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

[Woodland]

Okay - let's start with one post for RR and corresponding newspaper reports then a second post for the Kaufman Report.

RR page 7 - 'Both girls played on the swings for about twenty minutes. When the lineup congregated for the school bus, they confirmed their agreement to take their Cabbage Patch dolls on an outing to the park.'
'The school bus pulled up outside the Jessop house at 3:45 pm.' The neighbour made idle note of it.

Toronto Star Friday 5 October 1984 - 'She was last seen Wednesday at 3:45 pm buying a 5c piece of bubblegum at the Queensville general store, which she did most days after school'.
Note that the Star changes this time in subsequent articles. They stick with she got off the school bus at 3:50 pm.

Same article - After being dropped at home by the school bus, she rode her bicycle 500 metres (incorrect s/b 700) to the store on the same street. The bicycle was recovered back at her home ...'

'Her mother and brother arrived home at 4:15 pm ...'

RR page 8 - 'Not feeling too chatty, Christine slapped her nickel down on the counter and tucked a stick of bubblegum in her blue corduroy pants pocket. Robert Atkinson, a local man, was in a car at the intersection a few moments later and made note of Christine talking to a couple of young friends and an older boy with blond hair. Scanning photographs of Christine in the media in the next few days, Atkinson would remember the girl with the recorder and the look on her face that suggested she was waiting for somebody.'
By 9 October 1984 the Star did not report she had a recorder. Was the recorder added to the book for artistic flavour many years later? The reader has to decide if she looked like she was waiting for someone. Was she looking around? He doesn't say that.

RR page 8 - A fifteen year-old girl claims to have seen Christine a few moments after the Atkinson sighting riding her bike towards her home and a blue car parked on the east shoulder near the Jessop home.
Days before the second trial in 1992 this girl recants her story and does not testify. She admits she made the story up. I don't know if she testified at the first trial - who cares, she lied.

Same page - 'Leslie called a couple of more times and then rode to the park with her Cabbagepatch doll under her arm, assuming Christine had gone on ahead. Leslie would never see Christine again; however, others would eventually come forward to claim they spotted as the windy afternoon slid into evening.'

'.... at about 4:15 pm Sandra and Bruce Horwood were in a moderate rush to drive the five kilometres north to Keswick ...' The paragraph goes on to say Mrs Horwood saw a child struggling in a car facing them on the opposite corner.

The Horwoods are on the east side of Queensville Sideroad, stopped at the stop sign at the same corner where the store is. They are facing west, wanting to turn right (north) towards the Jessop home, 700 metres away. They have the right of way when traffic clears Leslie Street which does not have to stop at that corner.

The car Mrs Horwood saw with a struggling child was on the west side of Queensville Sideroad, facing east, wanting to turn left (north) towards the Jessop home. The Horwoods let the car turn left in front of them and claim to have followed it into a small subdivision between there and the Jessop home - west side of Leslie Street. This subdivision has only one road in and out onto Leslie Street. There is no where else to go in there.

Note that a time is not mentioned for the following -
RR page 9 - 'As they stepped into the shed, both spotted the newspaper simultaneously. It meant Chrissy would probably be inside. At the same moment, they saw that her pride and joy - her red bike - was lying on its side just inside the shed door.'

RR page 10 - 'At about 5:30 or 6:00 pm .... Janet made a quick circuit of the park and stopped off at the general store for cigarettes. There was no sign of Christine in the village.'

 

[Woodland]

KR page 54 - '... the school bus dropped her off at the end of her driveway at about 3:50 pm. No one was home.'

'... and Miss Chipman did go to the park at about 4:00 pm, but Christine never arrived. Phone calls that Miss Chipman made to the Jessop home shortly after went unanswered. The transcripts of the evidence reveal that Christine went from her home to the variety store at the south-east corner of Leslie Street and the Queensville Sideroad, .07 kilometres from the Jessop home. CL, its owner, testified that she came in alone between 3:30 and 4:00 in the afternoon, bought bubblegum and left a minute or so later.'

'... Sandra Horwood, who said that she saw a man driving a dark green or blue car in the area at about 4:05 pm and he appeared to force a small girl down towards his chest area with his right hand.'

What I find interesting about the store mention in the KR is, it says transcripts of the evidence reveal ... Page 54 is the only mention of the trip to the store, and does not say what LE investigation showed.
Neale Tweedy was a little more than half way through his 3 year investigation when the Kaufman Inquiry got underway. The report was released shortly after the investigation wrapped up. Tweedy had time to give Kaufman any update on this point before release of the report if it was important - yet Tweedy's legacy from his investigation is the poster Toronto Police advertise to this day - Christine went to the store.

 

[Woodland]

Missed point in the RR version of going to the store.

Have always wondered, if Janet went to the park looking for Christine and then to the store, did she ask the store owner if Christine had been there that day? It was apparently a daily routine. I would have expected RR or KR to have included that if she asked.

If Janet did ask, is that where going to the store started so early in the investigation? If so, was the store owner correct?

 

[Dedpanman]

I thought this was worth sharing. It might help us to organize our discussions here, or it could be a rough guide to help us focus and organize our thoughts and cover all the bases, or, at the very least, just food for thought when thinking about this crime.

Essentially, this article by Michael King suggests taking all of the information available to you about a crime and passing it through a series of filters “akin to a miner who pans for gold.”

"The prospector patiently probes while sifting through granulate debris to separate the dross. Finally rewarded, the refuse is discarded, leaving only the valuable yellow metal. Like the prospector, the investigator purges the least valuable data though a filtering process while unearthing the gold nuggets of truth. This approach allows the examiner to focus by “process of elimination” on the most probably or informative material rather than the least possible and distracting data. The end result leads the investigation instead of reacts to it.”

So here are the filters. (This is a condensed version.)

From “A Multidisciplinary Approach To Solving Cold Cases” by Michael R. King

The Ten Filters:

Filter 1: VICTIMOLOGY
The key to crime analysis is victimology—the study of the victim. Be examining who the victim is, we begin to unravel and eliminate an often perplexing web of misguided leads. A thorough understanding of the victim can often lead the investigation toward a probable suspect rather than to a reaction to an endless pool of less likely possible candidates. According to the Crime Classification Manual, written by the FBI:

Victimology is often one of the most beneficial investigative tools in classifying and solving a violent crime. It is a crucial part of crime analysis. Through it the investigator tries to evaluate why this particular person was targeted for a violent crime. Very often, just answering this question will lead to the offender. Victimology is an essential step in arriving at a possible motive. If investigators fail to obtain complete victim histories, they may be overlooking information that could quickly direct their investigations to motive and to suspects.


Filter 2: INITIAL CONTACT SITE
Much can be learned from the initial contact site or the place where the victim and the suspect first meet each other. Questions surrounding why this particular location was used, how it assisted the offender in accessing the victim, and other related questions can often be answered by an analysis of this filter.

When considering the contact site, crime scene, or disposal site, it is necessary to determine what the last known location of the victim was. Did the victim end up in that particular location because the predator chose it, or is it a place where the victim visited or stayed in regular circumstances?

More important, it can also lead the investigator to surmise the level of familiarity the predator had with the site.


Filter 3: CRIME SCENE
The location of the crime scene is significant. It may reveal an immediate supposition about a personal versus stranger relationship between this location and the victim and offender. Consideration should be given to the exact location and date and the approximate time of the crime.


Filter 4: DISPOSAL SITE
The disposal site is relevant to the offender’s thought process during the phases of the crime. It may further reveal his association to the area, site, and victim and the degree of planning taken in the formulation of the crime.

The first question asked in regard to the disposal site should be, “What is the relationship between the offender, the initial contact/abduction site, the crime scene, and the disposal site? By gaining the answer to this lengthy but extremely important question, we can gain valuable insight into the offender’s personality, which can help us determine the sophistication level of the disposal. Did the offender get frightened and just dump the victim or body off at the earliest point of convenience or was there forethought and planning involved? Did the offender take the time to adequately plan the crime and the disposal in order to ensure success? What is the relationship between the victim and the offender? If this can be determined, it can help greatly in determining the level of preplanning and motivation for the crime.


Filter 5: PHSICAL ASSAULT
By studying the nature and degree of the physical assault against a victim, or the body disposition and the cause of death and/or trauma, we can glimpse the personality and emotional state of the predator responsible for the crime. It also suggests the degree of planning, impulsiveness, and mental condition of the offender.

Early consideration should be given to whether there is reason to believe that the offender moved the victim’s body from the crime scene, the death site, or other major assault site to the disposal or recovery site. This information may lead the investigator to theorize about the offender’s level of comfort with the location of death or injury or the perceived probability of discovery in a time frame that is not desired by the offender. Certain criminal personalities may desire the victim’s body to be discovered sooner rather than later to satisfy some internal desire of the offender.

At many crime scenes, especially those in which there are multiple injuries, the investigator can theorize what the offender’s emotions were at the time of the assault or murder, evaluate the type of weapon used and the association between the offender and the weapon, and combine this information with all the elements of the physical assault to begin painting a picture of the offender’s personality.


Filter 6: SEXUAL ASSAULT
The sexual assault committed against the victim may reveal criminal intent. The method and manner of sexual assault may reflect certain characteristics consistent with a specific personality type. This particular filter involves close examination of many elements, including type of and body location of the assault, scripting, and so forth.


Filter 7: M.O. versus SIGNATURE
The M.O. (modus operandi) and signature of an offender play a crucial role in an investigation. The M.O. or the offender’s practical actions during the crime can reveal clues about his identity. M.O. can be very dynamic and can be modified as the offender gains experience and learns from previous mistakes or crimes.

The signature of an offender likewise will reveal a great deal about his identity. When an offender goes beyond the action necessary to perpetrate his crime his signature is reflected. The signature composes a unique part of the behaviour while committing the offense; it often demonstrates an expression or ritual based on the offender’s fantasies. Unlike the M.O., the core of an offender’s signature will not change. It can, however, evolve or possibly be modified because of interruptions or unexpected victim response.


Filter 8: ORGANIZED versus DISORGANIZED
During the commission of a crime, an offender will reflect certain behavioural traits often associated with his personality characteristics. Any one crime may reveal characteristics of both the organized and disorganized personalities (mixed). Generally though, a crime may transform from organized to disorganized; however, the reverse of this is rarely observed.


Filter 9: OFFENDER RISK
An analysis of the offender’s risk level to identification and apprehension during the commission of the crime may reveal a number of considerations for the investigator. That an offender risks exposure to identification and apprehension may suggest such things as a lack of concern or a lack of sophistication. The lower the risk, the more consideration may be given to increased criminal sophistication, thorough preplanning, or premeditation. The offender risk level can be evaluated in light of each of the filters while gaining insight into the criminal’s thought process. Any suspect behaviour that elevates the risk level to identification and apprehension should be determined and evaluated.

Consider:
Was the victim allowed to live?
What extent did the suspect go to maintain control of the victim?

When reviewing the amount of time the offender spends with the victim, consideration should be given to the time spent at the initial contact site, the crime scene, and the location of the disposal, and the method of disposal.


Filter 10: SUSPECT INFORMATION
Accurate suspect information is invaluable to any successful investigation. The more accurate the information obtained about the suspect, and the sooner it is available for the investigators, and public awareness, the more quickly effective leads can be generated.
“Suspects” include arrestees, perpetrators, or persons the investigator has reasonable cause to believe are responsible for the commission of the crime.


SOME GENERAL THOUGHTS:

Just thinking about applying these filters to this case makes me realize how little is known about this crime. There are so many gaps in the information.

VICTIMOLOGY: a fair amount of information is available
INITIAL CONTACT SITE: uncertain, clouded by contradicting facts
CRIME SCENE: Sunderland field? But that, too, is uncertain - clouded by contradicting facts
DISPOSAL SITE: Sunderland field, but there are issues of time
PHYSICAL ASSAULT: information from two autopsies
SEXUAL ASSAULT: presumed, but not entirely certain – presence of semen suggest some kind of sexual act
M.O. and SIGNATURE: some information is available for this (autopsy findings)
ORGANIZED versus DISORGANIZED: some information (deductive reasoning)
OFFENDER RISK: uncertain. How much was planned and how much was luck?
SUSPECT INFORMATION: some suspects – but most have been cleared by DNA

 

[orora]

Re:

"The prospector patiently probes while sifting through granulate debris to separate the dross. Finally rewarded, the refuse is discarded, leaving only the valuable yellow metal. Like the prospector, the investigator purges the least valuable data though a filtering process while unearthing the gold nuggets of truth. This approach allows the examiner to focus by “process of elimination” on the most probably or informative material rather than the least possible and distracting data. The end result leads the investigation instead of reacts to it.”

A worthwhile endeavour but would be a little hamstrung on some points. The conflicting information by degree of importance should be cleared up first by all rights. Seeing as that isn't likely to happen too easily, the investigative stage being long over, some nuggets are going to have to be discarded. Some unknown facts like how long it took for a witness to make it to the store and back may yet be demonstrable. Witnesses changing stories and timing may have to be discarded. Accepting one interpretation over another may be possible once the big picture takes form. Much like placing the last few pieces into a jigsaw puzzle that is 90% complete.

I understand the desire to test out and make educated guesses based on the factual evidence and we all have our own areas of expertise we rely on to do that perceived or otherwise. The procedure listed above would in reality encompass several differing branches of policing and forensic sciences all with specially trained personal. The more complex a situation, the more variables come into play, the wider the range of possibility. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is the way to go and the way to properly view whats available but there are risks when personal agenda and personal goals and bias enter the mix. Things can be looked at in different ways in hindsight from that perspective. Much like how the Police become so focused that tunnel vision creeps in.

Having said all that, I get the idea of what Woodland is saying and I too believe it to be a very valid and plausable possibility. If you take on the task of processing all the available information and evidence through your own filters without addressing that ahead of time, it may cause you some problems down the road. Just perceptionally speaking.

WPS or any other suspect has to fit some basic criteria. The more the better. I would suggest a list of the main points already known and disclosed and discussed about wps be made ahead of time. When you encounter contentious points later requiring some degree of personal opinion, its better to show the process in an open and honest fashion during discussion.

Same with any other suspect that may arise during the process. They too should have a list made that in the end could be compared against the others.

jmo that the end results whatever that may be, would have much broader acceptance. You both have a huge wealth of knowledge and time invested just to get this much this far. Excellent stuff, look around, few cases have anywhere near this much info and evidence for the public to work with. I would look to the possibility of someday getting the case reopened nd reinvestigated properly maybe even by an outside Police force. Hopefully something will trigger that, maybe a book someday, maybe just getting it into the public eye.

Sorry for going on, just seems a lot of potential waiting to be maximized. We are in a new era, the information age, social networking and all that. What went by the wayside and was swept under the rug before, may not be so easy to do now.

All good points you make dpm

I thought this was worth sharing. It might help us to organize our discussions here, or it could be a rough guide to help us focus and organize our thoughts and cover all the bases, or, at the very least, just food for thought when thinking about this crime.

 

[Woodland]

Thanks for the negative and the positive view points orora - have been through them a thousand times. I also appreciate you not going all d-1 about it. Hopefully you don't think there are personal agendas and personal goals and bias with me. All I want to know is, has one guy been ruled out or not. Period. I don't know that yet, and I dislike what I find and experience on my journey for that answer.

A new investigation will never happen here, imo. But DNA does exist. Who cares who obtains a comparison?

 

[Dedpanman]

Excellent observations, Orora. I like your critical thinking and hope you stick around to continue sharing it.

 

[orora]

I think you will both do well on this path. IMO Woodland ‘s suspect may someday qualify for a dna warrant to be issued if all the ducks were ever to be lined up. Maybe not through the OPP, maybe not even this year. Laws do change with time. I feel that preserving that possibility should be maintained as long as possible. Making it more a priority to keep the possibility alive. Woodland I think you know you are up against formidable odds. Its not that you have personal bias, I just think it is important to avoid the illusion of one. You know that would get used against you.. Also, I did not know that you had totally given up on ever getting a new and proper investigation. That changes things too.

I believe you may be onto something, I think about how you can get the most mileage out of it.. I know how frustration can take over and it all seems lost but I’m not convinced it is all over yet for an official investigator. Who knows where it may all lead, you may even qualify a class action someday. So how do you get what you want out of this and still preserve as much as possible in an evidentiary manner should it ever meet the standard of the day? You want to know if your suspect was ever tested and whether or not he was ruled out. If that should prove out somehow, it is foundational for a new investigation. imo

Both are still possible imo and need not conflict. Not everything needs be said publicly ( as you know) but enough that it leaves no doubt. I believe you can generate a huge amount of support through this . You already do even from people and places you might not even know. Most of us would drop any personal issues and join in if we believed it may benefit the pursuit of justice for an innocent little girl. Apologies if I made it sound as if you were just pursuing some personal thing Woodland, I meant it more as an alert to watch out for the implications should someone want to try to make something more of it than was warranted. I believe they probably would. The better you get at this and the more you put together, the more of that sort of attention you will garner. Girl Guides stuff, be prepared best you can. Hardly anyone tries to tackle something like this on their own and you've been at it a long time, I don't envy you that.

I have no doubt you are the right person for your job too DPM. All good stuff you are up to , very complex but becoming understandable.. I look forward to seeing all those nuggets laid out.

 

[Enigma34]

This is an extremely sad and complex case. I hope her murderer is found one day.

 

[Dedpanman]

Okay, I'll take a kick at the ball...

Where was Christine Jessop abducted? Her home? The cemetery? The park? Did she go to the store?

Let’s close our eyes, readers, and imagine scenarios. Let's work the timelines.

There are two arrival times for the bus dropping off Christine: 3:45 pm or 3:50 pm. I’m going to work with both.

When I can, I’ll be presenting two times for the scenarios. If I don’t present dual times to reflect the discrepancy of the bus drop-off, it’s because, in my opinion, the times no longer matter because witnesses have guessed when they saw her, or there’s so much guess work in the scenario that the two possible times no longer matter. So, as you read, the first time corresponds to the 3:45 pm drop-off, the second time corresponds to a 3:50 pm drop-off.

3:45/3:50 pm – Christine gets off her bus, crosses Leslie Street to her driveway, picks up the newspaper and mail and heads up the driveway to her house (Note: it’s 80 meters from the shoulder of the road where she steps off the bus to the shed adjoining the kitchen where she enters the house). She has her school bag with her and her recorder in hand (apparently the kids were blowing them like whistles on the bus). Christine has arranged to meet her friend, Leslie Chipman at the park in a matter of minutes.

3:46/3:51 pm – Christine in her house. It’s a warm day. Takes off her jacket? Sweater? Maybe she’s not even wearing them? (It was 18.8 C in Toronto that day.) Does she use the washroom? Get a snack? Play with her dog? Look for her Cabbage Patch doll?

Or, has she already encountered her abductor? Was he waiting for her in the shed, near the bike, and in a blitz-attack subdues her – knocking over the bike? Does the abductor take her school bag and the mail into the house? If so, why? Why does the recorder go with Christine? Does she have it tucked into her pants pocket? Does Freckles, Christine’s dog – yap at the stranger – and he kicks the dog – frightens it so that it’s cowering when Janet and Ken arrive home? How does Christine get into her house? Does she have a key, or is there a key hidden in the shed?

Or, perhaps Christine is in no danger yet – not until she emerges from the house (3:50/3:55 pm) into the shed to get her bike to go to the park – and meets her abductor. But, then, where is the Cabbage Patch doll? Why is it not found in the shed, or the driveway? Maybe she couldn’t find it in the house? Maybe the abductor takes it, too? (Christine is buried with her favourite Cabbage Patch doll… so how many dolls does she have and where are they at the time?)

(3:50/3:55 pm) Or, is the abductor in the cemetery, calling to her from over the fence? She doesn’t get on her bike? She goes to the fence to see who it is. Was there a fence between the Jessop property and the cemetery? Is he someone she knows? Trusts? She frequently played and explored the cemetery. Has she encountered this man before in the cemetery? Has he won her trust? Does she go to him now because he needs her help with something? Is his car there somewhere in the cemetery? Does she get into his car willingly, or is there a moment where Christine realizes she’s in danger? He has her – pushes her into his vehicle – hits her – tells her to stop resisting or she’ll get more? He gets in his car and drives out of the cemetery, onto Leslie Street and turns left and heads north….?

Left behind: a fallen bicycle, some mail, a newspaper, her school bag, a jacket… waiting to be found.

Or…

I’m going to allow for Christine to be in her house for 5 minutes to do the things that kids do when they get in.

(3:50/3:55 pm) – Christine emerges from her house having dropped off the mail and her school bag, said hello to her dog, searched for her doll but couldn’t find it? Gets onto her bike and coasts down the incline of the driveway to Leslie Street and turns right – pedalling towards the intersection and the store?

Let’s say Christine is riding her bike at 15 km/hr. That’s .25 km every 60 seconds. It’s .71 km to the store. That makes it essentially a 3 minute journey to the store – plus it’s downhill. So let’s say Christine arrives at the store approximately 3:53/3:58 pm.

The proprietor of the store, Chris Liasopoulos, claimed Christine purchased gum between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm then left. So, Christine is out of the store by approximately 4:00 pm.

Robert Atkinson, in a car at the intersection claimed to have seen Christine around this time talking to two young children and an older boy. I have no information that these children (if they existed) were ever identified and the story confirmed.

It’s approximately 4:00 pm. Christine’s outside the store. She can see the park. It’s 115 meters away. Logic says she would ride over to the park to see if Leslie Chipman is there with her doll. She’s now at the park. Why is she not able to rendezvous with Chipman here? Chipman went to the park. Let’s say Chipman is running late. How long is Christine going to wait here for her friend to show up? Five minutes? Ten minutes? Is this where she encounters her abductor? If so, and the abductor is able to subdue her and get her into his car, he now has to drive quickly to the Jessop house and drop off the bike. He has less than ten minutes to do this before Janet and Ken arrive home at 4:10 pm. Does this sound reasonable?

Chipman arrives at the park some time around 4:00 pm and there’s no sign of Christine. She has also called the Jessop house before going to the park, and there was no answer. Does it make more sense that Christine never came to the store or the park?

At approximately this same time - 4:00 pm or 4:05 pm, Ms. Horwood and her husband see a male person in a very dirty dark green or blue Buick near the Queensville feed mill. While waiting at an intersection (this is by the store), the Horwoods observe this Buick which was stopped at the intersection facing them. It has been traveling eastbound (so it’s facing east – facing the park on the other side of Leslie Street) on the Queensville Sideroad and was waiting for traffic to clear so that it could proceed northbound on Leslie Street.

(Note – the Horwoods – to be in this position – have just driven past the park and they have not noticed anything out of the ordinary happening there.)

Both Mr. and Ms. Horwood are unable to obtain a licence plate number. The male driver they see is dark-skinned, mid-forties, stocky with dark hair and grubby in appearance. He is slouched down in his seat and appears to be holding a child with long dark hair in a very forceful manner close to his chest with his right arm, and is driving with his left hand. The Horwoods follow this Buick as it proceeded north on Leslie. The car turns west onto Fieldstone Lane in the Balmoral Heights subdivision. It drives up this street very slowly and close to the curb. The Horwoods are so concerned over what they see that they, too, turn into the subdivision and drive slowly around the block looking for the Buick. Unfortunately, by the time they turn into the subdivision they have lost sight of the car and do not see it again. Does this story sound questionable?

Let’s say Christine waits at the park for a minimum of five minutes. It’s now approximately 4:05 pm. It’s a three minute bike-ride back home. That puts her back at home at approximately 4:08pm. The abductor, if he’s there, has now two minutes to grab her and get out of there before Janet and Ken arrive at 4:10 pm. Does this seem believable?

Now, let’s say Christine did not ride her bike for some reason. Imagine now that she comes out of her house, into the shed, walks right past her beloved bicycle and strolls down the lane to Leslie Street and walks the .71 km to the corner store.

(Note: average walking speed for an adult is 6.4 km/hr. Since she’s a child let’s nudge it down just a bit – 5 km/hr. That’s still fast for a 9 year old. Most kids poke along at a ridiculously slow rate – but let’s use 5 km/hr for this exercise.)

If Christine leaves home at (3:50/3:55 pm) walking at 5 km/hr, that would make her walk to the store 8-9 minutes long. That puts her at the store at 3:59/4:04 pm. She buys gum, walks to the park and now meets her abductor? But the Horwoods (and lots of other people) are driving past the park and don’t notice anything out of the ordinary.

If Christine is not abducted at the park – she has less time now to walk/run home to get abducted before Janet and Ken arrive home. Does this seem reasonable?

By the way, no one notice Christine walking or riding he bicycle along Leslie Street – either going to the store, or going back home from the store. This is all happening around 4:00 pm. People are arriving home from work and school. No one sees her. Kim Warner lied and said she saw Christine riding her bike across Leslie Street into her driveway, but eventually admitted that she lied.

4:10 pm. Upon arriving home from Newmarket on October 3, 1984, Ken and Janet Jessop noticed that Christine had already been home. Her school bag was on the pantry counter and the mail and newspapers had been taken inside the home, as was Christine’s usual routine when she got off the school bus.

Her bicycle was lying on its side in the shed, as opposed to the upright position in which she generally kept it. Its kickstand and carrier appeared to be damaged. Her pink jacket, which the Jessops believed she had been wearing that day, was hanging on a hook that was beyond Christine’s reach when the Jessops returned home that afternoon.

Janet Jessop relaxed briefly, telephoned her husband’s lawyer, and then drove to the park to look for Christine. She stopped at the variety store, and also looked for her daughter in the cemetery behind their home where Christine would often play. Ms. Jessop then returned home and made dinner. When Christine had not returned home by early evening, she telephoned the York Regional Police (from the Kaufman Report).

So, readers… what makes the most sense to you?

Where was Christine Jessop abducted?

 

[orora]

Complex indeed. I will have to go over things a little better before I could even venture an opinion. Had one little thing jump out a bit though. I believe Woodland said the arrangement for Christine and friend to meet after school that day with dolls as usual was struck that morning before school. Neither Christine nor friend knew that she would get that recorder that day? Were Cj and friend in tha same class? Did Cj and friend ride home on the same bus? Could Christine have changed her plans and decided to take the recorder instead of the doll? Kid with a new toy sort of thing.. not so important but just wondered.

This was a good way to introduce point 1,2, and 3.

Filter 1: VICTIMOLOGY
The key to crime analysis is victimology—the study of the victim. Be examining who the victim is, we begin to unravel and eliminate an often perplexing web of misguided leads. A thorough understanding of the victim can often lead the investigation toward a probable suspect rather than to a reaction to an endless pool of less likely possible candidates. According to the Crime Classification Manual, written by the FBI:

Filter 2: INITIAL CONTACT SITE
Much can be learned from the initial contact site or the place where the victim and the suspect first meet each other. Questions surrounding why this particular location was used, how it assisted the offender in accessing the victim, and other related questions can often be answered by an analysis of this filter.

More important, it can also lead the investigator to surmise the level of familiarity the predator had with the site.


Filter 3: CRIME SCENE
The location of the crime scene is significant. It may reveal an immediate supposition about a personal versus stranger relationship between this location and the victim and offender. Consideration should be given to the exact location and date and the approximate time of the crime.

 

[Dedpanman]

The attached photo: looking north up Leslie Street from the intersection. The store was the orange building to the right. The park is around the corner to the right. The Jessop house was at the top of the hill in the distance on the left. In the photo, the black truck to the left at the intersection is in the position of the dark green or blue Buick that the Horwoods claimed to have seen on October 3 around 4:00/4:05 pm – that is – it’s eastbound on Queensville Side Rd. This Buick, if it existed, is coming from a direction that would make it next to impossible for it to be involved in Christine’s abduction. (Woodland pointed this out in a previous post - but I'll illustrate it here.) Queensville Side Rd West just goes in a straight line to Concession Road 2 (further West). It doesn’t connect to any streets in the town of Queensville. The Horwoods would have been waiting at the intersection to the right (where the dusty vehicle is). To be in that position, the Horwoods would have passed the park where Christine was to have met her friend and never showed up.

 

[Dedpanman]

Complex indeed. I will have to go over things a little better before I could even venture an opinion. Had one little thing jump out a bit though. I believe Woodland said the arrangement for Christine and friend to meet after school that day with dolls as usual was struck that morning before school. Neither Christine nor friend knew that she would get that recorder that day? Were Cj and friend in tha same class? Did Cj and friend ride home on the same bus? Could Christine have changed her plans and decided to take the recorder instead of the doll? Kid with a new toy sort of thing.. not so important but just wondered.

This was a good way to introduce point 1,2, and 3.

According to the book Redrum: The Innocent, the girls confirmed their agreement to take their dolls to the park when lining up to take the bus. I don't know if the children knew they were getting the recorders that day or if it was a surprise. One can infer both from the book. I believe Christine Jessop and Leslie Chipman were in the same class. They were best friends. I don't think Chipman was on the bus but I could be wrong. Woodland - do you know? It's possible Christine changed her plans concerning the doll, but apparently it was a pattern for the girls to take their Cabbage Patch dolls to the park. I imagine the girls taking both dolls and recorders, but who really knows? If Christine wasn't able to find her doll (maybe it was misplaced - under the couch or something) and she just chose to take her recorder. It's guesswork.

 

[Dedpanman]

This is how the corner store looked in January of 1985 - the day after Christine's body was discovered.

 

[orora]

Nice photos, gives a pretty good idea the whole scenario we are looking for. I understand how the doll vs the recorder being found with the body could play a role in determining when Christine was taken. It has potential to be one of those nuggets but I don't have a good feel either way yet. If Christines friend knew she had that recorder and had ridden home with her from school and the plan was still to take their dolls to the park, that is more convincing. It is still a possibility but needs a little more imo.. If Christine's friend had not yet seen the recorder, I would swing the other way to kid with new toy wanting to show friend.. Too bad the friend couldn't find you here.

Surprised how much bush there seems to be inbetween Christine's home and the store. From what I gather, the inbetween can almost be ruled out and its more a question of either the store area or home and the cemetery? No indication anywhere, no witnesses for in between area?

 

[Woodland]

For clarification -

There is no statement here or anywhere else that the after school plans were made in the morning.

Christine and Leslie met everyday, or nearly everyday, at the store after school on their bikes with their Cabbage Patch dolls. This is from Leslie Chipman's testimony quoted in Toronto Star 18 February 1992 page A05. It makes more sense that they made their store purchase first then went to the park.

The recorder was given out that day by a teacher who had just returned from a trip.

I believe Leslie walked to and from school but have not read that as an exact passage anywhere. RR reports Leslie played on the swings and waited in line for the bus with Christine - only that day? It reads as a daily routine to me.

Leslie phoned Christine with no response. A daily routine to call? I would say it was - the kids had to get home from school first to find if anything was going to disrupt their trip to the store or the park - an appointment, unexpected event at home etc.

Note that the Horwoods had the right of way to turn right at the intersection when they claim they saw the mystery car wanting to turn left. There were no traffic lights then. Seems to me Mr Horwood would have to signal the car to turn first - with a wave of his arm out the window? Neither Mr or Mrs H ever mention doing this. Did they just sit and wait until the mystery car finally turned? Not mentioned either way, it's skipped over in each account.

No one ever came forward to say they saw Christine heading to the store - with or without her bike. The only report of a sighting of Christine going home on her bike from the store was recanted as being a lie for the attention.

 

[orora]

I believe Leslie walked to and from school but have not read that as an exact passage anywhere. RR reports Leslie played on the swings and waited in line for the bus with Christine - only that day? It reads as a daily routine to me.

I believe it to be a daily routine as well. I just don't read Leslie getting on and off the same bus at the same time as Christine. Leslie testifying that Christine was to show up and play doll as usual would be completely understandable if she had not spoken with CJ since morning prior the recorders being handed out. Not sure this can be considered one of the nuggets yet myself without a few more details.

The Horwoods I would like to know more about them personally. What sort of people are they, employment, experience, age, etc.. Somewhere on here it was posted about the inconsistencies and unreliability of witness testimony. I have no idea which way to turn with this. On one hand they seemed sure enough to testify, on the other it seems a strange tale with strange timing.

Whether it can or can't be determined where the abduction took place, how much bearing does that have on the outcome either way? Just curious what to make of this should it be left as an open question. If it were conclusive, this case would likely have been solved and the killer in jail by now. We may be stuck with that. jmo

But, say that dna were somehow eventually matched back to a particular suspect, that may provide some better insights where and how, it may all be completely understandable and fit perfectly in the end. Like the 90% finished jigsaw,.. if this piece needs be saved til later..
just hypothesizing..

I would have no qualms with proceeding on the assumption that the abduction took place at or near CJ home, but would hold reservations. It can't be totally relied upon as a building block yet given the information we have. imo

It is what happened with GPM that also causes me some concern with this. Christine's father insinuated, intimated, that he believed CJ to be a target. GPM almost appears to have been set up as the patsy. How much was delibertate and how much accidental? Is there any possibility that any of the crime scene was staged or that any witnesses were put up to saying something not true? Several witneses already claimed to have been coached and times and circumstance changed.

Even the simpest of questions as posed above become extremely complex when wading through all the possible implications. I believe the nuggets are still there to be found, I'm just not so sure they are that easily recognizable.

 

[Woodland]

The current discussion was - does the trip to the store work or not given all available information.

Christine needs the 'sum' of all the parts, not 'some' of the parts.

Imo, there isn't anyone here, at the moment, that can make that work. Not a problem - it does not preclude anyone posting later on what will work for that trip.

Dedpanman - shall we move on? You put a lot of effort, imo, into the next order of business/discussion. I vote we start with victimology and move through the other points in order. If nothing else, it will be a great legacy of effort for Christine.

 

[orora]

Ditto..

 

[Dedpanman]

Yes, Woodland, I guess we can move on... unless we want to debate some finer points about the abduction – the WHERE and the WHEN? I think this might be useful in that it may point to a certain kind of abductor… or, even a specific suspect.

I'll throw out a few things for debate - and if there is no debate - we'll move on to Victimology.

Probable locations and time of Christine’s abduction:

Jessop house – “probable” - time: 3:51 - 3:56 pm.
Cemetery – also “probable” - time: 3:51 - 3:56 pm.
Leslie Street (to, or coming back from the store) - not likely due to high risk environment.
The park – “possible, but not likely” - time: approx. 4:02 - 4:05 pm.

Someone mentioned Occam's Razor on this thread (I don't remember who it was and I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to go hunt it down) but it's a good rule-of-thumb to follow. Occam's Razor: a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

The journey to the store and back to the house necessitates a number of highly improbable assumptions (in my opinion) and should probably be rejected.

Summary: the scenario with the least assumptions is that Christine was either abducted as she was entering her house – or just after she entered her house – or - ( the scenario I am currently leaning towards) she was abducted as she left the house with the intention of going to the store and then to the park.

Therefore, the abductor was either present on the Jessop property, or nearby in the cemetery.

What's interesting is that if the perpetrator is on the Jessop property or in the cemetery, it seems to suggest that Christine was the victim of a planned abduction scenario. Because, what are the chances that the abductor would happen upon Christine, alone, at the Jessop house with no one around - on that day?

Also: how many times did the perpetrator come within the proximity of the Jessop property, hoping/waiting for an opportunity to abduct Christine? If it was his first attempt, he won the lottery (so to speak). What are the chances of winning the lottery on the first ticket-purchase?