The Incinerator

[puppyraiser]

I have permission to walk my dogs on a rural property with a large bush. Near the back of the property is a trailer which for many years appeared to be unused and the grass clearing was always empty of debris and burn marks. On one occasion we discover evidence of a fire on the ground and signs the trailer had been opened/used. Of course we took note of that and contacted the owner of the property. He later discovered some kids had a party back there. We've come across other people ATV'ing and walking in that bush as well and the owner has only given permission to a very few to use his land-none who have ATV's. So, it's quite possible that in the case of DM's property that people use the land for recreational use. I noticed via google maps that there is a very large bush attached and a trail can been seen from Roseville Rd going into that woodlot.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Scorched earth and burnt soil where the incinerator was located is a pretty good indication to me that it was used. Of course it's not 100% proof, it's possible someone was roasting marshmallows at that spot prior to the incinerator being place there. But that seems rather unlikely.

"Millard neighbour says incinerator he photographed was moved recently. On Friday, at it's original location, the ground was scorched"

"Neighbour says forensic investigation tent is now set up over burnt soil he observed Friday - where incinerator was originally located"

It's very likely that the incinerator was moved by LE to investigate the burnt soil underneath. It would fit with:

Investigators have been searching a farm near Cambridge, Ont., that is owned by the Millard family. The Hamilton police forensic unit set up a large tent at the rear of the property on Tuesday. Officers could be seen carrying what appeared to be buckets of soil and passing it through large sifting screens.

http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/05/15/hamilton-tim-bosma-dellen-millard-court.html

Not sure what it's worth, but this radio station reported:

The remains had been burned and buried at an undisclosed location.

http://1041thedock.com/tim-bosmas-body-recovered-by-police/

 

[SnooperDuper]

I believe it was in the original CBC article-the first MSM to have reported on the additional remains being discovered but that article has since been "updated".

I think that was a red herring thrown out there by the CBC because many other outlets credited them when reporting on this...so we know where that one came from

I did go back through the past threads ( a lot of repeated info in them!) and found a post that would seem to indicate from a neighbour that something went on with the incinerator.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9432188&postcount=62

A neighbour who requested anonymity told CBC News he had given police a photograph of what he called an incinerator on a trailer that he saw on the site on Friday. He said the place where police have set up a tent is one of the locations where he saw the incinerator. Police were asked about the mobile incinerator but would not comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/05/14/hamilton-bosma-search-kitchener-waterloo.html

I think there would be noise from driving a truck with the trailer with the incinerator on it up into the bush. There may have been noise while running the incinerator, and there may have been a smell. The neighbour I am sure I read has a dog that would hear things and bark too. There are lots of reasons for the neighbour to become curious and go out for a walk on DM's property.

 

[lanman]

OK so the neighbours were on Millard property it seems ??? They stumbled across an incinerator and a scorched area. Now they say its been moved. I wonder what caused them to walk/drive onto someones property .. do we have any links that explain this venture? I ask simply because I would like to know what prompted the urge to go onto anothers property and scan for 'evidence' of a murder. It would be helpful to know any points that led to this fortunately helpful (although illegal )act . JMO MOO

bbm

Do you have a link where is states they were looking for evidence of a murder? I don't recall reading anything about that.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes I think the neighbours apparently walked/drove on Millard property and took a pic up very close of an incinerator. They don't apparently have any info of having seen or heard anything that suggests it was used, which is surprising. IMO

There is an article out there that opens something like this: Yes the neighbours knew why police were at the farm. No they didn't want to talk about it. And I think it mentioned a dog in passing.

LE confiscated the neighbours phone and no doubt asked them not to talk to the press after that Friday.

So no doubt we have not heard much here because the evidence is important and LE wants the neighbours to keep a lid on what they saw or heard.

 

[Blomquist]

bbm

Do you have a link where is states they were looking for evidence of a murder? I don't recall reading anything about that.

No I don't because I was stating an opinion as opposed to a fact. I would like to know why they were on someones property though. Do we have any idea why? Was this ever mentioned? My opinion about scanning for evidence of a murder was prompted by the pic of an incinerator. I don't suppose they just wanted a pic of one for any other reason...but thats JMO

 

[Blomquist]

There is an article out there that opens something like this: Yes the neighbours knew why police were at the farm. No they didn't want to talk about it. And I think it mentioned a dog in passing.

LE confiscated the neighbours phone and no doubt asked them not to talk to the press after that Friday.

So no doubt we have not heard much here because the evidence is important and LE wants the neighbours to keep a lid on what they saw or heard.

Of course it may be a problem entering the incinerator pic into evidence if it came about via an illegal act of trespassing. Same with the neighbours phone IMO.... JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

No I don't because I was stating an opinion as opposed to a fact. I would like to know why they were on someones property though. Do we have any idea why? Was this ever mentioned? My opinion about scanning for evidence of a murder was prompted by the pic of an incinerator. I don't suppose they just wanted a pic of one for any other reason...but thats JMO

Here's a quote for you:

Two men working on a farm near Millard’s property on Roseville Road in North Dumfries said Wednesday afternoon that one of them took a photo of what appears to be an incinerator on Millard’s property. The pair, who did not want to be identified, said police have since seized the phone with the photo on it and told the men not to speak to media about the image.

When asked what an incinerator would be used for on a farm, one man shook his head and shrugged. “Burning things.” he said. “Burning livestock. Dead livestock.”

He said he looked online to identify the machine as an incinerator.

Other neighbours said they didn’t know anything about Millard, an incinerator or the property.

http://www.therecord.com/sports-story/3243068-lawyer-says-millard-to-plead-not-guilty-in-tim-bosma-murder/

I would theorize the neighbours heard some noise through Monday/Tuesday night and went to investigate since the next door property is usually vacant and quiet...and the neighbour took the picture because he did not know what the incinerator was and wanted to look it up.

 

[bessie]

Here's a quote for you:

Two men working on a farm near Millard’s property on Roseville Road in North Dumfries said Wednesday afternoon that one of them took a photo of what appears to be an incinerator on Millard’s property. The pair, who did not want to be identified, said police have since seized the phone with the photo on it and told the men not to speak to media about the image.

When asked what an incinerator would be used for on a farm, one man shook his head and shrugged. “Burning things.” he said. “Burning livestock. Dead livestock.”

He said he looked online to identify the machine as an incinerator.

Other neighbours said they didn’t know anything about Millard, an incinerator or the property.

http://www.therecord.com/sports-sto...lard-to-plead-not-guilty-in-tim-bosma-murder/

I would theorize the neighbours heard some noise through Monday/Tuesday night and went to investigate since the next door property is usually vacant and quiet...and the neighbour took the picture because he did not know what the incinerator was and wanted to look it up.

So he goes over to snoop around, sees the incinerator and the scorched ground, and decides to take a picture. Was he just curious, or suspicious?

Millard neighbour says incinerator he photographed was moved recently. On Friday, at it's original location, the ground was scorched.

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334424357436792833

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334482408646787073/photo/1

 

[bessie]

Of course it may be a problem entering the incinerator pic into evidence if it came about via an illegal act of trespassing. Same with the neighbours phone IMO.... JMO

I'm not sure why they'd need a picture of the incinerator as evidence when they have the real deal? And if the ground was scorched, LE photos and soil/grass samples would indicate where it originally was situated.

 

[Eljo]

I'm getting a bit confused wrt relative locations of burned soil, incinerator pre and post move and forensic tents. Could someone please clarify. If indeed the burned soil was near the original location of the incinerator and forensic tents were placed over the burned soil and were being sifted through, to me this raises 2 possibilities. Either they buried the body after burning it on the ground or (gruesomely) they were disposing of evidence on the ground of the event which would be required to allow passage through the incinerator chute. Jmo

 

[bessie]

I'm getting a bit confused wrt relative locations of burned soil, incinerator pre and post move and forensic tents. Could someone please clarify. If indeed the burned soil was near the original location of the incinerator and forensic tents were placed over the burned soil and were being sifted through, to me this raises 2 possibilities. Either they buried the body after burning it on the ground or (gruesomely) they were disposing of evidence on the ground of the event which would be required to allow passage through the incinerator chute. Jmo

I have more questions, too. According to the neighbor, the tents were placed over the site where he photographed the incinerator, its original location. In the picture, the incinerator is on a trailer. Would it be used while on the trailer? And if so, would the ground be scorched?

 

[lanman]

I have more questions, too. According to the neighbor, the tents were placed over the site where he photographed the incinerator, its original location. In the picture, the incinerator is on a trailer. Would it be used while on the trailer? And if so, would the ground be scorched?

In this article, the inventor of the Eliminator incinerator has it on a trailer while it's operating.
IMO, any scorch marks on the ground would be from ashes that were removed from the incinerator, not from the heat coming from the incinerator.

"Massey demonstrates his incinerator’s lower outside temperature. inside, the fires are raging at a blistering 1200 degrees, but Massey can still place his hand on the ouside."

http://www.alabamapoultry.org/magazine/sept2002/page12.html

 

[Archangel7]

I'm getting a bit confused wrt relative locations of burned soil, incinerator pre and post move and forensic tents. Could someone please clarify. If indeed the burned soil was near the original location of the incinerator and forensic tents were placed over the burned soil and were being sifted through, to me this raises 2 possibilities. Either they buried the body after burning it on the ground or (gruesomely) they were disposing of evidence on the ground of the event which would be required to allow passage through the incinerator chute. Jmo

You may be correct in both examples, meaning a third obvious example, ie. possibly some of both ground AND incinerator was used.

On the picture/admissibility question:
The police had a search warrant for some defined area of the farm. In law, the eyes cannot trespass. They would have likely "seen" it anyway, regardless of the neighbor, then obtained a warrant, yada yada....

So, I don't see a deal breaker either way. If admitted it doesn't bring the Court/Justice into disrepute and if the pic isn't used the police would have found the incinerator and seized it anyway.
JMO

 

[Archangel7]

In this article, the inventor of the Eliminator incinerator has it on a trailer while it's operating.
IMO, any scorch marks on the ground would be from ashes that were removed from the incinerator, not from the heat coming from the incinerator.

"Massey demonstrates his incinerator’s lower outside temperature. inside, the fires are raging at a blistering 1200 degrees, but Massey can still place his hand on the ouside."

http://www.alabamapoultry.org/magazine/sept2002/page12.html

Probably has 4"cast or sprayed refractory inside using steer horns or needles although I've seen stainless hexmesh used also at higher temps. IMO

Interesting he recommends diesel for portables on trailers yet I see no diesel tank nor does DM's appear to have diesel. DM's appears to be Propane.

We highly recommend diesel-fired burners for the mobile units. The appropriate generator, diesel tank, trailer size (weight capacity) will be dependent on the size of the incinerator that is being employed. The trailer, at the customer request, may use a gooseneck hitch or a standard hitch along with the hitch size of choice.
http://www.supernovamfg.com/prod_gen.html

 

[puppyraiser]

I'm thinking the incinerator had been in a spot for a while and then sometime during the week TB was missing it was moved to another spot on the farm and the neighbour noticed the scorched marks on the ground where the incinerator had been parked for however long. No doubt he'd be curious to see it moved and the ground having marks on the previous spot. So............. IMO that incinerator had to have been used very recently for the ground to have marks on it and the neighbour to have not noticed marks earlier. Why would DM move the thing to start a fire on the ground when he could have started a fire in some other location instead?

 

[Blomquist]

I'm not sure why they'd need a picture of the incinerator as evidence when they have the real deal? And if the ground was scorched, LE photos and soil/grass samples would indicate where it originally was situated.

No I agree...why seize the pic and the phone if the real thing exists?

Well it may indicate where it was originally...thats if it had been used. JMO

But just mentioning an elephant in the room...why were they not charged with trespassing ? or questioned ? Maybe they were... I don't know....JMO

 

[Blomquist]

I'm thinking the incinerator had been in a spot for a while and then sometime during the week TB was missing it was moved to another spot on the farm and the neighbour noticed the scorched marks on the ground where the incinerator had been parked for however long. No doubt he'd be curious to see it moved and the ground having marks on the previous spot. So............. IMO that incinerator had to have been used very recently for the ground to have marks on it and the neighbour to have not noticed marks earlier. Why would DM move the thing to start a fire on the ground when he could have started a fire in some other location instead?

Why was the neighbour even on someones property. I know I sound repetitive but I find it strange that no-one is seemingly perturbed about neighbours walking and driving over someone elses property as if they they own it. Whether or not they heard something...why go there yourself , why not just call the police...? Were these people from the adjacent home or a few miles up the road (being as they needed to use a car to get there) ? I am not linking them to the crime...merely asking why they were there at all. MOO JMO

 

[Eljo]

No I agree...why seize the pic and the phone if the real thing exists?

Well it may indicate where it was originally...thats if it had been used. JMO

But just mentioning an elephant in the room...why were they not charged with trespassing ? or questioned ? Maybe they were... I don't know....JMO

Good point. Why seize the phone otherwise. And why move it unless it had been used. Imo

 

[puppyraiser]

No I agree...why seize the pic and the phone if the real thing exists?

Well it may indicate where it was originally...thats if it had been used. JMO

But just mentioning an elephant in the room...why were they not charged with trespassing ? or questioned ? Maybe they were... I don't know....JMO

Maybe they had permission to use the land for ATVing, hiking, hunting etc and that hasn't been reported. There was a deer stand so perhaps they are the ones who used it during hunting season?