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

[Woodland]

On another point - how scattered were the bones? Scattered seems a subjective area.

My impression is the bones were found in relatively close proximity - ie not scattered by animals over time. It's an important point if Christine was lying in that location for 3 months.

 

[Dedpanman]

My impression is the bones were found in relatively close proximity - ie not scattered by animals over time. It's an important point if Christine was lying in that location for 3 months.

That's my impression, too, from the various sources. The upper body bones were all there (or seemed to be) but were in a “scattered” state as the skeleton had collapsed from decomposition and was moved around by scavenging by animals. The lower body (waist down) was more intact – held together by mummified flesh.

 

[Woodland]

In RR the finding of Christine's remains to her removal covers many pages - 52 thru 61 - so it's difficult to put all that here.

When removing the remains, LE was able to dig underneath her and slide everything onto a piece of plywood. There is no mention officers gathered up bones from various points near the body and put them on the plywood. Everything is described as being in that one spot.

Nearby LE found the recorder, buttons, a credit card receipt, the cigarette butt. No mention of stray bones. With that description, scattered becomes more a description of a heap or pile of bones that are not lying anatomically together.

Page 69 - 'On January 2, 3 and 4, Sergeant Michalowsy and another officer concentrated on a large area surrounding the spot where the remains had lain. They didn't uncover a murder weapon, but they did made a sobering discovery: a human rib and a vertebra.'

In the spring of 1985 the Jessops found a few more bones at the site, all lying together in one spot but not anatomically related. It was that find that eventually lead to the second autopsy.

I'm just pointing out that even though the word scattered is used, the bones were not so far apart. If animals fed on the remains, they stood there and fed without dragging parts off to feed away from the remains - ie protecting the portion claimed. There should have been droppings and animal hair as well but none mentioned.

 

[Dedpanman]

Woodland - I'm in total agreement with everything you said in your last post.

 

[Woodland]

Okay - was Christine at the Sunderland site for 3 months or is that not feasible?

 

[chinacat67]

Woodland When removing the remains, LE was able to dig underneath her and slide everything onto a piece of plywood. There is no mention officers gathered up bones from various points near the body and put them on the plywood. Everything is described as being in that one spot.

Here is the Kaufman Report version:

Sergeant Michalowsky used a shovel to loosen the ground around the remains. Officers attempted to slide the board under the body and balled clothing surrounding it in order to interfere with the remains as little as possible and gather some of the soil surrounding the remains. The head portion of the body was placed on the board, separate from the torso

 

[chinacat67]

On October 3, 1984, Christine Jessop and her friend, Leslie Chipman planned to meet after school at the park to play with their dolls. Both would be there by four o’clock. Ms. Chipman estimates that she arrived between 3:50 and 4:00. She waited for some time, but when Christine failed to arrive, she returned home. She telephoned the Jessop residence several times, but did not receive an answer until 6:30 that evening.

Pg 955 of Kaufman Report (KR)

This bothers me, if true. If mom and brother were home, as they say, why on earth didn't they answer? Particularly after they began to worry. Nobody answered until 6:30? We didn't have answering machines back then, let alone voice mail, when the phone rang, it rang incessantly until someone answered or the other hung up, right? You really could not ignore the phone back then the way we can now. So she spends 2 hours on and off calling the house and nobody picks up the phone---even though they are home?

Particularly when they start to wonder about Christine. What time was that? Because wouldn't the first person they would call be Leslie, her best friend she was with every day after school??

 

[Woodland]

Are both versions relatively the same? The head, rolled in clothing, was found beside the body as well as her other clothing.

 

[chinacat67]

Okay - was Christine at the Sunderland site for 3 months or is that not feasible?

I think it is absolutely feasible based on all the varied descriptions, but for me the question is whether it is probable. It was possible, but I'm not sure it was probable.

The dearth of actual primary/trustworthy materials available makes it even more frustrating, because I don't know how anyone will ever be able to make the shift from possible to probable because either the evidence was ruined or contaminated at the scene, the memory has faded, the lies took hold, and/or there is too much too secret still with regard to the police files and reports.

Worse, I truly have begun to think no one will ever be able to be prosecuted for this, barring a full airtight confession by that person and him/her pleading guilty. Any decent defense attorney can shred any of the physical evidence based on the abysmal containment, collection and analyzing of each and every piece, it seems, from the crime scene. It was New Year's Eve and they didn't cover anything and there was a snowstorm overnight??? I honestly can't believe the crown didn't argue that to keep Morin in jail. Any prosecutor in the US in any red state would have, I have no doubt. (not that I am saying (a) he did it or (b) that it would have been right to have fought his release).

I think this was a highly solvable crime that nobody will ever be punished for.

I think whoever did this certainly doesn't sleep uneasily thinking it is going to catch up with him/her, sadly.

Leaves me kind of crestfallen and dismayed.

All, of course, MOO!!!

 

[Chorley8]

Pg 955 of Kaufman Report (KR)

This bothers me, if true. If mom and brother were home, as they say, why on earth didn't they answer? Particularly after they began to worry. Nobody answered until 6:30? We didn't have answering machines back then, let alone voice mail, when the phone rang, it rang incessantly until someone answered or the other hung up, right? You really could not ignore the phone back then the way we can now. So she spends 2 hours on and off calling the house and nobody picks up the phone---even though they are home?

Particularly when they start to wonder about Christine. What time was that? Because wouldn't the first person they would call be Leslie, her best friend she was with every day after school??

This is an excellent point to highlight.

From what I understand of recent discussion the only thing that makes sense is that C. met someone at home she knows who dropped her off at the store then took her.

The way the bike was left is an odd aspect. But anyone with access to the area of the home could stage the bike.

 

[Chorley8]

Okay - was Christine at the Sunderland site for 3 months or is that not feasible?

I have a general question concerning this topic.

In the open how long are remains likely to remain undisturbed? It sounds like three months is possible according to discussion here.

How about a year, two years, three years? Is it still likely over that period of time that skeletal remains can be found centralized, recovered in one place that corresponds to where the body was left? I am thinking both of the wild but also areas of a city like wilder parks.

(Thanks I realize this goes briefly off-topic but I have found this discussion interesting and relevant to something else so thanks.)

 

[Dedpanman]

As we’re back to discussing the injuries to Christine, I had a few thoughts.

Number one – it makes sense that we would keep coming back to this, because it’s the one thing we’re sure that the perpetrator did. (However, some of the finer points of theses injuries are subject to debate.). When we look at the case as a whole, so much of it is confusion and conjecture – but when we discuss the injuries, the ground is a little more solid. And since this information speaks louder than anything else about who the perpetrator was and his personality, it’s inevitable that we keep returning here.

Second - I realized that the information regarding the injuries was scattered across two autopsy findings (the first one being highly criticized) and was all jumbled up across numerous pages of the book (as mentioned by Woodland).

I thought it might be useful to create a diagram and consolidate the information into one place – to create a picture that is the killer’s handiwork, so, that’s what I did (or attempted). Like everything else, it is safe to assume that there are errors.

I have not included the details concerning broken ribs from Matou, as they are not a part of the “official record”. As interesting as that information is (and no offence to you, Matou), I think we must consider it with a grain of salt at this point. For now.

There is little to no information concerning the autopsies from the Kaufman Report as they confined that inquiry to mostly fibre evidence and details that contributed to the persecution of an innocent man – so, nothing from K.R. appears here. I have drawn completely from Makin’s book, Redrum – and any errors on his part are only compounded here by me.

The location of some injuries is my best guess. Again – my goal here is to create a kind of “overall picture” of what the perpetrator did – in order to provoke discussion and perhaps reveal things about him.

Some injuries are implied by cut marks to clothing that do not appear on the skeletal remains. And, I think we must keep in mind that there would have been numerous soft-tissue injuries that we will never know about because of the advanced decomposition of Christine’s remains.

For reference, in the diagram:

(1) indicateds injuries noted by Dr. John Hillsdon Smith – chief pathologist for Ontario at the first autopsy.

(2) indicates injuries noted by Dr. Clyde Snow, Dr. Jerry Melbye, and Dr. Hans Sepp at the second autopsy. Note: Gruspier and Mullen (students at the time) were in attendance there.

Here is the complete (I think) list of injuries from the two autopsies I have attempted to address in the diagram:

- discolorations on the skull confirmed two sharp blows – locations not stated (1)
- pink teeth (generally considered a symptom of drowning) (1)
- two holes on the remaining skin of C’s torso (1)
- hips had been wrenched apart but no actual bone dislocation (1)
- a rib with an incision in it from a sharp object (1)
- more nicks discovered in other ribs a few millimetres deep (1)
- sweatshirt, blouse, and turtleneck had cuts on the back of each (1)
- panties contained a number of small holes surrounded by blood staining (1)
- a “phenomenal injury” – about half the breastbone was missing, sheared off in a straight vertical line (2)
- level with the breastbone, some of the mid-thoracic vertebrae were broken into pieces (2)
- to shear the vertebrae, “the tissue over them must first have been cut through…” (2)
- an attempt to sever the spine by cutting from the back of the corpse (2)
- first five neck vertebrae had multiple cut marks from the back (2)
- massive fracture radiating out from the nasal bones and encompassing most of the facial structure (2)
- two additional ribs were found marked with knife cuts (2)
- a defensive wound to a forearm (2)
- * Also noted: the five ribs with knife marks retained by Dr. John Hillsdon Smith could not be located. Smith claimed he sent them back to Durham police in 1988 and that it was they who had lost them. (2)

If anyone objects to my placement of injuries, or if I have missed something, feel free to state your case.

One final note: there is no mention of decapitation in the autopsy sections of the book – even though the body was described as having been found that way – so, it does not appear on the diagram. This lack of reference to decapitation in the autopsy section of the book might be due to this reason: when a body decomposes, the skull naturally disconnects from the spine. In my opinion, the issue of decapitation has never been resolved. Was it actually accomplished, or part of the normal decomposition and loose “scattering” by animals? Or, was it a combination of both?

Anyway, here it is:

 

[Dedpanman]

In regards to the pink teeth, I found this to be interesting reading:

MEDICO-LEGAL ASPECTS OF POSTMORTEM PINK TEETH
Borrman H, Du Chesne A, Brinkmann B.
Source: Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Sweden

While the phenomenon of pink teeth has been known since 1829, when it was first described by Bell, its application in forensic medicine has been limited.

Recently, however, attention was again focused on pink teeth in legal cases. The medico-legal implication was the use of pink teeth as a possible means of evaluating the cause of death. Pink teeth can occur during life and postmortem. Except for very few and poorly documented exceptions, they develop earliest after 1 to 2 weeks postmortem. Their chemical analogy is seepage of hemoglobin or it's derivates into the dentinal tubules.

Prerequisites are hyperemia/congestion and erythrocyte extravasation of the pulp capillaries, furthermore autolysis and a humid milieu. Therefore, they are most often associated with water immersion. The intensity of characteristics varies between different cases and also between different teeth in an individual case. Since the ante-mortem prerequisites are non-specific and can be replaced by certain postmortem conditions, there exist until now no specific correlation to the cause of death. The phenomenon is very often seen in victims of drowning where the head usually lies in a head-down position. From this it can be assumed that pink teeth even if not identical to postmortem lividity can, at least to some extent, be considered as analogous.

Since, there is no obvious connection between the occurrence of pink teeth and the cause of death, it may be concluded that pink teeth are not pathognomonic for a specific cause of death and this is therefore an unspecific phenomenon.

 

[Dedpanman]

Okay - was Christine at the Sunderland site for 3 months or is that not feasible?

My current thinking is that she was there in the Sunderland field for three months (even though I made a case for her not being there in a post way, way back).

This is why I think it was highly likely that she was there from October through to December:

1. I have recently learned that blowflies become dormant at 11 degrees Celsius. Without blowfly activity, there’s no maggot activity, and without maggots participating in the decomposition, there’s no way C could be mostly skeletonized by the end of December. Maggot activity drops off in colder temperatures as well. When one looks at the temperature data for the months of October, November, and December of 1984, the temperature dipped down to 11 degrees Celsius by the second week of November and either stayed there or got colder. That would pretty much shut down blowfly and maggot activity – so C would have to have been skeletonized by that time so she could be found in that state December 31.

2. A body can become skeletonized in as little as two weeks in some situations if the temperature is warm enough and there are enough maggots on the corpse from blowfly activity. A six week timeline (early October to mid-November) is a completely possible scenario for the advanced decomposition to happen. In fact, you would expect it given the temperature data for October to mid-November 1984.

3. It is not impossible that this decomposition happened to C at another location - and that she was moved to the Sunderland field at a later date – but I don’t see this happening while the body was in a putrid state covered in maggots. If it was allowed to decompose elsewhere and was then moved to Sunderland – it would have been (in my opinion) after she had become skeletonized – but one would probably expect to see a more scattering of the bones as the body was dumped as a disarticulated skeleton. From all accounts, C was basically “all there” in one spot in a rough approximation of an anatomically correct body. If she was indeed moved there after skeletonization, then she was certainly posed, and I can’t really imagine someone taking the time to sort out the bones correctly and get them basically in the right order – given that this guy couldn’t even figure out how to dismember the body (see catalogue of injuries to the body in a previous post).

4. As I write this, it’s mid September and approaching the anniversary of C’s abduction. The edges of farmer’s fields are tall with grass and goldenrod and standing well above 1 meter tall. When one lies down in the grass, the goldenrod provides an enormous wall of coverage – so that tells me it was entirely possible that C’s body was left there near the Culls’ trailer and no one saw anything until the winter months when the grass and goldenrod was flattened down by the wind, rain and die-off.

5. No one smelling the corpse is contingent on the direction of the wind. It’s entirely possible that a decomposing corpse was hidden in the tall grass and goldenrod and the foul odour was dissipated in such a direction by the wind that it was undetectable.

 

[matou]

Hi deadpanman, I added some things to the diagram. In red is what I remember, in yellow, I'm less sure. My eyes focused on her right side and the ribs were broken inwards at "the curve" but not broken off. I want to check how long an eight year old's sternum would be and if a single stab would be possible to shear it in half. Thank you for providing the diagram. And yes, don't take what I've stated here as perfectly factual since I saw the slides almost 20 years ago (!)

 

[Woodland]

Dedpanman - your list of injuries and diagram was a great effort on your part - I thank you for that and I'm sure many others do as well.

Have been thinking about what the 'experts' at the time have said about the injuries and will write about that soon.

In the meantime, hope you don't mind going toe to toe on point #3 in your post #690. It's not like we aren't good at that, right?

How exactly were Christine's upper bones found? I'm asking because I don't know. Would very much like to see a description of how the bones were found in a related matter - ie almost as they should have been as you are suggesting. 'All there' does mean as they would be found anatomically. As I pointed out in a previous post, we have Makin using the word scattered regarding the bones, then a few pages later saying 'one spot'. That makes it difficult to decipher how the bones were arranged.

What you are leaving out is the report on no insect activity in Sunderland and the soil samples showing no decomp material or blood. How do you propose that happened or do you disregard those reports? Respectfully, it has to be one or the other. I agree it is unthinkable for someone to move her in a decomposing state - has that never happened - ever? Who 'digs' into a body the way this killer did?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. What I will challenge though is a summary excluding known reports with no explanation why one is excluding those reports. I have done my utmost to try and account for all that exists in writing, and if I choose to say I don't believe something, I say it and say why. If one chooses to exclude or disregard, that's okay. Please say why.

 

[Dedpanman]

Woodland's comments are presented in bold italics:

In the meantime, hope you don't mind going toe to toe on point #3 in your post #690. It's not like we aren't good at that, right?

I don’t mind going toe to toe with you at all Woodland – even if it means taking a couple of hard knocks! There’s a lot to be gained from vigorous, healthy debate.

How exactly were Christine's upper bones found? I'm asking because I don't know. Would very much like to see a description of how the bones were found in a related matter - ie almost as they should have been as you are suggesting. 'All there' does mean as they would be found anatomically. As I pointed out in a previous post, we have Makin using the word scattered regarding the bones, then a few pages later saying 'one spot'. That makes it difficult to decipher how the bones were arranged.

Perhaps it’s time to attempt a sketch of the crime scene as described from the various sources? I was reluctant to do that awhile back, but perhaps there is a need for it now as it could help rationalize some of the inconsistencies in the various descriptions?

What you are leaving out is the report on no insect activity in Sunderland and the soil samples showing no decomp material or blood.

Yes – good call. I did leave that out as I find the reasons I stated in my post more compelling than the “contradictory evidence” – however, I will admit that it is sloppy presentation on my part not to address those issues – so thanks for calling me on that – and I will attempt to do deal with those items now.

How do you propose that happened or do you disregard those reports?

I don’t necessarily disregard that report (and as far as I know there is only one report – the one by John Ferris, the head of autopsy services at Vancouver General Hospital who was retained by the defence team of GPM to analyse the results of the exhumation).

I can’t help thinking here (and I may be grossly wrong) that perhaps, since Ferris was (I assume) a paid “expert opinion” for the defence, that he may have been a little too biased towards the evidence. I readily admit that this is pure speculation on my part and that my statement might be too unfair, but I will remind readers that there have been numerous controversies and ethical issues regarding the use of paid “expert” testimony in trials—both for the prosecution and the defence.

Another potential issue is that Ferris was not present for the exhumation examination – he was working from photographs only. The details he was expecting to see (dead insects or their larval shells) may not have been present in the photographs – but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were not present at the scene – only that they failed to be captured by the low number of photographs taken by police (and the number of photographs taken were far below the usual number taken at a typical crime scene.)

It’s also possible that the natural environment somehow prevented the dead insects or larval shells from being present. Perhaps wind blew them away? (The crime scene did border a wide open field.) Or perhaps birds ate them?

In regards to the blood and the products of decomposition that should have been present in the soil (these products would have remained in the soil undisturbed by rainfall, since fatty tissues are not water soluble)…

I will point out now, however, that I was making a case for Christine being dumped in the field sometime in early October – not that she was killed there. In fact, I think it’s a completely viable theory that there was a secondary location where she was raped and murdered within hours of her abduction (this based on child abduction research and offender behaviour patterns), and then, after a cooling down period, the killer realized he needed to dispose of her – and took her to the Sunderland field.

In this scenario, the perpetrator killed her and she “bled out” at this secondary location. When the time of day was safer to transport and dispose of her, he took C to the Sunderland field and dumped her. At this point he may even have engaged in some experimentation, or indulged in some fantasies with the body – cutting it – attempting to dismember the body—or even something as sick as necrophilia. This further defiling of the body could even have happened a number days after she was dumped there. My point is—this would explain the lack of blood in the soil around the body and still provide ample opportunity for the body to skeletonize near the Culls’ trailer as I described in my previous post. I was making a case for her being there for the three months of October, November and December.

The lack of fatty decomposition products could be explained by animal activity or animal scavenging. By that, I mean, the fatty tissues in the body were consumed by coyotes and turkey vultures or various other scavengers in that ecosystem so that they were not present to be found later in the soil.

Respectfully, it has to be one or the other.

I think I just made a case for both... didn’t I?

I agree it is unthinkable for someone to move her in a decomposing state - has that never happened - ever?

I suspect that it has happened somewhere – but a killer would need a damned good reason to engage in such an unpleasant endeavour. Why would you do such a thing if you didn’t have to? And with the news of Christine’s abduction all over the news, one would not want the body close by if the secondary location (where the rape and murder occurred) was close to home – or, even right at the killer’s home. One, I think, would want to get rid of the body quick, preferably at a spot some distance from one’s residence.

Who 'digs' into a body the way this killer did?

My turn to challenge you! Woodland, how do you know he “dug” into the body at all? Could you explain where that line of thinking comes from?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. What I will challenge though is a summary excluding known reports with no explanation why one is excluding those reports. I have done my utmost to try and account for all that exists in writing, and if I choose to say I don't believe something, I say it and say why. If one chooses to exclude or disregard, that's okay. Please say why.

Okay, I hope I’ve made a case for my thinking and cleared up my omission.

Feel free to respond and or disagree.

Everyone.

 

[Woodland]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I don't think Ferris only worked from photographs - written reports would have been included for him. All or nothing, imo. It would appear that the Ontario pathologists did not mention insects in their reports - at least not that we have ever read. They were the ones that should have said 'no insect activity present.' To me it shows an ineptness - they were paid to be qualified to report on what should have been as well as what was. Ferris mentioning that tells me he was far more qualified.

The wind and birds eliminated all of the insects? Nah, imo. Ferris said there should have been hundreds - I think he was suggesting not all would still be present but some would be left at that point. There wasn't any snow to that point, and I'm not sure the presence of snow would eliminate all insect remnants. Snow and snow melt yes, imo.

Your secondary location reference could be confusing - you use it for a location to rape and kill and for a different location to bleed out. I think you meant a primary location for some events and a secondary location (Sunderland) for the rest?

If she bled out in Sunderland, she bled out in Sunderland. Blood would be in the soil. I stand by that would be an unequivocal and unarguable event. The Ontario pathologists did not address this and why not. Again, seems if they didn't see it they ignored it.

There was disagreement among the Ontario pathologists and other experts after the second autopsy on when and how some of the injuries occurred. I'm thinking the cutting of the breastbone was one of those disagreements. What would one cut a breastbone with when organs and other material are blocking the way for a knife or saw etc to go back and forth? I'm thinking this happened much later.

Did the guy hose her down at some point before moving her?

By digging into the body I meant the serious cutting to reach the middle of her body. Neck and breast area.

 

[Woodland]

I don't see anyone liking a thought I had on the pink teeth at the first autopsy, but here goes.

It would help to know where the turtleneck shirt/sweater was found, but I don't know that. On her upper body area? Beside her? Rolled up with the clothing covering her head? According to RR it was one of the first things the lead detective saw.

Christine's hair is reported to have been pushed forward from back to front. This could happen by pulling the turtleneck partly over her head and leaving it - it would be tight enough to hold her hair.

Or, did this sick sob actually hold her in a body of water and drown her?

Another reason for thinking this is a statement from Neale Tweedy - my least favorite source of information but he didn't necessarily mislead on all his statements.

See the previous post of NT's testimony in November 1998 advocating for a National DNA Databank. '... she was prodded with the blade of a knife and superficially injured ...'

Did he gather that from some of the cuts to her clothing? Did these cuts not seem savage enough to kill her? This part actually seems plausible to me. He then goes on to say '... evidence revealed he stabbed her about the front and back of her tiny body. He then slashed her throat with such force that she was nearly decapitated.'

I don't know - that is the only thing Tweedy said that I find might have been true. Maybe it isn't.

 

[Chorley8]

I don't see anyone liking a thought I had on the pink teeth at the first autopsy, but here goes.

It would help to know where the turtleneck shirt/sweater was found, but I don't know that. On her upper body area? Beside her? Rolled up with the clothing covering her head? According to RR it was one of the first things the lead detective saw.

Christine's hair is reported to have been pushed forward from back to front. This could happen by pulling the turtleneck partly over her head and leaving it - it would be tight enough to hold her hair.

Or, did this sick sob actually hold her in a body of water and drown her?

Another reason for thinking this is a statement from Neale Tweedy - my least favorite source of information but he didn't necessarily mislead on all his statements.

See the previous post of NT's testimony in November 1998 advocating for a National DNA Databank. '... she was prodded with the blade of a knife and superficially injured ...'

Did he gather that from some of the cuts to her clothing? Did these cuts not seem savage enough to kill her? This part actually seems plausible to me. He then goes on to say '... evidence revealed he stabbed her about the front and back of her tiny body. He then slashed her throat with such force that she was nearly decapitated.'

I don't know - that is the only thing Tweedy said that I find might have been true. Maybe it isn't.

I would just like to thank you and the other recent posters for all of this intelligent and hard work going through some godawful material. One question I have for you:

What do you see the perpetrator as thinking what is his motive, his goal? Causing pain? Murdering the innocents? (no irony intended). Sex/pedophilia?

What I am getting at is whether you think this intrusion into the body is the main goal the modus operandi or signature and/or that the perp "did something" with some internal part of the girl's body that was transported elsewhere? That might even have had a practical use to the perp ( I mean of course from within his depraved mind).