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

[ttcRider]

Im just hearing about Colleen Macmillen's case and wondering about the 'higher quality' DNA sample that was developed can be done for Christine's case as well?

 

[orora]

Stick with that thought ttcRider. 1974... strange stuff... wtf..!

 

[Woodland]

All LE needs to develop a DNA profile is evidence to develop it from. Once the evidence is gone nothing can be done.

 

[ttcRider]

All LE needs to develop a DNA profile is evidence to develop it from. Once the evidence is gone nothing can be done.

Dumbfound right now.. so are you saying there is no DNA sample left at all? I'm trying to follow along as best I can, the DNA conversations are over my head. If they used the last sample they had for trial wouldnt that still be somewhere and usable? I have no idea how this process works, I really should do my own research, sorry.

 

[Woodland]

Let's try a comparison this time. Telephones.

In the beginning telephones were rather large and attached to a wall. One had to use a crank to alert an operator who came on the line and connected your call. It worked.

Later, telephones became smaller and one could pick up a handset and dial a number themselves - locally or within the same continent. They were still attached to the wall, and one could not call overseas without going through an operator. It worked better.

Now, one can leave home with a phone that fits in your hand, connect to the internet, do some banking, take a picture of a sleeping transit worker or cop and send it to the local news outlet, watch a movie or the news (to check for the picture you just sent) and maybe hack into the computer controlling the traffic lights to make all the lights green between where you are and where you want to go. Phones are now great - but there was a time when we couldn't do all these wonderful things with them.

The key to being able to do all these fancy things with a phone is having a phone with the capability - not the old crank type.

The key to a usable DNA profile today is to have one done in mid 1997 or beyond. Or have evidence available to conduct that test now.

And yes I am saying all the evidence was consumed in this case to produce the 1995 DNA profile. There was a hearing in October 1994 to have the Crown and Defense agree to give up the precious few samples each had been given previously, combine them in one place (Boston) and try for the fourth time to produce a profile. It was a risk, everyone knew it was a risk, everyone agreed to take that risk. This is not the only case where this happened and science is trying to do something about that.

Let's see what Det Sgt Steve Ryan says about the status of the DNA for this case.

 

[Woodland]

Sorry, left out an important point.

DNA could not be copied until mid 1997. So prior to that it was use and lose it.

 

[Dedpanman]

This is a copy of the email I sent to Ryan and cc'd the Fifth Estate. No answer yet, and probably won't ever get an answer. I assume he's a busy guy and he's not obligated to answer a question like this, but we'll see.



Detective Sergeant Steve Ryan
Homicide Squad Cold Cases
Toronto Police Services


Dear Sir,

I saw you interviewed on the recent episode of The Fifth Estate in the segment concerning Christine Jessop. There are many Ontarians who still hope that the perpetrator of that heinous crime will someday be brought to justice and your words on that program were encouraging.

I do not know if you are aware of an on-going controversy and some significant confusion with the general public surrounding the potential use of DNA in the future of this case. There are many who believe that the DNA profile created from the genetic material left behind by the perpetrator of that crime is NOT in the RCMP’s National DNA data bank.

The reason for this confusion is that, in my understanding, the DNA profile (used to exonerate Guy Paul Morin) was created using a now-antiquated lab procedure, and that that profile is not compatible with the modern tests used to create the profiles for the National DNA data bank. I also understand that all of the genetic material used to create that profile back in 1995 was consumed.

On the Fifth Estate, you said that this case was “one phone call away” from being solved and that “we have DNA”, however you stopped short of saying that the profile was in the RCMP DNA data bank.

The lack of clarification on this issue will further the controversy, the confusion and the questions.

Could you please confirm that the DNA profile in the Christine Jessop murder investigation (however cold) is indeed in the RCMP DNA data bank?

Thank you in advance for taking time out of your extremely busy schedule to answer my query.


Kindest regards, and still hoping for justice,

*********


Still waiting, and I'm not holding my breath.

 

[orora]

Good stuff, it is about time that this was cleared up once and for all. Without engaging in that same debate all over again, I do "hope" that the last sample tested in the US produced a profile of modern compatability. Look what that can do for a cold case... The example given of Colleen Macmillen was just the most recent cold case solved. No logic nor power of deduction could crack the case. The killer would most surely have gotten away with it save for dna. Up until then no one knew he was even in the country let alone there being any other evidence that could link him to the crime. But, his dna was in the US database. Could CJ's killer also be in the US data base? Colleen's killer's dna had to be manually submitted through interpol I believe. Has CJ's killer's dna been submitted? Knowing this much even would answer most all the other dna questions. We have a right to know whether CJ's killer's dna has been tested against the US database. Should not Christine be afforded the same opportunity for closure as Colleen Macmillen? It's only right and fair to do so.

 

[dotr]

Comparison, if I may - CJ and flute found nearby , body not particularily well hidden..
Sharin'M.K. found with dollar bill in pocket and really not hidden (inside fridge).
An associate of DMH?

 

[chinacat67]

I am so frustrated-why can't I find any primary materials--meaning not second-hand, third-hand, spun, massaged, refracted materials--absolutely nothing has ever been released to anyone that is just factual (ok with the bias of the initial people reporting)?

Yes, things get lost over time and softened over time (RR version 1 vs version 2) and in this case there are egregious lapses in protocol, intellectual processes, and, well in MOO, legal activities, but still, absolutely nothing has ever been released from what must be voluminous police and prosecutors' files??

What could possibly be the harm at this point of releasing everything (or, almost everything)? It's not like it could make it any worse than it already is?!?!

Sorry,a little frustrated over lack of source material.

But does anyone have anything at all that is first hand or original or from the initial time period (say first 6 mos)??

Do you know if people have tried thru the Canadian FOIA equivalent?

 

[orora]

Hope doth spring eternal. Without dna, it seems unlikely CJ will ever see justice. That most of us have a problem reconciling. The United States labs were capable of producing a modern profile back in the day they had the dna. I not only hope they did but by the very words of the Police investigators, I believed they did. Even the most recent announcement "we have dna" still leaves that glimmer of hope intact. If not true, it is as if we are all being lied too, repeatedly, deliberately. It is what it is but I would like to see and hear confirmation of what they have or at least an explanation for the discrepancy before going down that road. Thats all nothing personal. Where's the upside to having no dna to work with? Perhaps we will get an answer yet, I'm sure the fifth estate would like to know as well. The Police officer said right to the interviewer "we have dna." What would the fifth feel about being misled like that? And.. in turn misleading all of us. That should warrant a public correction on the next show. Maybe this will help bring them onside if they only knew.

 

[Woodland]

Oroa - I'd like to see and hear confirmation of your statement the US labs were capable of producing a modern profile back in the day they had the DNA. I can find proof the tests changed 2 years after that profile was produced, rendering the first one obsolete.

What does your research show? What constitutes 'modern day?'

Statements without back up aren't going to go anywhere.

We have DNA - LE and Websleuths can both say the same.

 

[orora]

It is misleading at very least to say we have dna without a qualifier if it is as useless as you claim.

As far as the dna we have been all over this before. I posted a link previously to a 1995 case in the U.S. that produced a US lab profile compatible and comparable to the US database. I never deleted the link, review if you wish. Point was, Police here should not be speaking as they are if your point is true W. If they weren't doing so, I would have an easier time believing your point. Sorry..will wait it out a little longer for external confirmation. What is there to loose? Without that what have we got and where can we go with it?

 

[Woodland]

So no back up to the claim that US labs could produce profiles in 1995 that are the same as profiles in 1997 thru today.

If Toronto Police won't say the DNA from this crime scene is in the database then it's difficult to imagine who else will.

 

[orora]

We have been here before, links were left. Nothing has changed. The US profile produced in 95 found a match within the US database. Our database has now changed to match theirs has it not? You discounted the link and that info when it was posted. W. Not worth anyone going there again no matter how much you goad. Its there find it if you wish. No one is going to go running off every time you re-ask a question and reread the whole thread for you time after time.

Part of the problem here seems you get bored or something every once in awhile when things go quiet and you have to stir what has settled. Unless you have training and experience in a very complex field such as dna, how do you expect us to totally trust your or any other lay persons determinations alone? How do we know you or any lay person hasn't missed something? It would be a deriliction to proceed on your assumption without an external qualified professional determination and validation of that question. The truth of it isn't up to you or I alone.

It was only days ago that we seemed to agree to solicit the assistance of the fifth estate in that endeavour. There are other avenues to persue also if patience wears thin. GPM attorneys? His association-AIDOTWC etc.. If your position is to have any credibility W. you need this imo. I'd say try to be patient and welcome whatever assistance can be gained.

 

[jobo]

I haven't heard back from the Fifth Estate. I thought they would, for sure, get back to me within the week....especially since they air new shows weekly.

 

[Dedpanman]

Perhaps Christine did ride her bike to the store, bought the gum and proceeded over to the park.

Still sifting and sifting through the sawdust searching for diamonds. One of the central mysteries of this case: did she ride her bike or not?

Noticed something that I had missed so many times before that helps nudge us closer to the answer I think:

Leslie Chipman - when she went to the park to meet Christine - and Christine wasn't there...

Leslie Chipman rode her bike there (page 11, RR first edition).

If the girls had a pattern of meeting in the park after school, why would one girl (Leslie) ride her bike there, and one girl not (Christine)? Christine lived far enough from the school that she used the bus to get home. Leslie walked to school - did not take the bus - yet, she rode her bike to the park. The implicaton is that riding their bikes to the park was part of their established pattern. The girls both rode their bikes to the park when they chose to go there.

But the day Christine vanishes, her bicycle is found at home in the shed.

Why is this detail about Leslie riding to the park important?

Because it's further evidence that Christine never went to the store that day. Why? Because her bike was found at home. If she had gone to the store, she would have ridden there on her bike. Had she made it to the store on her bike - she would have been there at the park to meet Leslie. She would not have ridden all the way back home again without meeting her friend.

And, she wasn't abducted from the park because the perpetrator would not be stupid enough to take her bike home, then continue on with Christine. That makes no sense at all.

The abduction site had to have been the Jessop house (driveway/yard) or the cemetery.

It's the only thing that makes sense.

Mangano - you're wrong.

 

[Woodland]

I'm glad you posted that Dedpanman, Mangano's assertion has been on my mind as well.

Page 10 of RR - 'At 5:30 or 6:00 pm, Janet ... left the house.... Janet made a quick circuit of the park and stopped off at the general store ...'

Page 41 of RR - 'A further blow to Janet's trustworthiness came when the owner of the general store said she was mistaken about her (Janet) coming in for cigarettes on the evening of the search.'

The store owner changed their story, so how does one lend so much credibility to anything else they said? The paragraph on page 41 goes on to say 'Why would Janet lie about this?' Why was Janet assumed to be lying? Why couldn't the store owner be wrong, including saying she saw Christine that day?

I wanted to post this once before but thought it would only further muddy the waters on what happened to Christine that day.

Mangano also says Christine was last seen entering the general store - that can't be found anywhere. No one reported seeing Christine walk to the store or enter the store. One report put her talking to other kids in front of the store, another 'possibly' struggling in a car and one sighting was recanted as being untrue.

So I agree - Mangano - you're wrong.

Mangano also said 'we still have things we can do to narrow the field of suspects.' Unfortunately he doesn't make any attempt to say what even one of those things could be.

I do thank Mangano though for mentioning the car parked on the tractor path on the lot where Christine was found and either him or The Fifth Estate for the diagram that went with that. It's helpful information.

 

[orora]

We may as well also add that Leslie apparently called CJ's home at 4:30 and claims there was no answer. Then, years later it appears Leslie was one of the witnesses who claims she had been asked to change her story and timing to comply with a request from Police. So the window of opportunity to take or return the bike may not be so clear as it may first appear.

Trustworthiness of all concerned has been shown to be a problem all along compounded by Police activities to implicate GPM. Some admitt to having been compromised by that means, others are suspicious in that regard. It is extremely difficult to chose one favourite witness or scenario over another to hang your hat on in a situation like this.

The fifth estate is a fairly large operation now with many different staff members. It may take awhile to reach the right ears and they aren't likely to have all the answers immediately. Often I have seen or heard a follow up statement aired from a fifth reporter about something to do with an earlier story. Its not over yet by any means imo.

 

[Dedpanman]

Page 10 of RR - 'At 5:30 or 6:00 pm, Janet ... left the house.... Janet made a quick circuit of the park and stopped off at the general store ...'

Page 41 of RR - 'A further blow to Janet's trustworthiness came when the owner of the general store said she was mistaken about her (Janet) coming in for cigarettes on the evening of the search.'

The store owner changed their story, so how does one lend so much credibility to anything else they said? The paragraph on page 41 goes on to say 'Why would Janet lie about this?' Why was Janet assumed to be lying? Why couldn't the store owner be wrong, including saying she saw Christine that day?

I wanted to post this once before but thought it would only further muddy the waters on what happened to Christine that day.

I totally agree on all points. Mangano is... well, a hero. He’s retired, but clearly obsessed with the case, as we all are, and he’s still working the field in his spare time. Still hunting. He’s got his pet-theories like we all do. Hopefully, he’s not so locked in on his store/park-theory that he can’t entertain any others. Also, the guy’s privy to a lot of information that we’ll never know about. The vehicle parked on the tractor trail must make us wonder what other “mind-blowing” things are still buried in the files and unknown to the general public? (And, how did that detail escape Kirk Makin?)

It’s frustrating, sifting through the sawdust... but that’s all we can do. But, I do think there’s still some things that can be squeezed out of that sawdust. That’s all we have to work with, and we have no choice if we want to keep this case from being forgotten. We must continue to use logic, common sense, behaviour patterns, run and re-run the various scenarios. Find the one scenario that makes the most sense, fits most of the facts... The truth is elusive, but we may have already sketched out what actually happened – we just don’t have any way to lock it down or recognize it. Yet.

There are people out there who know things – maybe just one or two people—but, I think they’re there—and they hold the missing pieces. They just need to realize that they can come forward and share what they know. That it's the right thing to do. Let the secrets come to light. Unload their burden. Those few missing pieces can link everything together and take us right to the front door (or the grave) of the person who did this. 30 year old crimes can be solved. They’ve been solved before. It can happen here, too. I believe that or I wouldn’t be doing this.

Christine was all over Queensville all the time. People who lived and worked in Queensville would certainly recall this child. They would know of her – maybe not by name – but they would know of the girl on the red bike who was always roaming around on her own. They saw her at the store and at the park, and pedalling up and down Leslie Street numerous times. That’s why all those eyewitnesses are probably not recalling her movements on that specific day (Oct. 3, 1984) accurately. And I include the store owner (Chris L.) who is the lynchpin for the “journey to the store” scenario. Without his adamant recollection that Christine was there at 4:00 pm, that whole scenario completely collapses. He could easily be remembering an encounter with Christine from the day before, etc. WHY CAN’T HE BE MISTAKEN? He can swear that she was there until the cows come home, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his testimony is reality. It’s just his version of reality. And, Woodland, that’s an excellent point about him not remembering Janet coming in later that day.

There’s a detail in RR first edition that is missing from RR revised edition that I want to share here. Chris L – the store owner – once cashed a fifty dollar cheque for Bob Jessop – but the cheque bounced, and it was a bit of an embarrassment for the Jessops. Janet was the one who went to the store to give Chris L. the fifty dollars that he was owed. Certainly, he would remember Janet coming in that day? But no... It raises the question: how reliable is the store owner’s memory – really?

And I really don’t think we’re beating a dead horse here with this bicycle issue or the issue of whether or not Christine went to the store. The point of abduction is just as important as the body dump site in terms of crime analysis and revealing things about the perpetrator. We have to nail this point down.

And, yes, I know we can never be 100% certain – but maybe we can get to 75%?