Convoluted Brian

Soon after the 5 November, 2008, double murder in St. Johns, Arizona, police decided they identified the culprit. Within twenty hours after the police became involved, a suspect was identified as the eight‑year‑old son of one of the victims, Vincent Romero. The other victim was a boarder in the home, Tim Romans.

The initial suspicion was based upon statements from the wife of Tim Romans. Tanya Romans claimed that she was speaking with her husband about 5:00 P.M. the day of the shootings and she heard a child’s voice calling for her husband. She said her husband named the child as calling him for help.

The witness statement from Romans is neither dated nor timed. No address or telephone number was entered on the witness statement. Subsequently, Ms. Romans retained a civil attorney and became uncooperative with investigators.

Apache County Commander Matrese Avila interviewed the child after the shootings. She claimed that the child had a flat demeanor, and he did not appear upset. Avila is not a trained psychologist and has no business making these claims. But, she seemed to believe in her abilities. Her report on that first interview as well as the interrogation was dated 17 November, 2008.

Matrese Avila is Jail and Dispatch Commander for the Apache County Sheriff’s Department.

The day after the shootings, Avila and St. Johns Police Department Detective Debbie Neckel conducted what they characterized as an interview. Interrogations are usually given by two persons so the suspect is double‑teamed and asked simultaneous contradictory questions. Thus, any answer can be challenged by the suspect can be challenged and twisted.

Neckel claimed at the show cause hearing on 6 November, 2008, hearing that she was capable of explaining things to children because of her assign as school resource officer. This was misleading. Her experience was with junior high and high school students(1). Neckel also neglected to mention that she had been Detective for one day when she was assigned a lead role in the investigation and that she did not have training in either interviewing or interrogating. Neckel was a lead investigator in the case.

Debbie Neckel has been an officer with the St. Johns Police Department since 2005. Before, she was the records clerk for the department. Her duties before her promotion to detective were that of School Resource Officer.

Avila began the session with a lie. She told the child that no one was allowed to lie in the [interrogation] room. Avila stated that neither the two adults would lie because they were required to be truthful. But, Avila knew up front that they would lie. The child was taught to trust the police and was at their mercy.

The interview began at 10:46 in the morning.

The child gave his account. He got home from school and walked around the neighborhood for about an hour and a half. When he arrived home, he saw Tim Romans laying on the ground near the open front door. He ran inside and called for his father, then discovered his father’s body. The suspect said he cried for about a half‑hour before running to a neighbor’s home for assistance. This was essentially the same account he had given Avila the previous evening. Neither interrogator asked what time he got off the school bus.

Avila pressed on to address some apparent inconsistencies. The child mentioned a speeding white car leaving the neighborhood. He was fairly detailed about the vehicle saying it was similar to his grandfather’s car but was missing a hubcap or had black rims on the rear. He said he released his dog Nellie from her indoor cage.

Six minutes into the interview, Avila challenged, “You’re sure you weren’t at home?” The child answered, “Yeah.” Avila pressed, “You’re sure?” and the response was “Mm‑huh.” The interview was turning into an interrogation.

Avila then told the child, “I heard something …” She claimed that someone had called the child’s name and that he responded from inside the house. When he denied, she challenged his answer. He denied again and asked, “Who was calling my name?” Avila answered with, “Somebody told me that.”

Avila continued to challenge the child but got nowhere. She then switched the subject away from her goal to something more mundane.

This is an interrogation technique to distract the accused away from the desired outcome. If the victim of the interrogation is allowed to deny the accusations, then the interrogation is not successful. So the questioning drifted off to the child’s backpack and people who visit the home.

When Avila returned to the thrust of the interrogation, the boy said he saw a white car speeding away with no or a black hubcap. He also stated that the back door was always locked. For some reason, neither interrogator pursued the idea that the front door of the home was routinely unlocked.

Avila left the room from 11:05 until 11:08 leaving the untrained Detective Neckel to carry on with the interview. In her report, Avila claimed that police officers observing the interrogation said she should come down on the child.

After Avila returned she pursued the child with her questioning. The child said the guns in the house were kept under an upstairs bed. Avila responded, “I was told there was a gun on the basket [dog cage].” With the follow‑up, the boy said his Chipmunk rifle was upstairs. One of the crime scene photos shows the youth rifle on the dog cage with a 22 caliber cartridge laying loose in the breech.

Avila then returned to accusing the child of being in the house when the shootings occurred. When the child denied Avila stated, “That’s what we were told.” Avila also claimed that the two victims actually passed the child on the road when he was walking about on his way home. This was more of the, “I was told …” type of lies used in interrogations.

The child was asked who he thought might have done the shootings. He mentioned some bad neighbors who smoked and drank alcohol. When asked if he thought they were the shooters, he said, “I don’t know.”

When the suspect was talking about the various guns in the residence, Neckel interrupted and explained about gunshot residue and clothing. She intimated that he had some residue on his clothing. She asked if any guns had been fired the day before. The child responded “I don’t know. Maybe they shot it in the house…” He went on to explain that he might have walked into some gun smoke.

Avila pushed the issue. She said he would have a “whole, whole bunch” of residue. And asked if they would find that on his clothes. The boy responded, “I wasn’t shooting any guns.” Avila pressed, “So we wouldn’t find a whole bunch on your clothes yesterday?” The response was, “I don’t know. But, I wasn’t shooting any guns.”

The sharks circled. Neckel continued the pressure, insisting that if he shot a gun, they would find out. The boy said; he might have shot at the white car. Avila pressed on claiming that she and Neckel had been telling the truth. “Did you shoot that gun yesterday? Which gun did you shoot?” The child answered, “I think it was my gun?”

Avila: “Your gun. And where was your dad when you shot the gun?”
Child: “He was upstairs.”
Avila: “And what was he doing?”
Child: “Laying on the ground.”
…
Avila: “Where was Tim?”
Child: “Laying on the ground.”

Avila closed in, insisting that the child shot the two adult male victims. His responses were not what she wanted. He said he might have. Or the maybe the gun went off while he was holding it, or maybe he saw then men shaking and then fired. None of this was acceptable to the interrogator.

Avila said, “Come on, tell us the truth.” The child shouted, “I’m not lying.”

The two interrogators carried on, claiming that someone told them that the boy might have killed the victims and someone was talking to Tim on the telephone and heard his voice and that Tim identified the voice as the child’s. Neckel lied, claiming that all telephone calls were recorded.

Neckel threatened bigger trouble for the child if he didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. So the child said he might have shot his father because he was suffering. Neckel gave positive feedback, “That makes sense.” But, as the child went on, he said he thought he shot Tim Romans and then he thought he shot his father. This was not the desired sequence so more leading took place. Avila told him that he shot his dad first although the child had stated the opposite as “I think.”

When Avila pressed for the kill, he stated that Tim was on the ground when the child said he thought the gun went off.

Avila lied again saying the same gun killed both the men and all the bullets used came from the same gun. She had no way of knowing. She went on, “…We know that there was more than one time it was fired. OK.”

The boy said he thought he shot his father twice. Avila replied, “You shot your dad twice?” Then when asked about Tim, he said he thought twice. This was another problem for the interrogators.

Avila asked if the child had played with any rifles the day of the murders. The child said that sometimes he played with an air shotgun. Avila suggested that the child went home from the school bus because she said she had to go to the bathroom right away when she got home. When he said yeah and started talking, Avila interrupted him to suggest he had the gun in the bathroom. The boy said he went upstairs saw his father, thought he got the gun and shot his dying father twice. Then he went outside and accidently maybe shot Tim twice. When asked what he did with the gun he said he put it in the closet. Avila challenged the statement, but the boy wouldn’t change the location.

Avila left the room. Neckel told him the rifle was left on the dog’s cage and asked him if he left the rifle there. The boy had stopped talking. Neckel pushed for the response but the child would not verify her assertion.

Despite claims made by Neckel and others, there was virtually no attempt to place another person at the scene. Only twice during the interview was this mentioned. Once, Avila briefly asked, “Who all was with you.” She did not pressure for an answer. Near the end, Commander Avila asked whether his mom was in the house. Again, she did not press the issue. The child said no.

The other lead investigator on the case, Lucas Rodriguez, testified at the show cause hearing that the confession matched the crime scene so well. But it did not. There were many more wounds on the bodies than the claim of two shots each that the boy said he might have done. The boy also said he placed his rifle in a closet, but it was found on the dog cage. Note that Rodriguez also testified, under oath, that the boy said his father was shot in the chest(2) and only the shooter would know that since the father was face down on the upper stairs. The only problem with this bold statement was that the father was not shot in the chest.

The child said the back door was always locked so he used the front door. No effort was made to consider this as important. The child said his grandfather’s rifle was in the home, and it used the same bullets as his rifle. His stepmother, Tiffany, did not name that rifle when she told investigators about the guns in the home. There was no follow‑up by investigators. The attempt to find the white car described by the boy was very minimal.

The boy was consistent that the men were lying down. Whether he maybe shot them, or accidently shot them, he said they were lying down when asked what they were doing. At times, when trying to satisfy the interrogators, he would say, no, I don’t think while trying to please them.

He was consistent in his description of a white car leaving the scene. Only when the two interrogators fed him lines and insisted that he repeat them did his story become inconsistent. He would agree that he thought maybe he shot them then insist he had not fired a rifle.

No mention was made in reports of the location of the dog Nellie. This may appear trivial, but it is surprising that none of the many police on the scene didn’t notice.

There was virtually no attempt to find another shooter despite Debbie Neckel’s claim that this was an interview. No attempt was made to protect the child against these two adults intent on a confession. They even refused to allow a relative to be in the interrogation room.

At the end Commander Matrese Avila showed her huge, cold, brass balls. She asked the child to hug each of the women before he was taken away. This was after they had lied to him, called him honey, touched him, and finally gave him the shaft. He did not respond to Avila’s effrontery.

The interrogation was over at 11:46. Shortly thereafter, the child was chained and handcuffed.

Videos and transcript of an eight‑year‑old being interrogated without a responsible adult present. One of the two interrogators was the child's neighbor. Neither interrogators were trained in interrogating children.

Part 1 of the child interrogation video
Part 2 of the child interrogation video
Part 3 of the child interrogation video
Part 4 of the child interrogation video
Transcript of the child's interrogation

From St. Johns, AZ Police Department

24 May, 2017 added links to interrogation videos and transcript

Share this...

Facebook

Google

Email

Twitter