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

[Dedpanman]

I'm been reading up on pedophiles and child killers, and making note of their patterns. This is what I've "discovered" - but you pointed this out to me several posts ago.

A lot of these guys have a secondary location that they take the child to. These crimes usually (but not always) have 3 parts:

1 - The abduction

2 - Relocation of the child to a house/apartment where the perpetrator is free to indulge in his sick fantasy. The murder sometimes happens here, somtimes another relocation happens:

3 - The disposal site - where the body is dumped or buried. Sometimes the killing happens here.

Woodland, I must admit, you've halfway convinced me that this is the most likely scenario. And looking back at my "essay" I compared the Jessop case to the Katie Collman case - and I'd like to point out here that in the Collman case there was a secondary location after the abduction - it was so close to the site of the abduction that I couldn't see it. Stockelman basically pulled Katie off the street (abduction) into his mother's house (secondary location) and raped her, the drove her to the spot where he killed her and left her body (disposal).

With all the strange pieces we've mentioned before in regards to the body site, it's... almost certain there was a secondary location for the first sexual assault. The patterns suggest it. The facts suggest it. But, the police never factored that in to the "official' story because that wouldn't fit with their stupid narrow timeline in regards to persecuting GPM.

Now, if you back off on "framing him" and look at thinks objectively and logically... there probably was a secondary location. A house. An apartment. A barn. Some place where the killer could play out his fantasy with this child.

If we could eliminated the possibility that C was in the Sunderland field in early October (that diagram I was talking about)... then a new picture of this crime forms.

At least in my mind. Sounds like you've been on this track for some time.
I think I'm there now, myself.

 

[Dedpanman]

"I've always wanted to go the house now on the property and ask them if it's okay to take some pics using the written info as a guide. Maybe they are in a position to point things out."

Yes, I must admit, I've considered that too, but honestly, I wouldn't want to bother the people who live there given the fact that our information (at least mine) is so incomplete that I can't even sketch out a diagram that is even half-way definitive. I have a feeling one would be fumbling around with little success.

The crime scene is almost 30 years old, so all of the trees have grown up. The property is developed; construction vehicles and possibly earth-movers have changed the shape of the land. Trees cut down. The tractor path has been turned into a driveway, its course changed.

I can't even say for sure how far from the road the Cull's trailer was. That would be the starting point.

I guess I'm not sure that there's anything to be learned by visiting the property.

Really, to do this right, we'd need access to photographs of the site taken during the time this occurred. We'll never get the opportunity to look at police crime scene photographs, so, our best bet would be if a newspaper photographer took pictures of the place at the time (84/85) and it showed where the trailer was. Maybe a picture was published in the Toronto Star, The Sun, or the Globe and Mail?

Another option would be if a program like THE FIFTH ESTATE went to the site and filmed the location. I have not seen any of the old FIFTH ESTATE episodes about this case. I know there were at least 3 episodes that aired over the years. These episodes are (according to the CBC) apparently available but very expensive to purchase. And, ordering them isn't easy.

For now, let’s just say I live in York Region, about 25 min. away from Queensville.

 

[Dreamnine]

Many thanks to the OP for making this thread, and to the other knowledgeable and adept posters who have invested a lot of their time in this case. I've spent most of Saturday afternoon reading the thread and find it grim but compelling.

Not much to contribute at this stage..but I do find it interesting that the child's recorder was found by the body..this would seem to indicate (at least to me) that she was killed and the body dumped fairly quickly. (the same day?)

Of course, I may be way off target.

 

[orora]

That is an interesting observation about the recorder.

In general that scenario (same day disposal) is more common than not. Especially when involving a sexual motive. Some statistics that seem to be commonly refered to. -
http://thealphabetkiller.com/portrait-of-a-child-abduction-murder/

There was typically no indication of foul play at first, according to the study, only a report that a child was unaccounted for. In 56.2 percent of the cases studied, parents waited more than two hours before calling the police. Yet 76.2 percent of the children studied were dead within three hours of being taken. Nearly half, within one hour. So the mindset that causes parents to hesitate before calling the police must change radically. Only one in five parents called police immediately. Time is of the essence when a parent first notices their child is missing. It’s better to err on the side of caution by filing a missing persons report right away than to face every parent’s worst nightmare. In cases of child abduction, the first hour is the most critical.

The article touches on many facets of what is being discussed here. Some aspects concur with what has been postulated here, others make this case seem more an anomaly.
That recorder may be saying more than we all know.

Of girls in the 10-12 age bracket—preadolescent like Carmen, Wanda, and Michelle—41.6 percent were abducted and killed by a complete stranger; 32.7 percent were killed by a family friend or acquaintance; and 11.9 percent were killed by a male family member. Other than age and sex, the appearance of the victim (hair color, weight, etc.) was important to only 9.7 percent. The killer’s primary reason for choosing whom he chose to abduct and kill was overwhelmingly “opportunity.”

 

[Dedpanman]

Well done, Orora. I was of the same opinion until very recently, however, Woodland has made me question that now. I think, in my next post, for the sake of argument and discussion, I will list all of the facts that seem to suggest a later time for C's disposal at the Sunderland field. C was abducted October 3 and I have always thought she was dead and dumped (excuse the harshness) by the early morning hours of the fourth. I will now reverse my position and argue for a later date for her disposal... And I'll maybe argue some points that suggest a later kill time (even though I don't necessarily subscribe to that particular theory).

 

[Woodland]

I can't upload the file on historic ownership of the body site - frustrating.

 

[orora]

DPM and W, I just posted that link as general information in regard to the standard way of looking at individual circumstance. I have no set opinion either way myself. In general again, the further a case deviates from the norm in any one aspect, the more all the other aspects have to change to correspond, even motive.

The "opportunity" aspect is quite interesting in that it appears this child had a pretty standard daily routine which on this day in particular had one significant difference. She was left home alone. In some ways, I can see that leading Police to the immediate neighbour. On that point alone, I would not fault them, but as you have all shown, it appears exceedingly more complex than just that.

The exact temperatures from date of abduction till time of discovery in that exact area coupled with the exact stage of insect development within remaining tissue layers could prove your point. This is an area that has been extensively studied since the time of this crime. A scientific file review of the existing reports could provide you that. Moving a decomposing body is somewhat unusual in the sequence and manner that the circumstance would seem to indicate was required. just a general opinion that it is possible, but may be a bit too gruesome to really contemplate for most of us.. .

If the body was moved (already deceased), the killer or whoever moved the body, deliberately brought the recorder along and left the recorder there to be found for some reason?

 

[Dedpanman]

I can't upload the file on historic ownership of the body site - frustrating.

Your files are probably too big. You'll have to compress the files to make them smaller in order to upload. One way of doing that would be to turn them into PDFs.

You could use a free PDF-writer like "CutePDF". It works like a printer - but it turns your jpg or whatever into a PDF document instead of printing on paper. Then you could upload the PDFs to the thread that way. (Just an idea, and very easy to use.)

Download CutePDF writer here (free):

http://www.cutepdf.com/products/cutepdf/writer.asp

 

[Woodland]

Christine's body was not concealed all that much. Reading various LE reports for the day she was found, that was the general concensus, and the question was and still is there, why was she and her recorder not found sooner?

What puzzles me to no end is, LE searched the area, albeit not as well as they could have, but what is not mentioned anywhere at anytime is blood spatter. Not mentioning that at anytime says to me there was none to find. Shouldn't the bed of goldenrod she was found lying in/on have had blood spatter on it? One would then collect it for testing. All that is ever mentioned is collecting soil samples - no mention anywhere that those soil samples produced decomp material to confirm she died there.

 

[Woodland]

File is compressed and ready to try again in a moment.

 

[Dedpanman]

Going to be away today, Sleuths. My next post will be late tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Woodland]

Touching back on available DNA samples - Still unable to find a detailed report again on what happened at the hearing to use all the samples left, but will give an overview on what led up to that for now.

Before the second trial got underway, DNA testing had become more and more usable in a court. The available samples in this case were split between the crown and defence to use as they say fit.

Some of the samples were sent to labs in the US, and some remained at the Toronto lab. The Toronto lab allowed their samples, or much of it, to deteriorate as they did not use the standard proceedure of freezing them - see KR.

The inital suspects blood was once sent to a US lab in the same box as some of the samples, many know of the blood spill that occurred during this transport. More samples were lost.

This is why the hearing was required and why RR quotes the defence as saying there was concern about using up the precious underwear sample - it was the last they had.

The crown had next to nothing left as well - they agreed at the hearing to combine the last of their samples for one last test (three previous tests were inconclusive and precious samples were consumed) knowing they would be consumed and that would be it. This is why some were saying wait while the new technology gets up and running.

There was caution used before running the actual fouth test. Chemicals were altered for this particular test to do it right, mistakes were not an option.

 

[Woodland]

A page from the Land Registry document for Concession 3, Lot 24, Sunderland - legal description of the lot where Christine was found.

 

[Woodland]

Description of above doc - best available from Land Registry office.

The two centre and wider columns are the most important - the first one is the Grantor - last legal owner in a position to sell property. Second one is Grantee - person buying the property. Mortgage holders are listed as well as any right of way for railways, hydro etc as when required.

The top half is the form that was in use for all of Ontario when the land registry office was set up in the 1800's. My research shows this form was in use until the early 1980's - could not narrow down a specific year.

The bottom half is the form that came into use in the 1980's. A column was dropped to the right of the Grantee column and the other columns were made slightly wider. This new form does not show up anywhere on other records (I have many from up and down the Concession as well as York Region) prior to early 1980.

The legal description is Concession 3, accessed from Concession 4. Just so readers know, the initial survey of the town began at Concession 1 and went north to Concession 2, but the legal land description is Concession 1 regardless whether you access it from C 1 or 2. Concession 2 went to Concession 3, land is legally described as C 2, regardless of which side you acces it from and so on.

The writing in the top portion is difficult to read, and so is the previous page, but this page goes from 1903 or so, until 1972.

 

[Woodland]

Looking for observations on the recorded transactions for the 1930 to 1936 era.

Oct 14 1930 - under grantor, the owner, The Victoria Trust and Savings Co is selling the property to Oliver Mowatt Luke. The writing of Victoria Trust is darker than the rest of the line and appears to be different handwriting - to me.

What's missing above that line is The Victoria Trust coming into legal possession of the lot in order to sell it.

The next 2 lines are for transcactions on the same day, Oliver Mowatt Luke and wife taking out a mortgage with Victoria Trust and Arthur Edward Luke. Again, Victoria Trust seems to be written by the same person that wrote VT in the first line for 14 Oct, but the other writing seems different - to me.

 

[Woodland]

Then the new form appears with a transaction for Nov 30, 1936. Victoria Trust is selling the property once again, this time to Clark and Gertrude McLean.

How did Victoria Trust come into possession of the property again, in order to sell it? My research shows, a court order is recorded when a financial institution takes over a property for whatever reason.

This time the whole line looks written by the same person that wrote VT previously.

The transctions are proper after that - Mr and Mrs McLean take out a mortgage with VT on the same day of the purchase and it's duly recorded. Mr and Mrs McLean take out another mortgage with H Woodward a year later on Nov 1, 1937 and it's duly recorded. The mortgage with VT is duly discharged on Nov 4, 1937. The mortgage with H Woodward is duly discharged on Nov 24, 1943.

All recorded in the manner it should be. But it's on a form that did not come into use until the 1980's.

Cannot find tax records for that era and that location - I can find the neighbors, but I can't find who responsible for taxes between 1930 and 1936.

 

[Dedpanman]

I am not yet done consolidating facts and arguments concerning a later time for C's disposal at the Sunderland field. Still working on it. That will come soon.

While on that track, I decided I would make another attempt at a diagram of the "body dump site" as this might be useful for general discussion and visualization purposes.

I have attached a PDF file of my new diagram based on the information from the Kaufman Report and Redrum: The Innocent. I think I'm close, but there will of course, be errors. There is a lot of information when you pool both sources, but there are still gaps.

Have a look, and if you think I'm wrong about the geography and/or placement of the relevant objects, feel free to print off the PDF. Cut and paste and rearrange until you think it's correct. Then you could re-post it here for discussion. See next post for diagram PDF.

 

[Dedpanman]

Here's the diagram. Again, there will be errors. See where you disagree.

 

[Woodland]

Nice diagram - very much as I envisioned it.

There is quite a discrepancy in the distances between the Kaufman Report and Redrum.

Redrum has Christine's remains no more than 5 metres (roughly 15 feet) from the tractor path into the field, page 52. After father and daughters walked up the tractor path - 'Shelley stopped just short of the trampled grass that served as a path linking the tractor path to the little house trailer. She peered at something in the grass about five metres into the field.

Page 53 - She lingered on the tractor path while Fred and Heather walked about 10 metres (roughly 30 feet) through the grass toward the Cull's trailer.

I picture a triangular shape here. Shelley standing in one spot (where all 3 had just stood) looking at the remains, her father and sister walking towards the trailer.

Page 70 has a neighbor saying 'it was stupid to put her right behind the trailer. Twenty or thirty feet back, the brush is so thick you have to crawl on your hands and knees to get through.' To me, another indication she was barely concealed.

Page 67 - 68 - ... 'investigators considered what might have taken place there. What was difficult to understand was why the Culls didn't discover Christine's body just a few metres from their trailer in early October.'

Note that two police officers had walked the same path to the trailer in early December to investigate the break-in - date unknown but had to have been Novemberish, as the Culls are reported to have been to their property in late October.

Neale Tweedy was in charge of what info Kaufman had to convey in his report regarding the scene. Page 13 of KR.

I don't see how the Culls could have missed a blood bath near their trailer.

 

[Dedpanman]

Feel free to modify the diagram.

Are you sure that the police actually visited the site when the trailer break in was reported? I believe RR says that the police were contacted but nothing much was done. We had someone break into our car once and we contacted the police. They filed a report but never sent an officer to even look at the car to verify what we were saying. Wasn't worth their time.