CANADA Canada - Elizabeth Bain, 22, Scarborough Ont, 19 June 1990 #1

[SecretSource]

What did she say was her method to eliminate CB? Or did she say?

PN testified that a reverse paternity test was performed to determine that the source of the blood and that after taking samples from both RB and JB it was determined that the blood originated from a female offspring of RB and JB; Cathie testified that she did not bleed in the car and that, along with EB never having run away before and in not taking any ID or money with her, led to the conclusion through circumstantial evidence that EB was dead. All lawyers for RB have agreed and/or accepted that the blood belonged to EB and as such it was never an issue or since. Defence lawyers at the preliminary hearing first suggested that the blood did not necessarily prove death but at trial they did concede it; lawyers post-conviction conceded that EB was dead.

Obviously, circumstantial evidence is not mathematical proof; it is true that some people who have been declared dead and/or murdered have shown up alive.

Imo, the blood was necessary to point LE in the direction that EB had been murdered and was not a missing person.

It makes sense along with several other scenarios and it raises questions still. One would think that if someone had murdered EB outside of the car - and clearly didn't want the police to know she was murdered and/or figured he or she would be a suspect - you'd think they'd try to prevent any blood from being left at all. Take away the blood and we might still be looking at this as a missing persons case and they're still trying to find her. With the blood, they just assume she was murdered and don't bother. It's a possibility but I still say unlikely. JMO.

 

[Woodland]

What the good taxpaying citizens of Ontario want to know, and should know as they funded this mess, is -

The blood in the back of the Tercal in the case brought against RB by TPS and the Ontario Crown was never proven to belong to Liz Bain.

It was left open as belonging to one of two people - by CFS.

Who accepted and still accepts that the blood was EB's is neither here nor there.

 

[Woodland]

So the same problem exists - if EB was killed on Tuesday - how is it the blood in the Tercel was 'deemed' to be about three hours old, three days later?

 

[eyesonly]

So the same problem exists - if EB was killed on Tuesday - how is it the blood in the Tercel was 'deemed' to be about three hours old, three days later?

the blood was deemed to be within three hours old because of color. what we don't know is if it was deposited there on the tuesday night, would it have still looked like it did on the friday.

 

[eyesonly]

Regarding the busy phone line on the 19th. Was going thru my old notes from like 1998 and found a scenario I had suggested.
I believe the bains had a computer and if they got their internet through a bell line and not cable, if someone was using the computer that would tie up the phone line it was connected to.
I remember this happening to me and that's why I switched to cable back then.

Thoughts, is this a plausible scenario

 

[Woodland]

On the blood - if CFS 'deemed' it to have come from an 'injury' within three hours (I believe that was the term) was the sole reason because of color? If it was refrigerated for three days, would it 'look' the same?

How scientific are we talking here?

 

[Woodland]

Not sure exactly when the internet was available in homes. Here is a wiki link that says mid-1990's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

I recall using e-mail and the internet more like 1995 - although I was in a country deemed 'third world' at the time - so likely a little behind the times. But not much.

 

[eyesonly]

Found copy of one of the "Missing" posters looking for any sign of Liz or her car from between 4pm June 19th and 6am June 20th.

Have always found this odd since her car wasnt discovered till mid afternoon on the 22nd.

6am was when RB got call from mrs Bain. It is also the time that MB arrived home.
Was this timing about RB or MB? Hmmmmmmm. Or did someone actually know where the car was by 6am.
The posters were written and /or approved by mr Bain if memory serves correct.

 

[Woodland]

When did the posters start going up? Not seeing it being before the car was found on 22 June - time needed to organize etc.

Something is so wrong with that poster imo. Knowledge of when something happened?

It's my understanding that MB reported getting home at 6:00 am - regardless that his gf NS said he did not stay at her house the night before. The call to RB was suppose to have been at 6:30 am and he arrived at the Bain residence at 7:00 am. MB is suppose to have called from work when RB was at the house.

Is there a copy of the poster that can be posted here? Tia.

 

[eyesonly]

There was also another one made up for 10pm June 19th - 6am June 20th.

At the very least some witness sightings out there for the 20th to the 22nd they prob wouldn't have come forward thinking the couldn't have seen what they saw maybe.

Will find out when the posters were made up

Not sure exact date they started but they were seen a couple weeks after the 19th.

 

[Woodland]

The only thing I get out of both posters is - 'they' knew Liz was gone from this world. Jmo.

And if so, it was before the time stated on the posters - also jmo.

 

[Woodland]

Have never seen mention of when sister C left the Bain residence on 19 June 1990.

C lived elsewhere but spent the night of 18 to 19 June (went to work at the same time and place as her mother (3 - 11 pm) and returned with her mother after work) at the B residence and claims to have seen EB morning of 19 June at 10:00 am in her room. That's all I can recall of C and the 19th of June.

 

[SecretSource]

Thanks for clarifying the timing of the call to RB being at 630am woodland. Not sure how I would get it onto the site here. There was also another one made up for 10pm June 19th - 6am June 20th.

For what it's worth, Mrs. B actually testified that she made the call at 6:00 AM, not 6:30 AM but by the time the trial ended both the Crown and the defence settled on 6:00 AM. It didn't really matter with respect to RB because regardless of which time JE and/or DD saw the car, if it was being driven on Wednesday then RB wasn't driving it.

From the Court of Appeal decision:

[144] ... In his testimony, [JE] claimed that he was 80 per cent sure that he had seen [EB's] car on Wednesday morning, June 20, not Friday morning, June 22. If his Wednesday recollection was accurate, then it is a virtual certainty that the appellant was home in bed at the time.


As it happens, the forensic evidence if accurate indicates two possibilities per the police theory. If EB is killed before 7:00 PM then she is in the car and presumably on her way to wherever by 10:00 PM and removed soon after so Friday is out and Wednesday in; if Friday is in then EB has to be killed days later, likely Thursday night/Friday morning. A third possibility is that neither DD or JE saw the car at all.

The posters could indicate that at least early on consistent with the scenario that LE posited to RB in his first interview, LE tried to confine the window for seeing the car to no later than 6:00 AM per Mrs. Bain's call to RB's house which he was there to answer, the secretary at Three 'R' Autobody's sighting not long after, and the fact that it was unlikely and ludicrous to think that anyone would be driving the car a day or two or three after EB went missing and/or was killed. This was the main reason why DD's sighting was deemed "impossible" when he was spoken to at length on July 9th, 1990.

It would be interesting to know at what point LE and/or EB's family started distributing posters with the relevant time period extended past 6:00 AM June 20th, 1990. LE has never come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why they suddenly gave DD's sighting any credence having months previously dismissed it; absolutely no evidence emerged suggesting that the car had moved after Wednesday until DD made his now clearly bogus ID of RB. It would be even more interesting to know if LE had received any evidence from the CFS before Dibben gave his official statement that his sighting was indeed impossible.

 

[SecretSource]

the blood was deemed to be within three hours old because of color. what we don't know is if it was deposited there on the tuesday night, would it have still looked like it did on the friday.

Not only deemed to have been up to three hours old because of colour; blood also decomposes and it seems that there are chemical properties of decomposed blood that can allow one to distinguish it from freshly-deposited blood which were absent. What is somewhat ambiguous is that when the term "fresh" is used does that refer only to when the blood was deposited in the car or when the car was found on Friday. Keep in mind the following quote:


Aging of Blood

As bloodstains increase in age, they progress through a series of color changes from red to reddish brown to green and eventually to dark brown and black (Figures 9.3a and b). This change of color is attributable to the drying process and to the loss of oxygen from the oxyhemoglobin in the red cells on exposure to air. Exposure to the sun will hasten the darkening process. A particularly warm and humid environment and the presence of bacteria and other microorganisms during the decomposition process will also affect the sequence and duration of color changes in bloodstains. Post mortem growth of fungus can produce unusual changes in blood as seen in Figures 9.4a and b.

Later on in the same paragraph:

[... Wet bloodstains that were originally red will usually progress to red brown and then go to green within 24 h at a warm temperature as a result of the growth of bacteria and the decomposition process.


"Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice" by James, Stuart H. et al.:

 

[Woodland]

From post #873 - SS having trouble understanding something.

As it happens, the forensic evidence if accurate indicates two possibilities per the police theory. If EB is killed before 7:00 PM then she is in the car and presumably on her way to wherever by 10:00 PM and removed soon after so Friday is out and Wednesday in; if Friday is in then EB has to be killed days later, likely Thursday night/Friday morning. A third possibility is that neither DD or JE saw the car at all.

How can one have blood that is three hours old on Tuesday and again on Friday?

In post #874 you seem to confirm three hours old per color and lack of decomp. Which day was the blood deposited in the car?

 

[SecretSource]

How can one have blood that is three hours old on Tuesday and again on Friday?

Not "and again" but "or."

The CFS wasn't saying that the blood was three hours old, at least that doesn't seem to be what they were saying. They were merely saying that based on the state of the blood in the car and the lack of any signs of decomposition, the blood had to be deposited no more than three hours after EB had been injured; otherwise, it would have yielded signs of decomposition. That said, we simply don't know when she was injured and/or killed or at least the forensic evidence seems somewhat ambiguous. Based on the somewhat ambiguous note, "would lose blood 3 hours after injury and would be consistent with evidence" we can conclude that if EB was injured and/or killed on Tuesday night before 7:00 PM the blood and body had to be in her car by 10:00 PM; however, EB couldn't have been killed before 7:00 PM and kept somewhere outside the car or inside the car for very long because when the car was found there were absolutely no signs of a decomposing body ever being in the car at any time.

It seems possible then that the blood could have been deposited in the car days after EB was reported missing but the absence of any signs of decomposition from a body that had either been sitting outside or inside the car requires that if DD saw the car on Friday morning there is no way EB could have been killed on Tuesday night; by then there would have been too many signs of decomposition had a body that had been decomposing for 2-3 days been placed in the car and driven days after the killing.

Thus, if EB is killed Tuesday night she's in her car and out of her car quickly, as in within a few hours; if DD saw the car on Friday - and whoever was driving it was getting rid of the body which seems the only logical reason why anyone would be driving the car in the first place - then EB was alive much later than Tuesday night. Had she been dead for days the signs of decomposition in the car would have been unmistakeable by Friday.

 

[Woodland]

Everything about the blood is ambiguous imo - who it belonged to and when it was placed there. No seems able to say anything with certainty - it's all over the map.

Are there any samples of the blood and the mats from the car at CFS? The case was under appeal from the time of conviction, so should not have been destroyed. Mind you, CFS did not know enough to refrigerate samples in that era - did they deteriorate?

 

[Snively]

Wrapping of a wound will drastically change the colour of blood and the amount. A stemmed wound would obviously leave far less blood but a victim could still die. What is used to stem the flow of blood will change things as well. A plastic bag would act differently than a linen dressing. The assumption always was that she died by blow to the head. Not necessarily bleeding out and especially judging by the limited amount of blood. A blow to the head incapacitating someone may not kill them but placing a plastic bag over their head would.

 

[SecretSource]

Everything about the blood is ambiguous imo - who it belonged to and when it was placed there. No seems able to say anything with certainty - it's all over the map.

I wouldn't give you "everything" but "when it was placed there" I will grant you at this point; about the only things that we can be confident of is that if EB was dead before 7:15 PM on June 19th, 1990 she was in her car by 10:00 PM at the latest and the sighting of the car on Friday morning is off the table.

 

[SecretSource]

Wrapping of a wound will drastically change the colour of blood and the amount. A stemmed wound would obviously leave far less blood but a victim could still die. What is used to stem the flow of blood will change things as well. A plastic bag would act differently than a linen dressing. The assumption always was that she died by blow to the head. Not necessarily bleeding out and especially judging by the limited amount of blood. A blow to the head incapacitating someone may not kill them but placing a plastic bag over their head would.

According to the CFS the body wasn't wrapped; had it been, there would not have been nearly as much blood in the car if any at all. Also, wrapping wouldn't have changed anything regarding the lack of blood decomposition. My question is this: why wrap a body then be so sloppy as to get blood all over the car? It doesn't make sense.