In terms of our Victimology topic, I thought it might be useful to remind readers what that is in order to help focus our discussions because I think we’re wandering a little bit into other topics (and that’s fine, so maybe we’re done with victimology for the time being and people would like to move on to Filter #2 – Initial Contact Site?)
Anyway, I’m not quite ready to move on and have a few last things to say (or, just further questions to raise that people could weigh in on) in this discussion of Christine Jessop as “victim”. So, to recap, there are the 10 Filters of Cold Case Anyalysis. Filter#1 is Victimology:
The key to crime analysis is victimology—the study of the victim. By examining who the victim is, we begin to unravel and eliminate an often perplexing web of misguided leads. A thorough understanding of the victim can often lead the investigation toward a probable suspect rather than to a reaction to an endless pool of less likely possible candidates. According to the Crime Classification Manual, written by the FBI:
Victimology is often one of the most beneficial investigative tools in classifying and solving a violent crime. It is a crucial part of crime analysis. Through it the investigator tries to evaluate why this particular person was targeted for a violent crime. Very often, just answering this question will lead to the offender. Victimology is an essential step in arriving at a possible motive. If investigators fail to obtain complete victim histories, they may be overlooking information that could quickly direct their investigations to motive and to suspects.
And just for reference, the other nine filters are:
2 - INITIAL CONTACT SITE
3 - CRIME SCENE
4 - DISPOSAL SITE
5 - PHYSICAL ASSAULT
6 - SEXUAL ASSAULT
7 - M.O. and SIGNATURE
8 - ORGANIZED versus DISORGANIZED
9 - OFFENDER RISK
10 - SUSPECT INFORMATION
Obviously, the nature of a thread discussion tends to jump all over the place, but maybe this could help us move through the information in a more organized way? We don’t have to follow this, but I’m just saying it might be useful.
I know some of these topics have been thoroughly examined on this thread already (and over at UC as well) but we can revisit them and build on them.
So, back to Victimology for a second. I suspect that we all agree that in terms of a victim for this type of heinous crime – Christine was tailor-made. I know that sounds awful to say, but let’s just be clinical for a moment. (And I want to be absolutely clear – I am in no way implying that any of this was her fault.) She had already been victimized in a sexual way before arriving in Queensville. Once there, she had freedom to travel alone around the village without adult supervision. She apparently would or could stay quite late in the park on her own with groups of boys. She had freedom to roam and play in the cemetery where a sexual deviant worked (more on him later – perhaps Filter#10 – Suspect Information). She frequented the fire hall with her father (which was, probably, at that time, an all-male environment). Etc.
So, out of this victim-picture, I’d like to pose a question for discussion (if I may):
Do you think that if Christine had never been sexually exploited before the family’s move to Queensville, this crime would have occurred?
The answer(s) to that question (both yes or no) are potentially powerful lines of thought. To phrase the question another way: Did her sexual exploitation put her at a higher risk, and if so, why? How?
Perhaps exploring these questions might open up new avenues of thought for how she came into her killer’s “sphere”?
