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

[celtgirl68]

I am bothered by the recorder. They had just had them given out that day.

If she went home she shouldn't have it with her unless she was going to show her new friend the recorder as well as play with dolls.

How did it become part of the kidnap?

Why it is beside her body? I assume they tested the recorder to make sure it hadn't been used in a sexual assault of Christine - many of these kinds of perpetrators are impotent or semi-impotent.

It it pure surmise but did the 'phallic' aspect of the recorder trigger someone seeing 40 pound Christine with it? (since power over this small girl seems to be part of the scenario). If the recorder has little 'meaning' then it suggests she was scooped up and taken to that site o/w it had meaning to the perp symbolic or o/w and they brought it along probably the latter is correct.

To me this plays to the idea that someone lured her telling her they were taking her to see her father- hence she would want to show off her recorder. Otherwise, had there been any sort of struggle at that initial point of contact, the recorder would have been dropped, imo.

 

[celtgirl68]

Also there is likely to be something historically wrong with relations between adults and children in the area that would make is possible for Christine in this small village to be the victim of serial sexual crimes by br's friends and then be murdered in this sadistic manner and then be the victim of serious investigative lapses.

I too, would really like to see you expand on this idea. I can't help but think that Christine's prior sexual abuse is related to her abduction and murder.

 

[Chorley8]

That evening, however, Const Cameron asked Sgt Michalowsky when the cigarette butt had been discovered. From Sgt Michalowsky's answer, Const Cameron determined that the butt had been discovered prior to his arrival at the body site. Accordingly, he felt that the butt could not have been his. At the second trial, Cameron said that he contacted Det Fitzpatrick and Crown attorney Susan MacLean to advise them of this fact but he was unsure of precisely when he did this. In cross-examination at the first trial, Const Cameron said that the brand of cigarette he regularly smoked was Craven Menthol. During the subsequent cross-examination of Insp Shephard at the first trial, he noted that the cigarette butt, tendered as an exhibit, was not a Craven Menthol. On March 14, 1990, prior to the second trial, it was discovered that Sgt Michalowsky had prepared duplicate notebooks of the M investigation. The second set of notebooks included an account of a conversation at the body site in which Const Cameron allegedly indicated to Michalowsky that the cigarette butt found in the area was his. Ultimately, at the second trial, the Crown conceded that the cigarette butt introduced at the first trial was not the one found at the body site, and was not the butt depicted in the photograph marked as an exhibit. The Crown also conceded that the cigarette butt depicted in the photograph taken at the body site had been lost. Sgt Michalowsky said at the second trial that it was only on May 29, 1990, in the course of being questioned by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) that he became aware that another photograph tendered as an exhibit at the first trial, depicted not a cigarette butt, but a piece of birchbark. He added he did not know how it came to be that the cigarette butt tendered in evidence at the first trial was not the cigarette butt found at the body site in the vicinity of the remains of CJ.

In the summer of 1990, following an Ontario Provincial Police investigation, Sgt Michalowsky was charged with perjury (for allegedly knowingly making false statements under oath), wilfully attempting to obstruct justice (for allegedly preparing and testifying from the second undisclosed notebook), and wilfully attempting to obstruct justice (for allegedly tendering a cigarette he falsely claimed to have seized at the body site). On November 12, 1991, these charges were stayed by O’Connell J of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), due to Michalowsky’s ill health. The Crown declined to call Sgt Michalowsky as a witness.

The defence brought a variety of applications in response. The defence position was that if the Crown elected not to call Sgt Michalowsky, it was precluded from leading the expert opinion evidence regarding hair and fibre exhibits which had at one time been in Sgt Michalowsky’s possession and control. Without the evidence of Sgt Michalowsky, the defence submitted there was no foundation for that opinion evidence. The trial judge ruled that the hair and fibre evidence was admissible without the necessity of the Crown calling Sgt Michalowsky in that there was evidence identifying the exhibits in question. The issue of continuity was not a matter of admissibility but of the weight to be assigned to the evidence. The defence brought a second application to compel the Crown to call Sgt Michalowsky, as a consequence of the Crown being allowed to file hair and fibre exhibits. In the alternative, the defence sought an order compelling the Crown to call Michalowsky for the purpose of making him available to the defence for cross-examination, or, in the further alternative, an order whereby the Court would call Michalowsky. The trial judge ruled that none of these orders were required to ensure a fair trial, noting that Sgt Michalowsky had said for 5 days on the stay application and the defence may have resort to section 9 of the Canada Evidence Act. The defence subpoenaed Sgt Michalowsky. Counsel for Sgt Michalowsky applied for an order quashing the subpoena issued to Michalowsky on the basis that his physical and emotional health did not permit him to testify. On the application, several doctors were heard. Donnelly J ruled that subject to Dr Rowsell’s final opinion, Sgt Michalowsky would testify in the presence of Dr Rowsell who would monitor his condition and advise as to the taking of recesses.

Very very very strange stuff. And has been well pointed out here just the tip of the iceberg. What was going on?

 

[ttcRider]

The issue of “time of day” crossed my mind but I was so absorbed with other things that I failed to include it in my analysis – so thanks for mentioning that, Woodland.

It seems hard to believe that the killer did what he did at the crime scene at night. How would he see? A flashlight? That would render him one-handed. I can’t picture that. And, the body was far enough back from the tractor trail and surrounded by trees and bushes – so the vegetation would have blocked headlight beams from a vehicle. That pretty much means – in my mind – that the killer was operating at that spot during daylight hours – but that could mean close to sundown as well.

The point is – if the killer was not there dumping her body at night – that effectively cancels out the testimony concerning screams being heard during the night. (I never really had much faith in those claims, anyway.) Also, if the killer was brazen enough to do what he did during daylight hours – he certainly knew the location well and new the visitation patterns of those who frequented the property (the Culls, the Pattersons). It would have taken some time to do what he did, and he would need light to do it.

The man had no fear of being interrupted.

Would you think he could have done this in front of his car with the headlights on?

 

[Dedpanman]

Would you think he could have done this in front of his car with the headlights on?

It’s not impossible – but I can’t really picture it. It just seems incredibly risky.

That’s assuming he’s doing “his work” in the clearing – closer to the tractor trail – not back in the trees where she was found. The headlights would be like stage lights – lighting up the killer in the darkness and everything he was doing with the body. If the Pattersons happened to look out their window across their field – they’d see headlights at the body dump site. If they can see a stray dog at the site from their house they’d probably see the silhouette of a man there standing in the headlights.

Again, that seems way too risky for this guy. Everything he did was invisible. No one saw him – or, if they did – they didn’t realize it.

The problem with the killer using his headlights to illuminate the actual spot where she was found is that too many bushes and little trees would block the light. He wouldn’t be able to see what he was doing that way.

 

[Dedpanman]

I am bothered by the recorder. They had just had them given out that day.

If she went home she shouldn't have it with her unless she was going to show her new friend the recorder as well as play with dolls.

How did it become part of the kidnap?

I am leaning towards two possibilities.

a) Christine had the recorder pouch drawstring around her wrist when she was abducted and could not drop it. (I got my hands on a plastic recorder and pouch recently – and even though it’s smaller than the one Christine had – the pouch drawstring fitted easily around my adult hand.)

b) Christine took the recorder because the person who abducted her said he was taking her to visit her father.

Clarification: her new friend wasn’t new. Christine had an established friendship with Leslie Chipman. They were in the same class – so, presumably, Chipman got a recorder that day too.

It would be interesting to know if Chipman took her recorder and doll to the park to meet Christine that day or not.

Since the recorder seems to have been found closer to the tractor trail (but there is conflicting information on this), perhaps it was the last item to get tossed out of the killer’s vehicle before he left?

 

[Woodland]

Was pondering why someone would move skeletal remains.

To continue to conceal the remains if the killer felt they might be found - which does not appear to be the case here.

To erase evidence? Did Christine's killer(s) wait until she was skeletal before moving her to a location where she was likely to be found in order for evidence to be difficult if not impossible to detect? Exact COD, body fluids, trace evidence for example?

Could this be comparable to someone placing a body in water to wash away evidence?

 

[jobo]

I also agree it would be too risky to go to the trailer site and have your lights on for any length of time. After all, he had no problem abducting Christine in broad daylight.

The area where he left Christine is so rural, like Dedpanman says....Mr P. would notice the lights, or maybe one of the other few houses.....they are few and far between.

Please refresh me, where exactly did Mr P live? Was it the property to the SE?

I have a hard time deciding between a and b in your Post #977. I tend to lean towards b.

Woodland, I feel that she wasn't quite skeletonized when disposed of @ the trailer site.
It is very hard to determine how long she was there, though. Could the fact that she showed signs of possible drowning, or near drowning, could it have any bearing on the decomposition rate?
Around here (which is not far from there) this fall, I noticed the flies were really annoying and abundant a few weeks ago, trying to get in the house. The nights are cold and they are looking for warmth. Today, which is the second lovely day in a row, I am not seeing any flies, and haven't for about a week.
This is the time of year Christine was murdered, I am trying to take notice of all the small things that are happening in nature, in case a bell goes off.

 

[Dedpanman]

Around here (which is not far from there) this fall, I noticed the flies were really annoying and abundant a few weeks ago, trying to get in the house. The nights are cold and they are looking for warmth. Today, which is the second lovely day in a row, I am not seeing any flies, and haven't for about a week.

This is the time of year Christine was murdered, I am trying to take notice of all the small things that are happening in nature, in case a bell goes off.

I’m glad you mentioned that, Jobo. I concur regarding the flies. All through September and into October, we’ve had more flies slipping into our house that we have all year. Not once during the summer – and then, during a four week span – every couple of days – one would fly in and I’d be chasing them around with the flyswatter. I think they sense the cooler weather and a warm current of air from an open door attracts them.

I’ve been conducting some informal experiments with maggots this fall (I’m shaking my head, as I write this - I must sound crazy...) - leaving out the same type of spoiled food in the same place once a week. All through September – maggots would appear in approximately six or seven days. Once we got to October and some cooler weather – the maggot activity dropped off to nothing. Haven’t seen them. That tells me the flies have gone dormant. With the temperature climbing again this week, I’ll see what happens.

In terms of maggots and cold weather I’ve been doing some reading on them (and what wonderful reading it is) and I’ve learned a few things. For example: they can survive inside a corpse in cold weather when they’re in a big mass because their activities produce heat.

None of this proves anything – I just responded to your note about “trying to take notice of all the small things that are happening in nature, in case a bell goes off”.

The goldenrod is tall, too. Perfect for hiding a body.

 

[Dedpanman]

Was pondering why someone would move skeletal remains.

To continue to conceal the remains if the killer felt they might be found - which does not appear to be the case here.

To erase evidence? Did Christine's killer(s) wait until she was skeletal before moving her to a location where she was likely to be found in order for evidence to be difficult if not impossible to detect? Exact COD, body fluids, trace evidence for example?

Could this be comparable to someone placing a body in water to wash away evidence?

If the remains were concealed somewhere and left to decompose (skeletonise), then surely they were in a place of low risk for discovery. And, if the killer(s) were that clever and confident about leaving the remains to decompose (at an unknown location prior to their transport to the body dump site) and they were that leisurely about getting around to actually disposing of the remains...

When ready, why not just dig a nice deep hole somewhere in the woods anywhere around Sunderland and bury them? They would never be found.

Why bother creating an elaborate staging on the Culls’ property? Why risk the body being discovered - period? Because the killer(s) were sadistic freaks and they enjoyed playing with a months-dead body that had become bones? They were anticipating the media-circus to come?

Maybe.
I mean, there are precedents. Example: the Green River Killer (Gary Ridgeway) enjoyed messing around with long-dead body parts. Switching and mixing parts between corpses, etc. And, there are others.

There just seems to be a disconnect for me between those two ideas in this case, though.

I have to give this some more thought.
My mind’s not totally made up.

 

[Woodland]

I agree jobo that Christine had some tissue remaining at autopsy. The tissue was dry and described as parchment like. It's my understanding that the stabbing to her upper body (knife or other instrument) caused that part of her body to decompose faster than her lower body or head.

Interesting about the insect activity in your area. I was soon going to post that if it isn't raining here, I still have a fair bit of insect activity both above and below ground, but am not as close to Sunderland as you are.

Mr P did or does live due south of the Sunderland property. It is accessed from Highway 2.

 

[jobo]

Thanks, I know which place you are talking about, then, Woodland. Pretty sure he/they would notice car headlights on the trailer property then.

Only the last two days have been nice, lots of rain previously, but I was outside all day yesterday, and in and out today and haven't seen a fly in these two days.

 

[Woodland]

DPM - have not heard or read the description 'elaborate' with regards to the finding of Christine's remains. When used with a thought I have expressed it denotes something entirely different than what I meant.

I think Christine was meant to be found at some point by virtue of the location, but have no idea if it was an original plan or after thought. If she was placed in Sunderland later, the more leisurely pace would be when the activity to look for her had dropped off.

If the killer(s) didn't want her to be found, then they had plenty of opportunity for that.

Someone did mess with Christine's remains at some point by vertically slicing her breastbone.

 

[ttcRider]

I’m glad you mentioned that, Jobo. I concur regarding the flies. All through September and into October, we’ve had more flies slipping into our house that we have all year. Not once during the summer – and then, during a four week span – every couple of days – one would fly in and I’d be chasing them around with the flyswatter. I think they sense the cooler weather and a warm current of air from an open door attracts them.

I’ve been conducting some informal experiments with maggots this fall (I’m shaking my head, as I write this - I must sound crazy...) - leaving out the same type of spoiled food in the same place once a week. All through September – maggots would appear in approximately six or seven days. Once we got to October and some cooler weather – the maggot activity dropped off to nothing. Haven’t seen them. That tells me the flies have gone dormant. With the temperature climbing again this week, I’ll see what happens.

In terms of maggots and cold weather I’ve been doing some reading on them (and what wonderful reading it is) and I’ve learned a few things. For example: they can survive inside a corpse in cold weather when they’re in a big mass because their activities produce heat.

None of this proves anything – I just responded to your note about “trying to take notice of all the small things that are happening in nature, in case a bell goes off”.

The goldenrod is tall, too. Perfect for hiding a body.

Glad its not just my house with all the flies.. we just moved into this house and was getting a bit freaked out. :giggle:

 

[dotr]

I agree jobo that Christine had some tissue remaining at autopsy. The tissue was dry and described as parchment like. It's my understanding that the stabbing to her upper body (knife or other instrument) caused that part of her body to decompose faster than her lower body or head.

Interesting about the insect activity in your area. I was soon going to post that if it isn't raining here, I still have a fair bit of insect activity both above and below ground, but am not as close to Sunderland as you are.

Mr P did or does live due south of the Sunderland property. It is accessed from Highway 2.

Any chance the perp. made those incisions to hasten bug activity and promote decomposition?

 

[Woodland]

That could very well be dotr - if the perp is/was a long term resident of the rural area of Queensville or Sunderland, including farm life, they might know a thing or two about what happens when a living thing dies.

 

[Dedpanman]

DPM - have not heard or read the description 'elaborate' with regards to the finding of Christine's remains.

What I meant by that was this:

A killer, or killers showing up at the Culls' property with essentially a bag full of bones, and then arranging them basically in anatomical order (head to the north, feet to the south, everything else in between), posing the legs, placing the clothing, the recorder, etc. would be elaborate as opposed to just dumping everything in a random pile and then leaving.

 

[Woodland]

Christine's upper body was not in anatomical order when she was found.

RR page 53 - quoting Fred Patterson - The upper torso was a scattered collection of bones, but the child's legs were unmistakable.'

RR page 55 - quoting Det BF - 'A chatty little schoolgirl had been reduced to a sodden pile of bones ...'

RR page 56 - quoting Det BF - 'I then noticed a ball of clothing off to the side of the body.'
____________________________

We have already posted that a piece of plywood was maneuvered under her entire remains - a few bones were out of reach and were gathered up. I find it difficult to believe that if there was animal activity, those animals left her in one place. Wild animals, regardless of their size, do not stand and feed together - they take their portion and run off with it.

All it would have taken to place Christine in a skeletal state where she was found was to tip whatever container she may have been transported in, then her clothes and the recorder. Mere minutes.

I don't think she was posed at that point - see scenario E.

 

[Dedpanman]

Christine's upper body was not in anatomical order when she was found.

*****

All it would have taken to place Christine in a skeletal state where she was found was to tip whatever container she may have been transported in, then her clothes and the recorder. Mere minutes.

I don't think she was posed at that point - see scenario E.

I was responding to your statement in post 978:

“Did Christine's killer(s) wait until she was skeletal before moving her to a location where she was likely to be found in order for evidence to be difficult if not impossible to detect?”

Woodland, you’re right - she was mostly a scattered skeleton. I was speaking in VERY general terms when I said, “basically in anatomical order”. Her head was pointed north, her legs and feet to the south and everything else was in between (scattered) – and that’s still a “human shape pattern” in my books. Maybe that’s the phrase I should have used instead.

If her killer(s) waited until she was skeletal before she was brought to the field – and then dumped her – I would expect to see no pattern to the remains at all. A total random jumble of bones all over the place. That does not seem to be the case. Based on that “human shape pattern” on the ground - I don't think she arrived at the site as a completely disarticulated skeleton.

If she was a disarticulated skeleton, and dumped on the ground – as you’re suggesting – then, someone (the killer, or killers) did some basic arranging before leaving – and that basic arrangement got messed up by animals scavenging.

All that being said – I don’t think that’s what happened here.
I think she might very well have been dead when she was taken there (to the Culls' property)… but, I don’t think she was skeletal.

 

[Woodland]

Believing scenario E is not required by anyone.

It does account for what is known though and unfortunately would put the killer into the category of 'organized.'

What's next?