Replies to the original thread:
Melissa
Administrator
member is online
Joined: Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 212
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #1 on Feb 9, 2011, 1:21pm »
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
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 61
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #2 on Feb 13, 2011, 9:49am »
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
New Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 11
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #3 on Feb 13, 2011, 1:14pm »
that's of course suspicious, if not, it would be a big coincidence!
Melissa
Administrator
member is online
Joined: Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 212
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #4 on Feb 13, 2011, 1:57pm »
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
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 61
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #5 on Feb 13, 2011, 5:11pm »
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
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 61
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #6 on Feb 14, 2011, 1:53pm »
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.
”
http://www.sagepub.com/spohnstudy/articles/1/Ramsey.pdf« Last Edit: Feb 14, 2011, 1:53pm by abram » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top
abram
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 61
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #7 on Feb 14, 2011, 10:00pm »
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?
http://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.”
« Last Edit: Feb 14, 2011, 10:01pm by abram »
abram
Junior Member
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 61
Re: Finding evidence/truth
« Reply #8 on Feb 16, 2011, 7:55pm »
Does anyone know anything about this person and what she posted?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/03/jordan-brown-lost-boy-lost-family.htmljoella
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.
