The Incinerator

[Blomquist]

I am posting this with all due RESPECT to Blomquist...where I live is near a huge Mililitary base ...my next store neighbor and my whole street is FULL OF cops and military ppl.....these people work long hard hours..and shift work ...I do understand and repect your post# 636 above me >>>BUT >.we do not live in a PERFECT WORLD,,,IMO there were good and bad teachers were I worked for over 30 years....my point being there will be good and bad in EVERY PROFESSION...from looking closely many times at all videos posted by swede ....and all the different POLICE DEPT involved in this investigation ...I listed them in a pervious post and the detail put forth ...I am sure every supreme effort ( was stated in video from LE even) has been put forth in THIS EXTREMELY HIGH PROFILE CASE...I think we need to WAIT and see as it will be detailed ...when it finally is presented in court......IMO ...there will be TONS OF EYES on the court scene.. including MOI....from rockin robyn ,,,tweet tweet ....again RIP you deserve that Mr. TIM BOSMA ....!

IMO everyone deserves to rest in peace... it is never wise to speak ill of the dead imo. I think everyone knows that there are some good cops and military personnel out there.... IMO

 

[Juballee]

Heads up!

Based on research by the members participating in this sub-forum, there is a consensus:

No law exists in Canada which requires farmers to own an incinerator for the disposal of livestock.

No law exists in Canada which requires airports to own an incinerator for the disposal of bird remains.

End of subject.

:tyou:

I know I have personally been accused of putting forth this supposition, and I would like to see and possibly correct any posts I have made that give this impression, for the sake of posterity.

What I actually suggested is that large MRO's might possibly need to repair airplanes that have hit wildlife and that any such wildlife remains, (after taking a small scraping for DNA testing), would have to be disposed of hygienically as a matter of course, in my opinion. ,

 

[Sillybilly]

I am surprised people are allowed to tweet from the courtroom when there is a publication ban in place. Is broadcasting information over the Internet for the world to hear not counter to the point of a media ban? I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but it makes me wonder, why then we still use sketches of defendants in the courtroom instead of photographs if modern technology is allowed to circumvent the letter of the law on a publication ban.

IIRC (and someone else may correct me on this), in Tori's case, the Rafferty trial was the first criminal trial in Canada where tweeting was allowed.

The use of modern technology is not circumventing the law when a judicial order has been granted to permit its use.

A PB is not one-sided ... i.e. publication bans are not solely for the benefit of the Crown. If the defence in a criminal proceeding requests a PB, the judge is required by law under the CCC to grant one.

Most publication bans are only in place up until trial. Once trial has commenced, reporters are generally allowed to report anything that is presented in front of the jury (but not anything that is heard without the jury present). There are some publication bans that a judge can order to exist even at trial (i.e. witness identity due to safety concerns, sex crimes or cases involving minors, other ongoing investigations that could be affected by publication of certain information).

Here's a basic guideline wrt Ontario pub bans:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/pub_ban.asp

PB's from a media perspective:

http://www.cjfe.org/resources/features/publication-bans-and-open-court-principle-canada

PS: Correcting myself ... Rafferty trial may not have been first in Canada, according to this article:

http://j-source.ca/article/it-happens-tweeting-rafferty-murder-trial

While courtrooms are generally open to the public, it is a rare occurrence that journalists are allowed to tweet from inside.

ETA: Further convo on PBs and technology would best be taken to the General Discussion thread.

 

[Juballee]

..answer ..I have really ONLY followed the Tori case...and reports often tweet from a special room not the court!.. There is a huge projection screen there of the court room....I have never been in a criminal court room ..JMO from the tori Strafford case....someone else may have way more info here on this than me....Juballee interested in an answer to my question too...posted below yours ...think on other thread...YOU talked about DM being scared of being a RAT in JAIL ....fear of his safety ...remember...?....maybe you answered must check and get on with my day...thanks again Juballee if you answered....robynhood

Thanks for that info, RH, I thought you had earlier mentioned that you will be tweeting from the courtroom as the trial unfolds, and I thought that you had said something like, 'as I did from the TS trial', so I must have misread you, my apologies. I would still like more information on this if any posters know the rules, because I do find it curious. I still marvel that the courtroom sketches not only all look so different from each other, but to me look like a completely different looking person from the photos of DM that we have seen, and am curious why there is not just a court photographer yet to keep it all clear. And you will see that I did answer your earlier question, but I am still waiting for an answer to mine about where I might have said it is a law for airports and farms to have incinerators, thanks!

 

[Juballee]

IIRC (and someone else may correct me on this), in Tori's case, the Rafferty trial was the first criminal trial in Canada where tweeting was allowed.

The use of modern technology is not circumventing the law when a judicial order has been granted to permit its use.

A PB is not one-sided ... i.e. publication bans are not solely for the benefit of the Crown. If the defence in a criminal proceeding requests a PB, the judge is required by law under the CCC to grant one.

Most publication bans are only in place up until trial. Once trial has commenced, reporters are generally allowed to report anything that is presented in front of the jury (but not anything that is heard without the jury present). There are some publication bans that a judge can order to exist even at trial (i.e. witness identity due to safety concerns, sex crimes or cases involving minors, other ongoing investigations that could be affected by publication of certain information).

Here's a basic guideline wrt Ontario pub bans:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/pub_ban.asp

PB's from a media perspective:

http://www.cjfe.org/resources/features/publication-bans-and-open-court-principle-canada

PS: Correcting myself ... Rafferty trial may not have been first in Canada, according to this article:

http://j-source.ca/article/it-happens-tweeting-rafferty-murder-trial



ETA: Further convo on PBs and technology would best be taken to the General Discussion thread.

Thank you, that was very helpful. Does anyone remember if the photos of the incinerator came out before the PB or after it, because it does seem to be the kind of thing that the courts would like to keep quiet because of the highly prejudicial aspect of it.

 

[ArianeEmory]

The photos of the incinerator came out very early, I think before LE even acknowledged its existence.

And again I'll point out that news sources filmed the excavator being brought out on a flatbed tow truck. I don't see how the incinerator, another large piece of equipment, could have been removed without the public noticing. I'm not sure I understand the slant of the argument about the publication ban and prejudicing the public. The public knows Tim Bosma was killed, his remained burned and found on Dellen Millard's property, and that Dellen Millard has been charged with his murder. I don't think the incinerator is "extra" prejudicial beyond those well-known facts.

I mean, no matter what, his remains were burned and found on that property. SOMEONE burned them via some means. That bell cannot be unrung in the minds of the public. The incinerator doesn't have to exist (or have been used) for that to be true.

 

[Sillybilly]

The photos of the incinerator came out very early, I think before LE even acknowledged its existence.

<rsbm>

MSM articles wrt the incinerator were available at least as early as May 14:

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

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.

The PB was issued at DM's court appearance of May 15:

from:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...a-not-guilty-to-first-degree-murder-of-bosma/

Millard was ordered held in custody for his next court appearance, and a publication ban was ordered on evidence presented at Wednesday's hearing.

I've always been a bit puzzled as to whether the ban is on total evidence (as many articles suggest) or just on the list of witnesses (as contained in other articles).

 

[robynhood]

1.yes you are correct Silly Billy ...to the best of my knowledge...reports using twitter during a criminal TRIAL >>> was first in ONT. with the Tori STrafford case ....

2. You need a twitter acct to receive the individual tweets...I was not the only person AT HOME WHO POSTED the TWitter reports into this website...very exhausting I must say....

3.my IT son helped me organize twitter...to just receive the trial...I now answered the questions I saw here....I hope that was helpful and cleared up any confusion....

4. thank you mod Bessie for clearing up Canadian LAWS on inciderators....please let us leave that ....see post #640 above....HUGE MOOOOOOOOOOOOO!...robynhood

 

[swedie]

It is always hopeful that witnesses have their names taken, but even just one of my personal experiences showed me that police often do not take names and will often refuse to take statements from people who saw what happened. This can apply to anything from a potentially fatal car accident to witnessing a fracas in a restaurant and anything in between or either side imo..... they are not always willing to take the necessary information. I have no idea why.... maybe they already have the information they need in their opinion...... who knows...moo

BBM Interesting...I've had a few experiences as a witness, not even fatal car accidents; little fender benders and the LE were very thorough in writing out reports, taking witnesses information and the such. Wow, all the restaurants I've been in in my lifetime, may I add ample, I have never witnessed a brouhaha, or your choice of word a fracas. In my younger years, yes in bars, but never in restaurants. Would be interested to know what restaurants that nonsense happens in so I can avoid them. Maybe the steakhouse DM visited with AS. :giggle: No but seriously. And as far as fatal accidents, I believe you're are mistaken in your opinion. LE are very thorough in their reporting. They have to be for the investigation, future lawsuits, DUIs, car thefts, insurance purposes just for examples. Eye witnesses are VERY imperative. Years ago in my line of work I saw them in action and just last year when I came upon a single vehicle accident were a teenager had rolled his parents vehicle. I was the first person on the scene in the wee hours of the morning. The vehicle was upside down in a steep ditch, and there were six teens inside. Once LE arrived I was asked to remain at the scene and give a report. I was contacted twice by LE after that accident. Meanwhile I had nothing to do with it other than placing the 911 and coming upon the accident after the fact. HTH and :moo:

 

[redheadedgal]

IIRC (and someone else may correct me on this), in Tori's case, the Rafferty trial was the first criminal trial in Canada where tweeting was allowed.

do you mean murder trial? twitter was allowed in a criminal trial in ON in 2009:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/05/16/ottawa_all_atwitter_over_mayors_trial.html

1.yes you are correct Silly Billy ...to the best of my knowledge...reports using twitter during a criminal TRIAL >>> was first in ONT. with the Tori STrafford case ....

see above link

I would still like more information on this if any posters know the rules, because I do find it curious.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/12/20/toronto-court-tweeting.html

 

[Juballee]

Thank you for the information in tweeting in the courts, it was very informative!

I agree with you AE, that you cannot un-ring a bell, which is why I find the incinerator so prejudicial. I see it posted here all the time as one of the things that makes people certain of his guilt, which supports that theory of it being prejudicial, in my opinion. I imagine if we had not seen the incinerator, that much more ado would have been made of the excavator, and I also imagine that if the neighbour had not published the incinerator photos, that LE would have removed it on a covered trailer or hidden beneath a tarp, in my opinion.

 

[ArianeEmory]

The incinerator just adds a horror-movie aspect to it since they probably would have had to dismember Tim to use it. It is also somewhat chilling that it was purchased the month after Laura Babcock's disappearance. But I think most of us are generally convinced of DM's guilt due to Tim's body on his property, Tim's truck in his trailer, the tattoo and burner phone, and DM's arrest. I think if you read this thread, aside from conspiracy theory tangents, we've spent a lot of time discussing whether it was really used or not. Even those of us convinced of DM's involvement don't claim to be sure. I think it's *likely*, but I feel like it depends on the squeamishness of the murderers.

In short, the incinerator isn't, IMO, the thing that changed anyone's mind. Tim's remains got burned no matter what.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I guess I'll just also say that I don't really understand the idea of a publication ban or not biasing a jury. The jury is going to see all that evidence anyway, and all the negative press in the world didn't get Casey Anthony or GZ convicted. No amount of contention on this site is going to affect the outcome of DM's trial.

 

[Juballee]

I guess I'll just also say that I don't really understand the idea of a publication ban or not biasing a jury. The jury is going to see all that evidence anyway, and all the negative press in the world didn't get Casey Anthony or GZ convicted. No amount of contention on this site is going to affect the outcome of DM's trial.

I believe that like OJ, CA and GZ had a lot of people on their side right from the beginning. American media and American trials work differently than we do things here. And I believe a publication ban can prevent the jury from being biased because, again with the incinerator as an example; there is a possibility that the incinerator was never used in the crime and it is purely coincidental that it happened to be there. Therefore, there is a possibility that the incinerator might be thrown out as evidence and that the jury may never get to hear about it in court, but the fact is, everyone who will be on that jury has already heard about it and likely seen pictures of it, and it will definitely colour their opinions, because it already is colouring opinions as far as we can all see here. That is biasing, again, because you cannot un-ring the bell, and it prevents the accused from getting a fair trial. Which then ends up meaning that we could put the wrong person in jail for a crime that they didn't commit, and that would not be justice for TB, because his killer would still be free to commit more heinous acts. Which is why circumstantial evidence should not be given the same weight as actual evidence, in my opinion.

 

[robynhood]

I must make something CLEAR...JIMO...Jubalee....the incinerator is just one piece of a HUGE puzzle IMO...from my perspective and I TOTALLY agree with the LONG List of items posted by Swede ....on DM & SM evidence of GUILT....posted days ago with videos from the police ...I feel isolating the incinerator as the ONLY item that makes us feel DM & MS as GUILTY( must see trial as there are tons of evidence NOT revealed yet due to PB.)

***I believe the have evidence that is about to be presented in court at the trial will demonstrate ...."beyond a reasonable doubt"...IT WAS ALL OUTLINED here by many many posters.....so IMO that post you just made is not reading the whole picture..."some times a horse has blinders on so they can see ONLY what is in front of them immediately"....famous saying used often...stressing this is JMIO and it is STRONGLY STATED with all do respect as we are all can have our own OPINIONS...I am stating mine clearly...Glad to see you found my post about Twitter interesting thanks if you meant my post...robynhood.....!

 

[ArianeEmory]

Judging by the number of posters here who back him, DM has plenty of supporters.

And I think you should give the jurors more credit. I can't see the ownership of the incinerator causing a guilty verdict if none of the other pieces fit. Again I will say, most of us were convinced by the other pieces, the incinerator is just a sideshow. Tim Bosma is dead with or without. The public does know about it, though, and no amount of hand-wringing or blaming neighbors will change the fact that it existed on property where a burned body was found.

 

[robynhood]

...one last thing on Incinerator....it was taken a way for a reason....IMO IT was evidence ....I feel it had tons of DNA ...etc involved in TB murder...again trial will present it all....PLUS DO NOT FORGET TB BODY was BURNED beyond recognition....It is part of the crown case without a doubt in my mind too....I must state it again....naturally JIMO...robynhood...

 

[Snoofo]

...one last thing on Incinerator....it was taken a way for a reason....IMO IT was evidence ....I feel it had tons of DNA ...etc involved in TB murder...again trial will present it all....PLUS DO NOT FORGET TB BODY was BURNED beyond recognition....It is part of the crown case without a doubt in my mind too....I must state it again....naturally JIMO...robynhood...

I'm thinking maybe they didnt find anything incriminating on/in the incinerator on site but since TB was burned and there was an incinerator there, maybe they took it off site for a more thorough investigation just to be sure nothing is missed.

Or maybe they confirmed it was not TB's remains but they took it away to determine what matter, if any, was ever in there.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I must make something CLEAR...JIMO...Jubalee....the incinerator is just one piece of a HUGE puzzle IMO...from my perspective and I TOTALLY agree with the LONG List of items posted by Swede ....on DM & SM evidence of GUILT....posted days ago with videos from the police ...I feel isolating the incinerator as the ONLY item that makes us feel DM & MS as GUILTY( must see trial as there are tons of evidence NOT revealed yet due to PB.)

<rsbm>

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the incinerator is the only item that makes people assume guilt and I'm not sure where you got that impression. However, it adds to the perception of guilt, and the horror of it is forever embedded in people's minds, even if the testing reveals that it was not involved in the crime. If forensic testing finds nothing in the incinerator, it will not be presented as evidence in court, but because it has been revealed in the media, that image is still in the jury's thoughts, whether unconsciously or not. It can't be erased. If it's found to have nothing to do with the crime, it should not even have been disclosed, as that subconsious knowledge remains and characteristically affects a person's perception. This is probably why the police asked the neighbours not to speak to the media about it. And the neighbours should have honoured that request.

The men, who did not want to be identified, said police have since seized the phone with the photo on it and told them not to speak to media about the image.

http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/3233070-bosma-case-incinerator-found-on-millard-s-farm/

Another example is the knowlege in potential juror's minds of WM's suicide and LB's disappearance. So far, neither has been determined to be a murder and DM has not been charged in either case, as far as we know. In spite of that, the questions and thoughts are still there and can sway a juror's perception, where they are automatically assuming guilt and must be convinced of any chance of innocence. It is supposed to be the other way around in a court of law - innocence is to be assumed and guilt must be proven. I agree with DP that this is persecution by media and sways the public to presume guilt.

The worry is that, if any or all of these types of things contribute to a finding of guilt, when the outcome may have been different without that knowledge, DM would have grounds for a successful appeal. I'm not saying that LE don't have enough evidence without those things, maybe they do. The only point I'm trying to make is that these types of things, that should not even enter into the decision, can (and probably will) impact the potential jury's ability to presume innocence, as their perception of the crime is already set. By law, an accused has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and if that can't happen, his Charter rights have been violated.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Judging by the number of posters here who back him, DM has plenty of supporters.

And I think you should give the jurors more credit. I can't see the ownership of the incinerator causing a guilty verdict if none of the other pieces fit. Again I will say, most of us were convinced by the other pieces, the incinerator is just a sideshow. Tim Bosma is dead with or without. The public does know about it, though, and no amount of hand-wringing or blaming neighbors will change the fact that it existed on property where a burned body was found.

<rbbm>

And this is exactly why there are publication bans on pre-trials and preliminary hearings (and even bail hearings). The jury should not hear anything that can not or will not be presented at trial. Juror's are only human. No matter how much they may want to be unbiased, everything they have heard before trial has or can affect their perception of the crime and can be impossible to ignore, and will still have an influence on how they perceive the other evidence. As evidenced here, there are many who cannot totally separate the actual facts from their own preconceived assumptions or suspicions. Just because one is suddenly sitting on that jury, doesn't mean one can forget and ignore everything that has not been presented in court, regardless of the reasons why it wasn't presented.

JMO