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

Status
Not open for further replies.

bodhi93

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
147
Reaction score
10

dotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
42,928
Reaction score
103,137
http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario...ne-jessop-s-mom-living-in-hell-28-years-later
"In the cold case office at Toronto police headquarters, Det. Sgt. Steve Ryan looks at a piece of paper with information written on it.

“These are two more tips on my desk,” Ryan says. “This case is still very much alive. Three weeks ago, we acted on another tip and the guy was cleared. We get from three to five tips a month.”

Police have the killer’s DNA and it’s just a matter of putting a name to it.

Ryan finds it a mystery that the killer’s DNA has never been tied to another crime and theorizes that the killer may have left the country or is dead.

The veteran homicide detective has doubts that the killer just got up one day and decided to kill a girl. Why would he stop at one crime and not commit another and leave his DNA or had he committed crimes before?

Ryan, who late last year made an arrest in a 30-year-old cold case, believes that “water-cooler chat” from someone who knows or heard something could lead to a breatkthrough.

“Maybe at the time they didn’t want to be involved, but maybe they’re in a better place now.”

Douglas, the criminal profiler, doubts Christine’s attacker overpowered her. It’s more likely she was lured away by someone she knew and who knew she was home alone. Perhaps she was eager to show off a recorder she received at school that day".


" Is it a person who does not drink so they will not spill the beans?"
 

orora

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
Police have the killer’s DNA and it’s just a matter of putting a name to it.

Ryan finds it a mystery that the killer’s DNA has never been tied to another crime and theorizes that the killer may have left the country or is dead.

The veteran homicide detective has doubts that the killer just got up one day and decided to kill a girl. Why would he stop at one crime and not commit another and leave his DNA or had he committed crimes before?

Another opportunity for follow up. Interpol data base? Let not another year go by.
 

jobo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
94
Reaction score
140
It is crazy really. How many TIPS have they received then? And they all have not turned up Christine's killer? I really, truly hope someone's conscience needs to come clean, and I am thankful there is at least still some TIPS and they are followed up..

I too wonder why this perp has not killed again.....or has he? And just didn't leave any DNA to compare/analize?
Did he move?
I know at one time, Woodland, you were talking about a geographical connection to a few other Victim disposal sites.
If the Police have DNA from those crimes then whoever murdered Christine couldn't have murdered those other Victims, I'm thinking.....(what do you think of their DNA statements?)

I said something in conversation today, that kindof caught me offguard because it had nothing to do with this case. But, I said "Young people make the best witnesses".
The comment I made was about a composite drawing made from a young person's account of a man running from the scene. It was a very good one, looked just like the perp, who they caught pretty quick..

Anyways, my comment made me stop and think about Christine. WHY is there no reliable child's account? If she went to the store, and was seen with kids on the corner by the guy(s) going to work....then where is those children's statements? I have never read about any other children other than her friend and the girl that re-canted. (other than Ken, of course).

Seems to me that no children/young people saw Christine once she departed the bus...or else there would be more info. I know how observant my kids were when they still lived with me....they didn't miss much, and since they grew up in a neighbourhood much like Christine did, they would know if they seen "so and so". Everyone knows who everyone else is.
We do NOT have a good account from another kid, and I don't necessarily mean another 9 year old....any of the other kids that would just be coming home from school....some heading to the store/park.
I also agree with Douglas, the criminal profiler, that Christine was lured away....hence, no witnesses.
And, you already know I think it was from her driveway.
 

orora

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
Excellent insights jobo especially re: the kids. With the bike left at home I completely understand your belief it was from the driveway. And it may be. The damage and manner of dispensing with the bike just one out of place aspect for others viewing the same. Does not seem to fit with a willing departure. But its all debateable.. The Police and the GPM investigation were all over that same thought.

The things you say about the kids and what I ask about the kids on the corner that day are quite relevant to the duscussion imo too.

I have been reprimanded for giving information from other cases but there are stories from some of them that address this point. Again using the Mindy Tran case, there are kids and they are mentioned in investigation reports as witnesses but testifying was a different thing.

One little girl in particular should have been called to testify but wasn't. She was a Japanese exchange student about Mindy's age or a little older staying with a family in the neighborhood at the time. Her new family and her were out for an evening walk through the neighborhood when they heard of the missing asian girl. A few blocks away they encountered a man walking past them with a suitcase. The little girl felt something, thought something. She stopped and focused in on that man. The rest of her group thought nothing of him and had carried on almost oblivious leaving her behind. She turned and faced him, stared the guy down, never ran, never flinched, just focused and gathered every detail she could. When it came time for trial, the adopted guard grandmother who had not really paid much attention testified to what she saw instead. The girl was deemed too young to be held accountable or to be believed. The man she says she saw was the same man acquitted by the muddied waters surrounding where the bike was found.

What happened to all the kids here is a good question no matter which scenario or train of thought is being persued. ???
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
For those who consider the cemetery as a possible factor in the abduction, here’s an interesting tidbit of information from RR first edition that doesn’t appear anywhere else:

“... there was also the photogenic tracking dog of John Sikura, a wealthy local racehorse breeder who had taken a fierce personal interest in the drama. After Sikura launched the animal from the Jessop residence, it headed straight for a small opening in the fence leading into the cemetery. The dog snuffled around some gravestones for awhile but never became any more excited or determined than that. Christine seemed to have dematerialized...” page 31

On page 31, there’s a specific reference to the damage to the bike as “dents in her carrier and handlebar”. Again, this suggests very minor damage that could have occurred in a fall or a hastily parked bike. Perhaps Christine was in a hurry, or eager to leave with someone and thus didn’t take the care to make sure her bike was secure?

Orora mentioned this detail, so I’ll post this:

“The abductor obviously had a very narrow window of opportunity within which to operate. Christine had arrived home from the store just after 4:00 pm. Her mother and brother had arrived at about 4:10 pm. By checking with a clerk at the Bell Telephone office in Newmarket, the police ascertained that Janet stopped in to pay a bill at about 3:40 or 3:45 pm. This accorded with Ken and Janet’s own estimate. Either the abductor’s timing was the result of a slice of random good luck, or else he had intimate knowledge of the family’s schedule.” Page 32

And one last intriguing tidbit (for today), lost from the revised edition:

“... the sexual assault theory was enhanced by a series of four phone calls that came into the Jessop residence within hours of Christine’s disappearance. The caller held a long silence before hanging up.” Page 32
 

orora

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
I looked back into the Kaufman report about CJ's classmates etc and found that they had all been questioned and tested extensively, even down to comparing their hair with the one found on CJ's necklace. No mention any other girl on the store corner with a recorder that day.

Kaufman refers to the cemetery worker as a boy. The corner witness refers to an older boy being seen with C.J. on that corner. Possibilities?

Re the timing- My mention of the window of opportunity is in regard the pattern of changed witness testimony. When coupled with lack of coroberation even in Police notes where there should be and when the physical evidence is actually LOST OR MISSING, one must take note the pattern.

At least three witnesses have confirmed the Police requesting changes to testimony and them complying.
The same could be extrapolated from the so called window of opportunity witnesses.

Originally the clerk believed it to be 4:30 when Janet Jessop was in their office and the secretary at the dental office concedes there is no reason her time estimate could not have been off 15 minutes later too. Times were changed, evidence lost, Janet admits changing times at Police request.

The 28 million dollar question got based on that time window constricting most possibilities to what we still have today. No apparent means of reconciling all the events within the timing to account for all the witnesses. We are stuck with an either or equation pitting all the witnesses at various locations against each other and in conflict with apparent fact.

I suggest the window of opportunity is not so clear.

From The Kaufman inquiry

CHAPTER IV: THE INVESTIGATION BY THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE661
Bell Telephone office located on Main Street in Newmarket.
On October 4, 1984, Lois Gibson, a clerk in that office, was contacted by Inspector Wilson to confirm if and when Ms. Jessop attended the office the day before. Ms. Gibson said that Ms. Jessop was there around 4:30 that afternoon. After this conversation, she began to wonder whether she was correct. As she had the impression that this was important, she called the main office in Toronto (which had a record of the date and time of every transaction) to see what time Ms. Jessop had paid her bill. A service representative provided this information to Ms. Gibson, who realized she had been wrong in her 4:30 estimate. Accordingly, on October 5th, she telephoned York Regional Police and asked to speak with the Inspector. As he was not available, Ms. Gibson left the correct time with a secretary at the station. She told the secretary it was very important that this information be given to Inspector Wilson. Her message was misplaced and Inspector Wilson never received it.
Over five years later, in 1990, this came to light. As part of defence counsel’s investigation into the timing of Ms. Jessop’s activities, Ms. Gibson was contacted. She described her telephone call to Inspector Wilson’s secretary. She had presumed that Wilson had received her message. By this time, the Bell records were no longer available; however, Ms. Gibson provided an Affidavit to the defence in March 1990 stating that, as best as she could remember, the business office had told her that Ms. Jessop had paid her bill on October 3, 1984 between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. The original records would have been valuable in establishing the precise time that Ms. Jessop attended at Bell Telephone. No written record was ever located of Ms. Gibson’s message to Inspector Wilson containing the correct time. Inspector Wilson never recorded his original conversation with Ms. Gibson in a notebook or in a supplementary report. The York Regional police did not inquire whether Bell Telephone records could speak to the issue of timing.
Household Finance
Ms. Jessop’s narrative also involved a visit to Household Finance. Pamela Watson, who worked there on October 3, 1984, recalled Ms. Jessop’s attendance. Ms. Watson testified, as a witness for the defence at the pre-trial motions, that Ms. Jessop glanced at the time and commented that she had to pick up her child at the dentist’s office. Ms. Watson was interviewed by two
662 THE COMMISSION ON PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING GUY PAUL MORIN
York Regional Police officers within a few days of Christine’s disappearance. Unfortunately, no specific notes or supplementary report were prepared outlining the conversation with Ms. Watson. By the time defence counsel’s investigator tracked down Ms. Watson in 1990, the records of Ms. Jessop’s attendance had been destroyed. Ms. Watson’s best estimate, some five and a half years after the event, was that Ms. Jessop had attended the office between 3:40 and 4:00 o’clock that afternoon. Ms. Watson swore an Affidavit to this effect on March 29, 1990.
This represented a second lost opportunity to precisely ascertain the timing of Ms. Jessop’s activities on the afternoon of October 4th. By the time these witnesses were examined in May 1990, their recollections were open to challenge as there was no longer any available contemporaneous record of what had transpired over five years earlier. When Ms. Watson testified that Ms. Jessop’s visit was sometime between 3:40 and 4:00, she was questioned by the Crown as to the veracity of her memory. When asked “Is there some reason why it couldn’t have been 4:10 or 4:15?”, she answered candidly “Not really.” Had York Regional Police recorded the statements from these witnesses in a timely fashion, this problem might not have arisen.
 

orora

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
And just restating- Leslie the only witness that we know of who called the Jessop residence after returning home (after 4 pm.) did not receive an answer until much later.

There is a possibility the time window is a little wider than has been allowed for. imo I hope this will be kept in back of minds when going onto the next phase.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
Sorry jobo, I see I neglected to answer your post on other victim disposal sites.

Other than Debbie Silverman, I'm not sure how many others there are to compare - feel free to remind me.

Unfortunately, between January 1985 and 1990 or 1991, some of the samples from Christine's clothing were allowed to deteriorate at the Centre of Forensic Science in Toronto. While it was protocol for other labs at the time to freeze such samples, CFS did not have this protocol in place. Fortunately, not all were lost and there were some samples (slides) in US labs that were properly stored.

If you add 6 years (1978 for Debbie) to the poor standards at CFS, then I am not hopeful for Debbie's family that anything was left to test when technology allowed.

As for the DNA statements as a whole, Toronto Police still will not back up Tweedy's press release to the Globe and Mail on 1 October 2004 - that there is a DNA sample from the crime scene in the National Databank. For a second time in the Star article, they stick with 'we have DNA'. They want people to assume from their statement it's in the databank.

Have you received a response Dedpanman to your e-mail? Like you jobo, I did not hear back from Fifth Estate.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
On the other part of your post jobo, it is interesting that of the witnesses who claim to have seen Christine that day, not one spoke to her, including the store owner - in RR the owner states something to the effect 'not feeling too chatty, she put down her nickel and left.' This person then proceeded to change their story on Janet. It's difficult for me to put any faith in this.

Again, sightings at the store, but no one (classmates and neighbourhood kids) saw her walk to the store (Christine would have been visible from the store for most of this walk), no one saw her walk to or saw her in the park, no one spoke to her, yet the 'official' line is, she did all these things - unseen. Then was abducted from the park unseen by anyone.

As a side note, Mangano is in effect saying the Horwood sighting never happened. His theory puts the abductors vehicle in the same spot as the Horwood's and further claims the abductor drove up Leslie Street to Ravenshoe Road and turned right (east).
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
Thank-you Dedpanman for the John Sikura information. It's hard to imagine why this was dropped from the revised edition and not included in the KR.

The phone calls where no one spoke was very brazen and a red flag imo, - they couldn't be traced at that time?
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
Have you received a response Dedpanman to your e-mail? Like you jobo, I did not hear back from Fifth Estate.

No response from Ryan or Fifth.

I suppose it's too much effort for Ryan to send a quick email-reply? Something like, "Rest assured, the DNA profile is in the databank."

So... doubt will continue to fester.
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
On the other part of your post jobo, it is interesting that of the witnesses who claim to have seen Christine that day, not one spoke to her, including the store owner - in RR the owner states something to the effect 'not feeling too chatty, she put down her nickel and left.' This person then proceeded to change their story on Janet. It's difficult for me to put any faith in this.

Concerning Chris L’s (the store owner’s) encounter with Christine, from RR first edition, page 9-10:

Inside the general store, the owner, Chris, was leaning against the counter reading a newspaper. He later claimed Christine had on a blue jacket with a hood tied tight around her head. It had made Chris wonder if the wind was picking up out there as the sun dropped lower in the sky. “Hi, Christine. Cold out, eh?”
“Yes.”
“How was school today?”
“Oh, okay.”
Chris knew Christine from her regular trips to the shop…”

From RR, first edition, page 30:

In an accent thick from his native Greece, Chris patiently gave his account of Christine’s final visit to his store: “She come in. All the time is happy, smiling. She call me by the name. She buy gum and she walk out. I can’t believe this thing happen here.”

So, according to Makin in the first edition, there was verbal interaction. In the revised edition, it becomes "Not feeling too chatty..."

Two different books.
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
Thank-you Dedpanman for the John Sikura information. It's hard to imagine why this was dropped from the revised edition and not included in the KR.

The phone calls where no one spoke was very brazen and a red flag imo, - they couldn't be traced at that time?

Woodland, it would boggle your mind to read the first edition.
(Because I know you've read and re-read the revised edition like I have.)
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
The phone calls where no one spoke was very brazen and a red flag imo, - they couldn't be traced at that time?

According to the first edition, the Jessop's phone records were checked, but it's implied that it only concerned outgoing calls, not calls coming in. Again, it's not explicitly stated that way - but that's my take on it - my interpretation - and that could be wrong.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
Thank-you Dedpanman, now I have more reason to doubt the store owners account of that day.

It's one thing to drop a portion of the story in the revised edition or add something, but to re-write the crucial moment at the store? A re-write that puts the two accounts at odds with one another? Makin came into some information and had reason to doubt the veracity of the owners story?

A blue jacket with a hood? Or a blue sweater? Do not recall the sweater had a hood.
 

orora

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
And this justifies questioning the store owner? I would be asking what the hell is going on with the author Makin? Changing, modifying, omitting, wholesale changes with little to no qualifications, whole chapters dropped! Seems literary license is being used a little too freely to me. Too many people have changed their stories in this case. Those who admit it, claim at the request of LE.

But ask Makin if you wish, hopefully the answer will be a little better than when asked where the picture used on the cover of his book were taken or what the object in the picture was.

How many other unexplained changes are there between the two versions? Is there a theme running through the changes?
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
I already doubted the store owner. This doesn't change anything for me.
 

Dedpanman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
493
Reaction score
212
There is a possibility the time window is a little wider than has been allowed for. imo I hope this will be kept in back of minds when going onto the next phase.

I concede you might be right, Orora, but I still put more weight on Janet and Ken's original time estimate for arriving home, as opposed to some person in Newmarket behind a desk and a scrap of paper.

You have me thinking, though.

(Shrug)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top