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

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Salem, Jan 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. OrdinaryLife

    OrdinaryLife New Member

    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if she wanted to, she can't. There's that nasty little thing holding her back called a Gag Order.
     
  4. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  5. Fairy1

    Fairy1 Divided We Fall

    Messages:
    9,867
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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!
     
  6. oceanblueeyes

    oceanblueeyes New Member

    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  7. oceanblueeyes

    oceanblueeyes New Member

    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  8. SoobsinMI

    SoobsinMI New Member

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/Cases/JV2008065/ORDER TO CEASE DISSEMINATING INFORMATION.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.
     
  9. oceanblueeyes

    oceanblueeyes New Member

    Messages:
    22,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  10. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
     
  11. Trino

    Trino New Member

    Messages:
    7,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I completely agree. If this were my child, I would not be able to contain myself.
     
  12. fran

    fran Former Member

    Messages:
    32,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  13. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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!
     
  14. OrdinaryLife

    OrdinaryLife New Member

    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. fran

    fran Former Member

    Messages:
    32,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  16. chiperoni

    chiperoni New Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. MeoW333

    MeoW333 New Member

    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We don't know that she had or hadn't talked to him about it. My guess would be she hadn't, as a child may repeat what is said. I'm sure she went "by the books" and enjoyed bonding with her son for the lost time they had to make up.
    There are so many things they could have done asides from talked about what happened. Granted, it was most likely very hard for both of them. Maybe they watched a movie, had popcorn.
    I'm sure if they had talked, it would have leaked out somewhere by now, gag order or not. It'd be a stretch to expect a newly turned 9 year old to keep secrets if they had talked.
     
  18. chiperoni

    chiperoni New Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hoped they had bonding time. This has to be such a hard time for the mother of the accused boy. She certainly has not been grandstanding and seems to be very interested in her son's welfare.
     
  19. Razzle

    Razzle New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Everyone! This is my first post but I have been lurking for a while.

    I have read all the threads regarding this case, and I am wondering if anyone else has thought about the Cinnamon Brown case in regards to this. I know that there aren't any similarities in the family dynamics or the crimes themselves, but the way that Cinnamon was thrown under the bus and blamed for the murders...IDK...just tossing that out there.

    I personally believe that the boy is either covering for someone or he doesn't know what happened. I do not believe for a moment that he was capable of firing all ten shots, without missing once, and was able to gun down 2 full grown men. That is one very lucky, very cool headed little boy if that is the case. Can you imagine the amount of adrenaline that would be pumping through him at that time? I think that would make it much harder to control the weapon properly and reload.

    Is there a chance that the boy witnessed the murders and then blocked it out instantly and is confused about what happened? Victims of sexual abuse do that frequently, as it is hard for a child's brain to process sitting down for cheerios in the morning with their Grandfather who raped them the previous night. Instead, the brain blocks out the sexual abuse almost as quickly as it happened. I am sure the brain could do that in other traumatic situations.

    MOO
     
  20. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ New Member

    Messages:
    30,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the child was in a dissociative-state, he would not have had that first story he gave.

    If he was covering for someone, I believe he would have sung like a bird by now.

    We know he was there.

    If the child planned it and went as far as to lure the roomie ...he wasn't shaking. He was as cool as a cucumber. Every bit as cool as he was telling his tales to LE.

    imo
     
  21. Fairy1

    Fairy1 Divided We Fall

    Messages:
    9,867
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi Razzle and welcome!!! I tend to believe this boy is covering for someone of whom he is extremely frightened. If he actually witnessed the murders, that would be logical. He wasn't seriously questioned until the following day, so there was plenty of time to go into shock, calm down and try to figure out what he should say. And we don't know if someone may have further influenced him in the hours between the murders and the interrogation. If he is a cold, calculating sociopath, as some believe, he would have had his story straight from the get-go.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice