Finding evidence/truth

[abram]

Earlier when I wrote debunking police evidence I hinted, Deborah may have influenced Janessa's statements to police. Other members of the family may also have done so. To make my point I'll focus on Deborah. She may have some feelings of doubt about Jordan's guilt, but she is so far into what she has influenced that she can't come out of it. That is why she is so persistent about a conviction. She needs help.
Deborah Houk and Adam Harvey were sitting together in court, or so I seem to remember reading somewhere (I apologize because I lost the link to it and I am going by memory on that point.) Considering Adam's past with Deborah's daughter this must be the guilty hanging with the victim to vindicate himself and artificially show his innocence or Deborah never took her daughter seriously and considers Adam a nice guy and Kenzie was just wrong about him. Poor Deborah must have the wool pulled over her eyes by Adam. Both need help.
The police should be and should have been watching these two and studying the psychology of their behaviour, events attended and interactions between Adam and Deborah/Jack.

[Melissa]

Grace posted they were sitting together in court. I'm not sure where she saw that, but her information is reliable so I'm sure when she reads the board she can advise. I wonder what the Deborah/Adam relationship is all about as well. Seems odd. I think you might be right though.

A perpetrator often inserts themselves into the investigation or into the family situation. And Adam appears to have done this either intentionally or for other reasons. That's a red flag.

[abram]

26 pellets – 26 years old?

Why doesn't the fact that only 26 pellets were found clear Jordan and why 26 pellets?

A typical bird-shot has 180 pellets yet only 26 were found. The shot was fired within a foot of Kenzie and there wasn't an exit wound – so surely all ammo is accounted for. Did the perpetrator leave a clue?
Kenzie was 26 years old and 26 pellets were used to kill her! Does anyone think Jordan would go so far as to empty the pellets out of a 20 gauge shell and place 26 pellets back in it? No I don't think so. Whoever was behind this murder knew Kenzie and her age or it sure was quite coincidental. This bullet/ammo was marked for Kenzie by someone with a well considered plan. Possibly to frame Jordan and clear him at the same time. That would distract the police and buy the killer valuable time to escape.
Imagine a man who falls in love with Kenzie. They have a good share of fights, she gets pregnant, has a baby girl. The man loves his baby daughter but Kenzie dumps him and sues for support. She wins and even gets protection from him. Does this man even get to see his daughter anymore? To add insult to injury he then finds out that the girl is not his daughter. Kenzie continues to demand support payments. Might this man have a motive – might he make a plan – might he be able to fool the police.

Where are the police specialists?

[wolfi2]

that's of course suspicious, if not, it would be a big coincidence!

[Melissa]

Did they do paternity tests on the baby Kenzie was carrying when she was murdered? Because if she told one man he was the father, and he wasn't, it stands to reason she might do it a second time...

[abram]

It stands to reason. One has to wonder if she was going to do it all over again - get pregnant, marry, divorce & sue. But I think Chris is the first guy she she would have ever married, so maybe she had intentions for the relationship to last.
Paternity tests? That I don't know.

[abram]

This quote is from the same source as my post and quotes in 'Debunking Police Evidence'

“Police Error (PE) and Misconduct

Police officers or detectives are often the first members of the criminal

justice system to intervene in a criminal case and become involved at a very

critical time—the beginning. The activities of the police at this juncture and

how well they do their job can have dramatic implications for an innocent

individual who has become a suspect. Prosecutors, when making a decision

concerning whether to prosecute a case, rely heavily on the evidence pre-

sented to them by police officials. Evidence properly collected by police

should be able to be properly reviewed by prosecutors. However, when

police conduct sloppy investigations or manufacture evidence (e.g., the

Rampart scandal3) or produce mistaken eyewitness identification because

of biased identification techniques (e.g., misuse of show ups or conducting

biased photospreads or lineups), prosecutors may make decisions to use

such evidence without full knowledge of how it was acquired. Thus, once

PE or misconduct contributes to a wrongful arrest, there is an increased

likelihood that other criminal justice officials will add momentum to the

mistake. Huff et al. (1996) call this phenomenon the ratification of error:

The criminal justice system, starting with the police investigation of an alleged

crime and culminating in the appellate courts, tends to ratify errors made at

the lower levels of the system. The further the case progresses in the system,

the less chance there is that the error will be discovered and corrected, unless

it involves a basic issue of constitutional rights and due process. (p. 144)

For example, Leo and Ofshe (1997-1998) found that police-induced

false confessions substantially bias jury evaluations of evidence and are per-

ceived as dispositive of issues of guilt (see also Gross, 1996, 1998).

Extant research confirms that PE and misconduct are significant contribu-

tors to the wrongful conviction of the innocent (Conners et al., 1996; Gross

et al., 2005; Huff et al., 1986, 1996; Leo & Ofshe, 1997-1998; McCloskey,

1989; Radelet et al.,1992; Scheck et al., 2000; Yant, 1991).4

Prosecutorial Error (PrE) and Misconduct

Prosecutorial error or misconduct is another factor associated with wrong-

ful conviction (see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 1993; Miller v. Pate, 1967). The

prosecutor is considered by many to be the most powerful individual within

the criminal justice process (Gershman, 1999; Gottfredson & Gottfredson,

1988). Because of their position within the criminal justice process, prose-

cutors’ errors or misconduct can result in devastating consequences to an

innocent suspect (Huff et al., 1996; Leo & Ofshe, 1997-1998). Prosecutors,

who enjoy significant immunity, have wide discretion regarding how many

investigative resources to use, which cases to dismiss, and which cases to

prosecute. By deciding to dismiss a case believed to be based on unreliable

evidence (e.g., a false confession, misidentification) or where there exists

trustworthy exculpatory evidence, prosecutors can correct errors of other

system participants. On the other hand, when a prosecutor pursues a case

based on bias, limited information, or less than reliable evidence, a wrong-

ful conviction can occur.
”

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

[abram]

From 'The Police Chief' magazine, the link and some quotes which support info from the Ohio study about wrongful convictions. It also discusses wrongful convictions influenced by politics, whether police were in an 'information and fact finding mode' or a 'bad guy catching mode' and more. Are you listening Lawrence County, Pennsylvania Police?

www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2212&issue_id=102010

“The Innocence Project has documented 47 rapes and 19 murders committed by people who remained at large because someone else had been wrongly convicted of their crimes.

Law enforcement suffers as well. When something goes awry in the criminal justice system, the public is quick to blame the police. Law enforcement is highly visible and readily identified. For the police to be effective, law enforcement professionals must earn and keep the trust of their communities. To do so is not easy; in fact, a recent article in the Community Oriented Policing Services office e-newsletter reports that despite demonstrable improvements in police performance and professionalism, public confidence in the police has remained stuck at or below 60 percent for the last 30 years.5 Wrongful convictions, whether or not they result from police conduct, erode that trust and damage law enforcement’s reputation.”

“The Role of Police Image
As law enforcement officers examine their professional practices and seek ways to reduce the incidence of wrongful convictions, they must consider one more potential contributing factor: their view of themselves and of their role. If a sample of the population (including law enforcement) was asked about the role of the police with respect to crime, responses would probably resemble the following:
To solve crimes
To catch “bad guys”
To gather facts and information
To arrest the perpetrator
All of these are accurate descriptions and legitimate roles for the police, but they are not equivalent. For example, the role of catcher of criminals is much narrower than the role of gatherer of facts. The two are not incompatible—indeed, unless the officer witnesses the crime in progress, catching the perpetrator will require gathering facts. But if officers view their jobs as “to catch bad guys” by fighting crime, arresting suspects, clearing cases, and so on, then once officers have identified viable suspects, it would be reasonable (and almost irresistible) that they focus their efforts on building cases against those suspects and later assist the prosecution in any way they legally can to obtain convictions.
On the other hand, if officers view their jobs as “to gather facts and information,” then they will be equally interested in all facts relevant to the crimes they are investigating; they will be just as interested in excluding the innocent as in finding the guilty.
If one surveyed police detectives across the country as to which role they view as primary, many, and perhaps even most, would opt for “to gather facts and information.” Yet a number of influences in the political world and society at large tend to push investigators to be catchers of bad guys rather than neutral fact finders. These include
limited resources available for conducting investigations;
political pressure to solve crimes and make an arrest quickly, especially in highprofile crimes;
measuring investigative performance by numbers of cases closed;
TV and movie images of police as highaction criminal catchers;
police trainers who promote the warrior image, which may enhance officer safety but also clearly favors the bad-guy catcher role over the neutral fact finder role; and
equipment manufacturers and vendors who promote the image of police as elite crime fighters (for example, describing all products, even socks, as “tactical”).8
From the standpoint of reducing wrongful convictions, the image of police as criminal catchers carries with it a serious danger: increased potential for investigational bias—the unconscious tendency to look for facts that support a theory and ignore ones that undermine it. Good investigative protocols can reduce the effect of investigational bias, but they cannot entirely eliminate it, in part because it is both unintentional and unconscious.”

[abram]

Does anyone know anything about this person and what she posted?

blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/03/jordan-brown-lost-boy-lost-family.html

joella
June 13, 2010 11:38 PM
i am very close to the situation, i know both families. His mother DID abandon him and not because she got sick. she had one surgery and was only in recovery for one day, she also has another child which amazingly enough she never had to give up or abandon. The media also doesn't tell you that there was no blood redidue on his clothing whatsoever and that the original statements from the other children was exactly the same as Jordan's. Janessa stated to the police that her mother was rushing them out the door because the bus was there. Apperently, she had to have been fine when they left for school. The media also doesn't state the fact that when the officers first arrived the 5 year old daughter stated to the police that her "dadady" made her mommy bleed. jordan is not her daddy and at 5 she knows who he is. Kenzie had a PFA against the father of the girls and he threatened to kill her at a local club the night before she was murdered. I do feel terrible about what happened but I don't think there was enough investigation about what happened, very sadly the justice system in this area doesn't give a rip about anything but putting someone behind bars, even if its not the right someone. There was also a confession by someone else, that they stated to the police that they committed the crime but then withdrew their statement. There is nothing whatsoever linking this poor 12 yearold to the murder except the fact that he had a gun. Our local police decided Jordan was guilty as soon as they found the gun and did no more investigation, they just twisted what they told the media to fit their description. As far as I am concerned Jon Bongevengo should be doing time as well for taking away any hope of a normal life for this poor child without even making sure that he is actually guilty. In this country one of our rights is that we are innocent until proven guilty but in Jordan's case that was stripped from him. The media and the police have made him guilty without even trying to find out if he is innocent. This is situation that needs alot of prayer. No matter what the outcome Jordan has been punished immensely, he will never be able to walk down the street and not have someone judge him, or go to school or anywhere again. Please look at his past, he has never done anything whatsoever to indicate that he is a social path, and for all of you that have it in your heads that he is nothing but one, then shame on you.

[abram]

Who commits a crime as soon as they get up? Almost no-one. Maybe someone because he didn't go to bed until after the crime.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Note: Violent crimes include murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data are from law enforcement agencies in 21 states and the District of Columbia.

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03303.asp?qaDate=2001

[abram]

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03104.asp?qaDate=2006

Q: How does juvenile homicide offending vary by age? A: Homicide offending increases with the age of the juvenile offender; in 2006, about 9% of known juvenile homicide offenders were under age 15, while 74% were ages 16 or 17.



Under age 15 is 9% of juvenile homicide and under age 14 is no more than a third of that. Approx 3%. That works out to about .3 per 1000 homicides committed by juveniles under the age of 14 between 6am and 9am.
In approx numbers the graph by age, in 2006, represents 1,300 homicides or .4 homicides for under age 14. I suppose if you separate under 14 to 13, 12 & 11 then .4 would lower to .13 homicides or 1 in every 7 or 8 years.

Jordan's alleged crime has a low probability and weak evidence, I'd even suggest that some of the evidence clears him. You would think prosecution and judges would be on the ball but it doesn't look like they are. It is a big mistake to have the criminal justice system connected to any kind of popularity contest – politics.

[abram]

I remember at Jordan's age I was a handful – rough and tough and wild – hard to control. When police came to our house one day I instantly thought they were after me. I ran around the house saying the police are here, the police are here, hide, hide - while looking for a place to hide. My mom told me to relax because it was a friendly visit, nothing I did. I guess my parents and him were talking about how I tried to hide so unbeknown to me, as a joke, he came into the living room after me. I ran to get behind the couch but he got me and tickled me half to death – I could hardly breath. After that I felt police were my friend and nobody to be afraid of – even if I was a wild rough ape.

At that age I remember being at family friends house were there were four boys my age and younger. They wrestled, fought, shoved each other into walls and down the stairs. I thought I was rough, but nothing like these kids. No-one broke any bones – at least while I was there.

In those days we didn't have electronic games. Tv was mostly for adults and only on during the evenings – when we were supposed to be in bed, where we were rough too and a spanking after multiple warnings was not uncommon before we went to sleep.

I remember getting quite upset if my parents fought but not by anything else, not even punishment – then it was fear of what was coming and then a good a good cry. I didn't have sympathy for anyone who wasn't as fortunate as I was or who didn't store any nuts for the winter – I looked after myself, I had plenty of confidence and I figured everyone should look after themselves just like me.

At Jordan's age, I didn't have empathy, sympathy or necessarily know what I did wrong until I was told (seriously hurting anyone was something I did know not to do)– nor was I worried about punishment until it was at my door. We were boys, but today you can't pass gas without consequences. We all grew up to be caring responsible adults with families. So I don't get why psychiatrists or anyone else can think juveniles are supposed to be little angles – that wouldn't be normal.

Normally I didn't want to admit the truth or admit to wrongdoing – I also had to be run down and caught and the coaxed into telling the truth. We were almost never punished for telling the truth, that made telling it easier and easier. I was trained to admit and be truthful.

I don't think every child had my advantages in truth telling and I guarantee, it doesn't take long to go back to lying or not admitting if you are not treated fairly – even if a judge says this or that, that doesn't always make it fair.

So isn't it understandable for a juvenile to avoid blame in an institution. If others aren't, then I suggest they know the system and they are playing it to their advantage while Jordan is naive and being himself. Could this be what is going on?

I pray for you Jordan and everyone involved.

[abram]

Motto wrote. "(Brown) is an individual with significant personality problems that are complicated by his presenting to people in authority a version of himself that does not include the negative aspects."
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_674015.html

That is like asking a salesman to advertise his product's shortcomings. Get serious Judge Motto. He may be trying to resolve his shortcomings without admitting them and telling you isn't going to fix his negative aspects.

[wolfi2]

news from the Wandervogel site
Shortened Quote, please read the whole article by clicking the link below

Yesterday I received a call from Chris Brown encouraging me to contact one of Jordan’s lawyers about a longstanding disagreement I have had with the legal team about their approach to media relations. By any objective measure, their approach has been an unmitigated disaster, and there has been nothing I have been able to do in almost two years to get them to change course......

wandervogeldiary.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/overdue/#comments

[abram]

Wandervogel is a good site.

Here is a quote and link of interest;

www.aclu.org/human-rights-racial-justice/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-life-without-parole-michigan-juveniles

“DETROIT, MI – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan today filed a lawsuit on behalf of nine Michigan citizens who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were minors. The lawsuit charges that a Michigan sentencing scheme that denies the now-adult plaintiffs an opportunity for parole and a fair hearing to demonstrate their growth, maturity and rehabilitation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates their constitutional rights.

"These life without parole sentences ignore the very real differences between children and adults, abandoning the concepts of redemption and second chances," .........“
.........
“The ACLU's complaint asks the court to declare that denying children a meaningful opportunity for parole violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. It also alleges violations of the plaintiffs' rights under international law and treaties.”