If blood was seeping from a bag with a body in it, in the rear of EB's car, there would be drag marks leading outwards as the body was removed (which had to happen at some point if that were the case). There were no drag marks in an outward direction. CFS pointed that out to LE as well as there was no way a body that had been buried for a couple of days could have been in the rear of that car.
CANADA Canada - Elizabeth Bain, 22, Scarborough, Ont, 19 June 1990 #2
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
JP and/or Woodland:
Can either of you elaborate on your theory on exactly how the blood was obtained, when it was obtained, who obtained it and when and who planted it, in your scenario that the blood in the car was not actually EB's.
Thanks
Can either of you elaborate on your theory on exactly how the blood was obtained, when it was obtained, who obtained it and when and who planted it, in your scenario that the blood in the car was not actually EB's.
Thanks
Sure - speaking for myself only - the car scene was staged with a little bit of blood obtained from sister C. Poured onto the rear carpet and a few smudges/smears for good measure. The mistake was the drag marks inwards only - but LE refused to accept that is not logical in a non-staged or real life situation.
The blood was easily taken from sister C by nurse/mom Mrs B - at anytime prior to brother PB miraculously finding EB's car when LE had been looking for it.
CFS clearly had a DNA sample from Mr and Mrs B, in order to ascertain that the blood in the rear of EB's car came from a female offspring produced by them. Imo sister C had to have been asked to give a sample as well - and refused. Eager LE assumed it had to be EB's blood since they wanted RB above anyone else. Aka tunnel vision.
Another item that sticks out for me - LE had been under the impression from the moment Mrs B reported EB missing that this would turn out to be a suicide - in the book NCTM, the officer that took the initial report thought that while returning to his vehicle after speaking to Mrs B. Plan A imo.
I now think plan B might have been to implicate 'Skinner' since her car was found so close to where he lived in a trailer. The family was familiar with Skinner.
Imo LE came with plan C - blame RB. The family went along with it - keeping one or two of their own safe from any prosecution.
All jmo.
Ground penetrating radar would put this to rest one way or another.
The blood was easily taken from sister C by nurse/mom Mrs B - at anytime prior to brother PB miraculously finding EB's car when LE had been looking for it.
CFS clearly had a DNA sample from Mr and Mrs B, in order to ascertain that the blood in the rear of EB's car came from a female offspring produced by them. Imo sister C had to have been asked to give a sample as well - and refused. Eager LE assumed it had to be EB's blood since they wanted RB above anyone else. Aka tunnel vision.
Another item that sticks out for me - LE had been under the impression from the moment Mrs B reported EB missing that this would turn out to be a suicide - in the book NCTM, the officer that took the initial report thought that while returning to his vehicle after speaking to Mrs B. Plan A imo.
I now think plan B might have been to implicate 'Skinner' since her car was found so close to where he lived in a trailer. The family was familiar with Skinner.
Imo LE came with plan C - blame RB. The family went along with it - keeping one or two of their own safe from any prosecution.
All jmo.
Ground penetrating radar would put this to rest one way or another.
Ok thanks woodland.
So you are saying that the whole family is involved in the cover-up, is that correct?
Do you feel they are covering up a suicide or covering up an accidental death at the hands of who?
As per Cathy refusing to give blood based on what you said, I can try and find a definitive answer on that.
I believe that even if Cathy gave them a blood sample, they would not be able to say it was EBs blood anyway because they don't have an actual sample of Ebs DNA to compare it to. So legally all they can say is that it came from a female offspring of the Bains.
They did ask Cathy on the stand if she ever beld in Ebs car to which she replied no. They were probably setting up the jury to infer if it wasn't Cathy and there were only two female offspring then it would be Ebs blood by elimination.
I will definitely check on whether Cathy actually gave a DNA sample.
If my scenario is correct, I don't think PB would have necessarily been aware of what exactly happened at that time. Sister C could have been on the fringes of what happened as well. I don't know.
Imo, older brother MB likely went into a rage, however Mrs B cannot necessarily be ruled out from going into a rage that day either. The household was the fiefdom of Mr B and older son - my impression from book NCTM. Mrs B could have reached her limit with the feigned (imo) suicides, the letter to MB's gf etc.
Very good point on the DNA - but what about EB's tooth/hair brush? Clothing? Unable to say what DNA could have been derived from at that time.
I hope you can find if Cathy refused to give a DNA sample or if having one from her would not have made a difference. That would put the question to rest! Merci.
The answers are my opinions and speculation only.
JohnPaul
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 1
i dont think brother PB knew anything about it, he may still not, i think the family used him as a pawn, i think the family knew exactly when the car would be left where it was found, PB was then instructed to go search in that general area, and he found the car before LE could, hhhmmm :thinking:
i don't think sister CB knew at the time but might have been told later, again not sure
all just my own speculation
JohnPaul
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 1
i agree with all of this,
mainly the bold, RB's conviction was the easy way out for them
JohnPaul
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 1
i cant think of a reason to cover up a suicide
Touching back on the DNA from blood in the rear of EB's car - if that blood was from sister C, and if she gave a sample for her DNA, then that would be an exact match as opposed to another female offspring of Mr and Mrs B. A reason not to give a sample imo.
Sister C's testimony that she never bled in EB's car would be truthful.
Sister C's testimony that she never bled in EB's car would be truthful.
Guessing it must be difficult at this late date to find anything definitive on CB giving a DNA sample or not.
Still, if CFS had CB's DNA, unable to see why a statement would be lacking in court that CB had been ruled out as the donor of the blood in the back EB's car. That would still leave CFS with the donor was a female offspring of Mr and Mrs B and much more definitive.
As it stands, it's 50 - 50 on who the donor was.
My apologies for the delay in answering. I've been bedridden for last week and a half. Just coming around and I will get back on finding an answer to this the best I can.
Cathy's trial transcript on examination by McMahon:
Q; Cathy, the kind of car elizabeth drove was what?
A; A Toyota Tercel
Q: On June 19th, or anytime in the three or four days after that, did you ever bleed in the back of her car at anytime.
A; No, I didn't
Q; Did you ever have a bulky object covered in your blood dragged into that vehicle
A; No
Q; Had you ever seen any blood in the back of Elizabeth's car.
A; No
That was all that I see mentioned about Cathy's blood on her exam or cross exam. There is no actual question as to if she gave or was asked to give a DNA sample.
Mr. B's trial exam by McMahon.
Q; I understand Mr B, as the investigation went on, the police asked you and Mrs B to go to a certain hospital in Scarborough, do you recall that
A; Yes sir I do, it was for DNA testing I believe
Q; You and Mrs B went to the hospital?
A; Yes, that's correct
Q; The purpose was for what? What did you give them at the hospital
A; They wanted a blood sample from my wife and I because we had four offspring and they wanted to guarantee the blood type, and the rest of it, is derived from us, and from the inside of the car
Q; Did you and Mrs B give a medical doctor samples of your blood?
A; We both did
Q; So there can be no confusion, from your marriage or your union with Mrs B you only had two female offspring?
A; That's correct
Q; Elizabeth and Cathy?
A; That's correct, Elizabeth and Cathy.
That's the extent of the blood and DNA from Mr B's trial exam and nothing from cross exam as far as I've read.
My opinion is that sister CB was never asked to give a DNA sample.
Hope this helps
JohnPaul
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 1
this doesn't make sense to me, they only had 3 kids, PB was adopted
Well, they had already established that Paul was adopted, and given the circumstances and the setting, as a father I probably would have worded it the same way. Given that Paul was adopted as a baby I believe, and it was a daughter that was missing, I can understand Mr B speaking it this way.
But that's jmo.
Question for all:
You have been convicted of 2nd degree murder in the disappearance of EB with no chance of parole for 17yrs.
After 6yrs in prison you have an upcoming appeal sometime in the future. You don't know exactly when but are hoping within the next couple of years.
The crown offers you a one time deal. Give up the body of EB and it will be considered time served. If you decline, the offer will never be given again.
In this scenario, you are guilty. You actually did kill and dispose of EB.
What would you do. Take the deal, give up the body and get out of jail right then time served. Or do you turn it down, and take your chances with the appeal and losing and spending the rest of your 17+yrs in prison.
All the evidence is the same as RB was convicted on.
Remember, you actually are guilty and nobody knows for sure one way or the other except that you have been convicted of the crime.
What would you do, take the deal or no.
Me, I would take the deal in a heartbeat.
And yes, RB was offered this deal.
You have been convicted of 2nd degree murder in the disappearance of EB with no chance of parole for 17yrs.
After 6yrs in prison you have an upcoming appeal sometime in the future. You don't know exactly when but are hoping within the next couple of years.
The crown offers you a one time deal. Give up the body of EB and it will be considered time served. If you decline, the offer will never be given again.
In this scenario, you are guilty. You actually did kill and dispose of EB.
What would you do. Take the deal, give up the body and get out of jail right then time served. Or do you turn it down, and take your chances with the appeal and losing and spending the rest of your 17+yrs in prison.
All the evidence is the same as RB was convicted on.
Remember, you actually are guilty and nobody knows for sure one way or the other except that you have been convicted of the crime.
What would you do, take the deal or no.
Me, I would take the deal in a heartbeat.
And yes, RB was offered this deal.
If I was guilty then yes I would take the deal as I would be able to give the location of her body.
If I was innocent I would still want the deal - but would be unable to give the location of her body.
It's been a long time since any news on the status of RB's case was published.
If I was innocent I would still want the deal - but would be unable to give the location of her body.
It's been a long time since any news on the status of RB's case was published.
Status of RB's case as of right now is they are hoping the civil case will be settled this year.
So there prob won't be any news published until that happens.
My apologies, this was not the exact deal RB was offered. Actually there was three of them.
1) about month before the prelim was to start, he was offered to plead guilty to manslaughter (facing a first degree murder charge and possible 25yr sentence). He would get about 5yrs and prob be out in three. RB refused the deal.
2)right after being convicted of second degree murder, the crown prosecutor offered RB a 10yr term if he disclosed the location of the body. RB refused
3) October of 2007 just before his second trial was to start , RB was offered a one day sentence if he disclosed the whereabouts of the body. RB refused.
I do apologize for the prior mis-information on the "deal" question.
If I were guilty I would have jumped on the first deal.
If I were innocent, I could never give them what I don't have, the location of the body.
JohnPaul
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 1
i understand what you are saying.....but......
so lets say one was guilty,
and lets say that persons attorney told them straight out there is not enough evidence to convict them of first degree murder,
that person might choose to roll the dice on a trial rather then spend 5 years locked up, 5 years is still a heck of a lot of time,