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

New Posts

The entire idea of the distance the car traveled based on the gas left in the tank was a silly idea by the police to begin with. They knew she took money out of the ATM so it's entirely possible she used some or part of that money for gas. Like I said even $10 on a tank already a quarter full would fill that car up with more than half a tank. Besides, everyone was guessing at just how much gas was in the car to begin with. Gas stations then, like ATM's, were few and far between that had cameras.

I always thought the estimated distance was a waste of time. But I do believe the sighting at Haugen's was accurate. The question of the time at Haugen's ranges from 5:30 am to 7:30 am. When I used to work around there right around that time the owner's car was usually there before 6:00 am and I think the time he saw Liz's car was far closer to 5:30 am.

As for the time the call came in to Baltovich being somewhere between 6:30 am and 7:00 am, you would have to bring out the call records to nail that down. Was someone's clock set 5 minutes fast or slow? Is the call time just being ballparked just like the time at Haugen's? Call it between 6:30 am and 6:45 am then.

Even the time of an easy 45 minutes is doing the speed limit, not 10 or 20 over that most people do. Especially that time of morning.

But that means it certainly is plausible Rob (and the other guy) could have the car back from Haugen's, parked at 3R, and be back home prior to the phone call coming in. Risky, but it's a risk you would take if you just killed someone.
 
According to NTCM, Baltovich was waiting for EB at her 7:00pm class and, when it was obvious she wasn’t there, he left. I have always considered this is pretty compelling proof of Baltovich’s innocence; particularly in light of the fact that he did not, in any way, do something to call attention to himself (i.e. he wasn’t staging an alibi). Since the class was very important to EB, the fact that she missed it would strongly suggest that whatever happened to her happened before 7:00pm. Thus, Baltovich believed her alive at that time. Apparently, when questioned by police, someone who was at that class reported that he saw “an ex-boyfriend” of EB waiting for someone as the class dispersed. Later, he corrected that report. He said that it was Baltovich that he saw; he just was not that up on who EB was dating at the time.

Now, on the podcast, Baltovich himself, while claiming to have been waiting at the classroom, reports that an ex-boyfriend of EB was there as well.

I’m confused. Was there a credible witness who saw Baltovich at the classroom that night?
 
Seems her car was at the park at 7:00 pm and gone by 9:10 pm.

The last (credible) sighting of Liz herself, seems to be in by her mother at 4:00. After that there were people who saw her at the library between 5:00 pm and 5:30 pm. Your choice if you believe that or not. I can't recall if that was ever discounted. Another discounted witness report was 5:30 pm to 6:15 pm at the tennis courts. Other sightings had her seen with a guy at 3R around 8 or 8:30 am.

Essentially Liz could have been using her car in and around the area anytime after 4:00 pm. She also could have disappeared anytime after 4:00 pm and someone else was moving her car.

To show just how much times can be off a few minutes (or more) one way or another, a friend of Balotivich's even said he saw Rob at the gym at 9:00 pm, the same time Rob said he was outside the classroom.

Another guy even changed his story (twice) as to where he saw Rob at 9:15 (the gym) and also tried to get a witness to change his time of seeing Rob earlier. And he wasn't even a good friend of Rob's. Strange.
 
Kemo wrote:
"I’m confused. Was there a credible witness who saw Baltovich at the classroom that night?"
"Since the class was very important to EB, the fact that she missed it would strongly suggest that whatever happened to her happened before 7:00pm."

Hey Kemo:
It was RB who told police he thought the guy waiting in front of EB's class might have been her ex bf. RB had never met the ex bf before, and this guy in front of the class seemed to be a similar description to what EB described him to RB as.
This guy wasn't her ex and was waiting for his own gf who was first out of the class.
It was actually this guy who was the one police did track down through his gf, and this guy did tell them he definitely saw RB that night hiding up on the balcony part exactly where RB said he was.
Fyi, this witness information never made it to the defense at any time. It was never divulged at the prelim or trial. It was totally kept suppressed so they could make it look like RB was lying about being at the class.
It didn't come out until years later when the lawyers from aidwyc (now innocent Canada) went through all the files personally and painstakingly, for RB's appeal for a new trial.

EB actually skipped her class the week before and she was exhausted from her schooling and working two jobs. So it wouldn't have been a shock for her to miss the class again.
She did lose a percentage if she missed a class so it would be reasonable to assume she had all intentions of attending class when she woke up that morning.
So missing her class doesn't necessarily mean something happened to her prior to 7pm, but it might mean something was happening prior to 7pm that carried over as there are two witness sightings of EB with a male driving (or in the driver's seat of) her car. One between 7:15-8pmish and another between 8-8:30pmish.
One of these sightings was completely buried from RB's defense. In fact the witness himself showed up at the court and asked the detective why he wasn't being called because RB was not the guy he saw driving he car. The detective told him that they didn't need him and to leave. This witness eventually came forward to RB's private investigator after the conviction.

I've had someone contact me with a sighting they had of EB at 5:45-6pm that night, outside of the valley. He's 100% sure it was her. He called it in to the tips line in 1990 and never heard anything back. He tried to tell some officers in 2008 (I think it was) and they just basically laughed at him.
So one has to wonder just how many more sighting of EB were reported for seeing her that night, and were suppressed by the police because they didn't fit their theory around convicting RB.


 
Last edited:
Eyesonly, Thanks. That settles it for me.

There are only two reasons for Baltovich to be at EB’s classroom at that time: he was either looking for her (and obviously believed her to be alive) or he was trying to make people believe that he was looking for her and believed her to be alive. Had it been the later, he would have made damned sure people saw and remembered him. This was not the case. He was being discreet and actually avoided being noticed. He was not staging an alibi. I am satisfied that Baltovich is not involved.

It is possible, I suppose that EB was so lost in her thoughts that she was just wondering around by herself, missing her class only for Baltovich to find her after 9:00 and kill her. Had she been with anyone else during that period who was not involved in her disappearance, that person would almost certainly come forward. Not only is this scenario highly improbable but there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
 
Kemo.
There were two separate credible witness sightings between 7:15-8:30pm. Both saw EB in the passenger seat of her own car with a male in the driver's seat. One sighting the car was in motion driving, and the other sighting the car was parked.
Both witnesses described seeing what they felt was a commotion/tussle between the two.
These sightings were at a time when RB was clearly accounted for and the Crown conceded his alibi for this time. So the Crown had to move EB's death prior to 7pm in order to have an chance of convicting RB, despite zero evidence that anything happened pre 7pm, and reasonable evidence that she was in fact alive post 7pm and in the company of a male who was not RB.
 
But there is still a time when RB was unaccounted for. From the time he left the Bains to the time he made it back to the gym. A 4 minute drive that took 20 minutes? And that's by RB's own timeline.
 
Snively said:
But there is still a time when RB was unaccounted for. From the time he left the Bains to the time he made it back to the gym. A 4 minute drive that took 20 minutes? And that's by RB's own timeline.
Click to expand...

Here is an excerpt from the judge's
charge to the jury summarizing two witnesses, RC and AS. Full names have been shortened to initials. Anything in brackets is me.


(regarding RC being in the gym, after squash with AS was done and he got into the pickup volleyball)
"" I saw Robert Baltovich come through the doors at 9:30pm. He was wearing jeans, running shoes, dark crew neck sweater, and his hair was jelled back. He went to the bleachers where JC, AS, and NW we're sitting. After I was finished at 9:55pm I went down and changed, no shower. I went back at five to ten minutes after 10.
I said hello to the accused, he said hi -- how are the women. I left the building and the campus, I saw nothing unusual about him. Conversation was hi and goodbye."

Regarding AS
"AS said he went to play squash with RC and he gave approximately the same times"


Snively, the timing I have for RB is he left the campus shortly after nine. Drove to the valley and them straight up to the Bain residence. Talked to Mrs Bain for a couple of mins and was on his way back to the utsc by around 9:25pm. I don't see where this 20min gap is.
 
Following up with RB's Wednesday morning alibi, here is a section directly from the Court of Appeals 2004 decision:
(Bold lettering is mine)

[144] Pausing there, we note that the question was worded in a manner that was unfair to the appellant. Whether by design or effect, it conveyed the erroneous impression that little turned on the timing of Elliott’s reported sighting of Ms. Bain’s car. That, of course, was not the case. In his testimony, Elliott claimed that he was eighty percent sure that he had seen Ms. Bain’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.


"" A virtual certainty"". Pretty strong words coming from the Court of Appeals if you ask me. jmo
 
It's still very, very easy to sneak out of a house after his parents went to bed and be back home before the phone call comes in and they were awake. As for the times noted, the key word is "approximately". The only definitive time I would believe is the time of Rob and Mrs. Bain at the Bain's and the phone call Rob made when he went back to the gym (and that's only if there is a paper record of that, which I don't think there is). Don't forget that EG "suddenly" remembered seeing Rob in the gym at 9:15, a time when Rob himself said he was at the Bain's. Far too much of the time at the gym is ballparked. Was 9:30 really 9:40 or 9:50?
 
Well that is debatable but the report you quoted says "approximately the same times". I've dealt with enough "time estimates" through work and personal knowledge to know "estimates and approximately" mean precisely what they say. Just look at people's watches and see the difference in time. 4 to 9 minutes is pretty common. Then people ballpark the times for everything as "about 1:45" or whatever. So was it actually 1:35 or 1:50 and was it off your watch which is 7 minutes faster than what I have which is 2 minutes faster than the actual time. Now what do you have? A time that could be anywhere from 1:25 to nearly 2:00.

Even time stamped clocks in companies have known to be off by up to 10 minutes. I've seen time stamped video from an ATM that is completely different by 7 full minutes to the clock in the bank I could see in the same video. Read any watch companies information and they will tell you how much time the watch loses or gains every month. Now add on a person "guestimating" the time.

It's no different than relying on witness identification. The accuracy just isn't there, so to eliminate a 20 minute window, which is more than enough time, without a definitive time like a phone record, just can't be done.
 
The Court of Appeals ruled out RB being in PT Perry on Wednesday morning.
Therefore if Elliott's sighting is correct as you believe, RB was not the person driving her car Wednesday morning in the PT Perry area disposing of her body.
The Crown itself ruled out RB for Wednesday morning as well.
So unless you can produce some actual evidence to the contrary, besides all the fantasy talk, then all you're doing is perpetuating the lies and defamation of RB's reputation and his whole adult life that was stolen from him.

RB's exoneration is the key to finding EB's whereabouts.
 
Last edited:
Snively wrote:
"so to eliminate a 20 minute window, which is more than enough time, "

Which 20 minute window?
And more than enough time for what?
 
I see the word police erased a post of mine.
No guarantees that I will be able to uphold to the word police standards.
As such, I think it's best I take a very extended break from the site.
Adios amigos
 
The Court of Appeals ruled against a great deal of Crown evidence, especially pertaining to the hypnosis testimony and provided an alternative possibility in Paul Bernardo. Bernardo had nothing to do this. Baltovich had the Crown drop the charges due to a lot of questions surrounding the Crown itself withholding evidence. This case is not listed as a cold case on the Toronto Police site for a reason. It was certainly botched by both the police and the Crown, but the police do believe they have the right man.

I've pointed out numerous instances of questionable testimony and witness statements (particularly EG) that were used in the defence case and a viable timeline and motive.

There is more than one Crown attorney who has the same theory as myself, and that does differ from the one put forth that was defeated in Appeals.
 
Lochelowke wrote: " Farther up north is where PB was a councillor, at Camp Wabanaki. It was mentioned that this is the place PB started peeping (can’t find the source) it seems, maybe, this is the first place he would think of to bury EB. ". And someone else posted "was anything missing from EB?".

Great points. To solve such an old case, evidence such as human remains or the victim's belongings are crucial. Serial killers are known to take "trophy" items from their vics, and PBT (PB Teale) & KH had that habit. It is important to know whether the whereabouts of all of EB's jewellery has been accounted for. In terms of possible cadaver sites, people who attended Camp W should be solicited in case anyone found teeth or bones or other items, and assumed they were from an animal.
No doubt anyone who loved EB would find it very hard to accept that PBT was her killer, but that possibility should not be ruled out. He had the motive, means & opportunity, and receipts LE found in his St Catharines home prove he was in Scarborough at time of EB's disapearance. He was very familiar w UTSC campus & took girlfriends to the surrounding valley. PB's known Scarb rapes were extremely sadistic and some involved weapons and cuts to vics . As a young man, he told a close friend that if he saw his own mother in a field, he would kill her. Any speculation that he never killed anyone & it was KH that killed French & Mahaffy, is just that. They were both killers. It is entirely possible other homicides are connected.
 
[QUOTE="Lochelowke, post: 15229728, member:

"Let’s say PB did kill EB,....it would fit that if EB was his first murder, he would keep her somewhere that he has more of a connection to. Farther up north is where PB was a councillor, at Camp Wabanaki. It was mentioned that this is the place PB started peeping (can’t find the source) it seems, maybe, this is the first place...END Quote.

My posting above is in response to this quote from Lochelowke, and also in reponse to
Lexiintoronto's comment.
 
Snively said:
The Court of Appeals ruled against a great deal of Crown evidence, especially pertaining to the hypnosis testimony and provided an alternative possibility in Paul Bernardo. Bernardo had nothing to do this. Baltovich had the Crown drop the charges due to a lot of questions surrounding the Crown itself withholding evidence. This case is not listed as a cold case on the Toronto Police site for a reason. It was certainly botched by both the police and the Crown, but the police do believe they have the right man.

I've pointed out numerous instances of questionable testimony and witness statements (particularly EG) that were used in the defence case and a viable timeline and motive.

There is more than one Crown attorney who has the same theory as myself, and that does differ from the one put forth that was defeated in Appeals.
Click to expand...

Snively,
you have been asked but never responded to the question, what is your theory? Yes this case was botched but mainly because no other suspects were investigated and like many other cases it let to wrongful prosecution. This case is not listed as a cold case but it is a cold case because nobody has been found guilty of this crime.
 
I wrote my theory many pages backed with all the details and the extra person involved. Essentially where Rob was thinking Liz was seeing a former boyfriend named Eric, it wasn't the Eric that Rob thought. This was actually a guy with the initials EG who worked at the gym at the U of T.

EG tried to get a witness to change the time the witness said he saw Rob at the gym. This despite the fact that EG and Rob said they only knew each other in passing. Later in the evening at a time when Rob was with Mrs. Bain at the Bain's, EG suddenly remembered a few weeks later to tell the police he saw Rob at the gym at that time Rob was with Mrs. Bain. Obviously this was false.

Why would someone who admits they only knew someone in passing go to the trouble (potentially legal) of trying to get a witness to change their testimony and then "suddenly" remember a time he saw Rob in the gym when Rob became the only target of the investigation?

This person, EG, managed the gym and had a key to get in and out of side doors without being seen. I think EG, was at 3R with Liz at the time Rob was at the Bain's. He even fit the description of the man seen in the car. Rob then left the Bain's and drove around looking for Liz, passing 3R which was only a 4 minute drive away and spotting Liz's car. A fight or altercation broke out between Rob and EG and Liz was badly injured. I don't think it was done on purpose.

I think Liz was wrapped in the blanket from her car and hidden in the back seat or the bushes in the park across from 3R. Rob and EG then went back to the gym. That's the 20 minute window I'm talking about. That's all it would take. EG went in through a side door so he was never missed, and Rob went in the front door. Essentially they then became each other's alibi from there until the gym closed. I'm sure they would be panicking but they would have to figure out what to do next.

When the gym closed EG went with his friend to a bar and Rob went home. After the bar closed EG went to 3R and Rob snuck out of his house (more than one Crown attorney's believe exactly that) after his parents were asleep and went to 3R as well. Together they put Liz in the car (if she already wasn't) and drove away to hide her body.

I think the witness at the BBQ place was correct when he said he saw her car and that would still leave plenty of time to get Liz's car back to 3R. They parked Liz's car in one of the spots one of their cars were parked in and drove home before either were missed and telephone calls began.

I've shown the timeline will work the day she was last seen, not the day the Crown botched in the trial. Witness reports back this up. The far more detailed timeline is on here on one of the previous pages.
 
As for cold cases not being listed on police sites, cases where the police know who did the crime but do not have enough evidence to convict are not listed. This is not the only case like that. Other suspects were investigated, to what extent is debatable, but others were considered. A church member and the Scarborough Rapist were considered plus a few others. But there is no doubt RB was considered the prime suspect very early.

The timeline the police and Crown went with was the biggest mistake and they tried to fit their evidence to that date. My timeline is far simpler and at least one Crown attorney and detective at the time had the exact same timeline and ideas as I have, but this was not used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 182 more.
Total: 4,158 (members: 183, guests: 3,975)

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
3,976
Total visitors
4,159
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,527
Messages
17,953,799
Members
228,521
Latest member
sanayarford
Back
Top