortunately, they were lying and there’s a NUMBER of witnesses that CAN testify to that fact. LE also claimed this was a voluntary interview with the full permission of the family to talk to the child. That too is a lie.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...%20HEARING.pdf

From the above linked filing it’s evident that LE withheld a LOT from previous hearings and from the presiding judge.

1. There was a briefing of 10 to 15 officers PRIOR to the 8yo’s interview in which they theorized that the child could possibly be the shooter, which was in part, the REASON for the second interview.

2. The grandfather initially refused to allow them to re-interview the child.

3. LE confiscated the child’s clothing from the day before (alleged evidence gathering is in question) which was proof that they suspected the child of shooting the gun PRIOR to the interview.

4. LE made a lot of ‘false’ promises to persuade the family to allow the interview.

5. The child had the RIGHT to have family or counsel with him during the interview, LE refused the family’s numerous requests for EITHER.(both family’s presence or legal representation were requested by various family members)

6. LE LIED to the child during the interview which is NOT standard procedure for interviewing a ‘witness,’ and most especially a ‘child.’

7. LE used techniques for SUSPECTS in their interview, NOT witnesses.

8. LE told the child they wouldn’t lie to him, yet they did repeatedly.

9. Even after LE managed to get the boy to change his story a # of times until he finally confessed to the first murder, they continued to question him without Mirandarizing him, until he finally confessed to the 2nd murder.

10. Even AFTER LE took him down to the station to book him for DOUBLE MURDER, again still not Mirandarizing him, they allowed a CPS worker to interview the boy again, obtain additional information which she relayed to LE and they used AGAINST this child.

I’m almost willing to bet this confession, along with the ‘evidence’ collected before any second or third or however many more SW’s were issued, will be thrown out. This is completely in violation of this child’s Constitutional Rights as well as laws within the State of Arizona.

I believe the St. Johns Police Department has some ‘splainin’ to do. Looks to my uneducated mind, they completely blew this case. What a shame.

JMHO
fran

[fran]

LOL, talk about a thread hog. I promise, this will be my last post for a while.

There’s a couple of things that bother me about this case, not the least I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, but please, hear me out.

The child’s attorney has filed for funds to hire a person who is an expert in ‘false confessions.’ I believe the def has HUGE grounds for this. We’ll see.

The child’s attorney has also filed for funds for an expert in ‘crime scene reenactment.’ This is the problem I see with this actual crime, shooting 10 times, two perfectly fit, adult males by an 8 yo child, with a ‘single action’ 22.

There is no way in heck this child could have gotten the drop on these two adult males, without them getting to him first. Just no way. I believe the def will be able to prove this was impossible.

1. The trajectory of the bullets into victim Tim Roman has NOT been stated in the autopsy. IF this child did in fact shoot Tim, the trajectory would have been upwards. There was also a wound to both his right chest and left chest, which opens the possibility of TWO shooters.

2. From indications at the scene and autopsy reports, it appears that victim Vincent Romero was shot both from the front and back. There were frontal wounds and empty shell casings in the upstairs hallway as well as shell casings towards the bottom of the stairway and back wounds. AGAIN pointing towards the possibility of TWO shooters.

3. Although it’s been stated they confiscated all 22’s on the premises, all I can find is the ONE 22, single action rifle belonging to the child. In one of the court documents, one of the officers stated this single action 22 was the ONLY 22 in the home. YET, in the ‘evidence photo,’ there’s an owners manual for a Mossberg 22 automatic rifle. WHERE is the automatic?

4. IF you want to go back to inconsistencies in the child’s statement, in his alleged confession, the child stated he put his gun in the closet. YET, it was found on the dog’s cage. To me, this is just ONE problem with the alleged confession.

5. Tim’s wife did NOT initially tell LE that she heard the child on the phone. She didn’t mention that until the second day. Why? That is the ONLY thing that connects the child to the scene at the time of the crime.

PLUS, which is it? She heard the child call Tim? Or she heard Tim call the child and he didn’t answer? I’ve seen BOTH scenarios spoken about in the various articles and documents.

6. IF Tim’s wife heard the child from within the house on the cell phone, why didn’t she hear the shots? I know they COULD have been muffled, but if she could hear him call out, she could hear the shots as well?

7. Why did Tim’s wife lawyer up so fast? Once she told LE that the child was present during the crime, she stopped talking to LE and got a lawyer.

Wonder if we’ll ever get the answers to these questions? Guess time will tell.
JMHO
Fran

PS…from every article I read, the ONLY persons stating this child would be capable of this crime was the step mom, who, imho, convinced the grandparents he could have done it and they didn’t agree with her until AFTER he was arrested. EVERYONE else who’s acquainted with this child said they didn’t believe he could have done this…..fran

[lizzybeth]

Please don't apologize for your posts Fran. I look forward to reading your views on this.

[fran]

Originally Posted by lizzybeth

Please don't apologize for your posts Fran. I look forward to reading your views on this.

Oh, thanks lizzybeth! LOL, it's just that I do get a little long-winded at times. You can tell when I did my homework. heehee Not sure if it's ALL correct, but..........still opens lots of doors for doubt, IMHO.


fran

[azmama]

Wow is all I can say FRAN, you did a fantastic job.

btw, I think you are spot on.

[oceanblueeyes]

Originally Posted by fran

LOL, talk about a thread hog. I promise, this will be my last post for a while.

There’s a couple of things that bother me about this case, not the least I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, but please, hear me out.

The child’s attorney has filed for funds to hire a person who is an expert in ‘false confessions.’ I believe the def has HUGE grounds for this. We’ll see.

The child’s attorney has also filed for funds for an expert in ‘crime scene reenactment.’ This is the problem I see with this actual crime, shooting 10 times, two perfectly fit, adult males by an 8 yo child, with a ‘single action’ 22.

There is no way in heck this child could have gotten the drop on these two adult males, without them getting to him first. Just no way. I believe the def will be able to prove this was impossible.

1. The trajectory of the bullets into victim Tim Roman has NOT been stated in the autopsy. IF this child did in fact shoot Tim, the trajectory would have been upwards. There was also a wound to both his right chest and left chest, which opens the possibility of TWO shooters.

2. From indications at the scene and autopsy reports, it appears that victim Vincent Romero was shot both from the front and back. There were frontal wounds and empty shell casings in the upstairs hallway as well as shell casings towards the bottom of the stairway and back wounds. AGAIN pointing towards the possibility of TWO shooters.

3. Although it’s been stated they confiscated all 22’s on the premises, all I can find is the ONE 22, single action rifle belonging to the child. In one of the court documents, one of the officers stated this single action 22 was the ONLY 22 in the home. YET, in the ‘evidence photo,’ there’s an owners manual for a Mossberg 22 automatic rifle. WHERE is the automatic?

4. IF you want to go back to inconsistencies in the child’s statement, in his alleged confession, the child stated he put his gun in the closet. YET, it was found on the dog’s cage. To me, this is just ONE problem with the alleged confession.

5. Tim’s wife did NOT initially tell LE that she heard the child on the phone. She didn’t mention that until the second day. Why? That is the ONLY thing that connects the child to the scene at the time of the crime.

PLUS, which is it? She heard the child call Tim? Or she heard Tim call the child and he didn’t answer? I’ve seen BOTH scenarios spoken about in the various articles and documents.

6. IF Tim’s wife heard the child from within the house on the cell phone, why didn’t she hear the shots? I know they COULD have been muffled, but if she could hear him call out, she could hear the shots as well?

7. Why did Tim’s wife lawyer up so fast? Once she told LE that the child was present during the crime, she stopped talking to LE and got a lawyer.

Wonder if we’ll ever get the answers to these questions? Guess time will tell.
JMHO
Fran

PS…from every article I read, the ONLY persons stating this child would be capable of this crime was the step mom, who, imho, convinced the grandparents he could have done it and they didn’t agree with her until AFTER he was arrested. EVERYONE else who’s acquainted with this child said they didn’t believe he could have done this…..fran

Your list is quite well done Fran and impressive even if I disagree with some of it. I admire your tenacity.

1. The confession, I agree it may be thrown out. The Judge has not decided on either, iirc. 1. For the defense to hire this false confession expert or 2. If the confession will be allowed in. However I think that without it the DA will have convincing evidence.

2. Yes, the defense should always ask for a particular type of expert, especially when they know that the State will have their own reenactment experts who will testify. So the defense are doing their jobs. Just like the defense attorneys call in these type of experts in other cases.

3. The Mossberg found in the home is not the murder weapon. It clearly shows in the crime scene photos that these were rim fire LR .22 bullet casings, not the .17 box of bullets used in the Mossberg, that they removed from the scene. The bullet casing for a .17 bullet is vastly different because it has the indented neck at the top of the bullet casings and is longer and slimmer. The bullet casings left behind were not but were regular .22 LR bullets. The same bullets used in the 22. single bolt action rifle.

4. The main thing I do not agree with you on though is when you say no child could have gotten the drop on two adult males. Shooting a .22 single bolt action rifle is absolutely very easy to do. A very simple mechanism. Even 7 year olds can do it with precision and quickness. When the two victims were totally caught off guard they can easily be taken down having only seconds to react before being hit again. A .22 rifle bullet is usually fired approximately 75 feet to a 150 feet away at a target or smaller animal. When shot within a close proximity to a human being, who is much larger and easier to hit, the shots can do much more harm, than if fired from a distance away from the victim. They may have been able to make a few steps before collapsing but imo they didn't make it far, especially the shots to vital areas.

5. I wonder if this closet was close to the stairwell and if someone could hide inside, with Vincent Romero not seeing them when he past by, since the ME said that two of the shots happened when Romero's back was to the shooter and the shooter was below him when VR was on the staircase steps and to the right when they fired .

6. I don't see two shooters. I do see one shooter that was moving around in different positions when they fired the weapon each time.

7. The only lawyer I know that Tanya has obtained is a civil lawyer. Seems they are blaming this in part on maybe violent video games.

8. I think Tanya's credibility will stand. She did tell the police about this conversation very early on.

9. I think the time line will connect him to the scene of the crime.

10. If the grandparents didnt think this boy capable of doing this, even if Tiffany did think he did it............ it wouldn't have swayed them to say that THEY thought he was capable.
imoo

[Chargergal]

http://www.kpho.com/news/18383132/detail.html
Article from local news channel this morning. I also hear on the same new station last night that new evidence was released that contained a sock with blood (oh no is this OJ again..LOL) AND TWO guns were recovered and ELEVEN shells. One of the guns was a 22 rifle and a 22 hand gun. I'm going to try and find any truth to that...but I'm catching a plane to Omaha in a few hours so if anyone else finds it please post it.
Another interesting point it the article it appears the boy is out of custody during the proceedings. Personally I believe it is more stressful for the boy to be in and out as well as causing a stress on the juvenile detention facility.
Cheers,

[oceanblueeyes]

Originally Posted by Chargergal

http://www.kpho.com/news/18383132/detail.html
Article from local news channel this morning. I also hear on the same new station last night that new evidence was released that contained a sock with blood (oh no is this OJ again..LOL) AND TWO guns were recovered and ELEVEN shells. One of the guns was a 22 rifle and a 22 hand gun. I'm going to try and find any truth to that...but I'm catching a plane to Omaha in a few hours so if anyone else finds it please post it.
Another interesting point it the article it appears the boy is out of custody during the proceedings. Personally I believe it is more stressful for the boy to be in and out as well as causing a stress on the juvenile detention facility.
Cheers,

Thanks for the information.

I have read that they found 10 spent bullet casings at the crime scene plus one live bullet was found in the boy's rifle when they took it in.

I haven't heard anything mentioned about a .22 handgun though in all the court documents I have read.

imoo

[azmama]

Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes

Why would they come in immediately? The Romero home was not on a reservation.

Which officers were with the reservation police?

TIA

imoo

I have been looking around and can not find the document I thought said that Reservation LE were involved, I did see in one place where I thought it was them, that it was Apache County Sheriff's Dept.

I will keep looking, but it appears I was mistaken

If I find what I thought I read, I will post it.

[Trino]

Originally Posted by fran

While reviewing the documents about this case, I came across the motion filed by the def attorney to throw out the child’s confession. LE claimed that their interview with the 8 yo suspect was originally as a witness. Unfortunately, they were lying and there’s a NUMBER of witnesses that CAN testify to that fact. LE also claimed this was a voluntary interview with the full permission of the family to talk to the child. That too is a lie.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...%20HEARING.pdf

From the above linked filing it’s evident that LE withheld a LOT from previous hearings and from the presiding judge.

1. There was a briefing of 10 to 15 officers PRIOR to the 8yo’s interview in which they theorized that the child could possibly be the shooter, which was in part, the REASON for the second interview.

2. The grandfather initially refused to allow them to re-interview the child.

3. LE confiscated the child’s clothing from the day before (alleged evidence gathering is in question) which was proof that they suspected the child of shooting the gun PRIOR to the interview.

4. LE made a lot of ‘false’ promises to persuade the family to allow the interview.

5. The child had the RIGHT to have family or counsel with him during the interview, LE refused the family’s numerous requests for EITHER.(both family’s presence or legal representation were requested by various family members)

6. LE LIED to the child during the interview which is NOT standard procedure for interviewing a ‘witness,’ and most especially a ‘child.’

7. LE used techniques for SUSPECTS in their interview, NOT witnesses.

8. LE told the child they wouldn’t lie to him, yet they did repeatedly.

9. Even after LE managed to get the boy to change his story a # of times until he finally confessed to the first murder, they continued to question him without Mirandarizing him, until he finally confessed to the 2nd murder.

10. Even AFTER LE took him down to the station to book him for DOUBLE MURDER, again still not Mirandarizing him, they allowed a CPS worker to interview the boy again, obtain additional information which she relayed to LE and they used AGAINST this child.

I’m almost willing to bet this confession, along with the ‘evidence’ collected before any second or third or however many more SW’s were issued, will be thrown out. This is completely in violation of this child’s Constitutional Rights as well as laws within the State of Arizona.

I believe the St. Johns Police Department has some ‘splainin’ to do. Looks to my uneducated mind, they completely blew this case. What a shame.JMHOfran

All this may be true. The boy's rights may have been violated. However, if this is all thrown out, and the boy did this, then what? Can the killing of two human beings be thrown by the wayside?