CANADA Canada - Christine Jessop, 9, Queensville, Ont, 3 Oct 1984 - #1
- Thread starter Dedpanman
- Start date
- Status
Thankfully there was a picture before Magnano got hung!
Ohh boy, I return today to find a few additions to your comments dpm. You are being accredited with dispelling myth and illusion and I of spreading false information. I was going to respond to your post in kind as you have and keep with the same attitude of debating the merits by way of fact and logic. But… I see we are a long ways off so..
Let me stick with the foundation stone from whence we all diverge into our own theories just a little longer if I may. Theories seem to be spawned more from thoughts related the bike than most anything else here. I see a picture of the bike and understand the concept behind your theory. Dpm -your latest theory to explain some of the other aspects we find seems to be the damage to the bike pre existed the day of the abduction but the damage was inconsequential and the bike still rideable. correct me if wrong..
On your side you note-
Riding the bike was part of a daily pattern which both CJ and Leslie followed. Leslie rode her bike that day, so why not Cj too? You say the abduction prevented that from occurring and therefore that’s why CJ never made it to the store or the park or anywhere else, either by bike or on foot. All witnesses were therefore mistaken and all abduction theories aside one originating from the home are wrong. The foundation of the theory is based on the bike damage being minor and pre existing. This is entirely possible and worthy of consideration but it is far from a slam dunk as some would like it to be. imo. I have no problem revising whatever theories I may hold in whatever manner required if this can be demonstrated at least a little more concretely.
I briefly touched upon this subject in that reply about Magnano. I feel sorry for him today in light some of the comments and wish he could show up to explain and defend himself. I don’t believe him maliscious or with any intent to fabricate any evidence.
As noted, CJ and Leslie had a pattern to their lives. They rode their bikes, they went to the store almost daily and they frequented the park. Any perp planning an abduction had that to work with. Presumably there was a spot to park bikes at that store, some spot was presumably near where people park vehicles. CJ may have had a route she took between the park and the store even. If anyone were watching and seeking a spot where there was some cover even briefly, where would this be? What ruse or action would you set up somewhere along her daily route to fit with her daily routine? A vehicle had been reported following CJ and friend days earlier and it was near the park where the vehicle was first noticed following. That may simply have been Magnano’s starting point which is obviously not enough on its own. There must have been more. He has had considerable time to work the evidence.
When the bike was found at CJ’s home and there was some damage noticed as well as it having the appearance of just being dropped there, suspicions went in that direction. By all indication it was a prized possession and by inference CJ looked after it. So both the damage and manner the bike was found created the foundation of the bike damage being concurrent with the abduction theory.
No one seems to have been aware of any previous incidents or damage. It takes a bit of a fall to bend a handlebar and is rather uncomfortable to ride afterwards in that condition. It can be ridden but you would want it fixed. Usually the damage to the bike is minor compared the rider in a spill. Even minor damage the bike can hurt the rider to the point of skinned knees or similar. Leslie rode with Christine all the time and never reported an earlier incident. The Jessop’s never said anything had happened to CJ or the bike prior that day. It would have been questioned by LE almost immediately that very night. What did they do? They immediately had the bike fingerprinted, suspicion had not been allayed by anything anyone said. The type of damage was somewhat minor and the manner in which the bike was left seemed to match. The damage found and the manner the bike was found could be looked upon as a match. The damage no more so than the situation appeared or warranted. IMO the evidence and information we have been left with more indicates the damage happened that day and the manner in which it was found suggests the involvement of another person.
For me it is not a red herring but a rather important point. I understand the desire to make sense of this and put it in a box to proceed from as it is a divergent juncture but I do not find enough weight to tip the scales in favour of disregarding the bike or deeming it inconsequential. No offence, just saying. imo
Next and keeping with the same theme was why the recorder was not found with the bike? By all rights the bike looks like the scene of the crime right there in the carport. It would seem a forced abduction by the damage and manner of disposal. I believe if it were, the recorder would be dropped and abandoned in a heart beat and should have been found with the bike. The discarded bike and recorder should have been found together in mine and in the opinion of others. For dpm that point meant the bike was not likely to have been involved if the recorder was not there. The damage and manner it was found is nullified and down played as pre-existing coincidental and inconsequential. It is a possibility but just that, a possibility. There is no proof of that being true and there is an absence of supporting proof or testimony where there should be.
The spector of some sort of occurance is left whether understood or not. A damaged bike, roughly discarded and all coinciding with a missing girl. It too remains a possibility and imo at least as viable as the bike not being involved at all. More so really.
But if it happened right there, you would have a struggling child being dragged into a car right in broad daylight from her own driveway. Any perp would have to consider that. Back to the missing recorder and any scenario where the perp waits or arranges for an encounter where he has less chance being seen and more in control. Even close by anywhere along the route to the store, or out back the carport or really any where along the usual route.. Come out from between two trees or two vehicles or whatever was setup. Return the bike to the carport even from close by instead of leaving it where it lay and identifying where she was taken from. That would be handy to know now wouldn’t it, Ask GPM. Again the possibility has been discussed of two perps being involved and the potential theories that could arise.
Of course there are huge complications like returning the bike and why. There was a fairly well known child abduction out in Kelowna BC years ago in which much of the case hinged on exactly where the missing child’s bike was found in relation to the suspects residence. Witnesses were pitted against each other each testifying to differing locations yards apart with the suspect eventually being acquitted by the doubt raised despite him matching the dna evidence. If you don’t think the location a bike is found is important in a missing/murdered child case, read the Mindy Tran trial transcripts. It is pretty tough for the defence to trump a prosecution with dna evidence in hand but with the help of the bike, they did just that. If the bike had been found elsewhere here in this case, who knows where that would have led. I doubt GPM would have been implicated at all.
We can only interpret the leads we have within the frame of our own experience and understanding unfortunately and none of us are the same in that regard. We can all generate possibilities but we have to base them on fact. Which is truly fact and which is debateable is well, debatable.
The possibility of the bike being associated to the abduction is as strong a possibility as the alternative imo. More so to me. But that is only my opinion and this is the best I can do to explain why. Mr. Magnano has his reasons to believe as he does too as do W. and dpm and jobo etc etc We all do our best to make sense of things and put as many pieces together into the puzzle as possible. We don’t have to all agree on everything imo. I have no reason to perpetuate “false information” as I am being accused. I have gone into as great a detail as any to explain my rationale for why I believe as I do. If I have missed something or have gotten something wrong go ahead and point it out and I will gladly revise my thoughts accordingly. If I still have reason and can produce facts and evidence to support my belief of which the other party may not otherwise be aware, I would usually continue to try to do so. Somewhere in the middle I believed we might all enlighten each other. Or hopefully we could.
I get the impression that DPM and W. wish to wrap this part up and move things along to where they believe this leads. This bike discussion was just one of the junctures that could jump off into several differing possibilities. As said, they wish to move along down the road that stems from the bike not being involved. Apparently that necessitates some degree of acceptance on this point so as not to disturb or muddy the waters as we go. I've said my peace and I’ll stop here.
Maybe it will all make sense and come together in the end.
Ohh boy, I return today to find a few additions to your comments dpm. You are being accredited with dispelling myth and illusion and I of spreading false information. I was going to respond to your post in kind as you have and keep with the same attitude of debating the merits by way of fact and logic. But… I see we are a long ways off so..
Let me stick with the foundation stone from whence we all diverge into our own theories just a little longer if I may. Theories seem to be spawned more from thoughts related the bike than most anything else here. I see a picture of the bike and understand the concept behind your theory. Dpm -your latest theory to explain some of the other aspects we find seems to be the damage to the bike pre existed the day of the abduction but the damage was inconsequential and the bike still rideable. correct me if wrong..
On your side you note-
Riding the bike was part of a daily pattern which both CJ and Leslie followed. Leslie rode her bike that day, so why not Cj too? You say the abduction prevented that from occurring and therefore that’s why CJ never made it to the store or the park or anywhere else, either by bike or on foot. All witnesses were therefore mistaken and all abduction theories aside one originating from the home are wrong. The foundation of the theory is based on the bike damage being minor and pre existing. This is entirely possible and worthy of consideration but it is far from a slam dunk as some would like it to be. imo. I have no problem revising whatever theories I may hold in whatever manner required if this can be demonstrated at least a little more concretely.
I briefly touched upon this subject in that reply about Magnano. I feel sorry for him today in light some of the comments and wish he could show up to explain and defend himself. I don’t believe him maliscious or with any intent to fabricate any evidence.
As noted, CJ and Leslie had a pattern to their lives. They rode their bikes, they went to the store almost daily and they frequented the park. Any perp planning an abduction had that to work with. Presumably there was a spot to park bikes at that store, some spot was presumably near where people park vehicles. CJ may have had a route she took between the park and the store even. If anyone were watching and seeking a spot where there was some cover even briefly, where would this be? What ruse or action would you set up somewhere along her daily route to fit with her daily routine? A vehicle had been reported following CJ and friend days earlier and it was near the park where the vehicle was first noticed following. That may simply have been Magnano’s starting point which is obviously not enough on its own. There must have been more. He has had considerable time to work the evidence.
When the bike was found at CJ’s home and there was some damage noticed as well as it having the appearance of just being dropped there, suspicions went in that direction. By all indication it was a prized possession and by inference CJ looked after it. So both the damage and manner the bike was found created the foundation of the bike damage being concurrent with the abduction theory.
No one seems to have been aware of any previous incidents or damage. It takes a bit of a fall to bend a handlebar and is rather uncomfortable to ride afterwards in that condition. It can be ridden but you would want it fixed. Usually the damage to the bike is minor compared the rider in a spill. Even minor damage the bike can hurt the rider to the point of skinned knees or similar. Leslie rode with Christine all the time and never reported an earlier incident. The Jessop’s never said anything had happened to CJ or the bike prior that day. It would have been questioned by LE almost immediately that very night. What did they do? They immediately had the bike fingerprinted, suspicion had not been allayed by anything anyone said. The type of damage was somewhat minor and the manner in which the bike was left seemed to match. The damage found and the manner the bike was found could be looked upon as a match. The damage no more so than the situation appeared or warranted. IMO the evidence and information we have been left with more indicates the damage happened that day and the manner in which it was found suggests the involvement of another person.
For me it is not a red herring but a rather important point. I understand the desire to make sense of this and put it in a box to proceed from as it is a divergent juncture but I do not find enough weight to tip the scales in favour of disregarding the bike or deeming it inconsequential. No offence, just saying. imo
Next and keeping with the same theme was why the recorder was not found with the bike? By all rights the bike looks like the scene of the crime right there in the carport. It would seem a forced abduction by the damage and manner of disposal. I believe if it were, the recorder would be dropped and abandoned in a heart beat and should have been found with the bike. The discarded bike and recorder should have been found together in mine and in the opinion of others. For dpm that point meant the bike was not likely to have been involved if the recorder was not there. The damage and manner it was found is nullified and down played as pre-existing coincidental and inconsequential. It is a possibility but just that, a possibility. There is no proof of that being true and there is an absence of supporting proof or testimony where there should be.
The spector of some sort of occurance is left whether understood or not. A damaged bike, roughly discarded and all coinciding with a missing girl. It too remains a possibility and imo at least as viable as the bike not being involved at all. More so really.
But if it happened right there, you would have a struggling child being dragged into a car right in broad daylight from her own driveway. Any perp would have to consider that. Back to the missing recorder and any scenario where the perp waits or arranges for an encounter where he has less chance being seen and more in control. Even close by anywhere along the route to the store, or out back the carport or really any where along the usual route.. Come out from between two trees or two vehicles or whatever was setup. Return the bike to the carport even from close by instead of leaving it where it lay and identifying where she was taken from. That would be handy to know now wouldn’t it, Ask GPM. Again the possibility has been discussed of two perps being involved and the potential theories that could arise.
Of course there are huge complications like returning the bike and why. There was a fairly well known child abduction out in Kelowna BC years ago in which much of the case hinged on exactly where the missing child’s bike was found in relation to the suspects residence. Witnesses were pitted against each other each testifying to differing locations yards apart with the suspect eventually being acquitted by the doubt raised despite him matching the dna evidence. If you don’t think the location a bike is found is important in a missing/murdered child case, read the Mindy Tran trial transcripts. It is pretty tough for the defence to trump a prosecution with dna evidence in hand but with the help of the bike, they did just that. If the bike had been found elsewhere here in this case, who knows where that would have led. I doubt GPM would have been implicated at all.
We can only interpret the leads we have within the frame of our own experience and understanding unfortunately and none of us are the same in that regard. We can all generate possibilities but we have to base them on fact. Which is truly fact and which is debateable is well, debatable.
The possibility of the bike being associated to the abduction is as strong a possibility as the alternative imo. More so to me. But that is only my opinion and this is the best I can do to explain why. Mr. Magnano has his reasons to believe as he does too as do W. and dpm and jobo etc etc We all do our best to make sense of things and put as many pieces together into the puzzle as possible. We don’t have to all agree on everything imo. I have no reason to perpetuate “false information” as I am being accused. I have gone into as great a detail as any to explain my rationale for why I believe as I do. If I have missed something or have gotten something wrong go ahead and point it out and I will gladly revise my thoughts accordingly. If I still have reason and can produce facts and evidence to support my belief of which the other party may not otherwise be aware, I would usually continue to try to do so. Somewhere in the middle I believed we might all enlighten each other. Or hopefully we could.
I get the impression that DPM and W. wish to wrap this part up and move things along to where they believe this leads. This bike discussion was just one of the junctures that could jump off into several differing possibilities. As said, they wish to move along down the road that stems from the bike not being involved. Apparently that necessitates some degree of acceptance on this point so as not to disturb or muddy the waters as we go. I've said my peace and I’ll stop here.
Maybe it will all make sense and come together in the end.
One thing I would like to add is that there is no proof there was a struggle. There is the damaged bike,yes...but that does not mean the Perp had to struggle with Christine to get her in his car. That could be one reason no one in the near vicinity saw/heard a commotion.
Also, orora, you mention the Kelowna abduction and how witnesses were pitted against each other.....I think that happened in Christine's case. That is why,in Christine's case I don't hold any witness testimony as being the gospel truth. I have read enough conflicting info to lead me to that conclusion. Even the times don't jive. Just trying to explain my position a touch.....doesn't mean I am right though.
Also, orora, you mention the Kelowna abduction and how witnesses were pitted against each other.....I think that happened in Christine's case. That is why,in Christine's case I don't hold any witness testimony as being the gospel truth. I have read enough conflicting info to lead me to that conclusion. Even the times don't jive. Just trying to explain my position a touch.....doesn't mean I am right though.
And likewise jobo, it doesn't mean I am right either. There is a difference between voicing an opinion and using facts to support it as opposed to voicing an opinion as fact.
One is healthy discussion and leads to more questions and a deeper understanding of truth; the other runs the danger of becoming more like what the Police did to GPM.
Just a point or two on Mindy Tran. The Police were also accused and eventually admitted wrongdoing coaching witnesses reconstructing times etc just as we see here. The public then either throws it all out and discards the good with the bad or picks and choses what suits their position. It is an effective strategy to obstruct the case and the investigation from coming to the truth. Muddy the waters so bad no one can see through it. The bike was either moved from the street onto the suspects doorstep or away from his residence onto the street depending on ones perspective. It was a pretty critical point and I extrapolate the same here.
I still watch for a way to fit it all together here including some if not all the original witnesses as messy as that is. One of the only means to do so is to include the bike in the theory somehow. The timing may not even be as it seems. see Kaufman -the secretary with the time receipt, (now lost by Police,) so the proof of the time that the Jessops returned home was based on, is missing. (just mentioning)
I can leave this here, others wish to move along from this point and I understand that. You don't need a constant reminder or someone harping the foundation for a theory you are persuing may not be as solid as you would like it. It is an opinion where and which path this leads, a fact bsed opinion no doubt but an opinion. Everyone is welcome to have one, no one need be right or wrong yet, even Mr. Magnano.
I could answer to the rest you ask dedpanman but most are answered here by way of clarification of the overall theme I believe. Will look that part over again though.
One is healthy discussion and leads to more questions and a deeper understanding of truth; the other runs the danger of becoming more like what the Police did to GPM.
Just a point or two on Mindy Tran. The Police were also accused and eventually admitted wrongdoing coaching witnesses reconstructing times etc just as we see here. The public then either throws it all out and discards the good with the bad or picks and choses what suits their position. It is an effective strategy to obstruct the case and the investigation from coming to the truth. Muddy the waters so bad no one can see through it. The bike was either moved from the street onto the suspects doorstep or away from his residence onto the street depending on ones perspective. It was a pretty critical point and I extrapolate the same here.
I still watch for a way to fit it all together here including some if not all the original witnesses as messy as that is. One of the only means to do so is to include the bike in the theory somehow. The timing may not even be as it seems. see Kaufman -the secretary with the time receipt, (now lost by Police,) so the proof of the time that the Jessops returned home was based on, is missing. (just mentioning)
I can leave this here, others wish to move along from this point and I understand that. You don't need a constant reminder or someone harping the foundation for a theory you are persuing may not be as solid as you would like it. It is an opinion where and which path this leads, a fact bsed opinion no doubt but an opinion. Everyone is welcome to have one, no one need be right or wrong yet, even Mr. Magnano.
I could answer to the rest you ask dedpanman but most are answered here by way of clarification of the overall theme I believe. Will look that part over again though.
I've always thought the location of Christine's bike is crucial to what happened to her that day. It's the basis - to me - of what occurred. Just wanted to add that as I'm not sure what or who the last posts on this are about.
'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.'
- Albert Einstein
'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.'
- Albert Einstein
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
Orora, first of all, I have to say that this all healthy honourable debate and necessary to the process of what we’re doing here. Ideas and theories need to be challenged, and you’re very good at that. However, I have to say, that you seem to be most content to stay on the ever-revolving merry-go-round of facts. You don’t seem to want to commit to any one particular theory, even for a little while. You seem very comfortable on the fencepost – and that’s fine… but sitting on the fencepost doesn’t get you anywhere.
I also hope that the voicing of my opinion is not being interpreted as fact here. That is certainly not my intention. (I’m not sure if “There is a difference between voicing an opinion and using facts to support it as opposed to voicing an opinion as fact,” was a comment directed my way or not. And, no worries if it was or wasn’t. I don’t feel like that was an attack and I hope that you don’t interpret this response as an attack either.)
In general, I try to support my opinions and theories with facts as much as possible and I think a careful review of my posts on this thread would affirm that. If I have erred, or failed to back up a significant claim, argument, or theory with facts, please call me on it. My intention is to share my theories backed up by facts in what I hope is a thoughtfully argued and compelling presentation. (Or, at least, that’s what I’m trying to do.)
Orora, how do you feel about a friendly challenge? Here it is: I challenge you to commit to a theory – and it certainly doesn’t have to be one of mine or anyone else’s. I would love to read what theory you subscribe to. One of your own. I would like to see which “facts” you choose to work with and which ones you set aside to make that scenario work. My impression is that you are very uncomfortable setting aside facts for the purpose of running a theoretical scenario to its conclusion. There are so many possible scenarios that could be presented, are there not? And none of them will encapsulate all the “facts”. Some “facts” have to go in order to make any scenario work. I believe that that approach is our only hope of approaching “the truth” of this crime. Could you commit to one theory or scenario – just for a while – just as a mental exercise? I mean, that’s what detectives do. They have to. We have to.
Not all facts are going to fit into the puzzle. And, by setting aside facts temporarily, a detective is not doing a disservice – a good detective is just doing his or her work. Just look at the eyewitness testimony around the store. Not all of them can be correct. Which ones are you willing to work with (or which parts, or none at all?) in order to make a particular scenario work for you? And, when I challenge you to commit to a theory, I’m not asking you to stay married to it.
I hope you don’t think I’m not being derogatory here. I am genuinely curious to know what you think happened on October 3, 1984.
Tell us your theory.
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
I had a thought about why the recorder went with Christine and not dropped when she was taken (if there was a struggle).
The pouch had a drawstring. If she had looped the drawstring around her wrist, it would have been difficult to drop. Perhaps she was carrying the recorder the way some people carry their cameras with the string around her wrist?
The pouch had a drawstring. If she had looped the drawstring around her wrist, it would have been difficult to drop. Perhaps she was carrying the recorder the way some people carry their cameras with the string around her wrist?
Attachments
That is possible. One good explanation for it being found with Christine.
The teacher may have even stressed carrying it that way, just like I would with a child who is holding a camera, Wii Controller, and probably the recorder pouch...
The teacher may have even stressed carrying it that way, just like I would with a child who is holding a camera, Wii Controller, and probably the recorder pouch...
Could be that simple? Try to pass an object that long through a loop that short on your wrist and ride a bike? Would be a good test..
And sorry should have explained and qualified this a bit better.
When people are quite familiar with the intricate details more so than most the rest of readers and posters, and discussion carries along, the more persuasive the logic of the argument made by those best in the know, the more it can and will be viewed as fact. The intent of the poster may not be that but at times qualifiers need be said. My opinion is that we may be heading down a road that originates from a controversial point of opinion not an absolutely true factual basis. I have no problem with you doing that and understand the need to as was pointed out. .
Which brings me back to the same point as you ask me now dpm and as previously said. I have said my piece, tried to make peace and would leave that point on the bike alone now with qualifiers in place in order to embark upon the journey you ascribe. I hoped you understood that I was saying it would be without me providing input contrary to or interfering unnecessarily now. This was partially my own qualifier because I was uncomfortable to proceed in that direction the way it was. Now done..
My own theory sitting on the fence? Well not entirely so but I may portray that. Like we find at all the controversial junctures and the same with most suspects we look at, you end up with a bucket full of pros and a bucket full of cons, things that fit and things that don;'t. You also end up with a bucket full of throw away things that do not seem to fit anywhere or make sense in any way.
The more you gather, the more pieces you have to work with. If in the end there is no solution by way of what we know, that bucket full of pieces that do not fit anywhere have to be looked at for patterns and possibilities. Those possibilities can run the full gamit from organized crime involvement to Police corruption to any other theory as far as ones mind or experience can envision. Most thoughts on these possibilities are dropped almost immediately upon the mere suggestion of any sort of conspiracy. Invoking the term alone will stop most any unusual discussion.
There are patterns here that are similar to a few other controversial child killings which also include several other wrongful convictions. This is an unusual and select group linked by that coincidence. The study of that connection is possibly relevant none of which is totally explored in any of the official inquiries.
I watch for connections in all we discuss. I see possibilities behind many an unexplained point. Will any of this be helpful to discuss here? I doubt it nor do I have the patience to do so.
I have thrown out points here and there along the way but they just remain in everyone's bucket list of the don't know or don't care category of the unexplained. I still watch for information and try to understand things like the witness going to work who claims to have seen CJ on the corner talking to a boy. But that discussion investigation was led away by a girl claiming to have seen Cj walking her bike home.. GPM was the prime suspect since day one ruling out most all suspicion on any other suspect. So why would the Police go out of their way to request this witness change his testimony to CJ being seen talking to a girl instead of a boy that day? If it was of no effect and no consequence anyway, why do that? That man was adamant to this day he knew the difference.
I wonder about the girl claiming she saw a girl walking her bike up the hill. I doubt the story seeking attention could have swayed all including the fbi into discounting everything and everyone save GPM for so long. I question whether she really even said this? If she did, I question whether it were really a boy she saw and not a girl and whether she like the witness at the corner had been persuaded to change her story. I doubt a lot of what we hear and accept as fact either way. Trying to put pieces together from this bucket is not the same sort of process and endeavour as from the others. I seek and watch for more of these discarded tidbits.
In the Tran case news reports are missing on some of the most important points. Witnesses describe being requested to change their stories or being prohibited testifying to key points. The car at the Sunderland property reminds me of some of that.
A witness to the Tran abduction, the very first to come forward, was found shot in the head within a week of the prime suspects arrest. No one knew he was about to become the prime witness when it happened. I watch for the anomalies within the anomalies. Am I going to be able to make any thing of it? Not likely.. .To me it is still worth watching despite the futility from too many a perspective.
I hope that is enough explanation and encourage you to carry on as you were.
And sorry should have explained and qualified this a bit better.
When people are quite familiar with the intricate details more so than most the rest of readers and posters, and discussion carries along, the more persuasive the logic of the argument made by those best in the know, the more it can and will be viewed as fact. The intent of the poster may not be that but at times qualifiers need be said. My opinion is that we may be heading down a road that originates from a controversial point of opinion not an absolutely true factual basis. I have no problem with you doing that and understand the need to as was pointed out. .
Which brings me back to the same point as you ask me now dpm and as previously said. I have said my piece, tried to make peace and would leave that point on the bike alone now with qualifiers in place in order to embark upon the journey you ascribe. I hoped you understood that I was saying it would be without me providing input contrary to or interfering unnecessarily now. This was partially my own qualifier because I was uncomfortable to proceed in that direction the way it was. Now done..
My own theory sitting on the fence? Well not entirely so but I may portray that. Like we find at all the controversial junctures and the same with most suspects we look at, you end up with a bucket full of pros and a bucket full of cons, things that fit and things that don;'t. You also end up with a bucket full of throw away things that do not seem to fit anywhere or make sense in any way.
The more you gather, the more pieces you have to work with. If in the end there is no solution by way of what we know, that bucket full of pieces that do not fit anywhere have to be looked at for patterns and possibilities. Those possibilities can run the full gamit from organized crime involvement to Police corruption to any other theory as far as ones mind or experience can envision. Most thoughts on these possibilities are dropped almost immediately upon the mere suggestion of any sort of conspiracy. Invoking the term alone will stop most any unusual discussion.
There are patterns here that are similar to a few other controversial child killings which also include several other wrongful convictions. This is an unusual and select group linked by that coincidence. The study of that connection is possibly relevant none of which is totally explored in any of the official inquiries.
I watch for connections in all we discuss. I see possibilities behind many an unexplained point. Will any of this be helpful to discuss here? I doubt it nor do I have the patience to do so.
I have thrown out points here and there along the way but they just remain in everyone's bucket list of the don't know or don't care category of the unexplained. I still watch for information and try to understand things like the witness going to work who claims to have seen CJ on the corner talking to a boy. But that discussion investigation was led away by a girl claiming to have seen Cj walking her bike home.. GPM was the prime suspect since day one ruling out most all suspicion on any other suspect. So why would the Police go out of their way to request this witness change his testimony to CJ being seen talking to a girl instead of a boy that day? If it was of no effect and no consequence anyway, why do that? That man was adamant to this day he knew the difference.
I wonder about the girl claiming she saw a girl walking her bike up the hill. I doubt the story seeking attention could have swayed all including the fbi into discounting everything and everyone save GPM for so long. I question whether she really even said this? If she did, I question whether it were really a boy she saw and not a girl and whether she like the witness at the corner had been persuaded to change her story. I doubt a lot of what we hear and accept as fact either way. Trying to put pieces together from this bucket is not the same sort of process and endeavour as from the others. I seek and watch for more of these discarded tidbits.
In the Tran case news reports are missing on some of the most important points. Witnesses describe being requested to change their stories or being prohibited testifying to key points. The car at the Sunderland property reminds me of some of that.
A witness to the Tran abduction, the very first to come forward, was found shot in the head within a week of the prime suspects arrest. No one knew he was about to become the prime witness when it happened. I watch for the anomalies within the anomalies. Am I going to be able to make any thing of it? Not likely.. .To me it is still worth watching despite the futility from too many a perspective.
I hope that is enough explanation and encourage you to carry on as you were.
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
What we really need in order to clarify some of the issues concerning the bike is more information. A good photograph of the bike that shows the severity of the damage.
From what Ive read, Ive interpreted that damage to be so minimal that it wouldnt have prevented Christine from riding it. Orora has interpreted the damage to be so significant that she wasnt able to ride it and walked to the store (fulfilling Manganos theory that she made it to the park). Orora also entertains the possibility that she rode the bike to the store and/or the park but had some kind of accident, or was abducted, or a combination of both scenarios, and the bike was returned to the house possibly by the perpetrator or an accomplice. (Hope Im not putting words in your mouth, Orora. Let me know if I have misunderstood you.)
The bike is so confusing to work into the puzzle - but it must be one of the following scenarios (no matter how preposterous). I have not assessed or evaluated the validity of these scenarios Im just presenting them for consideration. People can decide for themselves.
Which one is the truth?
(Im assuming that everyone understands that Christine went into the house after arriving home from school as her school bag and the mail were found inside.)
A. The bike was damaged after falling over during the abduction struggle at the Jessop residence after she returned from the store after Christine failed to meet up with Leslie at the park for reasons unknown.
B. The bike was damaged and fell over during the abduction struggle at the Jessop residence before she left for the store thus she failed to meet Leslie at the park because she never went to the store, and all of the eye witness reports are wrong.
C. The bike damage happened sometime prior to October 3rd, and was so minor that she would have taken it to the store, but never had the chance because she was abducted at the Jessop residence before leaving to go there. In this scenario, the bike is knocked over in an abduction struggle but the damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
D. The bike damage happened sometime prior to October 3rd, and was so minor that Christine did take it to the store, but returned home after failing to meet up with Leslie at the park for reasons unknown. Once home at the Jessop residence, she was abducted and the bike was knocked over during a struggle, but the damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
E. The bike was damaged after Christine was abducted somewhere else in Queensville - either during a struggle or some kind of accident - and was left in the shed at the Jessop residence by the perpetrator. In this scenario, the perpetrator, or an accomplice transported the bike back to the house with or without Christine in a vehicle, and then fled the Jessop residence.
F. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime after Christine left the Jessop residence on foot and she was abducted elsewhere.
G. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime after Christine left the Jessop residence with her abductor either of her own free will or after a struggle.
H. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and left the Jessop residence on foot and was abducted elsewhere. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
I. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and was abducted just outside the Jessop residence. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
J. The bike was knocked over and damaged by someone sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and left the Jessop residence on foot and was abducted elsewhere. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
K. The bike was knocked over and damaged by someone sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and was abducted outside the Jessop residence. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
L. The bike was knocked over and damaged by Janet and Ken after they arrived home and they lied about finding it that way to the police. The damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
M. The bike was not found in a fallen state by Janet and Ken. The bike was not damaged. Janet and Ken lied about it being damaged to the police and the police never checked it or noticed that the bike was actually undamaged.
I think that's all of them.
Yes, some are rediculous, but it terms of mathematics and variables, they should be included on the master list.
From what Ive read, Ive interpreted that damage to be so minimal that it wouldnt have prevented Christine from riding it. Orora has interpreted the damage to be so significant that she wasnt able to ride it and walked to the store (fulfilling Manganos theory that she made it to the park). Orora also entertains the possibility that she rode the bike to the store and/or the park but had some kind of accident, or was abducted, or a combination of both scenarios, and the bike was returned to the house possibly by the perpetrator or an accomplice. (Hope Im not putting words in your mouth, Orora. Let me know if I have misunderstood you.)
The bike is so confusing to work into the puzzle - but it must be one of the following scenarios (no matter how preposterous). I have not assessed or evaluated the validity of these scenarios Im just presenting them for consideration. People can decide for themselves.
Which one is the truth?
(Im assuming that everyone understands that Christine went into the house after arriving home from school as her school bag and the mail were found inside.)
A. The bike was damaged after falling over during the abduction struggle at the Jessop residence after she returned from the store after Christine failed to meet up with Leslie at the park for reasons unknown.
B. The bike was damaged and fell over during the abduction struggle at the Jessop residence before she left for the store thus she failed to meet Leslie at the park because she never went to the store, and all of the eye witness reports are wrong.
C. The bike damage happened sometime prior to October 3rd, and was so minor that she would have taken it to the store, but never had the chance because she was abducted at the Jessop residence before leaving to go there. In this scenario, the bike is knocked over in an abduction struggle but the damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
D. The bike damage happened sometime prior to October 3rd, and was so minor that Christine did take it to the store, but returned home after failing to meet up with Leslie at the park for reasons unknown. Once home at the Jessop residence, she was abducted and the bike was knocked over during a struggle, but the damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
E. The bike was damaged after Christine was abducted somewhere else in Queensville - either during a struggle or some kind of accident - and was left in the shed at the Jessop residence by the perpetrator. In this scenario, the perpetrator, or an accomplice transported the bike back to the house with or without Christine in a vehicle, and then fled the Jessop residence.
F. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime after Christine left the Jessop residence on foot and she was abducted elsewhere.
G. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime after Christine left the Jessop residence with her abductor either of her own free will or after a struggle.
H. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and left the Jessop residence on foot and was abducted elsewhere. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
I. The bike fell over on its own in the shed and sustained the damage sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and was abducted just outside the Jessop residence. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
J. The bike was knocked over and damaged by someone sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and left the Jessop residence on foot and was abducted elsewhere. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
K. The bike was knocked over and damaged by someone sometime during the day while Christine was at school and Janet and Ken were out. After Christine arrived home from school, she walked past her fallen, damaged bike, went into the house, then walked by the bike again and was abducted outside the Jessop residence. Her reasons for leaving the bike like that are unknown.
L. The bike was knocked over and damaged by Janet and Ken after they arrived home and they lied about finding it that way to the police. The damage to the bike has nothing to do with the actual crime.
M. The bike was not found in a fallen state by Janet and Ken. The bike was not damaged. Janet and Ken lied about it being damaged to the police and the police never checked it or noticed that the bike was actually undamaged.
I think that's all of them.
Yes, some are rediculous, but it terms of mathematics and variables, they should be included on the master list.
Good enought to work with although not completely accurate. I tried to speak for Magnano seeing as he was not here to defend his theory. What was said in support of his theory and my own thoughts are being somewhat amalgamated.
Option N? the bike was returned by that girl / boy seen walking up the street pushing a bike?
Just saying, there may be "other possibilities" that have maybe not been recognized as such. The merry go round can come up with new perspectives if looked at long enough and hard enough. But no doubt, too preposterous for most to contemplate.. doesn't even make the list...
Option N? the bike was returned by that girl / boy seen walking up the street pushing a bike?
Just saying, there may be "other possibilities" that have maybe not been recognized as such. The merry go round can come up with new perspectives if looked at long enough and hard enough. But no doubt, too preposterous for most to contemplate.. doesn't even make the list...
Maybe in your opinion W. In mine, its all about Christine, always was. Seems anytime anyone Magnano or anyone else disputes your conclusions, they come under some form of attack from snide comments to being accused of providing false information to whatever else.
As said, if and when you all commit to whatever theory you wish to persue I will stop answering. In the meantime questions were asked, I was singled out in a request and I left examples in response. I believe we seek an out of the box way of looking at things and I left one minor out of the box example. (option N.) You have written off all the store witnesses as being mistaken or confused or lying or whatever, I just looked at the one witness you accepted at face value in the same way you looked at the others you have written off. We all know and understand this is not anything you wish to hear or contemplate and you could just cover your ears for a moment as I will soon have to do in turn.. It was a stone left unturned no matter what you believe.
No wonder I say no more? The main points are just lost in the noise.
As said, if and when you all commit to whatever theory you wish to persue I will stop answering. In the meantime questions were asked, I was singled out in a request and I left examples in response. I believe we seek an out of the box way of looking at things and I left one minor out of the box example. (option N.) You have written off all the store witnesses as being mistaken or confused or lying or whatever, I just looked at the one witness you accepted at face value in the same way you looked at the others you have written off. We all know and understand this is not anything you wish to hear or contemplate and you could just cover your ears for a moment as I will soon have to do in turn.. It was a stone left unturned no matter what you believe.
No wonder I say no more? The main points are just lost in the noise.
Just want to say I find the discussion on this thread really excellent including the recent spirited discussion. Respectfully, I don't see that it is not about Christine I mean why worry about any of these details o/w? <modsnip>
So again I hope this discussion can continue at such an excellent level.
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
Orora, what girl/boy seen walking up the street pushing a bike? Who claimed to have seen that? Please, please clarify where this is stated.
The other witness being the teenage girl who for a year maintained her story that she saw who she thought was CJ walking her bike uphill from the direction of the park. She recanted before going to trial. (supposedly under the excuse of her just being an attention seeker) The same girl Magnano speaks of diverting the investigation back to the Jessop house.
We see other witneses being asked to change their stories, the witness to seeing CJ on the corner while on his way to work for instance. how about this one?
Was mentioned in some detail previous post #829.
We see other witneses being asked to change their stories, the witness to seeing CJ on the corner while on his way to work for instance. how about this one?
Was mentioned in some detail previous post #829.
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
You're talking about Kim Waarner. I thought that's who you were talking about, but I wanted to be sure. In 1991, Waarner admitted that she had made up the whole thing in order to get some attention. Yes - Mangano mentioned it in the Fifth Estate episode. I have some trouble with that being re-introduced as a potentially viable fact. Sorry.
We each have to chose what we accept as being a potentially "viable" fact in many instances here. Was this teen girl's first story true or the latter true? Likewise the guy driving to work who claims he saw CJ standing on the corner with her recorder. Was his first story true or the latter? Did he see CJ with a boy or a girl? Or neither? If he had not told the inquiry he had been requested to change his story would we now know or even suspect he had? Both Leslie and Janet later claimed the Police had also asked them to change their stories too. Would we have known? So the pattern here that more fits the evidence is that when a story was changed it was upon request from LE. (the witnesses weren’t supposed to tell us that )
we all chose who we believe …
So the girl with the false story fooled everyone for a year or so and led even the fbi off track? To the point they even produced a false profile of the wrong suspect as a result? Academy award time. She must have been quite the actress.. The bike was found at CJ's home augmenting the girl’s false account. At this very important juncture, a very important piece of false information almost custom made, tailored even to divert an investigation to a specific location, at a critical time, was entered into the equation.
Deliberate or accidental, contrived for whatever reason by whomever, the result was still the same, GPM was being made out the only suspect. He had what was really an airclad alibi. (the receipt) but now anything pre bike location and timing was being over looked and disregarded.as a result of the teen girl. Very convenient. Whatever could have happened at or around the store became of no consequence after this. Perceptionally we were left with, even if CJ went to the store, CJ had her bike with her as usual and was seen walking it home as a result of the teen’ story. So she was fine at this point and returned home on her own accord even if she had been to the store.. Bike home = CJ home.
Without that "false" story? the investigation and suspicion should have returned to the corner sighting and that boy, not GPM imo...The store owner had already claimed CJ was there that day. LE could not have known any different at that time. Along with that, you have a witness saying he saw Cj on the corner soon after.
So why not return to that corner witness story or the Horwoods or, or, etc, etc, back then when the teen girl recanted? .... instead of setting up GPM? ??? For that is what occurred here at this junction. We know what LE did, they went from gathering information to using it to set up GPM. Whatever happened to CJ became equated with what happened the bike, GPM being the neighbor.
I understand how the bike could be used as a bit of a red herring in a way. Given the manner and condition of the bike upon discovery, it would seem something had occurred with it and whatever it was, it seems more possible/ probable even, someone other that CJ alone was involved.
So once the girl has recounted but the bike had still be found at home, it could be made to seem CJ never left home, never made it to the store, not any where else after getting home. As in where ever the bike landed, so would CJ. You have to write off and discount at least 5 witnesses as you swallow the hook but the alternatives are too troubling for most anyone to entertain let alone contemplate. This is the most important juncture imo..
Where would the other story have led if not the teenage girls story?
Without that "false" story? the investigation and suspicion should have returned to the corner sighting. A witness claimed to have just seen CJ with an older boy on the store corner just moments before but changed his testimony at the request of LE. He only later admits to doing that.
It it was fact that he was told to change his story, it was from a truth to a falsehood at the request of LE according his own recollection.
Was the teen’s story changed at request of LE as was his?
Who's story, which version do we believe?
Deliberate or accidental consequences?
The importance and nature the false story at so critical a time lends suspicion in itself. There is also a pattern of at least three others who admit LE was to blame for them changing their stories. Reasonable doubt is raised at very least...
So again we each chose whom and what we wish to believe based on whatever version of “fact” we wish to or are capable of entertaining. You accept or write off the witneeses you do as do I. I have tried to explain my reasoning.
I suppose you have too in a way.
Will leave it with a question-
Question, how many other girls from Christine's class school or neighborhood were given recorders and got off at the bus stop near the store that day? I would image only a couple at best were even possible to be around that corner at that time.? How hard to track down the others? Easy enough and I would imagine it was done? No one else claims to have been the girl identified by this corner witness account. At least not any left able to speak about it!
If you wish to move along to whatever theory or scenario you wish to persue next, I need not continue to respond in this fashion.. Just seemed I was being asked to explain myself again..
we all chose who we believe …
So the girl with the false story fooled everyone for a year or so and led even the fbi off track? To the point they even produced a false profile of the wrong suspect as a result? Academy award time. She must have been quite the actress.. The bike was found at CJ's home augmenting the girl’s false account. At this very important juncture, a very important piece of false information almost custom made, tailored even to divert an investigation to a specific location, at a critical time, was entered into the equation.
Deliberate or accidental, contrived for whatever reason by whomever, the result was still the same, GPM was being made out the only suspect. He had what was really an airclad alibi. (the receipt) but now anything pre bike location and timing was being over looked and disregarded.as a result of the teen girl. Very convenient. Whatever could have happened at or around the store became of no consequence after this. Perceptionally we were left with, even if CJ went to the store, CJ had her bike with her as usual and was seen walking it home as a result of the teen’ story. So she was fine at this point and returned home on her own accord even if she had been to the store.. Bike home = CJ home.
Without that "false" story? the investigation and suspicion should have returned to the corner sighting and that boy, not GPM imo...The store owner had already claimed CJ was there that day. LE could not have known any different at that time. Along with that, you have a witness saying he saw Cj on the corner soon after.
So why not return to that corner witness story or the Horwoods or, or, etc, etc, back then when the teen girl recanted? .... instead of setting up GPM? ??? For that is what occurred here at this junction. We know what LE did, they went from gathering information to using it to set up GPM. Whatever happened to CJ became equated with what happened the bike, GPM being the neighbor.
I understand how the bike could be used as a bit of a red herring in a way. Given the manner and condition of the bike upon discovery, it would seem something had occurred with it and whatever it was, it seems more possible/ probable even, someone other that CJ alone was involved.
So once the girl has recounted but the bike had still be found at home, it could be made to seem CJ never left home, never made it to the store, not any where else after getting home. As in where ever the bike landed, so would CJ. You have to write off and discount at least 5 witnesses as you swallow the hook but the alternatives are too troubling for most anyone to entertain let alone contemplate. This is the most important juncture imo..
Where would the other story have led if not the teenage girls story?
Without that "false" story? the investigation and suspicion should have returned to the corner sighting. A witness claimed to have just seen CJ with an older boy on the store corner just moments before but changed his testimony at the request of LE. He only later admits to doing that.
It it was fact that he was told to change his story, it was from a truth to a falsehood at the request of LE according his own recollection.
Was the teen’s story changed at request of LE as was his?
Who's story, which version do we believe?
Deliberate or accidental consequences?
The importance and nature the false story at so critical a time lends suspicion in itself. There is also a pattern of at least three others who admit LE was to blame for them changing their stories. Reasonable doubt is raised at very least...
So again we each chose whom and what we wish to believe based on whatever version of “fact” we wish to or are capable of entertaining. You accept or write off the witneeses you do as do I. I have tried to explain my reasoning.
I suppose you have too in a way.
Will leave it with a question-
Question, how many other girls from Christine's class school or neighborhood were given recorders and got off at the bus stop near the store that day? I would image only a couple at best were even possible to be around that corner at that time.? How hard to track down the others? Easy enough and I would imagine it was done? No one else claims to have been the girl identified by this corner witness account. At least not any left able to speak about it!
If you wish to move along to whatever theory or scenario you wish to persue next, I need not continue to respond in this fashion.. Just seemed I was being asked to explain myself again..
Re:
I am guessing my remarks have been taken somewhat wrong. I am not saying the teens testimony was ever a viable fact. I question whether what was really said originally and why it was really said. Was the false story a story desired by and aided by or concocted by LE to lead to GPM? Is the excuse the teen just wanted attention really the reason she provided the false statement in the first place? Are we all that gullible?
A boy last reported seen with Christine on the store corner by a witness was virtually exonerated and let off the hook avoiding most any investigation by way of this false story.
I do question the boy and the return of the bike.. The bike found back at Cj's home and the teen's false testimony just seem too good to be true. After two suspects report CJ at or near the store. The timing so suspect, the implications ..
The teens story was phoney at the time, her excuse for it just as phoney imo.
I am guessing my remarks have been taken somewhat wrong. I am not saying the teens testimony was ever a viable fact. I question whether what was really said originally and why it was really said. Was the false story a story desired by and aided by or concocted by LE to lead to GPM? Is the excuse the teen just wanted attention really the reason she provided the false statement in the first place? Are we all that gullible?
A boy last reported seen with Christine on the store corner by a witness was virtually exonerated and let off the hook avoiding most any investigation by way of this false story.
I do question the boy and the return of the bike.. The bike found back at Cj's home and the teen's false testimony just seem too good to be true. After two suspects report CJ at or near the store. The timing so suspect, the implications ..
The teens story was phoney at the time, her excuse for it just as phoney imo.
Dedpanman
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 214
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
WS AdminAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 194
- Guests online
- 2,966
- Total visitors
- 3,160