Baltovich acquitted

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Baltovich acquitted



[url=]Toronto Star[/url]

Cliff notes:
Crown says no longer believe a reasonable propsect of conviction
Judge instructs jury only verdict available is not guilty
Jury returns not guilty verdict

Waiting for Rosie Dimanno to chime in.

Text of Crown attorney Philip Kotanen's statement to the court this morning:

"Recent developments, including the cumulative effect of the pre-trial evidentiary rulings rendered to date in this case, other evidentiary issues, and changes to case law, have obliged the Crown to seriously reconsider whether there remains a reasonable prospect of conviction. We carefully weighed the evidence that was once available to the prosecution, and what now remains as a result of the evidence that was excluded in the pre-trial evidentiary rulings, and the other factors listed above.

"I wish to advise you that, now having completed that careful and detailed reassessment of the case, and having sought the advice of senior colleagues in the ministry, it has become apparent that there is no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction at this point. As such, I am duty bound to discontinue this prosecution.

"Accordingly, the Crown will not call any evidence in this matter. The murder of Elizabeth Bain was a horrendous and tragic event that has had a devastating impact on the lives of her family and friends. I can assure the family and the public that this decision has only been taken following a careful and exhaustive review of the evidence as it currently exists. However, as I have stated, the Crown cannot proceed where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Thank you for the opportunity to place these comments on the record."


Its about time. I never believed Baltovich was guilty. I still think Bernardo killed Elizabeth Bain.

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Its about time. I never believed Baltovich was guilty. I still think Bernardo killed Elizabeth Bain.[/b]

Normally, that kind of statement would bring a warning from the moderators about libel. In this case, I doubt that there is much more damage that can be done to his reputation.


Seriously Scott? No I mean it, would it be liable just because I think Bernardo is guilty?? Surely simply thinking someone is guilty of a crime is not libel. I mean, people say "I think this about so and so..." all the time.

dr anonymous

2 things i cant wait to read about

1)the police withheld key evidence from the original trial. baltovich can obviously sue based on that. will he?

2)the first judge basically handled the case as if he were mr bain (the father who swears b did it). why do we have a system in place that allows judges to blatantly break laws and not be punished.

ask yourselves this question:

see if you can find original transcripts of the first trial on google (ive read them in full). show any evidence that you could have convicted baltovich on. ive read it and cant believe they were even allowed to arrest him. love to hear another opinion.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]


From the cbc today:


Throughout his long legal battle, Baltovich has always maintained his innocence.

His lawyer, James Lockyer, a prominent advocate for the wrongfully accused, has repeatedly said he suspects convicted sex killer Paul Bernardo was involved in Bain's disappearance. Bernardo confessed in 2005 to a series of rapes in Scarborough about the same time as Bain's disappearance.

"I think he [Bernardo] probably did it, and I think the evidence shows he probably did it," Lockyer told reporters Tuesday.

He said the Crown simply had no case against Baltovich.

"Their case died of a thousand cuts," he said. "The theory, the whole premise of their case, it just fell apart."

[url=]Baltovich not guilty[/url]

Section 49


see if you can find original transcripts of the first trial on google (ive read them in full). show any evidence that you could have convicted baltovich on. ive read it and cant believe they were even allowed to arrest him. love to hear another opinion.

I can't claim to have read all of the trial transcripts, but I have read the Court of Appeal's decision from 2004, and they have another opinion about whether there was evidence upon which Baltovich could have been convicted:


[8] The Crown’s case against the appellant was entirely circumstantial. It consisted of three bodies of evidence: opportunity, motive, and after-the-fact conduct indicative of guilt. Within that mix, the evidence of two witnesses took on special significance – Ms. Marianne Perz with respect to opportunity and Mr. David Dibben with respect to after-the-fact conduct.

[9] Commencing with opportunity, Perz testified that on June 19 at 5:40 p.m., she saw the appellant and Ms. Bain seated together at a picnic table near the tennis courts at the Scarborough campus. The appellant denied being with Ms. Bain at that time. He claimed that he was at home with his family.

[10] At trial, the Crown maintained that the man seated beside Ms. Bain was her killer. The defence did not suggest otherwise. Thus, if accurate, Perz’s evidence virtually sealed the appellant’s fate.


[13] With respect to after-the-fact conduct, David Dibben testified that early in the morning of Friday, June 22, he observed the appellant driving Ms. Bain’s car at a location near Lake Scugog. At that time, Ms. Bain had been missing for several days and the appellant had consistently denied knowing of her whereabouts or the whereabouts of her car. Later that day, at about 2:30 p.m., Ms. Bain’s car was discovered on Moorish Road in Scarborough. In it, the police found bloodstains matching Ms. Bain’s blood. The pattern of staining revealed that a body had been dragged into the car through the passenger door. In the circumstances, if Dibben’s evidence was accurate, it too virtually sealed the appellant’s fate.

[14] In addition to Dibben’s evidence, there was other evidence of after-the-fact conduct tending to show the appellant’s guilt. For example, depending on the jury’s assessment of it, there was evidence that the appellant secreted or destroyed evidence, that he attempted to have Kaedman Nancoo falsify his testimony and that he had knowledge of material facts that would only have been known by Ms. Bain’s killer.

[15] Without elaborating further, it is fair to say that in assessing the strength of the Crown’s case, the evidence of Perz and Dibben took on special significance. That said, the overall strength of the Crown’s case did not hinge upon the jury’s assessment of their evidence in isolation. Rather, it depended on the jury’s assessment of their evidence in the context of the whole of the evidence, including a host of facts and circumstances that individually and collectively pointed to the appellant as Ms. Bain’s killer.


[151] On the basis of the legal errors and the overall unfairness of the charge, we have determined that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction quashed. However, after careful consideration of the evidence at trial and the enhanced record on appeal, we are not persuaded that an acquittal is appropriate given that we are satisfied that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably convict. We further conclude that this is not one of those “clearest of cases” in which a stay is warranted. Consequently, we are of the view that the proper disposition is to order a new trial.

edited because I still can't figure out UBB code. Text of teh Court of Appeal decision is here


[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Section 49 ]

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Seriously Scott?[/b]

Half serious. You should generally be careful who you accuse of murder.

dr anonymous

thanks section 49.

in regards to perz- her original statement didnt point any finger at rb. it wasnt until i believe 2 months later after she had seen him all over the media that she changed her story. apparently with coaxing from the police and hypnosis she now said rb. her evidence should never have been allowed at the first trial. and obviously this judge today felt same way.

dibben almost same scenario. gave police original statment(day after bains car all over media)months later. originally said blonde man with moustache. rb has dark dark hair and clean shaven. he describes her car wrong and defence has his friend as witness to recant his hoolywood made up story.

nancoo is the classic middle aged man who lives at home with parents needing some excitement in his boring life. his original statment barely has any negative towards rb. problem with this guy is everytime he feels bored it seems he changes his story. 3 weeks ago once again he added new flavour to the stew. of course the judge tossed him down the river.

im a believer in origial statements. and not one of the witnesses hurt rb in any way based on that.

the judge and the police are the main culprits in all this. manipulating people to get the answers they want, showing pictures of rb prior to them identifying him. its all quite frightening from what i have read.

he could sue them for millions. i just hope he does and exposes them for what they did. will he?? who knows


Thanks for the link section9.

jeff house

I read the book about the Baltovich trial, and have firmly believed him to be innocent since that time.

The paragraphs cited from the court of appeal, above, demonstrate how terribly weak the case was. They say it was an entirely circumstantial case, based on the fact that Baltovich had 1)opportunity, 2)motive, and 3)suspicious after the fact conduct.

The idea that you could have done something (opportunity) doesn't go very far to demonstrate that you did it.

The motive, supposedly, was a break-up of their relationship, even though her diaries revealed that she would break up, take him back, break up, take him back again, etc.

If you think about the words "he was her boyfriend at the time", you will see that the boyfriend will almost ALWAYS have opportunity and motive.

The ONLY other evidence, suspicious after the fact conduct, should never be enough to convict someone of murder, even a boyfriend.

Too often, when police can't solve a crime, they train a VERY critical eye on the people closest to the deceased.

Even things like getting a haircut become suspicious acts, "to change the appearance" of the suspect. Same for gaining or losing weight.

Everything is suspicious.

Stephen Gordon

Huh. Reminds me of the [url=]Susan Nelles[/url] case. Apparently the investigators concluded that because she asked for legal counsel when she was arrested (that's what wikipedia says, but I seem to recall that she wanted a lawyer present at her interrogation), she must have been guilty.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[thread drift]As I recall, Nelles wanted legal counsel before answering questions, and she was arrested as a [b]result[/b]. Her roommate was a law student and she wanted to confer with her before answering the police questions.[/thread drift]