PA - Kenzie Houk, 26, pregnant, murdered, Wampum, 20 Feb 2009

[sherlockh]

if the boy's story is constantly changing ie. truck from white to black, then it's likely he's made up the story.
if it were true, the details would remain consistant i would hope

It changed from black to white I believe. I don't think that is all that strange while it had been snowing. It also depends on how he is questioned. Little kids are easily coerced and/or confused. It is too bad his father was not present when he was questioned.

I don't really understand the time-line. Did the mother wake up at any point? Or was she sleeping all the time while the kids prepared breakfast for themselves and left? Also, did the 4 year old wake up from some noise or just woke up? Wouldn't she have waken up from the gunshot?

I don't really know what to think since I doubt I have all the info. Although, I am also suspicious of the ex-bf who threatened to kill her.

So basically for me, it will be interesting to see the trial and the experts in court. If the physical evidence shows it was Jordan then I will accept that. If the defense can successfully argue that it wasn't his gun or that he should have stuff all over his shirt instead of just a little bit, etc...then he is innocent. I hope he doesn't get convicted just on the basis of what another child said, or that he is not sure if the truck he saw is black or white, or how the gun smelled. That by itself doesn't convince me of anything.

Anyone know when the trial will start?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't have any problems with LE saying the footprints only showed Jordan and the sister leaving the home. If the father's footprints could be seen after they arrived then they would be leading away from the home as he left for work...not footprints leading to the home and the leaving again.

How hard was it snowing between the time the father left for work and when police arrived? It tends to make me think they saw no footprints that could have been made before they got there.. that would have been made around the time of the murders that were leading to the home and then leaving.... ruling out an intruder. They would be able to discern where the loggers had stepped, and I am sure they were more than willing to show LE if it was necessary. They can tell fresh tracks and ones that were made before then.

Also why change the color of the truck? Even the 8 year old AZ kid got his 'story' down pat and that the car was "white" and stuck to it so surely a 11 year old could actually remember the color of the mysterious truck since boys really are into liking trucks anyway. Or maybe the AZ kid was a better liar and Jordan couldn't remember what color he told them so when asked again made up another truck color.

Wasn't this a .410 or a .20 guage shotgun? Why would a grown man use such a weapon. Usually these smaller long guns are used by young males and females when hunting. They are use to handling and firing them. The weight is light.

How could this mysterious man get by all the children in the home and come out of the mother's bedroom sight unseen inside?

Why would this man do this with all the children inside the home?

This just reminds me of the AZ case all over again. So many of the same excuses, when in the end, yes, that kid did shoot the gun 11 times, and killed two men. He also had little gunshot residue on him too and yes, he and his dad hunted also, but there should be no reason for gunshot residue at all on him unless he was there in the room when the shotgun discharged.

IMO

 

[southcitymom]

I don't have any problems with LE saying the footprints only showed Jordan and the sister leaving the home. If the father's footprints could be seen after they arrived then they would be leading away from the home as he left for work...not footprints leading to the home and the leaving again.

How hard was it snowing between the time the father left for work and when police arrived? It tends to make me think they saw no footprints that could have been made before they got there.. that would have been made around the time of the murders that were leading to the home and then leaving.... ruling out an intruder. They would be able to discern where the loggers had stepped, and I am sure they were more than willing to show LE if it was necessary. They can tell fresh tracks and ones that were made before then.

Also why change the color of the truck? Even the 8 year old AZ kid got his 'story' down pat and that the car was "white" and stuck to it so surely a 11 year old could actually remember the color of the mysterious truck since boys really are into liking trucks anyway. Or maybe the AZ kid was a better liar and Jordan couldn't remember what color he told them so when asked again made up another truck color.

Wasn't this a .410 or a .20 guage shotgun? Why would a grown man use such a weapon. Usually these smaller long guns are used by young males and females when hunting. They are use to handling and firing them. The weight is light.

How could this mysterious man get by all the children in the home and come out of the mother's bedroom sight unseen inside?

Why would this man do this with all the children inside the home?

This just reminds me of the AZ case all over again. So many of the same excuses, when in the end, yes, that kid did shoot the gun 11 times, and killed two men. He also had little gunshot residue on him too and yes, he and his dad hunted also, but there should be no reason for gunshot residue at all on him unless he was there in the room when the shotgun discharged.

IMO

OBE, what do you think of LE not mentioning the footprints of the tree trimmers who went to the house after being summoned by the 4-year-old? Those would have been pretty fresh tracks that approached and led away from the house.

Also, what do you think about the fact that the boy didn't have any of the victim's blood on him? He allegedly shot her at close range - it's hard for me to think there wouldn't be some splatter.

In the AZ case, there was enough info and evidence for me to feel comfortable believing that little boy killed those men. In this case, my jury is still out.

 

[southcitymom]

OBE, what do you think of LE not mentioning the footprints of the tree trimmers who went to the house after being summoned by the 4-year-old? Those would have been pretty fresh tracks that approached and led away from the house.

Also, what do you think about the fact that the boy didn't have any of the victim's blood on him? He allegedly shot her at close range - it's hard for me to think there wouldn't be some splatter.

In the AZ case, there was enough info and evidence for me to feel comfortable believing that little boy killed those men. In this case, my jury is still out.

Oops - I was just rereading the your post and see your thoughts on the tree trimmer tracks.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE, what do you think of LE not mentioning the footprints of the tree trimmers who went to the house after being summoned by the 4-year-old? Those would have been pretty fresh tracks that approached and led away from the house.

Also, what do you think about the fact that the boy didn't have any of the victim's blood on him? He allegedly shot her at close range - it's hard for me to think there wouldn't be some splatter.

In the AZ case, there was enough info and evidence for me to feel comfortable believing that little boy killed those men. In this case, my jury is still out.

There could be so many varying reasons why he did not have blood spatter on him. If she was laying on a pillow it could absorb a lot of the blood splatter. Also if he had something draped over the weapon then that would also block the spatter from coming into contact with him. He was using a long gun..therefore he would be further away than if he had used a handgun. Metal pellets from a shotgun enters the body and does not exit, so I would think the blow back would be less... especially with a lower powered shotgun. It is usually the exit wounds from a bullet that cause a lot of blood splatter as it explodes blood and tissue out upon existing. Or a much higher powered shotgun like a 12 guage. Also the bed would block the lower part of his body from blood spatter and he may have been crouching down even lower in case she woke up.

In the AZ case this boy shot the victims 11 times (5 for his dad and 6 times to Tim)....some were contact wounds yet iirc a tiny spot or two was found on his pants leg. If it turned out to be blood at all which we never heard confirmed I dont think.

Did the loggers leave or did they wait for LE to show up? Loggers boots are very distinctive, imo. Their vehicle would be there and all the police would have to do is ask them which way they walked up to the home and show their boot tread to LE and then LE could discern the loggers footprints. If this happened around 8 am and the loggers came around 10 am then there would be a difference in the footprints left behind by the time LE showed up.

IMO

 

[melissa311]

Oceanblueeyes,

You asked some great questions and I'm going to try to address them one at a time.

But weren't the children in the home when Kenzee and the unborn child were murdered?

We don't actually know when Kenzie was murdered. Her 4 year old daughter Adalynn alerted the tree trimmers on the property that her mother was unresponsive at just before 10am. Jordan and the daughter Janessa (who was 7) left the house at about 8:13am. So you see there was a window of time when Kenzie was home alone with 4 year old Adalynn. Could she have been murdered then? After Jordan and Janessa went to school?

Did the weapon used match the type of shotgun Jordan had?

The prosecution has said it is "consistent with". They have not shown evidence that directly links Jordan's gun to the murders yet. The preliminary hearing revealed little information about this and so we are limited on forensic information about trajectory, bullet hole size, blood spatter, etc.

Here's what I do know. No blood was on Jordan's clothing. The M.E. said he shot her at close range with his 20 gauge shot gun. That is a high velocity impact and I know for an absolute fact that produces what is known as blowback spatter that would be on the shooter and on the gun. None of this was found on Jordan or on the weapon they claim he used. Kind of odd, don't you think?

I beg to differ with you on fresh smells of gunpowder. Maybe right after the gun was fired it would smell fresh but not after 6 days of not being used. The smell disappates pretty quickly.

I shoot guns recreationally and when you open a shotgun after shooting it then it smells like it has been fired for days. Also, Jordan's dad claims they fired the gun on the property the day before. Is it true? I don't know. Source of this information is Dan Dailey.

Why would the little sister lie?

I don't know. But she did lie. Because she was questioned twice and said she saw nothing unusual. Did you know that it was not until the third statement when she was already living with the Houk family that she claimed to see Jordan carrying two guns? It was not on the day of the murders when she was questioned at the school.

The DA doesn't have to present all of his evidence that he has at a hearing. Just enough to prove probable cause. It is at trial the case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and where all the evidence is entered.

Are you familiar prima facie and what it means in PA?

In the AZ 8 year old murder case very little gunshot residue was found on his clothing yet he eventually admitted he was the one who had shot the gun.

This is not that case.

Why change the color of the truck from white to black or whatever order he changed it?

We don't know exactly what he said because we have not seen his statements. He originally said it was a black truck which is the same color as Adam Harvey's truck. Are you familiar with Adam Harvey? The ex-boyfriend of Kenzie who had a protective order out against him in February of 2008 because he threatened to harm her and her family? Did you know that he was questioned by the police and that his "solid" alibi was that his dad said he was at the parents house sleeping on the morning of the murders so he therefore couldn't have done it?

There is more to this case then there appears.

This is not the first time that LE has gotten it wrong. Look at the Innocence Project's web-site. Look at the number of convictions overturned due to solid DNA evidence that proves people were wrongfully convicted.

People make mistakes.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Do we have a transcript showing what actually was asked of the 7 year old by LE and when she was asked certain questions?

I still don't think the little girl would lie. It seemed like Kenzie's family really liked Jordan and tried hard to include him in their family. Sorry I just don't see a motive for her to lie and children 6 or 7 are usually very truthful and I don't see the Houk family as being conspirators against this child either. They just want justice for their daughter and her child. Imo, they dont want to pin this on just 'anyone' but the actual one who did this to Kenzie.

I don't know Melissa, but I can only base my opinion on my own experience, and a gun shot 5 or 6 days before does not have a strong smell of gunpowder. Now it does if it has recently been fired in my experience.

I don't put much faith in what Jordan's father may say after the murders have happened and his son arrested. I do understand him not wanting to believe his son was capable of this. But really he wasnt even there when it happened.

And as of now we really don't know if blood spatter was found on his clothing or not. He would not be right up at her anyway since he was holding a long gun in his hands and he could have been propping on one knee with most of his body hidden and snuck up on her as she lay in the bed.

Of course I am aware of the Innocent Project but most of those cases involved old cases where a lot of technology wasnt available at the time.

I just don't think this case is one for the IP.

But I do want the evidence proven to a jury BARD.

As of now I think the DA has the right person and I certainly cant rule him out.

So we will see what the Judge does. If it goes to juvenile court though I doubt we will ever really know the evidence in the case unless they make some of those records available like they did in the AZ case.

imo

 

[Maznblu1]

I guess my question here is why would LE want to pin this murder on an 11 year old boy? It seems to me that they would go out of their way to give a child the benefit of the doubt and not arrest him unless the evidence is pretty conclusive.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I guess my question here is why would LE want to pin this murder on an 11 year old boy? It seems to me that they would go out of their way to give a child the benefit of the doubt and not arrest him unless the evidence is pretty conclusive.

I totally agree with you Maznblu.

I think the worst case scenario a Prosecutor would ever want to see land in their lap would be to try to bring justice for the victims when the defendant is a young kid.

If they had an adult defendant then there is way more likelihood of obtaining true justice for the victims.

If the adult had been the defendant in this case then, imo, due to the cruelty and heinousness of the crime, the DA would have gone for the death penalty.

I think they wish the defendant was much older but a DA cant pick the ages of the defendants they try.

IMO

 

[melissa311]

Oceanblueeyes,

Do we have a transcript showing what actually was asked of the 7 year old by LE and when she was asked certain questions?

I wish that we did but it is not available to the public. The only statement the defense has presently is the third statement - the one given after the first two where the 7 year old said she saw nothing unusual and that everything in that house was fine before she left.

You see, the problem is that the 7 year old was questioned at the school by a state trooper. The school claimed they attempted to contact Chris Brown, but he testified at the preliminary hearing that he never received such a call. He also had contact with the state trooper - Janice Wilson - at the farm house prior to her going to the school to interview the children and he testified she said nothing to him about it, nor did she ask his permission. The police admit that the 7 year old made statements that everything was fine and actually did not even have her testify at the preliminary hearing.

I want to take a moment and point out to you that the D.A. admitted that his best evidence against Jordan was the gunshot residue. Jordan's defense attorneys claims that this was one particle of gunshot residue on the shirt and one particle on the pants. That sure isn't much. And this is the D.A.'s admitted best evidence? I mean, you said the D.A. doesn't have to play all their cards, but the D.A. went on media record saying this was the best he had...I don't know...that sounds problematic to me.

I still don't think the little girl would lie. It seemed like Kenzie's family really liked Jordan and tried hard to include him in their family.

But you are ignoring the simple fact that no matter which way you cut it this child did lie. She gave three statements or interviews (however you want to refer to them). In two she said nothing was wrong and nothing happened. In one, after saying nothing happened, she changed her story. So she lied. I'm not trying to argue, but you can't have it both ways here in a case like this. The girl did lie. It is just a matter of which time. Did she lie the first two times? Or did she lie the third time when she was with the Houks who actually do not seem to have a high opinion of Jordan. Have you read what they've said in the media? They do not seem to have thought well of him. Look at what they have posted on their site for Kenzie. Not good things and all contrary to what other people have said, including psychological experts who have evaluated Jordan AND school records.

And as of now we really don't know if blood spatter was found on his clothing or not. He would not be right up at her anyway since he was holding a long gun in his hands and he could have been propping on one knee with most of his body hidden and snuck up on her as she lay in the bed.

What? What do you mean we don't know? The D.A. admitted his best evidence was the gunshot residue. You think he's going to go on record and say that and withhold this mysterious blood evidence? You realize they have to turn that over to the defense, right? I speak to Dennis Elisco, Jordan's defense attorney...there's no blood. <modsnip>. That kind of misinformation hurts Jordan and is grossly unfair to his case.

I just don't think this case is one for the IP

No this isn't a case for IP. I'm using IP to make a point to you that LE isn't infallible. I'm using it as a point to demonstrate that A) people make false testimony (especially children) all the time and B) people are wrongfully charged and convicted for crimes they did not commit a lot. To assume that Jordan is guilty based on gunshot residue on his shirt and an altered statement by a 7 year old is very unwise.

And that's just my opinion.

<modsnip> Additionally, if he were to be convicted based just on what the prosecution has on him right now (and nothing else) it would be a travesty. It's one thing when it is someone else's child and we can stand back and say, "Wow, I'm glad that's not my kid and not my problem" but the thing is...if we ignore something like this then it might become our problem tomorrow, or our children's problem. You see?

<modsnip>. But I know Jordan's rights have been violated here. I know there is not one piece of physical evidence linking him to these murders. Kenzie and her unborn son deserve true justice also and I refuse to turn my back on a situation that I can clearly see needs to be resolved. And the reason I am posting this is because I know there are people who will read it who agree with me and who know I'm right.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Oceanblueeyes,



I wish that we did but it is not available to the public. The only statement the defense has presently is the third statement - the one given after the first two where the 7 year old said she saw nothing unusual and that everything in that house was fine before she left.

You see, the problem is that the 7 year old was questioned at the school by a state trooper. The school claimed they attempted to contact Chris Brown, but he testified at the preliminary hearing that he never received such a call. He also had contact with the state trooper - Janice Wilson - at the farm house prior to her going to the school to interview the children and he testified she said nothing to him about it, nor did she ask his permission. The police admit that the 7 year old made statements that everything was fine and actually did not even have her testify at the preliminary hearing.

I want to take a moment and point out to you that the D.A. admitted that his best evidence against Jordan was the gunshot residue. Jordan's defense attorneys claims that this was one particle of gunshot residue on the shirt and one particle on the pants. That sure isn't much. And this is the D.A.'s admitted best evidence? I mean, you said the D.A. doesn't have to play all their cards, but the D.A. went on media record saying this was the best he had...I don't know...that sounds problematic to me.



But you are ignoring the simple fact that no matter which way you cut it this child did lie. She gave three statements or interviews (however you want to refer to them). In two she said nothing was wrong and nothing happened. In one, after saying nothing happened, she changed her story. So she lied. I'm not trying to argue, but you can't have it both ways here in a case like this. The girl did lie. It is just a matter of which time. Did she lie the first two times? Or did she lie the third time when she was with the Houks who actually do not seem to have a high opinion of Jordan. Have you read what they've said in the media? They do not seem to have thought well of him. Look at what they have posted on their site for Kenzie. Not good things and all contrary to what other people have said, including psychological experts who have evaluated Jordan AND school records.



What? What do you mean we don't know? The D.A. admitted his best evidence was the gunshot residue. You think he's going to go on record and say that and withhold this mysterious blood evidence? You realize they have to turn that over to the defense, right? I speak to Dennis Elisco, Jordan's defense attorney...there's no blood. Please do not say there is. That kind of misinformation hurts Jordan and is grossly unfair to his case.



No this isn't a case for IP. I'm using IP to make a point to you that LE isn't infallible. I'm using it as a point to demonstrate that A) people make false testimony (especially children) all the time and B) people are wrongfully charged and convicted for crimes they did not commit a lot. To assume that Jordan is guilty based on gunshot residue on his shirt and an altered statement by a 7 year old is very unwise.

And that's just my opinion.

<modsnip> Additionally, if he were to be convicted based just on what the prosecution has on him right now (and nothing else) it would be a travesty. It's one thing when it is someone else's child and we can stand back and say, "Wow, I'm glad that's not my kid and not my problem" but the thing is...if we ignore something like this then it might become our problem tomorrow, or our children's problem. You see?

<modsnip> But I know Jordan's rights have been violated here. I know there is not one piece of physical evidence linking him to these murders. Kenzie and her unborn son deserve true justice also and I refuse to turn my back on a situation that I can clearly see needs to be resolved. And the reason I am posting this is because I know there are people who will read it who agree with me and who know I'm right.

BBM

I'll agree with you that LE isn't infallable. However, in this case, I believe they arrested the right person. They saw him, they spoke to him, they know the evidence, they know who murdered her. Period.



<modsnip>

The real travesty here, the way I see it. This boy has been allowed and encouraged to deny what he did for a very long time. Throwing away the ONLY chance he may have had for any sort of rehabiliation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oceanblueeyes,



I wish that we did but it is not available to the public. The only statement the defense has presently is the third statement - the one given after the first two where the 7 year old said she saw nothing unusual and that everything in that house was fine before she left.

You see, the problem is that the 7 year old was questioned at the school by a state trooper. The school claimed they attempted to contact Chris Brown, but he testified at the preliminary hearing that he never received such a call. He also had contact with the state trooper - Janice Wilson - at the farm house prior to her going to the school to interview the children and he testified she said nothing to him about it, nor did she ask his permission. The police admit that the 7 year old made statements that everything was fine and actually did not even have her testify at the preliminary hearing.

I want to take a moment and point out to you that the D.A. admitted that his best evidence against Jordan was the gunshot residue. Jordan's defense attorneys claims that this was one particle of gunshot residue on the shirt and one particle on the pants. That sure isn't much. And this is the D.A.'s admitted best evidence? I mean, you said the D.A. doesn't have to play all their cards, but the D.A. went on media record saying this was the best he had...I don't know...that sounds problematic to me.



But you are ignoring the simple fact that no matter which way you cut it this child did lie. She gave three statements or interviews (however you want to refer to them). In two she said nothing was wrong and nothing happened. In one, after saying nothing happened, she changed her story. So she lied. I'm not trying to argue, but you can't have it both ways here in a case like this. The girl did lie. It is just a matter of which time. Did she lie the first two times? Or did she lie the third time when she was with the Houks who actually do not seem to have a high opinion of Jordan. Have you read what they've said in the media? They do not seem to have thought well of him. Look at what they have posted on their site for Kenzie. Not good things and all contrary to what other people have said, including psychological experts who have evaluated Jordan AND school records.



What? What do you mean we don't know? The D.A. admitted his best evidence was the gunshot residue. You think he's going to go on record and say that and withhold this mysterious blood evidence? You realize they have to turn that over to the defense, right? I speak to Dennis Elisco, Jordan's defense attorney...there's no blood. Please do not say there is. That kind of misinformation hurts Jordan and is grossly unfair to his case.



No this isn't a case for IP. I'm using IP to make a point to you that LE isn't infallible. I'm using it as a point to demonstrate that A) people make false testimony (especially children) all the time and B) people are wrongfully charged and convicted for crimes they did not commit a lot. To assume that Jordan is guilty based on gunshot residue on his shirt and an altered statement by a 7 year old is very unwise.

And that's just my opinion.

<modsnip> Additionally, if he were to be convicted based just on what the prosecution has on him right now (and nothing else) it would be a travesty. It's one thing when it is someone else's child and we can stand back and say, "Wow, I'm glad that's not my kid and not my problem" but the thing is...if we ignore something like this then it might become our problem tomorrow, or our children's problem. You see?

<modsnip> But I know Jordan's rights have been violated here. I know there is not one piece of physical evidence linking him to these murders. Kenzie and her unborn son deserve true justice also and I refuse to turn my back on a situation that I can clearly see needs to be resolved. And the reason I am posting this is because I know there are people who will read it who agree with me and who know I'm right.

BBM

<modsnip> On a public message board posters don't have to presume innocence.

Did all of this come from the defense attorney? About the little girl saying nothing was wrong? As far as her testifying in court at the hearing I don't see why that would be necessary. Now if the Judge thinks she is capable of testifying at trial then I am sure she will.

Mary Winklers, oldest daughter did not testify at any hearings but she sure did when the case came to trial. So while you may think that means something sugnificant.......I don't. Lots of others will testify in the actual court trial imo.

Is the only one talking about GSR is the defense attorney? I am sorry but defense attorneys are masters of spin, imo. Did the DA say it was only 1 GSR particle on the shirt and pants?

Prima facie is nothing more than meeting probable cause. It was sufficient at the time for the Judge to forward it to trial. He make rethink and tell the DA he has to introduce further evidence to meet probable cause.

I don't know where you think you read that I said there would be blood. I didn't say there would be especially if he was shielding himself with the bed or a blanket.

I certainly don't expect the Houks to like Jordan now that he has been accused of murdering their loved ones.

I admire your passion but I simply don't believe a DA is going to railroad a young kid and accuse him of double murder if the evidence doesn't show it.

Imo, the DA would breathe a sigh of relief if the defendant had turned out to be some big ugly brute.

So we will see what the Judge has to say when he takes this matter up again.

IMO

 

[sherlockh]

Thanks to the posters pointing out the 2 sides of the story

I think the defense has some very good points and it will be interesting to see how the trial will go. Unfortunately, that probably will still take a long time. I don't really see the need to form an opinion on guilt or innocence. I certainly don't agree with statements like the LE or DA wouldn't put an innocent person in jail. I have seen too many examples of that happening. Tunnel vision happens all the time and we should always take a critical look at the evidence me thinks.

So far I am leaning towards innocent because the evidence presented really doesn't convince me. Especially since it is assumed that both kids were in the house during the murder and went to school as if nothing happened. That makes no sense to me. But as I said before, I probably don't have all the evidence so will just sit back and see what will happen. JMO.

 

[Nova]

I guess my question here is why would LE want to pin this murder on an 11 year old boy? It seems to me that they would go out of their way to give a child the benefit of the doubt and not arrest him unless the evidence is pretty conclusive.

I may be naive, but I think cases of LE actually deciding to knowingly frame an innocent person are very rare.

Far more often, what happens is that initial investigators have a gut reaction and then tunnel vision sets in and everything else is ignored. I don't know this case well, but I would assume LE genuinely believe the boy is guilty.

But as the Innocence Project has shown us, LE is often wrong.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I may be naive, but I think cases of LE actually deciding to knowingly frame an innocent person are very rare.

Far more often, what happens is that initial investigators have a gut reaction and then tunnel vision sets in and everything else is ignored. I don't know this case well, but I would assume LE genuinely believe the boy is guilty.

But as the Innocence Project has shown us, LE is often wrong.

BBM

Actually when compared to the millions of cases where LE got it right those who have been exonerated by the IP and other attorneys are very few in comparison. I realize one is too many but there will always be mistakes made since human beings aren't infallible.

However; I cant remember one case where LE/DA arrested and charged nor tried to put a young child this age in prison based on tunnel vision.

If anything I think LE and the DA would be extra cautious to make sure the child is guilty. Just like the AZ ADA knew all along that the 8 year old boy had murdered both his father and the man who rented a room from his dad.

The law is very clear in PA that this kid at this age is tried as an adult if he committed homicide and here we have homicide x two. The DA is doing nothing more than following the law that was already enacted before this boy was accused and arrested based upon the heinous nature of the crime.

The local Judge even said that both the DA and the defense agreed that it is better for the boy to show remorse. (paraphrasing)

So there seems to be some conflict in juvenile judicial standards and adult judicial standards.

I don't know when Jordan's birthday was and when he would have turned 12 years old but several 12 year olds have been tried and convicted as adults in various states.

IMO

 

[southcitymom]

BBM

I'll agree with you that LE isn't infallable. However, in this case, I believe they arrested the right person. They saw him, they spoke to him, they know the evidence, they know who murdered her. Period.



You're mistaken, I am not violating his presumption of innocence. I AM NOT A JUROR. I owe him nothing. He's sitting where he is because there was enough evidence so show there was probable cause to believe he did the crime.

The real travesty here, the way I see it. This boy has been allowed and encouraged to deny what he did for a very long time. Throwing away the ONLY chance he may have had for any sort of rehabiliation.

UBM

Although I don't have enough evidence to think the boy did this, you are correct that the presumption of innocence is not required by everyday people considering a case - it is only required by the jurors and judge who will formally hear the case.

 

[trofanji]

So why not release the overwhelming evidence to the defense? Or better to the public? To show here is what we have you can’t say anything against it because it’s waterproof. So admit your guilt and we maybe place your case in juvenile court. That would have spared the taxpayer a lot of money. Or didn’t they have the waterproof evidence? And they are waiting to break Jordan down so he agreed to be guilty just to move his case to juvenile court.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So why not release the overwhelming evidence to the defense? Or better to the public? To show here is what we have you can’t say anything against it because it’s waterproof. So admit your guilt and we maybe place your case in juvenile court. That would have spared the taxpayer a lot of money. Or didn’t they have the waterproof evidence? And they are waiting to break Jordan down so he agreed to be guilty just to move his case to juvenile court.

I really don't think this case is any different than other cases of this type.

The DA is not obligated to turnover all of the evidence at this time. All they had was a probable cause (prima facie) hearing. Possibly now the DA will have to enter more discovery in the next hearing since the PA supreme court did not overturn the Judge's decision to try Jordan as an adult but did send it back to him to reconsider the reasons he used to help him make his decision.

In these type of cases we usually hear very little about the evidence they have. If it is handled in juvenile court totally.... I doubt we will hear anything unless a plea deal is struck...like we did when the Arizona boy admitted guilt.

I doubt the DA is speaking with Jordan or trying to get him to do anything. It is Jordan's right to deny the crime and its up to the DA to prove that he did it but that is done in a trial.

IMO

 

[Kat]

http://www.wtae.com/r/28777117/detail.html

Both Sides Argue Over Trying Boy Murder Suspect As Adult
Jordan Brown Accused Of Shooting Pregnant Woman Kenzie Houk

POSTED: 10:55 am EDT August 5, 2011
UPDATED: 11:56 am EDT August 5, 2011


No byline. Video at link.

No decision was made at the end of Friday's hearing, and Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto did not say when he intends to make his ruling.

 

[trofanji]

Common sense has finally prevailed! He will be tried in juvenile court!!!!

http://www.ncnewsonline.com/topstories/x1699203693/Jordan-Brown-case-heads-to-juvenile-court