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

[Woodland]

I would like to think that in 1990 CFS could tell the difference between an attempt to wipe away blood, causing smears (that would be more faint and not as thickly applied than other blood near the wiped smears?), and blood that had smeared due to something pulled over it - as in dragging a body. But I don't know what capability CFS had in that regard in 1990.

Would blood smeared by having something dragged over it be elongated?

 

[Woodland]

Here is some research I did in 2009/10 regarding Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Up until April 2009, CFS had only ever been accredited with the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or ASCLD located in North Carolina. CFS received their first accreditation with ASCLD in 1993 under their Legacy Program. In other words, since CFS was performing forensic tasks, they were given recognition with an automatic accreditation. I called ASCLD before May 2009 and asked them what the Legacy Program meant.

In May 2009 CFS was awarded status under ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Not exactly sure what that means. They may have earned accreditation rather than have it given by virtue of being in the business? In April of 2009 ASCLD no longer accepted application for accreditation under a Legacy Program. Everyone had to step up their game?

CFS does not state who they are accredited with or by on their website - not today and not in 2010, the last time I looked. They do say they have a Quality Assurance Unit -

The QA Unit is responsible for the compliance of the laboratory to accreditation standards ...

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/centre_forensic/cfs_intro.html

Their list and description of what they can do isn't much better.

Was unable to see who is accredited with ASCLD today. One use to be able to see their member list - now one needs to sign in. Not sure what the criteria will be to be able to see the current member list. Wonder if CFS is still an accredited member with ASCLD. If not, wonder if CFS has accreditation anywhere else.

So, in 1990 CFS was not operating under a set of standards accepted by anyone in their field - they just existed. Even in 1993 - they just existed.

Would really like someone to verify who exactly owned the blood in the back of EB's Tercel in June 1990. If EB died on 19 June, did someone have the presence of mind to collect and freeze/refrigerate her blood for use a few days later, when it was determined to be fresh? Would this have fooled anyone at CFS in 1990? Surely something can be done today?

 

[eyesonly]

I will verify that the blood in EB's car was EB's.
There is also staining over the hump between the carpet behind
the passenger and drivers seats.

 

[Woodland]

Can you give us a hint how you will go about verifying who the blood came from?

I take it you mean blood staining over or across the hump in the rear of the car. That's news.

 

[eyesonly]

Can you give us a hint how you will go about verifying who the blood came from?

I take it you mean blood staining over or across the hump in the rear of the car. That's news.

What is it you would need to satisfy you that the blood in the car is EB's.

 

[Woodland]

Satisfaction, for many if I'm not mistaken, would be a DNA profile comparison from sister to sister. Hopefully, although given there exists a lack of CFS standards, there is a profile of the blood that was in the rear of the Tercel. Not just a reverse paternity test. We get what that produced - verification that the blood belonged to a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain.

Did the reverse paternity test identify one person and only one person? Have no idea on that. If the reverse paternity test does not identify a single individual, was a DNA profile on this blood ever done? For future identification purposes would seem reasonable, imo.

Is this attainable or unattainable? And how could you, eyesonly, make that happen? With all due respect, some posts leave a little doubt. Jmo.

 

[eyesonly]

Well, how about this. The DNA mixture they took off the blanket in the trunk contained a female and a male DNA profile. This is the blanket that RB stated he and EB made love on in the valley on the Sunday night/Monday morning when then they departed at 2am.
The male DNA was matched to RB's DNA the odds of it being someone different was 1 in 74 trillion. The female DNA from this mixture on the blanket was a match for the female DNA taken from the blood in the car that was used for the reverse paternity test.

The DNA retrieved from the blanket was not separate individual deposits of female and male DNA. They were mixed together.

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect, wgaf about DNA on a blanket. Unless that female DNA matched the blood in the back of the car.

Who owned the blood in the back of the car? Who has gone to the trouble of proving the origin so far?

Not one statement to date that scientifically it belongs to EB.

Hmmmm - now you make me think it did not match, and someone knows that. Thanks!!!!

 

[Woodland]

Well, how about this. The DNA mixture they took off the blanket in the trunk contained a female and a male DNA profile. This is the blanket that RB stated he and EB made love on in the valley on the Sunday night/Monday morning when then they departed at 2am.
The male DNA was matched to RB's DNA the odds of it being someone different was 1 in 74 trillion. The female DNA from this mixture on the blanket was a match for the female DNA taken from the blood in the car that was used for the reverse paternity test.

The DNA retrieved from the blanket was not separate individual deposits of female and male DNA. They were mixed together.

Capturing this statement will be prudent. Jmo.

 

[eyesonly]

With all due respect, wgaf about DNA on a blanket. Unless that female DNA matched the blood in the back of the car.

Who owned the blood in the back of the car? Who has gone to the trouble of proving the origin so far?

Not one statement to date that scientifically it belongs to EB.

Hmmmm - now you make me think it did not match, and someone knows that. Thanks!!!!

???????? It did match the DNA from the blood in the back of the car.
As I stated in my post.
It appears nothing will satisfy you short of getting the forensic person to post on here but then you wouldn't believe that person anyway. Or maybe if I copied some tweets from twitter, or a newspaper article that would surely be more than enough maybe for you.

It is what it is. The female DNA from the blanket mixed with RBs DNA does match the DNA from the blood taken from the back of the car, that they used for the reverse paternity test.

So if that's not good enough for you then I'm sorry, nothing will be.

 

[eyesonly]

Woodland, you had a valid point about the owner of the blood. Everyone just assumed it was EB's, so I've done some extra digging over the last couple weeks to get you what I consider a reasonable answer.

 

[Woodland]

SS did not say Dr PN testified to a match between female DNA on the blanket in the trunk of the car and the blood on the rear floor of the car. If it was compared, have to think that would have been an absolute identity and included.

So far in this thread Dr PN only testified to the blood belonged to a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain. Nothing about a link to RB.

Is anyone telling the whole story here? Or do we really need hold back info introduced in spurts or from time to time?

 

[eyesonly]

No ones holding back anything as far as I can see WL. We are doing our best from what is given to us.
If someone like yourself has questions that are unanticipated, it's hard to produce the answers on the spot.

We are trying to find the whereabouts of EB. It serves no purpose to withhold anything back.

 

[Woodland]

" As body fluids were found in the car......."

How would you all take this statement to mean. Could it simply mean only blood. Do they refer to blood as a body fluid when discussing forensics or does it mean other body fluids which could be saliva, sweat, urine?

From page 38, post #926.

Well, if this could be explained then I might be inclined to believe all that is said.

Fwiw, so far the only one I believe 100% is RB.
SS - about 80% (blood all over the back seat and nonexistent rear door?).
Everyone else - maybe 50%. Maybe. LE is the be all and end all but may have made an error here? But we should believe it happened the way RnR and McMahon said - just the wrong guy.

To much BS introduced here for no reason. How does one figure it out with no back-up? Even NCTM (first edition) apparently has errors. Jmo.

 

[eyesonly]

50% huh.
Well I'm story you believe someone like me is lying half the time.
I will back off the blood owner subject and any questions as it pertains to woodland.

If there is anyone else out there reading and has questions or theories or ideas please come
on and post.
All are welcome in our strive to find Elizabeth Bain and the truth to her disappearance.

 

[kemo]

I'm almost done with "No Claim", the 1998 version.

I am satisfied that the blood is Liz's, she was murdered, placed in the back sat with her head behind the drivers seat within a very short time of her assault and the body was removed before any significant decomposition had occurred. My questions would include:

Has it been verified that there was brain tissue in the blood? Did anyone who noticed the car near the Body Shop Wed morning look inside so that the would have noticed a body had there been one?
Was the plant material found in the car consist with the vegetation in the Park, any particular area of the park?

Realistically, had Rob not been as suspect, I don't think LE would have seriously entertained the possibility that her body had been disposed of any time other than Tuesday night. In addition, it would be contrary to all LE Experience for a stranger to kill someone in a park (with plenty of short term hiding places) and remove the body for disposal over a long distance. It is very suggestive that the Perpetrator is someone the victim knew.

 

[eyesonly]

I'm almost done with "No Claim", the 1998 version.

I am satisfied that the blood is Liz's, she was murdered, placed in the back sat with her head behind the drivers seat within a very short time of her assault and the body was removed before any significant decomposition had occurred. My questions would include:

Has it been verified that there was brain tissue in the blood? Did anyone who noticed the car near the Body Shop Wed morning look inside so that the would have noticed a body had there been one?
Was the plant material found in the car consist with the vegetation in the Park, any particular area of the park?

Realistically, had Rob not been as suspect, I don't think LE would have seriously entertained the possibility that her body had been disposed of any time other than Tuesday night. In addition, it would be contrary to all LE Experience for a stranger to kill someone in a park (with plenty of short term hiding places) and remove the body for disposal over a long distance. It is very suggestive that the Perpetrator is someone the victim knew.

Brain Tissue; there has never been any report or documentation or testimony that mentions brain tissue.
As far as we know that was fabricated through the media from a "source" of course which could not be named.
Body Shop; the receptionist saw the car wed, thurs and fri in the same spot all three days. One of the mechanics at the shop came in and asked her if that was a car they were supposed to be working on and she said no it wasn't there for them.
I'm not sure exactly which day this was or if the mechanic actually went over to check the car out as per your question of body in car on wed morning.
However if body was in car on wed morning and the car was seen to have been there all day then there would have been decomp fluids, odour and insects present.

I think you are bang on with your assessments kemo, thanks for posting

 

[kemo]

Finkle quotes quite a bit from Liz's diary in the last months that paints a picture of a young woman who is experiencing serious doubts about not only her relationship with Rob but her relationship with her family. She also seems to have doubts about continuing her education and insecurity about her looks, or at least fear of losing them.

What we don't know is whether these are her true deep feelings or if this diary is just writing for an audience so as to present her life in the best possible light. I don't anything about the psychology of diary writing but I diary entries can not be relied on to be the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

I wonder if entries at the end were intended to lay the groundwork or otherwise justify or at least explain some "move" she was planning to make. This could be breaking up with Rob, moving out and maybe leaving the area or possibly taking up with someone her family would not approve. Hard to tell what was really going on.

I suspect she was somehow involved with someone she does not mention in her diary, did tell any of her friends and who did not come forward after she went missing. This is just speculation I know but I feel with a higher degree of confidence that she was with Somebody other than Rob in the late afternoon/early evening of June 19th and that mystery person is the resolution of what happened to her.

 

[eyesonly]

Finkle quotes quite a bit from Liz's diary in the last months that paints a picture of a young woman who is experiencing serious doubts about not only her relationship with Rob but her relationship with her family. She also seems to have doubts about continuing her education and insecurity about her looks, or at least fear of losing them.

What we don't know is whether these are her true deep feelings or if this diary is just writing for an audience so as to present her life in the best possible light. I don't anything about the psychology of diary writing but I diary entries can not be relied on to be the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

I wonder if entries at the end were intended to lay the groundwork or otherwise justify or at least explain some "move" she was planning to make. This could be breaking up with Rob, moving out and maybe leaving the area or possibly taking up with someone her family would not approve. Hard to tell what was really going on.

I suspect she was somehow involved with someone she does not mention in her diary, did tell any of her friends and who did not come forward after she went missing. This is just speculation I know but I feel with a higher degree of confidence that she was with Somebody other than Rob in the late afternoon/early evening of June 19th and that mystery person is the resolution of what happened to her.

One of EB's aunts states she feels EB was dealing with anorexia at age 13. Combined with her diary and the suicide attempts, one being just months before she went missing. I would say she was messed up for many many years prior to her disappearance.
EB's brothers' gf NS states that EB was "raised to be a man pleaser".

 

[eyesonly]

EB's brothers' gf NS states that EB was "raised to be a man pleaser".

Just re-read this and will elaborate as it could be taken in a wrong context. The context of "a man pleaser"
refers to the ideology of the bible and Christianity as in how a good Christian girl would be raised.

That is the context in which NS made that statement. Just wanted to clarify that