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

[eyesonly]

So these are only tweets. No good in my opinion. I need to see the direct testimony sheets please as per the court reporter. Who knows what the tweeter has mixed up with the words or context.

LETS NOT BE CARELESS HERE !!!!!!

 

[eyesonly]

Now back to why we are here, a bunch of armchair sleuthers trying to find Elizabeth Bain

 

[SecretSource]

It may be that more forensic evidence relating to EB's case will be disclosed in the months ahead; for now the three-hour figure appears to be the consequence not of attempting to date the the bloodstains - which as I understand it is a very difficult thing to do given the many variables such as humidity, temperature, etc. - but based on the colour of the bloodstains found and how long the CFS experts theorized a body would bleed once death ensued, hence the claim that blood from a decomposing body would not produce see smears that are red but reddy/blue, which they weren't.

In essence, what the CFS experts told Raybould was that the blood would have been fresh at the time it was deposited given the colour of the bloodstains and that would have been consistent with the lack of decomposition, which suggested the body was placed in the car early on after injury and removed fairly quickly.

 

[Woodland]

What the forensic biologist in the LM case is saying is, the blood that was spilled in that case underwent changes as the days passed. There was a time the blood was three hours old, that same blood was then a day old, two days old ...

It degraded. Some rotted in the five days. It dried. The exception was the blood in the freezer and the refrigerator, from the same source and spilled at the same time. The blood in the freezer was better preserved and the blood in the refrigerator was still liquid. The blood behaved differently under the different conditions.

Imo, if the blood in the back of EB's car was considered to have been deposited when 3 hours or so old, then it didn't have time to degrade. It had the appearance of 3 hours or so old when found 3 days after EB was missing. How could the blood in this car not have degraded in any way in three days?

If the blood under the floor may was still liquid, then I'm with this more educated and better trained biologist - it was preserved in some way or it was in fact fresh. A likely scenario imo, is that it was placed there in the wee hours of Friday morning. This would explain smears with only one direction - a mistake.

 

[eyesonly]

Many things can cause DNA degradation. As you pointed out if you freeze and thaw the DNA, the ice crystals that form will cut the DNA into pieces thus degrading it. You do not need to do this many times for the DNA to degrade. As few as one or two times will do it.

Other causes of DNA degradation include:

1. Contaminants in your DNA preparation. If your DNA was not purified well, some DNA degrading enzymes may remain in your solution which will degrade the DNA

2. Nucleases in your skin can cause DNA degradation, so handling DNA without gloves can cause DNA degradation. Some people lots of nucleases in their skin, others not as much.

3. If you store your DNA in a solution that is not buffered, or chelated, then your DNA will likely degrade. Make sure to keep your DNA in a buffer like TE, and at a pH of 8 or so to keep it stable

4. When handling DNA it is a good idea to keep it could (in an ice bucket or something like that). If you are keeping your DNA at room temperature for extended periods of time, while working with it, this can cause it to degrade

I am sure there are other reasons, but these are the ones I can think of right off my head. I short, if you do think you are getting degradation, then purify a new batch of DNA and aliquot it so that you do not have to freeze and thaw your DNA more than once or twice.

Someone should tell the biological community that there is no such thing as DNA degradation as per woodlands ruling over the testimony of a CFS expert.

Just saying.

 

[eyesonly]

" As body fluids were found in the car......."

How would you all take this statement to mean. Could it simply mean only blood. Do they refer to blood as a body fluid when discussing forensics or does it mean other body fluids which could be saliva, sweat, urine?

 

[SecretSource]

Imo, if the blood in the back of EB's car was considered to have been deposited when 3 hours or so old, then it didn't have time to degrade. It had the appearance of 3 hours or so old when found 3 days after EB was missing. How could the blood in this car not have degraded in any way in three days?

If the blood under the floor may was still liquid, then I'm with this more educated and better trained biologist - it was preserved in some way or it was in fact fresh. A likely scenario imo, is that it was placed there in the wee hours of Friday morning. This would explain smears with only one direction - a mistake.

The above scenario you have described - that the blood was relatively fresh when the car was discovered - cannot be ruled out and is very alive as a possibility given the information Raybould recorded in his note for the November 22, 1990 meeting. There is definitely ambiguity in how one could interpret the note and, in addition, the meeting lasted roughly an hour and a half but Raybould's notes cover about 10 minutes' worth of discussion; who knows what else may have been discussed? For now, we have Raybould's record and that's it; given what Raybould did record and how much it torpedoed the police and Crown theory, one could surmise that even more damaging information might have been imparted to him although what was recorded was damaging enough.

As for note note itself, it reads in part as follows:

a) if out 2-3 days she would decompose and blood would decompose this would preclude blood loss as seen;

This would suggest that the blood was not decomposed and therefore it could have been fresh at the time the car was found; this would also suggest EB was alive well after Tuesday night.


b) if decomposed – the odour would be noticeable as decomposed fluids would enter fabric and remain

This would suggest that when the body was placed in the car it was not decomposed per the absence of decomposition odor. This could mean that EB was placed in the car soon after being injured - completely contrary to the police and Crown theory - and removed soon afterwards; or, that she could have been killed closer to Friday, then put in her car, and by the time the car was found the body had been removed it had never had time to decompose.

c) if body decomposing then we would not see smears that are red – they would be reddy/blue

The smears were red. This would suggest that when the body was placed in the car the blood hadn't begun decomposing either, which blood does. But this could have several interpretations. Were the CFS experts saying that from the colour of the bloodstains as observed on Friday they could conclude that, being red in colour, the blood was fresh at the time the stains were produced, i.e. as early as Tuesday night? Or, were they suggesting that the colour of the bloodstains, which were red at the time the car was found, meant that only a person who had been injured within several hours of the car being found , i.e. as late as Thursday night/Friday morning, had been placed in the car. Again, basing my analysis only on the note either of these scenarios is possible.

As for the idea of blood aging, we also have the following quote:

As bloodstains increase in age, they progress through a series of color changes from red to reddish brown to green and eventually to dark brown and black (Figures 9.3a and b). This change of color is attributable to the drying process and to the loss of oxygen from the oxyhemoglobin in the red cells on exposure to air. Exposure to the sun will hasten the darkening process. A particularly warm and humid environment and the presence of bacteria and other microorganisms during the decomposition process will also affect the sequence and duration of color changes in bloodstains. Post mortem growth of fungus can produce unusual changes in blood as seen in Figures 9.4a and b. This was a scene where the body had begun the decomposition process and the growth of the hairlike fungus was determined to be Aspergillus sp. Wet bloodstains that were originally red will usually progress to red brown and then go to green within 24 h at a warm temperature as a result of the growth of bacteria and the decomposition process. [James, Stuart H. et al. Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice. CRC Press, 2005.]


Based on the passage above that I have bolded, one would have a hard time excluding the possibility that EB was alive after Tuesday given the evidence in the car as recorded in Raybould's note. Had EB been killed on Tuesday by 8:00 PM, by the time the car was found on Friday about 66 hours would have elapsed, which is a long time for blood to be drying and decomposing.


Thoughts?

 

[Woodland]

The forensic biologist in the 2014 LM case is confirming, imo, what CFS said in 1990 - 1992 for EB's case - CFS identified fresh blood because it was fresh. The blood in the LM case could not be scientifically dated in 2012 - 2014 even though it was a known fact from the video on the day the blood was found it was 5 days old - but scientifically cannot be stated/proven.

Also, Raybould did not write down the blood was decomposed - he's writing what would be the case if the blood was decomposed. Raybould has not written, in the example provided, that the blood is fresh either. He is concentrating on 'if decomposed'. Jmo.

You have great knowledge and access to much information on this case SS - I for one am grateful you post here.

Have a question if I may - from your posts, you seem adamant that EB was placed in the back seat of her car - when that was is TBA. Can you tell us what exactly makes you sure of that? And how do the lack of exit smears reconcile with that? Thanks.

 

[SecretSource]

Also, Raybould did not write down the blood was decomposed - he's writing what would be the case if the blood was decomposed. Raybould has not written, in the example provided, that the blood is fresh either. He is concentrating on 'if decomposed'. Jmo.

As regards Raybould's note, this entry:

b) if decomposed – the odour would be noticeable as decomposed fluids would enter fabric and remain

is in fact indicating that a decomposing body would produce decompositional fluid which would spill into/on the fabric and leave a noticeable odor. I think what the CFS are indicating to him here is that you would find x,y and z if EB were killed and placed in the car 2-3 days later but, in fact, no x, y, and z were actually found there. The CFS likely touched on blood decomposition as well, hence this:

a) if out 2-3 days she would decompose and blood would decompose this would preclude blood loss as seen


so overall I think we can conclude that the lack of decomposition of both the blood found and the decompositional fluid and odor not found was a fairly solid debunking of the theory he and the Crown ultimately relied upon. That doesn't mean the theory that EB was placed in her car in order to dispose of her body is correct; only that in order for it to be correct the evidence found in the car would have been different that what was found. Which brings us to your question:

Have a question if I may - from your posts, you seem adamant that EB was placed in the back seat of her car - when that was is TBA. Can you tell us what exactly makes you sure of that? And how do the lack of exit smears reconcile with that? Thanks.

I'm actually not sure of that at all; I was only adopting the theory advanced by LE and the Crown in order to show that for it to be correct the evidence in the car would have been much different than what it was; and that therefore their theory is bogus. I think at this point the only thing we can be certain of is that at some point EB was in the back seat of her car; whether she was already there when she was killed or placed there after being killed and transported somewhere is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain: if she was killed inside the car it had to happen after 7:00 PM because MV sees the car on Old Kingston Rd. at that time, it hadn't moved since 6:20 PM, and it would have had to move in order for EB to be in it along with her killer at some unknown location. As insane as LE has been in regard to this case, I don't think even they would suggest that when MV last saw the car and left the valley, EB was already in the car. And given RB's presence at UTSC at 7:00-7:15 PM, that would be a problem for LE given his whereabouts post 7:15 PM. Simply put, LE needed her to be killed outside the car before 7:00 PM, not inside the car afterward, if RB were to be guilty.

I agree that the absence of exit smears is very weird; and, one would think that if, as the CFS suggested, the smears were made when the blood was fresh, there should have been exit smears. I must admit I never thought much about this but it does raise some interesting questions.

 

[Woodland]

Hmmm, with all due respect - and I very much respect the info you had/have access to SS - you want something both ways in my friendly opinion.

On one hand you are not sure EB was placed in the back of her car. Yet, on the other hand, you want us/yourself to be certain that at some point EB was in fact in the back of her car. There is no fact for that - that I have read so far. Seems you may not have a fact to point to that either.

What's missing should be considered evidence - the lack of exit smears is evidence and not a mystery, imo. Evidence that, imo, could point to blood planted in the car. Which of course points to a more sinister plot than anyone has proposed so far, and could involve people that many may not want to consider. One has to pick a course of action - go with the evidence and lack of evidence, or ignore it. Have heard and experienced denial is a beautiful thing.

I'm new to this case, I don't have a horse in the race and am now hooked and want to know what happened. I can only follow what can be proved - not what someone's opinion is. Which of course brings me to sister C - if she was asked for a blood sample, that is giving her a choice. I have no way to determine what her choice would have been and can recognize who could or could not say for certain what her choice would have been. With all due respect.

 

[SecretSource]

Hmmm, with all due respect - and I very much respect the info you had/have access to SS - you want something both ways in my friendly opinion.

On one hand you are not sure EB was placed in the back of her car. Yet, on the other hand, you want us/yourself to be certain that at some point EB was in fact in the back of her car. There is no fact for that - that I have read so far. Seems you may not have a fact to point to that either.

What's missing should be considered evidence - the lack of exit smears is evidence and not a mystery, imo. Evidence that, imo, could point to blood planted in the car. Which of course points to a more sinister plot than anyone has proposed so far, and could involve people that many may not want to consider. One has to pick a course of action - go with the evidence and lack of evidence, or ignore it. Have heard and experienced denial is a beautiful thing.

I'm new to this case, I don't have a horse in the race and am now hooked and want to know what happened. I can only follow what can be proved - not what someone's opinion is. Which of course brings me to sister C - if she was asked for a blood sample, that is giving her a choice. I have no way to determine what her choice would have been and can recognize who could or could not say for certain what her choice would have been. With all due respect.

I respect the fact that you are holding out for irrefutable proof of her presence in the back of the car but if you have serious doubts as to EB ever being in the back of the car and bleeding, then it's unlikely we'll ever be on the same page. I will allow that there is no mathematical or irrefutable proof she was there, but I am satisfied based on the DNA analysis that the blood was hers and that she is dead and likely murdered and that is what I will premise my theories on; as to where, when, why and how I am completely open to all possibilities.

 

[Woodland]

There is no requirement for us or anyone to be on the same page. Nor is there a DNA analysis that says the blood in the back of EB's car belonged to her. It's assumed, just like the scenarios.

Nail down the blood and there will be more to say with certainty. Jmo. Maybe we will all be surprised - who knows unless it's done?

Fwiw, whenever I want to put something of a large size or quantity in my vehicle, I run through what my needs are regarding that item before I put it in my vehicle. Is it a difficult item to handle? Will I need room to move around when putting it in my vehicle or when I take it out? When will I need to remove the item from my vehicle? Do I need the back seat or the trunk/back of the vehicle? A two door car is much more difficult to put large items in and take out of the back seat.

For the most part, if the item is large, I use the trunk or back of my vehicle. That's from an experienced driver though.

EB is without a doubt deceased. Imo, she passed away on Tuesday the 19th - and my assumption is 5:00 pm or so. The freshness of the blood on Friday needs an explanation.

 

[SecretSource]

For the most part, if the item is large, I use the trunk or back of my vehicle. That's from an experienced driver though.

It makes sense if she's killed outside of the car to put her in the trunk, which wasn't done; it makes even more sense if you have time to think about it and know that there are blankets that could be used to conceal the blood that was found all over the back seat. But we know this was never done and therefore we have a very good reason why: she was killed in the backseat of the car and therefore there was no need to put her in the trunk if she's already in the back. This also suggests she was disposed of fairly quickly, in addition to the extraordinary unlikelihood that someone was driving around in a car belonging to the deceased 2-3 days after killing her.

Here's a question:

Why would the police even bother with RC and her sighting if they had forensic evidence from the getgo - that suggested EB was killed outside the car, i.e. the lack of blood spatters. RC's sighting suggests an attack inside the car so why even follow up with her, take a statement and introduce her evidence as part of the prosecution's case at first?

 

[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.

This is the inventory of EB's car after it was found per NCTM. No mention of any blood on the back seat - one smear on the front edge only. The total quantity of blood was half of what one donates in a single sitting. Imo, not life threatening. Smears indicating something heavy was dragged into the car, but not out.

RC claims to have seen a man and a woman having an argument - which may or may not be true. Seems everyone lied in this case - family, cops, members of the public ...

I don't think EB was in her car at the time she died or after her death. Her blood may or may not be the fresh blood found in the car. Jmo based on the facts as I know them.

 

[SecretSource]

Seems everyone lied in this case - family, cops, members of the public ...

Got that right. Although with the public, I'll say with the exception of Perz and Dibben, it was more a case of being honest but mistaken.

In some cases, police don't like to release composite sketches because they get inundated with calls and end up being bombarded with alleged suspects and they can't follow up on all of them. On the other hand, in cases such as this they throw the net wide open and cherry pick and put a case together that is merely based on an arbitrary grouping of witnesses that could just as easily been grouped with other witnesses to suggest a completely different theory altogether. If this case ever gets cracked one of the great lessons for the public will be that if the police have a suspect in their cross-hairs they will do anything - even put witnesses on the stand to outright lie - if it means the different between a conviction and having to admit defeat. And, that they can find "evidence" against anyone even if it means making it up.

In every trial, the merest suggestion that a cop might have lied or hidden evidence is enough to motivate any Crown prosecutor to rise up indignantly and ask the rhetorical question, "Would this experienced police officer put his career on the line?" Yet lo and behold, Raybould buried two forensic opinions that completely contradicted his theory.

Makes you wonder what else still is out there laying in wait.

 

[eyesonly]

This is the inventory of EB's car after it was found per NCTM. No mention of any blood on the back seat - one smear on the front edge only. The total quantity of blood was half of what one donates in a single sitting. Imo, not life threatening. Smears indicating something heavy was dragged into the car, but not out.

RC claims to have seen a man and a woman having an argument - which may or may not be true. Seems everyone lied in this case - family, cops, members of the public ...

I don't think EB was in her car at the time she died or after her death. Her blood may or may not be the fresh blood found in the car. Jmo based on the facts as I know them.

Woodland, your post of 934 states quoting NCTM regarding the blood, it says "Blood smeared on......"
It does not say there is only one smear on the front edge of the back seat as you are interpreting it as.
There could be multiple smears or one very long smear. Your personal description of "only one smear" denotes something pretty insignificant.

I can assure you the smears and the bloodstains were not insignificant by any means. And if a body was moved into the car, creating such smearing and staining, I'm not sure how one could determine that the body wasn't removed from the car in the same manner through the same door way.

 

[Woodland]

Is it possible to have a more clear and concise description posted here (not necessarily photos - but that would be cool) of what the blood in the back of the car looked like? It was photographed at CFS before being examined according to NCTM.

Thought on blood pattern(s) - are drops/smears of blood missing in what we have learned so far regarding the back seat blood?

So far what we seem to know is - 2 separate pools of blood on the rear floor mats - one on the drivers side and one on the passenger side. Blood was dried on top of the mat but wet and dripping underneath. Drops of blood on some yellow tissue paper (kleenex? thin wrapping paper?) which dried and adhered to a can of soda - drops on some other paper, small twigs and leaves and a hair barrette. Various smears indicating a body (or heavy object) dragged into the back of the car - front edge of back bench style seat, edge of passenger door frame, passenger rocker panel, passenger seat belt (not sure of height) and seat belt anchor points for the front seats (located between passenger bucket seats and just in front of rear floor). Total quantity was half of what a blood donor would give in one sitting.

This seems like sporadic dripping to me rather than a continuous dripping. Why not continuous dripping? Shouldn't continuous dripping show blood drops between the mats as well - regardless of the direction someone is being dragged in? Blood drops during movement of a person bleeding result in an 'exclamation type' pattern when they hit something (looked that up just now - should be numerous sites available for reading on this).

If someone were dragged into this car via the passenger side and they were bleeding, a pool of blood on the passenger mat seems to indicate the body stopped long enough at that point to pool - then they were shifted over to the drivers side. And bleeding from the top of their body? Or they were bleeding from somewhere at the top of their body and somewhere on the lower body. But where are the smears and drips between the mats?

 

[eyesonly]

If blood drips were attempted to be wiped off, would that create a smear?

 

[Woodland]

Haven't seen anyone describe any of the smears in EB's car as an attempt to wipe blood drops for the purpose of eradicating. Testimony transcripts might help to clarify - even if the testimony was limited from CFS.

 

[eyesonly]

Would the attempt be obvious? Probably to a CFS person maybe?