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

[Woodland]

I don't think you disrespected the culture of the Middle East nor the Mulim religion Darkblue.

Imo, Makin repeated the thoughts and impressions of the two men that went to the barn to check out the diary some kids had found and possibly added some of his own dramatic flair. It would not have hurt Makin to do a little research before printing what he did, but such is life in what passes for journalism from time to time.

The individual wasn't try to say anything to anyone else imo. When two cops burst in my house one night, claiming a missing kid made a collect call to her mom from my basement (within the same town and area code which is impossible) I could have been doing anything - polishing silver, dusting (unlikely) or sitting in front of some candles surrounded by the Middle East artifacts I hauled back to Canada. Instead I was in a thin nightie with no bra and no chance to do anything about that. My life, my privacy - invaded. Life, I guess.

 

[DueSouth]

I was just making sure, because misunderstandings occur over the Web, so I thought it best to clarify.

Thanks for your thoughts, Woodland.

Yes, it's hard to know what to make of that barn. However, it was a location near the Jessop house, and there could be some cold storage or extra storage space built under the main floor, too, IMO.

Anyhow, another lead that would have been better to follow up at the time, instead of years later.

 

[dotr]

Any chance this guy knows anything about the "player(s) in this case?
http://www.680news.com/news/nationa...in-16-year-old-murder-cold-case-thanks-to-dna
LAVAL, Que. - A Montreal man has been charged in a 16-year-old murder case thanks to new DNA evidence turned up by police.

Eric Daudelin, 37, appeared in court Thursday on charges of first-degree murder, sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

His alleged victim, Joleil Campeau, was nine years old when she disappeared in 1995. Her body turned up days later in a creek near her Laval home

 

[Woodland]

That article is most interesting dotr.

Not much turns up for me on a cursory search - would like to know more. One item that jumps out at me is - DNA was not all that useful in 1995 for this case. The reason - it wasn't as developed as people think it was then. Thankfully the right people preserved the evidence in an appropriate manner so that when technology allowed the evidence was conclusive.

It would be interesting to know what this guy did for a living then and prior - he was 21 in 1995. What made him so savvy as to put his victim in water?

 

[dotr]

Translated from French through google.
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/q...eau-un-suspect-comparait-16-ans-plus-tard.php
""At the time we had found semen on some pieces of clothing, but the body had spent a few hours in the water we were not able to extract this time. It is thanks to sophisticated equipment received during the last few months we have been able to clarify this matter, "said Nathalie Laurin, spokesman for the police to Laval.

Since 2000, judges may order the taking of DNA samples from individuals convicted of offenses such as murder, rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault and kidnapping. The data are collected in the National DNA Data Bank. Nathalie Laurin explained that the genetic profile of Daudin was found in the Canadian bank. "We got a perfect match," she said.

Behind the defendant indeed a heavy criminal record for sexual offenses. In 1995, he was sentenced to five years in prison for kidnapping, kidnapped and raped a young woman of 18 years under the threat of a screwdriver in Laval. He had just been released from prison for sexually assaulting a 17 he had taken the bus".

 

[orora]

By now most everyone who reads hear has formed some opinions and has some basic operating theory behind how they weigh the evidence and which points they take into account. With the huge amount of detail comes many different possibilities.

My original approach was to keep as many elements and witnesses in play for as long as possible and attempt to bring as many of the seemingly unconnected pieces together at the end. That time has come a little premature for me. Some points like whether the abduction took place at home or nearer the store are not definitive or conclusive either way but one approach removes most all court witnesses from any further deliberations. Any single little point like whether CJ made it to the store or not is no longer just about that alone. After so long consideration of each point has become contingent upon many others in the grand scheme of things. We are not just debating the viability of each point in isolation from the others any more. We are all trying to fit each point into whatever bigger picture we have formed. Not all theories and understanding of underlying motives are the same either. Motive is discussed here almost as a given fact with common consensus at times. I have an alternate view.

I had read the summary of the wrongful convictions book in the link posted by dblue (thanks) quite some time back and had at one time tried to contact that author but too late. The point of view expressed in the book was somewhat unique not allowing the official conclusions of government inquiries to take total precedent over what the evidence suggested. The authors wrote on other similar cases of wrongful convictions, not just GPM. Police wrongdoing was addressed to a degree seldom heard before or since. I once thought this book may have been the beginning of questioning Police tactics and of the courts placing checks and balances on the abilities of LE to do this sort of thing again.. Not so.. that was not the mandate of the inquiry process.

Various points resonate in differing ways and weights to different people. The following were some of the generally discarded and ignored pieces I picked out in regard one way of viewing and putting the evidence together. I recognize that there are many others.

Police wrongdoing is one of the most pervasive aspects of what we see here. The actions of the Police cannot be avoided in this discussion anymore so than mentioning GPM. At many a juncture we hear the same words echoed over and over, “if only the Police had done this or that” to such a degree the whole affair warrants questioning.

One investigator was later charged with perjury, destroying evidence even. For any one who knows the difference the list of questionable and unjustifiable actions found here is way beyond the norm.

At the same time, it was discovered that the Jessop children were being sexually abused for years before CJ was murdered and that teenage boys said to be related to a ranking Police officer were involved.

Two of the witnesses near the store that day reported seeing a teenage boy with a girl they believed to be CJ.

The Police (requested) (suborned perjury according those witnesses) wanting those witnesses to change their testimony to it being a girl last seen with CJ not a boy. (all for reasons unknown) The witnesses complied. This was the last reported sighting of CJ save some suspicious recanted testimony. A 5 star point to remember, and the origins of the following theory.

The Police for all intents and purposes went on to set up and frame GPM despite there being conclusive proof of innocence instead of pursuing any other investigation of any other suspect.

By the end of the investigation, three dogs were called upon to finish off the deed, One dog owned by a cop, was used to point and hit on GPM's car. Thus GPM became the prime suspect buttressed by what the cop claimed that dogs actions meant. That took place on day one. Another dog supposedly owned by a private party was later brought to the Jessop property and provided a scent sample of CJ for him to try and follow. That dog supposedly led to the cemetery. Then later another unknown dog strange to the Sunderland area apparently found CJ at the Sunderland site and led neighbours and their dog back to the body. Almost acting like a trained dog doing his job following a scent and alerting to it. That dog was never before seen in the area nor seen since. Too bad dogs can't talk. Three dogs with shady motive or shadowy connections all involved in one case could indicate a common origin of the thought process behind the ”handlers”.

The boys involved in molesting the Jessop children visited the Jessops shortly after CJ disappeared. Cries were heard outside later that night, “Oh God I’m going to hell”

Immediately after that visit Ken Jessop begins having “dreams” that not all of CJ had been recovered. They go to the Sunderland property and find additional bones all gathered up in a pile. Ken does not report being psychic at any other time.

The possibility of multiple dna was reported on CJ’s shorts. Reports claim neither of the boys related to the Police officer (said to be the head of TO major crimes) would provide a dna sample even years later when interviewed by reporters. It is unknown whether that has even been done to this day. see DBlues prior news article.

Ken Jessop had instructed CJ that the prior sexual activity was not proper and she needn’t do that with anyone anymore.

CJ was involved with people at her church. She was apparently going to receive a bible. Did she tell of her abuse to a preacher or some church related person? Like a confession? Did someone from the Church notify or make a report to the Police without CJ knowing?

CJ appears to have been tortured before being killed.

A church group later bought the Jessop property.

The question who in prison knew CJ would be left alone that day was another important question. Bob Jessop was pre-occupied with that thought making up lists of possibilities. The rats and pedophiles were housed together in prisons. Rats and Police work together. The head of major crimes division in TO would know many. The fbi and Police had collaborated to frame GPM. Police were involved making a case against Mr. Jessop removing him from the home. Prison visits need to be booked in a head of time. Police would know who was coming and when. The head of the TO major crime unit would know of and would be the overseeing handler of many of the rats.

Police were called to the Sutherland property over vandalism shortly before CJ was found out there. They would be aware the location and lack of security.

In at least two other examples of wrongful convictions, the real killers were later found to have been Police informants. At least one was later found to be a serial killer. There too Police deliberately framed a man deliberately avoiding the real killer, the rat/serial killer. See Thomas Sophonow /Terry Arnold in the Manitoba Inquiry. Are the informant handling laws to blame for allowing certain investigations to be sidetracked? Was CJ’s killer deliberately sheltered from investigation and prosecution? Is he/ are they / still exempt proper investigation to this day? Does that explain the level of obstruction witnessed throughout? There is a pattern in this regard should anyone care to look.

Conspiracy is often a term flung around by people when possibilities arise beyond their own ability to rationalize what is beyond their own experience. There are so many details here any of which viewed in isolation can seem to lead anywhere anyone wants. It is in putting it all together that as many pieces as possible need fit.

I am just leaving this post and these points as a reminder that there may be more possibilities than are likely to ever be entertained here. By trying to incorporate all the store witnesses, I have been accused of trying to contain the possibilities and restrict the investigation to what was already done and concluded by the original investigation. A dead end to some.

I have kept and included as many of the witnesses in this theory as possible, maybe even the Horwoods. The man described by the Horwoods could be the same as the man viewed by others at and near the Sutherland dump site. CJ could have been lured from the park, possibly by the boy reported seen on the corner with CJ. CJ could have initially been taken to a nearby location. More than one person may have been involved. I include and keep the past abuse connected to the later murder. I have included an explanation for all the Police wrong doing. I try to keep as many of the events and evidence linked and connected as possible and attempt to adjust my thinking to reflect where the evidence leads. Whatever that may be.

Perhaps it is not new information and new evidence that is required here but a new way of looking at the old? Perhaps we are not equipped to make heads or tails of the truth should it even be staring us in the face? Canadian law states, an informant cannot be identified even after death. Does the answer lay here with the secrecy aspects afforded these sort of criminals and the people who authorize, wield and hide behind that law? Would any lay person be able recognize something like that if it were happening? Mouthing conspiracy theory is a cheap way out of avoiding an avenue that has been seen before in other Canadian cases involving murdered kids. That may be sacrosanct for us to think but not so to others who rely on us continuing to believe that no Police member would be involved in such a thing. The Police have undisclosed motive behind their actions here imo. Understanding that motive beyond the findings of the official inquiry/ reinvestigation is key imo. The single solitary sex perv/ perp serves a purpose much like the solitary shooter. As in, no one and nothing else need be involved or looked at or asked beyond the usual.

If the above points are entertained, the crime scene itself may in fact be a staged scene designed to lead perceptions astray. This is the one thing that is being held up here as something you could sink your teeth in, the crime scene is a known demonstrable entity. The resultant findings have been portrayed as proof positive of something which those involved in the crime wanted to be found and known and the conclusions to be universally accepted. Shock value should take care of anyone looking any further.

If so, that says volumes the type of people and minds involved behind the orchestration. Forensic staging had not really been seen prior modern day nor would most any one know of it save maybe a few Police or fbi members or very seasoned serial killers. By the same book, whoever committed this crime should have shown up by way of pattern and M.O. since. If the same perp had gone on to commit even more crimes since and never to be caught, what does that say? Conversely, if CJ were the only victim, what does that say!!! The tangled web when one sets out to deceive, leads back to the weaver.

I won’t stick around to defend the above. Too much animosity has already been created to get beyond now and the above is way too easy fodder for any rational thinkers. It is individual which points one takes from any of this and or incorporates into any other theories. Maybe some combination of unknowns, maybe even including some boys did accidentally or otherwise kill CJ in the heat of the moment or for other reason and a coverup was authorized to protect those involved by someone with the connections to pull it off? Possibly secretely justified under the pretext of it being accidental? For CJ, any degree of truth would be victory,
Food for thought, keep up the good work all.

 

[Woodland]

Orora - assuming you will be interested in posting again - who were the 2 witnesses that saw Christine with a teenage boy near the store the day she disappeared?

If that can be answered, maybe the rest of your post holds items worth revisiting.

 

[dotr]

Link with some pertinent detail.
http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?in...tigation_staging_forensic_psychology&b=87&c=7


Staging

To over shadow the reality,people stage the whole crimescene. Staging can be defined as the

purposeful alteration of the crime and crime scene by the offender in order to mislead authorities and

redirect the investigation. Staging is a conscious criminal action on the part of an offender to ruin an

investigation.

When a crime scene is staged the responsible person is not someone who just happens upon the victim.

It is almost always someone who had some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This

offenderwill further attempt to steer the investigation away from him by his conduct when in contact

withlaw enforcement. Motives of staging can be several like a family is interesting in getting the money

of insurance and the person who is insured has committed the suicide and the company has the policy to

detach the family from insurance money so, this leads the family to make a suicide look like a murder.

Sometimes family members are trying to protect a relative or the reputation of the family and murder is

made to look as suicide.

RedFlags

Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble

what they believe it should look like. In doing so, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not

have the time to fit all the pieces together logically and reasonably. As a result, inconsistencies and

clues in forensic findings arefound in the overall "bigpicture" of the crime scene.These inconsistencies

can serve as the "red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided"

 

[Woodland]

Thanks dotr - an offenders dream - staging that fools people.

 

[orora]

Staging accomplishes many things dependant on the stagers goals. What we are being led to believe here is the desired effect. imo

The information in my preceding post is all readily available common knowledge said many times over already just lined up a little differently. Nothing new. Kaufman etc has the story of the two witnesses on their way to work who claimed to see CJ recorder in hand standing on the corner with an older boy. Minor debateable point in the big picture whether he was 12 or 13teen or 16teen. To each his own conclusions..

 

[Chorley8]

Thanks Dotr for the link concerning staged crime scenes important here and in other Ontario cases possibly.

Would be interesting to know something about the cases where the there is no relationship and yet the crime scene was staged - for whatever reason. There was case in LA where an innocent man was shot during a stake-out coming from his building the police paralyzed him put a gun in his hand more or less and he got life in prison to go with the paralysis. It was finally figured out though and he was freed. Just an example of one kind of staging where the perp doesn't know the victim there has to be other kinds of examples.

 

[Woodland]

The Kaufman Report does not say two men came forward reporting Christine speaking to a teenage boy at the store that day. Only the passenger - Atkinson.


<modsnip>

 

[orora]

There were two people in the car both interviewed by Police. The two had a conversation on that corner about the girl. "maybe she could play us a tune"

 

[Woodland]

There could have been 10 people in the car - only one claimed to see Christine that day.

It is not reported anywhere that the driver was interviewed when he did not claim to see anything.

Ciao.

<modsnip>

 

[bessie]

Staging accomplishes many things dependant on the stagers desires. What we are led to believe as a result here is the desired effect. imo

The information in my preceding post is all readily available common knowledge said many times over already just lined up a little differently. Nothing new. Kaufman etc has the story of the two witnesses on their way to work who claimed to see CJ recorder in hand standing on the corner with an older boy. Minor debateable point in the big picture whether he was 12 or 13teen or 16teen. To each his own conclusions..

Orora, since the existence of "two witnesses" has been questioned, can you link to the page or section of the KR where they are mentioned? The board rules require us to back up our facts with links. I realize in this case the documents are lengthy, and the regulars on the thread are familiar with them. However, when a point comes into question, the poster should be able to provide a reference.

Thanks.


Bessie

 

[orora]

xv) Robert Atkinson - Atkinson&#8217;s Evidence
On October 3, 1984, Robert Atkinson and his friend Doug Thompson were commuting to their work at a manufacturing plant in Holland Landing, a village approximately six miles away from Queensville. Their shift was to commence at 4:30 p.m. They were proceeded east on the Queensville Sideroad. They stopped at the stop sign at the corner of Leslie Street and Queensville Sideroad for approximately two to three minutes to allow the heavy traffic on Leslie Street to pass. The general store where Christine Jessop had purchased candy after school is located at that corner. Atkinson testified that while stopped at the sign, he looked at his wrist watch and noted the time was approximately 4:00 p.m. While stopped, he noticed a little girl wearing a blue top standing across from the store, holding a bag of candy in one hand and a recorder in the other. She appeared to be waiting for someone or something. He testified at Morin&#8217;s second trial that, after noticing the recorder in the child&#8217;s hand, he remarked to Thompson &#8220;How about we can get this little girl to play us a tune while we&#8217;re waiting.&#8221; They then proceeded on to Holland Landing for their shift.

If I have assumed anything here it is only that the Police did their job and interviewed both witnesses as would be standard procedure in any other case. Apologies I did not call those officers to confirm or obtain an affidavit. I would assume from the remark of the first witness the other witness would know what the first was speaking of.-

He testified at Morin&#8217;s second trial that, after noticing the recorder in the child&#8217;s hand, he remarked to Thompson &#8220;How about we can get this little girl to play us a tune while we&#8217;re waiting.&#8221;

I will no longer post here so as not to cause any more trouble. Apologies for my oversight and please carry on.. article with the information is at link below. I could locate better from transcripts etc if required but believe this should suffice??

http://netk.net.au/Canada/Morin31.asp

 

[bessie]

This is fine, Orora. Thank you!

 

[bessie]

This is the link to the KR, Chap V, Sect C in pdf. "Robert Atkinson" starts on pdf p.90.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_ch5c.pdf

I don't see any mention of Mr. Thompson giving testimony at trial. It's not unreasonable to assume LE spoke to him to corroborate Atkinson's story, but if it happened, it's not documented in this section of the KR.

Several years passed in between Atkinson's recorded statement and the second interview at a funeral home immediately after his father's death. Following this second contact, there is the confusion about whether Atkinson saw a boy or a girl talking to CJ. JMO, but I doubt the confusion would have occurred had both men been interviewed and given corroborating statements. I'm a total newb to this case compared to you guys, but I have to wonder why, apparently, there is no statement from Thompson.

 

[orora]

This is again part of the unusual nature you find everywhere in this investigation. Noted many times. If I may add, it was Atkinson who names Thompson (in court testimony) Thompson is never called upon to confirm or dispute the point. I assumed by that, the point was true as it has stood uncontested through two trials and an inquiry. If I were to offer an explanation for Thompsons absence, it would either be due Thompson paying more attention to driving, or be based on the following testimony of Atkinson. Not everyone is willing to perjure themselves on a witness stand even at request of Law enforcemenet. I would also decline to testify if under the same conditions. I have no evidence to either support or suggest otherwise.

Atkinson testified during Morin&#8217;s second trial and also before this Inquiry, that he was told, in no uncertain terms by the police, that the boy he recalled seeing on the corner explaining something to Christine Jessop, was actually a girl. Sometime prior to December 1992, he was interviewed by The Fifth Estate and gave them the same information. During Atkinson&#8217;s various court appearances, he demonstrated some confusion as to when and what police force had told him that he had made an error as to the sex of the person speaking with Christine. From the notes of the interview Atkinson had with the defence on June 21, 1990 (several days before Fitzpatrick and Shephard interviewed him) it is clear that he had already been told by someone that the &#8216;boy&#8217; he saw was a girl. With the passage of time it is difficult to sort out this confusion, but it appears likely that he was given this information by the York Regional Police.

same link

 

[KJessop]

I posted this on my facebook group "Justice For Christine Jessop"

JP (name redacted) Killed Christine.
And Metro Police Are Covering it up!
Or more correctly burying the case itself!
JP (name redacted) is dead. He was a friend of my dads who worked at the co-op. He was a predatory pedophile. Police will not fully investigate him.
He drove the blue car that was seen at the end of our driveway the day Christine went missing. The same blue car seen turning onto Ravenshoe rd holding aq child down. The same car seen in durham. His description matches the person slamming their trunk down that night at the scene.
I was threatened to take my post down almost immediately a year ago. I am not afraid cause the cop who did it got arrested for smuggling cheese...LOL

JP (name redacted) was reported to my lawyer and police during the inquiry. Unknowingly I began dating his step daughter in 2002. She told me things I related to police.. Then she had a long interview with them. They said they took dna from his son and he was cleared.. Problem was it was his step-son.. When I corrected them a couple years ago.... They stated they got dna from his natural son SP (name redacted) in Barrie... Trouble is, he didn't live in Barrie. But they won't listen... See, SP is a confidential YRP informant... Who turns a lot of people in for drugs in Newmarket where he lives on Queen st. Not in Barrie.. But the police don't listen anymore....

All three of JP's daughters have stated there was a fight on oct.3/84 because Jim didn't get home till late.....

But no one will listen.


Yes Woodland it is me. I appreciate the thread and keeping the case alive... But I don't even know where to start correcting here... I wasn't going to post here but..... What bothers me most is the speculation about how she was found. <Mod Snip>. She was found legs splayed, sitting up, her head was balled up in her sweater. She had been decapitated. The bones were found the way they were because they slid off thesheet of plywood they removed her on. I can't explain the dreams... They made me look nuts. But I am glad I had them. I was raped for 5 years. My abuser wanted to see us simulate things for him... He grew tired of that and went back to abusing me. I tried to have him charged but his uncle was the head of detectives for Metro. Christine was taken from home. She DID go to the store, the owner testified at both trials about that. Leslie chipman is the only person that says she was Christines best friend. She was Christines bully and Christine wanted nothing to do with her..... Everything she said is as reliable as Kim Waarner.. Pure BS. The guy who said he saw her was only brought up by the fifth estate special... Another publicity *advertiser censored*. Thats why the driver never saw. It never happened. He never mentioned the bike, what she was wearing etc. She was taken by my dads friend... He was one of only4 people that knew my dad was gone. He could see our house from the co-op. Leslie Chipmans performance at the inquiry was inspired.... But she lied. Her guilt lies in the fact she bullied Christine. I don't know what else to say. My statement is fact. He told her he was taking her to see her dad. When he went the wrong way she knew. Thats why at Ravenshoe he was pushing her down and seen....
Thats all I can think of right now...