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

[Dedpanman]

And, just to clarify - the killer could have been a Queensville resident... but, that seems awfully risky to snatch a child in your own hometown where someone might recognize you or your car. Still, it's not impossible.

If the killer wasn't from Queensville, he certainly lived nearby. Maybe a rural farm... but, I'm still leaning towards Sunderland. My gut says he's from that general area... and had a reason to be in Queensville that day... he was running an errand for an employer perhaps (and maybe had a reason to go to the Jessop house -- "Jessop Sales"), or, he worked in the cemetery...? Or, he was in town because he had family that lived there...

I'm writing this and I'm not convinced of my own ideas here. Just... putting cards on the table... Comparing this to behaviour patterns in other similar crimes.

 

[Dedpanman]

This is a screen shot of the Jessop house in 1984. I think we can assume that's Christine's bicycle in the picture. Any damage is minimal. (This is a key factor in understanding what happened that day.)

The screen shot is from a video clip - taken from CBC's "The National" - Canada's major news program. You can watch the clip, which was broadcast Jan. 1, 1985 - the day after Christine's body was found.

Follow this link:

http://rc-archives.cbc.ca/programs/736-17241/page/47/

 

[Woodland]

All very good points and info Dedpanman.

I understand the mainstream thinking on organized and unorganized killers, but respectfully have never bought into only 2 categories. To me, the human mind is far to complex for that. I believe in a type that is inbetween the two, or many types. Clifford Olsen is one reason - his victims were boys and girls, ranging in age from 10 to 18 or so, killed and disposed of in different fashions. He somewhat planned, improvised, was sloppy and still managed 11 victims over a two-year period.

I think Christine's killer did watch and wait for an opportunity. When that opportunity arose he had some thoughts on what to do, especially in kidnapping her, and improvised from there - with some help at hiding and disposing of her. I believe the rage in what he did to her body after she died was always there. That took time.

Recently read a good article from The Star printed many years ago. I have trouble copying from their 'Pages of the Past' but will find the date and page no. and quote some of it. It relates to the disagreement that existed after the second autopsy on what caused some of her injuries and the time required to do what was done.

 

[Dedpanman]

Fair enough, Woodland. We're actually pretty close in our thinking about what may have happened that day, we just diverge slightly when it comes to our impressions of the killer. I'm not firmly committed to any one theory at this time, even if it sounds as if I am. I think it's important to keep an open mind and be ready to consider new information if and when it becomes available - even if means tossing out pet theories. Don't get me wrong - I'm not implying that you're not doing this - I'm just sharing my own philosophy. I try to use the Scientific Method as a means of working out problems. If the experiment results indicate that the hypothesis is wrong, then it should be scrapped and a new one considered. Unfortunately, this is something that the police investigators of the day could not do. They got stuck in their one theory and rode it all the way to their doom. I suspect, based on your posts "elsewhere", that you have done some significant investigation on your own and this new information is leading you in that direction in terms of a theory about the offender (or should I say offenders?). Stay with it. I'm very interested in The Star article info if you can share it here.

 

[Dedpanman]

Woodland, it's also interesting what you point out about Olsen - that he had attributes of both organized and unorganized. Now that I think of it... so did Zodiac.

Food for thought.

I think the big question to springboard from all of this is: do you think Christine's killer killed again? If yes, did his M.O. change? What other crimes might be attributed to C's killer?

Did C's killer get apprehended for some other crime and is already in prison?

Or, did he stop and never killed again?

Is he dead?

 

[Woodland]

Throwing this out for thought - when you kidnap a 9 year-old around 4:00 pm in early October, it's still light out. There are more than 3 hours of light left - while it's getting dark, one can still see say 100 feet or so up to about 7:30 pm (have tested before what I can see on 3 October after 4:00 pm).

So, what does one do then? Drive 50 kms across a fairly well used road for locals while trying to control the child? If you manage the drive and arrive at the spot where she was found, you then have a choice - the ground on a path or the trailer that was on the property. Both are not visible from the road. No one ever suggested Christine was in that trailer or that a struggle of any kind occurred in the trailer.

Or would you high tail it to a location close-by and get off the road? A place you knew you could go to unseen, like a 100 acre farm? If one had been thinking about this for some time, seems to me the location would be the first part of the plan.

 

[Woodland]

Very cool on the Cabbage Patch doll. How many she had would be great to know. Hmmm, buried with one - only one then? If there were two, why not bury her with two? I would if I had to.

Chuckles on WPS. Give me a few minutes on how to approach this. My spouse would be most unhappy if I was ever sued.

Nothing would please me more that to scream what I know from the nearest rooftop. My family and many cops know, but it does not amount to a DNA match.

 

[Dedpanman]

Woodland, in regard to when C's body was dumped out in that field, when do you think it was put there? There's a lot of conflicting pieces for a definitive answer. I haven't ruled out that she was there by the morning of October 4. You feel otherwise, I'm sure. Convince me, for the sake of discussion.

 

[Woodland]

Personally I think Christine was deceased by Thanksgiving but not yet placed where she was eventually found. It was risky to move her if she was in Queensville, so many people were looking for her and cops were everywhere.

One should only do this under the cover of darkness imo, but one could easily get pulled over late at night at that time as well.

If one had a sizable farm though, waiting it out could be done.

 

[Dedpanman]

Aha! Yes, the memory-thing... Did he actually smell something decomposing prior to C being found, or did suggestion and imagination create a false memory? Difficult to say, because unlike the witness testimony concerning C's sightings in and around the intersection, there are no other witness testimonies to cross- reference this with. The "intersection/store witnesses" are easier to discount because by cross-referencing them against a very narrow timeline, they fall apart. Here, though, this is another matter as there is only one person involved. I took my dog for a walk on a farm last night, and as we were walking along the edge of the farm's outermost field, I was struck by how tall the grass and weeds were where the field turned into small trees and then into woods. I thought to myself - anything could be hidden in there. Would I smell a body if there was one in the grass there? Perhaps not if the breeze was not blowing the odor my way. That's why I'm thinking it's possible the body was there as early as October 4. That, and the fact that the body was found in a state of advanced decomposition. Another factor is the size and amount of cover provided by the remains of late summer grass and weeds.

 

[Dedpanman]

I also agree with your scenario as a possibility. She was held somewhere for a time, then moved under the cover of darkness.... But why place her where she will be eventually found when there are so many places in that area where she would never be found?

 

[Woodland]

An historical tie to the area or that lot?

Whatever the reason, the placement says to me the killer wanted her to be found eventually.

Sonia Varaschin (spelling?) was in a bush/swamp area off the road and a dog walker could tell something/someone was decomposing and called LE. A jogger had noticed the same thing the day before and returned the next day to check it out. Mid-September or so. I don't think her killer wanted her to be found, at least not quickly. Jmo.

 

[Dedpanman]

See, I think this is the most vital part of the case: the body site, as everything else is guesswork regarding what the killer did and how he did it. With the crime scene in Sunderland, we KNOW more about what the killer actually did and it speaks louder about him than anything else. There was so much damage done to her body, it's hard to imagine it was done to her elsewhere and then transported there in such a state. But there's some weird things too - like how the second autopsy findings indicated that a lot of the injuries to C were on her back, yet she was found face up, legs spread wide. More contradictory pieces of the puzzle...

 

[Woodland]

The unnatural splaying of the legs may have happened during decomposition. The first pathologist took x-rays to see if her hips were dislocated, they were not. He found it very unusual and it looked like a violent act - it's not definitive though.

That splaying of the legs seems to have led many to conclude a rape occurred there. Again, it's not definitive in any report.

The Kaufman report and Makin's account differ as to how she was found. In the Star, 23 January 1986, during the first trial, she is reported to have been found on her back. So she seems to have been moved around during the brutal attacks, no one seems to know where that is though.

 

[Woodland]

I agree where she was found is absolutely vital. There is a discrepancy in the Land Registry document from quite some time ago - it looks altered.

I have land registry records for the area dating back to day 1 - a certain size form is used for all. A new but similar form was used starting in the early 80's - some of the columns are a different size.

The doc for Lot 24, where Christine was found, has been cut in half and the new form is used for the bottom half - with dates from an era prior to the use of that size form.

Will try to find a way to have it scanned and post it here. There is a line missing as well for a sale that occurred just prior to where the cut is - what's missing is how the seller came into possession of the lot in order to sell it. I pointed this out to a senior employee at the Durham Land Registry office - he looked mortified but would not look further into it. That would bring their integrity into question. I was refused access to the original doc - one can only see them on tape now.

 

[LadyL]

Firstly, thank you Dedpanman for making a thread for Christine.

I think Christine did go to the park, as she was found with her recorder and she had plans to meet her friend so they could play with their recorders. I think the speculation about riding/not riding her bike is pointless. For every child who rode their bike everywhere, there are just as many who don't. I think she walked the short distance to the store, bought her gum and wandered over to the park with her recorder. Some creep abducted her there prior to her friend's arrival IMO. If there are inconsistencies with witnesses approximation of times they saw Christine, I don't think that negates her being at the store. Also, other inconsistencies are possible, such as the time the bus driver dropped her off might not be exact. The slight damage to the bike is a red herring IMO.

Douglas' theory that the murderer was from the area because no one else would've been able to find that remote location is silly. Every time I see this theory (and that's often), I think it's silly. Anyone can get in a car and just keep driving until they find the ideal spot to hide a body. And anyone can cruise small towns looking for victims.

Regarding the semen in Christine's underwear - I don't think it's necessarily true there was a second assault. The perp could've deposited that while the underwear was partially or completely off. I don't understand the correalation at all that because there was semen in her underwear that there must have been a second assault.

The injuries to her back aren't contradictory if she was found on her back. She was probably dragged, pushed, held down, and assaulted in that position, which would cause injuries.

I think Christine was there the whole time. The neighbour said he smelled something earlier and he probably did.

Just wanted to add some thoughts ... feel free to tear them apart. And thank you again for remembering Christine.

 

[Dedpanman]

Lady L - thanks for sharing your thoughts - I'm not going to tear them apart. Your take on the scenario has as much merit as anyone else's. I just think that it's important to try and establish where she was taken and the bike is a factor in her movements that day.

 

[Dedpanman]

Some general thoughts on this information:

The arrangement of the body with its legs splayed and the fact that all of her clothing was removed (except for socks) suggests, but doesn't prove, a sexual assault here. Highly probably, I think. The strange angle of the legs could be due to muscle atrophy... but she is naked.

The head wrapped up in the clothing: It's still unclear to me if this was a decapitation or a near-decapitation or something that looked like a decapitation because her throat was severly cut and animals had moved parts of the body over time.

I wonder if the killer wrapped her head because he didn't want to look at her face as he cut her neck.

The description of where the body was found: Depending on who you read and how you read it, it's either possible that the body could have been hidden by vegetation for the duration (October to December) or, that it wasn't possible. It's a strange collection of descriptions.

At one point in the past, I actually drew a diagram of this crime scene based on the facts here. It was a disturbing picture and I wouldn't feel comfortable posting it here - but it was interesting to see all of the facts together in one central image.

I'm not sure what it said. How it made me feel: Angry that whoever did this got away with it.

 

[Dedpanman]

In terms of the Cabbage Patch doll (do I sound like I'm making too much of this?), I think it's really compelling to hear that taking the dolls to the park was something these girls had done in the past. If they had planned to do that on Oct. 3, it could be really significant where C's doll was evenutally found - and it probably was the one buried with her. If it was in her room, then it's highly likely that she never made the journey to the store/park -which seems to suggest that the abduction did not happen at the park or near the busy intersection. It happened near her home or the cemetery shortly after she got off the bus.

If the doll was found near the door of the house, or outside the door, or near where the bike was found - then it suggests she made the journey to the store/park and came all the way back home... and still - she was abducted from her home or the cemetery. But, then, it would be within minutes of Janet and Ken getting home.

She had her recorder, but she didn't have her doll...

 

[Woodland]

I don't think you are making too much of the CP doll. It seems very key - Christine and her friend took their dolls to the park on a daily or near daily basis according to the friends testimony, and was planned for 3 October 1984 as well.

No one else makes mention of that fact - I think you are very much onto something.

Janet J should have pointed this out the evening she went missing, imo. It could have changed the course of events.