|
Post by jason on Feb 17, 2018 21:50:43 GMT -5
I double checked at the city archives with the old city directories. She was in the same building. The only thing I could think of was that she was staying with someone else during the day in the other building. I think she lived in the same building and the cops didn't want to say. And they jumped to conclusion that she was there first with no proof. I know they made a new reenactment partly because the girl in the first one was too old, at least 12 or 13 instead of 8. But why leave out the entire scenario and not mention why especially after online forums discussed the question of why she was arriving at the building's front door and buzzing in when she lived there?
Like Catherine, I looked up these buildings. One is numbered 625 and the other 627, but they might not have always had different numbers. Do you remember when you checked if there were two addresses for those apartments or just one? If there was only one, it would have been easy to confuse the two. Would it be too much trouble for you to go back to the archives and recheck the old city directories?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 18:28:19 GMT -5
Here’s the list for 627 as originally posted. I’m sure it was separate from the other building. Some names including the friends father are listed by apartment number. elleeseymour.com/2007/05/21/the-missing-nicole-morin/My opinion is that police went into forensic desperation mode and justified it with a questionable scenario.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Feb 18, 2018 19:39:02 GMT -5
Here’s the list for 627 as originally posted. I’m sure it was separate from the other building. Some names including the friends father are listed by apartment number. elleeseymour.com/2007/05/21/the-missing-nicole-morin/My opinion is that police went into forensic desperation mode and justified it with a questionable scenario. I might be able to confirm with an insider but I guess one has to be careful how you say it. I'm getting a better understanding of what probably happened if the second girl, Jennifer Mazepa, lived in the same building. Those intercoms weren't outside the building, they were in the lobby like most other intercoms in cold places like Canada, so if Jennifer went down to the lobby first, she probably buzzed Nicole's apartment to let her know she was waiting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 0:33:41 GMT -5
The question is how do we know Jennifer got there first? I’ll leave out her being missing in the second re-enactment. That could be for a number of reasons no one thought to ask the police about. Her mother had to be the witness to tell them that. What exactly did she hear? Okay maybe Jennifer got there first and buzzed up right away to tell Nicole. And the cops didn’t want anyone to know where she lived. Why not say so after 30 years? She doesn’t live there anymore I don’t think.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Feb 19, 2018 12:43:10 GMT -5
The question is how do we know Jennifer got there first? I’ll leave out her being missing in the second re-enactment. That could be for a number of reasons no one thought to ask the police about. Her mother had to be the witness to tell them that. What exactly did she hear? Okay maybe Jennifer got there first and buzzed up right away to tell Nicole. And the cops didn’t want anyone to know where she lived. Why not say so after 30 years? She doesn’t live there anymore I don’t think. I will be asking directly.
No one knows which kid got their first, but if Nicole got their first, whoever abducted her had to do it very quickly and get her out the front door into a vehicle and this seems unlikely. A man abducting a kid would be taking a huge risk doing it in front of a building that size, where people were coming and going all the time. I'm inclined to believe that she was abducted when the elevator stopped on another floor and the man either took her to his apartment or to the garage, where he got her into his car and left the premises.
Reenactments are often inaccurate. The first reenactment was apparently filmed in the building, which shows Jennifer using the intercom just inside the entrance and then opening the door to the main lobby. I didn't take this to necessarily mean that Jennifer didn't live in the building, but could have been done for effect. She could have been waiting in front of the building and when Nicole didn't show up, she reentered the building and buzzed the apartment. Also, this happened on a Tuesday, so another possibility is that Jennifer had a babysitter, who didn't live in the building, who was looking after her while her parents were at work.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 21, 2018 4:58:05 GMT -5
The question is how do we know Jennifer got there first? I’ll leave out her being missing in the second re-enactment. That could be for a number of reasons no one thought to ask the police about. Her mother had to be the witness to tell them that. What exactly did she hear? Okay maybe Jennifer got there first and buzzed up right away to tell Nicole. And the cops didn’t want anyone to know where she lived. Why not say so after 30 years? She doesn’t live there anymore I don’t think.
It's possible that the police didn't want people to know where Jennifer lived for her own protection because if there was a killer living in the same building, he might have thought that she might remember something and she could be in danger. But then, if he lived in the building, he would have probably known that she lived there. This case happened over 30 years ago and police officers talking about the case today might not have all of the details and could be just repeating what was said back then. Do you believe that Jennifer got to the lobby first? Just from what I've read about the case, I'm not sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 16:54:16 GMT -5
I think either Nicole got to the lobby first or, if Jennifer did, then Jennifer didn't wait as long as she thought she did. Maybe she didn't want to seem impatient. 15 minutes is a long time to wait. How did she know it was 15 minutes? Either way I don't think Jennifer was waiting no more than 5 minutes or so. There's not enough information to put her there definitively to rule out anything. Why would Canada's top crime writer who's daughter was in the reenactment playing Nicole go against the police reenactment scenario at the 3:50 mark of the video and say there's evidence she made it to the lobby? The version in his book which I read only mentions two phone calls, and no intercom calls. Did he want to avoid creating a scenario controversy? And here's Sleuth's scenario. He's a bit of a knowledgeable insider but I think he's quoting something here. www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?PHPSESSID=o8qg585nj31t1svpttbv1lqrq1&topic=99.120
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Feb 23, 2018 5:27:52 GMT -5
I think either Nicole got to the lobby first or, if Jennifer did, then Jennifer didn't wait as long as she thought she did. Maybe she didn't want to seem impatient. 15 minutes is a long time to wait. How did she know it was 15 minutes? Either way I don't think Jennifer was waiting no more than 5 minutes or so. There's not enough information to put her there definitively to rule out anything. Why would Canada's top crime writer who's daughter was in the reenactment playing Nicole go against the police reenactment scenario at the 3:50 mark of the video and say there's evidence she made it to the lobby? The version in his book which I read only mentions two phone calls, and no intercom calls. Did he want to avoid creating a scenario controversy? And here's Sleuth's scenario. He's a bit of a knowledgeable insider but I think he's quoting something here. www.unsolvedcanada.ca/index.php?PHPSESSID=o8qg585nj31t1svpttbv1lqrq1&topic=99.120 Adults are terrible at estimating time and kids are even worse. Five minutes to a child feels like 15 minutes, so I wouldn't trust Jennifer's estimation.
From what I know about the case, a woman said that she rode to the lobby with Nicole, so there was evidence that she made it to the lobby. Authors often make mistakes or leave out something because they think it would be too confusing to the reader or it doesn't fit their own theory of what happened. Did you ask the author why he didn't mention any intercom calls?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 17:20:50 GMT -5
I don't think I or anyone else ever tried to contact him. He died last October. I doubt he'd have tried to clear up the situation without police permission. He mostly did old historical cases not new ones.
There's no real investigative journalism although it looks to me like he was itching to do some. Either her friend was there at the bottom of the elevator and watched the elevator go up to the 20th and come down empty or she wasn't. Why throw it in that there's evidence it didn't happen that way? And that the friend was gone? Obviously he had a problem with the scenario floated out there by the police. Don't want to cast suspicion on someone waiting outside that she knew?
Did you hear that the father went to the World Wide Church of God, Herbert W Armstrong's old church?
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 25, 2018 1:01:23 GMT -5
I don't think I or anyone else ever tried to contact him. He died last October. I doubt he'd have tried to clear up the situation without police permission. He mostly did old historical cases not new ones. There's no real investigative journalism although it looks to me like he was itching to do some. Either her friend was there at the bottom of the elevator and watched the elevator go up to the 20th and come down empty or she wasn't. Why throw it in that there's evidence it didn't happen that way? And that the friend was gone? Obviously he had a problem with the scenario floated out there by the police. Don't want to cast suspicion on someone waiting outside that she knew? Did you hear that the father went to the World Wide Church of God, Herbert W Armstrong's old church? If somebody got on the elevator on another floor, it wouldn't have been empty when it got to the lobby. In a 20 story building with lots of apartments on each floor, I'll bet the elevator seldom came down empty except late at night.
You seem to have been interested in this case for a long time, why didn't you contact the author?
It's not unusual for someone to turn to the church after a tragedy like this. Was he already going to the church, or did he start going after his daughter went missing?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Feb 27, 2018 13:56:27 GMT -5
I don't think I or anyone else ever tried to contact him. He died last October. I doubt he'd have tried to clear up the situation without police permission. He mostly did old historical cases not new ones. There's no real investigative journalism although it looks to me like he was itching to do some. Either her friend was there at the bottom of the elevator and watched the elevator go up to the 20th and come down empty or she wasn't. Why throw it in that there's evidence it didn't happen that way? And that the friend was gone? Obviously he had a problem with the scenario floated out there by the police. Don't want to cast suspicion on someone waiting outside that she knew? Did you hear that the father went to the World Wide Church of God, Herbert W Armstrong's old church?
What's the significance of the father's going to the Worldwide Church of God? Are you saying that because he attended that particular church that he could have been involved in his daughter's disappearance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 21:59:51 GMT -5
I personally would have tried to contact Max Haines to ask him but probably never got a contact address. I did get through to Robert Hoshowsky who put the story in his Unsolved book. That's all I remember.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 2, 2018 23:45:29 GMT -5
I personally would have tried to contact Max Haines to ask him but probably never got a contact address. I did get through to Robert Hoshowsky who put the story in his Unsolved book. That's all I remember. I looked up the book by Hoshowsky, "Unsolved: True Canadian Cold Cases," and it's $15 used on Amazon. Do you recommend it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 2:05:52 GMT -5
No. I only read the Nicole chapter but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s a rehash probably from the internet mostly with some old news reports anyone can access online if they want. You can read segments in Google Books. It’s no Fatal Vision.
|
|
gina
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by gina on Mar 7, 2021 8:00:00 GMT -5
I double checked at the city archives with the old city directories. She was in the same building. The only thing I could think of was that she was staying with someone else during the day in the other building. I think she lived in the same building and the cops didn't want to say. And they jumped to conclusion that she was there first with no proof. I know they made a new reenactment partly because the girl in the first one was too old, at least 12 or 13 instead of 8. But why leave out the entire scenario and not mention why especially after online forums discussed the question of why she was arriving at the building's front door and buzzing in when she lived there? The girl whom you say lived in the building... she could have used that method of communicating with Nicole (by simply buzzing her apartment). The alternative for her would have been to make a call, or to travel to another floor and go and knock on her door. Perhaps it was impossible to travel to certain floors via the elevator without being buzzed in by someone on the relevant floor, or having security access, as is normal today. Pre mobile phones and as an alternative to making a phone call from a landline, and because she may already have been outside of the building, this would be one of the most efficient ways to contact someone, even in your own building (a very large building). And after all the foyer was the meeting spot.
|
|