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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
WickedBee said:
Not so. The Flats are the farms and 'flat' acreage North of the Jessop place to about Holborn Road.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I was under the impression;

Many settlers of queensville were from New England. The flats referred to the type of housing known as flats (types of apartments).
 
Close to the Horwoods sighting then according to Ken? hmm Did the person at the co-op agree with the information W. posted? JP lived across from the store at the time?

Its too bad that nothing more has come of all this. A whole lot of new information has been added from several new sources but some is still quite questionable. The Police ended their official investigation with several other potential suspects being floated about. Seems we have come to that point too. There are a few main suspects being floated about here with very little evidence to narrow it down any further. The initial botched investigation focusing on GPM was compounded by Police hiding and fabricating evidence. Perjury charges were even laid against Police, the repercussions we are still dealing with today.

A lot of very good points have been raised on all sides. It seems most probable to me that Christine knew here killer. It seems most probable that Christine made it to the store somehow. The timing leaves a few possibilities and the true location of the Horwood sighting may have been able to narrow that down a bit further. imo. I find it abhorrent if false information has truly been entered and left uncontested in the Kaufman inquiry documentation. How are cold case researchers and investigators or modern day Police ever going to get anywhere under these conditions? Did Neal Tweedy and the reinvestigation team investigate the Horwood sighting as being at the corner of the store or at the corner of Leslie and Ravenshoe? Why were the Kaufman inquiry findings on the Horwood sighting not corrected if false? Have the Police all given up and thrown in the towel? Does not anyone in officialdom want this solved? Or is this a Police test for anyone confessing? Hold back information that the Police use to rule on whether someone is telling the truth or not? With all the obstruction it is almost impossible to tell and the obstruction seems to come form all sides in many forms.

You may be right Ken, for all intents and purposes it seems this has all but been buried in official circles. Unless a dna match miraculously shows up via “alternate collection and testing” this is one very tough situation to crack. One very unusual aspect of this case over most any other is that a dna profile of the killer has been published. Its in the public domain, not sequestered away for official eyes only. What can be done with that? Familial ancestry dna testing is readily available and viable testable samples can be picked up at barber shops, restaurants, and garbage disposal facilities etc among other sources everywhere… Match the known markers to begin with and you have the makings of a case? With or without Police assistance...

Hail Mary…
 
CJ is known to have stepped off her school bus, in front of her home between 3:45 and 3:50 pm on 3 October 1984.

No other family member was home.

Her schoolbag was found inside the home, along with the mail and newspapers which was CJ's job to bring inside everyday.

The recorder she received at school that day was found with her remains 3 months later.

Her bike was in the shed attached to the home where she normally left it, on it's side which is not how she normally left it. A jacket she may have worn to school that day was hinging on a peg too high for her to reach.

No one saw CJ travel to the corner store that day, with or without her bike, due south from her home and .7 km away. The store owner gave sworn testimony that CJ did in fact visit the store that day, a daily or almost daily routine.

CJ's mother claims she also went to the store that day, how much of a routine that was is not available, however the store owner disputed that and claimed she did not.

A male passenger in a car later claimed to have seen a young girl matching CJ's description standing outside the store that day talking to other children and holding a recorder like the one she received at school that day.

A couple claimed a few days later to have seen a child being held down in a car at the same intersection where the store is located when they came to a stop at that intersection - they never said it was CJ. The couple claims to have followed the car into a small subdivision and lost sight of it.
It is now known that the precise corner at this intersection and direction of travel of this sighting is incorrect in the KR. What this couple said and where this vehicle was coming from is confusing.

No one saw CJ travel back home from the store that day, with or without her bike.

The veracity of the sightings of CJ standing outside the store, in the store or being held down in a vehicle have never been substantiated or backed up with any other evidence - they are strictly the word of the person giving the statement.

There are no other reports regarding that day that can be found.

The latest news update on this case (Sept 2012) omits the male passenger sighting and the couple in the car seeing a child being held down. The report only claims that she went to the store that day (unseen), without her bike (which would take longer), was abducted from the park across the street from the store (unseen) and driven 50 kms away where she was found on 31 Dec 1984.
The same report has the abductor leaving the park and pulling up to the busy intersection of Leslie St and Queensville SR where they have to stop and wait for any traffic to clear (unseen and unreported), rather than turning east on Queensville SR where there would be no need to stop.

So far, there has been no value or contribution to what may have really happened to CJ by going over the wrongful conviction of 1992 and the exoneration of 1995. While it is good to know that story, raking it up seems to keep the case from progressing beyond CJ gathering up the family mail and newspaper(s) on 3 October 1984.
It would be great to see fresh ideas.
 
Quote Woodland:

"It would be great to see fresh ideas."


It would have been "great" to accommodate Christine's brother, long enough to hear everything he had to say.

RIP Christine.
 
New ideas still have to be based on some evidence, new evidence or clarified evidence would have been nice. Alas..

Discrediting previously accepted evidence to bring in new ideas is just needlessly muddying the waters even more imo.

W. where does this come from?
A jacket she may have worn to school that day was hinging on a peg too high for her to reach.
Click to expand...

She may have worn? I believe Ken and Janet knew what she wore and have stated so. No one has contested that from school bus driver to any other student or friend or family. Where do you find anything that suggests otherwise? If there is something to it, please show it. It was a key point to all.
 
Woodland said:
CJ is known to have stepped off her school bus, in front of her home between 3:45 and 3:50 pm on 3 October 1984.

No other family member was home.

Her schoolbag was found inside the home, along with the mail and newspapers which was CJ's job to bring inside everyday.

The recorder she received at school that day was found with her remains 3 months later.

Her bike was in the shed attached to the home where she normally left it, on it's side which is not how she normally left it. A jacket she may have worn to school that day was hinging on a peg too high for her to reach.

No one saw CJ travel to the corner store that day, with or without her bike, due south from her home and .7 km away. The store owner gave sworn testimony that CJ did in fact visit the store that day, a daily or almost daily routine.

CJ's mother claims she also went to the store that day, how much of a routine that was is not available, however the store owner disputed that and claimed she did not.

The store closed b4 she went there. Her testitmony at both trials states that. He never hinted at her lying, just stated he never saw her. Read the time she went out searching.
A male passenger in a car later claimed to have seen a young girl matching CJ's description standing outside the store that day talking to other children and holding a recorder like the one she received at school that day.

Read his statement.. She was alone...
A couple claimed a few days later to have seen a child being held down in a car at the same intersection where the store is located when they came to a stop at that intersection - they never said it was CJ. The couple claims to have followed the car into a small subdivision and lost sight of it.

It is now known that the precise corner at this intersection and direction of travel of this sighting is incorrect in the KR. What this couple said and where this vehicle was coming from is confusing.
The actual police and court statements state they saw the car turning right on ravenshoe from leslie. Featured many times by the defense. I never said that they identified Christine.. They saw a man fighting with a child... They never followed the car.. Nowhere in any document does it say this

No one saw CJ travel back home from the store that day, with or without her bike.

She was seen, and it was testified too... Thats why the liar never testified to seeing her on the corner

The veracity of the sightings of CJ standing outside the store, in the store or being held down in a vehicle have never been substantiated or backed up with any other evidence - they are strictly the word of the person giving the statement.
I believe Chris the storekeeper... There were people who saw her riding home. They weren't in the book because the defence agreed to the statement of facts.... She did go to the store, and rode her bike home. Atkinson was never called to testify by the defence because everyting he said was a lie.

There are no other reports regarding that day that can be found

There are hundreds of reports. You just haven't looked. The book was slanted to free an innocent man. I am glad it did, but so much was rumor and stories told to the author that the defence could and or didn't want in court.

The latest news update on this case (Sept 2012) omits the male passenger sighting and the couple in the car seeing a child being held down. The report only claims that she went to the store that day (unseen), without her bike (which would take longer), was abducted from the park across the street from the store (unseen) and driven 50 kms away where she was found on 31 Dec 1984.
The same report has the abductor leaving the park and pulling up to the busy intersection of Leslie St and Queensville SR where they have to stop and wait for any traffic to clear (unseen and unreported), rather than turning east on Queensville SR where there would be no need to stop.

What report is this? Because you have never mentioned b4... This is pure fiction. Because even the defense agreed she was taken from home.... I know you are lying here as NO report has her taken from anywhere but home. What report?

So far, there has been no value or contribution to what may have really happened to CJ by going over the wrongful conviction of 1992 and the exoneration of 1995. While it is good to know that story, raking it up seems to keep the case from progressing beyond CJ gathering up the family mail and newspaper(s) on 3 October 1984.

Everything is to be gained, it is the start of the truth coming out.... You spend so long battling over the minutia of the day based on the books account.. Now say it doesn't matter... Even in this post you go on about your facts of the day.... What the ****.....
It would be great to see fresh ideas.
Click to expand...

<modsnip>
 
Toronto Police Service :: News Release #48290
''On Thursday, October 15, 2020, at, 2:45 p.m., from the Media Gallery of Toronto Police Headquarters, Toronto Police Chief James Ramer will be joined by A/Staff Superintendent Peter Code, of Detective Operations, to provide an update on the 1984 murder of Christine Jessop.
Toronto Police News Conference re: 1984 Homicide of Christine Jessop | LiveStream | Thursday, October 15th, 2020 | 245pm''
 
NEWSTALK1010
@NEWSTALK1010

#BREAKING: Sources have told NEWSTALK 1010, that the case surrounding Christine Jessop is closed. The 9-year-old was last seen alive in Queensville, 36 years ago. It's unclear though, if there's been an arrest.
https://twitter.com/NEWSTALK1010/status/1316804441404833792?s=20


John Lancaster
@jlancasterCBC
·#Toronto police set to make an announcement regarding the 1984 murder of 9 yr old Christine Jessop. Has the killer been identified? Is he still alive? DNA was preserved from original crime scene. We’ll know more at 2:45.
https://twitter.com/jlancasterCBC/status/1316806085802688512?s=20
 

Calvin Hoover.
iHeartRadio
WATCH LIVE: DNA identifies Christine Jessop's killer 36 years later | Toronto Sun
''In an interview with the Sun last year, Christine’s brother, Ken, said he believes her killer was a pedophile, now dead, who knew the family and whose car was reportedly seen in their driveway that day.

Unlike many, he would have known their dad was in jail at the time and would have been able to lure Christine with the promise of taking her to him.''

Toronto police identify killer in Christine Jessop murder case from 1984
"Toronto police have identified the killer of nine-year-old Christine Jessop, who was abducted and murdered in 1984.

Calvin Hoover of Toronto has been identified through a DNA sample found on Christine Jessop's underwear. Hoover died in 2015. He would have been 28 in 1984. Police say he was known by family.""
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 766 (members: 147, guests: 619)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
619
Total visitors
766
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,871
Messages
18,148,081
Members
231,562
Latest member
GemGemma01
Back
Top