Appeal of first trial was in limbo for dozen years, in part because of dramatic impact of Bernardo arrest

Eighteen years is an extraordinary length of time to find an accused man not guilty of murder.

Why did it take so long for Robert Baltovich, 42, to be cleared of killing his girlfriend Elizabeth Bain in June 1990?

Fingers are pointing at both the Crown and defence for the almost unheard of 12 years it took for Baltovich's appeal to be heard after he was convicted of second-degree murder in 1992.

Bain's parents, Ricardo and Julita, blame the defence for delaying the case, saying the long interval destroyed any chance of a conviction in Baltovich's second trial.

Baltovich's lawyers blame the Crown for drawing out the process.

Prosecutors stubbornly refused to abandon their case, despite defence lawyers finding deep flaws in their key evidence, they say.

Attorney General Chris Bentley defends the work of his prosecutors while implying that the defence was responsible for the 12-year appeal process.

"This was an unusual case in many respects, and I'm not going to stand back and criticize the time the defence took for the appeal.

"They took the time that they thought was necessary."

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in 2004, when it ordered a new trial for Baltovich, also said it could not blame the Crown for delays.

James Morton, past president of the Ontario Bar Association and a criminal defence lawyer, agrees the Crown was not responsible and confesses he doesn't understand why it took so long.

"This particular case is almost pathological on a number of grounds," Morton said.

"Not only the amount of time it took, but also the problems they had with the actual trial."

Joanne McLean, another Baltovich lawyer, says some of these pathological problems – flawed evidence, an early police fixation on her client to the exclusion of all others – were at the root of the delays.

Another factor was the Crown's tardiness at first in disclosing evidence to the defence, she said.

It was only by time-consuming digging that the defence were able to uncover fresh evidence – both in Crown files and through their own investigations – confirming Baltovich's innocence, she said.

For instance, the defence discovered a diary entry in the Crown's files that demolished the claim that Bain gave Baltovich a "Dear John" letter breaking off their relationship three days before she disappeared, McLean said.

That discovery came less than two weeks before the appeal was to be heard in April 2004, and necessitated its adjournment until the following September, she said.

All finger-pointing aside, a major reason for the delays in the 1990s was the arrest and conviction of Scarborough Rapist and schoolgirl killer, Paul Bernardo.

In February 1993, the defence team, then led by Brian Greenspan, was about to schedule an appeal date when Bernardo was charged, shedding a whole new light on the case that no responsible lawyer could ignore, Greenspan says.

It meant the defence had to delay the appeal to compile new evidence on Bernardo as an alternate suspect. Defence counsel in the first trial had argued the Scarborough Rapist was the real killer, but at that stage his identity wasn't known.

The Baltovich defence needed to conduct its own investigation on Bernardo, and incorporate and organize evidence from the Crown. New facts kept coming in dribs and drabs throughout the 1990s, Greenspan said.

The time it took to investigate the Bernardo angle led to friction between Baltovich – anxious to move the process along – and his defence team, Greenspan says.

Baltovich switched lawyers in 1999, opting for James Lockyer and McLean.

However the differences with his client were soon resolved and he continued to assist with the case, Greenspan said.