CANADA Canada - Nicole Morin, 8, Toronto, 30 July 1985

[photographer4]

Another theory just occurred to me! And I apologize if it's already been mentioned—I don't remember all 30 pages of this thread lol.

What if it wasn't a neighbor that lived in the complex, but a person—or even a couple—who routinely brought kids over to Nicole's mother's daycare? After all, according to the Wikipedia article, that's the reason why Jeanette (Nicole's mom) couldn't immediately search for her daughter, because she was occupied with the small children entrusted to her care—meaning her daycare had already opened. (Do we know at what time?)

Whoever used this daycare would've become familiar with the building layout. Residents could've also let him in after recognizing him as a regular visitor. He may have noticed Nicole while bringing his (or someone else's) children over. He may not have interacted directly with Nicole, so he'd still be a stranger to her, but after seeing him interact with her mom, Nicole could've been comfortable enough around him. If it was a couple, they could've presented as loving parents, thereby gaining more trust.

I'm assuming a distraught Jeanette did not re-open her daycare business in the days following Nicole's disappearance and the ensuing investigation. This, then, would provide the perfect "out" for the kidnapper(s) because, if all he did was use the daycare, now he has no reason to go back there, so it wouldn't be suspicious if no one ever saw him again.

From what I've read, it seems like LE has done their due diligence with the investigation, but I wonder how far this angle was pursued.

I believe Jeanette and Art were back together within a week or so of Nicole vanishing. They tried to make it work, but then I think they separated again permanently a few years later. I believe Jeanette left the area around that time as well. There was an article in the Toronto Star that stated this (Toronto Star, Sept 14, 1985 P. 6). Specifically it said he moved back with her the week prior to that date. T

 

[photographer4]

I made a spreadsheet last night of basic things from newspaper reports of the day - this was interesting, and I've mentioned these issues before, but here they are again, with dates of reports (this post focuses on Toronto Star, but I may yet add others in later).

NOTES: Nicole went to the lobby on the 30th by herself to get the mail around 10:30am. She went back to her penthouse apt, and depending on which report you read, she left around 10:45am - 11am to meet her friend JM in the lobby to go swimming. She was 50-52lbs (depending on which article you read) and was wearing a light red one piece swim suit, a green headband and red canvas shoes. She carried a white plastic bag (bi-way brand per some news reports), which had: a peach colored blanket, a purple towel, goggles and her recreation pass (list created from several different articles).

In news reports, neighbors noted they saw nothing / heard nothing. No evidence of a scuffle in the elevator or hallways

Toronto Star:
August 1 - p. 15, 19, 24
Sept 14, 1985 p. 6
Sept 16, 1985 p. 19

- Jeanette told media that (loosely quoted) - two weeks ago they watched a tv show about missing kids and she taught her daughter to dial long distance in case she was ever kidnapped. The name of the show was not mentioned.
- Her last words to Nicole were: "Be good, be careful & goodbye" - and then she closed the door. (no indication if she saw Nicole enter the elevator or where the last point of the hallway was that she saw her daughter).
- She said she first learned Nicole was missing around 3pm on the 30th - at that point, she phoned JM's parents and they advised her JM hadn't seen Nicole all day.
- Jeanette stated "I know someone's killed her, I can just feel it" (said on July 31, 1985).
- Jeanette said, "I wasn't really worried about the child (bold by me) earlier because she's always out playing with Jennifer. This is why I didn't worry. The two girls are like sisters".
- At 6pm, the Super of the building called police (his name is mentioned as CH).
- Art said the weekend prior to her going missing, he'd taken her to Ontario Place, and when he heard she was missing, he drove straight there thinking she may have tried to return there. Nicole was to have a dental apt the evening that she went missing but she wasn't afraid of the dentist.
- Nicole had a pet rat named BlueBell
- At 2pm on (date not mentioned) Jeanette asked police if she could personally search a sewer grade behind the apt, so police escorted her down.
- Police wanted Nicole's clothes for tracking dogs.
-Police searched her room for clues
- Jeanette went to the underground parking lot with police to search her car - doors were unlocked and trunk was searched.
- Art was taken to 22 Division for questioning.
- Staff Sergeant DS (a search coordinator) confirmed that Nicole was seen in the lobby & again near the outdoor pool around noon but the ongaurd lifeguard told police Nicole did NOT arrive to swim on Tuesday.
- JM watched the elevators TWICE move from the penthouse level to the lobby and stop at other floors and twice it arrived empty to the lobby.
- Would have started 3d grade at Wellesworth Ps that September. There was section of a class photo shown with her classmates, I assume from the year before based on 1984 being visible in the photo.
- Re-enactment done by City TV on Sept 17, 1985.

MY COMMENTS:
I found it very interesting to note that Jeanette watched a show about a missing kid with Nicole in the two weeks before she vanished and that she taught her to dial long distance in case she was ever kidnapped. I also thought it was interesting she called Nicole "the child" in these early days. I guess there is no manual on how a parent should behave when their child is missing though so we shouldn't read into that.

We know from earlier discussions / articles that JM buzzed up to ask where Nicole was when she didn't arrive promptly to meet her and Jeanette didn't seem worried. I believe I posted a link previously where another kid went to the apt penthouse to ask where Nicole was later in the day and Jeanette said she was at the pool - I wonder then why at 3pm she opted to call JM's parents? Was that around the time the other kid knocked at her door?

Later reports said she hadn't been seen since she left to go meet her friend - and it could NOT be confirmed that she was seen near the pool that day at all. I will ADD here that on July 31, 1985 - on page. 35 a witness is quoted as saying Nicole was in the playground area between 2:15-2:30 - a named witness with the initials DN (young teen female witness).

We know from other news reports that police found a diary of sorts in Nicole's room wherein she wrote "I'm going to disappear soon" - and we have no context, no idea what that might mean, or what prompted her to write that.

I'd love to interview anyone who went to school with her or who taught her at Wellesworth P.S! I would love to interview the Super of the building as well! Find out what his thoughts were, along with anyone else who lived there and knew the family!

 

[photographer4]

More on the July 31, 1985 Toronto Star article (p. 35).
Since I'm more awake and re-reading:

The article named a 15yr old female witness and quoted her as saying the following:
"She was in the play-ground area between 2.15-2.30pm"
The witness was said to have been a friend of Nicole's and noted she spoke with her yesterday afternoon (on the day she vanished).
The article goes on to quote the witness as saying the following:
"A large red late-model car with a stranger at the wheel was parked in a lot near the pool for 1 1/2 hours yesterday. She said she has lived in the complex for 8 years and recognizes most residents but not this man".

I'd like to know if that witness was ever interviewed by police? Was she able to describe the man at all? The car at all? How sure was she that she SPOKE with Nicole the day she vanished before she went missing? WHAT TIME WAS THE CAR PARKED NEAR THE POOL EXACTLY?? Had it been noticed before by anyone?

If Nicole made it to the playground area and was there around 2:15-2:30 - why didn't she find her friend JM?

 

[photographer4]

This article quotes Toronto Star Reporter Cal Millar who began his shift at Nicole's apt the morning after she went missing as saying that police went door to door in the building, and if they didn't get an answer, they went in anyhow.

ONTARIO COLD CASE: Nicole Morin vanishes on way to summer swim

Nicole Morin made arrangements with her friend to go swimming on a hot, sticky day in July 1985. The eight-year-old said goodbye to her mom and was seen heading toward

www.toronto.com

 

[JSolt1210]

This is the first I hear of Nicole being seen after leaving her house around 11 a.m. Supposedly Nicole was seen near the pool around noon—but not at the pool, so maybe that's why the lifeguard said she didn't arrive to swim that day—and then at the playground around 2:30 p.m. And that public area certainly opens up the possibilities of what could've happened to her.

If these sightings are to be believed, then maybe Nicole just wanted to avoid her friend for whatever reason? But if that friend buzzed to ask where Nicole was, and Jeanette (I assume) said Nicole's on her way, why didn't that friend buzz back when Nicole never arrived?

I kinda believe, though, that these supposed sightings were later confirmed to be mistaken, and this is why they've been dropped from most recounts. In cases like these, yes, we should go back as far as we can to the original reports. But we have to understand that, as these events are unfolding in real time, there's going to be confusion and misinformation. The priority was to find Nicole, not to preserve her story accurately for posterity. So, for example, maybe that 15-year-old who said she saw Nicole at the playground at 2:30 p.m. either got her dates mixed up, or she saw someone who looked like Nicole, but it ended up not being her. But before that sighting could be confirmed or ruled out, it got written down in a desperate attempt to find Nicole.

 

[photographer4]

This is the first I hear of Nicole being seen after leaving her house around 11 a.m. Supposedly Nicole was seen near the pool around noon—but not at the pool, so maybe that's why the lifeguard said she didn't arrive to swim that day—and then at the playground around 2:30 p.m. And that public area certainly opens up the possibilities of what could've happened to her.

If these sightings are to be believed, then maybe Nicole just wanted to avoid her friend for whatever reason? But if that friend buzzed to ask where Nicole was, and Jeanette (I assume) said Nicole's on her way, why didn't that friend buzz back when Nicole never arrived?

I kinda believe, though, that these supposed sightings were later confirmed to be mistaken, and this is why they've been dropped from most recounts. In cases like these, yes, we should go back as far as we can to the original reports. But we have to understand that, as these events are unfolding in real time, there's going to be confusion and misinformation. The priority was to find Nicole, not to preserve her story accurately for posterity. So, for example, maybe that 15-year-old who said she saw Nicole at the playground at 2:30 p.m. either got her dates mixed up, or she saw someone who looked like Nicole, but it ended up not being her. But before that sighting could be confirmed or ruled out, it got written down in a desperate attempt to find Nicole.

The 15yr old witness said she SPOKE to Nicole that afternoon. She knew who Nicole was and she SPOKE with her. I can absolutely understand how the frantic search was happening and perhaps this kid was misquoted, or her information was not accurate - but it is interesting to me that a young witness SAW her at the playground NEAR the pool that afternoon, spoke with her AND noted a car - a red late-model car with a male driver she did not recognize. That is not something to just dust under the carpet! I've found NO further mention of this witness, and actually, in all the years of research, this was the first I'd ever noticed her mentioned!! I am IMPLORING police to follow up with this kid!! Even all these years later, she may still have info that might really help!!

 

[photographer4]

If the 15yr old witness saw Nicole at the playground near the pool between 2-2:15pm on the day she vanished, then the timeline changes significantly! I'd like to ask the witness a few things:
- what was Nicole wearing when she spoke with the witness? If she wasn't wearing the swimsuit she left home in that morning, then that might mean the witness did not see her on vanish day. OR Nicole didn't leave home in what she was reported to have been wearing.
- I would like to know WHERE in the playground she saw her - there were other articles that said she'd been seen on the carousel thing at the playground (some apparatus of the day popular in playgrounds)
- Did she have anything with / near her? EG: the shopping bag with her towel, blanket, goggle and recreation card?
- What did they talk about?
- How did the witness know the little girl to begin with? Had she perhaps just seen her around? Gone to the same school at some point? Babysat her or something?
- What made her notice the red late - model car with the male driver?
- Where exactly was he parked. She noted he was there for 1.5 hours - what was SHE doing while the car was there? What was the driver doing during that time (napping? reading? scanning?)
- What can she tell us about the other kids at the park that day (If any)?

Oh man, I'd really like to talk to her!

 

[photographer4]

“In a bitter twist, on the day Nicole vanished, contractors were installing a surveillance system in her 20-storey complex. Had the cameras been installed a day earlier, detectives may have had the answers they were looking for.”

HUNTER EXCLUSIVE: Cops turn up heat on Nicole Morin disappearance

Nicole Morin walked out of her apartment at 627 The West Mall in Etobicoke on July 30, 1985 at around 11 a.m. and vanished into thin air.

torontosun.com

Well. Now we know. They didn’t have surveillance cameras when she vanished AND some workmen were on site the day she vanished. Did anyone clock out early? Come back squirrelly from a break? Call out sick that day or the days after? Change their appearance soon after???

 

[photographer4]

The friend watched the elevator go up to the penthouse twice and make several stops before arriving empty at the lobby.

Did the friend notice which floors? Did it stop at the parking garage level?

Do we think she was late and missed meeting her friend or she was early and should have seen Nicole?

Where did the friend go when Nicole didn’t show up? Jeanette called the girl’s parents at 3pm and was told their daughter hadn’t seen Nicole all day. So I suppose at some point the friend went home and was able to tell her parents she hadn’t seen her friend that day.

I wonder how the friend has fared since that day? I can’t imagine being her and the one who was waiting for a friend who never appeared and hasn’t been seen since. Thoughts to her and all Nicole’s loved ones.

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

Here is the list of the residents of 627 The West Mall from the 1885-86 Toronto Directory, some with apartment numbers.
Nick Mazepa is listed in Apartment 701 which puts the lie to the official story that Jennifer Mazepa, Nicoles friend, came from another building and had to get buzzed in by Nicole.
Bannon D
Bautista M
Beaton J Raymond
Beinert I
Bleitzhofer J
Bonner K
Bowler C
Butcher John
Chainani G
Drblik A
Fabbro H
Field Colin
Ford MJ
Francis J
Freskiw M
Friesdorf Hermann
Frirsen J
Gallardo O
Gingrich S
Goh Peter
Gonzales A
Goodrich S
Green Edward
Greene J
Grilli Nicola
Hardiman S
Hassaan H A
Horky Stephen
Hsu Donald Y
Hutchison J A
Jaksic N
Jamieson F
Jedrasik M
Jehu O
Jelilian Shahe
Jung Robin
Kalia U
Katea J J
Kelly T D
Kim K Yeung
Knight Kenneth A
Kovacevic Zarko
Kozlowsky C
Kuljis A
Kwok Alfred
Laidlaw J A
Law K F
Lee Sangune
Leeh M
Loov
Lough R
Loy P
Lozowy W
Ludera J
Lui T K
Macaro Michele
Magallanes L
McIntosh J
McKinnon R
Morin J
Morrison V R
Myaing Daw Kyin
Nacsa K
Nadeau Francois
Newell William A
Noga John O
Novello Y
Osuch John
No Return
Pereira T
Poy I J
Punkris E
Redman R
Reid M T
Renta Roberto
Riddell D
Robertson H M
Rodrigues Shirley
Rogers Christopher W
Ross K
Rost M
Smeltzer B
Smirnov V
Smith Harold R
Smitherman I
Spademan J
Spencer A
Spencer C
Spencer R
Stanton G
Stepanovic B
Tam C P
2 Redman Albert H
7 Robert Monique
101 Sober David J
109 Foisey Forest
204 Kosmin Aleca
205 Aiola Leo
207 Borowski Irene A
209 Stotozuk Jean H
308 Bjarnason B
408 Carreira Adriano
507 Madill Herbert B
701 Mazepa Nick
702 Dowdell Brian
801 Bartz Gerhard W
806 Flores Oscar A
806 Flores Sandra D
809 Lam Paul
903 Navato E
905 Gerochi Ricardo
907 Marando Joseph
1003 Speller Rbt E
1007 Lepena E
1008 Nesbitt C
1110 Mr. Lanaghan Shane
1206 Quantz Rosa
1207 Munro Rbt J
1401 Lichacz M L
1404 Stahr Erwin
1405 Lee Verve
1502 Loy Louis
1708 Eschli John J
1711 Perry Wm
1801 Noga Zenco
1803 Marthinez Edgar
1804 Kang D K
1805 Tabakian Jacques
1902 Lino Manuel
1904 Kopstik Max
1905 Cairnes R E

The missing - Nicole Morin - Ellee Seymour, Author

I started rereading this thread from the start, understandably we will not know as I am responding to a 10 year old post but curious if any of these residents ran and owned a graphics type business in the GTA and or - this would open up the list, had a cottage / cabin / rural residence north of Toronto?

I have posted on this thread in past sharing that I took a PI course in Toronto and my teacher was a retired LE, he worked undercover operations. Much of his undercover, stealth investigating experience he shared with us using as examples throughout the class were with organized crime and tailing the mafia between Ontario and Quebec for years. He also shared his undercover work he did on the Nicole investigation. LE had a suspect and enough evidence to have police commissioner and a judge sign off on an undercover investigation that lasted for months. The suspect did have a residence in the building. He also had a cabin or cottage north of Toronto, (not Muskoka area and not Kawarthas) This detective got a job working for the suspect at a graphics type business, worked at becoming a friend and tried to get info from him. They got nothing concrete and funding was stopped so they had to cease undercover investigation. LE threw one last try to catch him up, the detective acted out a scenario that LE had approached him asking questions about his boss, how well did he know him, that he is the perp who took Nicole, the detective said he said no way and then the cops beat him up, they used makeup to make it appear he was beaten. The detective believes either the perpetrator knew he was undercover or he was just a cold and chilling man,his response to the detective was to not worry about it, they can’t do anything with out her body. The detective felt this was the most admission he would hear and it was not enough to arrest.

I am sure they keep/kept an eye on him forever more.

I had never wondered how an undercover detective working mostly Mafia investigations and this Abduction investigation came about. Could it be the perp was involved in organized crime and this detective was brought in as he already had infiltrated the Mafia and how he was trusted and able to get a job working for the perp?

Edited to add, LE think he took her to his cabin or cottage.

IMO LE think they know who did it and until remains are found they cannot share any further details on the case. It is now a waiting game, who finally clears a conscience and tells someone or remains are found before we would learn any more details.

Same for Marianne Schuett and Cameron March, 2 children gone without a trace north of Burlington. LE think they know who took Marianne but he committed suicide and without remains they will not release the information.

 

[dotr]

I started rereading this thread from the start, understandably we will not know as I am responding to a 10 year old post but curious if any of these residents ran and owned a graphics type business in the GTA and or - this would open up the list, had a cottage / cabin / rural residence north of Toronto?

I have posted on this thread in past sharing that I took a PI course in Toronto and my teacher was a retired LE, he worked undercover operations. Much of his undercover, stealth investigating experience he shared with us using as examples throughout the class were with organized crime and tailing the mafia between Ontario and Quebec for years. He also shared his undercover work he did on the Nicole investigation. LE had a suspect and enough evidence to have police commissioner and a judge sign off on an undercover investigation that lasted for months. The suspect did have a residence in the building. He also had a cabin or cottage north of Toronto, (not Muskoka area and not Kawarthas) This detective got a job working for the suspect at a graphics type business, worked at becoming a friend and tried to get info from him. They got nothing concrete and funding was stopped so they had to cease undercover investigation. LE threw one last try to catch him up, the detective acted out a scenario that LE had approached him asking questions about his boss, how well did he know him, that he is the perp who took Nicole, the detective said he said no way and then the cops beat him up, they used makeup to make it appear he was beaten. The detective believes either the perpetrator knew he was undercover or he was just a cold and chilling man,his response to the detective was to not worry about it, they can’t do anything with out her body. The detective felt this was the most admission he would hear and it was not enough to arrest.

I am sure they keep/kept an eye on him forever more.

I had never wondered how an undercover detective working mostly Mafia investigations and this Abduction investigation came about. Could it be the perp was involved in organized crime and this detective was brought in as he already had infiltrated the Mafia and how he was trusted and able to get a job working for the perp?

Edited to add, LE think he took her to his cabin or cottage.

IMO LE think they know who did it and until remains are found they cannot share any further details on the case. It is now a waiting game, who finally clears a conscience and tells someone or remains are found before we would learn any more details.

Same for Marianne Schuett and Cameron March, 2 children gone without a trace north of Burlington. LE think they know who took Marianne but he committed suicide and without remains they will not release the information.

Just noting in case it sparks an idea or tip, fwiw, Feb 05, 2013

Declaring "mafia" neighbours is "irresponsible": broker

There’s the pedophile who reportedly lived in a posh condo on Nuns’ Island. Then there’s the reputed Montreal crime boss who’s said to own an apartment at a…

montrealgazette.com

''There’s the pedophile who reportedly lived in a posh condo on Nuns’ Island. Then there’s the reputed Montreal crime boss who’s said to own an apartment at a well-known Westmount building.

Several Montreal real estate brokers are fuming over a requirement that they disclose the identities of known mobsters, police raids, or other unsavoury incidents that could bring down the value of a property they are selling''
'The problem, as one top-earning broker puts it, is that the ties between construction and the mafia are so strong in Montreal, that these secrets are no longer so little.'

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I started rereading this thread from the start, understandably we will not know as I am responding to a 10 year old post but curious if any of these residents ran and owned a graphics type business in the GTA and or - this would open up the list, had a cottage / cabin / rural residence north of Toronto?

I have posted on this thread in past sharing that I took a PI course in Toronto and my teacher was a retired LE, he worked undercover operations. Much of his undercover, stealth investigating experience he shared with us using as examples throughout the class were with organized crime and tailing the mafia between Ontario and Quebec for years. He also shared his undercover work he did on the Nicole investigation. LE had a suspect and enough evidence to have police commissioner and a judge sign off on an undercover investigation that lasted for months. The suspect did have a residence in the building. He also had a cabin or cottage north of Toronto, (not Muskoka area and not Kawarthas) This detective got a job working for the suspect at a graphics type business, worked at becoming a friend and tried to get info from him. They got nothing concrete and funding was stopped so they had to cease undercover investigation. LE threw one last try to catch him up, the detective acted out a scenario that LE had approached him asking questions about his boss, how well did he know him, that he is the perp who took Nicole, the detective said he said no way and then the cops beat him up, they used makeup to make it appear he was beaten. The detective believes either the perpetrator knew he was undercover or he was just a cold and chilling man,his response to the detective was to not worry about it, they can’t do anything with out her body. The detective felt this was the most admission he would hear and it was not enough to arrest.

I am sure they keep/kept an eye on him forever more.

I had never wondered how an undercover detective working mostly Mafia investigations and this Abduction investigation came about. Could it be the perp was involved in organized crime and this detective was brought in as he already had infiltrated the Mafia and how he was trusted and able to get a job working for the perp?

Edited to add, LE think he took her to his cabin or cottage.

IMO LE think they know who did it and until remains are found they cannot share any further details on the case. It is now a waiting game, who finally clears a conscience and tells someone or remains are found before we would learn any more details.

Same for Marianne Schuett and Cameron March, 2 children gone without a trace north of Burlington. LE think they know who took Marianne but he committed suicide and without remains they will not release the information.

Well done Wondergirl and Bobbi Pearl. Thank you.

Question for anyone - like in the USA, do Canadians have the right/ability to know where known pedophiles are living?

 

[dotr]

Well done Wondergirl and Bobbi Pearl. Thank you.

Question for anyone - like in the USA, do Canadians have the right/ability to know where known pedophiles are living?

How the sex offender registry in Canada works — and its limitations - National | Globalnews.ca

The federal government has introduced new legislation that could change who gets listed on the National Sex Offender Registry. What are the proposed changes?

globalnews.ca

By Saba Aziz Global News April 27, 2023 lengthy..

''Can you see if a sex offender lives near you?​

The sex offender registry is not public and can only be accessed by Canadian police agencies.''
Some international police agencies may be provided with information from the database if it meets specific criteria.

Provinces cannot make the information from the registry available to the public, but “some provinces have explored creating separate registries or notification systems to address particular safety concerns within their jurisdiction,” said Diana Ebadi, spokesperson for Lametti.

“The information contained in the National Sex Offender Registry is only accessible to police agencies through their Provincial/Territorial Sex Offender Registry Centre,” she told Global News in an email Friday.''

 

[photographer4]

How the sex offender registry in Canada works — and its limitations - National | Globalnews.ca

The federal government has introduced new legislation that could change who gets listed on the National Sex Offender Registry. What are the proposed changes?

globalnews.ca

By Saba Aziz Global News April 27, 2023 lengthy..

''Can you see if a sex offender lives near you?​

The sex offender registry is not public and can only be accessed by Canadian police agencies.''
Some international police agencies may be provided with information from the database if it meets specific criteria.

Provinces cannot make the information from the registry available to the public, but “some provinces have explored creating separate registries or notification systems to address particular safety concerns within their jurisdiction,” said Diana Ebadi, spokesperson for Lametti.

“The information contained in the National Sex Offender Registry is only accessible to police agencies through their Provincial/Territorial Sex Offender Registry Centre,” she told Global News in an email Friday.''

In Ontario, just last summer, police put out a public notice about a convicted human trafficker living at a residence where his wife was running a program for autistic children. The man and his wife (she ran the program for the autistic children) were both arrested for trafficking soon after though the victim in that matter was apparently NOT a child of the program. Case deferred again for Essa couple charged with human trafficking

So you can literally send your children to programs that are owned and operated by convicts and not have a damn clue. I think it is generally just safe to assume that you live and work beside any number of sex offenders every day and you just don't realize it.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Yes, I recall this story. Global TV showed their photos often on the nightly news.

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

Well done Wondergirl and Bobbi Pearl. Thank you.

Question for anyone - like in the USA, do Canadians have the right/ability to know where known pedophiles are living?

In Canada we are supposed to and you can call the local police and ask if any reside in your neighborhood.

But they can only advise on known and classified as a pedophile. So if not caught and prosecuted yet we do not know if they have suspects, those they cannot legally publish a suspect if no charges are in play.

 

[photographer4]

I started rereading this thread from the start, understandably we will not know as I am responding to a 10 year old post but curious if any of these residents ran and owned a graphics type business in the GTA and or - this would open up the list, had a cottage / cabin / rural residence north of Toronto?

I have posted on this thread in past sharing that I took a PI course in Toronto and my teacher was a retired LE, he worked undercover operations. Much of his undercover, stealth investigating experience he shared with us using as examples throughout the class were with organized crime and tailing the mafia between Ontario and Quebec for years. He also shared his undercover work he did on the Nicole investigation. LE had a suspect and enough evidence to have police commissioner and a judge sign off on an undercover investigation that lasted for months. The suspect did have a residence in the building. He also had a cabin or cottage north of Toronto, (not Muskoka area and not Kawarthas) This detective got a job working for the suspect at a graphics type business, worked at becoming a friend and tried to get info from him. They got nothing concrete and funding was stopped so they had to cease undercover investigation. LE threw one last try to catch him up, the detective acted out a scenario that LE had approached him asking questions about his boss, how well did he know him, that he is the perp who took Nicole, the detective said he said no way and then the cops beat him up, they used makeup to make it appear he was beaten. The detective believes either the perpetrator knew he was undercover or he was just a cold and chilling man,his response to the detective was to not worry about it, they can’t do anything with out her body. The detective felt this was the most admission he would hear and it was not enough to arrest.

I am sure they keep/kept an eye on him forever more.

I had never wondered how an undercover detective working mostly Mafia investigations and this Abduction investigation came about. Could it be the perp was involved in organized crime and this detective was brought in as he already had infiltrated the Mafia and how he was trusted and able to get a job working for the perp?

Edited to add, LE think he took her to his cabin or cottage.

IMO LE think they know who did it and until remains are found they cannot share any further details on the case. It is now a waiting game, who finally clears a conscience and tells someone or remains are found before we would learn any more details.

Same for Marianne Schuett and Cameron March, 2 children gone without a trace north of Burlington. LE think they know who took Marianne but he committed suicide and without remains they will not release the information.

It is maddening to know that police have a suspect in some cases and they cannot release the information to willing volunteers such as ourselves who would take up the case and try to help!! Even in cases 60 years old (Noreen Greenley, Bowmanville, Ontario - vanished Sept 1963 - New details released about 13-year-old Ontario girl missing for 60 years) they keep everything secret. I understand the legal reasons to do so, and how releasing information could hurt a case more than it might help it but I really think its a bit much when someone has been missing as long as Noreen has, or Nicole, or Marianne or Cameron.

In Nicole's case, I would like to know if the police ever tested the green headband they found that they believed may have been Nicole's. Jeanette said it was not her daughter's but I have wondered if they could test it for DNA to know for sure one way or the other. If they did take that step, I wonder if it revealed any further information - perhaps dna belonging to someone as yet unknown (eg: if an abductor had pulled her in close to him/herself, could there be DNA or transfer evidence from that person or from their own clothes to the headband?). If they have not tested that headband, why not? Do they still have it? Could it still be tested?? If not, why not?

From: Toronto Star, August 5, 1985 - P. A1:
" ...yesterday, police revealed they were examining a headband found in Bradford, 50km north of Metro, that fit the description of the one worn by Nicole. The headband was discovered by a couple who were walking their dog in a field near Bradford."

The article went on to say: "Police are conducting forensic tests on the headband.".

Another quote from the same article: "Though police earlier believed that Nicole did not arrive at the pool last Tuesday, they now say that evidence to the contrary has turned up.'She was at the pool in the early afternoon (rbbm).' Travis said. "We don't know who she was with - or if she was with anyone. The focus of the investigation in the building is to find out who she was last with" Travis said."

The article goes on to note that "Police are also looking for a man who apparently saw Nicole after she went to the pool area Tuesday to meet her friend... The man recently left the country and police have not yet managed to track him down" (rbbm).

Wait. We now have a teen girl who KNEW Nicole and saw her at the playground that afternoon, and now another man who saw her at the pool in the early afternoon who subsequently left the country!?!?! What the what?? Did they ever track that man down??

 

[Bobbi Pearl]

It is maddening to know that police have a suspect in some cases and they cannot release the information to willing volunteers such as ourselves who would take up the case and try to help!! Even in cases 60 years old (Noreen Greenley, Bowmanville, Ontario - vanished Sept 1963 - New details released about 13-year-old Ontario girl missing for 60 years) they keep everything secret. I understand the legal reasons to do so, and how releasing information could hurt a case more than it might help it but I really think its a bit much when someone has been missing as long as Noreen has, or Nicole, or Marianne or Cameron.

In Nicole's case, I would like to know if the police ever tested the green headband they found that they believed may have been Nicole's. Jeanette said it was not her daughter's but I have wondered if they could test it for DNA to know for sure one way or the other. If they did take that step, I wonder if it revealed any further information - perhaps dna belonging to someone as yet unknown (eg: if an abductor had pulled her in close to him/herself, could there be DNA or transfer evidence from that person or from their own clothes to the headband?). If they have not tested that headband, why not? Do they still have it? Could it still be tested?? If not, why not?

From: Toronto Star, August 5, 1985 - P. A1:
" ...yesterday, police revealed they were examining a headband found in Bradford, 50km north of Metro, that fit the description of the one worn by Nicole. The headband was discovered by a couple who were walking their dog in a field near Bradford."

The article went on to say: "Police are conducting forensic tests on the headband.".

Another quote from the same article: "Though police earlier believed that Nicole did not arrive at the pool last Tuesday, they now say that evidence to the contrary has turned up.'She was at the pool in the early afternoon (rbbm).' Travis said. "We don't know who she was with - or if she was with anyone. The focus of the investigation in the building is to find out who she was last with" Travis said."

The article goes on to note that "Police are also looking for a man who apparently saw Nicole after she went to the pool area Tuesday to meet her friend... The man recently left the country and police have not yet managed to track him down" (rbbm).

Wait. We now have a teen girl who KNEW Nicole and saw her at the playground that afternoon, and now another man who saw her at the pool in the early afternoon who subsequently left the country!?!?! What the what?? Did they ever track that man down??

I agree very maddening. IMO after 50 years the culprit will not face the justice they deserve regardless if caught and prosecuted, so why not release more info and let the case be solved.

I am assuming if this evidence that she was seen at the pool was not included with the reenactment video that was published by LE decades after the abduction then it was not in fact a clue in this case. The video and all police released info have her taken before entering the pool area.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Copied from @photographer4 with respect:

Another quote from the same article: "Though police earlier believed that Nicole did not arrive at the pool last Tuesday, they now say that evidence to the contrary has turned up.'She was at the pool in the early afternoon (rbbm).' Travis said. "We don't know who she was with - or if she was with anyone. The focus of the investigation in the building is to find out who she was last with" Travis said."

Why is it so difficult to be told the true facts? Was Nicole at the pool or not and more importantly, when?

 

[photographer4]

Copied from @photographer4 with respect:

Another quote from the same article: "Though police earlier believed that Nicole did not arrive at the pool last Tuesday, they now say that evidence to the contrary has turned up.'She was at the pool in the early afternoon (rbbm).' Travis said. "We don't know who she was with - or if she was with anyone. The focus of the investigation in the building is to find out who she was last with" Travis said."

Why is it so difficult to be told the true facts? Was Nicole at the pool or not and more importantly, when?

I suspect because it was summer vacation and likely lovely weather, there were probably tons of kids running around the playground / pool areas every day. I can imagine that those questioned may have been unsure if they'd seen Nicole that day, or some prior day. Its really clear just scanning the old newspapers that some folks said they'd seen her that afternoon and others (eg: the lifeguard) were sure they had not seen her (the lifeguard didn't think they'd seen her at the pool that day). People were probably super confused.

The biggest issue I have in this particular case is that mom seemed unconcerned until 6pm, even though at 11 the friend in the lobby buzzed up to ask where Nicole was, and then another kid went to her home at 3pm to ask where Nicole was as no one had seen her all day. At that point, mom called the lobby friend's parents to ask if the friend had since seen Nicole and the friend had not. But still mom didn't worry until hours later, at which point she finally initiated a search and contacted police.

The 3pm friend going up to talk to Janet makes me really think that actually, Nicole probably was NOT seen by her playmates that afternoon at the playground or the pool. BUT then we have the 15yr old witness who said she KNEW Nicole AND spoke to her that afternoon. Having noted a 2:15-2:30pm time for that. It is possible the 15yr old only said that to reporters for a few mins of fame and attention, but I doubt that. Its possible she was mixed up on which day she'd seen and spoken with Nicole. But if Nicole left the unit in a swimsuit, carrying a bi-way bag with towel, blanket etc then what, was she just traipsing around the park in her swimsuit? I'd have liked to ask that 15yr old what Nicole was wearing when she talked to her. And if she had a bag with / near her.

I'd like to ask any kid that lived there and knew Nicole what the rest of her friends were up to that day. Were they all playing tag or swimming? How many kids missed Nicole that day?