CANADA Canada - Elizabeth Bain, 22, Scarborough, Ont, 19 June 1990 #2

[IamwhatIam]

Can you please specify or screenshot with links exactly what you’re referring to?

I’m not understanding the speculation.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to speculate anything.
My question about CB's dna sample was in reference to the discussion on the previous page between Snively and Woodland.
Without her body or a definitively known DNA sample of EB's, law enforcement and the crown are never allowed to say the blood belonged to her even though it's a more than reasonable assumption that it is hers.
It just appears to me that Woodland wouldn't be suggesting the possibility of it not being her blood if it was known that CB had given a DNA sample and it was compared to and excluded as the donor of the blood in the car.

So I'm very curious as if there is any factual evidence stating that this event did happen, and if it didn't happen, why not.
Seems like a standard elimination procedure, if not for law enforcement, then it should have definitely been for the crown so it doesn't leave any wiggle room for the defense team to maneuver against a jury.

"So a person very close to the case won’t go on record with the Toronto Star and name who he suspects."

Just wanted to comment on your statement here.
I don't think it's a case of this person "won't" go on record with the TS, rather than he "can't" go on record with the TS in naming someone he suspects to be the person responsible because he and probably the TS would be hit with a defamation lawsuit.

 

[IamwhatIam]

Question to CB about the blood in the car starts around line 28. Page 1273 of the trial.
No reference to her taking a DNA sample and/or its results.
Just very odd to me imo.

 

[Woodland]

I recently found my old copy of the book on this case 'No Claim To Mercy' by Derek Finkle.

I will start scanning through it this evening to find specific page numbers with references to the small quantity of blood in the car, the direction of the smudges and why there was no DNA profile created for CB. A profile was created from the blood in the car. The reason for no DNA profile for CB was, according to the book, that Mr and Mrs B did not allow LE to take a sample from CB. While she no longer lived with her parents, she was still a minor. The parents wishes were granted.

Why would one do that?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I recently found my old copy of the book on this case 'No Claim To Mercy' by Derek Finkle.

I will start scanning through it this evening to find specific page numbers with references to the small quantity of blood in the car, the direction of the smudges and why there was no DNA profile created for CB. A profile was created from the blood in the car. The reason for no DNA profile for CB was, according to the book, that Mr and Mrs B did not allow LE to take a sample from CB. While she no longer lived with her parents, she was still a minor. The parents wishes were granted.

Why would one do that?

Can you please link the source that states CB declined, or her parents declined permission, to give the police CB’s DNA sample?

I flipped through my copy of ‘No Claim to Mercy’ and found only this in reference to the topic:



CB was eliminated because she told police she had never bled in the car, according to author DF.

 

[Woodland]

I just came across the first blood discussion in the book - starts bottom of page 225 in hard cover version. CB does say here that she never bled in EB's car. This is after CFS has determined that the blood is from a female offspring of Mr and Mrs B, who both gave a sample for DNA profiling. CB's statement is not derived from science.

This is long before RB was charged and long before the trial got underway. It's during the trial where PN of CFS testifies why she never had the opportunity to do a DNA profile for CB. PN performed three DNA profiles long before charges were laid - no one allowed the opportunity to do a fourth one for CB.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I just came across the first blood discussion in the book - starts bottom of page 225 in hard cover version. CB does say here that she never bled in EB's car. This is after CFS has determined that the blood is from a female offspring of Mr and Mrs B, who both gave a sample for DNA profiling. CB's statement is not derived from science.

This is long before RB was charged and long before the trial got underway. It's during the trial where PN of CFS testifies why she never had the opportunity to do a DNA profile for CB. PN performed three DNA profiles long before charges were laid - no one allowed the opportunity to do a fourth one for CB.

Above your post I posted a photo of the passage in the book so people can read it verbatim.

Please post a screenshot or the line number of PN’s testimony where she stated she ‘no one allowed’ a DNA sample from CB. I read through it and cannot find it.

 

[Woodland]

From page 366 and 367 of hard cover edition of NCTM. RB has been arrested and this is testimony at his preliminary hearing.

Testimony from a detective with CFS who is testifying what the Head of the Pathology Dept reported - ' ... had estimated less than half a pint of blood had pooled beneath the carpet of EB's car. It would later be pointed out that this was less than blood donors normally give in one sitting.'

Testimony from forensic biologist with CFS - ... conclusions were straight forward. A large, bulky, bloodstained object (a body) had been lowered onto the floor behind the front seats through the passenger door. The smears didn't indicate much about how the body had been removed from the vehicle, but the lack of 'impact spatters' - what one would find near the victim of a gunshot or stab wound or heavy blow - had led H to believe that the bleeding had begun prior to entering the vehicle.

So due to pooling of a small amount of blood beneath the carpet, CFS concluded that a body had been placed in the rear of the car. Does this mean the carpet had been pushed away from it's normal position? There is nothing to indicate how the carpet was positioned when the vehicle was found. There was no indication from smearing how a body was removed. I'm left with the question how CFS concluded a body was in the car from this small amount of pooling and lack of evidence a body was removed.

CFS concluded the bleeding started outside of the car. Imo, CFS should also have concluded that the bleeding stopped while the body was in the car since there was no indication of a bleeding body being removed.

Not very 'sciencey' imo.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

From page 366 and 367 of hard cover edition of NCTM. RB has been arrested and this is testimony at his preliminary hearing.

Testimony from a detective with CFS who is testifying what the Head of the Pathology Dept reported - ' ... had estimated less than half a pint of blood had pooled beneath the carpet of EB's car. It would later be pointed out that this was less than blood donors normally give in one sitting.'

Testimony from forensic biologist with CFS - ... conclusions were straight forward. A large, bulky, bloodstained object (a body) had been lowered onto the floor behind the front seats through the passenger door. The smears didn't indicate much about how the body had been removed from the vehicle, but the lack of 'impact spatters' - what one would find near the victim of a gunshot or stab wound or heavy blow - had led H to believe that the bleeding had begun prior to entering the vehicle.

So due to pooling of a small amount of blood beneath the carpet, CFS concluded that a body had been placed in the rear of the car. Does this mean the carpet had been pushed away from it's normal position? There is nothing to indicate how the carpet was positioned when the vehicle was found. There was no indication from smearing how a body was removed. I'm left with the question how CFS concluded a body was in the car from this small amount of pooling and lack of evidence a body was removed.

CFS concluded the bleeding started outside of the car. Imo, CFS should also have concluded that the bleeding stopped while the body was in the car since there was no indication of a bleeding body being removed.

Not very 'sciencey' imo.

It is explained in the book, articles, and expert testimony. The blood and blood smears found in the car were consistent with a body being in the car and removed. It’s undisputed.

Detective Rowntree saw what looked like blood on the floor mat behind the driver’s seat. He cut part of the mat so that it could be tested. When he did, wet blood dropped from underneath the piece. He found the blood had soaked through the carpet to the car body.

From ‘No Claim to Mercy’, pages 122 & 123.