Debunking Police Evidence

[abram]

Debunking Police evidence;

1. Re gun residue - In rural areas, probably half the state, and everyone in Brown/Houk household would test positive, regardless, there were two particles of gun residue found (a minuscule amount).
2. Re shotgun shell – the yard most likely had many empty shells strewn about – the shotgun may not be the murder weapon.
3. Re retrieved pellets – only 26 pellets retrieved – 20 gauge bird-shot usually contains about 180 pellets – brings up the questions 'what was the ammo used and what was the murder weapon?
4. Testimony by Janessa – question of coercion, very young, she wasn't afraid to question Jordan, she wasn't afraid of him, why was it necessary to interrogate her three times.

From The New Castle News Online
“Their court filing states Janessa was present the entire time Jordan was at the home that morning. According to the attorneys, her original two statements to police indicated she noticed nothing unusual.”

And
“Yet they said that after Janessa went to live with her mother’s family, she provided a third statement to authorities. In it, the girl said she had heard a shotgun blast before she and Jordan had left the house to catch a school bus.”

Then
“Their motion notes she did not testify at Jordan’s preliminary hearing March 29. However she was at the courthouse that day, they said, where she was interviewed by “members of the district attorney’s office and possibly members of the Pennsylvania state police” prior to the hearing.”

Then
“The defense had requested disclosure of any statements Janessa had provided that day and in the days leading up to the hearing. But the district attorney’s office turned down the request on the grounds nothing Janessa has said had been put down in writing.”

Then
“Because original statements by Janessa had the effect of clearing Jordan, while it was only a later one that implicated him, the defense says it needs access to more recent information she may have offered to authorities.”

www.ncnewsonline.com/local/x546275917/Jordan-Browns-lawyers-seek-witness-statements

Conclusion - Janessa's third statement was at least, 'scripted, encouraged, rehearsed and practiced'. This may explain why Kenzie's mother is so eager to convict Jordan. Janessa's third statements were the basis for Jordan's arrest.

5. Footprints – According to weather data it snowed in Wampum at 6:47am, at 7:47am cloudy, at 8:47 am it snowed. The crime allegedly committed around 8am, left for school at 8:13am, snowed at 8:47, the tree trimmer came to the door at 10am and 911 response arrived at 10:15am, snow should have covered earlier tracks leaving the tree trimmer and 911 response to make tracks.

[Melissa]

Abram, this is excellent. Thank you for posting this!

Also add to this the fact that there should have been some blood on either the shotgun or on Jordan's clothing. Yet there is no mention of blood on either in any media reports, legal briefs, or anything else related to the case that I have found. This is a big one to me.

[abram]

Thanks Melissa, please feel free to use whatever may help Jordan.
I wonder if a form letter, that interested readers could get here and forward to a list of persons, also listed here, who can make a difference, would be worthwhile?
Although there isn't much traffic here yet, the letter may spread, other sites may link to it and traffic may increase.

[Melissa]

That's an idea. What kind of people are you thinking of?

[abram]

I thought you would have a handle on people for this.
I'm thinking - Attorney General, Senator, Governor, maybe higher and lower (national level & change) - key people with power and/or influence to correct Jordan's situation and for rule changes, so the issue of juvenile or adult doesn't rise again – a serious case could be handled in juvenile system, reconsidered at the end, if considered rehabilitated then a form of release and if not rehabilitated of to the adult system.

Two years to a juvenile goes by extremely slowly when compared to an adult where time goes by faster the older you are. Two years is a tremendous cost to the child and the government - one socially the other dollars, not to mention the possible cost to society. I don't believe that it serves the public interest or its safety. Young people should be processed on a fast track and given special considerations.

Policing is another matter. How does this happen when the evidence is so weak it doesn't support the case against Jordan but in seems to support a case against Adam (ammo, history). They seem to have been too quick drawing conclusions before all the facts were in. Some sort of training, or speciality unit for handling juvenile cases is in order. No eleven year old should be railroaded like Jordan was and left to languish in jail.

[wolfi2]

about traffic here, I cheked in sometimes but didn't write much. I like to say, you all make a great job!
thank you

[Melissa]

Thank you so much, Wolfi.

[abram]

More evidence of possible coercion.

First this exaggeration; No one is perfect, that includes Kenzie as can be seen by court documents. The quote following is from CNN. "She'd give her last penny to everyone," said her mother, Debbie Houk. "She loved everyone and didn't have a mean bone in her body." www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/10/pennsylvania.young.murder.defendant/index.html

It is conceivable that Janessa was counselled by someone while she was staying at her mother's family before she gave her third statement to the police, in as many days, and is why her statement changed and it had the effect condemning Jordan.

On the video, check out the nice little line Adalynn speaks out on cue from her grandmama. She was turning to leave as she spoke them. I don't think those were her own words, but words for the benefit of the media and their own appearance in it.

[abram]

This post shows how the system is prone to mistakes. I'm suggesting they should be aware of it in Jordan's case and maybe they can prevent any more injustice towards him.

Here are some quotes from a study concerning mistakes in the Criminal Justice system. The article may somehow, give us ideas to preventing a wrongful conviction and providing a release for Jordan - iIf nothing else than bail because of the shallow case against him. We could plead Jordan's case to the Innocence Project and plead for law changes so juveniles don't spend two years in jail without a trial. My apologies for this posts length. I'm stopping here as it is getting way too long. It is however, a very interesting read.

“Liebman et al. (2000) state that the most

common errors prompting reversals are incompetent defense attorneys and

police and prosecutors who fail to suppress exculpatory evidence
”

It should be mandatory for police to release all evidence good or bad for the prosecution.

“Various studies have
provided estimates of the frequency of wrongful conviction ranging from

.5% to as high as 20% (Huff et al., 1986; McCloskey, 1989; Poveda, 2001).

Considering the fact that the Justice Department reports that there are now

in excess of 2,000,000 people behind bars (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004),

these estimations suggest that between 10,000 and 400,000 wrongfully

convicted individuals are incarcerated. Even if one accepts an error rate at

the low end of the spectrum, say 1%, this translates into 20,000 individuals

now incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.
”

“This research, however, takes a narrower approach than was taken by Huff

et al. (1986). Although Huff et al. addressed both perceptions of system errors

(errors or misconduct by police, prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge) and

nonsystem errors (e.g., eyewitnesses and expert testimony error, false accusa-

tions, false confessions, community pressure), the focus of this article is on

the perceptions of criminal justice professionals concerning only system

errors that have been determined by prior research to be associated with

wrongful conviction.
”

This, “This narrower approach is taken because numerous

research endeavors in the past 20 years suggest that it is system errors that

often precipitate, exacerbate, and amplify nonsystem errors.
“
is what is happening to Jordan.

“Also, community pres-sure to obtain a conviction for a particular crime has, at times, provoked all

members of the criminal justice profession into system error actions (Huff

et al., 1996). In sum, research suggests that a reduction in system error should

ultimately lead to a reduction in nonsystem errors.
”

This from Ohio but is probably as valid in Pennsylvania or any other state. The above are quotes from, as is what follows;

www.sagepub.com/spohnstudy/articles/1/Ramsey.pdf

“Robert J. Ramsey

Indiana University East, Richmond

James Frank

University of Cincinnati, OH


T
he wrongful conviction of innocent defendants in the United States is a

continuing concern among criminal justice professionals and policy mak-

ers. Attention to this problem has come from the highest levels of govern-

ment. Former prosecutor and now U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy stated,


These mistakes carry a high personal and social price. They undermine the

public’s confidence in our judicial system, they produce unbearable anguish for

innocent people and their families and for the victims of these crimes, and they

compromise public safety because for every wrongly convicted person, there is

a real criminal who may still be roaming the streets (Leahy, 2003).

In 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium on the

state’s death penalty after stating,
”

“The basic impulses for examining issues related to wrongful conviction are

related to three primary concerns. First is the concern for individual justice.

The belief that all law-abiding people should be free of oppression from the

criminal justice system makes wrongful conviction especially repugnant to

many U.S. citizens.

A second impulse that drives the research on wrongful conviction is that

of public safety. When a wrongfully accused individual is convicted of a

crime, that person is punished in place of the person who actually commit-

ted the offense. Therefore, for every suspect wrongfully convicted, there is a

corresponding guilty individual who has not been brought to justice and

who may be continuing to commit crimes in the community (see Justice

Thurgood Marshall’s dissent in Manson v. Brathwaite, 1977). Scheck,

Neufeld, and Dwyer (2000) note, “All wrongfully convicted individuals take

the lash of punishment for someone else’s crime; that is the very definition

of their predicament. Far too often, they are surrogates for serial criminals

and killers” (p. 244).

Third, wrongful conviction is a concern to many people because it under-

mines public confidence in the criminal justice system. Every year, stories

come from the media concerning individuals who have languished for years

in prison or who have faced execution and are later found to have been

wrongfully convicted. Stories of this nature can shake the faith of criminal

justice professionals and the citizenry alike in the ability of the criminal jus-

tice system to identify criminals and achieve justice. Wrongful convictions,

therefore, can damage the symbolic status of the criminal justice process—

a process that symbolizes America’s moral stance against crime and the

desire to achieve justice (Liebman et al., 2002). This damage ultimately

places a burden on the integrity, prestige, reputation, credibility, and effec-

tiveness of the entire criminal justice process.
”

www.sagepub.com/spohnstudy/articles/1/Ramsey.pdf

[wolfi2]

That's a good article, thanks for sharing it.


I still have the feeling that in Jordan's case it appears that he is guilty until proven innocent.

[abram]

I have to agree wolfi2. The article explains how system mistakes starting with police evidence are amplified and more difficult to resolve as the case goes through the system. It also states public pressure can lead to bad decisions and wrongful conviction.

I'm hoping people in responsible positions do the right thing and resolve this wrongful charge - asap - before trial - for poor evidence.

[abram]

I'll add, Jordan is not a gang member or a terrorist. Some laws get passed with the pretense it only applies, mob members or some situation. As soon as passed or sometime thereafter those same laws start to be applied where they weren't intended. I think that is another aspect of what is occurring with Jordan.
The lesson here; If anyone anywhere wants to pass such a law, beware eventually it will be misapplied against you or someone you know or in a case which finally hits you between the eyes, so speak up against it. Register your discontent or we become partially responsible for that law. But most of as stay quite if it doesn't affect us now and when it comes round to us - it's too late. So speak out if it isn't right even if it doesn't directly affect you.

[Melissa]

Great article Abram. I agree with both you and Wolfi. I read people's comments on articles posted regarding Jordan's case and I can see that people do assume he is guilty of these murders. There is a true lack of knowledge about the facts behind this case, or even the reality that he has put in a plea of "not guilty" and should therefore be afforded the opportunity to attempt to prove his innocence in a court of law before the public tries him first.

[abram]

Physiology and psychiatry are subjective sciences and thus more prone to errors tah other sciences?

Abstract
from 'The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry'
1.D Faust and
2.J Ziskin

"The involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists within the legal arena continues to grow rapidly but remains highly controversial. Extensive research on clinical judgement provides a scientific basis for clarifying the growing disputes about the values of such professional activities. Studies show that professionals often fail to reach reliable or valid conclusions and that the accuracy of their judgements does not necessarily surpass that of laypersons, thus raising substantial doubt that psychologists or psychiatrists meet legal standards for expertise. Factors that underlie the research findings and implications for courtroom testimony are discussed. "

full text in pdf; www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/courses/hon182/Expert_witness_in_psychology_SCIENCE_1988.pdf

Other articles at; www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4861/31.short

[abram]

This is interesting for the case of Janessa's possible coercion. It shows how readily a child will tell you what you want to here. Link and a quote follow;

www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/6586-parents-under-siege-in-global-battle-against-state-control-of-children
“In a case that goes all the way back to 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court will listen to arguments to decide whether an Oregon social worker and a deputy sheriff violated the rights of a nine-year-old girl (known in the case as “S.G.”) when they removed her from her elementary school classroom, without a court order or the consent of her mother, and spent the next two hours grilling her about allegations of sexual abuse on the part of her father.
While the girl originally denied that her father had sexually abused her, “she later testified that she was coerced into telling the investigators he had abused her because she thought it was the only way they would allow her to leave,” explained John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, a pro-family legal advocacy group that has taken an interest in the case. “The encounter reportedly so scared S.G. that she was physically sick that night and could not eat.””

And yet at the same time after being imprisoned for two years without trial, Jordan maintains his innocence. As mentioned elsewhere, there is no way Jordan would stand up to the kind of pressure the system and two years of incarceration would impress on him without confessing if he really did commit the crime. Janessa was 7, S.G. was 9 and Jordan 11, I suspect they all could be coerced into saying things to get out of a situation and with pressure, they all would confess to wrongs they committed.