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

[SecretSource]

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.

A counterfactual would be that Bernardo was a stranger and thus really didn't have any reason to dispose of LM by placing her body parts in concrete or to go to such extraordinary lengths such as cutting all the finger nails and hair off KF but he did. Now, we know that police contacted him and asked for a semen sample in 1990 - ironically, they first contacted him 5 hours after RB was arrested - and he provided one so he might have thought they could have linked the SR case and the two abductions so that may have factored in.

I don't believe that the manner of body disposal should have communicated to the police it was someone she knew; it was the fact that she had no reason to be in the valley that day unless she were there to meet someone. An alleged $80.00 withdrawal, telling her mother she would be back in a couple of hours suggested she was there to meet someone and not a random encounter, although one must always leave room for that possibility.

 

[SecretSource]

Was the plant material found in the car consist with the vegetation in the Park, any particular area of the park?

NCTM alludes to this. A botanist at the ROM was consulted and he told police that the flora and fauna suggested that the car had been somewhere close to water. The problem, of course, is that Highland Creek runs right through the UTSC valley so one can take that for what it's worth but yes, apparently something called dog strangling vine was found in the car and it is common in the park.

The car could have been driven anywhere or nowhere; they had DD's evidence for four months and did nothing with it, they had evidence from CP at Three 'R' Autobody that the car hadn't moved from Wednesday until Friday and contrary to what was suggested at RB's trial the dog walker AS never provided a statement to the police until after RB was arrested - how timely - so the DD "sighting" of the car on Friday was crap until LE knew they were up the creek without it. And as of last year, we know know that even their own forensic experts told them the sighting was bogus if EB had been killed Tuesday night.

 

[SecretSource]

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.

I agree with you 100%. The question is, involved in what way? Romantically? Quasi-romantically? A friendship that EB let get too far? All possibilities are open but a month gap in a diary leading up to a disappearance is very, very bizarre.

 

[SecretSource]

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.

Absolutely correct; and the record will show, they never really did even after DD came forward.

Two very interesting facts emerge through the statement that RB provided on June 24th, 1990 - the first meeting with the homicide squad - and both should be taken into account in light of the fact that LE already had found the car and had thus two a half days to think about the car and its possible movement:

a) LE posited a scenario to RB during the interview in which they suggested RB committed the crime sometime Tuesday night and then later returned under cover of darkness to place EB in the car and drive it away;

b) In response to this, RB commented that LE didn't know how long the car had been there ('there' being Three 'R' Autobody) to which LE responded, "Actually, we know how long the car had been there."

Put a) and b) together and LE is essentially saying this: everything we have gathered both through witness statements and forensic evidence at this point tells us that the car didn't move after Wednesday and that if it was driven away, it was driven away Tuesday night/Wednesday morning; hence, DD being ignored for four months.

This can all be verified through the trial transcripts and LE had indeed already concluded by the time RB was interviewed that the car, if it was driven away, was driven away Tuesday night. But that posed a problem for the police and well before a witness came forward suggesting the car was seen a time when RB couldn't have been driving it. RB reported EB missing that night to her mother before he could have driven the body out of the valley; in addition, he called MB from his own home and left a message on MB's answering machine asking him to call RB anytime that night -- definitely NOT what one would do if planning or even spontaneously deciding to dispose of a body that night without anyone noticing that he wasn't home. Lastly, this confirms that AS, the dog walker, even if she had casually mentioned to LE on June 22, 1990 that the car was missing on Thursday night, was not believed by the police at all.

We now know that as of three days after RB's arrest, LE were in possession of forensic evidence taking the theory that EB was killed on Tuesday night and her body moved 2-3 days after she was killed completely off the table; what remains to be seen is whether LE were in possession of any forensic evidence negating such a theory at the time RB was first questioned; if such was the case and they completely ignored it and went with the DD sighting knowing from the very get-go that their theory was bogus then things should get even more interesting.

 

[kemo]

eyes,

Very good point about the message on MB's answering machine. I think it extends the period that RB was concerned for EB's whereabouts. It is pretty clear whatever happened to EB had already occurred.

I think this miscarriage of justice was a direct result of LE applying the "profiling" approach (which would point directly at someone very close to EB) while dismissing the lack of evidence as a result of either luck or Rob's sociopathic criminal genius. They probably assumed that there was a hole in RB's alibis they just couldn't find. I suppose that there is no real ethical issues involved if the theory of the crime is wrong or if a critical witness is lying as long as the defendant is guilty.

At this point, the most productive approach is to start with the assumption that RB is uninvolved and take it from there.

 

[eyesonly]

At this point, the most productive approach is to start with the assumption that RB is uninvolved and take it from there.[/QUOTE/]

This is where the complications come in. Frankly it would be easier to solve this if RB was guilty. Since he's not but was convicted of it, no LE whatsoever wants anything to do with it. It's a Pandora's box for them. Reports have been submitted to LE and nothing has been followed up, even if it's a plausible report of where EB might be buried.
They do not and will not touch it, unless maybe when they are forced to admit a wrongful conviction and declare RB innocent. Still the LE that was originally involved will never admit fault to their dying breath and it will depend on how long term the blue wall stands firm in regards to the actions of their former fellows. Considering one was a deputy chief and one was the head of homicide, both positions achieved off the back of RB. Hard to imagine the blue wall breaking ranks.
These are two pretty powerful men who held very prestigious positions and I can only imagine the dirt they have acquired on people in important positions over their tenures.

So we are doing this alone, the only people with the power to change this are mr and mrs Bain. Mrs Bain especially, but they will never waiver from RB being guilty as long as mr Bain has control over the situation.

All jmo

 

[Woodland]

This is where I get a little stuck - LE at the time was wrong. What they were wrong about is not stated. The current LE is protecting them at all costs so that former colleagues are not seen to be wrong.

Is that correct?

Then McMahon is left out of anything that was done wrong. Even though he led the court proceedings, including what LE said on the stand.

Is that correct?

But the LE theory way back when is correct? No matter what? All aspects included?

Is that correct?

And if it wasn't for Mr B we would know the truth? I do believe that part, fwiw.

So what are the plausible reports on where EB might be buried that LE is not checking out? Would like to know if at all possible.

 

[eyesonly]

This is where I get a little stuck - LE at the time was wrong. What they were wrong about is not stated. The current LE is protecting them at all costs so that former colleagues are not seen to be wrong.

Is that correct?

They were wrong about EB being killed, being hid in the valley till thursday night and then transported in her car somewhere for disposal.
the forensic evidence shows this and the forensic meeting with the cfs and det raybould a couple days after RB was arrested where cfs told
raybould that the evidence doesn't fit that theory.
As for current LE protecting past LE, that's jmo. The case is considered close and this no more time or money will be put into it. I believe that LE is more concerned about their overall appearance of societies trust and respect for them, than they are of two individuals. If protecting two indivuals protects te whole system then imo that's what they would do.

Then McMahon is left out of anything that was done wrong. Even though he led the court proceedings, including what LE said on the stand.

Is that correct?

Absolutely he is NOT left out of any wrong doing, however there is no factual proof so far that we know of, like raybould being caught recently regarding
the cfs meeting from nov 1990 and switching his notes when handing them over for the civil suit. the stuff with raybould is factual. it's just an opinion for now regarding mcmahon, as it's hard to fathom as thorough as he is that he didn't have the cfs reports on the evidence, that just makes no sense. The crown would certainly view the forensics evidence, they would have too.

But the LE theory way back when is correct? No matter what? All aspects included?

Is that correct?

imo, there's nothing about the LE theory that is correct as they were soley focused on RB and made the theory around RB and not around the evidence.
without the full forensics report, we are left now guessing to some degree. i think we pretty well have all agreed that someone bled in the car. if EB was killed she was placed in the car not long after the injury and removed not long after. CFS says blood in the car is within 3hrs old from point of injury. and from i am reading that depending on when insects would start occurring, the body would have been removed prior to that time as there was no sign of insects from a decomposing body found in the car.
it's possible she was strangled and killed in the back seat, rolled on the floor and then dragged out, that's just an opinion expressed on the site, not a cfs opinion as they feel a body was dragged into the car after an injury occurred outside the car.

 

[SecretSource]

I think that part of the difficulty in assessing the case and determining what the police actually believed and believe now is that there was never a coherent theory of the crime; perhaps not surprising given that to this day no one knows when EB was killed, where she was killed, how she was killed and, as WL has alluded to, if she was killed. The latter issue is settled to my satisfaction but I do leave a scintilla of doubt for the possibility that EB is alive only because at this point nothing is 100%. That could change.

In a case where virtually nothing was and is known, one could be forgiven for asking how the case ever got to a court in the first place and at least one high-ranking police officer involved in the case expressed his opinion to RB's lawyer in 2004 that he never believed there was reasonable and probably grounds to arrest him. But I believe it got to trial not despite the fact that there was no body and little known about the alleged crime but because of it: it was, up until recently, simply too easy for LE to keep moving the goalposts to try and include RB in any scenario given that the case was simply one great big guess. LE knew from the get go that they had no evidence so it became an attempt to craft a case out of a brief whose contents could have been used to posit a completely different case that excluded RB or be put together in an almost infinite series of possibilities.

Take MP for example. Prior to being hypnotized, she first claimed that she saw EB on a picnic table at a time - 5:40 PM - more than an hour before RB left his home that day and at which time he was in the company of three other people. MP's sighting of EB ultimately included a man beside her and as such was exculpatory evidence for RB and to that we can add in the fact that EB wouldn't have gone to the valley just after 4:00 PM to meet RB if he didn't leave until 6:20 -6:30 PM, wouldn't have lied to her mother - or at least would have told the truth - about going to meet RB and thus there is strong circumstantial evidence RB wasn't on the picnic table; but yet LE went ahead and had MP hypnotized, showed her the Toronto Sun article, and had her speak to the Bains who communicated their belief that RB was guilty; evidence of innocence was converted into evidence suggesting guilt.

And so too DD. DD saw the car 2-3 days later and well after RB on any logical scenario would have disposed of EB had he killed her Tuesday night; this would suggest EB was alive for two days or more. Also, the physical description DD provided did not match RB in the slightest and RB did not drive a standard vehicle. There was no forensic evidence that RB drove the car, no blood on his clothing and he knew that every police force was looking for the car so add all this together and it made much more sense that it was someone other than RB driving that car. But despite the fact that the police never actually believed DD and despite the fact that they likely knew even before the concealed meeting at the CFS that EB couldn't have been in the car for, or been placed in the car after, 2-3 days LE went with it and had DD identify RB so they could arrest him.

Let's fast forward to now. Raybould has now been caught with his pants down on the CFS meeting and we know now that he was told his theory didn't match what was known about the state of the car when found; he ignored this information, hid it, then plowed ahead. Reesor was asked about this new information and even though we can't know what he actually believes he claimed that RB must have put EB in her car and removed her before he went to the UTSC weight room at 7:15 PM despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that this scenario took place, MV's sighting of the car at 7:00 PM refutes it completely because RB would have had enough time before getting to UTSC and there is still absolutely no evidence that a decomposing body was ever put in EB's car at all before or after 7:15 PM.

Take away MP (and recent revelations about her possible involvement in a murder create problems regarding her credibility), take away Dibben who LE didn't believe initially and whose evidence is pretty ridiculous, and take the CFS evidence destroying LE's theory and LE will still insist they got it right because they never arrested RB because there was irrefutable evidence that he was guilty; they arrested him because the circumstances of the case ensured that at least up until last year there was no irrefutable evidence that he was innocent. As regards the latter, thus far nothing has emerged from LE suggesting that they can weave a theory of guilt around the findings of the CFS made public last year but they will try. About the only think we can say now is that LE never believed their own witnesses because they knew they couldn't have been telling the truth. They just figured that if you're going to present a case you have to throw a few witnesses up on the stand and that's what they did.

 

[kemo]

I suspect that R&R (Reesor and Raybould) concluded that the murder fit the profile of one committed by someone close to EB yet no one close to EB except RB had any kind of motive and RB was definitely in the area around the time EB appeared to have vanished and he was acting suspicious or jealous. I think they concluded that some of the eyewitnesses were either lying or just mistaken and somehow RB had managed to fine a way to kill EB and dispose of her body that night.

I am guessing that they knew DD was wrong or lying about the day and I.d. of RB but they felt this was the closest thing to real evidence of actual involvement in the crime they could find. I could be seen as framing someone for a crime they did believe he had committed.

 

[kemo]

I've been going over events of the day EB was last seen and they do raise many questions but may also bring what was going on somewhat into focus. The big problem is that everything we know about EB and RB's activities are based on eyewitness reports that may be lies, either attention getting fantasies or deliberate misdirection and even well meaning reports may contain misinformation. Time of events are very often rough estimates.

As I believe RB was not involved in EB, I will assume his account of his activities and the account of witnesses who support his account are essentially accurate. I believe his account of the situation of EB's car is pretty much reliable.

The fact that EB told her mother a "fib" when she left the house for the last time is significant. It seems reasonable that were she going to meet RB, meet any of her other friends or do some routine errand, she would have told the truth. She probably didn't want her mother to know what she was up to. She may have been meeting some other guy or just get away by herself. Perhaps something else.

I believe MP's initial sighting of EB was accurate but the hypnosis inspired sighting of RB next to her was not. This would be consistent with what she told her mother and she was known to be in the area. MP was rather vague about time time (5:30 to 6:30) but, others sitting in the area didn't remember her, she probably wasn't there long. Had she been there with someone, it would be unlikely the would be watching people play tennis. If she were in the park by herself, either waiting for someone or just hanging out, she might easily kill a little time there.

Of all the reported sightings, MV's report of EB's car with the cigarettes on the passenger seat is pretty much incontrovertible. The same brand of cigs were later found in her glove box. That sighting wasn't made up. But what to make of it? Obviously someone was smoking in the car and later, before RB came by around 6:45, returned to the car and put them away. Had someone been in the car with EB smoking, you wouldn't expect the pack to be left on the passenger seat. If only one person was in the car smoking, the passenger seat would be a probable place to put the pack. The most likely explanation would be that EB was smoking in the car earlier and returned after 6:20, put the cigs away, and left again.

RR's account of seeing EB is very likely accurate. He got the description of the clothes right and there is nothing in his account that suggests attention seeking. He reported seeing EB walking alone coming from the direction of her car and the tennis courts going in the direction of her 7:00 class at around 6:45.

Something is off however. She didn't appear to have and book or notebook she would probably need for her class. Sometime after 6:20, she was at her car where she could have driven home, as she told her mother she would, get her books, and drive to the campus where she would have a shorter walk and a safer walk back after dark when the class ended. This is where things appear to have gone wrong. Did she decide to forget class again, was she going to meet someone, was she afraid of someone and trying to get away?

Law Enforcement seem to dismiss both of the KN and RC sightings. Individually, these sights might be dismissed but taken together, assuming that neither RC nor KN were aware of the other's sighting, it becomes far more likely that KN really did see a couple fighting while the male drove on the 401 sometime after 7:15 and RC did see the same couple fighting in the same car near the Three R body shop.

If EB went from walking alone in the park at 6:45 to riding as a passenger in her car on the 401 traveling east as if she was coming from Toronto 30 to 60 minutes later, something is going on that no one seems to be able account for. It is possible that she drove in that direction to pick someone up. That is less likely when we consider that her car is left near her starting point; the park. Most likely, her mystery passenger would have left his car (or he lived near) the Three Rs. And where would they have gone? Had they left the park around 7:00, they would hardly have time to get a drink or something to eat or carry out most type of business. Perhaps the were on the way somewhere and got into an argument/fight and decided to return.

Had some stranger accosted her in the park and abducted her in her own car, it seems unlikely that they would travel any serious distance in an urban area in daylight with the victim actively resisting. Most likely she entered the car willingly and trusted the guy well enough to let him drive. But who?

I suspect Ressor and Raybould hadn't a clue and decided to dismiss the whole thing

 

[Woodland]

Fwiw, I do think EB died on 19 June 1990. I don't know that, I just think that based on she was never seen after that.

Imo, if one just follows the evidence, and only the evidence - there is a ballgame going on. A whole new set of circumstances. Without that, EB will never receive justice. Jmo.

 

[eyesonly]

Well then lets play ball.
What do we know and what do we agree on as far as evidence goes.

 

[JusticeWillBeServed]

I read through this entire thread, a lot of interesting posts and perspectives. So LE won't search for EB because the case is considered closed and they don't want to spend more resources on this case?

 

[eyesonly]

I read through this entire thread, a lot of interesting posts and perspectives. So LE won't search for EB because the case is considered closed and they don't want to spend more resources on this case?

yes that is true. LE stopped searching for elizabeth back in 1990. They can only afford so much in funds into actual searches.

welcome to the thread and thanks for joining in, much appreciated.

 

[kemo]

The key to the prosecution of RB was DD 's testimony but there were serious problems with it that Gatward, RB's lawyer, couldn't rip apart. DD contacted LE one week after the "sighting"; not unreasonable. The real problem initially at least,

 

[SecretSource]

yes that is true. LE stopped searching for elizabeth back in 1990. They can only afford so much in funds into actual searches.

welcome to the thread and thanks for joining in, much appreciated.

For what it's worth, LE contacted the Bain family in July of 1990 - a month after EB went missing - and asked them specifically to stop searching for her. Were they were worried that they would find her somewhere that would completely undermine their theory?

 

[SecretSource]

I suspect that R&R (Reesor and Raybould) concluded that the murder fit the profile of one committed by someone close to EB yet no one close to EB except RB had any kind of motive and RB was definitely in the area around the time EB appeared to have vanished and he was acting suspicious or jealous. I think they concluded that some of the eyewitnesses were either lying or just mistaken and somehow RB had managed to fine a way to kill EB and dispose of her body that night.

I am guessing that they knew DD was wrong or lying about the day and I.d. of RB but they felt this was the closest thing to real evidence of actual involvement in the crime they could find. I could be seen as framing someone for a crime they did believe he had committed.

An interesting perspective. Here are my thoughts:

a) LE never believed DD; they dismissed his sighting as impossible at the time it was provided and nothing changed from that moment until the day he was visited at his workplace so they held their noses, got him to make an ID they knew was bogus - and by the standards of human memory essentially impossible - and called him to testify. He got the fingers in the wrong place - his rationale for looking at the car in the first place - and when you put all that together his evidence is effectively worthless. Here's a verbatim comment from RB's prelim by the presiding judge: "Do you think that I have the prerogative in law of discounting the Dibben identification evidence as being so frail that it’s no evidence at all?"

b) MP was likely mistaken as well and went on to blatantly lie to support her testimony. No one familiar with the area knows that the tennis courts are about a fifteen stroll from where EB's car was parked, not somewhere EB would have parked to go to the tennis courts. Also, by the time MP spoke to the police she had spoken to EB's father and was spoken to several times before subsequent interviews with the police. She wasn't even certain she'd seen EB that day and had to be hypnotized before providing any real details. Probability that she actually saw EB that day is, IMO, 10%.

 

[kemo]

Somehow, my post#976 only worked for the first few lines. This is an attempt at reposting.

The key to the prosecution of RB was DD, but there were problems with it that Gatward, RB's lawyer, couldn't rip apart. DD contacted LE one week after the "sighting"; not unreasonable. The real problem was that the "fingers" should have been on the driver's side but DD claimed that they were on the passenger side which is the only side he would have been able to see if the sighting occurred as he said it did. A good defense Attorney should have made mincemeat out of him but Gatward didn't.



The others obvious problem was that DD's initial description of the driver was longish thinning blond hair with a mustache. RB had short dark brown hair and was clean-shaven. If the initial description of the driver is completely different from the guy who he "positively " id'ed, you would expect the witness's credibility to be seriously compromised yet, somehow, the jury saw fit to believed him.

JE, part owner of Haugen's, gave testimony that might have shot down DD's claim that his sighting occurred on Friday, but because he waited until November to come forward, his credibility is questionable. The sighting of the keychain would certainly change this. If there had been no mention of the "nautical keychain" in any of the reportage, and JE introduced it on his own, that would change everything. But what is the real story?



I am inclined to believe that RB is a perfectly decent guy who feel victim to bad circumstances, aggressive Law Enforcement and bad legal representation.

 

[eyesonly]

oopsy