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

[Woodland]

Hello KJessop. No need to thank me for the thread - that thanks should go to Dedpanman.

Can you answer some questions? In some instances the timing or location you speak of is different than what has been posted here.

Who saw the blue car at the end of your driveway on 3 October 1984?

Who saw this car turning onto Ravenshoe Road holding down a child?

Any idea why a Niagara Region officer would threaten you to take down your post when this is suppose to be a case under Toronto Police?

Did JP (name redacted) ever have a record for child abuse/molestation? If not, could that be why 3 LE agencies did not investigate him? I'm not saying it's a good reason not to consider him a suspect, just wondering why they didn't.

When did JP (name redacted) die?

Are you implying LE did not take a DNA sample from a biological son of JP (name redacted)?

I can understand why JP's wife and step-children did not come forward at the time of Christine's disappearance and discovery, but why did one step-daughter wait until she was dating you to say anything? This could pose a problem for LE after so much time.

I have read both of the damn books now - am about to read the first edition a second time. Neither one indicates Christine was found sitting up, nor does the Kaufman Report. Why would that aspect be so profound?

Was it a sweater or sweatshirt that was found wrapped around Christine's head? I see both descriptions in various places.

Where exactly was the turtleneck sweater and the blouse?

Regarding the bones - how they were found would be different than after they were slid off a sheet of plywood. Can you clarify how they were found?

Did Christine play with Leslie on a regular basis at the park after school?

Where was Christine's Cabbage Patch doll found?

Did the store owner say your mom went to the store that afternoon then changed their mind to say she was not there that day? If so, does that change cause you to wonder whether Christine was there or not?

In RR first edition, the store owner says she had a hood tied around her head - no article of clothing is mentioned to have a hood attached.

If Christine went to the store then returned home, what is your best estimate of the time she returned home?

It was Mangano who said Christine was last seen entering the store that day on the recent Fifth Estate episode. Atkinson did not say he saw her enter the store. He said he saw her standing outside talking to other kids. I agree though, Atkinson never saw her.

Who were the 4 people that knew where your dad was?

Thank-you W

 

[dotr]

Welcome KJessop to WS, glad you chose to join and share your insights.
Sorry for the grief your family has been through,it is strong of you to keep holding out for the truth.

 

[Dedpanman]

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.....

KJessop – welcome to the thread.

I hope that you can excuse the fumbling of facts by us amateurs (and I say that seriously – because that’s what we are). Please know that we’re all on the same side. We don’t seek to get things wrong… but we are on such a crooked path. We are trying to do our best with the scraps of facts available to us. Even as we make mistakes, know that Christine’s murder and the absence of justice for her is an outrage we all feel – as citizens and as human beings… and that’s what brings us here.

Hopefully, going forward (if you choose to return and join us in discussion) you can tolerate our redundant questions. Be patient with us - as we have so many questions. We are working to arrange the puzzle pieces in a way that makes sense to us and all those who come here to read.

Peace to you.

 

[orora]

Hi Kenny. Everyone knows it will be tough going to get beyond here. Nothing is as it seems any where you look. This is likely the best chance there will ever be ever again. Input is vital and opinions are just that. As you see, there is still much interest and hopes that truth will find its way. I can only imagine what it has been like for you. I could/would apologize for some of what I have said/ imagined/ interpreted/ but I would hope that you appreciate we are all stuck working in the dark.

No one means harm. There are many differing opinions/ attitudes/ experience/ and avenues being offered and followed. I don't think there has been much that has been overlooked. How to put it all together has always been a problem and many questions have gone unanswered for too long. I hope you will be able to withstand some of the questioning and stick around. Take a breaK if needed if and when it gets too much. \

Addressing Police corruption or ineptitude or wrongdoing is not welcomed in any official capacity in Canada. You make it pretty simple though Kenny, DNA test those people and we can talk, OTHERWISE... IT IS WHAT IT IS... ISN'T IT?

Glad you are here..

 

[Woodland]

Like Dedpanman and likely others, have now read both versions of Redrum. While there is some information contained in the first edition that is left out of the revised edition, I didn't find an overwhelming difference to either book - ie they both hold the same 'flavour' if you will.

To me many opportunities were missed in both versions. The questions are asked, but the author failed to venture into unknown territory - territory that is now changed and somewhat lost forever. I rate this as a failure considering the access he had to police files - and pictures.

A few notes on what stood out for me in the first edition.

Soil samples. An effort was made to compare soil from the Morin residence and GPM's vehicle to the body site - page 316. Nothing turned up in the analysis. A small soil sample from the site was found on Christine's shoe or shoes indicating to many involved that she walked in or was dragged - there is no mention of a comparison to other soil that should have been on her shoes - soil from Queensville.
My conclusion - rain washed away any trace of 'Queensville soil' and rain splashed 'Sunderland soil' onto Christine's shoes. Total failure, imo, to follow through.

Page 464 - some way be weary of this, but it is more clear in the first edition than the revised edition - DNA testing. 'Morin and his lawyers were also in favour of the testing, provided the technique to be used would not destroy all that remained of the semen-stained clothing. They did not want to preclude any future attempts to test for DNA as the science progressed.'
This was leading up to the second trial that began in November 1991 - 3 failures at a profile had already occurred.

Page 608 - Clifford Olson came up as a possible suspect. That was most surprising considering Olson once claimed to have killed Debbie Silverman - the 21 year-old woman found one Concession south and one main intersection west of Christine in 1978. Olson never claimed any responsibility for Christine's murder. Red herring imo.

Cannot understand why RR first edition relates conversation between Christine and the store owner (how as school etc) then omits this from the revised edition. The first edition relates the store owner was reading the paper when Christine came in and that he noted she had a blue hood tied around her head -also dropped from the revised edition. This makes no sense to me, but I do think it made sense to the author, for reason(s) never revealed. Failure imo.

 

[orora]

That statement " for reasons never revealed" is the underlying theme behind a whole lot of what we are finding. The elephant is having trouble hiding behind the crumbling old wall. I take everything Makin said with a grain of salt now.

Ken, of course you know that there is no obligation on your part to answer each and every question posed to you here. Some things you will obviously have no more knowledge of than the rest of us. Some of the more personal details you could fill in if there was some importance beyond curiousity. Some points just cause contention and dispute and may as well be avoided.

Bottom line seems to be that no matter what anyone says or does, without some mechanism in place to force testing, to address and rule out suspects/ poi/, we are all hitting the same brick wall that has always kept justice at bay for Christine. Ken has a very viable suspect and means of proof. W. has another poi she wishes to test as well as dpm's poi. There may be more.

Ken's suspect would seem to have the best odds for success. If it were once authorized to take a dna sample from a family member of that poi but Police mistakenly took one from a non family member instead, that original authorization still holds legal weight imo. It then becomes a delibertate act of ommision not to act on it now if this is true.

Until that testing is done or answered to, the rest of the questioning is of somewhat lesser importance or consequence.

There has been suggestion made in other instances that much like the laws that mandate fingerprints of government agents to be excluded from official data bases, the same may be in effect for dna.

How if and or why any of this has any bearing on what we see here is not exactly known but as said, the son of the poi named by Ken may be under that blanket of protection now. Coincidence? Was father similarly protected?

W. has long pointed out the discrepancies in how the dna sample has been handled and the results recorded. We have all noted the strange acts committed by Police during the course of this investigation. No one has been able to solicite a proper response from any official as to the status of the dna available in this case. Something smells..

The media do not question or addess anything beyond status quo. How does anyone change any of that? A former university prof used the analogy of water wearing away at rock. However, everyone has to get on the same page to bring that sort of thing to bear. We can always find things that divide us.. this may be something that could unite us all.

The testing of Ken's suspect should be completed imo.. It is warranted, it was once approved, results should be conclusive and demonstrable, it would verify what the system holds in the way of dna, it would force the hand of LE to act, it would either solve the crime or pave the way for any other poi to be held to the same standard and procedure.

You have my vote Ken.. How to get there?

 

[Woodland]

What was the surname of JP (name redacted) stepson? How was LE fooled into thinking he was a bio son?

Just wondering.

 

[Woodland]

We seem to have come to a standstill in the views/conversation/scenarios with new information posted - information that so far is not verified. I realize that may be an unpopular statement.

Bessie - has poster KJessop been verified as Christine's brother?

I'm asking as the information posted is important to how this case should be viewed. If it's accurate, then we, as posters, need to change positions on some aspects as some of the new information has never been revealed before. But verification should be part of it if we are to drop some aspects.

At the moment, it seems to be all about the posts.

 

[marikesh]

I don't know about you all but I am convinced that KJessop is Christine's brother. I really don't think an ex-cop or family/friend of the suspect would have details about family members health as has been mentioned by KJessop elsewhere and same verified more recently in an interview JJ gave just a month or so ago.
I don't know K.Makins style and I don't know him, however, I never rely heavily on an author's details ... the book has to be inviting enough to sell after all those efforts and I think that could have been the case in his books. Literary license.
After watching some episodes of Nancy Grace mysteries as she goes through the investigative scenarios, it becomes quite clear to me how police can be sidetracked by tunnel vision as well as making errors in their efforts to convict a certain person as they did in this case. Testing the right bio family member was not in their best interests in their efforts to prosecute the wrong man. Just all my humble opinions.

 

[Woodland]

Testing the stepson came after the exoneration of GPM - according to KJessop it was during the inquiry that this suspect was first reported (1997-98). The timing is wrong to suggest testing the wrong person was for the purpose of prosecuting GPM.

Hopefully Bessie will advise if verification has taken place. Following that, we can look for verification of the new information.

 

[marikesh]

Oopsie. Ok then I also question why police did not test a bio child, unless of course an elder put a stop to it.

 

[Woodland]

An elder? Not sure what that means, please clarify.

 

[dotr]

Wondering if both Christine and her brother were adopted and if so, what ethnicity were birth parents?

 

[Woodland]

Christine was not adopted.

 

[marikesh]

An elder? Not sure what that means, please clarify.

Apologies for not being clear. By an elder I meant a parent. I may be totally wrong on this, however I was always under the impression that if a child/teen ... anyone under the legal age witnessed something such as a crime or know something in regards to a crime, they do not need to testify or give a statement if the parents don't allow it and also if the parent is not present. (Since they are underage).
I have seen a case where a young man confessed to a crime and his father being a lawyer (and wasn't present) seemed to be able to quash the statement.

 

[bessie]

Testing the stepson came after the exoneration of GPM - according to KJessop it was during the inquiry that this suspect was first reported (1997-98). The timing is wrong to suggest testing the wrong person was for the purpose of prosecuting GPM.

Hopefully Bessie will advise if verification has taken place. Following that, we can look for verification of the new information.

I will, Woodland. As of now, there are no verified members in Christine's case. Should anyone become verified, I'll post in it the thread.

 

[KJessop]

I have sent the e-mail to be verified.

 

[KJessop]

While I am waiting for the verification call lets see

Can you answer some questions? In some instances the timing or location you speak of is different than what has been posted here.

Who saw the blue car at the end of your driveway on 3 October 1984?

Mrs gibson the school bus driver and Two of JP's daughters. All reported to york, in fact they were brought down to the pretrial for the second trial. But the defense ended up not calling them.

Who saw this car turning onto Ravenshoe Road holding down a child?
An older couple, mentioned in odd man out, and reported to durham police.

Any idea why a Niagara Region officer would threaten you to take down your post when this is suppose to be a case under Toronto Police?
Yes.

Did JP (name redacted) ever have a record for child abuse/molestation? If not, could that be why 3 LE agencies did not investigate him? I'm not saying it's a good reason not to consider him a suspect, just wondering why they didn't.
No, it was a family secret, like so many other cases of abuse in the country back then.

When did JP (name redacted) die?

Are you implying LE did not take a DNA sample from a biological son of JP (name redacted)?
They first took one from his step son, then claimed his real son lived in Barrie.. They followed this person and got it off a cig butt. Cept his son lived in Newmarket and doesn't smoke.

I can understand why JP's wife and step-children did not come forward at the time of Christine's disappearance and discovery, but why did one step-daughter wait until she was dating you to say anything? This could pose a problem for LE after so much time.
2 daughters came forwardDuring the inquiry. Sent a letter to my lawyer. He passed it on to the police... Never heard anything.

I have read both of the damn books now - am about to read the first edition a second time. Neither one indicates Christine was found sitting up, nor does the Kaufman Report. Why would that aspect be so profound?
Not profound true.
Its in the trial transcripts from the second trial. Wasn't part of the Kaufman inquiry.
In latter versions of the book you find it briefly mentioned when the second autopsy is compared to the first.

Was it a sweater or sweatshirt that was found wrapped around Christine's head? I see both descriptions in various places.T
The shirt and sweater were pulled up over her head, then decapitated. Head was "balled up" in the upper body clothing placed between her legs. That is why the whole satanic cult angle was brought up in the book.

Where exactly was the turtleneck sweater and the blouse?
Answered

Regarding the bones - how they were found would be different than after they were slid off a sheet of plywood. Can you clarify how they were found?
No, i am on the record as are my parents many times describing it.

Did Christine play with Leslie on a regular basis at the park after school?
No, as I said, she didn't like Leslie. She was Christines bully.

Where was Christine's Cabbage Patch doll found?
In her bedroom where she left it.

Did the store owner say your mom went to the store that afternoon then changed their mind to say she was not there that day? If so, does that change cause you to wonder whether Christine was there or not?
Store owner never changed.
The story you are thinking of is Kim Waarner who lied about seeing her.


In RR first edition, the store owner says she had a hood tied around her head - no article of clothing is mentioned to have a hood attached.
Her jacket that we found that day hung on a hook to high for her.


It was Mangano who said Christine was last seen entering the store that day on the recent Fifth Estate episode. Atkinson did not say he saw her enter the store. He said he saw her standing outside talking to other kids. I agree though, Atkinson never saw her.
He never said she was with other kids. Said she was at the light waiting to cross.

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[Dedpanman]

He could see our house from the co-op.

This seems verifiable.
See attached image.

 

[KJessop]

The co-op was at the start of the hill going east on queensville sideroad.... And we were at the top of the hill. Go there in person.. Remember the trees were 25 years shorter then...