PURPOSE
The creation of the crime scene diagram was done with a number of aims in mind: to consolidate the known information about the scene in the Sunderland field as described in “Redrum the Innocent”, “The Kaufman Report” and “Journey into Darkness”, and through that consolidation, try to create a picture that might clarify or reconcile some of the discrepancies that exist between the descriptions.
It is hoped that the diagram might also generate new questions or new lines of thought concerning what happened at the body dump site – and what did not happen. The picture might allow for some insight into the mind of the person who is responsible for the crime. It might also assist other researchers in gaining a better understanding of the scene and help them to interpret the information that is available to the public.
HOW THE DIAGRAM WAS CREATED
First, I acquired a model of a human skeleton and disassembled it. The skeleton was then arranged in a way that seemed to be consistent with the various descriptions in the available sources. The skeleton was photographed and then superimposed over a background that corresponded with the descriptions of the setting. Other objects were photographed and added until the overall picture seemed to match the majority of the description points.
I divorced myself of emotion and just focused on being as accurate as possible in the creation of the diagram. Some details will not be correct, but my goal was to create a picture that was generally correct.
Due to conflicting information about the location of the recorder, I chose not to place it in the diagram “close to the body” as it was described in the Kaufman Report. In Redrum, the recorder was described as having been found closer to the tractor trail. In Journey into Darkness, the recorder was described as having been found “in the nearby grass”.
PERSONAL REACTION TO THE DIAGRAM
After completing the diagram, I took a good long look at it and tried to place myself in the shoes of Fred Patterson who was the first person to discover the body. The emotional impact of the crime scene is significant. It’s a very disturbing picture. The image induces feelings of revulsion and horror. It speaks silently of indescribable suffering as an innocent human child was reduced to a pile of scattered bones at the hands of an evil and sadistic individual.
I couldn’t help thinking: perhaps this emotional shock was what the killer intended when he chose to leave his victim the way he did?
PERSONAL THOUGHTS
After creating the crime scene picture, I began to study it clinically and consider it carefully, collecting and organizing my thoughts:
1. Although the complete skeleton was arranged and superimposed on the background, the overall impression is that some of the bones seem to be missing. I actually double-checked to make sure that I had not forgotten some. They are all there. This made me think of one of the descriptions of the scene from Redrum that indicated that arms could not be seen – yet the arms are present in the picture. They are scattered so that they no longer appear as arms.
2. Even though the upper torso bones are in a scattered pattern, they are still relatively close together, which may help resolve some finer points on the use of the word “scattered” in the Redrum description. The bones are scattered in the diagram, yet close enough in position that the body and some soil could be slid onto a 4 by 8 foot piece of plywood (the method that police used to remove the remains). Some bones and the head portion could not retain their exact position and had to be placed onto the board by police officers.
3. Some issues about the clothing came to mind. In the Kaufman Report, Christine’s body was described as wearing a beige turtleneck sweater, a blue pullover sweater and a blouse (described in that order). I’m going to make some assumptions here:
a) The blue pullover sweater mentioned in the Kaufman Report is the blue “sweatshirt” with the knife-cuts in it from Redrum (appearing in a photograph).
b) The blue pullover sweater or sweatshirt was the outermost garment worn.
c) Underneath the blue pullover sweater or sweatshirt would have been the beige or gray turtleneck sweater or the blouse, but it’s difficult for me to assume which is the likeliest order for them. (Was the turtleneck sweater worn below or over the blouse?)
The point of this is to determine which garment would likely be seen if all three were pulled over the head. The descriptors in Redrum describe the ball of clothing containing the head as blue. The Kaufman report describes a sweater pulled over the head. If they are one and the same and this article of clothing was the outermost garment – when all three garments were pulled over the head – the blue sweater would now be the innermost garment. The turtleneck or blouse would be the garment exposed to the environment.
This might be nitpicking – and ultimately irrelevant - but the question I’m going after here is this: Were all three garments pulled over her head – or just the outermost sweater and the turtleneck and the blouse were ripped away – popping the buttons that were found in the grass? Or, were all three garments fully removed and then used to wrap the head – in a way that was not consistent with them being pulled over the head? Questions without answers at this point.
4. The diagram suggests a reason why the descriptions differ in terms of whether the body was found “face down” (RR), or, “on its back” (KR). The diagram has been created with the pelvic bones facing up, but the scattered bones of the upper torso have been placed so that some are facing up, and some down. The purpose of that was to achieve the look of a body that had been subjected to some animal scavenging.
The overall picture makes it difficult to determine immediately if the body is face down or on its back. This may be why the two accounts of the scene differ. The RR description seems to come from the original law enforcement notes. The only way to orient the body in one’s mind is to look at the feet and the angle of the knees. What we don’t know is how “pressed down” the knees were. I’ve created the diagram with the knees slightly elevated but this detail might be wrong. I suspect the knees were more flattened to the ground.
5. At first glance, the overall picture seems to suggest that a little girl was brought to the Sunderland field, taken into the bushes, sexually assaulted and then murdered—as the panties, pants, shoes are all located south of the feet and the blouse/sweater is pulled over her head.
Also: this doesn’t look like the random scattering of clothing one would expect to see if the killer just dumped the body in a hurry, tossed the associated objects into the grass and then took off. On the contrary, it looks as though the clothing is on the ground where it came off. One would expect to find a more random arrangement of the clothing – perhaps a shoe up by the head, etc., if the body was dumped in a hurry.
Then, I realized that the overall picture is misleading – because that scenario (sexual assault and then murder in that order) could not be exactly what happened here. More on this in the next paragraph:
6. The problem with the “sexual assault and then murder” scenario is that Christine’s clothing (hooded sweater and panties) had small cuts from stab wounds and were saturated with blood – so Christine was stabbed while she was clothed.
It’s not impossible that she was stabbed (killed), then stripped of her clothes, and then sexually assaulted... but it’s hard to imagine. The killer would have been covered in her blood. Was the killer really that deranged? Did he actually drive off covered in her blood and contaminate his vehicle?
Perhaps.
There is some evidence that the killer was sadistic enough to torture her. The knife-cuts to Christine’s clothing were very small, and some of the bone penetrations were as well. Those injuries have been interpreted as “teasing” stabs. In other words – the stabbing wasn’t that deep. They were intended to cause pain and to terrifying her – but not kill her right away. In other words: torture.
If the “stabbing first – sexual assault second” scenario is correct – then it would seem that sexual assault was not the primary motive for the abduction – because it was not the first act committed against her. The motive for the crime might be better described as “sexual sadism” – that is, the sexual gratification of the perpetrator came from the power her felt through domination and torture.
7. I think we can be pretty sure about what did not happen at this location. The sequence of events could not have been: removal of clothing, sexual assault, stabbing and then the killer leaving – in that order. Again, her clothing was on for the stabbing, so that had to have happened before the removal of the clothing.
Also, one must account for the semen found in the crotch of the panties (it was the crotch – according to RR first edition). Logic would indicate that Christine was re-clothed after the initial sexual assault – wherever that was. It makes little sense that clothing was twice removed at this location.
8. The killer had Christine remove her shoes, or if she was already dead, the killer had to remove her shoes so that her pants could be removed. Her body was devoid of clothes except for a pair of socks. Why did the killer find it necessary to remove nearly all of her clothes, when it’s not necessarily a requirement for the purpose of sexual assault?
I would suggest that sexual assault was not the primary motive for the removal of her clothes at this site. I suggest that the killer, after dumping her already dead body here, decided to indulge in some other sick fantasies (stabbing, decapitation, chest intrusion) that required the removal of her clothing. She may have been drowned; she may have been stabbed to death before the killer brought her here.
9. The killer pulled her upper body clothing over her head – which dehumanizes the body and also erases her personal identity. Was this the reason the head was covered and left this way? Perhaps the killer did not want to see her face or her eyes as he indulged in the sickest aspects of his fantasy? Or, was the clothing left pulled over her head because the killer was too lazy to remove the clothing completely from where it had become entangled around her neck?
10. It is quite possible that Christine was already dead when the killer brought her here, and that the killer posed her body and the various objects… but what would be the purpose? If the body and objects were posed, then the killer would be creating a horrific spectacle for someone to discover. Perhaps that was the motive for the positioning of the body (legs spread), the state of undress (left practically naked), the decapitation and the attempt to open the chest – both attempts to shock and horrify whoever found the body?
WORKING BACKWARDS
If this image (the crime scene diagram) is the last frame of a film, can we rewind that film - and work backwards - in order to determine the sequence of events that led to this final frame?
What was the sequence of events that lead to this? Here are the scenarios that I came up with:
SCENARIO A
1. Christine was abducted from an unknown location.
2. She was transported directly to the Sunderland field alive.
3. Her clothing, or some clothing was removed – specifically, her panties.
4. She was sexually assaulted.
5. Christine was re-clothed, and in the process, her panties got semen on them.
6. Then she was stabbed to death.
7. The killer laid her body out on the ground.
8. Her bloody clothing was removed.
9. Christine’s body was posed with her legs spread apart, and there was a second sexual assault on her body (or perhaps not - due to the blood)
10. The killer indulged in a post-mortem attempt at chest intrusion and decapitation.
11. The killer may have masturbated at this point if he did not indulge in a second sexual assault on her lifeless body, then he left.
The problem with this scenario is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense that the killer would undress her, sexually assault her, redress her, killer her, then take her clothes off again. Because of that – I pretty much reject Scenario A.
SCENARIO B
1. Christine was abducted from an unknown location.
2. She was transported to a secondary location.
3. Her clothing was removed – or some clothing was removed – specifically, her panties.
4. She was sexually assaulted.
5. Christine was re-clothed, and in the process, her panties got semen on them.
6. Then, she was drowned (based on information concerning diatoms and pink teeth)
7. Her lifeless body was brought to the Sunderland field.
8. She was laid out on the ground.
9. Her killer indulged in post-mortem stabbing
10. Christine’s clothing was removed.
11. Her killer posed her body – spreading her legs wide.
12. Then her killer made an attempt at chest intrusion and decapitation.
13. The killer likely masturbated, and then left.
The problem with this scenario is that she’s already dead when the stabbing occurs, so there wouldn’t be very much blood on the clothing because when the heart’s not beating – there’s less pressure (systolic pressure) – there’s only diastolic pressure – and that’s going to drop to almost nothing once a few major blood vessels are punctured. This is not conclusive though, and would have to be verified through experimentation to see if the kind of blood staining on the clothes might be possible post-mortem.
This scenario does help to explain the absence of blood in the soil surrounding the body.
SCENARIO C
1. Christine was abducted from an unknown location.
2. She was transported to a secondary location.
3. Her clothing, or some clothing was removed – specifically, her panties.
4. She was sexually assaulted.
5. Christine was re-clothed, and in the process, her panties got semen on them.
6. She was then stabbed and killed.
7. Her lifeless body was brought to the Sunderland field.
8. She was laid out on the ground.
9. Her clothing was removed.
10. Christine’s body was posed with her legs spread apart, or there was a second sexual assault on her body (or perhaps not)
11. Killer indulged in a post-mortem attempt at chest intrusion and decapitation.
12. The killer may have masturbated if he did not indulge in a second sexual assault on her lifeless body, then he left.
The problem with this scenario is that the pink teeth and the possibility of diatoms in Christine’s bone marrow (from drowning) must be discarded. Perhaps they’re laboratory anomalies anyway?
This scenario also allows for the absence of blood in the soil as she was killed elsewhere.
SCENARIO D
1. Christine was abducted from an unknown location.
2. She was transported to a secondary location.
3. Her clothing, or some clothing was removed – specifically, her panties.
4. She was sexually assaulted.
5. Christine was re-clothed, and in the process, her panties got semen on them.
6. She was brought to the Sunderland field alive.
7. She was stabbed to death.
8. Her bloody clothing was removed.
9. Christine’s body was posed with her legs spread apart.
10. Killer indulged in a post-mortem attempt at chest intrusion and decapitation.
11. The killer may have masturbated at this point if he did not indulge in a second sexual assault on her lifeless body, then he left.
The problem with this scenario is that again - the pink teeth and the possibility of diatoms in Christine’s bone marrow (from drowning) has to be discarded. Also, this scenario would mean that a lot of blood would have been absorbed by the soil. Soil-testing did not detect the presence of blood.
CONCLUSION
Scenarios C and D seem to be the most likely of the four.
I tend to favour C over D because if Christine was killed shortly after the first sexual assault, it would have been much easier and less risky for the killer to transport her body to the Sunderland field. It also supports the evidence that there was no blood present in the soil samples taken from the scene.
