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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which was also all part of the reasoning for why GPM became a poi and then prime suspect. New poi should mimic and better fit that which implicated GPM. .

You are indicating some planning went into it? Occams sure, but if planning was involved, not so true. Dependant upon the perp. The lower the iq of perp and if a crime of opportunity go with occams. Otherwise incrementally increase above base level as indicated. Occams did in GPM.

Too premature to come to conclusions for me. I am not that well versed to feel comfortable doing that. I can agree on most likely probabilities.
 
We pretty much agreed Dedpanman, about page 1, that Christine was taken from her home and never went to the store. LE has yet to describe an alternative scenario that works and neither has anyone else. Personalities of witnesses won't describe a workable scenario either but we can always read about the research into it if it ever materializes.

The elephant in the room has been dealt with for now - my point in bringing it up the trip to the store was to deal with it so all could move on and not to get stuck in 1995 with the new direction you are providing. Christine needs better and there is so much more to say.
 
Okay, fine. My last word on the subject before moving on...

In my current opinion, the perpetrator:

1. was there, on the Jessop property, or in the cemetery, with a purpose and a plan – to abduct Christine

or

2. he happened to be on the property or in the cemetery with a “legitimate” reason, and seized the opportunity to abduct her when it presented itself.

This is the core of the puzzle.

I mean, she almost wasn't alone that day. What would have happened had Janet and Ken arrived home at 4:00 pm instead of 4:10 pm? Would the perpetrator have skulked off? Or, would the abduction attempt have happened on a different day - or not at all?

Bob Jessop feels that if it hadn’t happened that day, it would have been another. Clearly, he’s thinking the perpetrator had a plan and was waiting. I wonder why he feels this way?

If the perpetrator was there on the property or in the cemetery with the intention to abduct… what was his plan if he didn’t find her alone? After all, Janet and Ken could easily have arrived home first – before Christine.

If it was a planned abduction, he must have been in the cemetery (again, in my opinion) – because that would allow for an easy retreat should there be someone in the house other than Christine. If he’s on the Jessop property, it’s more difficult for him to explain his presence there.

Okay, I think I'm done.
 
Next stop: Victimology.

Here's a picture from THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS circa 1990.
Bob and Janet Jessop with Christine's portrait.
(To get us in the mindset of discussing the victim.)
 

Attachments

  • christineparents.JPG
    christineparents.JPG
    81.3 KB · Views: 64
I think you hit on it Dedpanman - if not that day then another. Victimology.
 
And, by the way -- I’ve just stumbled upon a bookmark in my copy of Makin’s book from some time ago. Page 398 – detailing the second autopsy. There it is...! As they opened the coffin: “When it came, no one was prepared for the sight of Christine’s Cabbage Patch doll.” Is this the doll she was supposed to take to the park that day with Leslie Chipman? If it is – then there is the strong evidence that she never went to the store, as she would have taken the doll with her. Her doll was at home - and it was buried with her. <---- She had one doll Victoria Kadi - http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...L8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ve8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2950,6911966
 
Does anyone know what school Christine attended? I found this one and according to google maps it's only 1.1km away. I know that I had to walk further than that (in 1984), but I was also Ken's age... It just seems strange that she needed to be bussed home, but walked/rode about half of the distance back, on a regular basis.

Also, I was wondering if anyone knows what the Montessori school was before 2006 when it opened? So far I've found that the site plan was registered in 2006 to establish the school. Was it a school before? or someone's home?

The reason that I ask is that on YRP cold case site, two other cases mention a school next (in the area) of a missing person. Cheryl Hanson (Blue Hills Academy) and Tracy Kundinger (German Mills Public School). http://www.yrp.ca/coldcases.aspx

I know it doesn't follow what info we have... just jumped out at me and I thought I would put it out there...

ETA: just found that Blue Hills Academy is not a school...
 
If the recorder was found with Christine's body, but the Cabbage Patch Doll was at home, to me that points in the direction of Christine being taken from her home, before she got the chance to get her doll, but she still had her recorder in her hand.

I am in the process of reading the Kauffman Report. I do not believe that the mom and brother arrived home as early as they said they did. According to the Dentist and his Secretary, mom and brother didn't leave the dentist office 'til after 4. Mom and brother ran late for the appointment, which was 3:30, they got there at 3:40.
I think I believe the Dentist and Secretary's account, since they deal with time and appointments all day.
I agree with your post #223, Woodland.
 
Hey bodhi93 - thank-you so much for taking interest in this case and bringing this to the table, along with Mistysues find earlier today on the doll.

Christine attended the Queensville Public School that is still on Leslie Street within the main core of Queensville. From all accounts Christine rode her bike every day from home to the general store/park .71 kms away. Not sure that is strange - there are no sidewalks on Leslie Street north of Queensville Sideroad, and possibly none for quite a distance south as well. If it's not safe and more than a kilometre, than a bus is warranted.

The Jessops severed their property a few years after Christine's murder - sold the rear portion to the cemetery and the front portion to what seems like a private buyer. The Montessori School was set up after that.

You have touched on something very interesting - the principal of the school Cheryl Hanson attended is reported to be Christine's godfather according to an article in the Toronto Star 12 October 1984, page A08, quoting Christine's father Bob Jessop.

Not sure what you mean Blue Hills Academy is not a school. It was back in 1974.

<modsnip>

Have wondered about Tracy Kundinger and any connection to Christine or Cheryl from time to time as well.
 
Hey jobo - so nice to see you! Thanks for chiming in on this thread!

FWIW to other posters, jobo has been a great friend to Christine over the years.

I hear you jobo on the arrival time - it is tight and likely a little later. Please bear in mind either the receptionist or assistant was married to a cop - take their timing with a grain of salt.

Cheers!
 
Jobo - thanks for joining the discussion. I have appreciated your thoughtful and critical analysis of this case elsewhere. Unfortunately, we weren't able to connect at that time and I hope we can now. Welcome!
 
We're about to take the discussion into the realm of victimology - studying and discussing who Christine Jessop was to see if we can squeeze out some clues about the offender in this case. I'm in the process of gathering my thoughts in order to present a portrait or picture of who she was and why that might have made her a victim. Again - a totally amateur analysis.

All we can do is work with the information we have, but maybe try to organize it in a new way, or find new connections that others may have missed...
 
And, BTW, I just want to put this out there as new people join the thread...

I may have started this thread, but it doesn't belong to me - it belongs to all of us. In fact, I believe that it belongs, really, to Christine. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that this is my show, or that I think it's my show. I'm a little worried because right now I might seem to be at the helm steering the boat - but I'll only do that if it seems that it's needed. I think some direction, some simple structure and focus is useful for discussions.

I hope that's cool.
 
I hear you, Dedpanman. All is good with me. Thanks all, for the welcome; as I just barged in and added my two cents...lol. Seriously though, I can't 100% believe any times except for maybe the 5 minute span given for the time Christine got off the School Bus.
When I wrote that I had no idea of the relationship of some employees to LE. Geesh...tangled webb or what?
Even still, the times can't be written in stone, in my opinion....but, let's move on to Victimology, as suggested.
 
Just a thought; I don't think the recorder or cabbage patch doll have any significance to determine whether she went to the store park etc or was taken from the store park and home. I have three kids and the school where we live sends home recorders and music homework, my kids thought they were the cats meow! Wouldn't quit blowing them. Which makes me think that CJ was a regular child and excited about her new toy. If she did head to see her friend or stayed home I'm guaranteeing she didn't put it down until she was had to.
 
Who was Christine Jessop?

Obviously, there is no substitute for actually knowing a person. Since that is impossible in the case of Christine Jessop, we must try to create a picture or portrait of a young girl from the facts provided in Kirk Makin’s Redrum: The Innocent and the Kaufman Report. I have made an attempt to assemble the relevant details from both sources and arrange them in a way that might give us a sense of who she was.

First, Janet Jessop describes her. (This is verbatim from the Kaufman Report)


Q. Now Janet, at this Inquiry we've heard many details of Christine's death and the subsequent murder investigation, but we haven't heard anything about Christine's life. And I know that this is something that you've been wanting to tell at the Inquiry, and hopefully this will be your last time here. And I thought that this is your opportunity to tell the Inquiry at little bit about Christine herself.

J.J. Okay. She was a normal nine-year-old little girl. She was all of forty pounds soaking wet — excuse me. She really loved life. She loved her family, her uncles, her aunts and her cousins. She was a happy, sensitive, lively, caring and a little clean-freak girl. She had a terrific sense of humour. She was fun, she was feisty, and she loved to help in whatever you were doing, she just wanted to be with you. And she was a little going concern and a very loving child. She loved school and she loved sports, particularly baseball. And she adored animals and particularly her own dog, Freckles. And she was the little type, she could go from a real lady to a little tomboy. She'd put the worms on the hook for her brother because he couldn't put them on. And she even slept with the baby chicks so that they wouldn't be alone at night. And she was a very responsible little girl, she never wandered off from me for a minute. If she went to someone's home to play, or went to her grandparents for the weekend, she'd be phoning every five minutes just to say, hi. So that's the type of little girl that I lost due to some very, very foolish person, and very demented.

Q. And as Christine's mother, what kind of things did you and Christine do together?

J.J. Oh, we did a lot, we did everything together. We'd go to showers, shop, she and I were very, very close, and I guess maybe being the mother and daughter, you're closer to the daughter, the mother. We went to birthday parties, we went to parks, really the only time Christine was alone was when she was at school.

Q. And what were your expectations and dreams for Christine?

J.J. Well I think the first and most important thing was to remain the best of friends, which we were. And to see her graduate from school, to see her get married and have children and to remain a loving family and to let her pursue, rather, and achieve any goal in which she wanted to do, and this has all been taken away.

In Makin’s book, the author presents information that, at times, contrasts sharply with the picture Janet Jessop created at the inquiry. I have collected and assembled it here (and re-written it to some degree).

Christine Jessop was the biological offspring of Robert (Bob) Jessop and Janet Jessop. Her older, brother, Ken was adopted. She was a sickly child in the first years of her life and nearly died a few times due to gastroenteritis – a medical condition characterized by inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract involving both the stomach and the small intestines. This resulted in Christine suffering from vomiting, abdominal pain and severe cramps through her formative years. However, by the time she was seven or eight, the condition was easing. This medical issue may have resulted in her being a somewhat small and skinny child.

In October of 1984, Christine Jessop was nine years old, freckled and weighed only forty pounds. She had crooked teeth and a prize-winning smile. She may have had some trouble fitting in at school at times, and may have been occasionally picked on by other children due to her size. She was not excluded though. Christine had friends (Leslie Chipman, Amanda Halloran and Jennifer Coffey to name a few). She was described as being wilful and possessing a mind of her own, but she wasn’t the kind of child a parent needed to spank. Christine understood that “no” meant “no”. Still, she was no shrinking violet. Her mother described her as being a motor-mouth and talked with sass. At school, she was considered a chatty girl in the classroom.

Christine loved animals. She had a dog named “Freckles”, a pet frog named “Harold” in her basement, and fifty little chickens out in the back yard. When the chickens began to die of the cold, she and Ken slept outside with them to help keep them warm. When it got too cold, her brother retreated to the house, but Christine stayed all night. She was also friendly with her neighbour’s (the Morin’s) dogs, Jesse and James.

Christine was something of a tomboy. She wasn’t afraid to get her hands dirty and she was industrious. Christine caught and sold dew worms to cottagers passing by on Leslie Street during the summer. She was a Brownie, and played on the softball team that her father coached. Apparently, she could throw a ball like a man and could use dirty words when talking about something she hated. She enjoyed time with her father and went with him to the community fire hall on occasion.

Christine had a rough and tumble side, but she also had a girlish side as well. She liked to read, knit, play with her dolls and listen to Boy George songs on her phonograph. Her favourite song at the time of her disappearance was “I’m Going to Live Forever” – the theme song from the television show, “FAME”. Apparently, Christine would sing and dance to this music all the time. She was afraid of thunderstorms and would follow her mother around whenever they occurred.

At the time of her disappearance, Christine had reached a point in her life when she was becoming self-conscious about her looks - her boniness - her smallness - and that’s perhaps why she sometimes wore multiple layers of clothing – to bulk herself up. Christine was blossoming ahead of her time into adolescence – already wearing lipstick and makeup – and spoke of her ambitions to wear a brassier. In the park and in the schoolyard, she spoke about boys with an odd maturity.

Prior to the Jessop family’s arrival in Queensville, Christine, her brother, Ken, and two other boys (brothers – one Ken’s age, and one three years older) had been engaging in regular sexual activity for years. Christine became involved in their activities starting when she was four. The three boys had engaged in everything up to and including sexual intercourse with her. Eventually Ken realized that they had been exploited by the eldest brother and that what they had been doing was wrong and warned Christine never to speak of it to anyone – and to never let anyone do that to her again. Apparently she had kept the secret and had not told anyone. This information came to light only when Ken Jessop, crushed by tremendous guilt, confessed it to police in 1990.

Contrary to Janet Jessop’s description of her daughter’s habits, Christine apparently did travel alone around Queensville. She played in the park frequently during the summer months and sometimes stayed there quite late – walking home alone around nine or ten p.m. She was observed interacting with groups of boys in the park, and sometimes these boys were significantly older than her.

Christine also frequented the cemetery and played there often. She was drawn to one particular grave: that of a little boy. She often placed flowers there below the headstone.

Like all the other children at her school, Christine had been taught street-proofing skills, but her teachers, babysitter and even her father thought that she might be inclined to go with a stranger under the right circumstances.
 

Attachments

  • Christine.jpg
    Christine.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 35
If anyone feels that I have missed something important - please feel free to add.

So, I guess the key question... the obvious question in the study of the victim, is this:

Why was this particular person targetted for a violent crime?
 
If you asked almost anyone first hearing of this to venture a guess why they thought she may have been targetted, this just jumps out at you. Its highly abnormal.

Christine became involved in their activities starting when she was four. The three boys had engaged in everything up to and including sexual intercourse with her. Eventually Ken realized that they had been exploited by the eldest brother and that what they had been doing was wrong and warned Christine never to speak of it to anyone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
4,719
Total visitors
4,932

Forum statistics

Threads
603,550
Messages
18,158,434
Members
231,767
Latest member
Yoohoo27
Back
Top