Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Jordan Brown to be held until 21, appeal planned  (Read 1270 times)
Bryan
Full Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


WWW
« on: May 18, 2012, 10:56:39 AM »


"An attorney for Jordan, Dennis Elisco, said today he plans to appeal."

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-north/jordan-brown-can-be-held-until-21st-birthday-judge-rules-636506/&sa=U&ei=tn22T7nCG4r5ggel8sXICg&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGJ7VvBwyga0_SKp46vjSEZrXSgpA

Just in, my bet is that the verdict will be thrown out within a year by an apellate judge. The decision will definately contain the words, "cannot try him again". This verdict is wrong in so many ways. Expect the state to fight for decades not to pay the expected millions their stupid ways foisted upon the taxpayers.

Anyone from Pennsylvania reading this should vote Corbett and his idiot sex fiends out of office now. They are worse than that Governor in Wisconsin.

Logged

grasping the short straw

gloria
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2012, 01:24:11 PM »


Jordan Brown to be moved to undisclosed juvenile facility

http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jordan%20brown%20can%20be%20held%20until%2021st%20birthday%2C%20judge%20rules&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CHQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftriblive.com%2Fnews%2F1821963-74%2Fbrown-juvenile-elisco-facility-adult-birthday-charged-early-erie-hearing&ei=GKG2T_O8LouRswbtvcjfBw&usg=AFQjCNEF39Een6mfSuauUt5fDaJWA49JUw
Logged

Marie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2012, 09:15:48 PM »


Krastek's comment "no one else could have committed the crime" does not supersede the fact the "he" was willing to put to "death" an innocent man. 

"WILLING TO PUT TO DEATH AN INNOCENT MAN".   Could no one else have killed the family that was murdered years ago? Obviously the answer is yes to that question because he sat on death row 4 or 5 years, then his conviction was "OVERTURNED" and his is a free man today.  That is HUGE.

Everyday people are shot to death.  It is not so hard to fathom that under the circumstances in which the victim stood around the time of her death, someone else could have had it in for her.  That is not so hard to fathom at all. Matter of fact, there is really compelling evidence that disproves the conviction.

The facts that I believe were not disclosed or even discussed in court are so troubling to me that I must share them.

First, did anyone ever think to check other clothing in the home of Jordan's for gun residue? If the victim did not wash the child's clothing on a regular basis, the gun residue on other clothing would prompt a "common sense" theory that the very minimal amount of gun residue on a child's clothing is nothing out of the ordinary for a child that target shot regularly. Was the victim a cleaning fanatic? These answers were important and should have been evaluated immediately.

Second, did anyone look into the PFA's to determine that there was a fear of the x-lover "hiring" someone to kill her? So what if he had an alibi (his father).  What about the "hiring" of someone else? This is HUGE beyond words because of the paternity suit right around the time of the deaths.

Third, how on earth do you indict a child based on witnesses that do not take the stand in a trial?  How?  Where was Wilson? Where was the little girl?  This to me tells me that you can convict a person strictly on hear-say because these people are not permitted to take the stand.  That makes little sense to me.

Fourth, if snow can cover a car which then clears a possible suspect, how can snow not cover footprints?  Was there proof Jordan or other children actually spoke with the victim that a.m. ? What if someone came in after the father left for work? Before the children awoke for school?  It stands to reason that the children left foot prints because they were more recent. Who is to say whether or not someone else left footprints that were eventually covered by snow, like the car was? Was the whether checked this day to determine the snowfall?

Fifth, did anyone ever think to ask the father why he said on the news the day of the shooting that his daughter had "some problems with some people" (not sure of the exact wording) ?  If he can say things that he might claim today were said due to trauma, is it not plausible that an 11 year old could also say things out of context? Better yet, could a 7 year-old "witness" do the same?

Sixth, the sixth sense.  Mr. Houk had it. So did Jordan.  He said immediately that she had some problems with people. Jordan saw a truck which was described as black. After re-questioning, he apparently said it may have been white.  The truth is, the change in colors is not that unusual but the fact that he saw a "vehicle" is not. Try to pin down a detail your not suppose to pay attention to. It is not uncommon to be fuzzy but the actual main part may be clear. "A vehicle". "A problem with some people". These facts mattered.

I can go on...  I have a hard time being "convinced" of a child's guilt with no real proof and many unanswered questions.

Logged

Marie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2012, 09:26:46 PM »


Furthermore, I feel the D.A. held the case in adult status to promote an assumption of guilt. He knew the evidence was not there, so he gave the assumption of guilt early on to justify his actions. If he really felt Jordan was guilty, he would have immediately sent the case to juvenile court to ensure the child got help. 
Logged

Bryan
Full Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2012, 11:02:56 PM »


As I discussed below, what if the verdict itself was all an act on part of the judge to prevent a violent conclusion. The Houks all had the looks that kill when they came in with the bikers and the "act" that Jorad Brown was guilty as sin. Connect the dots, Marie... Gloria and friends... this verdict, the moving of the boy to a undisclosed facility only points to the only way to prevent the Houks and their hangers-on from violence. We have seen the occasions that both families sniped at each other. So what if the verdict itself was an act by a judge to have his ruling on the case easily overturned in an appellate setting. Maybe he knows the courts in Pittsburgh would easily overturn the verdict. The undisclosed facility is needed to prevent those scumbags from even think of coming after them. (The Houks know he is in Erie, but confuse them where he would be held next, such an overturning would cause them rage though the object of their rage is far from their hurtful retaliation.

The Houks and the county have to learn that since 1994, almost eighteen years, they have not ever learned that to falsely accuse anyone for any crime not only hurts them, it hurt them as well. For one thing, the real doer is on the street, free to cause further trouble. Another thing, it makes a mickery of our justice system when we let such cases go to trial. Lastly, it makes us all distrust law and order even more. If they cnnot solve a murder, how can we trust them to keep us safe?

We might think this was a kangeroo court, but I saw another side of the ruling and that was when Gloria posted the article above. I realized that Judge Hodge could not have ruled in favor of Jordan in that closed courtroom with the mob mentality raised by the victim's own family. He made the verdict deliberately overturnable in full trust the next court above in Pittsburgh will overturn the verdict and set the boy free. The good thing is that the Houks will not be able to get at the boy or his family again.

The Houks have to realize they are chasing the wrong person with their lynch mentality. If they need someone to go after, it should be the real person who did this crime. They are just too chicken to lynch him and the real killer is much older than Jordan and more dangerous.

Now don't come back with, "You idiot, you exposed their plan. Now he will never be free." My belief is that the State knows it is all an act. The Browns know that is all an act. Even in time the Houks will realize it was an act, but they cannot do anything about it because it makes them like the scumbag who murder Kenzie and her fetus. In time, they will have to stop protecting this killer and start thinking of condemning him for making them believe in a lie.

Sometimes there are things that have to be done in the interest of justice. The Houks and the real killer were both perverting it. So was Johnny Bongivengo in his unlawful focus on arresting large numbers of people in the dealing of dope like oxycontin. What we learned about in Whitley County, Kentucky is what can happen when a peace officer becomes addicted to his job. Johnny might not have been injesting Oxycontin, but his willingness to look the other way when an dealer turned informant commits a heinous act is just as bad.

It comes back in the end to the idiot who made the decision to do the wrong thing to preserve his worldview about justice: Johnny Bongivengo. When he knew who did it, how could he not just arrest the real killer? The answer is he could not with all the damage the real doer could do to him in terms of legal entanglements. "Well he promised me to let me off the hook if I turn in my fellow dealers, your honor." Johnny doing what he did to Jordan prevented him from being sent to jail for being in bed with a known criminal.

It is the risk when a prosecutor or a police department dabble in confidential informants when they do not tell the informant that all deals are off when they commit a crime when out in freedom. Informants who cannot avoid it must let the cops know. Either they pull him or her out or "act" the crime they have to do in order to drag in the target. It is a Hobson's choice many locals and states cannot do without planning or money.

No one in the chain of command was there to stop them when they framed Jordan Brown. They felt there was no one to stop them. Brothers and sisters, there are always someone to stop them. They are not devine and not all governed march in lockstep with the others. What Judge Hodge did was the only thing he knew to keep the boy safe, even if it means more time before the verdict is overturned. It will be overturned, but the people who would react to an averse ruling would have no way to express their rage. In retrospect, the victory for the state is a costly one.
Logged

grasping the short straw

Marie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2012, 11:30:12 AM »


I really do beleive there would have been some serious harm done if he was released.  In also feel the bandanna act, etc. was a complete "threat" and in itself says a whole lot about what surrounded the victime and the child charged.  All very troubling.

Logged

wolfi2
Full Member
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 263


« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2012, 10:29:27 AM »


another link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146661/Jealous-14-year-old-boy-ordered-state-custody-killing-fathers-pregnant-fianc-e-shooting-slept.html
Logged

One sees well only with the heart. The essential is invisible to the eyes (Antoine de Saint Exupéry)

gloria
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2012, 03:45:36 PM »



My God!!! that article is full of BS. What a poor journalism  Roll Eyes
Logged

wolfi2
Full Member
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 263


« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2012, 01:35:10 PM »


another link

http://www.ncnewsonline.com/brown/x1561285759/Judge-rules-Jordan-Brown-must-go-to-a-juvenile-facility-in-Kenzie-Houk-slaying
Logged

One sees well only with the heart. The essential is invisible to the eyes (Antoine de Saint Exupéry)

Marie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2012, 11:27:25 PM »


Everyone thought he was guilty to...

http://www.vindy.com/news/2012/may/24/murder-charges-dropped-against-jamar-houser-2010-s/
Logged

Marie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2012, 11:49:54 PM »


I guess I am just not understanding how the family can address a child, an 11 year old child, with a question like, "How could you do that?"
Really?  I am surprised that this goes on in juvenile proceedings for someone so young. 

Also, I am surprised at how much the family talked about it publicly when they were advised not to.  I am a little disappointed in all the public comments when it was a closed hearing.  How is this allowed?  I am baffled.  It seems like there is a lot of leeway given to prosecution.  This is something that has gone on from the get go.  Krastek appears to have the media in his pocket. Shame.  This was a 11 year old child he splattered all over the world.  Shame on him. Shame. It nauseates me deeply, profoundly.

Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to: