Is it Over?

The sentencing date finally arrived for the St. Johns Arizona child who was railroaded into a plea deal. The child was eight‑years‑old when his father and a boarder at his home were murdered in the family home. Police immediately became excited about the prospect of a very young perpetrator and decided he was the killer.

Two adults interrogated this child and pushed him into making some statements they claimed were incriminating. These two ignored his firm statements that he didn’t shoot anyone. The Apache County Sheriff’s Department mother confessor, Commander Matrese Avila, testified at a discovery hearing that attempts to identify false confessions were not part of Arizona interrogation training. Her partner in crime, St. Johns Police Detective Debbie Neckel, falsely claimed to have experience in interviewing children, but she was as manipulative as Avila. Plus, Neckel was neighbor and acquaintance of the accused and still put incriminating words in his mouth. Neckel had no interrogation training.

The child’s attorney agreed to a plea deal of guilty of reckless homicide of the child’s father. The other homicide was written off. I do not believe that the plea deal was to the benefit of either the child or society.

The hearing for sentencing had been delayed repeatedly. Judge Pro Tem Michael P. Roca, played a part in the continuing debacle. Finally Judge Roca stated that he was not intending to accept the plea deal.

Roca had been in contact with persons from the St. Johns Police Department without notifying other parties in the case. That led to Roca being fired as the judge. The parties from the police department should have been fired as well for attempting extra‑judicial manipulation to undermine the rights of the child defendant. Judge Roca’s management was ultimately responsible for the excessive delay

Apache County Attorney Whiting earlier attempted to place the child in prison for supposedly violating terms of his release. But, Whiting’s claims were based in fantasy rather than fact. That is symbolic of the case from the start. This may indicative of future vendetta by law enforcement toward the child.

On 14 January, 2010, Maricopa County Judge Monica Stauffer approved the plea deal for the child. There are conditions; of course. And the child must abide by the conditions until he is eighteen. Judge Stauffer was appointed to replace Judge Roca.

I am disappointed with the resolution of this case. I believe it is likely that the two adult males were killed by at least two persons who coordinated the attack. Given the locations of the bodies as well as the quantity of bullets found in the bodies (and their locations) it is extremely unlikely that this crime was committed by the child.

So many things were overlooked. Detective Neckel claimed that all firearms in the home were collected soon after the shootings, but the Arizona Department of Public Safety subsequently collected several more rifles. One of the victims had a credit card and drivers license of a third party in his possession. Why was that? Police in the home area of one of the victims believed that victim was involved with drug distribution. That was ignored.

This is a clear case of all parties cooperating to railroad the eight‑year‑old into being the fall guy with the attendant publicity. And, this case demonstrates that dishonesty by law enforcement personnel is present when the result has been pre‑determined.

Commander Avila claimed that she believed someone else committed the crimes until the child confessed, but it is clear from the beginning of the interrogation that she was acting to coerce the child into incriminating statements. When he stated loud and clear that he didn’t shoot anyone, Avila pressed on with statements that were designed to trick the child.

Avila also claimed that when she interviewed the child prior to the interrogation that he had inappropriate grief. She did not state was she expected for appropriate grief. Plus her report was dated after the child was charged. As the church lady says, “How convenient.”

St. Johns Sergeant Lucas Rodriguez originated the idea that the child committed the crime. He made a three‑hour road trip (one way) to the home of one victim’s mother the day of the crime. On the return trip, he suggested to his passenger, St. Johns Lieutenant Donald Jones, that the child committed the crime. The die was cast.

Rodriguez even coerced a witness to supply information friendly to the Rodriguez version. Fortunately, the witness gave a written statement on the day of the murders that contradicted the version that Rodriguez coerced.

Others involved in the saga were culpable of tunnel vision as well.

The child’s attorney agreed to the plea deal to move the case to a resolution so the child could get on with his life. But, that seems to be not the case. If the child were to watch cable television, he would be violating the plea agreement. Prosecutors like Whiting would eager to demand prison for such a minor departure.

This child will not recover from his treatment. He will be distrustful of law enforcement. He will not be allowed to grow up in a normal social environment. He will be at the mercy of treatment programs beholding to the State of Arizona.

I would like to see one of the innocence projects take on this case. Or, some professional health organizations take a stand on the misconduct and mistreatment of this child by the interrogators and other law enforcement persons.

I would like to see the prosecutors and law enforcement persons involved be held accountable for their misbehavior in this case.

And we should all keep in mind that when the wrong person is coerced into pleading to a crime, the real perpetrators are still out there. They will act again.