DISCLAIMER:
Orora this is a critical response, not a personal attack.
Your posted comments in bold.
I have no problem with anyone speculating on any different theories or scenarios. I just don't go along with out and out claiming someone like Magnano is wrong. You can disagree with his theory and explain why is fine, you claim he is wrong and thats all there is to it, I have trouble with.
Yes, I am challenging Manganos theory but Im doing more than just saying hes wrong. Im pointing out the factors that are genuine holes in his thinking. In the Fifth Estate episode he completely ignored the bicycle and how it factors into the scenario of Christine going to the store. (And Im not talking about the erroneous damage to the bike, but the bike itself.) Perhaps a ten minute segment didnt allow for him to deal with the bike. The girls clearly took their bicycles to the store on a daily basis. Im trying to deduce the most viable theory for Christines abduction. Chris L, the store owner, claims she was in the store. Mangano believes she got to the store and got to the park and disappeared from there. But he avoids dealing with the question of why Christine failed to ride her bike that day when clearly that was her pattern. Leslie biked to the park to meet Christine (as was her pattern) and failed to find her there. Manganos scenario demands that the bicycle was not ridden. When one examines the photograph of the bicycle outside the Jessop house taken in the fall of 1984 sometime after Christine disappeared (notice the absence of leaves on the trees in the background) you can see that the bike is standing upright on its kickstand. Now, I realize that this is not a great picture, but there doesnt appear to be anything really that wrong with the bike in my opinion. In Redrum, Makin says the handlebar was bent and so was the carrier. If this damage was done at an earlier date and has nothing to do with the abduction (which is what Im leaning towards) there is no reason for her not to take her bike to the store on Oct. 3. The only explanation is she didnt take the bike because she never had opportunity to because she had already encountered her abductor.
Perhaps he knows a little more than what he is saying? He was involved right from the start. He asks all the right stuff and plays the hole card for us to see.
Yes, I am sure that Mangano knows more than what he is willing to share.
Anyway, the argument that CJ had a usual pattern of bike use as evidenced by previous activities is a good and natural viable argument. imo.. But the one thing that had changed in that pattern was that her bike had been damaged. I know it is stated as minor damage and likely was, but even a bent in fender rubbing on a wheel can disable a bike temporarily.
I really dont understand why youre introducing factors into the scenario that are not relevant. There was no bent fender rubbing on a wheel. In a previous post you surmised that the recorder ended up in the spokes of the bicycle and caused a mild tumble. There was no damage or scuff marks to the plastic recorder that might be caused by this scenario.
An older person could straighten it in 10 seconds, maybe not a 9 year old girl. Leslie/ the Jessop's would/should have known that if the damage was previous so the damage seems associated to that day and extrapolating further, therefore what happened to Christine.
The damage to the bike was so minimal. Its completely conceivable that the Jessops didnt know about it. Christines bike could have fallen over from a bent kickstand. I had the same problem with my bike when I was a kid. My stupid kickstand never worked right and my bike was always falling over, so I had to lean it against something to park it. I couldnt rely on the kickstand. If I did, I would invariably find my bike lying on its side when I had returned. I think associating the damage to the abduction is a big leap. I agree that the bike getting knocked over might have had something to do with the abduction but its 50-50. I think the bike and the damage to it is a red herring.
Kids do have accidents on bikes all the time, not unusual except this kid went missing the same day later found murdered. The 4pm call only accounts for CJ not being there to answer the phone then. (she was to go to the store) The Jessops may not have been home as early as the time window would indicate. (leaving more time for the bike to be returned home if required)
I think anyone who proposes that the abductor returned the bike to the Jessop house is hard-pressed to rationalize it, given the enormous risk to the perpetrator. And, what was to be gained by doing that, really? Fool everyone into thinking she had been abducted from the house when really it was the park? Child-abductors dont think like that. They grab a kid and they get the heck away from the area before they get caught. If the perpetrator wanted to get rid of the bike it could have been tossed at a thousand other places. A ditch. A river. Whatever.
So we jump to conclude whatever happened to the bike, involved whatever happened to CJ.
I do not jump to that conclusion at all. In fact I lean towards the exact opposite. I believe that the damage to the bike likely had nothing to do with what happened to Christine. The fact that the bike was found at home is what is important.
Any other explanation is left aside.
I dont understand what you mean. What other explanation are you referring to?
Now the bike is found at home so the abduction must have taken place at home. That is entirely logical and we are back to the same theory the Police had when they went after GPM.
No were not back at the same theory. The police theory was that the neighbours son was involved. Im suggesting the contact point and potentially the abduction point was at the Jessop residence or in the nearby cemetery. Its not one and the same.
It is not Magnano's park theory that "treads water", it is the home abduction theory.
Im assuming by tread water that you mean it doesnt go anywhere? Im having trouble connecting your line of thinking. In comparison, how does Manganos park theory go anywhere?
Christine getting abducted from the park points most likely to an abduction by a stranger. Christine getting abducted from the Jessop property or the cemetery suggests an offender known (or vaguely known) to Christine. Those are pretty important distinctions.
No problem with that, the Police went in that direction for a reason too. The Jessop's home is what the Police centered their investigation on and focused on to the exclusion of things like what Magnano and or even Ken Jessop are saying. All of the witnesses at or near the store were virtually written off supposedly by way of some teenage girl seeking attention by claiming she saw CJ pushing her bike home.
Not true. The store owners (Chris L.s) adamant account of Christine being in the store that day around 4pm has been held as gospel truth ever since. Im proposing that he was wrong.
Seems very little investigation took place aside that. This part bothers me, seems too little to lead experienced investigators so far off course. The fbi even bit.
I dont understand.
I readily agree the home abduction theory has an attraction but with some other unknown suspect. That suspect would seemingly have to know that CJ would be alone that day. By that, it's infered someone the Jessops would likely know and who's vehicle would have to brought right to or close to the Jessop's house.Same as the park theory, risky business not being seen there and or dragging a kid across a fence out into the back yard to the cemetery. But it could be as possible as the other alternatives.
I agree with some of the things youve said here.
So back to the bike in the home abduction theory. Cj would have to have been leaving and was grabbed right then and there by someone waiting in ambush.
I think thats a viable scenario, but Im not sure she was grabbed. Maybe...
Minor damage to bike results which is then left laying where it landed.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The bike could have been knocked over in a struggle, but theres the issue of the recorder (which youre coming to next).
Would a 9 year old hold onto her recorder while being forcefully abducted right from her bike in her carport? Would she not be more likely to drop it and try to fight back or run or freak and kick and scream?
This is the most important point youve raised here and a good one. One that I was going to go to in my next post. The answer is no. The recorder was approximately 13 inches long (see the photo of it posted earlier on this thread). If it was in her hand and she was forcibly abducted its highly unlikely that she would have held on to it. It should have been found at the abduction site. It should have been a marker for the police to indicate where she encountered the perpetrator. Instead, the recorder goes with her. Why? One could argue that she had it sticking out of her pocket
Maybe. But the thing was 13 inches long. Surely it would have tumbled out or been knocked out and left behind. The only good explanation Ive ever come across was the poster at UC calling himself Towserdog, who speculated that Christine went with her abductor willingly, recorder in hand, because she had been tricked into going under the guise of going to see her father.
Why is the recorder with Christine? John Douglas hit on that detail right away, but went in the wrong direction with it. I think this is one area where we could do a lot more work.
The Police fingerprinted the bike that very night /results unknown/ presumed inconclusive. The bike was important and kept the focus of attention at home. A supposed false sighting from a teenage girl and a profile solicited from the fbi sealed the deal. GPM became the prime suspect.
So years later we now know GPM had a virtually air tight alibi and had produced a receipt to prove it. The Police were caught in the act fabricating evidence against GPM while hiding evidence that would exonerate him. He was a musician and a music teacher of sorts.
Where did you come across the detail that he was a music teacher? Thats contrary to what I know. He was a musician and played in a group, but I dont think he was a music teacher. (?) Could you provide a source for that?
The recorder became instrumental in postulating a theory against him. The recorder was then found prominently displayed by CJ's body when found. Despite GPM "known" innocence, he was arrested and charged.
I question how prominently the recorder was displayed. One account has the recorder close to the body which was some distance from the tractor trail. Another account has the recorder very close to the tractor trail. What is known, is that Patterson and his daughters, and then Patterson and his wife (on a return visit to confirm that they had indeed found a body) failed to spot the recorder. It wasnt found until police arrived on the scene and began searching around.
Did CJ hold onto the recorder while being forcefully abducted?
I dont think so.
Did she willing go with someone and deliberately brought the recorder along?
I think theres high probability in that scenario. I think the recorder suggests a certain level of trust with the man. She did not realize she was in danger when she went with him.
Why the bike damage if she left willingly?
Because the damage to the bike happened on a different day and isnt related to the abduction.
Was she abducted and someone else deliberately picked up the dropped recorder?
Not likely.
Why would they? Should the recorder not have been left and found where the bike dropped if Cj had been taken from there?
Yes. It should have been found where she was abducted if there was a struggle. We can probably be 90% certain of that. Cant we?
If the bike had been returned to this location from elsewhere, the missing recorder is much more explainable but in a very bizarre fashion.
You need to explain that statement further. How is it more explainable?
The situation with the bike and recorder really pointed at one suspect only, GPM. The bike at home, the recorder missing. GPM would now have to be regarded as the victim of a setup. Just as the Police have been demonstrated doing all along. Right about here the room empties, it is not a believable thing to contemplate for most anyone yet that is where the evidence leads. ..imo.. So we seek alternative explanations ..
So, are you saying that your pet theory, the one that makes the most sense to you is a criminal conspiracy masterminded by the police? Its difficult to nail down some of the things you say. Sorry.
Like Magnano said, all of this has created a diversion and lost opportunity to investigate other wise. He goes on to add that very important new detail. A car parked at the property where CJ's body was found. He still asks why that property has not been fully investigated and questions who would use that property to dispose of a body with a car parked right there like that. Someone who knew obviously. The Police seem to have avoided investigating or attributing any significance to the property. Why? It seems the Police had attended this property supposedly due to vandalism just shortly before CJ was found there.
That is only an assumption that the police were there following the vandalism to the Culls trailer. Ive never seen anything in print that says they were there. Only that vandalism had been reported to the police.
Was the vandalism a test of neighbors hearing and Police response time?
Not a likely scenario in my opinion.
There is some indication CJ had only been moved there sometime after her abduction and murder.
True. (That there are some indications.)
No matter where you look or in which way, possibilities arise. Many remain uninvestigated. The Police despite what they say, seem to want this investigation shut down and left where it is without going any further. No matter what, that is a huge problem (or clue) not to be discounted.
Again, are you implying a police conspiracy at the heart of this? Not bungling. Not incompetence. But, a carefully thought out conspiracy of some sort?
Mr. Magnano touched on this, W touched on the same. The Sunderland property may hold secrets and clues yet to be unearthed. Speculation aside, there may be some harder evidence derived from that property yet.
Maybe. Im not sure Mangano touched on what youre implying.
I still have "hopes" for CJ, but I suspect the usual normal way of thinking and looking at things like this will not prove fruitful here.
I agree. Thats why, instead of riding the merry-go-round around and around, why dont we commit to a line of reasoning? Produce a theory or scenario that seems to be the most likely? In order to do that, some puzzle pieces will have to be dropped, but I think we must really be critical in deciding which pieces must go (temporarily) to reach that most viable scenario. I think it hinders us sometimes to get hung up on making every little bent and broken puzzle piece fit. The very fact that we cant make every puzzle piece fit means NOT ALL THE PIECES ARE MEANT TO FIT.
I remember reading an article about a homicide detective once, and he was commenting about how in movies and TV shows, all the puzzle pieces eventually fit neat and tidy, but that the reality of crime is that there are ALWAYS pieces that dont fit. Even when you have the perpetrator and he confesses, and theres DNA evidence that proves the perpetrator did it, so you can be absolutely sure you have the right guy - there are still pieces that cant be fitted into the picture. When asked, the perpetrator who confesses also scratches his head and says, Sorry. I cant explain that either.
What happened to CJ and the way the investigation was handled was extremely abnormal.
Not really. There are lots of comparable cases of child abduction and murder. And there are lots of cases of police incompetence that lead to the conviction of an innocent man.
Some of the players who would /should be above reproach may not be what they seem. There is an element at play here that can not be found in any box we know. We should recognize what we are up against and seek a way to avoid the implications instead of walking right into it. The Police may never be helpful.
In my opinion, youre at your most mysterious when you write like this. You allude to things but are completely elusive with what you really mean and avoid clarifying explanations. Sorry.
Having said all that, I really do wish for any measure of success to come from any means possible. Cj deserves whatever justice can be gleaned from whatever facts become known. Even if just by the truth of it all being known.
For that I thank everyone.. and wish you all the best in your continued efforts..
Cheers back.
