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

[fran]

Fran,
"Yes I am entitled to my own opinion. With only 1/4 of the evidence revealed, it's beyond me how anyone could possibly declare this child guilty without knowing what the other 3/4 of the evidence is."

Yes...........and I am entitled to my own opinion as well and what you say is counter opposing to your argument imo.

You say we cant possibly declare him guilty with only 1/4 of the evidence revealed but yet you can declare him innocent and state this is some vast conspiracy to get a 9 year old boy, even without knowing what the other 3/4 of the evidence is and proclaim that there is some wild killer on the loose somewhere.:waitasec:

If I recall you have given your opinion quite often based only on 1/4 of the information that has been revealed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and they do not have to agree.

Not one thing known points away from this boy.

imoo

Do you have a link where I declared this child is innocent?

Contrary to those that believe this child guilty, I've always said I don't know. I believe he's POSSIBLY innocent AND I do not believe they've shown him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

FWIW, IF as you say there's not one thing that's known pointing away from the boy, that must be the reason for our difference of opinion. We're looking at different cases.... I see a number of KNOWN FACTS that point away from the child. That's what is difficult for those who question the child's guilt to reach an educated conclusion, because there's NO indication that the 'other possibilities' have been fully investigated.

There are those who need to know the answers to questions before they commit themselves to a position and there's those who ASSUME to know the answers or avoid the questionable issues and hope they disappear. This pros has found a way to make them disappear, IMHO, by sealing the records.

TIA
fran

 

[Linda7NJ]

There are those who need to know the answers to questions before they commit themselves to a position and there's those who ASSUME to know the answers or avoid the questionable issues and hope they disappear. This pros has found a way to make them disappear, IMHO, by sealing the records.

TIA
fran

The defense was in agreement with the plea agreement and it was the Judge that ordered the records sealed.

Nice try at spinning the facts

 

[fran]

The defense was in agreement with the plea agreement and it was the Judge that ordered the records sealed.

Nice try at spinning the facts

How am I spinning facts, exactly?

It was the pros deal and terms.

Yes, the def agreed.

It was the judge who sealed the records.

It is what it is.

What's your point?

fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The defense was in agreement with the plea agreement and it was the Judge that ordered the records sealed.

Nice try at spinning the facts

And I think, no one is more relieved that the facts have been sealed, than the defendant and his attorneys.

That is one of the good things about plea deals. It seals all the other evidence from ever seeing the light of day.

imo

 

[Formynextnovel]

This is my point of view only:

I don't believe for a minute that everyone in LE, the Pros, the defense attorney, the judge and anyone else who had a say so in what happens to this boy got together and decided to make a scapegoat of this boy. I also don't believe that they wanted to get this case over and done with so they made sure this boy pled guilty.

We have no idea what evidence was found at the crime scene. We haven't been told the lab results or much of anything else because of the gag order.
We don't know who LE questioned and who they didn't. We don't know what they did or didn't do on this case. I know people would like to believe that LE focused on this young boy from the beginning and didn't even talk to anyone else or follow any other leads. They just made the decision to hang this kid by his heels and that was that.

If the mother didn't want this boy to plead guilty it seems she should have spoken up when the decision was in the process of being made. She had lots of time to verbalize her opinion because this decision sure wasn't made over night. From what I gather she doesn't think this boy is guilty and therefore I doubt if she even sees a need for long term therapy. I have an idea that if this boy is allowed to leave with his mother he will never even see a therapist which means he will get no help unless it is court ordered. Truth be known, this boy needs therapy. A good therapist needs to find out why he set out to murder his dad and Tim and work from there. This is a troubled boy and he will only get worse without help. Without help we just may read his name in the news again someday if murder is his way of taking care of his problems. Maybe he won't be allowed to own a gun but a gun isn't the only weapon that can be used to get rid of someone.

I get the idea that there are people out there who think this boy should just be turned loose to go home with his mom and everything will be fine because they haven't seen proof that he murdered his own dad and Tim. We likely won't see any proof but I know one thing. Without this boy getting any help I wouldn't want him living next door to me or mine. He is a troubled child and I have no doubt about that.

If I were his mother I would be very afraid.

Anyone know why she didn't have custody?

 

[Formynextnovel]

For many years I taught students whose parents mostly didn't give a d..... There are stories that will be with me for the rest of my life. One involved a 14 year old boy whose mother was supposed to come to school the next day because he got into trouble He plainly told me she wasn't coming because she was so drunk she couldn't stand up that morning. By 15 he had fathered two children.

Another young lady went from being an A student to failing. Her mother stole her boyfriend away from her. She was living with her grandmother, trying to survive this. I've also taught a murderer, a child molester, a child who was murdered, and many kids who are now in prison.

What happened? If you were at parent conferences you would know. Of 150 kids I taught about 20 parents showed up, and mostly they were the parents of good kids. What I've learned is that in most cases an A student is an A student no matter what the curriculum, no matter what the technology, no matter what test he/she is given, and no matter who the teacher is. The key to a better education is the parent who raised these kids.

I agreed with your conclusion. I am a teacher too, but on the college level, so there is an automatic filter; students I teach have at least had to pass high school, apply, and be accepted. We also don't have to deal with the parents, but it is often clear from the way these "young adults" respond to rules and challanges, that they have not really been pushed or prepared, either by their parents or their previous teachers.

I was teaching at a university in Virginia that year the massacure occured at Virginia Tech. My classes didn't meet that day, but I heard stories from other faculty members about students breaking down into tears in the classroom. However, I understood that by the next day what my students wanted was normalcy and routine, so I waited to see if they wanted to talk about the event. They did not bring it up until much later in the semester. All over the news and on campus there was debate among faculty, students and administration about the campus gun policy. Some people argued that had there been a well trained gunsman with a weapon in the VT classroom that day, he or she might have taken out the rampage shooter before more lives were lost. (There are many cadets and military students in VA schools.)

As a teacher, and as a student, I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea that ANYONE, including an officer or another professor, might have a fire arm on their person in a space where the purpose should be to facilitate learning, to challenge each other's assumptions, and to encourage each other to take risks. An implication that there is an emminant threat to our lives or to our bodies is not condusive to creating an environment where ideas can be fully expressed, explored, or communicated.

Persoanlly, I would rather die shot with a gun that was never allowed into the classroom than teach to students who are allowed to carry concealed weapons, and who know I am allowed to do so.

 

[SoobsinMI]

As a teacher, and as a student, I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea that ANYONE, including an officer or another professor, might have a fire arm on their person in a space where the purpose should be to facilitate learning, to challenge each other's assumptions, and to encourage each other to take risks. An implication that there is an emminant threat to our lives or to our bodies is not condusive to creating an environment where ideas can be fully expressed, explored, or communicated.

Persoanlly, I would rather die shot with a gun that was never allowed into the classroom than teach to students who are allowed to carry concealed weapons, and who know I am allowed to do so.

My girlfriend's daughter WAS a student at VT, and WAS there that day. She has a vastly different opinion than you do, of how she'd "rather die."

(And you misspelled "eminent." However, I'm not sure that is the word you were looking for...."imminent" maybe?)

 

[southcitymom]

I agreed with your conclusion. I am a teacher too, but on the college level, so there is an automatic filter; students I teach have at least had to pass high school, apply, and be accepted. We also don't have to deal with the parents, but it is often clear from the way these "young adults" respond to rules and challanges, that they have not really been pushed or prepared, either by their parents or their previous teachers.

I was teaching at a university in Virginia that year the massacure occured at Virginia Tech. My classes didn't meet that day, but I heard stories from other faculty members about students breaking down into tears in the classroom. However, I understood that by the next day what my students wanted was normalcy and routine, so I waited to see if they wanted to talk about the event. They did not bring it up until much later in the semester. All over the news and on campus there was debate among faculty, students and administration about the campus gun policy. Some people argued that had there been a well trained gunsman with a weapon in the VT classroom that day, he or she might have taken out the rampage shooter before more lives were lost. (There are many cadets and military students in VA schools.)

As a teacher, and as a student, I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea that ANYONE, including an officer or another professor, might have a fire arm on their person in a space where the purpose should be to facilitate learning, to challenge each other's assumptions, and to encourage each other to take risks. An implication that there is an emminant threat to our lives or to our bodies is not condusive to creating an environment where ideas can be fully expressed, explored, or communicated.

Persoanlly, I would rather die shot with a gun that was never allowed into the classroom than teach to students who are allowed to carry concealed weapons, and who know I am allowed to do so.

Me too - though it's probably a topic for another thread!

 

[Salem]

Snipped for pertinent part ~

Snipped for relevance.....

And the fact that "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" means absolutely nothing to me. We know what they WANTED us to know in order to back up their own case. It's called "spinning" and IMO, we have not heard the last of it. There are others - reporters and judges amongst them - who will demand to see how this case got to this point.

The statement "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" is untrue. Blatenly untrue! For starters - we know from the boy's own confession that the gun was not where he said it was, that the gunshots are not consistent with what he said he did. We know there is an UNKNOWN fingerprint on the gun. This is only the tip of what we know.

To me - these things we KNOW are enough to raise a reasonable doubt and to throw the child away before these questions are answered is CRUEL AND INHUMAN.

We have seen (there are links in these threads) that several children have confessed to murders that were later solved with DNA showing the confessing child had nothing to do with the murder. One child gave an explicit description of putting grass in the victim's ear.

WE KNOW THESE THINGS, and in my humble opinion, it is these things that have to be addressed before this plea deal can be settled.

Salem

 

[fran]

And I think, no one is more relieved that the facts have been sealed, than the defendant and his attorneys.

That is one of the good things about plea deals. It seals all the other evidence from ever seeing the light of day.

imo

Since it was the pros deal and the judge who is ordering the records sealed, how could one possibly take out of THAT, it's the defendant and his attorney who are relieved the records are sealed??????

Talk about 'spinning' the facts to fit one's thoughts!

The defendant is signing the plea deal that he's guilty. It's the pros deal. What could possibly hurt this child that hasn't already been done? He's pleading GUILTY just like the PROS wanted from the BEGINNING.:waitasec:

I could provide a link if you'd like, showing where the PROS offered the plea back around Thanksgiving. It's in one of the threads here, if you'd like to look.

The only one I could see that could POSSIBLY be hurt anymore by the UNKNOWN results being released is the pros.........to show they didn't have enough to convict a ham sandwich.........Or an even more novel idea, it might show there are any number of possible NON suspects that MAY never have been checked.

Do you have a link to a statement that the def attorney made saying he was relieved? or are you just making that up?

JMHO
fran

 

[Salem]

I'm gonna start a new thread before this one blows up on us.

Salem

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80836

 

[fran]

I'm gonna start a new thread before this one blows up on us.

Salem

Thanks Salem. Could you put a link to this thread on the first post?

fran

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Snipped for pertinent part ~

The statement "not one thing KNOWN points away from this boy" is untrue. Blatenly untrue! For starters - we know from the boy's own confession that the gun was not where he said it was, that the gunshots are not consistent with what he said he did. We know there is an UNKNOWN fingerprint on the gun. This is only the tip of what we know.

To me - these things we KNOW are enough to raise a reasonable doubt and to throw the child away before these questions are answered is CRUEL AND INHUMAN.

We have seen (there are links in these threads) that several children have confessed to murders that were later solved with DNA showing the confessing child had nothing to do with the murder. One child gave an explicit description of putting grass in the victim's ear.

WE KNOW THESE THINGS, and in my humble opinion, it is these things that have to be addressed before this plea deal can be settled.

Salem

Gawd, I *love* a great post!!!!