Something everyone needs to understand... This child sat three years with no trial. The initial charge was as an adult charge that carried a life without parole sentence if found guilty. The D.A. that chose that initial charge was in the middle of a big re-election. Jordan was exploited because he was the youngest person ever charged with LWOP. There is something wrong with the system when a child this young can sit three years with no trial, or intervention.
There are many issues involved in the way this child was mistreated in the system. Guilty or not, he is a child. I hope those issue come out and get addressed one day, so no other children have to ever experience what this child did.
Also, there were many issues involved in this case that have not been exposed as of yet. Jordan was convicted in the media, he never confessed. This is why children this young should never be exposed. The state did many things wrong in the way they charged him. There was no real evidence, despite what your reading today.The crime lab even cleared the child. The victim had a lot of baggage. One apparently took to the stand drunk and denied there were protective orders on him. The top investigator and witness were not brought in by the prosecutor. ?
The victim's parents were escorted in the court by men who wore black bandanna's covering their faces, in leather jackets. I can say more. The brother-in-law of he victim was escorted out of the courthouse for fighting. This was suppose to be a closed trial. Yet, all there was much drama, and yet, here we all are discussing it.
I think after three years with no trial and a family that had to travel 80 miles a day to support him emotionally, that he should have an alternative plan. The system should not be designed to deplete a person financially so they cannot travel to be close to a loved child that needs their support emotionally. Yet it does. Jordan was found "delinquent" only on subjective evidence. If he is guilty, let the family work with the court system and find an alternative plan. This child needs his family.
It is very sad for all involved, despite the odd behaviors of some people. Both the victim's family, as well as Jordan and his family have suffered enough. They all need support and peace. Jordan is a good kid, despite how he was portrayed.
Jordan Brown is innocent. The victim had two protective orders on an x-lover that threatened to kill her and her family. He just learned a week or so prior to her death through a paternity test that he was not the father of one of her children. (He thought he was for years.) The police arrested the child in the same day without any real investigation, which caused the real murderer to get away free. There is nothing linking the child to the murder. A lot of lies and political issues going on at the time. It was a real mess from the get go but the child was used. He is innocent! I hope one day you can learn more about the case and not predetermine something you obviously know nothing about.
The decision to try him as an adult was one of political expediency too.
First, before you convict the child, which some of you have already, you need to understand that he was only "accused" of the crime.
The victim had troublesome relationships that were not investigated adequately at the time of her death.
I believe this child was recklessly charged due an interrogation claimed as an interview deemed "informational", at the school the morning of the shooting. It was that interview that motivated a bias investigation that lasted a mere five hours. The focus of that investigation was limited to seeking anything that connected the child to the crime, instead of collecting every fraction of evidence to a person of guilt.
I believe there was a rush to judgment here and the child was wrongly accused from the get go.
Truly sorry to bring that horrific case up. It is hard to fathom that someone could do that to a woman and her children.
My point was only to say that there are people wrongfully charged and convicted. Whoever did that to your family members should not be able to see the light of day.
RE: Jordan's case though, I feel he was convicted in the media before he had a trial. He is a child. I have felt from the beginning that the case was not investigated thoroughly enough and that there was a rush to judgment.
RE: His father. He had nothing at all to gain by the loss of his fiancee and unborn child. He loved his son and raised him primarily on his own. I believe he loved the victim and her children as well. Whatever people want to think about him, he loved children in general.
This poor guy has had a tremendous burden of sorrow since the tragedy, as well as the Houks.
It is a truly sad case all around. To make it worse with hatred is never going to make things any better.
There are no winners here but a child should never be convicted on circumstantial evidence. He has maintained his innocence from the beginning. I believe him.
In closing, my final point is to remind you, with all due respect, to remember this is an 11 year-old child. He deserves a fair chance. He deserves to be treated as the child he was when accused and he deserves the complete ignorance the police afforded all the likely suspects they ignored in this case.
Justice is not predetermined. It is not prejudged. It does not favor the state because it works with the state. It recognizes error's occur, even when your in authority. Finally, justice thrives on fairness.
The closure of the investigation so early on, caused the home of the victim and the defendant to be robbed and the crime scene to be contaminated. The child's clothing only showed a very minimal amount of gun residue. This child target shot regularly with his father. Had the investigation be kept open, Jordan's clothing in the home could have also been checked for gun residue, which would have cleared him. Had the police taken the extra time, they would have learned that what the crime lab proved, that the blue blanket had an old cigarette burn and no gun residue on it. Had the child actually used the blanket to cover the weapon used to shoot the victim, it surely would have had some evidence on it.
This brings me to the another concern I have and that would be the coroner's findings. It seems probable that the coroner's ruling could have been neglectful due to speedy charges slapped on the child. The prosecutor is quoted as saying the child shot the victim "execution" style. This infers the shot was up close. If this is what they theorized, how on earth could the child have no blood evidence on him? The word alone, "execution style" was used purposely to inflame the public, leading them to forget he is an 11 year-old child.
This brings me to my next point. As you know, Jordan had not even entered into puberty when the shooting deaths occurred. He was in the fifth grade and was learning to hunt, as many children in Pennsylvania do. Scientific studies prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a child's brain does not fully develop until well into their twenties. No matter how much a person may want to get a conviction, the facts about this child are never going to change. He was a child at the time he was accused. To prejudice the public by stating the child shot the victim at "close range, execution style", was a dirty play of words, that once again tainted the jury pool.
This leads me to my final point. While we now know the victim had children not knowing who the father's were, while we know she lied to a gentleman and claimed he was one of the child's fathers' for years, while we know this man learned the truth just a mere week before the shooting, while we know the family obviously did not care for the child, which puts into question how much the victim truly cared for the child, while we know the victim had relationships that were troubled, and while we know her family members were involved in illegal activity, how can the prosecutor place an 11 year-old child under the bus so sheepishly? When are we going to defend the real victims in cases like this one? If the child is guilty by any means, while we know the facts that surrounded his life, is he really as guilty as an adult? Can we really say he is not an innocent child? He is in many ways.
As you may have learned, the victim had protective orders on an x-lover who had threatened her life. This man just learned only a week before the shooting, through DNA testing, that he was not the father of one of the victim's children. He fathered this child for three years. He owns a black truck. His own father was his alibi. The investigation regarding his threats were over-looked and the focus remained on the child and what the child stated that day to the police woman. Why?
It is said that the 7 year-old child did not note anything unusual on the first interview with the police. Later, while in the presence of the victims family, she claimed many things that were once again allowed to indict the child. She was 7 years-old. Jordan was said to have stated later upon further interviews that the truck may have been white. It did snow this day and it could have confused the child who likely did not pay attention to details this morning. If nothing else, this proves why it is so very important to have legal representation present when a child this young is being interrogated for "informational" purposes. Jordan gave information that could have helped to solve this case, yet he was indicted as he "self-incriminated" himself innocently providing the police with answers to their questions. To put in plainly, the police woman felt he lied and this is why he was charged.
While I have sympathy for the Houk's, I do have to question why on earth the child was sought out so abruptly. The family claims to have taken the child in and claimed to have treated him as their own, but within the same day of the shootings, they turned on him, without any real investigation. The evidence at this point was all subjective. Not long after they befriended the x-lover whom the victim, their own daughter, had protective orders on. The victim stated in the protective orders she "feared" him and he had a serious drinking problem. She further stated he threatened to kill her and her family or hire someone to do it. There is also proof in these protective orders of his family being angered with the victim as well. The victim clearly stated he "beat" her, yet her family and friends, who have claimed to care for Jordan, cared more for the abuser of their own daughter. The victim's brother-in-laws' son also claimed Jordan said he was going to "pop" the victim one day. This gentleman has a criminal record, yet his word is accepted by the police and his child is quoted all over the paper and internet as if he is a saint. The x-lover has a record as well, as the victim herself, yet these facts did not spark any suspicion. Why not?
This was an interesting article found on the site above.....
Dear Judge Motto:
I have been following the case of Jordan Brown from the beginning. I was torn apart to see a child's mug shot go on the air and so disturbed to hear the D.A. speak about the case as if Jordan was already proven guilty. I cannot recall ever seeing such an unfair hand being dealt to a child, only 11 years-old.
The D.A. stated on the news only days after the child was charged that the witness was the 7 year old child in the home that hopped on the bus with Jordan. He further stated that a blue blanket was seen by this child. He then theorized that the blanket was used by little Jordan to hide the weapon that killed the victim and her unborn baby, Jordan's half brother. Shortly after the Jordan's mug shot surfaced all over the internet and many people were commenting in a very distasteful manner. It was clear that the manner in which the D.A. exposed the child, the public was tainted and his chance for a fair hearing was hard pressed. He was only 11 years old.
Next, I learned that the police had the opportunity to obtain permission for Jordan's father before they interviewed him at the school. They failed to obtain this permission and simply took the law into their own hands and interviewed him, stating it was for informational purposes. The school officials, I am certain, would not have allowed such an interview to occur if they were to learn the child would be charged as an adult with a life without parole sentence. The improper manner in which the police woman handled this put even the school officials in a undeserving place. Nonetheless, Judge Motto allowed the interview to indict the child because the police woman said she was there for information. I have read that during the court proceedings this same police woman said "everyone" was a suspect the morning of the murder. I thought this was a double standard that should have been sided with the 11 year-old child, not the officer. The child did after all state that he thought he saw a "black" truck upon the interview. By allowing the interrogation in, this allowed the child's statement of the "black" truck to be absolved. Why?
Jordan Brown found guilty in slayings, awaits sentencing
Something everyone needs to understand... This child sat three years with no trial. The initial charge was as an adult charge that carried a life without parole sentence if found guilty. The D.A. that chose that initial charge was in the middle of a big re-election. Jordan was exploited because he was the youngest person ever charged with LWOP. There is something wrong with the system when a child this young can sit three years with no trial, or intervention.
There are many issues involved in the way this child was mistreated in the system. Guilty or not, he is a child. I hope those issue come out and get addressed one day, so no other children have to ever experience what this child did.
Also, there were many issues involved in this case that have not been exposed as of yet. Jordan was convicted in the media, he never confessed. This is why children this young should never be exposed. The state did many things wrong in the way they charged him. There was no real evidence, despite what your reading today.The crime lab even cleared the child. The victim had a lot of baggage. One apparently took to the stand drunk and denied there were protective orders on him. The top investigator and witness were not brought in by the prosecutor. ?
The victim's parents were escorted in the court by men who wore black bandanna's covering their faces, in leather jackets. I can say more. The brother-in-law of he victim was escorted out of the courthouse for fighting. This was suppose to be a closed trial. Yet, all there was much drama, and yet, here we all are discussing it.
I think after three years with no trial and a family that had to travel 80 miles a day to support him emotionally, that he should have an alternative plan. The system should not be designed to deplete a person financially so they cannot travel to be close to a loved child that needs their support emotionally. Yet it does. Jordan was found "delinquent" only on subjective evidence. If he is guilty, let the family work with the court system and find an alternative plan. This child needs his family.
It is very sad for all involved, despite the odd behaviors of some people. Both the victim's family, as well as Jordan and his family have suffered enough. They all need support and peace. Jordan is a good kid, despite how he was portrayed.
April 14, 2012 at 5:15 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Closing remarks expected to begin today in Jordan Brown case
Jordan Brown is innocent. The victim had two protective orders on an x-lover that threatened to kill her and her family. He just learned a week or so prior to her death through a paternity test that he was not the father of one of her children. (He thought he was for years.) The police arrested the child in the same day without any real investigation, which caused the real murderer to get away free. There is nothing linking the child to the murder. A lot of lies and political issues going on at the time. It was a real mess from the get go but the child was used. He is innocent! I hope one day you can learn more about the case and not predetermine something you obviously know nothing about.
April 12, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. permalink suggest removal
We can’t discard an 11-year-old
The decision to try him as an adult was one of political expediency too.
First, before you convict the child, which some of you have already, you need to understand that he was only "accused" of the crime.
The victim had troublesome relationships that were not investigated adequately at the time of her death.
I believe this child was recklessly charged due an interrogation claimed as an interview deemed "informational", at the school the morning of the shooting. It was that interview that motivated a bias investigation that lasted a mere five hours. The focus of that investigation was limited to seeking anything that connected the child to the crime, instead of collecting every fraction of evidence to a person of guilt.
I believe there was a rush to judgment here and the child was wrongly accused from the get go.
October 1, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Woman interested in case of Jordan Brown
Darjan10
Truly sorry to bring that horrific case up. It is hard to fathom that someone could do that to a woman and her children.
My point was only to say that there are people wrongfully charged and convicted. Whoever did that to your family members should not be able to see the light of day.
RE: Jordan's case though, I feel he was convicted in the media before he had a trial. He is a child. I have felt from the beginning that the case was not investigated thoroughly enough and that there was a rush to judgment.
RE: His father. He had nothing at all to gain by the loss of his fiancee and unborn child. He loved his son and raised him primarily on his own. I believe he loved the victim and her children as well. Whatever people want to think about him, he loved children in general.
This poor guy has had a tremendous burden of sorrow since the tragedy, as well as the Houks.
It is a truly sad case all around. To make it worse with hatred is never going to make things any better.
There are no winners here but a child should never be convicted on circumstantial evidence. He has maintained his innocence from the beginning. I believe him.
August 6, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Judge to rule whether teen is tried as adult or juvenile
letter from website continued....
In closing, my final point is to remind you, with all due respect, to remember this is an 11 year-old child. He deserves a fair chance. He deserves to be treated as the child he was when accused and he deserves the complete ignorance the police afforded all the likely suspects they ignored in this case.
Justice is not predetermined. It is not prejudged. It does not favor the state because it works with the state. It recognizes error's occur, even when your in authority. Finally, justice thrives on fairness.
August 6, 2011 at 7:52 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Judge to rule whether teen is tried as adult or juvenile
letter from website continued....
The closure of the investigation so early on, caused the home of the victim and the defendant to be robbed and the crime scene to be contaminated. The child's clothing only showed a very minimal amount of gun residue. This child target shot regularly with his father. Had the investigation be kept open, Jordan's clothing in the home could have also been checked for gun residue, which would have cleared him. Had the police taken the extra time, they would have learned that what the crime lab proved, that the blue blanket had an old cigarette burn and no gun residue on it. Had the child actually used the blanket to cover the weapon used to shoot the victim, it surely would have had some evidence on it.
This brings me to the another concern I have and that would be the coroner's findings. It seems probable that the coroner's ruling could have been neglectful due to speedy charges slapped on the child. The prosecutor is quoted as saying the child shot the victim "execution" style. This infers the shot was up close. If this is what they theorized, how on earth could the child have no blood evidence on him? The word alone, "execution style" was used purposely to inflame the public, leading them to forget he is an 11 year-old child.
This brings me to my next point. As you know, Jordan had not even entered into puberty when the shooting deaths occurred. He was in the fifth grade and was learning to hunt, as many children in Pennsylvania do. Scientific studies prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a child's brain does not fully develop until well into their twenties. No matter how much a person may want to get a conviction, the facts about this child are never going to change. He was a child at the time he was accused. To prejudice the public by stating the child shot the victim at "close range, execution style", was a dirty play of words, that once again tainted the jury pool.
This leads me to my final point. While we now know the victim had children not knowing who the father's were, while we know she lied to a gentleman and claimed he was one of the child's fathers' for years, while we know this man learned the truth just a mere week before the shooting, while we know the family obviously did not care for the child, which puts into question how much the victim truly cared for the child, while we know the victim had relationships that were troubled, and while we know her family members were involved in illegal activity, how can the prosecutor place an 11 year-old child under the bus so sheepishly? When are we going to defend the real victims in cases like this one? If the child is guilty by any means, while we know the facts that surrounded his life, is he really as guilty as an adult? Can we really say he is not an innocent child? He is in many ways.
August 6, 2011 at 7:51 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Judge to rule whether teen is tried as adult or juvenile
Letter from website continued....
As you may have learned, the victim had protective orders on an x-lover who had threatened her life. This man just learned only a week before the shooting, through DNA testing, that he was not the father of one of the victim's children. He fathered this child for three years. He owns a black truck. His own father was his alibi. The investigation regarding his threats were over-looked and the focus remained on the child and what the child stated that day to the police woman. Why?
It is said that the 7 year-old child did not note anything unusual on the first interview with the police. Later, while in the presence of the victims family, she claimed many things that were once again allowed to indict the child. She was 7 years-old. Jordan was said to have stated later upon further interviews that the truck may have been white. It did snow this day and it could have confused the child who likely did not pay attention to details this morning. If nothing else, this proves why it is so very important to have legal representation present when a child this young is being interrogated for "informational" purposes. Jordan gave information that could have helped to solve this case, yet he was indicted as he "self-incriminated" himself innocently providing the police with answers to their questions. To put in plainly, the police woman felt he lied and this is why he was charged.
While I have sympathy for the Houk's, I do have to question why on earth the child was sought out so abruptly. The family claims to have taken the child in and claimed to have treated him as their own, but within the same day of the shootings, they turned on him, without any real investigation. The evidence at this point was all subjective. Not long after they befriended the x-lover whom the victim, their own daughter, had protective orders on. The victim stated in the protective orders she "feared" him and he had a serious drinking problem. She further stated he threatened to kill her and her family or hire someone to do it. There is also proof in these protective orders of his family being angered with the victim as well. The victim clearly stated he "beat" her, yet her family and friends, who have claimed to care for Jordan, cared more for the abuser of their own daughter. The victim's brother-in-laws' son also claimed Jordan said he was going to "pop" the victim one day. This gentleman has a criminal record, yet his word is accepted by the police and his child is quoted all over the paper and internet as if he is a saint. The x-lover has a record as well, as the victim herself, yet these facts did not spark any suspicion. Why not?
August 6, 2011 at 7:48 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Judge to rule whether teen is tried as adult or juvenile
http://justice4juveniles.com/index.ph...
This was an interesting article found on the site above.....
Dear Judge Motto:
I have been following the case of Jordan Brown from the beginning. I was torn apart to see a child's mug shot go on the air and so disturbed to hear the D.A. speak about the case as if Jordan was already proven guilty. I cannot recall ever seeing such an unfair hand being dealt to a child, only 11 years-old.
The D.A. stated on the news only days after the child was charged that the witness was the 7 year old child in the home that hopped on the bus with Jordan. He further stated that a blue blanket was seen by this child. He then theorized that the blanket was used by little Jordan to hide the weapon that killed the victim and her unborn baby, Jordan's half brother. Shortly after the Jordan's mug shot surfaced all over the internet and many people were commenting in a very distasteful manner. It was clear that the manner in which the D.A. exposed the child, the public was tainted and his chance for a fair hearing was hard pressed. He was only 11 years old.
Next, I learned that the police had the opportunity to obtain permission for Jordan's father before they interviewed him at the school. They failed to obtain this permission and simply took the law into their own hands and interviewed him, stating it was for informational purposes. The school officials, I am certain, would not have allowed such an interview to occur if they were to learn the child would be charged as an adult with a life without parole sentence. The improper manner in which the police woman handled this put even the school officials in a undeserving place. Nonetheless, Judge Motto allowed the interview to indict the child because the police woman said she was there for information. I have read that during the court proceedings this same police woman said "everyone" was a suspect the morning of the murder. I thought this was a double standard that should have been sided with the 11 year-old child, not the officer. The child did after all state that he thought he saw a "black" truck upon the interview. By allowing the interrogation in, this allowed the child's statement of the "black" truck to be absolved. Why?
August 6, 2011 at 7:46 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Woman interested in case of Jordan Brown
The taking the life of an 11 year old child is equally a serious matter.
July 30, 2011 at 5:16 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Woman interested in case of Jordan Brown
I feel the coroner was neglectful. He missed some key information and I feel it was because of the early arrest of the child.
Regarding the investigation, there are many, many, things I feel that were neglected.
Regarding the comment you claim the father said about the x. From what I read people are afraid of that guy.
P.S.
The Dryfuse murderer is still out there. Maybe he/she did it.
July 30, 2011 at 9:28 a.m. permalink suggest removal