The Batman
November 22nd, 2008, 12:30 PM
A police videotape released Tuesday shows a tearful 8-year-old in St. Johns confessing to murder after more than an hour of questioning by detectives, then burying his face in his shirt.
"I think, um, I think I shot my dad because he was suffering, I think," the third-grader says. "So, I may have shot him."
That admission led detectives to arrest the boy on Nov. 6, one day after his father and another man were shot dead at the family's home on a quiet residential street. (http://gannett.gcion.com/adlink/5111/328554/0/154/AdId=139071;BnId=1;itime=374928078;nodecode=yes;link=http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/10621-66737-13791-5?mpt=374928078)
Police have said the child's initial account contained numerous discrepancies, which caused investigators to interrogate him further. Roy Melnick, police chief in St. Johns, said last week that the crime appeared to be carefully planned and that he advocated the boy be tried as an adult.
Since then, a judge has issued a gag order, which prevented the child's attorneys from comment Tuesday. Earlier, they had complained that their client was subjected to an interview without parental authorization or legal counsel.
Steven Drizen, legal director at the Center on Wrongful Convictions in Chicago, and an expert on juvenile false convictions, said children are especially vulnerable to leading questions and pressure during police interrogations.
"There is a heightened risk of false confessions when police officers use tactics that are legally permissible with adults on children," he added.
Drizen said false confessions accounted for about one-fifth of all wrongful convictions in a 2004 study, with high percentages of those involving murder cases and child suspects.
The two victims suffered multiple wounds in the Nov. 5 attack. Police have said the suspected weapon is a single-shot .22 rifle that the boy's father, a hunter, had given to him.
The Arizona Republic is not identifying the boy or his father. The second victim, Tim Romans, lived at the house and was a work colleague of the father.
The police video was made available Tuesday by the Apache County Attorney's Office, which also released photographs from the autopsy and pictures taken by police at the crime scene.
Investigative records are public, and a court ban on releasing documents in the case was lifted last week. But police and prosecutors have yet to make the homicide report available or to disclose the results of key crime-lab tests. There has been no indication whether ballistics examinations verified the murder weapon, or if gunpowder residue was found on the boy.
The interview was conducted by two female law-enforcement officers whose identities could not be determined.
In the video, one of the detectives initiates conversation by emphasizing the importance of telling the truth.
The boy, wearing pajama bottoms and seated in a stuffed chair, seems articulate and intelligent. Through much of the videotaped interview, the child fidgets and wriggles, denying any role in the slayings. With prompting and pressure, his story begins to change. First, he says he may have shot at a vehicle he saw fleeing the scene. Later, he says the gun may have gone off by accident. Finally, he says he thinks he fired two shots at his father to end his suffering after he already had been wounded and two shots at Romans for the same reason.
The escalating admissions are often phrased as possibilities or questions. He never admits to initially wounding his father and Romans but says he may have shot them because they were in agony.
The interview begins as he tells detectives that, after getting off the school bus, he wandered around his neighborhood for about 90 minutes because no one arrived home from work on Wednesdays until 5 p.m.
When he finally returned home, the boy says, he saw a white sedan race down the street. Then he looked at the house: "I saw the door (was) open, and I saw Tim (Romans) right there. And I ran and I said, 'Dad! Dad!' And I went upstairs and I saw him. And there was blood all over his face. And I think I touched him. I just kind of checked to see if he was a little bit alive."
The boy says he cried beside his father for about 30 minutes before going next door to tell a young neighbor, "My dad is dead." The neighbor phoned his parent at work, who came home and discovered the crime scene. He then called police on a cellphone.
During the interview, the detectives claim that other sources told them the boy was in the house during the killings and that someone had repeatedly called out the boy's name about the time of the gunshots. The child denies that ever happened.
Gradually, the investigators become more aggressive. They explain fingerprints and gunshot residue, telling the boy, "If you shot the gun, we're going to find out."
"I think I might have shot the gun," he says finally, "because I think I went in the house and the car was still driving on the street, and I think I shot at the car."
"What happened?" the woman asks. "Come on, tell us the truth."
"I'm not ... I'm not lying," the child answers.
"Did you shoot your dad?"
"I don't know."
Twenty minutes later, the same question: "Did you shoot your dad?"
The boy rubs his eyes and covers his face, saying quietly, "I think so."
"You think so. Did you shoot him because you were mad at him?"
The boy shakes his head, "No."
"I think, um, I think I shot my dad because he was suffering, I think," the third-grader says. "So, I may have shot him."
That admission led detectives to arrest the boy on Nov. 6, one day after his father and another man were shot dead at the family's home on a quiet residential street. (http://gannett.gcion.com/adlink/5111/328554/0/154/AdId=139071;BnId=1;itime=374928078;nodecode=yes;link=http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/10621-66737-13791-5?mpt=374928078)
Police have said the child's initial account contained numerous discrepancies, which caused investigators to interrogate him further. Roy Melnick, police chief in St. Johns, said last week that the crime appeared to be carefully planned and that he advocated the boy be tried as an adult.
Since then, a judge has issued a gag order, which prevented the child's attorneys from comment Tuesday. Earlier, they had complained that their client was subjected to an interview without parental authorization or legal counsel.
Steven Drizen, legal director at the Center on Wrongful Convictions in Chicago, and an expert on juvenile false convictions, said children are especially vulnerable to leading questions and pressure during police interrogations.
"There is a heightened risk of false confessions when police officers use tactics that are legally permissible with adults on children," he added.
Drizen said false confessions accounted for about one-fifth of all wrongful convictions in a 2004 study, with high percentages of those involving murder cases and child suspects.
The two victims suffered multiple wounds in the Nov. 5 attack. Police have said the suspected weapon is a single-shot .22 rifle that the boy's father, a hunter, had given to him.
The Arizona Republic is not identifying the boy or his father. The second victim, Tim Romans, lived at the house and was a work colleague of the father.
The police video was made available Tuesday by the Apache County Attorney's Office, which also released photographs from the autopsy and pictures taken by police at the crime scene.
Investigative records are public, and a court ban on releasing documents in the case was lifted last week. But police and prosecutors have yet to make the homicide report available or to disclose the results of key crime-lab tests. There has been no indication whether ballistics examinations verified the murder weapon, or if gunpowder residue was found on the boy.
The interview was conducted by two female law-enforcement officers whose identities could not be determined.
In the video, one of the detectives initiates conversation by emphasizing the importance of telling the truth.
The boy, wearing pajama bottoms and seated in a stuffed chair, seems articulate and intelligent. Through much of the videotaped interview, the child fidgets and wriggles, denying any role in the slayings. With prompting and pressure, his story begins to change. First, he says he may have shot at a vehicle he saw fleeing the scene. Later, he says the gun may have gone off by accident. Finally, he says he thinks he fired two shots at his father to end his suffering after he already had been wounded and two shots at Romans for the same reason.
The escalating admissions are often phrased as possibilities or questions. He never admits to initially wounding his father and Romans but says he may have shot them because they were in agony.
The interview begins as he tells detectives that, after getting off the school bus, he wandered around his neighborhood for about 90 minutes because no one arrived home from work on Wednesdays until 5 p.m.
When he finally returned home, the boy says, he saw a white sedan race down the street. Then he looked at the house: "I saw the door (was) open, and I saw Tim (Romans) right there. And I ran and I said, 'Dad! Dad!' And I went upstairs and I saw him. And there was blood all over his face. And I think I touched him. I just kind of checked to see if he was a little bit alive."
The boy says he cried beside his father for about 30 minutes before going next door to tell a young neighbor, "My dad is dead." The neighbor phoned his parent at work, who came home and discovered the crime scene. He then called police on a cellphone.
During the interview, the detectives claim that other sources told them the boy was in the house during the killings and that someone had repeatedly called out the boy's name about the time of the gunshots. The child denies that ever happened.
Gradually, the investigators become more aggressive. They explain fingerprints and gunshot residue, telling the boy, "If you shot the gun, we're going to find out."
"I think I might have shot the gun," he says finally, "because I think I went in the house and the car was still driving on the street, and I think I shot at the car."
"What happened?" the woman asks. "Come on, tell us the truth."
"I'm not ... I'm not lying," the child answers.
"Did you shoot your dad?"
"I don't know."
Twenty minutes later, the same question: "Did you shoot your dad?"
The boy rubs his eyes and covers his face, saying quietly, "I think so."
"You think so. Did you shoot him because you were mad at him?"
The boy shakes his head, "No."