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

[eyesonly]

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.

FWIW: the blood pooled on the mat wasn't described as dripping. Only drip was when cop cut a piece out and lifted that piece up.

 

[Woodland]

There are no forensics - evidence or statement - that a body was removed from the drivers side of the Tercel. If you find one though, let us know.

How did the blood come to be on the mats? It dripped onto the mats? Or was it placed there? There has to be a viable, logical reason for this. The question was how it got there, not how is was described when found. We know the description of how it was found.

What we don't know is the details of the meeting between Raybould and CFS in Nov 1990 - what did CFS say about how the smears and pooled blood came to be? CFS was very careful not to say body, or deceased body.

On that note, also feel Raybould did not act alone in falsifying the details of that meeting. Crown Attorney McMahon most certainly had a report somewhere as CFS most certainly wrote a report on the findings in the vehicle. No one wants to go there it seems according to the reports in the papers - imo it's because of the rise in McMahon's career afterwards. Another blow to RB and the justice system in Ontario. 'They' will tell you what 'they' want you to know - the alternative is a minefield imo.

Another observation - the cops got it wrong, they made stuff up, they were driven by testosterone or whatever, they had tunnel vision etc, etc, etc. Yet, the alternative is to use their theories? Switch one innocent guy using the same set of circumstances, timing, location, for another guy? And we should count it as being correct? Don't get that fwiw.

Part of that observation comes from reading many a thread on WS - it's amazing how many people are unwilling to say their beloved cops or forensic people got it wrong. Have observed many a poster willing to forego common sense just to have the cops be right, knowing they got the wrong guy. Don't get that either fwiw.

 

[kemo]

Applying Occam's Razor to the known forensic evidence I've come to the following conclusions:

At some point in the early evening hours of Tuesday, outside of the vehicle, EB was it with a hard object with a great deal of force one or more times but probably no more than four.

Within minutes of the assault, perhaps before death, she was placed in the back set of her car head first from the passenger side and then probably pulled from the driver side. A great deal of care was taken to avoid smearing blood in the car.

Within hours, she was removed from the vehicle, again carefully. The body was never returned to the vehicle. (I base this on the assumption that the longer the body sits, the more likely body fluids would leak and full rigor would set in making it harder to move the body without smearing blood. Had the body sat outside for any time after death debris from the ground would have clung to her body and be transferred to the floor of the car. In addition, it is a reasonable assumption that the perpetrator would not leave the body in the car in a public parking area or anywhere else it might draw attention during daylight hours.)

Some other Occam's Razor conclusions I have drawn:

While no sighting can be "absolutely" verified, there were enough to be reasonably certain EB was in the park/campus area that late afternoon.

While it is reasonable for a young woman to hang out by herself in a park for a while, something of a more dramatic nature happened must have happened by 7:00 to cause her to miss her class. Hanging out in a park alone without communicating with anyone until dark after missing class is not normal reasonable behavior.

It is possible for an angry love struck young man to commit the crime described above in the short time span RB would have had it is unimaginable that he would park the car with a body in the back in an urban area with people and security servicemen around, while he spent the next hour establishing a sort of alibis. The obvious instinct is to get that bodY somewhere where in can't be linked to you.

Nobody, especially a non-criminal would ever agree to help a friend murder his any woman for a sexual or personal reason,and it wouLd be extremely that anyone would even ask. This was a one man operation.

 

[kemo]

The lack of blood smears is strange. It seems that a panic rush to get a body with a severe head injury into the back of a small 2 door and then pull the body out after rigor has begun would result in a lot of blood all over both the interior of the car and the perpetrator. I wonder if a luminal test was done; perhaps it was cleaned up. Otherwise I am inclined to conclude that whoever did it had taken measures and knew what he was doing. This wouldn't have been a panicked angry rejected lover. It seems more like it was planned or at least carried out with a plan in place on how to handle the situation .

 

[Woodland]

With all the sightings of EB from the citizens of Scarborough on 19 June 1990, no one saw or heard the crucial part of her murder. Or her buying milk. Or her jogging. Or her making an ATM transaction. Yet she was murdered, according to some, in a place many people traveled, worked, or enjoyed recreation and claimed to have seen EB - but at the time of the crucial moment, no one saw or heard anything - including someone lugging a heavy object or placing it in a silver car. Only probably this or probably that.

Some parts are missing, but it seems Reesor and Raybould got it right, according to some. One cannot include CFS though - they did not play along and no one is able to present a statement to that effect.

So was Reesor and Raybould right, or was CFS right?

 

[Snively]

If the car was left across from 3r Autobody it would likely be amongst other cars parked there overnight waiting for service. It does seem cars were left there. There isn't any security around and nobody would bother looking at cars parked across from an autobody shop. Just one more car waiting to be worked on.

It definitely doesn't sound like she was alone and if they were found out and a fight started and she got hurt then the other two people could certainly be considered in it together. All it takes is one to point the finger at the other that it's their fault.

 

[eyesonly]

With all the sightings of EB from the citizens of Scarborough on 19 June 1990, no one saw or heard the crucial part of her murder. Or her buying milk. Or her jogging. Or her making an ATM transaction. Yet she was murdered, according to some, in a place many people traveled, worked, or enjoyed recreation and claimed to have seen EB - but at the time of the crucial moment, no one saw or heard anything - including someone lugging a heavy object or placing it in a silver car. Only probably this or probably that.

Some parts are missing, but it seems Reesor and Raybould got it right, according to some. One cannot include CFS though - they did not play along and no one is able to present a statement to that effect.

So was Reesor and Raybould right, or was CFS right?

Sorry woodland your post a bit confusing. Prob just me lol.
Reesor and raybould absolutely got it wrong as it pertains to RB, as for place and time of murder if that happened, that's hard to say because they were soley focused on RB which prevented them from pursuing other avenues.

I will say though, I doubt very much they will indict a retired head of homicide and retired deputy chief of police. The power and connections are too high and doubt the city will want that black mark on their force.

I see them conceding to RB's civil suit, not to be made public with the disclosed payout, and a public apology stating his unequivocal exoneration in this case.

There's too much for the city to lose by the indictments. Much easier to save face and payout 13 mil.

Jmo

 

[Woodland]

Great contribution - to let a wrong remain wrong. Other than a taxpayer monetary consequence of course. Jmo.

So other than RB, everything RnR said was right? Bearing in mind at no time has CFS aligned themselves with what RnR said.

 

[eyesonly]

Great contribution - to let a wrong remain wrong. Other than a taxpayer monetary consequence of course. Jmo.

So other than RB, everything RnR said was right? Bearing in mind at no time has CFS aligned themselves with what RnR said.

Hey I'm just stating the way reality works woodland. Nowhere did I say I agreed or approve of what I speculated. Believe it or not that's the way it works sometimes because if society loses complete faith and trust in LE then it will be chaos and bedlam.
In the end, our justice system is working for RB, very slow and frustrating process but it is working.

As for what r&r say I really have no comment on them, not worth the effort of my thumbs here texting.

Ok let's get back to finding EB

Jmo

 

[Woodland]

So who could be responsible for the disappearance of EB? And what could the circumstances have been, given the small amount of evidence?

 

[Snively]

Let's start at the ATM machine.

 

[SecretSource]

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."

The court will often use birth names, not the names that witnesses customarily go by; it's a formality. Hardly anyone called EB by her full first name either.

EG or RG was adamant that RB had no part whatsoever in the call to KN and RB had no reason to care about KN once he was told personally by MS that he had seen RB in the gym at 7:15 PM - exactly what RB had told the police. It also makes no sense that RB would leave the UTSC weightroom once there then head back to there without making sure someone could vouch for him being there. In any event, both KN and his evidence - some of which came subsequent to being hypnotized - was thrown out of the trial with the complete agreement of the Crown; that should be enough to persuade anyone that his evidence was essentially worthless but for added measure he made the absolutely ludicrous claim that, eighteen years later, he suddenly recalled seeing RB driving EB's car in the Spring of 1990 - a claim that not even EB's family had the audacity to make because it was ludicrous - and that was the final straw when the judge at RB's trial in 2008 deemed him unlikely to tell the truth, a loose cannon and why he took the unprecedented step of asking the Crown to produce him in court for questioning. When the Crown responded that KN was out of the country at the time - how convenient - all parties agreed he had to go.

 

[SecretSource]

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.

Three hours actually could work for this scenario IMO; however, if the Crown is right that EB was killed before 7:00 PM - likely 6:30 PM because if she did intend to go to class she would have had to go home to get her things - she had to be placed in her car by roughly 9:30-10:00 PM, a time frame during which RB is speaking to Mrs. B and many others at UTSC. If RB wanted to place the body in the car three hours after the killing he wouldn't have gone back to UTSC from EB's home - he would have gone straight to the valley and did it and that would have taken presumably 15-20 minutes and then what? Drive the car to Three 'R' Autobody? Another 5-10 minutes from the valley. Then what? Walk back to his car in the valley? Another 10 minutes. Then drive back to UTSC, park his car, then get to the UTSC Athletic Centre. Another 10 minutes. It's now 10:15 and RB hasn't even had a chance to speak to anyone at the AC about EB, his desire to call LP, ask for a phone book to call her, etc. He wouldn't have had nearly enough time to do what was required and, as it happens, anywhere from 6 to 8 people during the relevant time frame. The CFS provided an upper limit of three hours for how much time could have elapsed between death and being placed in the car but you are correct that if placed in the car as late as three hours after death she definitely could not have been in the car for very long before signs of decomposition would have been left in the car and observed once the car was found.

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 2-3 days later and transported in the car for a 1-2hr drive (color of blood, and no decomp odour or insects)

I agree to a point; by far the most logical scenario and what conforms to the forensic evidence is exactly what you have described but I think that it is possible that "an expired body put in the car 2-3 hrs later" is possible. Likely, no; but possible? Yes unless I am missing something and I invite all to weigh in.

 

[SecretSource]

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?

Can't recall the date. The parking ticket had NS's address on it likely because MB had likely used EB's car to drive there; MB and his brother PB often used EB's car.

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'?

Yes, he expanded on the initial list in his testimony but I'm not convinced that RH was accurate; he did say that the smears and direction of travel suggested a heavy object being dragged into the car from outside the car on the passenger side door but I still think it's possible that EB was killed in her car and that, in fact, she was dragged not in the car but out of the car. A very, very big JMO.

Still think the car was 2-door btw.

It was; there is a photo here.

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?

Good question. Maybe the reclined seat was so a person couldn't see the body but that makes little sense; if you were nervous about a person seeing the body in the car, why not use the trunk?

 

[SecretSource]

What we don't know is the details of the meeting between Raybould and CFS in Nov 1990 - what did CFS say about how the smears and pooled blood came to be? CFS was very careful not to say body, or deceased body.

The note that LE took is as follows:

DISCUSSION WITH CFS PERSONNEL IN REGARDS TO BLOOD IN TOYOTA
Nov 22/90 2:15PM Hillsdon & Higaki


- if out 2-3 days she would decompose and blood would decompose this would preclude blood loss as seen
- would lose blood 3 hours after injury and would be consistent with evidence
- possible cause – 2 hits to head and then strangled with ligature left in place – would dam up blood in head and cause bleeding
- if body in car from Tues - Friday expect strong odour
- if body placed in car 2.5 days after death – not wrapped
- if decomposed – the odour would be noticeable as decomposed fluids would enter fabric and remain
- if body decomposing then we would not see smears that are red – they would be reddy/blue
- 8 pts in human body – this is about ¼ pint
- no answer to fatal blow

The interview was not recorded; this note is are there is other than the memory of each of the participants.

 

[SecretSource]

So was Reesor and Raybould right, or was CFS right?

Reesor and Raybould never had a coherent theory at any point during the investigation, so no faith should be placed in them. They had applied for an authorization to surveil RB before they had even spoken to him or before they had even verified where he was that night. They told him that he likely didn't go the weightroom that night - and two weeks later they spoke to MS who verified that he had. They told him he had no one who could verify that he had been at EB's class that night and listened to a Crown prosecutor call witnesses suggesting that he hadn't - meanwhile they had interviewed a woman exactly one week after EB went missing and she and eventually her boyfriend who had been at the class that night waiting for her corroborated everything RB said and could prove that RB had been there.

For four months police had DD's statement in their possession and did nothing with it, having deemed it impossible because the car had been seen across from Three 'R' Autobody on Wednesday morning and after which it never moved; yet four months later for no reason they suddenly accept the sighting from a man who claimed he saw the car on Friday morning, contrary to everything they had believed up to that point? But most importantly, three days after RB's arrest Raybould had a meeting with forensic experts during which time he was told in no uncertain terms that the theory he and the Crown would ultimately present at RB's bail hearing, preliminary hearing and trial was scientifically impossible and he went ahead with it. Then, 9 years later he removed the woefully incomplete reference to the meeting from his memobook to conceal its existence from RB's appeal lawyers forever.

Reesor and Raybould don't deserve any credit whatsoever; they had no idea what happened on June 22, 1990 and still don't.

 

[Snively]

KN's testimony was ultimately excluded based on the hypnosis testimony being excluded along with anyone else who was hypnotized. Doesn't mean that E.Gos. tried to coerce a witness and then gave a time he said saw RB in the gym when RB was actually at the Bain's. My point isn't to question KN's testimony at all, it is why E.Gos. who you said was not that great of a friend of RB, would put himself out there like that and then give a time (which he suddenly remembered that he forgot to tell the police) when RB was at the Bain's and not in the gym at all? He has the keys to the building and can slip out any time and slip back in and nobody would notice. If RB had no knowledge of the coercion was E.Gos. trying to actually set his own alibi up? The same with his 9:15 pm testimony.

 

[Woodland]

... 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.

Quote is from post #727, page 30.

There could not have been testimony by CFS that blood was smeared on the inside of rear passenger side door - there was no rear passenger door.

 

[Woodland]

The note that LE took is as follows:

DISCUSSION WITH CFS PERSONNEL IN REGARDS TO BLOOD IN TOYOTA
Nov 22/90 2:15PM Hillsdon & Higaki


- if out 2-3 days she would decompose and blood would decompose this would preclude blood loss as seen
- would lose blood 3 hours after injury and would be consistent with evidence
- possible cause – 2 hits to head and then strangled with ligature left in place – would dam up blood in head and cause bleeding
- if body in car from Tues - Friday expect strong odour
- if body placed in car 2.5 days after death – not wrapped
- if decomposed – the odour would be noticeable as decomposed fluids would enter fabric and remain
- if body decomposing then we would not see smears that are red – they would be reddy/blue
- 8 pts in human body – this is about ¼ pint
- no answer to fatal blow

The interview was not recorded; this note is are there is other than the memory of each of the participants.

CFS does not say here, nor anywhere that I have seen, that the blood came from a deceased person. They are carefully saying the blood is consistent with blood loss after no more than 3 hours after an injury.

Only the Crown and LE insist EB was placed in her car after death.

This is why I'm asking who is right? People seem to be following LE theory of death on 19 - 21 June 1990 with no evidence.

There had to be a report in order for CFS to have a meeting with Raybould (unsure if Reesor was there) stating the outcome of CFS findings after testing - and what testing they performed to arrive at their findings. Imo, Crown Attorney McMahon had a copy of this report at one time or another and was required to disclose it to the defense.

 

[Woodland]

The note that LE took is as follows:

DISCUSSION WITH CFS PERSONNEL IN REGARDS TO BLOOD IN TOYOTA
Nov 22/90 2:15PM Hillsdon & Higaki


- if out 2-3 days she would decompose and blood would decompose this would preclude blood loss as seen
- would lose blood 3 hours after injury and would be consistent with evidence
- possible cause – 2 hits to head and then strangled with ligature left in place – would dam up blood in head and cause bleeding
- if body in car from Tues - Friday expect strong odour
- if body placed in car 2.5 days after death – not wrapped
- if decomposed – the odour would be noticeable as decomposed fluids would enter fabric and remain
- if body decomposing then we would not see smears that are red – they would be reddy/blue
- 8 pts in human body – this is about ¼ pint
- no answer to fatal blow

The interview was not recorded; this note is are there is other than the memory of each of the participants.

The only way I can read the first line - bolded by me - is that the blood in the car had not decomposed. It was no more than 3 hours old as per second line.

How did the blood drip onto both rear mats and not the rear seat?