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

[Dedpanman]

Woodland - don't know if you have read this, but the writer deals with the DNA issue in the Jessop case half way through. Maybe you could comment? The DNA stuff seems to be your forte.


A LITTLE SPIT COULD CATCH A KILLER
Winnipeg Free Press
By: Robert Marshall
11/19/2011


The Pickton inquiry underway in Vancouver has made clear how powerful and vital the police use of DNA science was in bringing serial killer Robert "Willie" Pickton to justice.
*
Fascinating and gruesome, the DNA of 10 women was found on items in two of Pickton's freezers. Specks of DNA from two other women were mixed with some of his ground meat. Another victim's was on a saw in the pig farmer's slaughterhouse.
That's just a hint of horror that emerged from the property of a true homicidal maniac, charged initially with 27 slayings, and ultimately convicted of the second-degree murders of six women.
In Winnipeg, 13-year-old Candace Derksen's murder was solved decades after the fact when DNA was extracted from a piece of twine, leading to the conviction of Mark Edward Grant. The 1984 case of Wolseley resident Beverley Dyke went unsolved until DNA linked her murder to a full-time rounder, Robert Kociuk, now a senior citizen. He was convicted at trial and last month lost in the Provincial Court of Appeal.
Crime evolves and so does the road to solution. For more than a century it's been a well-accepted principle that those charged with a criminal offence are fingerprinted under the guidance of the Identification of Criminals Act. It leaves a certain mark of the individual charged and the information can be used to solve other crimes, helped along today with sophisticated computerized data bases.
But for some reason, we seem to be terrified of the newer science that put Pickton behind bars for the rest of his life.
It's been nearly 30 years since the British birth of DNA science. But instead of fully embracing it, we have backed off at the behest of libertarians and privacy gurus armed with Owellian-type fears.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/a-little-spit-could-catch-a-killer-134168263.html

 

[kemo]

It paints a shocking picture of across the board incompetence. I did however stumble upon something I had been looking for: the story of Mr. & Ms. Horwood. Quoting the report:

On October 6, 1984 at 1:00 a.m., an officer of the York Regional
Police force received a telephone call from a woman stating that she and her
husband had observed a suspicious occurrence. At approximately 4:00 p.m.
on October 3rd , Ms. Horwood and her husband saw a male person in a very
dirty dark green or blue Buick near the Queensville feed mill. While waiting
at an intersection, the Horwoods observed this Buick which was stopped at
the intersection facing them. It had been traveling eastbound on the
Queensville Sideroad and was waiting for traffic to clear so that it could
proceed northbound on Leslie Street. Both Mr. and Ms. Horwood noticed
that the male driver appeared to be holding a small child in a forceful manner
in the front seat area.

Apparently 15 days later, (that right, 15 days later!) someone from the York Regional Police contacted the Horwoods and 3 days after that, they were formally interviewed, a statement taken, the make and model pretty well identified, a drive-through of the neighborhood the vehicle had been heading was conducted, and the whole report filed and forgotten. Unbelievable.

I am still curious about the possible movement of the body. It seems to me that the Perp either moved the body sometime in December so that it would be found or, in the unlikely event that it was in that spot all along, he deliberately left it somewhere it would probably be found when he could have, just as easily dragged it a little deeper into the woods. Still, if he didn't mind it being found, why drive 40 KM with the body. Why didn't he dump it near Queensville? Could he have been driving to, or through Suderland?

Either way, he seems to have wanted the body found. Probably to keep media interested in the case so he could gloat over his triumph. That doesn't sound like an immature kid with poor impulse control who got carried away. That type would be ashamed of what he did and deathly afraid of getting caught. An older, criminally sophisticated type who planned it out is proud to have gotten away with it is more the type.

 

[orora]

Is not the author of the above article posted by dedpan a former Police officer himself? The same Robert Marschal of the Winnipeg Police force?

I have to agree it seems someone wanted the body found and wanted the recorder found with the body. Chronologically I believe the fbi then created a profile of the killer which was partially bsed on that recorder having been found with the body. Then Christines neighbour a musician, Guy Paul Morin was arrested for the crime. The above article states how this crime was subsequently used to request changes to DNA legislation.

quote from article-

A decade ago the Canadian Police Association banded with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and unsuccessfully pushed to have DNA samples taken from criminals in ways parallel to the long-accepted practice of taking fingerprints.
They pointed to the 1984 case of Christine Jessop. Raped and murdered, the smiley nine-year-old died with a heart full of fear before her body was discarded in some bush 50 kilometres from her southern Ontario home. Guy Paul Morin was arrested, convicted and went to jail. Unquestioned DNA later proved him innocent.

 

[Woodland]

I can make only one comment on the Horwood's - one has to believe either Christine walked to the store in order to have been kidnapped on the busy corner the Horwood's claim to have seen a child at, or that she was taken from home in that car, and the driver somehow turned the car around and was heading back toward the Jessop home.

I don't think either one happened. Another person claiming to see her that day recanted her story and admitted to lying for the attention. Sightings are notoriously inaccurate.

To me, this is part of what keeps the case stuck in 1995. Everyone wants to sort out and comb through what was used to convict an innocent man. I'm with Dedpanman, the small stuff can be worked out another time.

 

[Woodland]

A million dollar question kemo - why was Christine placed at that location in Sunderland and more than likely long after her disappearance? I believe he wanted her found as well.

 

[Woodland]

I really don't believe Christine's killers DNA profile is is the National DNA Databank. Here's some of what I know - it gets lengthy as it is. It's the sum of these events that has me doubting this claim, not one particular event.

My first call to anyone regarding what I learned about a family in Queensville was to Crime Stoppers - early April 2003 - I was not looking for attention, just wanted to know someone had been ruled out. This was after much discussion with my family who finally said if you don't call, we will.
The CS person was very excited and had me call back once a week for many weeks. CS was trying to get in touch with LE and decide a path to take. After a few calls CS asked me to give up my identity saying the detective in charge of the case needed to speak to me. I didn't like it but I did - I was advised I would receive a call from that person.
I did not receive a call so called CS back. My file was closed. Only then did I find out once you give your ID to CS that's it. I was further advised not to call Toronto LE as the detective who wanted my ID was no longer with the homicide squad. I didn't know who that was, at the time.
I was angry, bewildered and definitely did not understand why I was derailed like that.

I decided to bide my time and find another door which I did in September 2006 after reading about Toronto's new cold case squad. The head of that squad is the one that called me back and said 'tell me about the son' - previous post. I did not know then, but later came to know how well the son knew the Jessop family. The sister refused to tell me that her brother knew the Jessop's, or if they searched for her or if they went to the funeral. She was already regretting what she did tell me in a bff moment.

I was to meet with the person now in charge of the case - it was not Neale Tweedy as he had moved on to head the drug squad. The meeting was suddenly cancelled and I don't get it. Was the friggin' guy ruled out or not? What's with the runaround here?

After much thought about who the common denominator could be, I called Neale Tweedy - something told me he would take my call. During that call he put words in my mouth and twisted my story to something I was not saying. He also insisted he was in charge of the case, but so did another detective. So now I get it and brought up someone shutting down my CS file. He did not ask me what I was talking about - he did end the call though.

I began my quest for as much info as one could possibly get. Prior to the bff moment, I knew about an outstanding loan the brother had with his parents. I figured the only way that was going to happen was a mortgage. Note that this 100 acre property had been in the family for over 100 years and could not possibly have money owing for the purchase.

I found a $50,000 mortgage registered against the family property dated March 1998. So why did the brother need that much at that time? He lived with and was raising his kids on the same farm. So I asked myself - isn't that when Tweedy's investigation came to an end? Isn't that when Tweedy first gives untrue facts to a parliamentary committee on Christine's case? (The March 1998 testimony isn't here - it's much the same as November 1998). Isn't it a coincidence that this guy has bil that's been with the OPP since circa 1977? Isn't it a coincidence that so much evidence disappeared on Christine's case? Isn't it a coincidence that the OPP officer never came forward in 1984, and worse January 1985, to say you might want to look over here?

There was no point in me knowing this - I wanted the Jessop's to know so they could do as they saw fit. During a phone conversation prior to our meeting Janet Jessop told me the following. I have posted elsewhere on meeting JJ, and someone posting as Ken Jessop denies this ever took place. It took place.

JJ advised that in the fall of 1983, (by coincidence a few months after my CS file was shut down) someone walked up her and identified themselves a police officer - gave no name and did not show ID. He told her that the DNA from Christine's case was now in the National DNA Databank. Then walked away.

I later came across an article in the Globe and Mail, dated 1 October 2004 (20 year anniversary) quoting Neale Tweedy that the DNA was in the databank. No other paper carried this info and there was no indication this came from a press conference. Neale Tweedy moved out of homicide and to the drug squad in 2002 - at least according to articles in the Toronto Star.

Janet wanted me to give my info to then Chief of York Region Police Armand LaBarge. I drew a timeline of who I was talking about, where they were etc in 1984. I brought up the existence of the loan. This is when things got scary for me - LaBarge wanted to know who else knew about this. I did not like the question nor how it was delivered. I felt uneasy if not threatened.

A few days later Janet did not want to talk to me anymore. She advised me that LaBarge told her I was suspicious for the following reason - when I drew the timeline, LaBarge asked me where I was at that time. I knew where I was because when I researched it I happened to think about it - I did not know the family then, I just wanted to know what I was doing when this was going on. I was on maternity leave with my first child - easy to remember. Shut down again, imo.

I applied through the Freedom of Information Act for documentation proving another DNA test was performed from the crime scene in order to be entered to the National Databank, plus an appeal. The process frustrated the person from the FOI office as her calls were returned only after 5:00 pm when she had gone home among other annoying tactics. Bottom line - I was given many standard reasons why I could not have this info from a list of options printed on a form. The most memorable one is 'a foreign country is involved so this would disrupt relations with that country (not named). Or similar wording - it's on the form. Because they can.

Note that I knew very well I would not receive info confirming a new DNA test - I just wanted to see how far Toronto Police would go to not tell me.

So I'm a naysayer on a DNA profile exists in the databank.

 

[Woodland]

In retrospect, you know what the smartest thing is that could have been done to lose me? The Toronto detective that was corresponding with Crime Stoppers should have said - tell her the guy was ruled out with DNA.

I would not have known better and I would not have had a reason to go any further.

So who's really laughing?

 

[Woodland]

Not sure if this link will work or not - it's the motto I adopted around 2006.

[video=youtube;nUTXb-ga1fo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXb-ga1fo[/video]

Tom Petty song - I Won't Back Down.

 

[Dreamnine]

All very interesting...

If the body was frozen - or not - and moved to the site sometime later than the same day, then I think the killer is very devious and someone of some means ie. not the usual sex killer.

Which brings up (to me) the other cases mentioned earlier in the thread; and the three points of a square, (or was it rectangle, I forget) that these dump sites form.

 

[orora]

re:

I began my quest for as much info as one could possibly get. Prior to the bff moment, I knew about an outstanding loan the brother had with his parents. I figured the only way that was going to happen was a mortgage. Note that this 100 acre property had been in the family for over 100 years and could not possibly have money owing for the purchase.

I found a $50,000 mortgage registered against the family property dated March 1998. So why did the brother need that much at that time? He lived with and was raising his kids on the same farm. So I asked myself - isn't that when Tweedy's investigation came to an end?

How close was the 100 acre farm to the property where Christine was found?

 

[Woodland]

The question should be - how close is the 100 acre farm to the former Jessop property? The answer is real close - making both properties the same distance from Sunderland.

 

[orora]

Right on Leslie St. close to where CJ was abducted? Have google map coordinates? Does the property look similar today as it did then?

 

[Woodland]

The property looks pretty much the same. Would love to give coordinates - but must stop short of doing that publicly.

 

[Woodland]

Here is a portion of the Kaufman Report. See page 775 (iv) - 776 The Use of Polygraph Tests.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_ch5c.pdf

Have always wanted to know who Mr W was that refused to take a polygraph test.

 

[Dedpanman]

Eventually, discussions may lead to suspects that came up during the investigation (other than GPM - let's leave him out of this).

How do we want to handle naming names when it comes to other suspects that ended up on the radar with police? In the Kaufman Report, many of them are given code names, but in Redrum, Makin names them. That makes it public record, does it not?

How do we want to proceed? Give them code names or use their actual names? Maybe intitials - and if people want to cross reference them with Redrum they have to get their hands on the book?

Thoughts are welcome on this issue.

 

[Dedpanman]

It paints a shocking picture of across the board incompetence. I did however stumble upon something I had been looking for: the story of Mr. & Ms. Horwood. Quoting the report:

On October 6, 1984 at 1:00 a.m., an officer of the York Regional
Police force received a telephone call from a woman stating that she and her
husband had observed a suspicious occurrence. At approximately 4:00 p.m.
on October 3rd , Ms. Horwood and her husband saw a male person in a very
dirty dark green or blue Buick near the Queensville feed mill. While waiting
at an intersection, the Horwoods observed this Buick which was stopped at
the intersection facing them. It had been traveling eastbound on the
Queensville Sideroad and was waiting for traffic to clear so that it could
proceed northbound on Leslie Street. Both Mr. and Ms. Horwood noticed
that the male driver appeared to be holding a small child in a forceful manner
in the front seat area.

Apparently 15 days later, (that right, 15 days later!) someone from the York Regional Police contacted the Horwoods and 3 days after that, they were formally interviewed, a statement taken, the make and model pretty well identified, a drive-through of the neighborhood the vehicle had been heading was conducted, and the whole report filed and forgotten. Unbelievable.

I am still curious about the possible movement of the body. It seems to me that the Perp either moved the body sometime in December so that it would be found or, in the unlikely event that it was in that spot all along, he deliberately left it somewhere it would probably be found when he could have, just as easily dragged it a little deeper into the woods. Still, if he didn't mind it being found, why drive 40 KM with the body. Why didn't he dump it near Queensville? Could he have been driving to, or through Suderland?

Either way, he seems to have wanted the body found. Probably to keep media interested in the case so he could gloat over his triumph. That doesn't sound like an immature kid with poor impulse control who got carried away. That type would be ashamed of what he did and deathly afraid of getting caught. An older, criminally sophisticated type who planned it out is proud to have gotten away with it is more the type.

Kemo - I'm sure the discussioin will eventually turn to the whole "Christine's journey to the store timeline" thing in time. I have lots to say on this topic (so much so that it gives me a headache just thinking about it). I recommend, if you can, get your hands on Redrum, make detailed notes on WHO the witnesses were, and WHERE they were, and WHEN they said they saw Christine. Plot all the info on a Google map with relevant times. Apply logic, common sense... and I think you'll discover that it's damned near impossible for C to have gone to the store... and then didn't go to the park - or did - and then went all the way back home and got herself abducted literally seconds before her mom and brother got home. I am not saying I'm right, I'm just saying there are HUGE problems with the witness testimonies. Please see my "essay" (I think it's post #4) for more explanation to my thinking.

I have detailed diagrams with arrows and times and stuff, but I recommend doing your own, if you can.

 

[Woodland]

I'm open to ideas. Please bear in mind I was given advice by my lawyer not to reveal this family's name or address publicly - spoken, e-mail, forums like this etc.

Telling LE was okay - that's their job.

 

[orora]

Board policy and legal restrictions pretty well dictate what names can be discussed and in which way. Have to go along with that. Same with the property. Don't know if you can answer but curious if it was within walking or biking distance from Christine's to the 100 acre propery. Just a general idea how far and whether a vehicle was even necessary.

 

[Woodland]

A vehicle would be the method preferred by most but biking would not be out of the question. A long, brisk walk never hurt anyone either.

 

[Dedpanman]

Board policy and legal restrictions pretty well dictate what names can be discussed and in which way. Have to go along with that. Same with the property. Don't know if you can answer but curious if it was within walking or biking distance from Christine's to the 100 acre propery. Just a general idea how far and whether a vehicle was even necessary.

If it's not too much trouble, Orora, could you clarify? I remember reading something about this issue but I haven't been able to find it.