Back on post #329, I wrote:
Do you think that if Christine had never been sexually exploited before the familys move to Queensville, this crime would have occurred?
The answer(s) to that question (both yes or no) are potentially powerful lines of thought. To phrase the question another way: Did her sexual exploitation put her at a higher risk, and if so, why? How?
I shall attempt an answer now to my own question -- and this will require speculation, but Ill try to keep it logical.
News of Christines sexual exploitation in Richmond Hill by the brothers may have travelled along a grapevine to the person who would end up abducting her. This person may have been on the peripherals, or the outer most orbit of that particular sphere of danger. This person could have been a friend of a friend of one of the brothers (or, some such person) and may have learned of Christines compliance with older males. This could have fuelled a sick fantasy involving his turn with her.
Makin suggests rather explicitly in Redrum that Christines sexual experiences with the older boys may have altered her behaviour in certain ways -- that she knowingly or unknowingly sent off false signals of maturity (he writes specifically of Christines apparent interest in older men) and knowledge about sex beyond her years.
If Christine was in the park, or the fire hall, or some other place where there were males, she may have given off these false signals of maturity and this could have ignited the interest of the perpetrator. Some research studies suggest that some abductors are able to hone in on children with low self esteem and victims of sexual abuse. Did this happen in Christines case? Perhaps.
I'm a bit behind on the discussion. I do believe the above, but I have nothing tangible to add to support this. I sense there are/were a lot of things going on behind closed doors that were never spoken about, thus explaining Bob Jessop's sad comment.