Candace Derksen - 13 - Murdered November 30, 1984 - SOLVED

[AlbertaCowboy]

The Candace Derksen Murder

On Friday, November 30, 1984, 13-year old Candace Derksen disappeared while walking home from school. Seven weeks later she was found frozen to death in an old machinery shed on some industrial land about 500 meters from her home.

Candace, a grade 7 student at the Mennonite Brethren Collegiate, was last seen by friends as she walked home alone from school shortly after 4:00 p.m. along Talbot Avenue. As she had an out of town friend coming to stay with her the following day, it was expected that she would come straight home after school to prepare for her friend?s arrival. As the walk from the school to her home would have taken about 20 minutes, it is believed that she would have been home sometime around 4:30 p.m. She never arrived.

Seven weeks later, on January 17, 1985, Candace?s body was found in an unused machinery shed on the property of Alsip?s Industrial Products on Cole Avenue. This property is located south of Talbot Avenue, near the Nairn Overpass, between the school and Candace?s home. Although the property now has a fence around it, in 1984 it was easily accessible by walking along a green space or the CPR rail line (and service road) that runs beneath the Nairn Overpass from Talbot Avenue.

It is believed that Candace had been in the shed since she went missing on November 30. However, since the shed contained only a few obsolete machinery parts and some old tools, it was never checked unless there was some need for one of the parts that it contained. As these parts were generally old and obsolete, the shed was never locked and was easily accessible. For this reason the shed was never checked the entire time Candace was missing and her body was not found until one of Alsip?s employees went looking for an old saw he believed may have been inside.

What he found instead was the body of Candace Derksen, her hands and feet had been tied behind her back with some thick rope, making it impossible for her to walk and nearly impossible to move.

Although the shed was on private property and rarely used by Alsip employees, because of its isolation yet easy accessibility it (and other sheds on the property) may have been used as a hangout by a few neighbourhood youths after the business closed at 4:30 p.m. and on weekends.

Although Talbot is a busy street no one saw Candace being abducted and it is possible that she knew the suspect, although threats of violence and the presence of a weapon by a stranger may have ensured her compliance and cooperation without drawing attention. However, it is believed that the suspect may have been a single white male, acting alone who was familiar with and/or lived in the area. He probably would have been a young adult at the time (30-40 years old today) and while he may have had an abnormal interest in bondage, he would not have stuck out from his peers at this time, although it is likely he has been arrested for offences in the intervening years.

Few clues were left behind at the scene, however it is possible that the suspect had darker hair that had been bleached at one time, was somewhat athletic, manipulative, possibly had interests in bizarre subjects, and lived in the area. The police are particularly interested in the names of any people who worked in the area or hung around the sheds of this industrial area on or before 1984.

If you have any information about this case, please contact Crime Stoppers at 786-TIPS (8477), or e-mail Sgt. Al Bradbury and Det. Jon Lutz of the Cold Case Homicide Unit.

[Chris]

A 43-year-old man has been arrested and charged in connection with the 1984 death of Winnipeg teenager Candace Derksen, police say.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/05/16/candace-derksen.html

Mark Edward Grant was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with first-degree murder.

Candace Derksen, seen in an undated file photo, was found slain in a shed in Winnipeg.
(Family photo/CBC) 

Grant, classified as a dangerous offender by justice officials, has a lengthy criminal record with several convictions for assault and sexual assault, parole records indicate.

Derksen, 13, was last seen walking home from the Mennonite Brethren Collegiate in the East Kildonan area of Winnipeg in November 1984. Her frozen body was found seven weeks later in a shed in the same neighbourhood. Bound at the wrists and ankles, she died of exposure.

Police said they believed she had been in the the little-used machine shed owned by a manufacturing company since the day she disappeared.

The suspect was 21 at the time of Derksen's death and lived in the area.

Investigators said he was "known to police" and had been among the hundreds interviewed after Derksen's disappearance, but was not considered a suspect at the time.

Winnipeg police said Wednesday the break in the case came after the Derksen file was handed to investigators in the city's new cold case unit in 2006.

Mark Edward Grant, 43, has been classified a dangerous offender. He's charged with murder, some 23 years after the death of schoolgirl Candace Derksen.
(CBC)
Investigators declined to reveal details of the break, but said cold case detectives had noticed connections in notes in the case files that led them to identify suspects and submit forensic evidence to a private laboratory in Ontario.

The laboratory results led them to Grant, officers said.

Candace's parents, Wilma and Cliff Derksen, attended the police news conference where the suspect was identified.

"We are stunned at a few things: that the case has come to this point, and also that there is such huge interest in it," Cliff Derksen said.

"We had actually given up hope. We were already prepared to live with this mystery that has shadowed our family for so many years."

Both Derksens said they did not know Grant.

The Derksens said they felt both "anticipation and trepidation" about the progress in the case, as well as a renewed sense of sadness and loss over their daughter's death.

[THUNDRCLOUD]

Thu, May 17, 2007

Charge laid in Winnipeg cold caseSuspect deemed 'sexually deviant'
By CP

     
 

WINNIPEG -- National Parole Board documents indicate a man arrested in a 23-year-old cold case is a schizophrenic whose mind is filled with disturbing rape fantasies, lust for vulnerable teens and a hatred of women.

Mark Edward Grant, 43, was charged yesterday with first-degree murder in the death of Candace Derksen, a 13-year-old who was abducted off a busy street while she was walking home from school on Nov. 30, 1984.

Parole board documents obtained by the Winnipeg Free Press indicate Grant refused any type of treatment such as chemical castration that would have reduced his sexual urges.

Grant spent nearly 13 years in prison from 1991 to 2004, except for a nine-day stretch of parole when he raped another young woman.

Behind bars, Grant alluded to other sex crimes dating as far back as the 1970s for which he was never charged, but he never disclosed specific details nor mentioned Candace Derksen.

 

Justice officials had grave concern for the safety of any young woman who had contact with him.

"Your sexual/assaultive behaviour has resulted in serious harm to the victims. You have been predatory in your choice of victims, often looking for unsophisticated and vulnerable post-pubescent female children," the parole board wrote in revoking his parole in 1995.

"The board is satisfied that, if released, you are likely to commit an offence causing the death of, or serious harm to another person before the expiration of your sentence."

It noted Grant's self-reported "sexually deviant" behaviour that hadn't resulted in criminal charges including raping a drunk female stranger.

He linked his "hatred of women" to the behaviour of his mother and sister and being "victimized" as a child, but gave no specifics.

"You are considered to be more concerned about your own sexual gratification than you are about the consequences your offending causes to others," the parole board wrote in 2004.

"You admit your sexual gratification comes from the vulnerability of young women and children as 'they are so trusting.' "

Testing of Grant revealed an "elevated level of arousal to rape stimuli" with the highest peaks occurring "with material depicting inappropriate sexual contacts with children, predominantly to female."

Grant also described having "command hallucinations" which directed him to try and harm himself, or others.

He disclosed several failed suicide attempts and was diagnosed as schizophrenic.

[THUNDRCLOUD]

I FIND THE ABOVE MOST CHILLING,
AND AWAKENS ME YET AGAIN, THAT THERE ARE THOSE THAT WALK AMONG US THAT ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM TO BE. AND WORST YET MAKES ME WANT TO LOCK MY DAUGHTER AWAY.
BIT EXTREME I KNOW BUT . THERE IS SOME BIG ISSUES WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. IN THESE CASES.

[Chris]

Very interesting, he got out of jail and he was not being supervised or monitored? I too thought dangerous offenders could be held longer then there sentence mandated.

[Adrian]

This guy is quite interesting, and is worth the effort, for   LE, to look into it further, Maybe more unsolveds. Closure. We have had years, of missing and/or murdered.

Young children being exploited, and killed. The freaking pedophiles. If they are sadistic it often turns more tragic, as       they are fantasizing  about killing. It would be good to give these parents, of the young from the past, still unsolved.Arthur Shawcross was simular to this. guy.It must be devastating to wait day after day, after day, always wondering, what happened.

[CraftyGal]

Here is the History of the Dangerous Offendeers Act.  They are in the process of changing the Act under Bill C-27.  Here is the link: http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/c27en.html

History of Dangerous Offender Legislation

Canada first introduced legislation to deal with ?dangerous? offenders in 1947. Called The Habitual Offender Act, the legislation was designed to incapacitate offenders with lengthy criminal records by keeping them in prison and away from the general public (Jakimeic et.al.,1986). In 1948 a second piece of legislation, known as the Sexual Psychopath Act, was passed to ensure that dangerous sexual offenders would be identified and treated by mental health professionals (Petrunik, 1994). Once convicted of a designated sexual offence, the offender would be assessed by two psychiatrists, who would determine if the individual was ?dangerous?. A finding of sexual psychopathy would be accompanied by an indeterminate sentence, to be reviewed by the justice minister every three years for parole eligibility.

The term ?sexual psychopath? was very vague and not well defined in the legislation, lending uncertainty to the designation and making it difficult to meet the legal standard of proof ? beyond a reasonable doubt (McRuer, 1958, cited in Petrunik, 1994).  In 1960, the Dangerous Sexual Offender Act replaced the 1948 legislation and set out specific criteria for determining dangerousness including the offender?s criminal record and the circumstances of the current offence. Only one conviction for a designated sexual offence was necessary for a finding of dangerousness, and an application for a dangerousness hearing could be made up to three months post-release. A finding of dangerousness resulted in an indeterminate sentence that would be reviewed every three years.

In 1969 the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections (Ouimet Report) found that the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender [statutes were] being applied erratically and ineffectively across the country. The Habitual Offender provisions were often used to indefinitely incarcerate repeat nuisance and property offenders and were not being reserved for those most dangerous to the public (Webster & Dickens, 1983) [while] the Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions were [often being] applied to those who had committed sexual offences but were not violent. On the other hand, some serious violent offenders who could be considered to be ?dangerous? on the basis of a demonstrated proclivity to commit a variety of serious personal injury offences were not being captured under either provision. The Ouimet Report did advise the continued use of clinical assessment and treatment for dangerous offenders, while the Law Commission of Canada disagreed and recommended against the use of indeterminate sentences and clinical assessments of dangerousness.

In 1977 new legislation was enacted, repealing both the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender Acts. The new Act was designed to be applicable to both sexual offenders and those who had committed violent acts of a non-sexual nature and provided for determinate or indeterminate sentences and parole eligibility after three years (Webster & Dickens, 1983).  The determination of dangerousness was to be made following conviction but prior to sentencing.  In 1988, legislation was put in place to allow the National Parole Board to detain offenders (who had not been designated as dangerous) past statutory release to the end of their sentence in the interests of public safety, if they felt that the individual was likely to re-offend in a violent or sexual manner.

In 1997, Bill C-55 was enacted, making significant changes to strengthen measures for dealing with the most serious offenders.  The Act  required the testimony of only one psychiatrist (rather than two) at a dangerousness hearing, lengthened the waiting period for parole eligibility to seven (rather than three) years, and rescinded the option of determinate sentences for offenders who had been declared dangerous.  The Act also created a second category of Long Term Offender, who would be subject to a determinate sentence followed by a post-release probationary period of up to ten years. Additionally, the Act extended the period in which application for a finding of dangerous may be made up to six month following the time of sentencing. Finally, of note, the 1997 legislation created a new category of judicial restraint (810.2) aimed at monitoring persons who are likely to commit a personal injury offence.

The 1997 legislation embodies the current provisions for addressing serious violent and sexual offenders.  Currently, any person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, but not yet sentenced who constitutes a danger to the life, safety, or mental/physical well-being of others may be subject to a dangerous offender application by the crown. The offence committed must be a violent offence that warrants a minimum 10 year sentence or a sexual offence as defined in sections 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm) and 273 (aggravated sexual assault). The determination of dangerousness is to be based on evidence establishing: a pattern of unrestrained behaviour and/or, a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and/or, any behaviour that is of such a brutal nature that it can be inferred that the offender?s future behaviour is unlikely to be inhibited by normal restraint (Section 753 (1)(a). Behaviour that exhibits a failure to control sexual impulses that leads to harm to others is also grounds for a finding of dangerousness. If an individual  convicted of an offence subject to a minimum two year sentence meets the above criteria for dangerousness but it is determined that that the risk he poses to the public can be managed through intensive monitoring and various probation conditions including participation in treatment he can be found to be a Long-Term offender. In this case, he will receive a determinate sentence of two years or more plus up to ten years of community supervision.

Some information on Bill C-27:

History of Dangerous Offender Legislation

Canada first introduced legislation to deal with ?dangerous? offenders in 1947. Called The Habitual Offender Act, the legislation was designed to incapacitate offenders with lengthy criminal records by keeping them in prison and away from the general public (Jakimeic et.al.,1986). In 1948 a second piece of legislation, known as the Sexual Psychopath Act, was passed to ensure that dangerous sexual offenders would be identified and treated by mental health professionals (Petrunik, 1994). Once convicted of a designated sexual offence, the offender would be assessed by two psychiatrists, who would determine if the individual was ?dangerous?. A finding of sexual psychopathy would be accompanied by an indeterminate sentence, to be reviewed by the justice minister every three years for parole eligibility.

The term ?sexual psychopath? was very vague and not well defined in the legislation, lending uncertainty to the designation and making it difficult to meet the legal standard of proof ? beyond a reasonable doubt (McRuer, 1958, cited in Petrunik, 1994).  In 1960, the Dangerous Sexual Offender Act replaced the 1948 legislation and set out specific criteria for determining dangerousness including the offender?s criminal record and the circumstances of the current offence. Only one conviction for a designated sexual offence was necessary for a finding of dangerousness, and an application for a dangerousness hearing could be made up to three months post-release. A finding of dangerousness resulted in an indeterminate sentence that would be reviewed every three years.

In 1969 the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections (Ouimet Report) found that the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender [statutes were] being applied erratically and ineffectively across the country. The Habitual Offender provisions were often used to indefinitely incarcerate repeat nuisance and property offenders and were not being reserved for those most dangerous to the public (Webster & Dickens, 1983) [while] the Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions were [often being] applied to those who had committed sexual offences but were not violent. On the other hand, some serious violent offenders who could be considered to be ?dangerous? on the basis of a demonstrated proclivity to commit a variety of serious personal injury offences were not being captured under either provision. The Ouimet Report did advise the continued use of clinical assessment and treatment for dangerous offenders, while the Law Commission of Canada disagreed and recommended against the use of indeterminate sentences and clinical assessments of dangerousness.

In 1977 new legislation was enacted, repealing both the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender Acts. The new Act was designed to be applicable to both sexual offenders and those who had committed violent acts of a non-sexual nature and provided for determinate or indeterminate sentences and parole eligibility after three years (Webster & Dickens, 1983).  The determination of dangerousness was to be made following conviction but prior to sentencing.  In 1988, legislation was put in place to allow the National Parole Board to detain offenders (who had not been designated as dangerous) past statutory release to the end of their sentence in the interests of public safety, if they felt that the individual was likely to re-offend in a violent or sexual manner.

In 1997, Bill C-55 was enacted, making significant changes to strengthen measures for dealing with the most serious offenders.  The Act  required the testimony of only one psychiatrist (rather than two) at a dangerousness hearing, lengthened the waiting period for parole eligibility to seven (rather than three) years, and rescinded the option of determinate sentences for offenders who had been declared dangerous.  The Act also created a second category of Long Term Offender, who would be subject to a determinate sentence followed by a post-release probationary period of up to ten years. Additionally, the Act extended the period in which application for a finding of dangerous may be made up to six month following the time of sentencing. Finally, of note, the 1997 legislation created a new category of judicial restraint (810.2) aimed at monitoring persons who are likely to commit a personal injury offence.
The 1997 legislation embodies the current provisions for addressing serious violent and sexual offenders.  Currently, any person convicted of a serious personal injury offence, but not yet sentenced who constitutes a danger to the life, safety, or mental/physical well-being of others may be subject to a dangerous offender application by the crown. The offence committed must be a violent offence that warrants a minimum 10 year sentence or a sexual offence as defined in sections 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm) and 273 (aggravated sexual assault). The determination of dangerousness is to be based on evidence establishing: a pattern of unrestrained behaviour and/or, a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and/or, any behaviour that is of such a brutal nature that it can be inferred that the offender?s future behaviour is unlikely to be inhibited by normal restraint (Section 753 (1)(a). Behaviour that exhibits a failure to control sexual impulses that leads to harm to others is also grounds for a finding of dangerousness. If an individual  convicted of an offence subject to a minimum two year sentence meets the above criteria for dangerousness but it is determined that that the risk he poses to the public can be managed through intensive monitoring and various probation conditions including participation in treatment he can be found to be a Long-Term offender. In this case, he will receive a determinate sentence of two years or more plus up to ten years of community supervision.

Crafty

[Chris]

Hey AlbertaCowboy, were are you?? It's been a long time since you've been around.

[babybear]

I remember when Candace disappeared. It was a sad day for all her friends. None of it made sense for such a young vibrant girl who was so much loved to disappeared. When the news of her disappearance came my parents didn't let me walk home from school by myself. To be frank what happened to Candace scared me beyond belief.
When the word of her killer being caught and arrested I had been working in a campaign office during our provincial elections. I came home that night and I was tired. I sat down and turned on the news. What I saw before me knocked the wind out, I was staring at an old photo of Candace. I felt like I had just seen a ghost. Then I caught the announcement that they were making on the news. Candace's killer had been caught. I fell to my knees and started to cry. I praised my Father in heaven for bringing an arrest.
   Thank you Mr. Dehn for your constant persistence in the news. Thank you to the Winnipeg police for your persistance also in finding Candace's killer. Now she can rest in peace.
  But please how did mark Edward Grant get released. This is the time we need the death penalty not just for him but every sexual predator who murders children. These children are supposed to be our future.
  I can't wait for this sicko's trial. I plan on attending when I can. I hope he rots in jail.

[Chris]

Hi Babybear, thanks for joining.

So Candace was your friend? I am really sorry about your lose. It must have been a horrifying experience. I remember this case before he was arrested, it seemed to be rather cruel.

I am so glad too that the police went back and kept investigating. IT must have been a huge relief to everyone who knew her.

I have always been against the death penalty, but I am starting to be open to allowing it in special cases, especially murders of children. This was one of the saddest murders I ever read about.

I feel very confident that the police forces across Canada will be solving many old cases now with more funding, better training, and better technology. Cases like this help reinforce that it is important.

Again, thanks for joining.

[AlbertaCowboy]

I remember when Candace disappeared. It was a sad day for all her friends. None of it made sense for such a young vibrant girl who was so much loved to disappeared. When the news of her disappearance came my parents didn't let me walk home from school by myself. To be frank what happened to Candace scared me beyond belief.

I still remember this case, as I just turned 9 years old at the time.  It created paranoia among Winnipeggers.  I still remember police visiting my school as part of an education program to warn us the dangers of child abduction. 

[AlbertaCowboy]

Hey Cowboy,
Would like to hear from you about this case being solved!! You posted the case and I'm wondering what you think now that someone's been charged.

I am elated that this case is solved!  I hope Grant rots in hell for what he did. 

[Chris]

LOL!

[AlbertaCowboy]

Thanks, Des.  It is getting better.  Hopefully I will be able to work at my job again, although I've been keeping somewhat busy working as a phone canvasser for the Heart & Stroke Foundation for the last month just to support myself. 

I'm glad they locked up that monster responsible for her murder.  I still remember the fear he created in the Winnipeg area when she was found.  I was 9 at the time, and a couple of police officers came to my school a couple of weeks later telling us about the dangers of hanging out with strangers in assembly.

[Sleuth]

Another one for the good guys! Unfortunately I was unable to upload a pic of the killer.

Arrest made in 1984 killing of Winnipeg teen
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | 2:41 PM CT
CBC News

A 43-year-old man has been arrested and charged in connection with the 1984 death of Winnipeg teenager Candace Derksen, police say.

Mark Edward Grant was arrested Wednesday morning and charged with first-degree murder.

Grant, classified as a dangerous offender by justice officials, has a lengthy criminal record with several convictions for assault and sexual assault, court documents indicate.

Derksen, 13, was last seen walking home from the Mennonite Brethren Collegiate in the East Kildonan area of Winnipeg in November 1984. Her frozen body was found seven weeks later in a shed in the same neighbourhood. Bound at the wrists and ankles, she died of exposure.

Police said they believed she had been in the the little-used machine shed owned by a manufacturing company since the day she disappeared.

The suspect was 21 at the time of Derksen's death and lived in the area.

Investigators said he was "known to police" and had been among the hundreds interviewed after Derksen's disappearance, but was not considered a suspect at the time.

Winnipeg police said Wednesday the break in the case came after the Derksen file was handed to investigators in the city's new cold case unit in 2006.

  Investigators declined to reveal details of the break, but said cold case detectives had noticed connections in notes in the case files that led them to identify suspects and submit forensic evidence to a private laboratory in Ontario.

The laboratory results led them to Grant, officers said.

Candace's parents, Wilma and Cliff Derksen, attended the police news conference where the suspect was identified.

"We are stunned at a few things: that the case has come to this point, and also that there is such huge interest in it," Cliff Derksen said.

"We had actually given up hope. We were already prepared to live with this mystery that has shadowed our family for so many years."

Both Derksens said they did not know Grant.

The Derksens said they felt both "anticipation and trepidation" about the progress in the case, as well as a renewed sense of sadness and loss over their daughter's death.