Officer that interviewed 8 yr old suspect had only been a detective for ONE day.

Apparently she also knew the boy because he was a neighbor.

Brewer brought up the fact that Neckel had only been a detective for a day when she interviewed the child.

BB: Okay. Um, and so, a-and just so I know, that you, were detective fer a day, before this happened, I mean, I, I, I just wanna make sure… (laughs)

DN: I wish I didn’t have ta admit ta that, but, yeah. (laughs)

BB: Awright. I just, you know I, I heard that and then I started thinkin, oh… (laughs)

DN: I know, (laughs). Believe me I wish, that wasn’t true, I wish that, they would’ve waited a week.

Brewer also asked Neckel about knowing the boy prior to talking to him.

BB: Okay. And, um, did you know, who ***** ***** was prior to this?

DN: Yes, I did.

BB: You, uh, in what capacity’d you know him?

DN: Um, playing in fronta my house, playing with my dog, um, playing with the kids across the street, *****(?), especially, he’s like six years old.

The attorney asked her whether the boy had been told of his rights. She said they did not consider him a suspect. The boy's attorney then asked her why they would lie to him about a witness if they did not consider him a suspect.

BB: Um, did, ***** ever request that someone be allowed ta sit in on the interview?

DN: No.

BB: Did you ever tell im that he could have someone sit in on the interview?

DN: I, don’t believe we, no.

BB: Um, and again, you, never Mirandized him prior ta going inta the interview.

DN: No.

BB: Uh, and, Matt didn’t inter, didn’t, Mirandize im that you were aware of, prior ta goin inta the interview.

DN: No.

This kid was never informed that he was not considered a suspect. He was told that someone had seen him do the crime.

I just had to add this new information to the current discussion about this case.

edited to add link.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/st-johns-local-news-120608-interview-transcripts.394067bb.html

However, there's no legal requirement for the police to tell the juvenile of this right.

The law varies by state, but it's a travesty.

Dah. From the articles I've read, the step-mother allowed police to talk to the kid.

In the event of a custodial parents death the child's living parent becomes the custodial parent, not the step mother.

"Detectives were given permission by his stepmother to speak to the child without an adult present but they also raise additional questions regarding the child’s state of mind in the moments after he claimed to have discovered the murdered bodies of his dad and his friend."


http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/StJohns-local-news-112708-more-court-docs-revelati.b34ef6b.html

They were interrogating the boy. They were not interviewing him.

They lied and told him that they had a witness that said he committed the murders. They mentioned that someone heard him on the phone.

He was interrogated and should have been told of his legal rights.

From what NYT reported, the dead renter's wife was on the phone with him just before he was murdered.
The dead renter supposedly told the wife the boy was calling him.

The lied when they told the boy someone saw him commit the murders.

While investigators said they just happened upon on the confession while talking to the child, the boy's lawyers don’t' believe that. In his interview with Avilla,

Brewer asked about why she told the boy they had a witness who saw the boy commit the crime.

Avilla said that it was attempt to get the boy to open up and name somebody else.

BB: Um, is it, customary or, I guess, customary or acceptable, in, interrogations or, interviews, however you wanna phrase em, um, to, lie to the, subject, whatever that person is. In order to, well, not in order ta do anything but, just, are you allowed ta lie to the subject? Is that…

TA: Yes.

BB: …something you've been trained ta do?

TA: Yes.

BB: Um, and did you do that in this case?

TA: I believe I did, uh, I believe I did at one point, um, saying that someone saw him, and, um, that was the only time.

NYT reported that
"Mr. Romans was outside the house talking on his cellphone to his wife, Mr. Carlyon said, when he heard some commotion inside. Mr. Carlyon said the rifle produced only a “muffled, soft popping” sound, making it likely that Mr. Romans had no idea what had happened inside. Mr. Carlyon said Mr. Romans had told his wife that the boy was calling for him. He was on the porch on his way into the house when he was shot in the chest and head, the authorities said."



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/11child.html?em

actually did it, and told the boy to call the friend after she had shot her husband.

Reasonable doubt.

questioning why exactly?
:eyes:

It was an appalling piece of video, watching these two middle aged clowns trying to trap an 8 year old boy, trying to talk him into saying things incriminating. I don't know what the deal is with the kid, but I know he's entitled to be represented, and any moron who is a police officer who doesn't know the kid is entitled to adult representation immediately should never be allowed to question children again.

of their right to have a parent or guardian present. Yes, they still have to be read their Miranda rights, but what 8-year-old understands that anyway?

:eyes:

If a handicapped adult was arrested and was not read his rights would you say that it doesn't matter because they may not understand them.

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

I disagree that he would not have understood.

I'm simply suggesting that an 8-year-old should have MORE protection. He should be directly told that he can have a parent or guardian present.

...as for your belief that an 8-year-old would have fully understood the meaning of his Miranda rights, I disagree.

I have a child a touch older than that age. She would completely understand if someone told her she does not have to answer any questions. Really that would be enough. Even so, she knows what a court is and it's basic purpose. She knows the basic purpose of an attorney. And if they are asking if she understands the rights she would say no if she didn't understand.

He had nobody in that room looking out for him. That is upsetting.

Edited for grammar

I agree that children need a competent adult present in such a serious matter.

... I can't help but wonder if the "juvenile" definition pertains - or rather the laws that were written regarding juveniles - were done so to incorporate children not a decade old. Maybe they are. Somehow I doubt it.

There certainly is no possibility of amassing a "jury of his peers" in any legal way.

This is a KID. He did something horrific, it seems or is provable. Either way, to hold him to the standards that don't fit is insane, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care what his guilt/innocence status is...HE HAS RIGHTS.

They denied him his rights. The rights are not negotiable. They were created for a reason.

actions of the professionals (and adults) around him all the more important. This seems like a massive fail on so many levels.

I wholeheartedly agree.

:hi:

I am curious to see how his attorney handles the plea deal.

I'm not excusing what this little boy did, there is and was a serious problem if an 8 year old does something like this. But that's only part of the equation. This is not a "near" adult, he's 6 years from being a toddler... from being in diapers.

This is astounding that he's being treated like something other than a very. young. child. Very young kids can do horrific, violent things. It's pretty unusual, but it's possible and does happen. Clearly. But he's still a child... that should change the process. One doesn't (or shouldn't need some education in child development and psychology to get that...

This child may need to be under supervised confinement for the rest of his life. I don't know. But there is no way to determine what he needs (yes, needs) if he's treated like someone or something he is physiologically and mentally and developmentally incapable of being.

He needs to be treated like an 8 year old... first.

And the more ignorant the person, the more they hate constitutional rights.

Suddenly they become experts. Hypocrisy.