Post by Melissa on Feb 21, 2011 15:37:25 GMT -5
I wrote this. There are links to sources in the link below.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/303839
The fight to save 13-year-old Jordan Brown Special
Jordan Brown was 11 years old when he was arrested in February of 2009 for the murders of Kenzie Houk and her unborn baby in New Beaver, PA. As of the 21st of this month, Jordan will have been incarcerated for two years and he is still awaiting trial.
Jordan Brown has spent the majority of his two-year incarceration at the Edmund L. Thomas Adolescent Detention Center for juveniles. When he was arrested at 2:50 a.m. on the day following the murders, he was transported to the Lawrence County Jail. He was housed there until Wednesday, when the court agreed to have him moved to a juvenile facility. Upon being transferred to the Allencrest Juvenile Detention Center, officials determined that it would be less expensive to keep Jordan at the Edmund L. Thomas location and so the 11-year-old boy was moved a third time in just over a week.
Jordan is now awaiting the decision of a three-person Superior Court panel to determine if his case should be heard in juvenile or adult court. His case has been delayed because in the state of Pennsylvania juveniles aged 10 and older are automatically tried as adults for crimes such as homicide. An attorney representing a child charged with murder may file a motion to ask that the court decertify the case so it is tried in juvenile court. This is exactly what Jordan's attorneys did; however, the request was denied. The Supreme Court overheard Jordan's appeal earlier this year. No time frame has been given as to when the panel may render a decision.
Jordan's case is unique because is raises important questions about the quality of homicide investigations involving minors. At Jordan's preliminary hearing in March of 2009, the District Attorney revealed that the state's strongest evidence against the boy was a minute amount of gunpowder residue found on his clothing. The residue was detected on a shirt he was wearing on the evening of February 20th, 2009, and on a pair of pants taken from the residence during a search. Jordan and his father owned several guns and shot them on the property regularly, but this information was not taken into account to explain the residue on his clothing.
One of Jordan's attorney's expressed concern over the pants that had been tested, explaining that Jordan had changed clothes when he went to his grandmother's house the day Kenzie was murdered. He said that as soon as he realized this had happened he turned over the correct clothing to the police. According to Jordan's attorney, the pants Jordan wore earlier in the day were never tested.
Additional evidence presented at the preliminary hearing included Kenzie's father's testimony that Jordan was skilled at shooting. Jordan owned a shotgun that was found in his bedroom at the time of the murders. A trooper testified that upon opening the gun it smelled as though it had been recently fired. Jordan had used the gun to win a turkey shooting contest on Valentine's Day just six days before the murders. Ballistics testing also showed that the gun matched a spent shotgun shell that was found on the property in a location where Kenzie's 7-year-old daughter, Janessa, had later said she observed Jordan dropping something on the morning of the murders. The testing did not link the shell or the gun to the murders. No physical evidence directly tied Jordan to the murders, but he was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal homicide anyway.
Most surprisingly, one of the things that was not reported as having been found at either the preliminary hearing or in the legal documentation pertaining to the case, was any reference to blood or other DNA-material on Jordan's clothing. The coroner, Russell Noga, claimed that the shot was fired no more than a foot away from Kenzie. When a gun is fired at close range, particularly a shotgun, the result is a form of blood spatter known as blowback spatter, back spatter, or forward spatter. The lack of blood on Jordan's clothing or on the shotgun confiscated from his bedroom casts doubt on the police's claim that he used that gun to murder Kenzie.
Media sources have cited evidence against Jordan that was not presented at the preliminary hearing. Jordan and Janessa were each questioned at school on the day of the murders by trooper Janice Wilson. In Chris Brown's absence, a school counselor observed the interviews. The police claimed they attempted to reach Chris. However, Chris testified that he was never contacted and that police had many opportunities to ask him if they could speak to Jordan.
The interviews with the children yielded limited information. Janessa did not allude to anything unusual happening on the morning her mother was murdered. By contrast, Jordan recalled having seen a black truck on the property. He said it was parked near the garage. Investigators looked into this lead for approximately five hours before interviewing Jordan again at his grandmother's house later that evening. The trooper who interviewed him, Janice Wilson, claimed he changed his story and said the truck was white.
Media reports would eventually provide details about a third interview given by Janessa. The information was vague in terms of when the interview took place. In January of 2010, the New Castle News reported that the statements had been made while Janessa was living with her mother's family after Jordan had already been arrested. Janessa had given two prior statements where she had said she noticed nothing unusual on the morning of the murders, but her third statement was markedly different.
In the amended version of her story, Janessa said that she saw Jordan carrying two guns, including the shotgun, from his bedroom to the downstairs area of the home and that she heard a loud bang. She did not claim to have seen him shoot Kenzie, nor did she say she knew anything had happened to her mother prior to leaving the residence. She then made the statement that she saw Jordan drop something on the ground as they made their way to catch the school bus at about 8:13 a.m. Janessa's statements alleging that she saw Jordan with a shotgun the morning of the murders was never presented at the preliminary hearing.
Another puzzling aspect of the state's case against Jordan pertains to the footprints the police say they observed in the snow surrounding the property. The pre-adjudicatory motion stated the following:
"As a result of the light covering of snow, it was observable that the only footprints were those of the Defendant and Janessa when they left for school at approximately 8:14 a.m. There were no other footprints or tire tracks of any person or vehicle that would have approached the residence during the time in which the killing could have occurred."
The problem with this claim is that Chris Brown left the residence at about 7 a.m. to go to work. Tree trimmers were on the property prior to 10 a.m. and became aware that something had happened within the home when 4-year-old Adalynn ran crying from the home. She told the men her mother was unresponsive. After attempting to get a hold of the property's owner, one of the men called the police. Responders approached the home and one even testified about seeing Kenzie lying on her bed as soon as he entered the front door, in the bedroom to the right
Prior to arresting Jordan in the early morning hours on the day following the murders, police investigated Chris Brown and Kenzie's ex-boyfriend, Adam Harvey. Chris was cleared because he was working when the murders were said to have occurred. Little is known about the investigation into Harvey. Kenzie had taken a protective order out on Harvey a year before she died because he had threatened to hurt or kill her and her family multiple times. The order, dated February 8th, 2008, cited Harvey as the father of one of Kenzie's children. A web-site maintained by Kenzie's family merely states that Harvey's alibi "checked out".
Dan Dailey, who is in close contact with Chris Brown and Jordan's defense, stated that the biggest obstacle to obtaining justice for Jordan is "the fact that the media promulgated the prosecution's lies and that so many people in the public believe he is guilty." Dailey writes about Jordan's case frequently on his blog. In reference to the public's response to the case and their role in seeking justice for everyone involved, he said the following:
"They should urge the media to look into the evidence and ask why this groundless case has been allowed to go so far. Pennsylvanians should ask themselves why they just elected the former Attorney General -- the man who could have put things right if he'd cared about honest justice -- Governor. All Americans should ask themselves why our country has laws on the books that allow children to be persecuted as adults, whether they are guilty or not. We all have a lot to learn from this case. We need to make some thoughtful changes."
I interviewed Dailey, who said that Jordan is currently doing as well as can be expected given his unusual situation. Dailey credits this to the devotion of Jordan's father and grandmother who have traveled nearly four hours round-trip nearly every day over the past two years to see him. With regard to Jordan's ability to adjust under the circumstances at the juvenile facility where he is incarcerated, Dailey said:
"I credit this to the director of his youth detention facility, Mr. John Daily, who has done his best to make Jordan's captivity as humane as possible. I also credit this to the many letters and gifts compassionate people have sent to Jordan encouraging him to not lose hope."
Jordan's case is at a critical turning point. If he is tried as an adult and convicted of the murders of Kenzie and her unborn son he will be the youngest person to have been sentenced to life without parole. This case calls to the forefront important issues regarding how juveniles are treated in the American justice system, the protocols in place for questioning minors, and the quality of evidence necessary to arrest and prosecute them. The justice system desperately needs reform, but what it needs even more is for people to advocate for that change.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/303839
The fight to save 13-year-old Jordan Brown Special
Jordan Brown was 11 years old when he was arrested in February of 2009 for the murders of Kenzie Houk and her unborn baby in New Beaver, PA. As of the 21st of this month, Jordan will have been incarcerated for two years and he is still awaiting trial.
Jordan Brown has spent the majority of his two-year incarceration at the Edmund L. Thomas Adolescent Detention Center for juveniles. When he was arrested at 2:50 a.m. on the day following the murders, he was transported to the Lawrence County Jail. He was housed there until Wednesday, when the court agreed to have him moved to a juvenile facility. Upon being transferred to the Allencrest Juvenile Detention Center, officials determined that it would be less expensive to keep Jordan at the Edmund L. Thomas location and so the 11-year-old boy was moved a third time in just over a week.
Jordan is now awaiting the decision of a three-person Superior Court panel to determine if his case should be heard in juvenile or adult court. His case has been delayed because in the state of Pennsylvania juveniles aged 10 and older are automatically tried as adults for crimes such as homicide. An attorney representing a child charged with murder may file a motion to ask that the court decertify the case so it is tried in juvenile court. This is exactly what Jordan's attorneys did; however, the request was denied. The Supreme Court overheard Jordan's appeal earlier this year. No time frame has been given as to when the panel may render a decision.
Jordan's case is unique because is raises important questions about the quality of homicide investigations involving minors. At Jordan's preliminary hearing in March of 2009, the District Attorney revealed that the state's strongest evidence against the boy was a minute amount of gunpowder residue found on his clothing. The residue was detected on a shirt he was wearing on the evening of February 20th, 2009, and on a pair of pants taken from the residence during a search. Jordan and his father owned several guns and shot them on the property regularly, but this information was not taken into account to explain the residue on his clothing.
One of Jordan's attorney's expressed concern over the pants that had been tested, explaining that Jordan had changed clothes when he went to his grandmother's house the day Kenzie was murdered. He said that as soon as he realized this had happened he turned over the correct clothing to the police. According to Jordan's attorney, the pants Jordan wore earlier in the day were never tested.
Additional evidence presented at the preliminary hearing included Kenzie's father's testimony that Jordan was skilled at shooting. Jordan owned a shotgun that was found in his bedroom at the time of the murders. A trooper testified that upon opening the gun it smelled as though it had been recently fired. Jordan had used the gun to win a turkey shooting contest on Valentine's Day just six days before the murders. Ballistics testing also showed that the gun matched a spent shotgun shell that was found on the property in a location where Kenzie's 7-year-old daughter, Janessa, had later said she observed Jordan dropping something on the morning of the murders. The testing did not link the shell or the gun to the murders. No physical evidence directly tied Jordan to the murders, but he was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal homicide anyway.
Most surprisingly, one of the things that was not reported as having been found at either the preliminary hearing or in the legal documentation pertaining to the case, was any reference to blood or other DNA-material on Jordan's clothing. The coroner, Russell Noga, claimed that the shot was fired no more than a foot away from Kenzie. When a gun is fired at close range, particularly a shotgun, the result is a form of blood spatter known as blowback spatter, back spatter, or forward spatter. The lack of blood on Jordan's clothing or on the shotgun confiscated from his bedroom casts doubt on the police's claim that he used that gun to murder Kenzie.
Media sources have cited evidence against Jordan that was not presented at the preliminary hearing. Jordan and Janessa were each questioned at school on the day of the murders by trooper Janice Wilson. In Chris Brown's absence, a school counselor observed the interviews. The police claimed they attempted to reach Chris. However, Chris testified that he was never contacted and that police had many opportunities to ask him if they could speak to Jordan.
The interviews with the children yielded limited information. Janessa did not allude to anything unusual happening on the morning her mother was murdered. By contrast, Jordan recalled having seen a black truck on the property. He said it was parked near the garage. Investigators looked into this lead for approximately five hours before interviewing Jordan again at his grandmother's house later that evening. The trooper who interviewed him, Janice Wilson, claimed he changed his story and said the truck was white.
Media reports would eventually provide details about a third interview given by Janessa. The information was vague in terms of when the interview took place. In January of 2010, the New Castle News reported that the statements had been made while Janessa was living with her mother's family after Jordan had already been arrested. Janessa had given two prior statements where she had said she noticed nothing unusual on the morning of the murders, but her third statement was markedly different.
In the amended version of her story, Janessa said that she saw Jordan carrying two guns, including the shotgun, from his bedroom to the downstairs area of the home and that she heard a loud bang. She did not claim to have seen him shoot Kenzie, nor did she say she knew anything had happened to her mother prior to leaving the residence. She then made the statement that she saw Jordan drop something on the ground as they made their way to catch the school bus at about 8:13 a.m. Janessa's statements alleging that she saw Jordan with a shotgun the morning of the murders was never presented at the preliminary hearing.
Another puzzling aspect of the state's case against Jordan pertains to the footprints the police say they observed in the snow surrounding the property. The pre-adjudicatory motion stated the following:
"As a result of the light covering of snow, it was observable that the only footprints were those of the Defendant and Janessa when they left for school at approximately 8:14 a.m. There were no other footprints or tire tracks of any person or vehicle that would have approached the residence during the time in which the killing could have occurred."
The problem with this claim is that Chris Brown left the residence at about 7 a.m. to go to work. Tree trimmers were on the property prior to 10 a.m. and became aware that something had happened within the home when 4-year-old Adalynn ran crying from the home. She told the men her mother was unresponsive. After attempting to get a hold of the property's owner, one of the men called the police. Responders approached the home and one even testified about seeing Kenzie lying on her bed as soon as he entered the front door, in the bedroom to the right
Prior to arresting Jordan in the early morning hours on the day following the murders, police investigated Chris Brown and Kenzie's ex-boyfriend, Adam Harvey. Chris was cleared because he was working when the murders were said to have occurred. Little is known about the investigation into Harvey. Kenzie had taken a protective order out on Harvey a year before she died because he had threatened to hurt or kill her and her family multiple times. The order, dated February 8th, 2008, cited Harvey as the father of one of Kenzie's children. A web-site maintained by Kenzie's family merely states that Harvey's alibi "checked out".
Dan Dailey, who is in close contact with Chris Brown and Jordan's defense, stated that the biggest obstacle to obtaining justice for Jordan is "the fact that the media promulgated the prosecution's lies and that so many people in the public believe he is guilty." Dailey writes about Jordan's case frequently on his blog. In reference to the public's response to the case and their role in seeking justice for everyone involved, he said the following:
"They should urge the media to look into the evidence and ask why this groundless case has been allowed to go so far. Pennsylvanians should ask themselves why they just elected the former Attorney General -- the man who could have put things right if he'd cared about honest justice -- Governor. All Americans should ask themselves why our country has laws on the books that allow children to be persecuted as adults, whether they are guilty or not. We all have a lot to learn from this case. We need to make some thoughtful changes."
I interviewed Dailey, who said that Jordan is currently doing as well as can be expected given his unusual situation. Dailey credits this to the devotion of Jordan's father and grandmother who have traveled nearly four hours round-trip nearly every day over the past two years to see him. With regard to Jordan's ability to adjust under the circumstances at the juvenile facility where he is incarcerated, Dailey said:
"I credit this to the director of his youth detention facility, Mr. John Daily, who has done his best to make Jordan's captivity as humane as possible. I also credit this to the many letters and gifts compassionate people have sent to Jordan encouraging him to not lose hope."
Jordan's case is at a critical turning point. If he is tried as an adult and convicted of the murders of Kenzie and her unborn son he will be the youngest person to have been sentenced to life without parole. This case calls to the forefront important issues regarding how juveniles are treated in the American justice system, the protocols in place for questioning minors, and the quality of evidence necessary to arrest and prosecute them. The justice system desperately needs reform, but what it needs even more is for people to advocate for that change.
