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

[Tealgrove]

I have understood for a long time, that it is legal for police to recover items discarded, whether it be the trash, recycling, etc. (Once discarded, the item becomes a free-for-all item.) This has come to light in other cases I have followed, both from way back when DNA technology started being utilized, and more recently.

I guess the thing with retrieving a discarded item would be that the officer in question would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, that it was retrieved without/before contamination could occur, and/or ensure the correct item was retrieved, as opposed to say, a different disposable cup discarded by someone uninvolved, etc. I guess the chances of a suspect's DNA matching a cup discarded by someone else would be unbelievable though?

But for an officer to deliberately trick a suspect into providing DNA through false identity (hairdresser?) and false pretenses (free haircut?), seems like another level, and that it should be disallowed??

OTOH, I suppose sting operations, recordings, jailhouse bunkies, are all really the same type of thing?

They got Christina Noudga's (Dellen Millard's Girlfriend) DNA from a straw in a cup that she discarded in a public garbage can at York University while she was under surveillance. So yup, it's legal.

 

[Tealgrove]

I find it incredible that Hoover was never interviewed. Quite frankly, SHOCKING.

MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

They got Christina Noudga's (Dellen Millard's Girlfriend) DNA from a straw in a cup that she discarded in a public garbage can at York University while she was under surveillance. So yup, it's legal.

It’s the trickery involved that stumps me, not so much them retrieving discarded items with DNA on it. Such as: masquerading as a hairstylist to cut somebody’s hair to get their DNA, or another case where LE pretended to canvass a neighborhood offering a chance for homeowners to win the cost of their mortgage but they had to fill out the form, insert it into the envelope and lick the envelope in their presence before giving it back to the “canvasser”. This does not seem right to me — the deception of it.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I find it incredible that Hoover was never interviewed. Quite frankly, SHOCKING.

MOO

Inconceivable really!

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, and so if the law stiuplates no access to DNA without a person willingly providing it, or without a search warrant — then I wonder why it’s permitted to be accessed through means of trickery or a discard sample. LE is going to get the sample regardless of the law.

I don’t see it as trickery. It can be compared to incriminating online communication or cellphone pings discovered during the course of a murder investigation. LE cannot demand the sender hand over their computer or cellphone unless it’s willingly provided or a search warrant is obtained. Much the same - an incriminating message sent to another, a cellphone call at a certain time or place....or DNA left on a discarded object all are indications of possible investigative avenues to pursue. What’s discovered then forms the basis of a search warrant to be issued. A search warrant is required to legally use the evidence in order to prosecute.

But this is leading toward off-topic. As CH was never a suspect and neither did the family consider him as such, his DNA wouldn’t have been of interest.

I think the real issue was the Jessop family held back some dark secrets including the earlier molestation of CJ as they eagerly jumped on the GPM bandwagon. Knowing what we know now, very regretfully the thought crosses my mind that CJ had been groomed by the earlier SA. I’m very disappointed neither her mother nor father failed to recognize that prior to her murder as this little girl’s entire life was rife with trauma IMO. The ramifications of early SA doesn’t vanish overnight. A 2nd trial of CH with all different testimony from family members, some of which they might not’ve initially disclosed to LE, could lead to the potential of CH pointing fingers toward jointly or solely incriminating Jessop family members of murder as well. DNA on underwear doesn’t prove who committed the murder, only who ejaculated on the underwear.

But the reality is we can’t turn back the clock. I doubt an inquiry will take place as there’s really no recommendations that could come from improving investigations in today’s world from one that took place decades ago. The cold case file would’ve only been as good as the faulty information originally collected as that’s all LE would’ve had to work with. We already know from the previous inquiry into the conviction of GPM how badly the investigation had been botched.

 

[SolVic]

Remember, everyone, it’s never okay to make fun of someone’s physical looks. It is a form of bullying, and bullying is wrong.

Except if the person you’re making fun of killed children. Then it’s okay.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I got from that, that it is part of the officer's summary report when LE was applying for a warrant to obtain DNA from CH's blood sample held at CFS, and that it came from HH's original statement in 1984..ie she had nothing to add and she had to run since her husband had the kids (which might cause one to wonder why she might be concerned about that?????????????)

Yes, I interpreted it to mean: She had nothing else to say. The interview is over. The kids need me. She must go now.

 

[Tealgrove]

I don’t see it as trickery. It can be compared to incriminating online communication or cellphone pings discovered during the course of a murder investigation. LE cannot demand the sender hand over their computer or cellphone unless it’s willingly provided or a search warrant is obtained. Much the same - an incriminating message sent to another, a cellphone call at a certain time or place....or DNA left on a discarded object all are indications of possible investigative avenues to pursue. What’s discovered then forms the basis of a search warrant to be issued. A search warrant is required to legally use the evidence in order to prosecute.

But this is leading toward off-topic. As CH was never a suspect and neither did the family consider him as such, his DNA wouldn’t have been of interest.

I think the real issue was the Jessop family held back some dark secrets including the earlier molestation of CJ as they eagerly jumped on the GPM bandwagon. Knowing what we know now, very regretfully the thought crosses my mind that CJ had been groomed by the earlier SA. I’m very disappointed neither her mother nor father failed to recognize that prior to her murder as this little girl’s entire life was rife with trauma IMO. The ramifications of early SA doesn’t vanish overnight. A 2nd trial of CH with all different testimony from family members, some of which they might not’ve initially disclosed to LE, could lead to the potential of CH pointing fingers toward jointly or solely incriminating Jessop family members of murder as well. DNA on underwear doesn’t prove who committed the murder, only who ejaculated on the underwear.

But the reality is we can’t turn back the clock. I doubt an inquiry will take place as there’s really no recommendations that could come from improving investigations in today’s world from one that took place decades ago. The cold case file would’ve only been as good as the faulty information originally collected as that’s all LE would’ve had to work with. We already know from the previous inquiry into the conviction of GPM how badly the investigation had been botched.

The sadness of Christine's life overwhelms me at times and now to realize that she was most likely groomed/targeted by a family friend makes it even so much more tragic.

Family secrets, maybe on both sides of the fence, could have sent the investigators in the wrong direction solely based on the information that they were provided at the time.

TBH, I don't feel any closure here and I'm not even family. I just have so many more questions and feel like a wound has reopened. Does that make sense?

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

The sadness of Christine's life overwhelms me at times and now to realize that she was most likely groomed/targeted by a family friend makes it even so much more tragic.

Family secrets, maybe on both sides of the fence, could have sent the investigators in the wrong direction solely based on the information that they were provided at the time.

TBH, I don't feel any closure here and I'm not even family. I just have so many more questions and feel like a wound has reopened. Does that make sense?

MOO

Yes it makes sense to me, indeed there’s no closure especially as so many years have passed, memories fade and not all individuals originally involved are still alive leaving no reliable means to prove the truth.

But then I think about, even now, how many accused plead not guilty, declaring their innocence, yet a judge or jury find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There’s really no closure there either because the accused is sent off to prison without ever having to publicly admit to the actual sequence of events that occurred or whether or not the Prosecution’s theory was 100% correct. Sometimes even the convicted individual cannot clearly recall events or maybe they just want to forget. Or if an accused pleads guilty, rarely do we learn a whole lot of details other aside from him or her admitting to the murder. As well, unlike 30 or 40 years ago, privacy and confidentiality legislation protecting victims rights and particularly that of children has come to pass, so detailed information often falls under a publication ban, which I strongly support.

I also think of GPM. After his conviction and prior to DNA exonerating him, I’d bet the prosectors, police officers and Jessop family all believed closure was achieved when in reality a wrongful conviction occurred. Had the internet been around back then, upon his conviction GPM would’ve been verbally crucified ten times over IMO.

The closure for me is CH eventually took his own life. I’d like to believe because the guilt eventually overwhelmed him. This probably wouldn’t have occurred had he served a prison term as our system is based on rehabilitation, not punishment.

Just my thoughts....

 

[deugirtni]

They got Christina Noudga's (Dellen Millard's Girlfriend) DNA from a straw in a cup that she discarded in a public garbage can at York University while she was under surveillance. So yup, it's legal.

Yes, that is the more recent case I followed from which that method was utilized.

 

[sibyl3]

I am saddened by all of the comments about the family keeping secrets. From everything I read from Ken, the family wasn't aware of the abuse that happened when they lived in Richmond Hill. The father was very upset when he did find out about it. It seems that it all came out after she died. Whether CH had the opportunity to abuse CJ before he murdered her, we don't know. The Jessop family has been through a lot and Ken cared so much about figuring out what happened that he publicly admitted to his own abuse and her involvement on 2 occasions, even though many have turned it into him abusing her, etc, which is untrue. Can you imagine him being a teenager in the boonies of southern Ontario and admitting to sexual abuse involving 2 other BOYS? The courage it took for him to face this publicly? Those were different days than we live in now and this poor kid is a hero for what he did... and then as an adult for years trying to solve her murder and dealing with this message board and who knows what else? I don't think it is right for us to be making judgements against this family who has experienced so much pain. It isn't necessary and has nothing to do with learning more about the truly guilty party in this. Sorry to go off, but some of those comments are just so cutting and unfair and I couldn't sit quiet about it any more, though I do honestly believe that none of you mean to cause any additional hurt, but hoping that my comments will draw a little sensitivity on the topic for the Jessops.

 

[Forest_Wood]

This news proves yet another example of how deadly LE tunnel vision corrupted this case. Mrs. Jessop's claim that CH was among friends who were allowed to enter her house without a family member present should have sent off red flags. That was ignored by LE due to tunnel vision, but it is surprising that CH was overlooked again when her case was passed on to TPS for fresh eyes to review her file in 1998. It makes me wonder if TPS received a complete file.

Good point! It appears that the fresh eyes of TPS in 1998 saw nothing new.

 

[MistyWaters]

I am saddened by all of the comments about the family keeping secrets. From everything I read from Ken, the family wasn't aware of the abuse that happened when they lived in Richmond Hill. The father was very upset when he did find out about it. It seems that it all came out after she died. Whether CH had the opportunity to abuse CJ before he murdered her, we don't know. The Jessop family has been through a lot and Ken cared so much about figuring out what happened that he publicly admitted to his own abuse and her involvement on 2 occasions, even though many have turned it into him abusing her, etc, which is untrue. Can you imagine him being a teenager in the boonies of southern Ontario and admitting to sexual abuse involving 2 other BOYS? The courage it took for him to face this publicly? Those were different days than we live in now and this poor kid is a hero for what he did... and then as an adult for years trying to solve her murder and dealing with this message board and who knows what else? I don't think it is right for us to be making judgements against this family who has experienced so much pain. It isn't necessary and has nothing to do with learning more about the truly guilty party in this. Sorry to go off, but some of those comments are just so cutting and unfair and I couldn't sit quiet about it any more, though I do honestly believe that none of you mean to cause any additional hurt, but hoping that my comments will draw a little sensitivity on the topic for the Jessops.

If the Jessop family held secrets, it was that CJ didn’t tell her parents about the sexual abuse at the time, nor did Ken. I’m in no way blaming him considering his age at the time but unfortunately it doesn’t change the fact it did happen.

The following is a hypothetical scenario - if the initial SA of a considerable duration over time had been known, how it could’ve changed the course of events. For example - studies have shown the children who suffer SA and don’t speak out for whatever reason are often abused by more than one culprit. Why is that? I’d assume it’s because they don’t totally understand how wrong it is, even if/when the initial abuse ceases.

But what if she confided her secret to a family friend she trusted instead of her parents so as not to get Ken in trouble - an adult such as CH? What if he crossed over the wrong side of morals and ethics and instead took advantage of her disclosure and the abuse then continued under the guise of it was indeed “normal”? What if CH hurt her, then suddenly he became frightened she would tell and so he murdered her to protect himself, while continuing to play the role of an loyal and helpful family friend?

If so, at the onset of the murdered investigation had there were any indications CH was extraordinary kind and nice toward the child, he might’ve fallen within LEs suspect list instead of a weird neighbour. That’s what I mean by family secrets and how it might’ve made a difference if LE knew everything there was to know at the onset of the murder investigation, if not before.

But unfortunately the clock cannot be wound back to 1984 or earlier but it’s just an example of how past events can lead toward future situations, a chain of actions or non-actions. I really have to doubt it’s a total coincidence an earlier sexually abused child is then murdered at the young age of 9 during a violent sexual attack. Ultimately it’s disturbing to me how it appears she had no one to protect her during her short life

 

[Forest_Wood]

Joanne Hoover Obituary - Welland, ON | ObitTree™
The obituary for CH’s 2nd wife, lists her as a stepmother for 4 boys/men with the Hoover last name. That means HH had 4 boys at home to take care of while her husband was out raping and killing a little girl. And she managed to squeeze in working a day job at the same place as CJ’s dad. How was he not needed at home that night? How did he get away with being out for the evening. Taking care of 4 boys would not be easy. He would have been needed at home. In light of today’s Toronto Star article, which says that CH also worked at the cable company with his wife and CJ’s dad, maybe he worked evenings and called in sick? We don’t know what he did there. Maybe he installed cable? Is that something that was done in the evening when people were home from work?

CH was only 28 and HH was 27 at the time of Christine’s murder, so I wonder if their other sons were born in later years? With 4 kids, it certainly shows they must have had an active life! One other thing that stood out to me. The second wife considered CH her “soul mate”. Hard to imagine that.

"Loving wife and soul mate of Cal Hoover of Waterdown.”

 

[Forest_Wood]

But for an officer to deliberately trick a suspect into providing DNA through false identity (hairdresser?) and false pretenses (free haircut?), seems like another level, and that it should be disallowed??

OTOH, I suppose sting operations, recordings, jailhouse bunkies, are all really the same type of thing?

When a person is not guilty (like GPM), it just seems so invasive.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Has anyone else noticed if it was reported that the Hoovers lived in Scarborough before this article? It seems like the first time I’m seeing that.

Police were told Calvin Hoover had access to Christine Jessop’s home — but her likely killer was never interviewed, documents reveal

 

[deugirtni]

When a person is not guilty (like GPM), it just seems so invasive.

Yes it does, but OTOH, in this particular case, wasn't it that DNA they took from GPM under false pretenses which exonerated him? If it had instead been a match, that would have been game over for him, considering they had already convicted him based on other (bogus) considerations. Imagine if those options were not available to LE to obtain DNA from a POI/suspect, and GPM had declined to offer it when asked (which could also be understandable in his position, I'm sure he wouldn't have had much trust or faith in the justice system at that point?), he would still likely be in jail, forever known as the killer.

 

[MistyWaters]

Has anyone else noticed if it was reported that the Hoovers lived in Scarborough before this article? It seems like the first time I’m seeing that.

Police were told Calvin Hoover had access to Christine Jessop’s home — but her likely killer was never interviewed, documents reveal

As Scarborough is a borough of Toronto IMO either reference would be geographically correct.

“Calvin Hoover, of Toronto, Ontario, was 28 years old in 1984.
He was known to the Jessop family at the time of Christine’s disappearance.“
Toronto Police Service :: News Release #48291

“Heather and Calvin Hoover were living in Toronto in 1984 when Christine Jessop was murdered. Toronto Police said the Hoovers had a "friendly acquaintance" relationship with the Jessop family at the time.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hoover-family-devastated-by-murder-accusation-1.5771340

 

[Forest_Wood]

Yes it does, but OTOH, in this particular case, wasn't it that DNA they took from GPM under false pretenses which exonerated him? If it had instead been a match, that would have been game over for him, considering they had already convicted him based on other (bogus) considerations. Imagine if those options were not available to LE to obtain DNA from a POI/suspect, and GPM had declined to offer it when asked (which could also be understandable in his position, I'm sure he wouldn't have had much trust or faith in the justice system at that point?), he would still likely be in jail, forever known as the killer.

Excellent point Deugirtni! It works both ways.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes it does, but OTOH, in this particular case, wasn't it that DNA they took from GPM under false pretenses which exonerated him? If it had instead been a match, that would have been game over for him, considering they had already convicted him based on other (bogus) considerations. Imagine if those options were not available to LE to obtain DNA from a POI/suspect, and GPM had declined to offer it when asked (which could also be understandable in his position, I'm sure he wouldn't have had much trust or faith in the justice system at that point?), he would still likely be in jail, forever known as the killer.

I’m not sure if DNA was taken from GPM under false pretences but it was analysis of the stains that proved his innocence.

“Several previous attempts to perform DNA testing on the semen stains found on Christine’s underpants had been unsuccessful, but the technology had now advanced enough that a more sophisticated test could be conducted. This test proved that the DNA in question could not belong to Guy....”
Guy Paul Morin - Innocence Canada