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

[eyesonly]

Just want to say that the detectives are not stupid people. They are well trained and basically cream of the crop intelligence as per the tests they have to pass to become a homicide detective.
The crown in this case is extremely inteligent and versed in case law and trial law.

So when neither challenge RBs alibi from 715 till 11pm then there is very good reason for that.
They know there is no plausible argument to shake that alibi otherwise they would have torn it apart like a cheap shirt.

Now the CFS information that they suppressed has caught up with them which negates any possibility whatsoever that EB was killed before 7pm and placed in the car up to within 3hrs of death as it pertains to RB as a suspect because the crown and LE have already conceded his "tight" alibi for that time.

It really is elementary to see that RB not only was not responsible but in fact is an impossibility for him to be responsible.

And that's not jmo, that is the facts, both forensic and investigative combined.

 

[Woodland]

Not sure why intelligent people, collecting a taxpayer funded salary, need to suppress evidence in order to say 'I won, I won!'.

To make matters worse, there is a whole new set of taxpayer funded players now, who have closed the case and called it 'solved'. With no supporting evidence. And right now, the new taxpayer funded people are still spending taxpayer's money to defend the suppression of evidence.

Fwiw, I'd like to see them all put their big boy pants on and do it right. But that's just a taxpayer speaking.

 

[SecretSource]

As per suggested scenario by secretsource.
What if EB was killed or subdued into unconsciousness in the car in the back seat. If someone is strangled her that could amount to pressure in the head area forcing blood out the mouth and nose. And maybe the body dragging in the car was simply a body being dragged out of the car?

Remove the CFS opinion evidence that the body was dragged in and not out of the car and it definitely has merit as a scenario, a LOT of merit IMO. If EB had been killed in her car in this fashion, it might also explain why there were no spatter marks which the CFS expert testified to: she may not have been killed with a blow. Of course, this also fits RC's sighting of the car, of EB and of her likely assailant and the fact that it is literally 10 seconds away from where the car was found days later which then would only need to be backed up and parked where it was seen the next day by CP at Three 'R' Autobody. Clearly LE gave credence to what RC had reported at first despite having RH's evidence; RC originally called in anonymously, therefore making it perhaps less likely that she was just an attention-seeker. On the other hand, one could argue that if she had been that sure of her observations she would have put a name to them; it would be nice to know under what circumstances LE ended up speaking to her and getting the full statement.

On the other hand, LE definitely would have wanted EB killed outside her car, given that if EB is killed inside the car it meant that she had to be killed post-7:00 PM due to MV's sighting of the car on Old Kingston Rd. at that time with and no one around it, the same time or within minutes of RB heading up to UTSC. RB's confirmed presence at the weight room and at the classroom and EB's home was a huge problem for LE and the Crown and would have made the shorts issue moot so LE would have had a strong motivation to push the theory that EB was killed both outside the car much earlier in that night then dragged inside the car later, which in November 1990 they were told couldn't have been more than three hours.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during those CFS discussions...

 

[Woodland]

Whenever I read about the RC sighting (pedestrian who got off a bus and walked in-front of the auto body shop) I find I have to include why EB did not attend her 7:00 pm class that evening.

If EB left home, she did so without her books for that class. Was she intending to return home and get them? Or was she planning on not attending, again? EB missed the previous Tuesday and lost 5% of her mark (according RB in NCTM). EB was working on a project for that class that was due two days later - the project was found in her room, apparently not quite finished (paraphrasing - RB saw the opened project just as she had left it).

EB had told RB she was having dinner with a friend that night and would not see him until sometime on Thursday. Was dinner to be before or after class? RB had assumed after.

So at 8:30 pm (or whenever this sighting was) EB is seen struggling in the passenger seat of her car outside of the valley lot and campus? Did EB pick this person up or did they have their own vehicle paarked somewhere? EB makes no attempt to wave her arms or call out to RC, indicating that whatever was happening, was OK with EB. RC notes that she 'locked eyes' with EB. Same as what MP said.

Then this person leaves with EB, things get worse, he kills her outside of her car, puts her back in the car, takes her out of the car (leaving no evidence of this) or, kills her inside of her car, takes her out (leaving smears that are interpreted as someone being dragged into the car), disposes of her, then drives back to the same spot where he knew they had been seen by a pedestrian and parks the car there. Either walks away or to his vehicle.

Can't really buy into the above. Jmo.

 

[eyesonly]

Whenever I read about the RC sighting (pedestrian who got off a bus and walked in-front of the auto body shop) I find I have to include why EB did not attend her 7:00 pm class that evening.

If EB left home, she did so without her books for that class. Was she intending to return home and get them? Or was she planning on not attending, again? EB missed the previous Tuesday and lost 5% of her mark (according RB in NCTM). EB was working on a project for that class that was due two days later - the project was found in her room, apparently not quite finished (paraphrasing - RB saw the opened project just as she had left it).

EB had told RB she was having dinner with a friend that night and would not see him until sometime on Thursday. Was dinner to be before or after class? RB had assumed after.

So at 8:30 pm (or whenever this sighting was) EB is seen struggling in the passenger seat of her car outside of the valley lot and campus? Did EB pick this person up or did they have their own vehicle paarked somewhere? EB makes no attempt to wave her arms or call out to RC, indicating that whatever was happening, was OK with EB. RC notes that she 'locked eyes' with EB. Same as what MP said.

Then this person leaves with EB, things get worse, he kills her outside of her car, puts her back in the car, takes her out of the car (leaving no evidence of this) or, kills her inside of her car, takes her out (leaving smears that are interpreted as someone being dragged into the car), disposes of her, then drives back to the same spot where he knew they had been seen by a pedestrian and parks the car there. Either walks away or to his vehicle.

Can't really buy into the above. Jmo.

you are assuming that the guy in the car with EB is the person responsible for her disappearance, and he didn't just back the car against the fence and leave her alive and well, and something happened afterwards to her that had nothing to do with the guy seen driving her car.

 

[Woodland]

Actually, I was assuming anyone giving credence to the RC sighting is assuming this was the killer.

To me, adding another guy makes the likelihood of this scenario even less. Jmo.

 

[Woodland]

Regarding the blood DNA analysis by Dr PN of CFS.

Wonder why PN only did a reverse paternity test. If she got enough info from the blood to declare it belonged to a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain, why not finish the job and compare it to sister C to rule out sister C?

Was that not possible for Dr PN? Did Dr PN not have the ability to make this comparison? Or was Dr PN denied the ability to perform this comparison - by not having a sample from sister C to compare to? Was sister C distraught, afraid of the unknown in giving a blood sample? Why did Dr PN settle for the testimony of sister C to 'complete' her 'scientific test'? Sister C testified she did not bleed in the back of the Tercel - it isn't necessary imo, for sister C to have bled in the car and still have her blood in it.

Do you have any of the history on why the blood DNA analysis was left this way SS?

 

[SecretSource]

Whenever I read about the RC sighting (pedestrian who got off a bus and walked in-front of the auto body shop) I find I have to include why EB did not attend her 7:00 pm class that evening.

It's an interesting issue and one that in retrospect it seems even LE struggled with. They obviously thought that EB may not have wanted to or planned on going to class because they did in the beginning give some credence to what RC saw; perhaps they believed at first that she had been prevented from going to class. It seems that only once they realized that the RC sighting caused too many problems with their theory that RB did it that they abandoned RC and went with the pre-7:00 PM theory and tried to convince everyone that EB had every intention of going to class all along.

If EB left home, she did so without her books for that class. Was she intending to return home and get them? Or was she planning on not attending, again? EB missed the previous Tuesday and lost 5% of her mark (according RB in NCTM). EB was working on a project for that class that was due two days later - the project was found in her room, apparently not quite finished (paraphrasing - RB saw the opened project just as she had left it).

One possibility was that EB had already concluded that she wasn't going to have it done on time so why bother when she could simply work on it the next two days and hand it in Thursday night? She knew there was a penalty for missing class but she knew that the week before and still bailed on it; reading the diary one can see that she thought having to do a summer course "sucked" so maybe she didn't care at that point with all the other issues she was dealing with. If she did plan on going to class, why withdraw $80.00 - if it was indeed on that day? Wouldn't such a withdrawal make more sense if she was going out that night and the story about AC she gave to RB was cover? Even the judge at RB's prelim commented that RB would have been absolutely foolish to make up a story about EB telling him she was planning on having dinner with Arlene when she didn't; it would have been easily demolished. It makes much more sense that EB gave RB the story as cover so RB wouldn't inquire or wonder where she was that night if, as he told the police, he happened to pop by her class to visit her and notice that she wasn't there.

So at 8:30 pm (or whenever this sighting was) EB is seen struggling in the passenger seat of her car outside of the valley lot and campus? Did EB pick this person up or did they have their own vehicle paarked somewhere? EB makes no attempt to wave her arms or call out to RC, indicating that whatever was happening, was OK with EB. RC notes that she 'locked eyes' with EB. Same as what MP said.

Then this person leaves with EB, things get worse, he kills her outside of her car, puts her back in the car, takes her out of the car (leaving no evidence of this) or, kills her inside of her car, takes her out (leaving smears that are interpreted as someone being dragged into the car), disposes of her, then drives back to the same spot where he knew they had been seen by a pedestrian and parks the car there. Either walks away or to his vehicle.

I can see why it doesn't ring true, but it's certainly possible and no less credible than a whole host of other witness testimony; maybe it is true. Maybe the guy in the car didn't realize that RC saw him or maybe he wasn't all there and never tweaked. At the end of the day, if that is what happened then maybe he didn't have many more options other than park the car and go home if he happened to live nearby.

 

[SecretSource]

Regarding the blood DNA analysis by Dr PN of CFS.

Wonder why PN only did a reverse paternity test. If she got enough info from the blood to declare it belonged to a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain, why not finish the job and compare it to sister C to rule out sister C?

Was that not possible for Dr PN? Did Dr PN not have the ability to make this comparison? Or was Dr PN denied the ability to perform this comparison - by not having a sample from sister C to compare to? Was sister C distraught, afraid of the unknown in giving a blood sample? Why did Dr PN settle for the testimony of sister C to 'complete' her 'scientific test'? Sister C testified she did not bleed in the back of the Tercel - it isn't necessary imo, for sister C to have bled in the car and still have her blood in it.

Do you have any of the history on why the blood DNA analysis was left this way SS?

I believe only EB's parent's gave blood samples, and that was what allowed them to determine that the blood belonged to one of their female offspring. I'm not sure why they didn't get CB to provide one because it easily could have been done. If she didn't she didn't but let's not kid ourselves - if she had been asked she would have.

 

[Woodland]

Bringing over some related testimony from the current trial of LM (WS thread) - from the forensic biologist who testified 14 and 15 Oct 2014.

The statements are from tweets and have not been included in any article written later for any on-line news agency covering the trial.

The forensic biologist arrived at the crime scene early morning of 30 May 2012 - five days (almost to the hour) after the video of the crime was shot during the night and early morning of 24/25 May 2012.

LM Trial Thread #2, page 1, post #11.

Victim's blood in the freezer, which preserved it a bit better #Magnotta

Prevost says she was unable to date any of the blood stains. #Magnotta

Post #12

Mattress has rotting blood stain, white stains around, as if by cleaning but not necessarily. Could also be rotting stain. #Magnotta

She didn't test it because it wouldn't have returned anything - blood was completely decomposed. #Magnotta

Post #24

Tested the large blood stain mattress cover. It was victim DNA. Snipped rest of statement - not relevant.

Page 2, post #48

In fridge, blood under veg crisper, visible without moving the drawer. Still liquid. #Magnotta

So blood held in a freezer will preserve blood. Blood in a refrigerator will be liquid after 5 days.

Blood in a mattress can be rotten in 5 days and not usable for testing. Blood on a mattress cover will be degraded after 5 days but usable enough for testing where DNA can be obtained from it. Don't know why there would be a difference in the same blood in the same location on two surfaces.

So comparing as much as possible to blood in the back of EB's car - after three full days (6:00 pm on day car found), blood was dried on top of floor mats but still liquid underneath. No sign of decomp. Same for blood smears - no decomp. Blood in EB's car was deemed to have come from an injury only three hours old - whereas in the LM case, blood could not be dated - pretty sure it's because it was already decomposed or decomposing.

Pointing this out as most scenarios so far do not include or take into account the state of the blood in the back of EB's car.

 

[eyesonly]

Pointing this out as most scenarios so far do not include or take into account the state of the blood in the back of EB's car.

Well, since I posted the news several pages ago about the learning of the CFS info about the blood that was suppressed by the detectives in order that they could continue with their theory to convict RB, it seems to me all the theories and scenarios have been trying to be based around the blood and the condition of it at least from what we know.
Unless I'm on the wrong thread here

As for the blood in EB's car. The DNA from the blood under the carpet had degraded somewhat but was still testable whereas the blood that was affixed to the yellow paper was in much better condition for testing.

 

[Woodland]

Most, if not all scenarios revolve around EB having been killed on Tuesday evening - anywhere from 7:00 to 10:00 pm. Yet no one disputes the blood was only 3 hours old, or was deposited from an injury that was only 3 hours old by Friday at 6:00 pm.

Is there a source that blood under the floor mat or carpet was somewhat degraded? Do not recall reading that anywhere. Thanks.

 

[eyesonly]

Most, if not all scenarios revolve around EB having been killed on Tuesday evening - anywhere from 7:00 to 10:00 pm. Yet no one disputes the blood was only 3 hours old, or was deposited from an injury that was only 3 hours old by Friday at 6:00 pm.

Is there a source that blood under the floor mat or carpet was somewhat degraded? Do not recall reading that anywhere. Thanks.

Source is the CFS person PN on the witness stand who was involved in the testing of the samples. The words used were the DNA was degraded. I don't know how that relates to the blood being degraded or not or if they are one and the same.
They got a much better DNA result off the dried blood on the yellow paper than the wet blood under the carpet. Let's say the DNA off the yellow paper would be at 9 point comparison match whereas the DNA from under the carpet would be like a 5 point comparison match.
That's an example and not verbatim from the testimony but I hope it gives you an idea.

And as for the scenarios re the blood, our big question is whether the blood would look like that on Friday if it was deposited on Tuesday.

 

[Woodland]

Whoa, we need total accuracy here imo.

First DNA is not degraded. Only the sample will be degraded.

Dr PN took a degraded sample of blood to produce a DNA profile - a profile that in her opinion was a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain? That may not have been possible according to the forensic biologist in the LM trial. The biologist in the LM trial already had a DNA profile from the victim from another, more reliable source. This biologist only matched, with fewer markers, the degraded blood to the victim. Huge difference. She may not, and imo would not have been able to say with absolute certainty that the degraded blood belonged to the victim - if that was all she had. Many times she said she only had markers from the degraded blood that let her know she was looking at the same persons DNA.

The key word is degraded, imo. That is the total opposite of the blood was from an injury that was no more than three hours old.

We need apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

Where can one find what Dr Pamela Newall said on the stand? I thought other CFS biologists had the meeting with RnR and said the blood was 'fresh'. Did not read at any time that PN was a part of this meeting or the testing for the 'freshness' of the blood.

Let's not be careless here.

 

[eyesonly]

Whoa, we need total accuracy here imo.

First DNA is not degraded. Only the sample will be degraded.

Dr PN took a degraded sample of blood to produce a DNA profile - a profile that in her opinion was a female offspring of Mr and Mrs Bain? That may not have been possible according to the forensic biologist in the LM trial. The biologist in the LM trial already had a DNA profile from the victim from another, more reliable source. This biologist only matched, with fewer markers, the degraded blood to the victim. Huge difference. She may not, and imo would not have been able to say with absolute certainty that the degraded blood belonged to the victim - if that was all she had. Many times she said she only had markers from the degraded blood that let her know she was looking at the same persons DNA.

The key word is degraded, imo. That is the total opposite of the blood was from an injury that was no more than three hours old.

We need apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

Where can one find what Dr Pamela Newall said on the stand? I thought other CFS biologists had the meeting with RnR and said the blood was 'fresh'. Did not read at any time that PN was a part of this meeting or the testing for the 'freshness' of the blood.

Let's not be careless here.

Guess I need to spell it out for you since you don't seem to read the full post very well.
She took the DNA sample from the yellow paper as comparison against mr and mrs Bain. This sample was not degraded.
The carpet sample was degraded but not to the point that it couldn't be tested, just that the yellow paper sample was a higher quality sample to test with. They used the yellow paper sample as the test for matching against mr and mrs Bain to determine that the blood came from a female offspring of them.

DNA degradation would be the degradation of the sample they are usuing. And 1990 DNA testing compared to today's testing is not apples and apples it's apples and AAA batteries, not even in the same realm.
They are trying to explain things to a jury who likely have never heard of DNA back in 1990 in it's infancy.

Please don't compare the terminology from 1990 to the terminology of today and make it appear like I'm a fking idiot. Jmho

 

[Woodland]

So the DNA sample was taken from blood on the yellow paper - not stated here at any time nor in NCTM. Thank-you for spelling it out.

If you are saying the Tercel carpet sample was degraded, which has never been stated here or in NCTM, a source is necessary for credibility. Degraded carpet sample vs a non-degraded paper sample would in fact match what the the forensic biologist in the LM trial is saying. But we need that recorded at the time for this case. Sorry and all that. That does not match the statement of three hour old blood - not by a long shot.

Fwiw, there is no such thing as DNA degradation - DNA is DNA - however it is obtained. It is either a full DNA profile or a partial DNA profile - if obtained from blood that is fresh - then a full and accurate profile. If the sample is degraded - than a partial DNA profile which can be compared to a known sample and determined to be the same person or not. Or not conclusive.

This has gone very south imo - we know nothing, imo, on how the DNA was obtained from the Tercel or it's accuracy. Or the accuracy on how old the blood was determined to be. As it stands now, it could have been a guess on the part of CFS. A good thing to know if true.

The only difference between a DNA test in 1990 and today is, the way that it is done. No change in the results.

 

[eyesonly]

So the DNA sample was taken from blood on the yellow paper - not stated here at any time nor in NCTM. Thank-you for spelling it out.

If you are saying the Tercel carpet sample was degraded, which has never been stated here or in NCTM, a source is necessary for credibility. Degraded carpet sample vs a non-degraded paper sample would in fact match what the the forensic biologist in the LM trial is saying. But we need that recorded at the time for this case. Sorry and all that. That does not match the statement of three hour old blood - not by a long shot.

Fwiw, there is no such thing as DNA degradation - DNA is DNA - however it is obtained. It is either a full DNA profile or a partial DNA profile - if obtained from blood that is fresh - then a full and accurate profile. If the sample is degraded - than a partial DNA profile which can be compared to a known sample and determined to be the same person or not. Or not conclusive.

This has gone very south imo - we know nothing, imo, on how the DNA was obtained from the Tercel or it's accuracy. Or the accuracy on how old the blood was determined to be. As it stands now, it could have been a guess on the part of CFS. A good thing to know if true.

The only difference between a DNA test in 1990 and today is, the way that it is done. No change in the results.

Well ya know I do have a copy of the video of the murder here somewhere, geesh let me see if I can find it, misplaced it here somewhere, prob would save all this guesswork on this kind of site wouldn't it. Pretty sure EB had her car cam activated. Let me check you tube to see if it's still on there. Just a min will be right back.

 

[Woodland]

There's a video of the murder? There was a car cam? Car cams were available in 1990?

C'mom already.

 

[eyesonly]

There's a video of the murder? There was a car cam? Car cams were available in 1990?

C'mom already.

Exactly, c'mon already and let's get a bit more realistic on who we are and what we have to work with and our expectations of what we are all posting here.

 

[Woodland]

Bringing over some related testimony from the current trial of LM (WS thread) - from the forensic biologist who testified 14 and 15 Oct 2014.

The statements are from tweets and have not been included in any article written later for any on-line news agency covering the trial.

The forensic biologist arrived at the crime scene early morning of 30 May 2012 - five days (almost to the hour) after the video of the crime was shot during the night and early morning of 24/25 May 2012.

LM Trial Thread #2, page 1, post #11.

Victim's blood in the freezer, which preserved it a bit better #Magnotta

Prevost says she was unable to date any of the blood stains. #Magnotta

Post #12

Mattress has rotting blood stain, white stains around, as if by cleaning but not necessarily. Could also be rotting stain. #Magnotta

She didn't test it because it wouldn't have returned anything - blood was completely decomposed. #Magnotta

Post #24

Tested the large blood stain mattress cover. It was victim DNA. Snipped rest of statement - not relevant.

Page 2, post #48

In fridge, blood under veg crisper, visible without moving the drawer. Still liquid. #Magnotta

So blood held in a freezer will preserve blood. Blood in a refrigerator will be liquid after 5 days.

Blood in a mattress can be rotten in 5 days and not usable for testing. Blood on a mattress cover will be degraded after 5 days but usable enough for testing where DNA can be obtained from it. Don't know why there would be a difference in the same blood in the same location on two surfaces.

So comparing as much as possible to blood in the back of EB's car - after three full days (6:00 pm on day car found), blood was dried on top of floor mats but still liquid underneath. No sign of decomp. Same for blood smears - no decomp. Blood in EB's car was deemed to have come from an injury only three hours old - whereas in the LM case, blood could not be dated - pretty sure it's because it was already decomposed or decomposing.

Pointing this out as most scenarios so far do not include or take into account the state of the blood in the back of EB's car.

Bumping - maybe we can start again from here? It seems worthy of comparison. It may cast an eye where some may not want to look though.