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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dedpanman;

What's your opinion on this?

John Ferris, the head of autopsy services at Vancouver General Hospital and a veteran of 650 autopsies in cases of suspected homicide, was retained by the defence (of GPM) to analyse the results of the exhumation.

****
... photographs of the remains revealed no signs of dead insects or their larval shell, as one would expect at a decomposition scene. “It is not a question of a few,” Ferris said. “There should be hundreds

My opinion on the above is as follows;

Forensic Entomology is still a relatively new field, while it has been studied for centuries it has only recently taken off in the last twenty years. Canada only has 2 Forensic Entomologists right now in 2012. Dr. Sherah VanLaerhoven of the University of Windsor and her mentor Gail Anderson of Simon Fraiser University. Gail Anderson did not start working on homicides until 1988 and VanLaerhoven started in the early nineties. John Ferris, while his credentials are extensive and impressive he is a medical doctor who specialized in forensic pathology which by and large deals with cause of death and not entomology. There was no schooling for Entomology when he was practicing and while I accept the fact that he had overseen 600plus autopsies his specialty was in determining cause of death. Given the degree of issues during the autopsy and the lack of effort in the police investigation I am not convinced that the detectives reported properly on the forensic evidence and in their defense it was a small town and homicide especially that of a child was almost unheard of. Scientific Forensics did not play a huge part in Canadian crime solving at that point in time. That said I also have scientific reasons for my opinion.

-A wound absent of maggots or other necrophagous insects is most likely a postmortem wound.

- If the insect cycle is disturbed, it may suggest that the killer returned to the scene of the crime. The entomologist may be able to estimate the date of death and possibly the date of the return of the killer.

-Forensic entomology relies on insect abundance. In winter, there are fewer insects and entomology's use is limited.

- Treatments (like freezing, wind, burial or wrapping) that exclude insects and can affect estimates

- Non-carrion insects that commonly arrive at remains in dry decay are centipedes, millipedes, isopods, snails and cockroaches – prefer moist dark places NOTE: centipedes, millipedes, isopods, snails and cockroaches generally go indoors during the winter.

- Low temperatures generally slow down the activity of blow-flies and their colonization of a body. Higher temperatures in the summer favor large maggot masses on the carrion.

- Dry and windy environments can dehydrate a corpse, leading to mummification. Dryness causes cessation in bacterial growth since there are no nutrients present to feed on. (CJ was "skeletonized" nothing left to feed on, except for her head which was covered/wrapped)

- Most insects are not active in the winter

- In temperate regions dead bodies often appear in spring, after the snow is gone. The forensic entomologist and the forensic pathologist must then try to determine whether the death occurred during the winter or before the snow set in. If the death occurred before November, it is possible to find dead insects in and on the body...ie; frozen maggots (maggots being one of the first to inhabit the body)

- The insects found underneath the body will also vary with the length of time the body has been at the scene, providing more evidence of both time of death and whether the body may have been moved -movement can be caused by animals as well.

- When insects invade human remains, they begin to feed on blood or exposed flesh on the body surface

- During Canadian winters, a forensic entomologist has difficulty predicting the time since death because insects are not active during this cold season. As well, a body dumped before the winter or during the winter is often covered by snow and not found until the snow has melted in the spring. Then, a forensic entomologist may try to determine whether the death occurred during the winter or before the winter. A death has likely occurred before the winter when dead insect eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults are found in or on the body. By analyzing these dead insects and estimating when they died using meteorological records, time since death can be estimated. Absence of signs of insect infestation likely indicates that the victim's body was deposited during the winter.
 
This is a question I’ve had for some time, and since the thread has gone a little… slow… I’ll toss this out.

(Actually, it's a few questions.)

On the cover of the 1998 “New Edition” of Redrum: The Innocent by Kirk Makin (the edition that I have), down at the bottom of the cover, is what appears to be a grainy photograph of the Sunderland body disposal site. (But, maybe it’s not…?)

Whoever took the photo could be standing at the edge of the farmer’s field facing north (facing Brock Concession Rd 4).

Or, is this photo taken from the edge of Brock Concession Rd 4 facing south - looking down the tractor path that leads to the site?

My main question is this: To the right of the picture is a tall standing object with a door...

What is that object?

Is it some strange outhouse? If so, why does one side of it have facets or triangular-shaped projections? What is it doing there? It looks like it has a solid enough construction…

I can’t figure it out.
Can anyone enlighten me (us)…?

I’ve included a close-up of the picture in question and ramped up the contrast so that the object is more visible.

It looks to me like a shed with a van parked behind it.
 
Deadpanman: email K Makin via the Globe and Mail and ask him what the structure is. He might reply. JMO

I took your advice, Matou. Here's the response I got back from Kirk Makin in regards to the mystery object on the cover of his book, and the location depicted in the photograph itself:

Hi. Thanks for your kind words. I hate to disappoint, but this was all 22 years ago and I have only sketchy memories of many aspects now, and no idea about this one.

Sorry about that...

Kirk


So, I guess we add it to the already tall pile of mysteries here.
 
attachment.php
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?

Still reading the thread. So this may be obsolete. But since you asked about where she was abducted i wanted to speculate.

After she got home and got off the bus she got the paper and the mail and took it inside. moments later she walked to the corner to buy her gum. (I believe the clerk about her being there that day. I assume the clerk had served her before and maybe even had a short little conversation with her while selling her the gum. being a little red hair girl I am sure they would remember her being in the store that day). After getting her gum and something else that proved she was in fact there, she went back home to get ready to go to the park. She went back inside to get her doll, and then exited the house to go to her bike. She started to get on her bike when she was abducted. That is why it was found laying on its side and not standing up as shown in one of the early photos. She never left her bike laying down she loved her bike. As far as the jacket being hung on a hook out of her reach, I assume this hook was not far from the bike area. And the killer had her take it off or already off and he hung it there. It may-have been on her bike and hit the ground and he hung it up to show nothing out of the ordinary when found. Buying time before she was reported missing. He probably let her take her doll with her as a comfort something to hold on to.

I don't believe from what i read so far this was a random abduction but someone whom knew the little red hair girls routine. Knew when she got home, when the bus arrived and may have known beforehand on this day no one else would be present at the time at the home. He was there waiting for her that day, and waited for her to come back from the corner store. Did he know she would go to the store soon after getting home. Doubtful but possible if it was a part of a regular routine of hers.

All just MOO and speculation on my part .

Afterthought. But just more speculation and assumptions.
After the decomposition became more apparent it was time to dispose of the body, which would explain the frozen maggots in my opinion. And the place where she was found. Not hidden and close to the trailer. Of all the places he could had placed her he placed her there. Is that because he wanted her found, and placed her somewhere close to someone whom he knew? And wanted her found by them for some unknown reason? Just a thought wondering if the killer knew the people in some form that lived in the trailer near where she was found.

But then one could speculate he seen her at the store, and followed her back home and the opportunity presented itself for an abduction.
 
No matter how much the timing is looked at and how much leeway is possible either way, there seems to be no possible way for a trip to the store and a return home. This is part of the problem putting the pieces together; its either a trip to the store and an abduction nearby there or no trip to the store and an abduction near home. Pretty tough to reconcile both.
 
Wow! Glad to hear the reconciliation on the trip to the store.
 
Well, not so much a wow moment as an acknowledgement of fact. The distance from home to the store is known. By all accounts Christine intended to go to the store but did not intend to return straight home. She had time to go to the store but she did not have time for a return trip. Yet her bike is found at home and it is somewhat damaged. There is no indication the damage was prior that day but it is a possibility. .

So on one hand, there is proof Christine made it into the house and there are indications at the home that might suggest something happened there.

On the other hand, there are at least three witness sightings at the store corner over a period of about 10 minutes involving at least 5 different people. One was of a struggling child.

The bike seems an important element to the story but a piece that lends itself more to the home abduction theory than the store area. The bike was looked at almost immediately and was dusted for prints. I am not aware the results. There may be a simple innocent explanation for the bike, or it may have played a very key role. It is of note that the bike found at home was a major factor in the decision to go after GPM. If the bike had been found elsewhere like around the store, where some witnesses were reporting Christine seen with boys or the vehicle with the struggling child, GPM would likely have escaped his predicament. Perhaps Christine just walked and wanted to practice play her recorder on the way to the park.

All that is left as a third option is Christine riding the bike to the store but it being returned home by another party to fit the timing. I do not look at this as likely, just note the possibility. If it were that way, there would have been considerably more planning involved than has ever been considered. That would make GPM part of the plan as a patsy. Bob Jessop was removed from the family several weeks earlier, Mrs. Jessop and Ken were both missing at the precise time.

Christine has a pattern of abuse in her past and there is some indication a vehicle had been following her and her friend shortly before her abduction.

The coincidences mount and the Police actions almost seem to mirror a page from the how to bungle a case handbook.

Did Christine know something or someone from her past that may have warranted her having to be silenced? Perhaps it was not just those boys involved?

Are we seeing aspects of staging? Maybe even staging of some events that mimics the acts of a crazed serial sex killer? Crazy like fox... disguises the true motive.

But, this would take someone with the wherewithall and knowledge to even think something like that up. Back in those years I would imagine this sort of thing would only be well known within the fbi or some such body.

So although it may look like a major reconciliation, I have not come to any conclusions on any aspects. It is a complex hand to read and there are various players both known and unknown with multiple potential scenarios to track down. I am beginning to understand Bob Jessop's words about if not then it would have been someother day. Christine was targetted imo and for a reason. I'm not entirely convinced the crazed sex sadist motive was all that was in play. Im not entirely convinced that some of what LE did was not deliberate.

There are patterns of this sort of thing happening elsewhere and often it is in cases resulting in wrongful convictions.

The Barb Stoppel murder and the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow is an excellent comparison. There was another suspect in that case who enjoyed Police protection for reasons yet unknown other than he was a Police informant. There are others of that same ilk, enough so that the question of the other suspects "status" here is not without precedent.

see information on Thomas Sophonow case and the "other suspect"-

from-
http://www.mindytran.com/rcmpsanctionedkillers.htm

http://www.mindytran.com/theothersuspect.htm
 
I did realize there was no conclusion in post #601 orora. By reconciliation I meant the mathematical kind - acknowledging there was only so much time for something to happen, whatever that something was. I think it will go a long way for Christine.

The case is very complex - pealing away one layer at a time may prove revealing.

Cheers!
 
The bike was looked at almost immediately and was dusted for prints. I am not aware the results.

From what I have read - when the police were finally called (around 8:30 pm on Oct. 3) they did not know what they were dealing with, so the Jessop house was not treated as a crime scene. Things were moved (the bike, the jacket, etc.) and there was no fingerprinting done on anything, including the bike, for quite some time. (Afterall, in the early stages, this was just a case of a girl who may have wandered off with a friend, etc.)

Because the house and the garage/shed was not considered a crime scene - potentially hundreds of people had handled items (including the bike) before anyone thought about fingerprints.

I do know - that by the time the police realized that they had better get some fingerprints of Christine for comparison purposes - all of her fingerprints in her room and in the house had melted or degraded - so they were never able to get any prints for her. I'm pretty sure on that.
 
I know it is just the truth that we all seek. Some facts speak for themselves, some are more open to interpretation. Fact based speculation can serve a purpose but it does generate many differing thoughts and opinions. You are correct on the lack of evidence due the corrupted crime scene, (it it were the home). I completely agree the significance of the timing involved. There is very little lattitude to play with either way. The questions keep mounting the more you learn. The uninvestigated fellow with the delivery vehicle just raises more. They had a vehicle, a registration number, a license plate, a name? This type of vehicle could potentially play a role in ways a regular vehicle couldn't.

Link to fingerprints-

Detective Eric Strong, an identification officer, arrived at 11:55 p.m. to fingerprint the bicycle and to reproduce some photographs of Christine for distribution to the community.

from- http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_ch4.pdf
 
Wow, so many of you have put some much thought and work into this case. Some of us have had a difficult time believing the "Horwood sighting" because of the direction of travel of the suspect car. But, what if there were some sort of access roads at the time from inside the cemetery out to Queensville side road or concession 2? When I look at a current google map of the area, it looks to me that there is currently a pathway or dirt road that leads all the way to Concession 2. Maybe the Horwood sighting was really Christine. Does anyone know if the suspect who had worked at the cemetery lived or had any ties to the Balmoral Heights subdivision? Just a thought...anyone care to comment?
 
Hi Lacrosse. The problem with the Horwood sighting is the direction the vehicle is coming from and the direction it turned.

If the vehicle used back roads to exit the cemetery, with Christine already in it as you suggest, why then come back to Leslie Street? The vehicle was at Leslie Street if it was in the cemetery. It would have been faster and easier to turn right from the cemetery onto Leslie Street and turn right into the Balmoral subdivision if that was the destination. It would have taken less than 30 seconds.

One cannot hide a vehicle in the Balmoral subdivision unless it drove immediately into a garage. If so, did the person keep her there? Would they have had to live alone? Was she kept there for a long time after death - ie no apparent insect activity?

Do you think Christine went to the store that day, or did the owner assume that since she went there almost everyday?
 
Christine Jessop was the first missing persons case I can ever remember. I didn't realize she had a thread here, until I noticed my good friend Matou posting on it.

Rest in Peace, Christine
 
SUSPECT: “BRAD FOSTER” (pseudonym)


From Redrum: The Innocent:
(point form notes from pgs 385-388, some notes rearranged for clarity, some notes here were implied but not directly stated by Kirk Makin)


- Foster was seventeen years old at the time of Christine’s disappearance
- an orphan who spent his childhood being bounced from one youth shelter to another
- had been a “mixed up” adolescent with problems related to his own identity and sexuality
- had no attachments to people
- people found his behaviour objectionable and disturbing
- Described as stoic and unemotional (implied)
- in 1983, he was caught engaging in sexual experimentation with young children at the group home where he was living
- this group home was located just a few kilometres from the Sunderland field where Christine’s body was found
- after his sexual abuse with the young children was discovered, Foster was banished to a more secure group home (location unknown) but didn’t stay for long and left for the east coast of Canada
- When he returned to Ontario from the east coast in 1984, a social worker took him under his wing and encouraged him to find work
- The job Foster obtained involved hauling car parts around in a van for a foreign-car sales and service outlet in New Market
- George Fejer, the owner of the dealership where Foster worked told police that on the day of Christine’s abduction, Foster had been assigned to deliver some car parts to Mississauga – a suburb of Toronto (95 minutes from New Market)
- Foster did not arrive back until between 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm that day
- Foster had been missing for most of the day on October 3 and no one had known where he was
- The owner had called the customer that day to see what was taking Foster so long
- When Foster finally showed up, Fejer confronted Foster about the missing time
- Foster told the owner he had gone to visit friends
- The owner found a gas receipt that showed that Foster had not been in Mississauga that day
- The day after Christine disappeared, Foster was noticed by the owner washing out the back of the van with a powerful detergent
- This was especially unusual because the van was never washed out because it wasn’t necessary for their type of business
- Fejer said Foster even washed the seats and the dashboard
- Several weeks after the van-washing incident, Foster smashed up the van in a highway accident
- Foster had the van towed back to the dealership
- Foster did not report the accident
- Fejer called the police and arranged for them to drop in to make a report when he learned that Foster had not reported the accident
- Foster promptly disappeared after Fejer's call to the police
- The social worker who had helped Foster had felt that he (Foster) could have been a threat to him and his family and they were lucky to have escaped him (when they learned that Foster had disappeared)
- The owner told police that he and Foster had often taken drives to find car parts in the areas between Queensville and the area where Christine’s body had been found (the implication being that Foster was familiar with the area)
- Fejer told the police that Foster always carried a knife
- The van that Foster had been driving had been sitting outside with a broken window (its interior exposed to the elements) since the accident
- Police took the van and impounded it on January 31, 1985 – but by that time the investigation was focusing on GPM so no testing of the van was done
- The van sat in a police yard for many months and was never examined for evidence
- Police searched for Foster but could not find him
- Foster was eventually located living in Toronto by the Jessop investigators during GPM’s second trial
- At that point, Foster denied having killed Christine
- He said he only washed out the van to be a good employee
- Foster said he fled after the accident with the van because he had been driving without a licence
- When police went back to re-question the Fejers (the owner of the dealership), Mrs. Fejer recalled that in regards to the day Foster disappeared - the cheque for the car parts was dated October 2, which means it was the day before Christine’s abduction and that on October 3 – Foster must have been completing the task that he had failed to do the previous day (Oct. 2)

Some thoughts/questions (my own):
- Mrs. Fejer's "remembering" that the relevant cheque was dated Oct. 2 makes for a fuzzy alibi at best for Foster – in my opinion. Was this a desperate act to avoid problems with "Foster" because he had been located? Was she able to produce the cheque in question for police? And was the date actually correct? Dates on cheques are frequently in error.)
- And... are we certain that "Foster" was cleared by DNA testing?
 
Thanks Woodland. I'm sure there are some problems with the theory I have proposed, but If Christine was abducted by way of the cemetery, then I can envision the perp exiting through the back roads. He may not have exited onto Leslie because he was afraid to be seen by cemetery workers or anyone else around at the time. He also would have to have driven by Christine's house if he turned on Leslie, which he may have wanted to avoid to ensure his car wouldn't have been spotted by potential witnesses. Going out through the back would also have given him more of an opportunity to gain physical control---possibly he lured her into his car so needed a remote area to actually get control of her. Its obvious you know more about this case than I, do you know if any of the suspects lived in the Balmoral subdivision? Can you share any info on the suspect who has worked at the cemetery?
Another thing that is leading me to the cemetery angle is wasn't it reported that one of the brothers involved in the abuse claimed that some of it had taken place at the cemetery? If so, it could have been witnessed by a cemetery employee and triggered some sick fantasy within him.
So, fellow sleuthers, am I way out in left field or could we be on to something?
As for the store, my feeling is the store clerk would have known her well, so I do think she made it to the store. I think its possible she may have ridden her bike to the store intending to go to the park, but changed her mind and rode back home after making her purchase. Maybe she realized she forgot her doll and went home to get it.
 
Thanks Woodland. I'm sure there are some problems with the theory I have proposed, but If Christine was abducted by way of the cemetery, then I can envision the perp exiting through the back roads. He may not have exited onto Leslie because he was afraid to be seen by cemetery workers or anyone else around at the time. He also would have to have driven by Christine's house if he turned on Leslie, which he may have wanted to avoid to ensure his car wouldn't have been spotted by potential witnesses. Going out through the back would also have given him more of an opportunity to gain physical control---possibly he lured her into his car so needed a remote area to actually get control of her. Its obvious you know more about this case than I, do you know if any of the suspects lived in the Balmoral subdivision? Can you share any info on the suspect who has worked at the cemetery?
Another thing that is leading me to the cemetery angle is wasn't it reported that one of the brothers involved in the abuse claimed that some of it had taken place at the cemetery? If so, it could have been witnessed by a cemetery employee and triggered some sick fantasy within him.
So, fellow sleuthers, am I way out in left field or could we be on to something?
As for the store, my feeling is the store clerk would have known her well, so I do think she made it to the store. I think its possible she may have ridden her bike to the store intending to go to the park, but changed her mind and rode back home after making her purchase. Maybe she realized she forgot her doll and went home to get it.

The back roads exit from the cemetery doesn't really work. When you study the Google Earth view it gives a false impression of access. The terrain is much more difficult to navigate in reality and isn't really a realistic option. Also, you're looking at geography as it is today - not 30 years ago when all this happened. The cemetery didn't have that big western expansion that you see today. And, even today, it would be next to impossible to take a vehicle out through the fields, tractor trails, or whatever seems to be apparent in Google Earth. Sorry. I can speak from experience as I have explored the area on foot.

The suspect who worked in the cemetery has been profiled earlier on this thread and all the information we have on him is there. His psuedonym is "Dean MacPhail".

The store owner who is sure that Christine came in that day has never wavered from that declaration. But knowing what we do about human memory - it can't be ruled out that the owner might be remembering her visit from the day before (in my opinion, but I could be wrong).
 
Lacrosse wrote: I think its possible she may have ridden her bike to the store intending to go to the park, but changed her mind and rode back home after making her purchase. Maybe she realized she forgot her doll and went home to get it.

I have run that scenario around in my mind a hundred times, but when you do the math to chart out the journey and the time required, she ends up arriving home only a few minutes before her mother and brother arrive. Seems to be too narrow a window of opportunity for the abductor (my opinion). Not impossible though. But is it likely?

(shrug)
 
Woodland, you have more pieces to work with than I do when it comes to rearranging the puzzle, but do all the pieces fit…?

Are you able to discuss your suspect without naming names? Are you comfortable doing that…?

We could refer to the person as WPS (Woodland’s Prime Suspect).
If he’s 51 today, then he was 23 in 1984.
What other pieces indicate that he’s a viable suspect?
Could you list them in point form without compromising the person or yourself?

In regards to the speculation about C's confinement somewhere for a time prior to her death – yes, that’s definitely a possibility, and a scenario that I have considered as well.

One thing in your post that made me pause was this: “A skilled surgeon would need an hour to do what was done (have seen speculation on 90 minutes).”

I questioned that, as the same things have been said about Jack the Ripper. I don’t think the Ripper was a skilled surgeon, I think he was a killer who basically slashed his victims to pieces in very little time. So, I asked myself, what is there about C.J.’s injuries that suggests… methodology or precision requiring that much time?

So I went back to look at the details presented in Makin’s book concerning the second autopsy, and I'll list them here:

- a “phenomenal injury” – half the breastbone was missing, sheared off in a straight, vertical line – suggests a larger weapon – perhaps a hunting knife

- “an attempt to open up the chest”

- some of the mid-thoracic vertebrae were broken into pieces

- “there had been a shearing effect” (the vertebrae)

- an attempt to dismember

- “killer had been thwarted by his ignorance of human anatomy”

- “multiple cut marks, all inflicted from the back”

- “massive fracture radiating out from the nasal bones and encemopassing most of the facial structure” – this was severe enough to have brought on unconsciousness and perhaps death

- two additional ribs marked by knife cuts (in addition to the ones noted in the first autopsy)

- possible defensive wounds to a forearm


INFERENCES from the injuries (listed in the book):

- there would have been copious quantities of external bleeding
- the assailant would have been soaked in blood up to his elbows
- there would have been blood in the soil
- a great deal of time was needed for the injuries
- estimates a minimum of 30 minutes
- killer was “completely unhinged” to do this damage

Okay, Woodland, looks like... you could be right.

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.

I suppose though, Christine could have had more than one Cabbage Patch doll.

I have started at the beginning of this highly articulate, and thoroughly refreshing thread.

My thought is not exactly earth shattering, but, I decided to share it nonetheless.

I was 10 in 1984, and I vividly remember the Cabbage Patch Doll craze. After confirming the dates with wikipedia, 1984 was very much at the height of the craze. It was almost impossible to buy ONE Cabbage Patch doll, let alone TWO. Not only were they very hard to get a hold of (akin to the Elmo Doll and modern day gaming system launches), but, they were EXPENSIVE.

I very much doubt if Christine had more than 1 Cabbage Patch Doll in 1984.

However, I do think it's possible that Christine's original doll is indeed missing, and her family bought her another one to be buried with.
 
BF is certainly one to be explored. Once again I only have questions I can't answer regarding a possible suspect at the time.

It's a shame no one said where the gas receipt (found by the dealership owner) put Brad on what is now either 2 or 3 October 1984.

So could BF have taken Christine from her home? In a van no one reported seeing near the home? Without a struggle where the recorder stayed with her?

Could he have taken her from the park? In a van no one reported seeing at the time? Was the dealership name on the van? Christine then walked to the store/park that day since her bike was at home?

This makes the Horwood sighting out of the question. This makes the screaming heard by a neighbour around midnight out of the question since BF was seen around 7:00 pm. Then there is the report of no insect activity after Christine was left in a field in Sunderland from 3 October.

He's not my favorite suspect. Jmo.
 
I have to think that if a murdered child's Cabbage Patch doll was missing, especially if the child was known to take it to the park almost daily, it would have come up during one of the investigations - specifically leading up to both trials. Jmo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
593
Total visitors
752

Forum statistics

Threads
603,540
Messages
18,158,287
Members
231,763
Latest member
bob_gf
Back
Top