Canada - Christine Jessop, 9, Queensville, Ont, 3 Oct 1984 - #2 *killer identified*

[KJessop]

In a practical sense for all intents and purposes, IMO.. I believe it is safe to say that there is some means available to rule any suspect in or out through DNA testing. I believe it a good thing to keep hope alive that at any time this little girls murder can yet be solved conclusively.

It may not be standard and it may not be pretty but even 6 markers in the system is workable for starters given the backup available from older dna test results. The more markers you have to work with, more suspects are excluded not more included. So in effect, you would not generate any more matches by having more markers in the profile. If you can't generate a match with 6 markers, you would not do any better with 13.

Any suspect can still be tested.. if a viable case can be made. IMO

No suspects can be tested if they refuse, even someone convicted of a sexual child murder. They can be asked. Only a person convicted of three sexual crimes can be ordered to give a sample. Look for my interview on Canada am the day after morins acquittal. Or my statement to the press on the final day of the inquiry.

 

[KJessop]

Did 6 more markers allow the profile to be entered into the DNA Databank? Have always understood the criteria is 13 for absolute identification.

Tweedy didn't announce entry into the databank until 1 Oct 2004, when he was no longer on the case and TPS refuses to confirm that announcement.

Would a manual comparison be required with 6 or 6 more with different markers now used?

Tweedy CONFIRMED it was in the database. In reality the database started with her killers sample. When it went computerized, there was already a growing database on paper. The gov just had to "Officially" launch it

 

[KJessop]

I believe what you are seeing Ken is what blocks the road and what stands in your way to everyone coming together and going the same direction from here. What I wrote is just what the average person would glean from all the readily available public documents including the Kaufman inquiry.

I hear you Ken and I did try to get the odd man out segment even willing to pay the going price. The archive was not listed or at least I never found it. I contacted the CBC contact email and asked for it and for a price. I never got a response. You note the price of the transcript and few are going to be able to pay that.

I believe dedpanman had asked for a copy and thought it may be forhcoming. So, I hope you understand no one is trying to disrespect you or anything of the sort, just trying to show how difficult it is for everyone to get past all the "minutia" so we can all move along.

I thought W. boiled it down to the simplest form possible with her statement-


As said in the Kaufman report, the inquiry into both trials still places the Horwood sighting at Leslie and Queensville sideroad. The Fieldstone Lane left turn is noted as well the dscription of the Horwoods following the car. It is rather detailed and specific. The Horwoods would have given a Police statement back at the time. It may not have been given the defence. But.. To provide false information to the court or to the inquiry claiming the sighting was elsewhere than the original Horwood statement claimed is really really hard to farthom.

If as dedpanman once said, the odd man out segment had the story straight, and the prosecution fabricated evidence at trial and that story predated the inquiry, why was that not addressed at the inquiry? If the Horwood sighting information was knowingly false and that false information was then allowed to be inserted into the inquiry and to go uncontested at the inquiry, "that is huge"

Why was it not addressed back then? The inquiry was supposed to get to the facts and clear misconceptions..

It is a huge roadblock Ken and really tough to understand how that could all be.

Recently out in my part of the country a bigtime news show showed up to do a story on a missing person and according the participants, it was the news show that got the details all wrong, even taking the participants own words out of context. Did that happen in odd man out too? Is that why it wasn't re-addressed or contested at the inquiry?

We are at the point we may all be able to move along.. If we can put a few last points into context and perspective within our own understanding.. That is different than expecting people to just take the leap of faith.. Have patience and help us understand what happened and we may all move along together.. Your biggest questioners could become your biggest backers.
sorry if it seemed more was being said than that..

from W.

To address the speculation of her taken at the store. If she was, did her bike mystically fly home? If she was going to the park to play cabbage patch dolls and she was picked up at the store, Why was the doll found in her room. Its plain and simple, she got home, we weren't there, went on her bike to the store, came home, and was taken, she went willingly because she knew the person, and took her recorder to show her dad because she saw me take my medals won the night before to show him.

 

[KJessop]

:what:

Two things..

Laws are based on man made rules. In the case of dna it was once deemed conclusive enough to base the tests on less markers and the results to be admissable in court. It was an arbitrary decision amongst law enforcement and scientists which markers were of most benefit and how many were required for positive identification. The 13 markers chosen were eventually accepted but it could just as well have been a few other markers included other than these. An arbitrary decision meaning this was just one effective set of markers that would suit the purpose.

Would matching 12 markers not be almost as conclusive? In some dna reports submitted to court (mainly U.S.) Not all the 13 markers are present and identifiable in degraded dna. Its a percentage persuit.


As I said already, even if her killer was convicted of the exact same crime, he cannot be compelled to give a sample, you have to be convicted 3 times... God bless the ndp for putting that in the bill....
And dna on its own cannot convict... Only acquit.

According to the reports the profile has been entered into the system and is comparable. I suppose your question W is really how then not if, unless you are saying the Police are out and out lying? I am just suggesting there may be an explanation other than that.

If the dna profile is in the system as they claim, I have always been puzzled by why no match has ever been made for all the reasons you say Matou. It is possible I suppose but just seems very unlikely anyone who would want to do this to a child even once would just quit. That behaviour crossed a line so far as to be no return. imo. I do not know if we test body to body dna in Canada in all cases but that may yet prove telling if expanded even into the U.S. Lindseys law is scheduled to revisit parliament hill again in the near future too. For now it is indeed a mystery on many levels why this killer has never been found. I can't help but think he has left a similar trail somewhere else.

 

[orora]

Thanks Ken, good to see you back. I think the dispute over the dna profile has been settled to most everyone's satisfaction and accepted now so at least that issue can be put aside.

The three strikes before admission into the database law seems to be just an add on for crimes other than murder and sexual assault. That is my understanding of the act anyway. According the RCMP website, the dna legislation has been amended several times most recently-

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/nddb-bndg/ann-10-11/sec-14-eng.html

October 2010 - Full proclamation of Bill C-14 (Statutes of Canada 2009, c. 22). The Bill amended the Criminal Code by adding three offences to the list of primary compulsory offences.

April 2011 - Proclamation of Bill S-2 (Statutes of Canada 2010, c. 17). The Bill amended the Criminal Code to make DNA sampling mandatory for convicted sex offenders. Convicted sex offenders must also be registered in the National Sex Offender Registry.

I still have questions in this regard whether the dna found on victims and entered into the database is compared against the dna found on other victims too and not just against those known and convicted perpetrators in the database. Is that an approved and authorized standard function or by special request?

Also, in a recent case out west, ( a murdered teen) the dna from her cold case was manually submitted for testing against the US databank. It produced a match after 35 years of searching in Canada alone. It seemed just a matter of the authorities making the request for it to be approved. Could that be done here?

 

[Dedpanman]

I submit this article for the general interest of readers here - not for any particular point I wish to make in regards to the discussion/argument concerning the DNA profile. Just some historical context.

 

[Dedpanman]

I’ve included these articles from the Toronto Star. You can sense the rising tension in Queensville as police (with the help of the FBI) attempt to “flush out” a killer. (However, police were completely off track by this point and had zeroed in on the wrong person).

One can imagine Christine’s actual killer reading the media reports and becoming increasingly paranoid and stressed, wondering if the police were indeed close to catching him. Were they closing in? Could he expect a knock on his door any minute?

If the killer could ever be recognized by his behaviour patterns, that was the time. Family members, and those in his close circle, would probably have noticed some changes in him. He was probably agitated more than usual. Drinking more than usual. Smoking more than usual (if he smoked). Watching the news and reading newspapers more than usual. He probably destroyed every single trace of evidence that could link him to the killing. Burned his clothes. If he took anything from Christine, he got rid of it during this time. Buried it, or threw it out a car window far from home.

Days passed. The situation was about to reach a climax. Would he be caught? Would he be dragged out of the darkness and into the light – exposed for the monster that he truly was…?

And then the last article… and Christine’s killer could breathe a huge sigh of relief. He could take comfort in the knowledge that the police investigation had gone right off the rails with the arrest of an innocent man (GPM).

This “big break” for the killer would last almost ten years. In that time, he could essentially “return to normal”. His paranoia and stress would dissipate. Any abnormal behaviour patterns caused by the stress of the hovering police would correct themselves. He could become invisible again. Remain off the radar.

But, would he kill again?
Of course not.
He was not completely stupid. If another child went missing in the area… raped and then killed… it would be a red flag to the police that they had the wrong man. And, he might not be so lucky next time. The police were on the wrong track, but he must have known or feared that buried in the mountain of evidence and interviews… were the few pieces needed to create a trail that would lead straight to him. Did someone recognize his car? Get his licence plate number that day?

He would have to suppress his fantasies.
He would not allow himself to succumb to his sick desires again.

Over time, this would torment him. He would be full of conflict. He could not have what he wanted. Do what he wanted to do. He would replay his successful foray into evil over and over in his mind… and he would have to be content with that.

Eventually, he might have taken a drive back out there to the Sunderland field after the attention there had faded. He would stand there at that spot and contemplate how he had gotten away with it. About the fool who had gone to jail for what he did. He would think that the universe was on his side.

He would believe that he was not meant to be caught.

 

[orora]

Very good dedpan, interesting take on the lay of the land at the time. It has long been questioned whether someone who had sunk to the depths evidenced by what was done to Christine could control that which drove him to perform the act? Is this urge something that is within the power of a perp to control or is it something so powerful that it controls him? Seldom do we see so ghastly a crime in isolation any others but if it is so, that is saying something too.

Perhaps this act was a final culmination of many more acts minor in comparison this, prior this, than an opening act for more? Could there be a means of identification by past activities? What would the precursers to a crime like this be?

 

[Dedpanman]

A few more specifics in regards to Christine's injuries are reported here:

Expert admits errors in Jessop's autopsy: [Final Edition]
Kitchener - Waterloo Record [Kitchener, Ont] 28 Jan 1992: A3.

Dr. John Hillsdon-Smith admitted he missed a severe skull fracture and numerous cuts to the nine-year-old's spine during his 1985 autopsy on her skeletal remains.
The skull fracture under the right eye would have been strong enough to leave the girl unconscious and could even have caused her death, he said while testifying at the second murder trial of Guy Paul Morin.
Hillsdon-Smith also agreed that some of the spinal cutting marks were suggestive of a "sawing motion."
Crown attorney Leo Maguigan had earlier suggested the injuries indicated an attempted decapitation.
As well, Hillsdon-Smith admitted he had failed to notice Christine's breast bone had been cut in two, a procedure he testified would "take a heavy instrument or saw."
The trial, now in its third month, has heard Christine's father, Robert Jessop, testify he found six of his daughter's bones during an impromptu visit to the isolated rural spot where her body had been found.
Christine had disappeared from the vicinity of her Queensville home, north of Toronto, on Oct. 3, 1984. Her badly decomposed body was found three months later.
Three months after that, Morin, Jessop's next-door neighbor, was charged with her murder.
Credit: CP
1992 The Record - Kitchener-Waterloo. All rights reserved.

The fracture to her skull was below her right eye. This is the first time I've found that particular injury's location clearly specified. Does this not suggest that Christine's killer was left handed?

Referring back to the photograph of Christine’s sweatshirt published in Redrum (first edition), one can see that the knife cuts are clustered to Christine’s right side (the seam running up the center of the garment indicates that we’re looking at the front). With the skull fracture’s origin below her right eye (see quote above), and the stabbing injuries also on her right side…

Evidence that her killer was left-handed?

 

[Woodland]

The skull fracture below her right eye - how have you determined this is the origin DPM? Was her nose fractured?

 

[Dedpanman]

According to Makin in Redrum, at the second autopsy, a facial injury was discovered that was described as a “massive fracture radiating out from the nasal bones and encompassing most of the facial structure”.

However, from this article (previously posted), the fracture is described differently - as being below her right eye:

Expert admits errors in Jessop's autopsy: [Final Edition]
Kitchener - Waterloo Record [Kitchener, Ont] 28 Jan 1992: A3.

Dr. John Hillsdon-Smith admitted he missed a severe skull fracture and numerous cuts to the nine-year-old's spine during his 1985 autopsy on her skeletal remains.
The skull fracture under the right eye would have been strong enough to leave the girl unconscious and could even have caused her death, he said while testifying at the second murder trial of Guy Paul Morin.

Also, KJessop responded to a previous post and specified that her face was not crushed. He stated that her orbital bone (eye socket) and cheekbone (maxilla) were fractured:

Originally Posted by matou
I saw the slide of her skull and it was bashed in, nasals, cheekbones, maxillae. It could have occurred from stomping, or hits to the face with a fist or an object. Extreme violence. The breastbone cut was one slice, did not see saw marks from the photo. I think the perp used a knife, a big sharp one. No saw. JMO

KJessop: I ask you to prove how you saw these. her face was not crushed as you claim, her orbital bone and cheekbone were fractured.

Based on all of the above, I interpreted the facial injury to have originated below the eye.

I could be absolutely wrong in that interpretation.

 

[Dedpanman]

Here's the Globe and Mail article (January 24, 1992) detailing injuries discovered at the second autopsy. Here, the facial injury is described as a fractured nose - not a fracture under the eye as described in the Toronto Star.

There must have been a central point of impact with fractures radiating out into some parts of other bones. But, was "ground zero" below the eye - or the nose?

 

[matou]

I ask you to prove how you saw these. her face was not crushed as you claim, her orbital bone and cheekbone were fractured. As I have stated before, her sternum was cracked by a knife thrust. The facial injuries were consistant with one punch. The perp used a knife... Really... Since the first determination 28 years ago was she was stabbed "hundreds of times" To verify that fact read the transcipt of Bernie Fitzpatryks testimony at the preliminary hearing in 85.
I ask again knowing there is no answer. Because no slides of the actual facial injuries were ever shown.

I ask you to prove yourself. Message me privately. I know the names of everyone involved with her second autopsy. Its public record.

I didn't say her face was crushed, it was bashed in. The perp could have punched her. I'm not making this up. I've been on here since Tori Stafford's disappearance and I'm not an attention seeker. I seek Justice and that is all. I saw some slides through KG as I stated earlier. Her sternum was cut in half and I interpreted that a knife was used not a saw-like instrument. The sternum is spongy bone and covered with a thin layer of hard bone. A knife could have penetrated it and pulling it out could have sliced it even further. She was cut several times as seen through the rib cuts and nicks. I saw these slides almost 20 years ago in 1993. I'm very sorry about what happened to your sister. I haven't researched this case outside of what I saw and I read "Redrum' the first edition and the second one. I have since lost both copies of the book.

 

[Woodland]

The Toronto Star does not describe the injury as a fracture under her eye - they describe it a nasal fracture.

On page 248 of the KR report the injury is described as 'nasal bone fractures consistent with the application of blunt trauma.'

The Globe and Mail and RR describe the injuries as a nasal fracture.

Some of these descriptions include the fracture as 'radiating from the nasal bones.'

Seems consistent with Matou's 'her face was bashed in.'

 

[Woodland]

So DPM - it seems only the Kitchener-Waterloo Record stated the injury was under her eye - can you attach a copy of that article rather than just some text?

 

[Dedpanman]

The article came from a TORSTAR database in which only the text is searchable. You can't download the article in its original form - only the text.

I made an error when I said that the fracture under the eye came from the Toronto Star. It came from the Kitchener Waterloo paper from the TORSTAR database. Torstar's major holding is the Toronto Star. I goofed when I made my reference.

 

[Woodland]

DPM - I'm reading the article from the TorStar database that you highlighted for discussion - and will include the first line that was omitted in both posts where you copied it - #269 on page 11 and #311 from this page.

Expert admits errors in Jessop's autopsy
[Final Edition]
Kitchener - Waterloo Record - Kitchener, Ont.
Date: Jan 28, 1992
Start Page: A.3
Section: Front
Text Word Count: 215
Document Text
(CP) - Ontario's chief pathologist admitted Monday he made serious errors in his autopsy on murder victim Christine Jessop.

Dr. John Hillsdon-Smith admitted he missed a severe skull fracture and numerous cuts to the nine-year-old's spine during his 1985 autopsy on her skeletal remains.

The skull fracture under the right eye would have been strong enough to leave the girl unconscious and could even have caused her death, he said while testifying at the second murder trial of Guy Paul Morin.

Hillsdon-Smith also agreed that some of the spinal cutting marks were suggestive of a "sawing motion."

Crown attorney Leo Maguigan had earlier suggested the injuries indicated an attempted decapitation.

As well, Hillsdon-Smith admitted he had failed to notice Christine's breast bone had been cut in two, a procedure he testified would "take a heavy instrument or saw."

The trial, now in its third month, has heard Christine's father, Robert Jessop, testify he found six of his daughter's bones during an impromptu visit to the isolated rural spot where her body had been found.

Christine had disappeared from the vicinity of her Queensville home, north of Toronto, on Oct. 3, 1984. Her badly decomposed body was found three months later.

Three months after that, Morin, Jessop's next-door neighbor, was charged with her murder.

When I read this article with that first line, I'm not lead to think the fracture under the right eye is the only fracture - skull or otherwise - she had. I'm reading it as a fracture that is highlighted that would cause unconsciousness since the first line says 'serious errors' - plural.

Other papers included the nasal fracture in their articles on the same day - this writer could have interpreted any other fracture discussed that day as having been found previously - or the writer wasn't paying a great deal of attention.

Probably no need to point out the article also quotes the Crowns position there was an attempt at decapitation - not a decapitation - or that the first line of this article is embedded between the title and the body of the article.

With all due respect, I don't get it.

 

[orora]

With all due respect, Although I don't blame anyone for not getting it, I don't think we will ever all "get it". The discrepancies in the coroner report fist to second and the differing accounts of injuries from various sources all leaves a little room for most any position anyone wants to take. Add in the possibility of the body being moved at some point and the decomposition process post murder disarticulation and all that and you end up in a position where it is hard to tell what went on in what order by way of what tool for what reason.

A left handed perp is an interesting possibility that arises from the detail but I don't know if there is much more to be gained by any closer examination those details. Correct me if I am wrong but what is it we are trying to get from all this? I am still just struck and dumbfounded to read statements like this (below)- That is just bizarre to say he just missed something like this

As well, Hillsdon-Smith admitted he had failed to notice Christine's breast bone had been cut in two, a procedure he testified would "take a heavy instrument or saw."

Is it not suffice to say there were a number of head and facial injuries as well the multiple stab wounds violent enough to open up the chest along with an attempt at decapitation? or a statement something similar that is acceptable to all? Is all the extra close detail that can be contradicted both ways back and forth endlessly really worth dwelling on?

 

[Tadpole12]

I ask you to prove how you saw these. her face was not crushed as you claim, her orbital bone and cheekbone were fractured. As I have stated before, her sternum was cracked by a knife thrust. The facial injuries were consistant with one punch. The perp used a knife... Really... Since the first determination 28 years ago was she was stabbed "hundreds of times" To verify that fact read the transcipt of Bernie Fitzpatryks testimony at the preliminary hearing in 85.
I ask again knowing there is no answer. Because no slides of the actual facial injuries were ever shown.

I ask you to prove yourself. Message me privately. I know the names of everyone involved with her second autopsy. Its public record.

her orbital bone and cheekbone were fractured. -KJessop


FMI:

Trauma:
http://www.sickkids.ca/Craniofacial/What-we-do/Craniofacial-Conditions/Trauma/index.html

"Fractures of the eye socket (orbit) can occur in combination with fractures of the cheek bone (zygoma) or as an isolated event, usually involving the floor of the orbit. Very commonly this is following a punch or a blow to the eye."

 

[Woodland]

Is it possible to resolve this discrepancy?

From thread #1, page 41, post #1020 by KJ

He drove the blue car that was seen at the end of our driveway the day Christine went missing.

From thread #1, page 42, post #1038 by KJ

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.

From thread #2, page 9, post #221 by KJ

But I believe he waited at the end of the driveway where the car was seen

From thread #2, page 11, post #260 by KJ

As i have addressed this SO MANY TIMES BEFORE The car was seen on the east side of leslie on the side of the road facing north... The witnessed gave statements... the next day

Where was JP's car? In the driveway or on Leslie Street?