The Prosecution's CaseOn March 24th, the prosecution presented its case against 11 year old Jordan Brown. The main evidence consisted of:
- Trooper Andrew Pannelle's testimony that the 20-gauge gun found in Jordan's bedroom smelled as though it had been freshly fired
- The claim that the shotgun blast to the back of Kenzie's head was consistent with one made by a 20-gauge shotgun
- Trooper Troy Steinheiser testified that small amount of gunshot residue found on Jordan's shirt. He also testified that a pair of pants taken from Jordan's room had similar residue.*
- Jack Houk's testimony that Jordan was a skilled shooter (Jack Houk is Kenzie Houk's father)
In one of the prosecution's briefs it states the following:
"The evidence relating to the degree of the child's culpability consisted of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearing, supplemented by testimony of Trooper Martin at the transfer hearing. As this Court has previously found, the Commonwealth established a prima-facie case that the Defandant was the killer, and acted alone. The Commonwealth's evidence indicates that on the morning of the shooting, Defandant's father had left for work, leaving the Defandant, the victim, Kenzie Houk, and her children, Janessa and Adalyn in the residence. Of the three children, only the Defendant was experienced in firing a shotgun and removing gun expended shell. There were no signed of forced entry into the residence nor any signs of a struggle, robbery, or theft. 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 Defendant owned and had access to a youth 20-gage shotgun located in his bedroom, along with other guns. Of the six guns found in the bedroom, Defendant's 20-gage shotgun had the strong odor of gun powder residue indicating that it had been recently dired. Along the path of the footprints of the Defendant from the residence to the roadway was located a shotgun shell in pristine condition, indicating it had been recently placed in that location. A ballistics report showed that the shell was fired from the Defendant's shotgun. Gun powder residue was found in clothing taken from the Defendant at the time of arrest, including the shirt which Defendant was wearing when he left for school that day. The gun powder residue on the right shoulder of the shirt was consistent with the Defendant's manner of shooting a shotgun which was to shoot from his right shoulder. Defendant was familiar with the use of a shotgun having been observed to have loaded and unloaded the gun, remove spent shells, and to have been successful in a turkey shoot several days before the killing."
Click here to read the prosecution's briefClick here to read an article about the preliminary hearing* Former Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo stated that he felt the gunshot residue found on Jordan's clothes was the best evidence the prosecution had against Jordan per the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on March 25th, 2009.
Debunking the Prosecution's CaseWhat the prosecution did not provide was any of the following:
- Blood evidence on Jordan or any of Jordan's clothing showing that he indeed fired the shotgun or any other weapon at close-range, murdering Kenzie and her unborn baby execution style as the prosecution alleged. Such evidence would be expected in a murder using a shotgun that produces a high velocity impact. See this thread for more information:
Click here to read about "blowback spatter"- Blood evidence on the shotgun retrieved from Jordan's bedroom
- Any evidence directly linking Jordan or the murder weapon to the murders (stating that the gun is "consistent with" doesn't cut it)
- Explanation as to why the police failed to perform due diligence by appropriately investigating Kenzie's death (dusting the house for fingerprints, collecting all shotgun shells, canvassing the neighborhood to ask about suspicious people and/or vehicles, questioning family and friends about suspicious occurrences leading up to the murders, testing various people's hands for gunshot residue, etc.)
- Explanation as to why only five hours were spent investigating alternate leads (AKA the ex-boyfriend Adam Harvey)
Click here to read more about Adam Harvey- Explanation about why the prosecution claimed the only footprints in the snow belonged to Jordan and Janessa when climatology reports showed it snowed twice that murdering, thus potentially covering a suspects footprints.
Click here to see information on the snow fall for that area on Feb 20th, 2009Click here to read more information on the footprints
