Discussion in '1990's Missing' started by sillybilly, Oct 21, 2015.
Just want to clear something up.
There is no information that says Mrs B was doing any "digging" on the 19th.
She ordered a load of gravel to freshen up the extra parking area that had already been made.
Testimony of Mrs B.
1)A..... I was off that day so I was working on the front lawn, by the driveway, trying to fix some stones. It's a little parking space for my children.
2)A..... First, early in the morning when I started working on the pile of stones .................. so I told her (EB) '' I was fixing the stones, because you guys, you know - this parking space are broken from the winter, and I'd like to get it done before your dad comes home tomorrow.
It was a load of limestone screenings to level off an existing parking spot that was interlock over limestone screenings. It wasn't 150mm deep of screenings in place and was never heavy duty enough to maintain the weight of a vehicle parked on it. That's why they had to level it off all the time. Anybody buying the house, even if they didn't tear it down, would probably fix up the extra parking spot and do it properly.
The info is clearly stated in the book NCTM - unable to provide a page number though since I do not know where my copy is anymore.
RB saw EB's car in the lot by or between the park and campus. RB waited for EB to exit her class. When she didn't, he went back to where he saw the car and it was gone. He went to the Bain residence. Mrs B had a rake or shovel in her hand and was still working on that parking area. It was after 9:00 pm.
Two days later Mrs B wanted everyone gathered at the B residence over EB's disappearance to help her replace the patio stones she had lifted in that spot.
Also, pretty sure Mrs B picked up everything she needed for that job that morning and apparently in EB's car rather than her own. As opposed to ordering a load of gravel/limestone, which denotes it was delivered.
The patio stones were 18"x18" that covered over the limestone.
The limestone was being refreshed as you said.
That parking space is no longer there today. It is back to a front lawn.
If the link doesn't come through, Google 59 Scarboro Ave and hit the street view.
59 Scarboro Ave
We don't independently know what Mrs B did on the property on the 19th prior to RB seeing her after 9:00 pm with a rake or a shovel.
Will stand by Mrs B picked up supplies on the 19th and did not place an order on the 18th until I can replace my copy of NCTM. Mrs B claims to have filled EB's gas tank on the 19th - this where the assumption that the car was driven to Port Perry came from - a calculation on the amount of gas that was left. Mrs B and her daughter C worked until 11:00 pm on the 18th at the same hospital and both returned to the B residence. C claimed to have stayed the night at her parents rather than returning to her place and borrowed her mom's car on the 19th.
Woodland I hope this clears it up for you.
Mrs B testimony at trial on examination by McMahon, verbatim:
Mrs B had just described EB coming in at 2am Sunday night/Monday morning.
Q..... After being quiet on that Sunday night, on the Monday, the next day, which would be the 18th of June, do you remember what you did on that particular day.
A...... Yes, I borrowed her car because my car my other daughter had it and I went shopping for a bit and then I gassed up the car and put two litres of oil in it, and then I went to the nursery to order some limestone.
Q...... About what time was that roughly
A...... That would be roughly around 11 o'clock, noon time
Q..... You took Lisa's car and drove it where?
A...... I took the car and drove it to the nursery on Sheppard and Meadowvale.
Q...... Where did you go after that.
A...... I went straight home because I know I had to work that evening at three o'clock.
Ordered another copy of NCTM - it will be interesting to compare what is stated in the book to testimony.
Bains had a very large, very secluded fire pit in their back yard,
maybe EB was "cremated" there?
So you don't have to wait for your new copy to come in.
Hope this helps.
NCTM pg 85-86 verbatim:
""Mrs. Bain had lent her car to Cathy that Monday morning and therefore had no choice but to take Liz's Toyota on her shopping run. She was on her way to a local nursery to order some limestone for the driveway but stopped on the way at a service station to fill up the car with gas; she took the attendant's advice and had him add two litres of oil while he was at it.""
If you were the family staging a scene why wouldn't you just leave the car in a GO train parking lot, a few that were very close by, and let the assumption be she just ran away? The police would happily go along with that reasoning and that would be that. Why would you bring an investigation down on yourself?
LE won't spend another dime on this case,
they are stubborn and still believe they are correct about "their man" RB, even though facts prove otherwise,
its a catch 22 situation, LE don't want to examine this any further in fear they were wrong and RB and they will be embarrassed,
and the Bain family don't want it investigated any further, in fear they will be exposed
Hope I haven't upset you at all. Sincerely no intentions of doing that.
I now see that your theory was based on the EB's car movements via Mrs B being on the same day EB disappeared and not the day before.
And if the car movements were on the Tuesday then yes, that creates a whole new dimension to what happened.
But they are clearly on the day before, on Monday, and I would be very interested to hear if you have a revised theory.
The facts don't prove otherwise at all, but what the Crown would be able to prove is not there. Without a body it's very difficult to get a conviction. There is a differing timeline that other Crown attorney's considered that is far more viable but it wasn't used and this was the way they choose to proceed in the trial.
As for the Bain's there is absolutely no evidence at all they were involved.
""The facts don't prove otherwise at all,""
Quite the odd statement since there were absolutely no facts to prove RB was guilty in the first place.
He was prosecuted by the full weight and powers of the gov't that suppressed witnesses and evidence that supported RB's innocence. They turned a blind eye to multiple counts of perjured testimony, which included the TPS detectives themselves.
They knowingly altered evidence and talked witnesses into altering their original statements. They never investigated this case for one moment and admitted that RB was the one and only suspect from day one.
So all they did was gather and alter evidence as it pertained to their quest to convict RB. The truth played no part in their investigation whatsoever.
Note that the term "they" includes both LE and the Crown.
Question: EB reportedly went "to check the tennis schedule" at UTSC. I am exploring the possibility that she may have been lured to the courts. Does anyone know whether a "tennis schedule" actually existed? If so, in what form? On a bulletin board? On paper? In, or outdoors? Was her name found on a schedule? Were any of the tennis organizers or regulars at UT interviewed about this?
p.s. In some public tennis courts there is no schedule. People wishing to play simply hang their raquette on a hook board in the court, and wait until the half hour mark. Then players must leave the court to make way for anyone waiting. EB could have been tricked, maybe via a phone call. Are there any known facts about the scheduling method?