I've spent the afternoon reading this thread, from start to finish and have some thoughts and opinions to throw out--please excuse that is a "50,000 foot" view instead of in the right category at the right time--I only have an overview at this point (but after this post will head off to read all the primary materials).
First, thanks to Woodland and D'man for bringing not only attention but a wealth of information to this thread--it is much appreciated and clear you both care deeply about Christine and have your facts straight.
That said, I might stick my neck out just enough to say that I was almost scared off by some exchanges. This IS a place for discussion--not just facts and science and numbers but also theories, implications, innuendo and inferences. I thought the purpose of the thread (and all in the DISCUSSION part of the site) was to get great sleuthing minds together. Not all minds think alike but the point is to throw things out--even if they might not prove true--so that the group as a whole can reach a consensus. I'm an attorney and while hearsay is not admissible, it doesn't mean it isn't helpful. It's sorting the wheat from the chaff but we can't sort if we don't know. I was dismayed at how offtrack the conversation got for a while. Yes, the science matters--it matters greatly, but aside from that, other things matter too.
I do not in any way mean this disrespectfully, but, I think, perhaps, some folks care so deeply and know so much that it can come off as a bit aggressive and inhibits discussion. I suspect others have been scared off by those chunks of exchanges between a few. We all get our hackles raised by things that matter greatly to us. But most of us are fairly new to this case and just trying to sort through the massive information. We'll get there (to where you experts are) I suspect--but we aren't there yet and need a bit of patience with us.
If the point is the more people who know, the more people who engage, the higher the possibility of resolution---then perhaps it might be more helpful to let people exchange thoughts and rumors to the extent allowed here at WS--even if they can't be documented exactly. And there are rules for it that should be followed and I think they have been--with the exception that everybody with "insider" knowledge has broken the "verified" rule as noted by mods.
I honestly didn't see anything in this thread (and again, have read entire thing in one sitting) that would merit the attention of the mods--until people started snarking at each other and, again, then I almost left.
Almost. I apologize if I have hurt anyone's feelings but I truly felt it needed saying if the group hopes to attract attention, gain traction and, ultimately, achieve justice for Christine.
At the heart of the matter, I see every post here joined in the same cause--to help achieve justice for Christine.
Onward. I want to read more of the primary materials but a few things that caught my eye initially:
1. In one of the descriptions of the body (please don't make me go back and quote but is from when D'man put the two comparing ones up) it says "two pairs of socks". I think this might be a Canadian thing--but to an American that means literally 4 socks. Was she wearing a pair of socks or two pairs of socks? I'm not sure it's important but regardless of whether she was nude or clothed--the agreement point is that she was wearing socks. If two pair--why?
2. When I read those first descriptions of her injuries my immediate thought was "a young and inexperienced hunter who thinks he is gutting a deer or other animal and it doesn't work like that" I also apologize up front for my terrible understanding of Canadian geography and the area in specific--but would hunting be normal and all boys generally would partake? I'm in New England and that is the case here--meaning that would be a pretty worthless thought--but if not overly the norm in the area, maybe not so meaningless?
3. I am pretty sure the answer to this is "no" but was a crime scene analysis done on the trailer at any point? It was a weekday (school) and neighbors/locals would/could know who the weekenders were....and that the trailer was empty during the week. It could theoretically explain the lack of blood etc---the trailer was the crime scene and there was enough time to clean up (it was a Wednesday--that gives them 48-72 hours if the owners came that same weekend) and nobody ever did forensic testing on it. The owners noticed a break-in later, but that doesn't mean there weren't break ins earlier that weren't noticed. It would have been empty, private and Christine was dumped, egregiously and nauseatingly, in the area of the garbage pit, just out back. Most criminals are depressingly lazy.
4. Kind of random, but someone questioned the masking tape and whether it was maybe duct tape. I was in high school in 84 but in elementary school when we got our recorders, our names were put on them with masking tape, so that makes total sense to me. When I read that, I actually immediately visualized bringing mine home in that little bag (later years it was a nasty brown plastic thing) and my name taped on it. It was very exciting that first time.
Again, I apologize if I offended anyone with some of my thoughts and most certainly everything hereinabove is MOO.
And again, thanks to those who brought the case to WS.
