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

[SecretSource]

Just curious, in a post above SS says RB couldn't have made it thru the valley at the earlier LE stated time. because the the intersection was closed off east to west from the valley.
Wouldn't RB be coming from west to east from his home through the valley.
Sorry I may have misread it or may have my directions mixed up for that area.

Thanks in advance for the clarification SS.

My bad; you are correct and RB was travelling west to east and not east to west so he wouldn't have been able to get through.

 

[eyesonly]

My bad; you are correct and RB was travelling west to east and not east to west so he wouldn't have been able to get through.

But he would have at least been able to get to the valley lot correct.
Even though this is not what what happened. RB did not travel through at 540pm but if anyone had of from west to east they could have at least made it to the valley lot where her car was seen at 645 pm by RB.

Would this be a correct statement

 

[SecretSource]

Seems like no pattern at all to me.

It wasn't so much the amount of blood but the fact that it indicated, according to RH the blood expert, a large heavy object had been dragged from outside the car to inside the car, the logical inference being that it was a bleeding body brought into the car and the blood was smeared across the rear passenger side door. That was RH's evidence as the lone bloodstain expert to testify.

There are questions that arise out of this expert's evidence, however. For example, based on the meeting RH had with LE three days after RB's arrest, he would have known that the arresting officer was advancing a theory at trial - or likely advancing a theory - that was scientifically impossible; so too did the pathologist JHS who was never called as a witness though he would have likely been following the trial as well. We can surmise why LE buried the CFS report - it destroyed his theory and argued convincingly for RB's innocence as the now discredited theory was the only way to reconcile the evidence with what was known about RB's movements and whereabouts that night - but it does make one wonder why both experts didn't bring it to the attention of their superiors. Did they not feel they had a duty to brng it to the courts attention that the police and Crown were presenting a theory that was untenable? Did they have a responsibility to do so?

Interesting, RH retired several weeks after RB was acquitted in 2008; interesting timing.

 

[SecretSource]

But he would have at least been able to get to the valley lot correct.
Even though this is not what what happened. RB did not travel through at 540pm but if anyone had of from west to east they could have at least made it to the valley lot where her car was seen at 645 pm by RB.

Would this be a correct statement

Absolutely correct if he needed to, wanted to, or felt he should be there but as per simply travelling along his regular route and whereupon he unexpectedly happened to see EB's car on his way to UTSC, that would not have been possible until 6:40 PM - or before 5:20 PM. It also makes one wonder how the case would have shaken out had RB actually left 10-15 minutes earlier - say 6:10 PM and encountered the closed intersection. He wouldn't have seen EB's car, wouldn't have initiated attempts to locate her, and likely would have simply gone for his workout then either hung out with his buddies at the gym or gone home; he also wouldn't have made any effort to locate EB in the valley, tell her mother that she was missing, go to her classroom or do anything connected to EB.

Probably wouldn't have made a difference in the eyes of LE anyway but it is intriguing nonetheless.

 

[eyesonly]

Oopsy again gotta stop trying to post from my phone lol

 

[Woodland]

For future reference, this is the description of the findings of the ident officer on 22 and 23 June 1990, per page 122/3 of 'No Claim To Mercy'. Court transcripts are likely the source of this and other info. It's unlikely the officer gave this info directly to the author.

22 June - blood stains on the mats in rear seats - both sides. No decomp odour. Hand brake was on, in reverse gear (car was standard transmission). Cut a square inch of mat - red liquid (later confirmed to be blood) fell from the corner he had lifted. Blood was pooled on the metal floor, wet not congealed.

23 June - seat was adjusted for someone under 6' tall. Blood smeared on - front edge of rear bench seat, passenger-side rocker panel, front edge passenger-side door frame, seat-belt restraint near passenger door, the two seat-belt anchor points on floor between front seats.
Blood also smeared on items on rear floor - several small twigs and leaves, yellow tissue paper affixed to crushed pop can by dried blood, papers and a dark hair barrette.

Fuel tank was 3/4 full. Mrs Bain said she filled the car on Monday 18 June - the gas that would fill the tank would allow the car to travel more than 160 kms.

No fingerprints on steering wheel, stick shift or door handles.

Passenger door window had 8 fingerprints. Not stated here who they belonged to, if ever known. Maybe later in the book.

Drivers door had a shoe print - as if someone had kicked it closed behind them.

Other items in the car/trunk - cigarettes, scissors, matches, change purse, other papers with no blood, blankets, boots and a fly wheel.

There is no mention of blood smeared across the rear passenger side door in NCTM. There was blood smeared on the front edge of the passenger door frame. I believe this was a 2 door car.

If blood dripped, if/when EB was dragged into the rear of the car, then the smear on the rocker panel must have had a drag mark(s) going through it.
The blood smear between the front seats on the seat belt anchor points would require dripped blood and then maybe a hand dragged through it - but that seems to denote multiple bleed points?
Multiple bleed points though, would denote more smears than the few that were present.

SS - do you know if the blood on the rear mats were the same quantity on both sides? Or did one mat have more blood than the other? Tia.

 

[SecretSource]

There is no mention of blood smeared across the rear passenger side door in NCTM.

Apologies for not being more accurate; there were blood smears across the inside of rear passenger side door, per RH's testimony, which led to his conclusion that the large heavy object was dragged from outside to inside the car.

SS - do you know if the blood on the rear mats were the same quantity on both sides? Or did one mat have more blood than the other?

I don't know.

Thanks to WL for the information from NCTM, by the way; I had forgotten that there was a note by NR the ID officer on the lack of decomposition odour in the car at the time the car was found; a body decomposing for 2-3 days would have produced an unbelievable stench wrapped or unwrapped and inside the car with temperatures reaching 40-50 celsius the odour would have been unmistakeable. This piece of information, later corroborated by both CFS experts during the November 22, 1990 meeting three days after RB's arrest, makes it even more unforgivable that LE floated the theory at trial that the car and body had moved on Friday morning; it was always a forensic dead end.

Blood was pooled on the metal floor, wet not congealed.

It would be nice to get an expert opinion on whether that blood should have been congealed if it had been there from Tuesday night on; if so, then the abduction scenario is on and Tuesday night is off the table.

 

[eyesonly]

It would be nice to get an expert opinion on whether that blood should have been congealed if it had been there from Tuesday night on; if so, then the abduction scenario is on and Tuesday night is off the table.

I think NCTM description is that the blood had formed a crust on the top of the mat but was dripping when a piece of the mat was cut and pulled up.
Maybe the mat acted as a type of insulator to the blood that soaked through to underneath it and prevented it from congealing.

Agree with SS would be good to have a professional opinion

 

[SecretSource]

I think NCTM description is that the blood had formed a crust on the top of the mat but was dripping when a piece of the mat was cut and pulled up.
Maybe the mat acted as a type of insulator to the blood that soaked through to underneath it and prevented it from congealing.

Agree with SS would be good to have a professional opinion

It seems to make perfect sense: the blood exposed to the air was partially congealed and/or dried and the blood below the surface, shielded from the air and pooled, would not have been as dry. But the problem is that there are other things one must take into consideration regarding the blood, namely the colour and the amount.

If there had been any blood that was, according to the identification officer, still wet and uncongealed as of late Friday afternoon, it seems that EB would have had to be killed much closer in time to when the car was found than Tuesday night. We know from the complete absence of decompositional odor and fluid in the car and insect activity she couldn't have been in the car for that 2-3 day period. Thus, we can safely conclude that she was never in her car for very long if she had been placed there on Tuesday night; she definitely couldn't have been there from Tuesday night until Friday.

But in addition to the absence of decomposition and the absence of insect activity, if EB had been killed Tuesday and then placed in the car Thursday night or Friday morning, any bleeding would have stopped days before, the blood would have already dried up outside of the car or at least begun decomposing and either been absorbed by the ground, transferred to any material used to wrap her (though the CFS told LE that she wasn't wrapped); as it happens, the blood was red in colour and not decomposed so EB had to placed in the car soon after she was killed and removed soon after being placed inside.

The amount of blood, the fact that some of it was non-congealed and red in colour found in a car three days after a woman goes missing certainly seems to suggest a killing closer to Friday than Tuesday; it sounds crazy, but Dibben might have gotten the day right but the driver definitely wrong. Any opinions?

 

[Snively]

Pg. 36 - June 12th - Liz in the afternoon had received a call while RB was with her at her house. RB asked her who it was. Liz responded “Eric” almost defiantly. Rob said he knew Eric was her old boyfriend, E.Gen. That is what he assumed. What if it the Eric that Liz refers to is actually E.Gos?

Pg. 36 - June 12th - RB said “We were having such a pleasant afternoon that Liz announced she was going to skip her class that evening.” She clearly doesn’t have a problem blowing off a class.

Pg. 35 - June 19th - 6:45 PM RB said “That’s when I began to wonder if Liz had gone down to the little park to meet with another guy.” Goes to jealousy.

June 19th - 7:00 PM to 8:45 PM - RB is in the gym working out.

June 19th - 9:00 PM - RB waiting outside Liz’s classroom. Rushes from there to his car when he thinks Liz had possibly gone out through another entrance.

June 19th - 9:10 PM - RB drives by the little park by the UofT and does not see Liz’s car.

June 19th - 9:15 PM - RB is at the Bain residence talking to Mrs. Bain.

June 19th - 9:20 PM - RB leaves the Bain residence.

June 19th - 9:20 PM to 9:40 PM - RB is in his car ALONE. If it’s only a 4 minute drive from the Bain’s back to the campus then why did it take RB 20 minutes to get to the campus?

June 19th - 9:40 PM - RB back at the gym.

Pg. 68 - June 19th - 9:45 PM - RB finished talking to his friend NW and waited 10 extra minutes to call LP.

Pg. 68 - June 19th - 9:55 PM - RB called LP

Pg. 69 - June 19th - 10:00 PM - RB in the gym playing volleyball with E.Gos.

June 19th - 10:30 PM - RB leaves the gym. E.Gos. had keys to the gym and locks up and goes with NW to Kelsey’s.

As this shows, only 15 to 18 minutes are required:

4 minutes - Bain residence to 3r Collision
2 minutes - 3r Collision to UofT Scarborough Campus
9 -12 minutes - thump on the head, drag a body as little as a few meters up to 25 meters, change from shorts and a t-shirt to jeans, park your car and head into the campus

5 minutes - Bain residence to park at UofT
3 minutes - park at UofT to UofT Scarborough Campus
7 - 10 minutes - thump on the head, drag a body as little as a few meters up to 25 meters, change from shorts and a t-shirt to jeans, park your car and head into the campus

E.Gos. worked with RB at the rec centre. E.Gos. had keys to the gym. The assumption that came about when E.Gos. tried to get KN to change the time he saw RB to 7:15 PM is that E.Gos. is also in the gym working out at that time. Was he actually there working out or just working at the campus at 7:15 PM? With a set of keys E.Gos. could leave at any time and return at any time through various doors. He told the police at a later point that he saw RB at the gym at 9:15 PM when RB was actually at the Bain residence with Mrs. Bain at that time. The next confirmed sighting of E.Gos. isn’t until 10:00 PM.

E.Gos. may have been an engineering student at the time but that is not what he is doing now. Seems there is also another complaint about him if this is the same person referred to. Was this ever reported to the police? This note is available through a Google search with the names in full, but I used initials and blanked some letters for the company name and website.

“Yez
5 Sep 2007
These people are crooks!!! *I only wish I had googled this number before I actually did business with them. *They got me and my company too. *E.Gos. who claimed to be a loan agent at ext. 601 called me to advise that we were approved for a business loan. *The catch was that we had to send six months pre-payments due to credit history. *Once they got the first payment, they then proceeded to say that there was a mix up in paper work and that I needed to wire 12 months pre-payment. *Because of the inconvience and "human error" as they called it they would add on an additional $10,000 at no extra cost. *BEWARE OF WWW.BRAM***-*****.COM OR *********-FINANCING.COM, This is the site I visited while surfing the internet for a business loan. *They now have all of my information and my money. *The telephone number they gave me was 1**6 *9*-2***. *I wired money to BJH and VK. *I hope these guys get caught and soon!!
Caller: Bram*** Financial *****”

1. The assumption by RB that the phone call on the 12th was that it was E.Gen. because Liz said it was “Eric!” that she was talking to (pg. 36). What if it was actually E.Gos that Liz was referring to?
2. RB refers to E.Gos. as “Rick Gos.” (pg. 69). Is this another reason that RB didn’t catch on when Liz said “Eric!”? He knew him as Rick.
3. E.Gos. is a blonde individual. The sightings by Liz’s friend of her with a blonde guy in a red jeep and the guy at Silver Dragon were that she was with a blonde guy.
4. E.Gos. had a set of keys to the recreation centre. Did he sneak out throughout the night and was the person that Liz was meeting that night?
5. On the way back from the Bain’s at 9:20 PM did RB decide to check 3r Autobody since he had just looked at 9:10 PM for Liz’s car at the park by the UofT and this is where he found Liz with E.Gos and a fight broke out? Did Liz just accidentally get in the way and now both RB and E.Gos. are in it together?
6. The cloth or blanket that had been seen on the seat of her car is wrapped around her injured head and her body is put in the back floor area of her car. The passenger seat is reclined as flat as it will go to cover her lower body. Seems likely the person she was with had his car parked in the spot across from 3r Autobody where Liz’s car was ultimately found. His car is removed and her car backed in. Seems customers cars from 3r Autobody were often parked here overnight so nobody would notice it here.
7. Both RB and E.Gos. return to the campus to create an alibi and at 10:30 PM both leave. RB goes home and it seems E.Gos. goes to Kelsey’s with NW. RB stays home until he is called by Mrs. Bain at 6:45 AM in the morning. E.Gos. leaves Kelsey’s and goes back to 3r Autobody, moves Liz’s car out with her body in it and parks his car in the spot that Liz’s car will ultimately be found.
8. E.Gos. has a knowledge of Muskoka Woods camp. The gas in the car seems to have been only measured and the distance it could travel deduced from there. It’s not weird for someone to have a jerry can in their car. Her car is driven to Muskoka Woods and her body dumped. Gas from the jerry can is put in the car to confuse the police over distance traveled.
9. Her car is seen outside of Haugen’s BBQ near Manchester on Hwy. 12 just south of Hwy. 7 at 5:30 AM. Hwy. 12 takes you directly to Muskoka Woods. It’s only a 45 minute drive from Haugen’s back to 3r Autobody. The entire round trip can be completed easily in 5 hours with a total distance of 420 kms.
10. Prior to the secretary getting in to 3r Autobody at 8:30 AM Liz’s car is brought back and switched with E.Gos. car.
11. 6:45 AM Mrs. Bain calls the police and reports that her daughter is missing.

 

[SecretSource]

1. The assumption by RB that the phone call on the 12th was that it was E.Gen. because Liz said it was “Eric!” that she was talking to (pg. 36). What if it was actually E.Gos that Liz was referring to?

Great catch, Snively. I don't think it was E. Gen either even though he testified that it was; I think he guessed. I also believe that the person who made that call is the likely culprit but no way it was E.Gos. E.Gos is no player in this scenario and he had a girlfriend at the time of EB's disappearance named Anne who is now his wife and they have two kids together; EB would have been the last person on his mind on June 19th, 1990 and besides, E.Gos and RB weren't that close and would never concoct such a series of events. The only reason he was an issue is because he originally told police RB wasn't in the gym (he was), realized he was mistaken and called LE to set the record straight. LE accused him of lying to protect RB (an absurd accusation) and from that point E.Gos saw the investigation for what it was: a railroad job that he tried to help RB with.

Still, I like your thinking re the call on June 12th; I think it is significant because EB left her house that night shortly after the call (with RB still at her home with two children from next door) and she never returned for quite some time. The call was likely a request to meet her down the street and that's where TS's sighting comes in.

 

[SecretSource]

E.Gos. may have been an engineering student at the time but that is not what he is doing now. Seems there is also another complaint about him if this is the same person referred to. Was this ever reported to the police? This note is available through a Google search with the names in full, but I used initials and blanked some letters for the company name and website.

It's a different person altogether. E.Gos is not E.Gos at all as it happens as he always has gone by the name Rick. He would never introduce himself as E. either in person or on the phone.

 

[Snively]

Fair enough if it isn't, but there are references at the trial to him going by the name Eric. I'm looking at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling from 2008 02 15, Section:

"(ii) Mr. B’s subsequent discussion with Mr. KN about times
[10] Mr. KN also stated that on June 25, 1990, six days after Ms. Bain’s disappearance, RB and Eric G. approached him separately at the Rec Centre during his workout. He claimed that they had asked him whether he could confirm that Mr. B had been in the weight room on June 19, 1990, at around 7:10 p.m. He claimed that he had told them that he thought it was earlier, and that they asked him not to tell the police unless he was sure and also not to tell the police they had spoken to him."

All I did was switch to initials but this is a straight copy otherwise.

There are also newspaper articles referring to him as Eric, but this is straight from a court document.

The Rick you refer to that is married to Anne, at one point I had worked for her father's company.

It seemed this Gos. person didn't just realize he was mistaken about seeing RB but also coerced a witness and later got his time completely wrong about seeing RB at 9:15 PM at the gym when RB was actually at the Bain's.

 

[eyesonly]

The amount of blood, the fact that some of it was non-congealed and red in colour found in a car three days after a woman goes missing certainly seems to suggest a killing closer to Friday than Tuesday; it sounds crazy, but Dibben might have gotten the day right but the driver definitely wrong. Any opinions?

here is what the blood is telling us from the cfs info. that EB was injured outside the car and pulled into the car immediately after the injury, or within a few minutes. and she was removed from the car fairly quickly. before she actually expired, if she expired at all.
the blood was too red/dark red in color for a body to have been killed outside the car and left for 2-3hrs and then placed in the car. the body stops pumping blood immediately when the heart stops and the congealing and decomposing process begins. the body would not be bleeding 2-3 hrs after it had expired.
if the body expired in the car, there would have been a release of body fluids that were not present as per the cfs.
the body was expired and placed in the car 2-3hrs later because of the blood present in the car, and the lack of decomposing evidence such as insects and odour.
snively, there is no scenario you have come up with that goes with the blood evidence, no matter how much you try. RB and EG/RG could not have put her in the car at 930-945pm, and then EG go get the car after 1030 which would be closer to 1045, already would have been body fluids in the car which were not present.

again, the blood evidence speaks for itself. a person was injured outside the vehicle, then pulled into the vehicle fairly immediately, the injured person was not expired for any length of time (if expired at all, no bodily fluids present) prior to being pulled into the vehicle (color of blood and non-congealing) nor did they expire prior to being removed from the vehicle(no body fluids), nor was an expired body put in the car 2-3hrs later or 2-3days later and transported in the car for a 1-2hr drive (color of blood, and no decomp odour or insects)

imo, RB is very lucky that the blood evidence is there. It will be the key to his exoneration. He was aquitted but in the eyes of the justice system and society that doesn't mean he is innocent. He got off on a technicality they view it as. At some point they will have to admit that there is no plausible theory in which RB could have had anything to do with EB's disappearance.

all jmo

 

[Woodland]

I very much agree with your statement eyesonly 'if she expired at all'.

I'm noticing that CFS has never actually said anything about an expired body. Seems only RnR said that at the time. Everyone followed and some are still following with no evidence.

More on the car from NCTM - page 110.

Brother P and brother M's girlfriend NS have just found the car. NS runs up to the car and observes the passenger seat is fully reclined. NS tries both doors but no mention of her fingerprints later. NS also notices a yellow parking ticket in the rear of the car - 'the parking ticket had her address on it (she couldn't think of why this would be)'.

Who was 'her'? The parking ticket had NS's address on it? In EB's car? NS did not have a car at that time. Was the parking offense at NS's house? What date was on it?

In the CFS documentation of the car on page 123, which is from the observation at that time and not from testimony (as per the book) CFS does not note the passenger seat is reclined nor is a parking ticket specifically listed - unless that fell under paper, some with and some without blood on it.

SS - in post #727, you say RH, (from CFS), testified that there were smears on the inside of the rear passenger door. That would be different from this initial list - the initial list is incomplete or the testimony was 'added to'?

Still think the car was 2-door btw. Looking for that info (recall thinking when I read 2-door - at some point in time insuring a 2-door car for someone under 25 was more than insuring a 4-door car. May not have been the case in 1990).

Reclined passenger seat - you cannot remove a body from the rear of a car with the front passenger seat reclined. Why would someone recline it after the fact? Staging?

 

[eyesonly]

I very much agree with your statement eyesonly 'if she expired at all'.

I'm noticing that CFS has never actually said anything about an expired body. Seems only RnR said that at the time. Everyone followed and some are still following with no evidence.

More on the car from NCTM - page 110.

Brother P and brother M's girlfriend NS have just found the car. NS runs up to the car and observes the passenger seat is fully reclined. NS tries both doors but no mention of her fingerprints later. NS also notices a yellow parking ticket in the rear of the car - 'the parking ticket had her address on it (she couldn't think of why this would be)'.

Who was 'her'? The parking ticket had NS's address on it? In EB's car? NS did not have a car at that time. Was the parking offense at NS's house? What date was on it?

In the CFS documentation of the car on page 123, which is from the observation at that time and not from testimony (as per the book) CFS does not note the passenger seat is reclined nor is a parking ticket specifically listed - unless that fell under paper, some with and some without blood on it.

SS - in post #727, you say RH, (from CFS), testified that there were smears on the inside of the rear passenger door. That would be different from this initial list - the initial list is incomplete or the testimony was 'added to'?

Still think the car was 2-door btw. Looking for that info (recall thinking when I read 2-door - at some point in time insuring a 2-door car for someone under 25 was more than insuring a 4-door car. May not have been the case in 1990).

Reclined passenger seat - you cannot remove a body from the rear of a car with the front passenger seat reclined. Why would someone recline it after the fact? Staging?

www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/toromagazine/may2004/2009112301/7.html#65

thats the car woodland, and i don't believe the seat was fully fully reclined, and i believe the body was pulled out through the drivers side door. zoom in on the car and you can see the extent of the seat reclined.

 

[Woodland]

NCTM page 110 - expanded quote.

'Peering through the windows, Nancy could see that the passenger seat was fully reclined, almost touching the back seat'.

The other dilemma is blood smear on the passenger rocker panel and passenger seat belt - said to be 'consistent' with a 'heavy object' being put into the rear seat through the passenger door. That was said more than once, so will look for a reference.

 

[eyesonly]

NCTM page 110 - expanded quote.

'Peering through the windows, Nancy could see that the passenger seat was fully reclined, almost touching the back seat'.

The other dilemma is blood smear on the passenger rocker panel and passenger seat belt - said to be 'consistent' with a 'heavy object' being put into the rear seat through the passenger door. That was said more than once, so will look for a reference.

Woodland that's a pic of the car on Friday the 22 in the exact place it was found. You can see the passenger seat and how far it is reclined.
And in my post I was talking about how the body was removed from the car not put in the car. It was put in thru the passenger side and would have been pulled out they drivers side. Pure physics. Plus the foot print on the drivers side door denotes the person is holding something and closing the door with his foot.

NS was in a panic her mind was racing and trying take everything in. Human minds dont see everything as they are in a situation like that. Look at the seat for yourself. It hadn't been touched. No one had a key no one opened the door and touched it between NS and the cops arriving.
Proof is in the picture woodland

 

[Woodland]

Agreed the pic denotes a seat not fully reclined.

Disagree with everything else though - there is no evidence a body went in and out of this car. CFS was unable to state that with any degree of certainty. Have seen plenty of 'I'm a tough guy' close a car door with their foot with nothing in their hands but a set of keys. If one of these tough guys had a body in their arms, and were prone to using their hands to close a car door, they would close the door after putting the body down. Or not close it until they got back into the car. Jmo.

Failing to see any pattern in the blood what-so-ever. Blood smears would have to be transfer from a bloody object or dripping blood that was smeared in the process of moving a body/heavy object in and out of the car. I see a lack of smears myself, and smears that don't make sense. Also, if blood dripped on the mats - why not on the seat?

Not seeing logical movement here. Jmo.

 

[Snively]

It was a two door 1981 Toyota Tercel. The passenger seat could have been fully reclined when the body was being transported. It could have been partially reclined like it was found. Either way it's hard to see in the car. Once the lever is pulled to access the back seat the seat slides forward and tilts forward. Pushing it back usually clicks it to a very upright position. There are a lot of reasons the car could be found with the seat partially reclined. A slipping ratchet on a 9 year old car. Somebody just lifted the lever and pushed the seat back to a partial recline so the blood on the floor wasn't as easily seen. Or as the forensics seem to point out the body was removed from the drivers side and the seat had been left in a partial recline even to transport the body.

A body being put in the car immediately after being hit is even quicker than dragging it to the woods. I did consider that in the time.

Now if she wasn't yet dead, but dying and the wound was wrapped in a blanket or cloth there would be less blood. The tighter the less blood obviously. The body placement depends as well. A wound placed higher than the heart would bleed out slower as well. How much does this change the forensics?