The Incinerator

[Eljo]

Here is a quote regarding this information

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

Link to the article

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

Maybe if they only found ash and the dig of the burned areas failed to produce any evidence they can't confirm another victim

 

[skatergirl]

I can't see the video either but wouldn't you think if the family chose to cremate the remains the 'little box' comment wouldn't keep getting repeated by SB. I don't know To me it implies that this was handed to her somewhat unexpectedly. Thoughts???

Not necessarily. IMO, it is the shock of it all. SB fully expected her husband to return home from the test drive, so when he did not and that was the last time she saw him, she would keep coming back to the box. She is also quoted as saying she did not get to hold his hand one last time, or touch his cheek, so to go from the expectation he would return, to not getting to say goodbye one last time, would be unbearable. JMO

 

[Eldee]

Eldee we are always in the same page. Whenever I read your posts I think "that's what I was thinking". Must be the common first 2 letters in our usernames. :great:

Or we read all the same crime novels when growing up and watch all the same TV shows.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...-millard-livestock-incinerator-135236909.html

I just read this today and I am thinking how could these be new clues when we have been all over that for a month. It's funny how every new article that comes out now, it seems like someone is reading what everyone on here has already uncovered, commented on, pulled apart, researched, dissected, chewed up and spat out a month ago. Weird.

 

[Carli]

Here is a quote regarding this information

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

Link to the article

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

Thanks for this, skatergirl. I've long been puzzled about whether unidentifiable "charred remains" meant that LE had found a singed body or nothing but ashes. This quote seems to suggest, if not confirm, that only "unidentifiable" ashes were recovered which might, or might not be human remains and noting that the volume of ashes was greater than that generated by an adult male person.

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

“The report of further bodies is totally untrue at this time,” Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh told the National Post.

It is not known if the remains might be from farm animals from the large rural property in Ayr, west of Hamilton."

All of which again loops us back to Hamilton Police Chief LeCaire's "totality of the evidence" statement of May 14.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/130514/tim-bosma-canadian-father-found-dead-body-burned

If that weren't cryptic enough, we also have more from LE on the same date:

Kavanagh wouldn’t say how police were able to confirm the identity of the remains, saying “that’s part of the evidence.”

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/130514/tim-bosma-canadian-father-found-dead-body-burned

Has there ever been a statement released by LE or the Crown that identifying evidence is in hand that absolutely confirms that (a) the body of Tim Bosma was found and (b) that Tim Bosma's remains were found on the Ayr farm owned by DM?

 

[puppyraiser]

Thanks for this, skatergirl. I've long been puzzled about whether unidentifiable "charred remains" meant that LE had found a singed body or nothing but ashes. This quote seems to suggest, if not confirm, that only "unidentifiable" ashes were recovered which might, or might not be human remains and noting that the volume of ashes was greater than that generated by an adult male person.

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

“The report of further bodies is totally untrue at this time,” Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh told the National Post.

It is not known if the remains might be from farm animals from the large rural property in Ayr, west of Hamilton."

All of which again loops us back to Hamilton Police Chief LeCaire's "totality of the evidence" statement of May 14.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/130514/tim-bosma-canadian-father-found-dead-body-burned

Has there ever been a statement issued by LE or the Crown that identifying evidence is in hand that absolutely confirms that (a) the body of Tim Bosma was found and (b) that Tim Bosma's remains were found on the Ayr farm owned by DM?

Note the bolded sentence. He said "at this time" in regards to additional remains. They have not come out yet, to my recollection, and confirmed either way. Would they even be able to determine if all the ash found was one person's DNA or not?

 

[Archangel7]

Can LE legally cremate a (damaged) body before returning it to relatives?

The short answer is no. The next of kin is advised not to make funeral arrangement until notified by the Coroner's office(usually 24hrs or more)in advance of the release of body to next of kin for internment(their choice of funeral home and method).

In many jurisdictions when police fine a John or Jane Doe with no next of kin(there is a legal window of time required for due diligence) and cremation is cost effective over burial, yes. Although I wouldn't technically deem it as a literal cremation by LE. Probably in legalese it would be the actual jurisdiction, ie, City, County, State.

Normally the Coroner's Office has full legal custody at all time until release of the body to next of kin.

JMO

 

[Blomquist]

With respect and certainly not trying to be contrary but , seeing it as it is, I believe that it is less reasonable to believe that it wasn't.

With equal respect to your opinion also.... but if the charred remains exceeded the amount of remains for one man TB's size..it's safe to say that said incinerator could well have been used for tossing in wildlife/critters over the period of one year. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. JMO

 

[Blomquist]

I can't see the video either but wouldn't you think if the family chose to cremate the remains the 'little box' comment wouldn't keep getting repeated by SB. I don't know To me it implies that this was handed to her somewhat unexpectedly. Thoughts???

When our loved ones die they are usually always put in a box. If cremated they are in a small box and if buried they are in a larger box. I know the feeling of losing a spouse to a box...so I am not being heartless here. I would imagine she knew that her spouse had been cremated, to complete the process as she would have needed to request/authorize it. So I do not think it would have been unexpected. Dreaded maybe...but not unexpected. JMO

 

[Eljo]

When our loved ones die they are usually always put in a box. If cremated they are in a small box and if buried they are in a larger box. I know the feeling of losing a spouse to a box...so I am not being heartless here. I would imagine she knew that her spouse had been cremated, to complete the process as she would have needed to request/authorize it. So I do not think it would have been unexpected. Dreaded maybe...but not unexpected. JMO

I don't think I'm doing a good job of making my point. I think if she didn't have the opportunity to authorize a cremation ie was completed in incinerator, the whole 'little box' would take on a greater significance hence the repetition. Anyhow I shouldn't belabour the point.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I don't think I'm doing a good job of making my point. I think if she didn't have the opportunity to authorize a cremation ie was completed in incinerator, the whole 'little box' would take on a greater significance hence the repetition. Anyhow I shouldn't belabour the point.

If the cremation was completed in the incinerator, what would there be to return? Would they just return all of the ashes, even though there was more than what would be expected?

 

[Eljo]

If the cremation was completed in the incinerator, what would there be to return? Would they just return all of the ashes, even though there was more than what would be expected?

Not sure. What would the option be if the rest could not be identified?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Not sure. What would the option be if the rest could not be identified?

I have no idea. That's why I was asking. I don't know whether all would be returned or none.

 

[Blomquist]

I have no idea. That's why I was asking. I don't know whether all would be returned or none.

Puts a big question mark over totality of evidence IMO. I don't believe he was put in an incinerator at all...JMO but I think this incinerator stuff has been sensationalized MOO....

 

[Archangel7]

The Coronor's office would return what they have ID as Bosma including all of what is listed on the warrant for post mortem examination.

JMO

 

[skatergirl]

If TB's remains were no more than ashes, it would have taken much longer for identification of his remains IMO, therefore SB would still not have received the box JMO

 

[ellie b]

With equal respect to your opinion also.... but if the charred remains exceeded the amount of remains for one man TB's size..it's safe to say that said incinerator could well have been used for tossing in wildlife/critters over the period of one year. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. JMO

Please clarify the suggestion implied in the above statement, if you don't mind, as I find it interesting. I think you may be suggesting the possibility of one of three things. -

a) That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters only and TB's remains have not in reality been found at the farm.(Police are mistaken)
b)That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters and to dispose of TB's body.
c)That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters but not used to burn TB's body which was found badly burned at the farm.

I realise you are only suggesting a possibility with the aforementioned statement, but which one or is it ?
RIP Tim Bosma

 

[Blomquist]

Please clarify the suggestion implied in the above statement, if you don't mind, as I find it interesting. I think you may be suggesting the possibility of one of three things. -

a) That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters only and TB's remains have not in reality been found at the farm.(Police are mistaken)
b)That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters and to dispose of TB's body.
c)That the incinerator was used for wildlife/critters but not used to burn TB's body which was found badly burned at the farm.

I realise you are only suggesting a possibility with the aforementioned statement, but which one or is it ?

This is what I wrote : ' With equal respect to your opinion also.... but if the charred remains exceeded the amount of remains for one man TB's size..it's safe to say that said incinerator could well have been used for tossing in wildlife/critters over the period of one year. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. JMO '

I have highlighted the pertinent part with reference to the incinerator and my opinion. I didn't mention TB's body, so I didn't include it in my suggestion.

At this point we have no idea where LE found TB remains. So that would mean that as far as we know they may not have found him anywhere near the incinerator. Thus, I cannot be suggesting that they are mistaken (as they have not confirmed anything in this regard)

That leaves your (c) reference...which is what I have highlighted in bold in my original post. I hope this helps to clarify for you what I wrote.

 

[ellie b]

Thank-you for clarifying. It will be interesting to discover where TB's remains were found when the case goes to court.

 

[CanuckSleuth]

I apologize for this post being graphic...

It is possible for a body to be "burned beyond recognition" but not be reduced to ashes. Especially if there is an accelerant used. The fire and resulting heat can drastically distort and essentially melt the skin and features.

In my opinion, due to the condition of Tim, the decision to cremate him was somewhat made for Sharlene. Having lost her husband, lost the choice to see him one more time etc, is all compounded into the anger expressed in her box statements. Not having control over anything, and something so significant as honouring your husbands wishes upon death would cause most people to be beyond angry. IMO

Having your choices removed for you can reek havoc on anyone. JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I apologize for this post being graphic...

It is possible for a body to be "burned beyond recognition" but not be reduced to ashes. Especially if there is an accelerant used. The fire and resulting heat can drastically distort and essentially melt the skin and features.

This is very true. I posted the same thought last night, without the graphics. People can and have been "burned beyond recognition" and even survived.