Prosecutor and Police Undermining their Child Victim

The double homicide on 05 November, 2008 in St. Johns, Arizona, is still causing blowback to the law enforcement of St. Johns and Apache County. The Apache County Attorney Criss Candelaria has also received his fair share of criticism.

The fact is that police illegally interrogated an eight‑year‑old and claimed the child to be a murderer with nothing more than some coerced statements that don’t match the police and prosecution theory of the crime. Nor do the statements match any of the evidence released so far.

Two adult males were shot several times. One body was found on a cement slab with his head near an entry door. The other, the father of the accused, was found on an upper flight of stairs with feet pointing downward.

The claim so far has been that the men arrived home at 5:00 P.M. and were shot several times by the boy. A 911 call was made by 5:05 P.M. after the boy informed a neighbor that his father was shot.

Investigators are claiming that the boy shot each male at least four times with a Crickett Youth Rifle. This bolt‑action rifle requires a precise placement of the shell in the barrel. After the bolt is closed, the firing pin must be manually cocked before firing. Then the bolt is used to open the breech again. The only ammunition collected so far is a partial box of 22 magnum casings necked down to 17 caliber bullets. The empty shell casings around the scene do not match.

But, as part of a disturbing trend in law enforcement, the idea that facts and evidence are not needed is demonstrated again. At the preliminary hearing on 07 November, 2008, police misstated events and evidence and made general claims that will not stand up against real‑world facts.

The prosecutor had already released the confession video which led to a recently lifted gag order to be reinstated. Clips of this video have been distributed to the news media. Good Morning America has been showing extremely small portions in their attempt to incriminate the child.

The prosecutor has been engaged in other shenanigans as well, mouthing various nonsenses for his actions. He first attempted to drop one charge of murder with the intent of refiling at a later more convenient time. Candelaria has also leaked that he has proposed a plea deal. Candelaria claims that his actions will serve justice and to aid the victim’s families. But, he hasn’t explained how a probable false conviction is aiding anything.

Sergeant Lucas Rodriguez of the St. Johns Police Department has added to the undermining. He publicized a warrant that he said MAY show the boy planned the murders.

It seems that someone from the Arizona Child Protection Services (CPS) has decided that the child was tallying his spankings and had determined that at spanking 1000 someone would die. This is a stretch that any eight‑year‑old would make an organized attempt to keep an inventory of spankings. The CPS worker did not state if the child started this list with the first spanking or at what the age the child started the list .

The CPS and equivalents have been very poor at protecting children. This is another instance of supposed protective services attempting to brainwash children to make a high profile case for law enforcement. There is no independent evaluation. In the past, the Texas CPS took part in the mass kidnapping of children and then attempted brainwashing of the children. In the Fells Acres and Little Rascals sex abuses cases, the child protection people implanted memories in children that were bizarre and impossible. Some of these memories have persisted as the children became adults.

Again, we see that child protection services and social services simply cannot be trusted to place the best interest of the child above their own community politics. This Arizona CPS person is very willing to sacrifice a child at the bidding of law enforcement. I have no doubt that Rodriguez was behind this.

With no good motive and no evidence of a child in trouble, the prosecution has to manufacture a reason. If there is no evidence of sexual trauma then it must be parental abuse. But, the concept that a child of this age kept a running total of spankings is wishful think at best. When Rodriguez says he expects to find a diary detailing the planning; he has brainwashed himself.

At the hearing on 7 November, 2008, Rodriguez demonstrated evasiveness*. Also, Rodriguez laughed at the end many of his statements. According to the Ried (interrogation) Technique, laughter following a statement indicates a falsehood.

Apache County Attorney Candelaria has also joined in the undermining. He released information claiming that the boy’s grandmother and grandfather felt that the parents were too hard on the boy, and therefore the child was capable of murder. The grandmother also stated that the boy cuddled with her the night following the murders.

This may appear incriminating to some people, but statements from people in shock are not reliable. And, grandparents can be very wrong in claims regarding grandchildren.

A so far unnamed St. Johns’ policeman has also contributed. According to news reports, the officer first stated that the child had a flat demeanor. This is one of the ignorances that some police exhibit. They fancy themselves to be PhD psychologists and pass their diagnosis along as real. The same unnamed source recounted that the boy commented that his father would not be using a cell phone because the father is dead. The source stated that two jailers looked at the boy and walked away as if this was a statement of guilt.

We are still waiting for reliable evidence to incriminate the child. The prosecutor and police want to convict him based upon their need for a high profile conviction and to cover the inadequacies and incompetencies of the investigations.

Meanwhile, the likelihood that the real killers are getting away with murder is very high.

* One example of the evasiveness of Sergeant Rodriguez

Q: (Defense Attorney Benjamin Brewer) Okay, as far as your personal recollection on this ‑‑ on this whole case, what did you collect?

A: (Sergeant Lucas Rodriguez) We collected the ‑‑

Q: Not we; you. What did you collect?

A: Shell casings.

Q: Okay. You collected the shell casings.

A: I didn’t personally.