PROSECUTOR Leo McGuigan's capacity to distort a simple
conversation and to produce what he portrays as proof
of Morin's guilt, is mind-numbing. A conversation
between Morin and concerned citizen Mandy Paterson,
illustrates the fact. According to McGuigan, Morin
told suspicious "sleuth" Mandy Paterson that Christine
died on the day she was abducted, October 3, 1984.
This "lead" prompted McGuigan to dramatically assert;
Ladies and gentlemen, when the forensic
pathologists, anthropologists and police cannot
say for sure when she was murdered, how can that
man who sits in that box know that. Only two
people could have known that. The killer and
Christine Jessop.11
This dramatic presentation is certainly a powerful
addendum to the suggestion that the prosecution is
always right and always credible, but on close
examination, it is simply a distortion of the
evidence. In fact, the testimony provided by Paterson
in 1986 suggests the exact opposite of this dramatic,
McGuigan assertion. In 1986 according to Paterson,
Morin had claimed that Christine's body "was too badly
decomposed to tell" if she had been sexually
assaulted.12
Consequently, if we apply the McGuigan
tactic to a simple conversation between Paterson and
Morin, it is important to acknowledge the following;
Ladies and Gentlemen, if that man who sits in that
box, has to rely upon forensic pathologists,
anthropologists and the police to tell him about
the circumstances surrounding Christine Jessop's
murder, how can we stand here today and accuse him
when he is clearly ignorant of information that
only the killer or killers possess.
McGuigan's tendency to twist and turn in a manner
which acknowledges the reverse of what is evidently
credible, may be dramatic enough to manipulate an
unsuspecting jury, but that is all. His tactics do not
withstand the scrutiny of an objective analysis. When
Morin told Mandy Paterson that he could not
conclusively determine whether Christine Jessop had
been sexually assaulted, he clearly echoed, not the
knowledge of a murderer but the determination of chief
forensic pathologist, Dr. Hillsdon-Smith, who noted;
Due to the state of decomposition of the body and
attacks on the body by animals, it could not be
said from observations of the body whether acts
of sexual intercourse had taken place.13
Ironically, it is the Crown's contention that
Christine Jessop had been sexually assaulted, which
potentially contradicts forensic pathology evidence.
The testimony of well-intentioned witnesses like
Mandy Paterson was thoroughly twisted and manipulated
to fit in with the Crown contention that Morin is a
callous, uncaring killer. When, for example Morin did
not respond to Mandy's questions in a manner which she
deemed to be appropriate she claimed that Morin
"sounded like he didn't care... like it happened every
day."14
And the only thing that Morin had said to
provoke this assessment was; "Things like that happen.
What can you do? She was a sweet, innocent little
girl."
Morin may not wear his sleeve on his shoulder in
public, but Mandy's assessment evidently rests more on
ignorance than on facts. The most horrendous,
repulsive, disgusting, brutal crimes and injustices
imagineable are indeed a daily occurrence, and if
Mandy has her head buried in the sand, it is her
problem, not Morin's fault. Having just finished
reading a local community newspaper this afternoon,
one of the stories dealt with a 30-year old woman who
was abducted, beaten, raped and abandoned in afield
where she was stung by over two hundred bees.15
"Things like that happen. What can you do?" For
starters, hang the guilty pervert, not the peculiar
neighbour who shocks the self-righteous, "middle
class" sensibilities of people like Mandy Paterson.
11The Toronto Star, 19/7/92.
12Globe and Mail, 17/1/86.
13Globe and Mail, 23/1/86.
14Toronto Sun, 17/1/86.
15The Liberal, 30/8/92. p.13
