The St. Johns 8 Year Old Killer - Part Two

More information is slowly becoming known about why a small 8-year-old boy may have said he killed his dad on the afternoon of November 5, 2008. This is another case of where the facts may not accurately reflect the true story of what happened that afternoon when two men were killed supposedly by a small child with either a .22 rifle or a .22 handgun (since both types of weapons have been reported as the murder weapon). It is a case with little information, but a lot of speculation as to what happened, under what circumstances, in what manner, and by whom? How surprising is that?

It would be wise to remember that the original story told by this young boy was that he saw a white vehicle speeding away from the house. He claimed he walked around the block where he lived "7 or 8 times" while he waited for his stepmother to return home from work. He said when he saw one man, Timothy Romans, lying in front of the house that he then ran inside calling for his dad. When he found him in an upstairs bedroom, the boy said his dad was lying in a pool of blood that had formed around his head. This young child said he laid there next to his father and cried for thirty minutes. He then claimed he shot his dad "because he was suffering.... I didn't want him to suffer," he said. It was only after the interrogation had been ongoing, did he allegedly say, "I went upstairs and then I saw my dad and then I got the gun and then I fired it at my dad. He was on the ground and then I reloaded it." This doesn't even sound like a statement an 8-year-old boy would make.

Police Chief Roy Melnick of St. Johns stated the boy actively planned and methodically carried out the murders of his father and family friend and roomer Timothy Romans. However, it is interesting to note that that it was only after being manipulated and lied to by the police officers did the boy supposedly begin to change his story to he killed them. Only after being questioned for hours without a guardian or an attorney present. Only after the police told the boy they had a "witness" to what happened. Only after they told him he would be in bigger trouble if he "did not tell the truth". The problem is - whose truth is being told? The boy's or the adults who wanted a story that covered all the facts as they saw them without a real investigation?

It is standard police procedure to lie to a suspect in order to get a confession. It is done every day under the guise of "law enforcement interrogation". Although this has been ruled legal for an adult suspect, when did it become legal for a young child who is still dependent on his parents and others to supply even his basic needs without a single person there to protect his rights? When did it become permissible to lie to a child to get him to lie even more - just so that the adults around him are happy with his new story? Imagine the trauma this child had just gone through and be told by aggressive gun-toting police officers that he and only he was guilty of killing his own father, especially if that is not the real truth.

This has been called a "killing spree" and "premeditated murder" - all supposedly thought out in advance, planned down to the last detail and then executed by a little boy whose world is pretty much confined to his neighborhood and the people in his family. What was going on in that house? Was there abuse of any kind in that home, and if so, by whom against which person? Had threats been made to anyone to hurt or kill them - again by whom and against which person? What events could have possibly escalated to such a dire degree to create a situation where an 8 year old would even contemplate murder?

Now it has come out that the county attorney's office, possibly through Criss Candelaria who wanted to file the original premeditated murder charges, has asked that the charge against the boy for killing his father be dropped. There has been no reason given except that "it would be in the "best interest of justice". Whose justice? Whom are these people trying to hoodwink? If they truly believed this little boy had murdered his father in cold blood, why would they even consider dropping the charge? Have they figured out that this young child did not kill his father? Have they found extenuating circumstances that makes the child less liable for any crime? Did he actually kill anyone for any reason especially his father whom he supposedly loved and wanted to be with every day?

The wife of 39-year-old Timothy Romans now claims she was on the telephone with her husband at the time Vincent Romero was being killed, stating that Roman's said he could hear gunshots and the boy calling his name. Whose story is this? The truthful facts or the angry vengeful statements of a possibly grief-stricken wife who wants to blame someone - anyone, including an 8 year old boy, for the death of her husband. Does it matter to anyone that perhaps there had been a killer in that home before the young boy had arrived home from school? Has any investigation into other possible suspects been instigated such as a boyfriend, work colleague, the ex-wife or the current wife, or even a random robbery gone wrong?

There are also the statements by the Romero boy, where he said he shot his dad because his father was "suffering". Was this because the man had already been shot by someone else? Was it because his father had taught this little boy that if you are hunting and shoot an animal and only wound it, that you should never let it suffer any longer than necessary? Did this child take this to mean any living creature, including his father, could not be allowed to suffer needlessly, so he did shoot his dad to stop the pain?

Paul Mones, an attorney who specializes in cases involving children who have killed their parents (though none under the age of 10) said it was unlikely that an 8-year-old child, who was considered to young to understand custody issues and could not choose where he wanted to live, would likely not be convicted, because he would not have the ability to understand his actions. Will this child be set free? Will he be adjudicated to a juvenile facility until he is 18 years old? Should he be charged with any crime at all because he does not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and finality of death - if he was even the alleged shooter?

The same questions remain now as they did on November 5, 2008. What happened at the Romero home? Who was present and at what time? When did the father, Vincent Romero and his roomer, Timothy Romans actually arrive home? Who else may have been there with them? Where is the white vehicle and why was it never followed up on according to the present information currently known? Why would an 8-year-old child claim he saw one man lying down before he even went in the house? Why would he claim he shot his dad because he was suffering? Why would he change his story to one where he methodically and premeditatedly killed two men?

Who really killed Vincent Romero and Timothy Romans?

Sources:

8-Year-Old: 'I Shot My Dad', By Lee Ferran and Russell Goldman, Nov. 19, 2008

Why Do Kids Kill?, By Russell Goldman, Nov. 12, 2008

ATTORNEY'S DEMANDS 8-Year-Old Killer Could Be Freed