CANADA Canada - Christine Jessop, 9, Queensville, Ont, 3 Oct 1984 - #1

Discussion in 'Cold Cases' started by Dedpanman, Aug 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I agree. But when you compare "B F" with "D Mc", a certain kind of personality-type emerges. They're so similar. Both had twisted sexual deviances. Both carried knives. Both scared people.

    If it wasn't either of them... then, it was someone who was very similar in personality.

    (I think...)
     


  2. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Filter 7: M.O. versus SIGNATURE

    The M.O. (modus operandi) and signature of an offender play a crucial role in an investigation. The M.O. or the offender’s practical actions during the crime can reveal clues about his identity. M.O. can be very dynamic and can be modified as the offender gains experience and learns from previous mistakes or crimes.

    The signature of an offender likewise will reveal a great deal about his identity. When an offender goes beyond the action necessary to perpetrate his crime his signature is reflected. The signature composes a unique part of the behaviour while committing the offence; it often demonstrates an expression or ritual based on the offender’s fantasies. Unlike the M.O., the core of an offender’s signature will not change. It can, however, evolve or possibly be modified because of interruptions or unexpected victim response.


    This is my attempt (amateur) at an analysis of the M.O. and the SIGNATURE and some general thoughts about each.

    M.O. (the practical actions) of this offender:

    - he got Christine into his vehicle
    - he used a vehicle to transport Christine
    - he used a knife or something similar to a knife, to stab her to death
    - he most likely sexually assaulted her at least once, perhaps twice (decomposition of Christine’s remains prevented conclusive evidence of rape but there must have been a sexual component to this crime as semen was found on her underwear)
    - he disposed of her body at a remote site


    Some thoughts based on the M.O.:

    - His motive for her abduction was primarily sexual
    - He was able to make contact with Christine at the time and place of her abduction and was not be observed by anyone other than her
    - This implies that wherever he was when he abducted Christine (Jessop house, cemetery, park, or Leslie Street) - he would not have appeared out of place or would not have stood out if he had been casually observed (I admit this is debatable, but I stand by it for now. Abducting a child from any of these places was a brazen, high-risk endeavour and he managed to do it invisibly. This suggests to me someone who was nearly invisible no matter where he went.)
    - He was able to lure Christine into his vehicle through trickery, false-trust, or through physical means. If it was through trickery or false-trust, this is a more organized, higher-thinking strategy - as opposed to physically grabbing her and struggling with her (lower thinking and higher risk).
    - He had a vehicle and it was in close proximity to Christine when she encountered him. Did he even have to get out of the car? If no, this suggests trickery or false-trust. This scenario allows for lower risk and little attention called to the abduction.
    - His vehicle did not stand out in a significant way when casually observed (the abductor’s vehicle was almost certainly observed by drivers on the various roads as he fled Queensville with Christine)
    - He knew of the tractor trail leading to the Sunderland field and the Culls’ trailer (meaning he had been there before), or, through sheer luck, happened upon it when he needed to dispose of Christine (this would have involved numerous reconnaissance drives to find such a spot while she was held either dead or alive somewhere – either in the perpetrator’s vehicle, or at another location – and due to the high-risk nature of this endeavour – UNLIKELY – in my current opinion)
    - He had a knife or something very similar to a knife: a knife is easy to obtain, less expensive and less noisy than a firearm. It’s easy to conceal
    - He may have used a knife as the murder weapon because he always carried a knife with him due to some perceived sense of persecution or a need to make himself feel more powerful (note that both suspects “Dean MacPhail” and “Brad Foster” were both known to carry knives – so if neither one of them was the actual killer, then it was someone similar to them in personality)
    - He was not sophisticated or confident enough to consider strangulation as a means of murder
    - It’s possible this was his first kill due to the choice of weapon – convenience of the knife he always carried (but this is not certain)

    Signature (when an offender goes beyond the action necessary to perpetrate his crime) of this offender:

    - extreme facial injury
    - numerous stab wounds
    - attempt to open up chest
    - complete or near-complete decapitation
    - enshrouding the head in a sweater
    - removal and scattering of the clothing
    - possible posing of the body

    Some thoughts based on the Signature:

    - The extreme nature of the facial injury and the fact that Christine was a small girl suggests the perpetrator was strong and capable of extraordinary outbursts of rage
    - The numerous stab wounds found all over the body, front and back, suggest an uncontrolled frenzy
    - The attempt to open up the chest (thick sternum bone cut in half) suggests someone engaging in a sick fantasy to defile a human body by exploring the abdomen and/or removing internal organs
    - The complete or near-complete decapitation also suggest a fantasy of defiling a body or perhaps it was an attempt to de-humanize the remains
    - The decapitation injury could have been the initial injury – prior to the stabbing, but somehow that seems unlikely.
    - It seems more intuitive that the killer stabbed Christine, then attempted the decapitation, then attempted the opening of the abdomen by cutting through the breastbone (sternum)
    - Since there’s been no mention that the sweater covering Christine’s head had been cut by a blade – then it’s possible the head was wrapped up after death, but this is not conclusive by any means
    - If the killer wrapped up her head first, he could easily have smothered her… so what was the purpose of wrapping up the head? I propose it was to avoid looking at her face/eyes while he continued doing what he needed to do to the body after she was dead
    - Complete removal of all clothing below the waist: this may have been necessary for the fantasy of the sexual act that was done to Christine prior to her murder – it’s also possible that this was done post-mortem – a kind of posing of the body and its belongings (I recall reading that her underwear contained a cut from a knife – yet the underwear had been removed – this suggests a post-mortem removal)
    - Possible posing of the body: discrepancies between the descriptions of how the body was found make this an intriguing possibility, but an elusive conclusion. “Towserdog” (who may or may not have been Ken Jessop) wrote in another forum that Christine had been “found sitting up. Legs splayed apart. She was not face up, or face down... She was decapitated. Her head was found rolled up in her upper clothing(shirt, sweater etc.)” If this detail is true, then she was almost certainly posed that way. Also, it might suggest that the killer returned to the body at a later date and modified that arrangement of the body and the other items to make the body easier to spot. Please note: this description from “Towserdog” deviates completely from the facts presented in both Redrum and Kaufman.
    - Finally, the actual murder of Christine meant that she would be silenced forever and would not be able to convey any information about her abductor – this might seem so obvious that it’s not worth mentioning, but it does suggest that the perpetrator was able to think things through to that point – that it was better to kill her than to let her go – OR – was it part of the necessary fantasy that inspired the abduction in the first place (was it part of the sexual fantasy)? Did the killer realize that he was going to have to kill Christine prior to taking her? This might suggest that she knew him and thus he could never let her live. If he was a total stranger, then killing her was clinical, logical, cold-blooded strategy for getting away with murder.
     
  3. marikesh

    marikesh Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Dedpanman, did either of "McPhail" or "Foster" work as volunteer firemen, do you know from the books on this case?
    Is enough known about any of the firemen in order to profile them?
     
  4. bodhi93

    bodhi93 Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
  5. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Not to my knowledge. They probably did not have the social skills to get a job like that.

    There is no information about the members of the volunteer fire department in Queensville in the main sources (REDRUM and KAUFMAN REPORT). I wish we knew more about them. Seems like a viable place to look, although I suspect that the person we're hunting lies on the outer fringe of those spheres of danger I mentioned earlier. What I mean is, the person might have a connection with the fire department, but probably wasn't a fire fighter.
     
  6. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    bodhi93 - MT and TA are actual names of people looked at during various investigations of Christine's murder. The third name seems plausible if the other two are correct.
     
  7. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Foster' and 'McPhail' were very young - 17 year range. Would they have qualified at that age for a volunteer firefighter position? A volunteer would need access to a vehicle at all times in order to respond to an unexpected call - this is from another small town volunteer firefighter force I know of.

    How do we know the killer was not a volunteer firefighter if we know so little about them?
     
  8. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good job Dedpanman on putting together many facts in the M.O. vs Signature filter.

    Would like to break up my responses into separate posts, beginning with 'how do we know that?'

    'His motive for her abduction was primarily sexual.'
    'He fled Queensville with Christine.'
    'He had a knife' or did he take her somewhere where he had a knife?
    How do we know why he chose the manner of death that he did?
     
  9. matou

    matou #los2188

    Messages:
    20,151
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure if this will be relevant but here is an article detailing the types of facial injuries and their sources. The subjects were adults so that's where I'm not sure if it will be helpful.

    IPV meaning "intimate partner violence"

    I don't remember any mandible fractures, but massive nasal one with maxilla breakage.

    http://archfaci.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=407079
     
  10. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I shall attempt to address your points in order:

    'His motive for her abduction was primarily sexual.'

    This is an assumption I made based on research. I did qualify my statement as “primarily sexual” but this quote below elaborates further on how the sexual component of a child abduction might relate to power, control and sadism.

    From “The Abduction of Children by Strangers in Canada: Nature and Scope” by Marlene L. Dalley, Ph.D. and Jenna Ruscoe, B.A., M.Sc.

    “The most common motive of child abduction which results in murder is sexual gratification (Boudreaux et al, 2000, Asdigian et al, 1995). The findings of the United States National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Run-away, and Throwaway Children (NISMART) reported that two thirds of non-family abductions involved sexual assault (Finkelhor et al, 1990). This finding, however, is in contrast to other findings which suggest that only very few abductors are motivated by sexual desire but they consider the sexual act itself a violent way to achieve a sense of power (Tedisco & Paludi, 1996). Females, particularly Caucasian females, are more often the victims of these types of crimes. "Sex offences occurred most often in older school age children by non-family male offenders" (Boudreaux et al, 2000). Because they are more independent and free to move about unsupervised, older school age children are commonly targets for abduction.

    Some abductors are sexual sadists, that is an individual driven to pursue their fantasies. These fantasies may include domination, pain, control, and humiliation as the focal points, and the crime is typically well-planned (Hazelwood et al, 1992)."

    So, that’s what I’m thinking.

    'He fled Queensville with Christine.'

    Perhaps I should have said, “fled from the point of abduction with Christine”. I admit, I still (either correctly or incorrectly) assume that he headed for the Sunderland area immediately after taking her.

    'He had a knife' or did he take her somewhere where he had a knife?

    Good point. Based on the personalities of “MacPhail” and “Foster” and various other criminals I’ve studied, I lean towards him having a knife on him or in his vehicle most of the time. I freely admit that there is no evidence for this. Just a hunch that could be wrong.

    How do we know why he chose the manner of death that he did?

    We don’t. (I don't.) In fact, we don’t even know which set of injuries caused her death (or combination of injuries). When I play the scenario through my mind, however, I always see him doing the stabbing first, as the injuries suggest a frenzied, loss of control action. Then I imagine the other things happening (cutting the breastbone, the decapitation) as they seem to require more control.
     
  11. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    We don't. And, that's a good point - we don't know who they were or their backgrounds. Christine would have come into their sphere. I have certainly entertained the idea...

    I wonder if the police ever did background checks on them? One would hope so. But, look at what else they didn't do and should have.
     
  12. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the clarifications Dedpanman.

    To me, this killer differs from many (most?) by spending so much time mutilating Christine. That doesn't seem to be the 'norm' when the killer abducts, rapes and disposes of their victims.

    In this case I can very much agree with 'they consider the sexual act itself a violent way to achieve a sense of power.' This killer was full of hate imo, it's almost like he was trying to get inside of Christine's body or reach inside to her very core or soul - trying to get or take something?

    Did someone once violate his body when he was helpless to do anything about it?
     
  13. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Thanks for mentioning that point again, Woodland, because it's a good one and it's been lost in the shuffle a few times (at least in my mind). Remind us again - who said the injuries would have required significant time to complete? Was it at the second autopsy?

    If true, it suggests the work of a sexual sadist.
     
  14. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have a page number handy but it's in the Kaufman Report and posted here. A pathologist is describing the injuries at the second trial when the full extent of her injuries were known.

    According to the pathologist, a skilled surgeon would require up to an hour to duplicate the injuries and the killer did a poor job by comparison due to his lack of knowledge of anatomy. To me the implication was it took the killer longer to inflict the injuries, although that was not specifically said.

    Who spends time inflicting all those injuries whether their victim is dead or alive? There is a point in their mind. They are achieving something in their mind. Why did he have to go so deep inside her body? Surely his hand would have been broken if that is what he hit Christine in the face with.

    If the killer took her directly to Sunderland, did he really do all of this in a field? Where was all the blood and decomp material that should have been present in the soil? Where were the remnants of insects?
     
  15. Wondergirl

    Wondergirl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe that Christine's murderer is still active.
     
  16. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Thanks for the refresher - I remember where that came from now. All good questions and good points - and it links to the subject of the killer's signature in this crime. Why did he have to do that to her? What need (Fantasy? Power? Sadistic torture?) was he fulfilling by doing that?
     
  17. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why do you believe that? Please elaborate - becuase I also wonder what this guy has been up to. How could someone who was capable of that, just stop? If he's still active, what crimes suggest his involvement? Has his M.O. changed/evolved?
     
  18. Wondergirl

    Wondergirl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well, I don't believe someone who commits a heinous, elaborate act of murder on a young girl such as Christine, would be able to "stop".

    I believe that people generally wish to see a sequence of escalation, a sequence of some sort of pattern, with rapists and murderers, probably because there often is.

    I am not sure if a rapist or murderer MUST have a pattern of progression or involvement. I believe in the sickest of minds, that there is not a linear sequence of evolution, that is much more convoluted than that.

    A very good example of this would be the recent case of Russell Williams. It "appears" that his criminal behaviour escalated, and indeed maybe it did, but, I just don't think so. In other words, there were crimes committed of significance prior to his break & enters etc.

    I feel that the recent horrific stabbing murderers of Sonia Varaschin and Audrey Gleave could potentially be related to Christine's murder, given the very similar horrific nature of the injuries etc. Of course, there are many things dissimilar, which would indicate a change in MO if the murderer were the same as Christines. I do think those 2 victims are related to each other through the same perpetrator.

    The unsolved murder upthread, of the woman abducted from Bathurst and found in the vicinity of Christine, bears a very strong resemblance to Sonia Varaschin, in my mind.

    When I looked at the recovery road location picture posted here for Christine, I immediately thought of Sonia's recovery road location picture.

    The above statements are very looseleaf, and based more on instinct or suspicion, than anything concrete.

    I do not believe someone is capable of committing such a vile act "just once". I don't know how that would be possible. Actually, I don't know how it would be possible to commit it at all.

    It is a whole other realm.
     
  19. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought your last post was very compelling Wondergirl - I had to walk away and absorb it for a while.

    I very much agree that the patterns people seek in crimes do not necessarily exist - a predator will take what comes along and go from there, imo. The 'box' is confining.

    I also thought your comparison between Christine and Sonia was very unique - and quite possibly correct. Orangeville to Queensville is a mere hop, skip and a jump (many Queensville residents felt Christine's killer lived in town). Was not so sure on Audrey until I looked due south from Orangeville and saw Lynden - it would be hard to get a straighter geographic line. The terrain is also very, very similar. Spooky.
     
  20. Dedpanman

    Dedpanman Active Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I thought it was interesting that Wondergirl made connections to the Sonia Varaschin and Audrey Gleave cases as well. However, it was the use of patterns that allowed her to do so. When we look for similarities between crimes, we’re really talking about patterns.

    I think the Varaschin and Gleave cases may contain useful tidbits that could help us here and we should keep an eye on how they develop because there are some similarities.

    And it looks like the Varaschin case is going to hinge on DNA evidence.

    BTW – Gleave was stabbed, but cause of death in the Varaschin case has not been revealed. Because of the amount of blood found in her home, many are making the assumption that it was a stabbing (and it may have been).

    Some key differences when you compare Varaschin and Gleave to the Jessop case are:

    - a child is not involved
    - no abduction involved
    - murders occurred in the victim’s home

    Also: one victim was moved from her house, the other one not.

    Gleave’s murder had a confirmed sexual component, Varaschin is unknown. Police have been very tight-lipped about releasing details of the Varaschin case (except the details about the boots – but when that failed to break the case wide open, they have since fallen mute).

    I don’t count Varaschin’s killer moving her as an abduction because it’s almost certain she was killed in her home, then moved to the wooded area. A pathetic attempt to “clean up” the crime that was beyond hopeless. Elements of disorganization on the killer’s part (sorry, I do tend to look at criminal behaviour patterns that way – organized vs. disorganized).

    Maybe I’m too “inside the box”?
    This is why it's useful to have one's thinking challenged here in the thread.

    I would like to do more of this kind of thing - searching for other crimes that could be related to the perpetrator we’re hunting. I just find it hard to believe that this person (C's killer) put his knife away and lost all interest in doing things to children. This guy is out there and he’s left a trail. We need to look to the past and find it. Recognize it. Where did he go? What did he do?

    And to do so, we must look for patterns…

    Did Christine’s killer relocate to another part of the country? “Brad Foster” took off to the east coast for a period of time after he was caught molesting children. He took off again after the accident with the van. Did C’s killer do the same?

    Patterns…

    Is he still in Ontario, or did he move to another province?

    Patterns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice