Page 10 of RR - 'At 5:30 or 6:00 pm, Janet ... left the house.... Janet made a quick circuit of the park and stopped off at the general store ...'
Page 41 of RR - 'A further blow to Janet's trustworthiness came when the owner of the general store said she was mistaken about her (Janet) coming in for cigarettes on the evening of the search.'
The store owner changed their story, so how does one lend so much credibility to anything else they said? The paragraph on page 41 goes on to say 'Why would Janet lie about this?' Why was Janet assumed to be lying? Why couldn't the store owner be wrong, including saying she saw Christine that day?
I wanted to post this once before but thought it would only further muddy the waters on what happened to Christine that day.
I totally agree on all points. Mangano is... well, a
hero. He’s retired, but clearly obsessed with the case, as we all are, and he’s still working the field in his spare time. Still hunting. He’s got his pet-theories like we all do. Hopefully, he’s not so locked in on his store/park-theory that he can’t entertain any others. Also, the guy’s privy to a lot of information that we’ll never know about. The vehicle parked on the tractor trail must make us wonder what other “mind-blowing” things are still buried in the files and unknown to the general public?
(And, how did that detail escape Kirk Makin?)
It’s frustrating, sifting through the sawdust... but that’s all we can do. But, I do think there’s still some things that can be squeezed out of that sawdust. That’s all we have to work with, and we have no choice if we want to keep this case from being forgotten. We must continue to use logic, common sense, behaviour patterns, run and re-run the various scenarios. Find the one scenario that makes the most sense, fits most of the facts... The truth is elusive, but we may have already sketched out what actually happened – we just don’t have any way to lock it down or recognize it. Yet.
There are people out there who know things – maybe just one or two people—but, I think they’re there—and they hold the missing pieces. They just need to realize that they can come forward and share what they know.
That it's the right thing to do. Let the secrets come to light. Unload their burden. Those few missing pieces can link everything together and take us right to the front door (or the grave) of the person who did this. 30 year old crimes can be solved. They’ve been solved before. It can happen here, too. I believe that or I wouldn’t be doing this.
Christine was all over Queensville all the time. People who lived and worked in Queensville would certainly recall this child. They would know of her – maybe not by name – but they would know of
the girl on the red bike who was always roaming around on her own. They saw her at the store and at the park, and pedalling up and down Leslie Street numerous times. That’s why all those eyewitnesses are probably not recalling her movements on that specific day (Oct. 3, 1984) accurately. And I include the store owner (Chris L.) who is the lynchpin for the “journey to the store” scenario. Without his adamant recollection that Christine was there at 4:00 pm, that whole scenario completely collapses. He could easily be remembering an encounter with Christine from the day before, etc.
WHY CAN’T HE BE MISTAKEN? He can swear that she was there until the cows come home, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his testimony is reality. It’s just
his version of reality. And, Woodland, that’s an excellent point about him not remembering Janet coming in later that day.
There’s a detail in RR first edition that is missing from RR revised edition that I want to share here. Chris L – the store owner – once cashed a fifty dollar cheque for Bob Jessop – but the cheque bounced, and it was a bit of an embarrassment for the Jessops.
Janet was the one who went to the store to give Chris L. the fifty dollars that he was owed. Certainly, he would remember Janet coming in that day? But no... It raises the question: how reliable is the store owner’s memory – really?
And I really don’t think we’re beating a dead horse here with this bicycle issue or the issue of whether or not Christine went to the store.
The point of abduction is just as important as the body dump site in terms of crime analysis and revealing things about the perpetrator. We have to nail this point down.
And, yes, I know we can never be 100% certain – but maybe we can get to 75%?