The Incinerator

dizzy1 · Jun 27, 2013

SwampMama said:
I read a few posts, not all of the pages so my post is just my experience and info, not a response to anyone.

Hubby and i live on property which is over 100 acres. We have NEVER had the need for such an incinerator and we have cows, sheep, horses and many other animals on the property here. The family has been here for generations with cattle and livestock and such a incinerator has never even been considered. The property surrounding us is many more hundreds of acres owned by family and they have no need for an incinerator.

We also have many wild animals ( deer, coyotes, skunk, possum, etc) which roam the property and have never needed an incinerator for dealing with them.

Hubby hunts and has a separate building for cleaning deer and alligators (that he has hunted) and friends come over to clean deer here too. But still no need for an incinerator.

Lots of brush and trees on the property have fallen in the hurricanes and storms that have hit us in the past few years. But never considered an incinerator for them. In fact that rather odd even consider that unless the "brush" being incinerated was marijuana plant stems and branches.

I asked my hubby ( who would know such things) about incinerators and no one in whole parish (county) has one (except for a few who need them to fulfill legal requirement to have one, such as very large poultry and swine operations. They have to have them because of the dangers of swine flu and bird flu and disease control.

I asked hubby about using incinerators for burning brush or wild animals, etc and he scoffed. Said it sounded like BS reason to him and my hubby knows his stuff about this stuff (in fact he used to raise hogs). For someone to state such a thing would certainly stand out to him as really odd.

I can't see any reason (except a sinister or illegal purpose) for having such an incinerator. There was something that DM wanted destroyed or obliterated, leaving no evidence.

As I had stated in an earlier post, we live on 46 acres, not far from DM's farm. What I think some people don't understand, is that you don't scour your whole property for dead wildlife, we are only concerned with what may be near the house that may be a danger to the people/pets living here. We aren't concerned with what might have died in the back woods, or the fields! It would be a full time job ridding ourselves of any dead animals on the whole property (not that there would be a lot of them, just that you would have to find them!). In the 12+ years we've lived here we have had a dead raccoon, and a deer hit by a car that brought itself into our field. That is a grand total of 2 dead animals in 12 years! Any pets that we have lost have been buried on the property, or left with the vet for cremation. Not a big need for an incinerator IMO! :moo: MOO

dizzy1 · Jun 27, 2013

Blomquist said:
With respect.. I doubt the manufacturer would bother producing them if there was no use for them. Someone mentioned earlier that said incinerator was for the purpose of incinerating animals. So with that in mind there must be some call for these machines and I guess some people must be buying them. JMO... I can think of a few purposes and none of them sinister or illegal. JMO MOO

I believe there is a use for them as well, but they are not that common IMO. I believe they would be useful for large poultry farms etc., but if you have a smaller farm, the chickens are not dying off by the day. We have raised chickens a few times (15-20 at a time for our personal use). If a person is interested in having a larger poultry farm, you cannot just buy 500 chickens and start selling them. It is a regulated business. http://www.cfo.on.ca/quotaFacts.cfm

Archangel7 · Jun 27, 2013

Stolen cars have lots of personal items and papers in them. Things like ownership, insurance, work ID hanging from the rear view mirror, etc. Getting caught with someone vehicle OR with all those papers will convict you on the spot so to speak.
An incinerator would work well for those personal items, I mean after all the vehicle/parts are being painted and or dismantled to prevent any ties but gee, those troublesome papers.....
JMO

As others above mention and I have said in previous posts.

I know several commercial farmers, ranchers, etc. that raise thousands of chickens, hogs, sheep cattle, horses, etc. Two I know have over 5000 acres and several chicken houses and hog parlors.

I am on their places almost daily and none, not one has an incinerator. Yet a guy with 100 acres, no animals, has one on his "farm." Certainly not against the law but certainly suspect. No doubt LE will get to the bottom. Supernova is going to fabricate a custom incinerator on a trailer and deliver it without some verification(with the exception of cash in advance) and that likely means a paper trail. MOO

Solo712 · Jun 27, 2013

bessie said:
Where did you get the idea that DNA could not be found?

Have you seen anything in MSM after the first statement which confirmed that TB's identity was identified by a DNA test performed on the charred body ? Please pass it on to me if you have. I have not seen anything.

DNA testing on charred remains or ashes is a complicated matter and does not always yield positive ID of the former biological matter, even below the normal legally sactiomed cremation temperatures. Take a look at this to get an idea of the issues in obtaining DNA from burned or cremated remains.

Best,
J.

dizzy1 · Jun 27, 2013

Not really directed at anyone in particular, as I've seen a few people question how LE was able to identify TB's remains, but IMO I highly doubt that LE would positively identify the remains of TB unless they were 100% sure it was him. They may have initially used the "totality of the evidence", but I'm sure they investigated further via dna or dental records, or whatever means they had to, to be absolutely sure. It would be pretty cruel of LE to allow SB and family to have a memorial, funeral and a burial for TB, and later have to break it to them that they had made a mistake... MOO

Carli · Jun 27, 2013

Solo712 said:
Have you seen anything in MSM after the first statement which confirmed that TB's identity was identified by a DNA test performed on the charred body ? Please pass it on to me if you have. I have not seen anything.

DNA testing on charred remains or ashes is a complicated matter and does not always yield positive ID of the former biological matter, even below the normal legally sactiomed cremation temperatures. Take a look at this to get an idea of the issues in obtaining DNA from burned or cremated remains.

Best,
J.

Also Eldee's post # 193 provided a link that described the testing process in layman's terms. Of particular note, imo, is the statement "Successful DNA identification of cremains of any type is at best a 50/50 probability, therefore successful cremains testing is tied directly to the level of efficiency or lack there of regarding the cremation process. The cremation process controls the integrity of the submitted cremains test sample. You should consider cremains testing to hopefully bring answers and closure to your uncertainty regarding DNA identification...."

Alethea Dice · Jun 27, 2013

dizzy1 said:
Not really directed at anyone in particular, as I've seen a few people question how LE was able to identify TB's remains, but IMO I highly doubt that LE would positively identify the remains of TB unless they were 100% sure it was him. They may have initially used the "totality of the evidence", but I'm sure they investigated further via dna or dental records, or whatever means they had to, to be absolutely sure. It would be pretty cruel of LE to allow SB and family to have a memorial, funeral and a burial for TB, and later have to break it to them that they had made a mistake... MOO

I agree. LE would have been very, very sure before they made the announcement that he was found. And they would have had their proof of identity before they released the remains to the family.

Archangel7 · Jun 27, 2013

Even if the comment on the not being able to test the ashes for DNA was true, there would be a potential for DNA evidence elsewhere inside the incinerator as in the flue or stack, around the entrance, etc. and neither the SN 250 or SN 500 run at 1800-2000F which is commercial Crematory temp. http://www.supernovamfg.com/500.html,
How long does the actual cremation take?
For an average size adult, cremation takes from 1 ½ – 2 hours at normal operating temperature of 1800 degrees F. http://www.greybrucecremation.com/faqs/

Simply put, you check for biological material, if there is any present, then you collect it, check it for DNA, then run whatever DNA test is appropriate for the size of the sample, the health of the sample, the accuracy desired and what type DNA is present, then check for match(ID).

JMO

bessie · Jun 27, 2013

Solo712 said:
Have you seen anything in MSM after the first statement which confirmed that TB's identity was identified by a DNA test performed on the charred body ? Please pass it on to me if you have. I have not seen anything.

DNA testing on charred remains or ashes is a complicated matter and does not always yield positive ID of the former biological matter, even below the normal legally sactiomed cremation temperatures. Take a look at this to get an idea of the issues in obtaining DNA from burned or cremated remains.

Best,
J.

Nor have we seen anything which said the body was cremated. Anyway, FWIW.

Identification of a carbonized body by DNA profiling

In south of Sicily (Italy), a man was found in a car, completely burnt down and without head. It was very difficult for the medical examiner to identify the body as no marks were found for recognition.
Due to the bad condition of the body, it was quite hard to choose the samples to be analyzed. We finally decided to use a lombar vertebra, heavily contaminated by burnt material from the car, for the DNA extraction.
The sample, a lombar vertebra, taken by the medical examiner was found to be a good source for DNA extraction. Moreover, the cells into the bone and their DNA content were well protected by both the burnt material dropped from the car and some other tissues (fats) from the body.

Maggot guts lead to ID of dead body

The only soft tissue available for genetic analysis was a burned fragment of liver, but attempts to get a DNA profile from this bit of evidence proved futile. However, forensic investigators were able to find useful genetic material in an unusual place inside the guts of the maggots infesting the corpse's neck and face.

Remains of a body, with or without DNA evidence, can offer evidence, prosecutors say

In 2003, police Lt. Ken Landwehr, head of the police homicide unit, brought Moore-Jansen a bone in a small Tupperware container. Landwehr wanted to know what it was.
Moore-Jansen knew right away a human vertebra.
Investigators divided the burn pit into quadrants and carefully collected up to 30,000 pieces, which Moore-Jansen sifted and sorted with help from students.
Some of the bones he found showed marks and cuts that appeared to be made by the various tools found charred in the pit.

A simple and efficient method for extracting DNA from old and burned bone

When applied to bones soaked, burned or buried for up to nine years, this method increases the purity and yield of DNA with respect to the traditional phenol-chloroform method and significantly improves multiplex STR genotyping using fluorescence-based methods.

How authorities identify a burned body

Although Bernstein is not involved in the Dorner case, "I think that all the elements are there for a possible identification," he said. "Dental identifications are so much quicker and so much less expensive than DNA."

swedie · Jun 28, 2013

dizzy1 said:
Not really directed at anyone in particular, as I've seen a few people question how LE was able to identify TB's remains, but IMO I highly doubt that LE would positively identify the remains of TB unless they were 100% sure it was him. They may have initially used the "totality of the evidence", but I'm sure they investigated further via dna or dental records, or whatever means they had to, to be absolutely sure. It would be pretty cruel of LE to allow SB and family to have a memorial, funeral and a burial for TB, and later have to break it to them that they had made a mistake... MOO

:goodpost:
Sorry if my post sounds graphic. IMO I don't believe the incinerator was used for TB. They may have considered it but realized the opening wasn't large enough and they didn't want to go through the process of dismemberment. Just the way it is being reported, TB was burnt beyond recognition leads me to believe they used flammable liquid and set him on fire hoping to obliterate his identity and any of their DNA/blood which could have been left on TB. IMO SB said TB was given to her in a small box because she had requested his remains were cremated after she found out his fate.

Archangel7 · Jun 28, 2013

About the burning.... Not related to any previous poster just thinking out loud.

After someone had murdered, wanted to get away with it, and wished to get rid of evidence(body) via fire, wouldn't they attend until it was completed? I mean, when you burn things, one attends the fire until satisfaction with the job, right? Especially if one is hiding or destroying something to prevent any link?

It almost appears they didn't attend the fire or realized the difficulty in the task after several minutes and perhaps settled for leaving it as is or possibly a shallow burial or cover up? It tends to indicate a body of some size was found. Also consider the relative quickness in the initial ID.

I also don't see the perps moving the body after the act had begun, at least not by handling.

Also under the circumstances wouldn't a combination with the seats be practical, in their minds? Just trying to understand what was happening at that moment and their thinking. I would think that it would be a very nervous and hurried time, which usually means mistakes and thus lots of evidence.

Also were they prepared with lights, etc. or just used the truck lights? Or was this a reaction to a spur of the moment event with limited lights and tools in the darkness of a rural farm field? All this could(coupled with the hidden Yukon theory) indicate a premeditation or maybe simply a test drive gone bad. Either way it's still murder one.

All JMO.

ETA....I am posting a perspective as if the incinerator wasn't used.

ArianeEmory · Jun 28, 2013

swedie said:
:goodpost:
Sorry if my post sounds graphic. IMO I don't believe the incinerator was used for TB. They may have considered it but realized the opening wasn't large enough and they didn't want to go through the process of dismemberment. Just the way it is being reported, TB was burnt beyond recognition leads me to believe they used flammable liquid and set him on fire hoping to obliterate his identity and any of their DNA/blood which could have been left on TB. IMO SB said TB was given to her in a small box because she had requested his remains were cremated after she found out his fate.

I've read this a few times but I'm not able to see how you're getting from point A to point B, particularly regarding the "burnt beyond recognition". How does that specifically lead to "burned outside with an accelerant"?

I don't have a firm opinion, but I've all along said it would be very weird if they had a big machine specifically for the purposes of disposing of (animal) bodies and then ignored it, when they had burning in mind. However, I can also see someone hesitating at dismemberment. (I don't know the criminal mind, or what kind of continuum of depravity we're talking about, to get from "kill guy for truck" to "...and cut up his body.")

I lean towards the incinerator being used because the police seized it. Surely they know if his remains were burned inside of it by now.

Archangel7 · Jun 29, 2013

Not speaking for Swedie, but in the spirit of discussion.

Accelerant usually burns away the clothes and doesn't damage much deeper than the first few layers of the dermis. Thus a body beyond a social recognition.

If the accelerant can burn long enough to allow the body to fuel the fire via a wicking method such as a mattress, drapes, carpet, etc. it will burn more completely.
JMO

Eljo · Jun 29, 2013

I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the murder was pre-meditated or not. I can't imagine, if it was pre-meditated that they would not use the incinerator. Then again, from what I've read, there was a bulldozer on the property. So these guys are not rocket scientists if it was pre-meditated. The whole thing is so puzzling....

Archangel7 · Jun 29, 2013

Eljo said:
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the murder was pre-meditated or not. I can't imagine, if it was pre-meditated that they would not use the incinerator. Then again, from what I've read, there was a bulldozer on the property. So these guys are not rocket scientists if it was pre-meditated. The whole thing is so puzzling....

Yeah, I kind of agree. In for a penny, in for a pound sort of thing.

If premeditated one would realize from the get go that some work would need to be done prior to using the incinerator.

Otherwise it seems to be somewhat planned but when it came down to it, maybe they didn't have the ability to do what needed to be done to use the incinerator(thus the possibility of a "body" beyond recognition) vs the other possibility. I guess the use or not of the incinerator will be found out in court.

JMO

Snoofo · Jun 29, 2013

Even if TB's body was found outside of the incinerator and burned beyond recognition, if there eere ashes in the incinerator it would probably be seized just to confirm if anything else from the murder was burned in it or even to determine what the heck it was used for when DM had no livestock.

puppyraiser · Jun 29, 2013

I keep going back to the comment by LE that there was more ash discovered than would be typical for someone TB's size. They said "ash", not charred remains like what might be discovered after a house fire or explosion in which someone perished.
Also, I do realize that it was an unidentified source who commented that what was done would make the hair on a person's neck stand up, but that comment makes me think something happened more sinister than an outdoor, open fire. IMO, JMO

There was a child (Donovan Clubb) who went missing several years ago from southwestern Ontario who was burned after he was killed. I don't recall the police or media reporting anything about ashes in that case. There were charred remains. :-(

lanman · Jun 29, 2013

puppyraiser said:
I keep going back to the comment by LE that there was more ash discovered than would be typical for someone TB's size. They said "ash", not charred remains like what might be discovered after a house fire or explosion in which someone perished.
Also, I do realize that it was an unidentified source who commented that what was done would make the hair on a person's neck stand up, but that comment makes me think something happened more sinister than an outdoor, open fire. IMO, JMO

There was a child (Donovan Clubb) who went missing several years ago from southwestern Ontario who was burned after he was killed. I don't recall the police or media reporting anything about ashes in that case. There were charred remains. :-(

Do you have a link where they said "ash" and not "charred material" ?
It seems to me it's the other way around.

"Despite suggestions the volume of charred material recovered exceeded what would be expected from a man of Mr. Bosmas size, there is no evidence of additional victims, police said."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...rom-property-of-suspect-in-tim-bosmas-murder/

SnooperDuper · Jun 29, 2013

lanman said:
Do you have a link where they said "ash" and not "charred material" ?
It seems to me it's the other way around.

"Despite suggestions the volume of charred material recovered exceeded what would be expected from a man of Mr. Bosmas size, there is no evidence of additional victims, police said."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...rom-property-of-suspect-in-tim-bosmas-murder/

If you had a charred body, it would be easy to tell what was part of it and what wasn't.

If you had ash and bone, it might not be so easy

So that quote, to me suggests that the burning was more, rather than less, complete

Blomquist · Jun 29, 2013

SnooperDuper said:
If you had a charred body, it would be easy to tell what was part of it and what wasn't.

If you had ash and bone, it might not be so easy

So that quote, to me suggests that the burning was more, rather than less, complete

IMO I think he was probably dead before being burned.. if the burning was to remove any forensic link to the killers then I doubt it would need to be more than charring.... JMO

The Incinerator

New Member

New Member

Verified Law Enforcement

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Active Member

Verified Law Enforcement

Verified Insider

Well-Known Member

Verified Law Enforcement

Well-Known Member

Verified Law Enforcement

New Member

Verified Law Enforcement

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics