Bosma Murder Trial 02.22.16 - Day 12

[Ontario Mom]

I was just saying that I don't think farmers would empty it out every time it's used, probably wait until it was full of ashes.

MOO

Unless it only holds a certain amount of ash and needs to be emptied after each use?

 

[Velma]

Adam Carter 4:33 PM
Jury led back in, only to be excused for the day. Legal arguments continue, but open court resumes tomorrow.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I was just saying that I don't think farmers would empty it out every time it's used, probably wait until it was full of ashes.

MOO

It would be full of ashes after one use...the thing's not designed to store ashes. Emptying it after use would be basic maintenance/expected.

 

[Kamille]

You think Millard was running around telling people he was gonna incinerate his victims? I'm sure he'd concocted some BS story to tell SS. Burning trash? Burning tires? Who knows? I wonder if Millard was simply looking to fill a market need for his less scrupulous friends, the disposal of bodies. Would it be worth $5k to never have to worry about a body showing up somewhere down the road? Peace of mind right? There had to be a reason he wanted that thing to be portable.

You think he had friends (other than his co accused) who were murderers? Do you have any proof of that?

TIA

 

[billandrew]

If SS had told the incinerator dealer they were planning to use it for animals, it wouldn't have been an obvious lie because the seller didn't know much about their business at that time. However, it IS an obvious lie today given that DM et al have never owned or dealt with animals.

This is probably why the defense is so aggressively blocking this information in court. Since the discussion was likely done over the phone, they can't use it because the seller became "tainted" by his knowledge of TB's murder in the news later on, before he provided an official statement to the police. JMO. If SS had described their use for the incinerator in writing, then it would have likely been admissible.

Edit: sorry if this was already mentioned. It's hard to keep up with everyone's posts!

 

[Bsafe]

You think Millard was running around telling people he was gonna incinerate his victims? I'm sure he'd concocted some BS story to tell SS. Burning trash? Burning tires? Who knows? I wonder if Millard was simply looking to fill a market need for his less scrupulous friends, the disposal of bodies. Would it be worth $5k to never have to worry about a body showing up somewhere down the road? Peace of mind right? There had to be a reason he wanted that thing to be portable.

Is there a difference between an organic incinerator and one used for non organic items such as industrial waste or tires? If so, it would also be very telling that DM purchased this type of incinerator vs one designed specifically for industrial waste. All IMO MOO

 

[lclabtech]

You think Millard was running around telling people he was gonna incinerate his victims? I'm sure he'd concocted some BS story to tell SS. Burning trash? Burning tires?

I dunno, a $15,000 livestock incinerator to get rid of trash or tires seems like overkill. Alarm bells for me for sure.

 

[jash]

Both of today's witnesses had to travel a long distance. I wonder if they actually flew in Thursday (expecting to be called Friday). Now one of them has to return to court tomorrow.

Does anyone know if a witness outside of Canada has to obey a summons? Either way, it's appreciated. I'm sure this is an inconvenience to them, but is obviously very important.

I wonder if time for legal arguments was built into the court schedule, or if they will have to make up this lost time somehow in the coming months.

 

[NashBridges2]

Either he knew all along what DM was involved with, or he's one of the dumbest people on the planet. You cannot be THAT involved with someone day to day and NOT know, or at the very least suspect, what they're up to.

Exactly. I could not agree more.

 

[Abitcountry]

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 6m6 minutes ago
Leitch asks if he had a conversation w Shane Schlatman about operability or unit. Yes. Did you give him advice? Yes. #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 5m5 minutes ago
Objection by Pillay. Jury is out again briefly...now being brought back. #Bosma


***Wow, the Crown is trying very hard to let the jury know that they are not allowed to hear any conversation SS had with these people. LOL

The day SS appears will be one to mark in the books !!
How does it work if you cut a deal with the Crown....no one else can talk or refer to anything in that testimony until it comes from the horse's mouth , so to speak??
Or is it that the defence is already prepared for what SS has to say as a result of disclosure and is try to deflect any other testimony that could add to what they are already prepared to dea with????

 

[NashBridges2]

I think either SS was in on it or the incinerator wasn't bought for evil purposes . Seems like SS debating which model to get shows that he wasn't given that specific instructions from DM. Plus DM could have ordered it himself no? (I don't buy he wanted to keep his hands clean theory)

LOL. Just because DM didn't tell SS he was going to use it to burn bodies doesn't point out it wasn't bought for evil purposes.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Is there a difference between an organic incinerator and one used for non organic items such as industrial waste or tires? If so, it would also be very telling that DM purchased this type of incinerator vs and industrial one. All IMO MOO

There are all sorts of nasty chemicals in industrial waste and tires and there are probably clean air regulations that prevent you from burning them.

I know that there are nasty chemicals left over in the ash of pressure treated wood and you are not supposed to burn that stuff.

I.e., not just the emissions would be a concern, but the ash as well.

The whole thing is probably so regulated that you need a licence to burn that kind of stuff.

 

[palisadesk]

If SS had described their use for the incinerator in writing, then it would have likely been admissible.

Possibly, depending on the written communication. At issue is what DM's purpose in ordering the incinerator was, and not what SS thought or supposed or was told DM's purpose was, especially relayed via a third party.

If the Crown wants to introduce evidence of what SS told the company, they can (and perhaps are planning to ) call him as a witness. He can then testify directly to what he himself said and what DM may have said to him.

Here's an explanation of Canadian laws with regard to hearsay evidence:

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hearsay.aspx

 

[billandrew]

Wow...how could you not ask that question in front of the jury

IMO it's because the conversation was done over the phone and he cannot substantiate it. Since Penner later became aware that the incinerator was used in a murder, he could change what he recalled of the conversation to make DM look more guilty.

IMO they probably told Penner they were planning to use it for farm animals. The defense would aggressively block this info if they could because it would prove to the jury that they were lying about their intentions. Or, at least, it doesn't line up with what the defense WANTS to claim as to their intentions for the incinerator.

Edit to quote palisadesk:

At issue is what DM's purpose in ordering the incinerator was, and not what SS thought or supposed or was told DM's purpose was, especially relayed via a third party.

 

[Ironworker736]

I'm going to try and get a seat for tomorrow's proceedings. Can anyone who's been there suggest what time I should show up? TIA

 

[matou]

IF this is the case, then why did the anthropologist state that human bones wouldn't burn completely?

Chicken bones are pretty porous so would likely turn to powder. Human bones are more dense. JMO

 

[matou]

What was the date that Shawn Lerner met with DM to discuss Laura?

Also DM took off to Croatia and other places with friends in mid-August. So interesting timing with SS's email about how the afterburner is was sounding great (????).

 

[billandrew]

Possibly, depending on the written communication. At issue is what DM's purpose in ordering the incinerator was, and not what SS thought or supposed or was told DM's purpose was, especially relayed via a third party.

If the Crown wants to introduce evidence of what SS told the company, they can (and perhaps are planning to ) call him as a witness. He can then testify directly to what he himself said and what DM may have said to him.

Here's an explanation of Canadian laws with regard to hearsay evidence:

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hearsay.aspx

Could it be that SS will give testimony in favour of DM? He could testify that DM had some particular intention for the incinerator, something inconsistent with what he originally told Penner. Just a thought. I'm trying to figure out why the defense would want Penner's answer to that question blocked so badly, but his answers to other questions about the conversation with SS were allowed.

Edit: change Leitch to Penner.

 

[matou]

I wonder how much electricity the incinerator fans needed to run for the night? Could LE check the hydro usage and time of usage for KW/hour at the hangar for that night?

 

[Tealgrove]

Sounds like Pillay is doing all the objecting - nothing much from Dungey. Interesting......