General Discussion and Theories #4

[Alethea Dice]

Check your dictionary for the terms "human remains" and "cremated remains" which have specific definitions in Canadian law. Then note that the they said no human remains or body were found and wonder if they were being very precise and clever in what was said and reported.

Human Remains Definition:
The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition.

But cremated remains, essentially just ashes but often including bone fragments, are not always included in the definition of human remains.

Note these words on the topic of Australian law, by Skene and Masters:

"Cremated ashes are not human remains or a body and as such have no legal status."

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

Interesting that in the U.S., the legal definition of "human remains" includes cremated remains.

When I search for the legal definition of "cremated remains", all I get (other than funeral information) is this...

Cremation Definition:
The reduction of the body of a deceased human to its essential elements by incineration.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Cremation.aspx

If you have a more specific legal definition, could you please post the link for it?

When TB's remains were found, there were referred to as "human remains".

“A number of searches have taken place and human remains have been located,” he said. “We are convinced by the totality of the evidence, that these are the remains of Tim Bosma. The evidence indicates that the remains have been burned.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tim-bosma-found-dead

 

[hopingforjustice]

Please point out the post that accuses the former boyfriend with the assult charge of framing DM, I must have missed that, despite, as you suggest, it being the jist of this thread.

Personally, I merely pointed out that I think that it's odd that LE didn't follow up on an allegedly abusive ex who still had charges pending against him when the missing person report was filed. If Law and Order has taught me anything, it is that the exes would be the first people that LE would look at, especially one with a pending assault charge filed by the missing person . I also find it odd that not being able to reach the victim before the trial where they were to testify to an assault against them would not raise a red flag or two, but may just get the charges dismissed.

BBM

Sorry if I have missed it, but just where do we see that this man was NOT investigated. Do we actually know that this has been overlooked? Please point me to any links I may have missed. TIA

 

[Tamarind]

BBM

Sorry if I have missed it, but just where do we see that this man was NOT investigated. Do we actually know that this has been overlooked? Please point me to any links I may have missed. TIA

We don't know much really other than there was no investigation into Lauras disappearance until later in 2013/14. That's a little late to be investigating IMO. It's not as if it's a cold case being reopened, it wasn't opened. The only investigation was at least a year or more after the event. Plenty of time for details to become obscured and people to reinvent themselves. IMO.

 

[Variant]

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

Interesting that in the U.S., the legal definition of "human remains" includes cremated remains.

When I search for the legal definition of "cremated remains", all I get (other than funeral information) is this...



http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Cremation.aspx

If you have a more specific legal definition, could you please post the link for it?

When TB's remains were found, there were referred to as "human remains".



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tim-bosma-found-dead

The federal government differentiates between "human remains" and "cremated human remains" in governing the transport of human derived material:

"Cadavers, body parts and other human remains include:
• the body of a deceased person in its entirety;
• part(s) of the human body including: the head, limbs, trunk, appendages, organs, tissue or cells;
• skeletons;
• skulls;
• anthropological or archaeological specimens; and,
• other bones.

Note: Cremated human remains are excluded from the definition. Once declared, cremated human remains can be released."

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-9-3-eng.html

B.C.'s definitions assert that once human remains are cremated they are no longer human remains but cremated remains:

"human remains" means
(a) a dead human body in any stage of decomposition, or
(b) a body of a stillborn infant in any stage of decomposition,
but does not include cremated remains;

"cremated remains" means human bone fragments left after human remains are cremated;"

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_04035_01

These definitions are of course related to legitimate treatment and disposition of deceased persons, not for guiding the description of evidence of criminal homicide.

I am not aware of any law or prescribed definition that compels an Ontario forensic pathologist or other LE , outside of a court, to be explicit about what they mean by "human remains" related to a criminal investigation, so they would be free to take B.C.'s interpretation to suit their purposes for being circumspect about releasing full information. Since TB's body was not all cremated they could call this evidence "human remains", while not calling evidence from a more complete cremation such, by these, and other definitions you have found.

The trial will reveal what evidence the prosecution actually has. There may well be other forms of physical evidence such as blood, hair, DNA as well as computer evidence and information and testimony from one or more informants.

 

[MsSherlock]

We don't know much really other than there was no investigation into Lauras disappearance until later in 2013/14. That's a little late to be investigating IMO. It's not as if it's a cold case being reopened, it wasn't opened. The only investigation was at least a year or more after the event. Plenty of time for details to become obscured and people to reinvent themselves. IMO.

IMO, today, we know a lot more than the fact that in 2012, TPS quickly discounted SL & LB's family's concerns that LB was missing. Yes, it is a little late for TPS to finally wake up and start investigating, but IIRC, they weren't the ones driving the boat. It was the OPP MCU working with the various LE agencies pulling all the facts together. IIRC, LE determined that PB was a murderer before they figured out that he was also the Scarborough Rapist. His arrest for the Niagara murders lead to the reopening of many unsolved cases in the GTA area. The secret agent? DNA. IMHO, this case is very similar.
LE doesn't have to worry about DNA having a fuzzy memory, or getting facts twisted. DNA doesn't have an agenda, doesn't seek the limelight and is always a reliable witness. IMO, the fact that PB also had video's of his crimes is actually secondary to the DNA evidence they had on him.
So, regardless how badly TPS messed up the investigation into LB's disappearance and how long ago that was, the AG has obviously been exposed to some compelling evidence pointing to #1) LB's murder and #2) DM & MS's involvement- and I'm guessing it was provided by a witness named "DNA". From what I understand, DNA stays around for a very long time. Interestingly enough, IMO, if the DNA is in the barn, then DM could say that he and LB were no strangers to the barn- however, if it's in the vicinity of the Eliminator, IMHO, he has a lot more explaining to do. MOO
IMO, nothing LE could have done or should have done could have prevented the murder of LB. LE claim she was murdered on or around July 3rd/12. IIRC that was a week or so before the incinerator was delivered to DM. Even though SL reported her missing probably around the same time that the incinerator was being delivered, IMO, TPS wouldn't have just cause to get a search warrant on DM's properties. Nothing could have saved LB, however, I think some bells should have gone off when WM died, but would LE still have any reasons to execute search warrants on the farm? Probably not. IMO, it did take the murder of TB and a reason to execute a search warrant on the farm and hangar to gain insight into the deaths of WM & LB. MOO

 

[TessDeco]

The federal government differentiates between "human remains" and "cremated human remains" in governing the transport of human derived material:

"Cadavers, body parts and other human remains include:
• the body of a deceased person in its entirety;
• part(s) of the human body including: the head, limbs, trunk, appendages, organs, tissue or cells;
• skeletons;
• skulls;
• anthropological or archaeological specimens; and,
• other bones.

Note: Cremated human remains are excluded from the definition. Once declared, cremated human remains can be released."

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-9-3-eng.html

B.C.'s definitions assert that once human remains are cremated they are no longer human remains but cremated remains:

"human remains" means
(a) a dead human body in any stage of decomposition, or
(b) a body of a stillborn infant in any stage of decomposition,
but does not include cremated remains;

"cremated remains" means human bone fragments left after human remains are cremated;"

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_04035_01

These definitions are of course related to legitimate treatment and disposition of deceased persons, not for guiding the description of evidence of criminal homicide.

I am not aware of any law or prescribed definition that compels an Ontario forensic pathologist or other LE , outside of a court, to be explicit about what they mean by "human remains" related to a criminal investigation, so they would be free to take B.C.'s interpretation to suit their purposes for being circumspect about releasing full information. Since TB's body was not all cremated they could call this evidence "human remains", while not calling evidence from a more complete cremation such, by these, and other definitions you have found.

The trial will reveal what evidence the prosecution actually has. There may well be other forms of physical evidence such as blood, hair, DNA as well as computer evidence and information and testimony from one or more informants.

The site you linked to is the "CREMATION, INTERMENT AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT" It outlines the proper legal methods for handling a deceased person. It separates "human remains" from "cremated remains" because obviously they are handled differently. This has nothing to do with homicide.

Tim Bosma wasn't cremated. He was murdered and his body was set on fire in someone's backyard. I don't see how "cremated" is even relevant to this murder case.

All just MHO

 

[SnooperDuper]

The site you linked to is the "CREMATION, INTERMENT AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT" It outlines the proper legal methods for handling a deceased person. It separates "human remains" from "cremated remains" because obviously they are handled differently. This has nothing to do with homicide.

Tim Bosma wasn't cremated. He was murdered and his body was set on fire in someone's backyard. I don't see how "cremated" is even relevant to this murder case.

All just MHO

No he was incinerated in an animal crematorium on a farm without a house, yard, or back yard.

 

[TessDeco]

No he was incinerated in an animal crematorium on a farm without a house, yard, or back yard.

Ok but it wasn't a legal cremation. They weren't preparing Tim's body for a funeral. Tim was murdered. Are you saying that because the killer decided to burn Tim's body, this murder case will be handled under different "cremation" laws? I am trying to understand why this is even an issue in this murder case?? IMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Ok but it wasn't a legal cremation. They weren't preparing Tim's body for a funeral. Tim was murdered. Are you saying that because the killer decided to burn Tim's body, this murder case will be handled under different "cremation" laws? I am trying to understand why this is even an issue in this murder case?? IMO

DM bought an animal incinerator designed to reduce a body to ashes. The question on everybody's mind is, what state is the body, and how did LE come to ID it as TB's? Was it circumstantial (remains from steel toed boots and such) or was the body not fully reduced, so that there was DNA available to test?

Cremation is an issue because it hides evidence.

 

[Variant]

The site you linked to is the "CREMATION, INTERMENT AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT" It outlines the proper legal methods for handling a deceased person. It separates "human remains" from "cremated remains" because obviously they are handled differently. This has nothing to do with homicide.

Tim Bosma wasn't cremated. He was murdered and his body was set on fire in someone's backyard. I don't see how "cremated" is even relevant to this murder case.

All just MHO

If you read my post again you will note that I acknowledged that:

"These definitions are of course related to legitimate treatment and disposition of deceased persons, not for guiding the description of evidence of criminal homicide."

The discussion is about what case investigators might have meant when they referred to "human remains" and show that there is legal precedence within Canada for them to not include a body reduced to ashes and bone fragments (in an incinerator) in their definition of human remains.

 

[Variant]

Ok but it wasn't a legal cremation. They weren't preparing Tim's body for a funeral. Tim was murdered. Are you saying that because the killer decided to burn Tim's body, this murder case will be handled under different "cremation" laws? I am trying to understand why this is even an issue in this murder case?? IMO

OK, I understand your confusion as you are late to the discussion. LE has said that they believed that LB was incinerated (cremated has been used interchangeably by some, including myself). Nothing to do with legal cremation and the laws that govern that.

At one point LE were quoted as saying that they did not find "human remains" in their investigation of LB. This led some posters to assert that this meant LE had no physical evidence that LB was incinerated (cremated). I was pointing out that some legal entities don't define incinerated (cremated) bodies as "human remains", so it is possible that investigators could have physical evidence of her incineration and not call it "human remains". In TB's case LE stated that they found human remains. Since TB's body was not completely incinerated, what was discovered would still fit into all definitions of human remains.

 

[Alethea Dice]

OK, I understand your confusion as you are late to the discussion. LE has said that they believed that LB was incinerated (cremated has been used interchangeably by some, including myself). Nothing to do with legal cremation and the laws that govern that.

At one point LE were quoted as saying that they did not find "human remains" in their investigation of LB. This led some posters to assert that this meant LE had no physical evidence that LB was incinerated (cremated). I was pointing out that some legal entities don't define incinerated (cremated) bodies as "human remains", so it is possible that investigators could have physical evidence of her incineration and not call it "human remains". In TB's case LE stated that they found human remains. Since TB's body was not completely incinerated, what was discovered would still fit into all definitions of human remains.

Actually, I didn't say that LE had no physical evidence that LB was incinerated. Only that I was curious what the evidence was that they did have to lead them to that belief without any "human remains" evidence (and was patiently waiting for the trial to tell me that). I find it hard to imagine that LE would resort to BC's Funeral Services Act just to avoid telling the public that they did find some kind of bodily evidence of her having been cremated. I honestly believe that, in a murder case, human remains are human remains, regardless of the state of those remains.

 

[TessDeco]

OK, I understand your confusion as you are late to the discussion. LE has said that they believed that LB was incinerated (cremated has been used interchangeably by some, including myself). Nothing to do with legal cremation and the laws that govern that.

At one point LE were quoted as saying that they did not find "human remains" in their investigation of LB. This led some posters to assert that this meant LE had no physical evidence that LB was incinerated (cremated). I was pointing out that some legal entities don't define incinerated (cremated) bodies as "human remains", so it is possible that investigators could have physical evidence of her incineration and not call it "human remains". In TB's case LE stated that they found human remains. Since TB's body was not completely incinerated, what was discovered would still fit into all definitions of human remains.

I haven't posted before but I have been following the discussion. I think I understand but thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. Much appreciated.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Might expect a report in MSM somewhere later...

[video=twitter;657598601380634624]https://twitter.com/AnnB03/status/657598601380634624[/video]

Upcoming:

12/11/15 - next court date in LB case, 7 weeks from now

1/4/16 - PI for WM case, 10-1/2 weeks away

1/18/16 - TB trial, 12-1/2 weeks away

 

[swedie]

Thanks Snooper. Do we know if Paul Mergler of Etobicoke, is still CN's lawyer? Wonder if CN is facing additional charges laid against her? Perhaps it's happened and we just haven't heard about them yet. When she finally makes her in court appearance, we might learn more then. MOO.

 

[swedie]

The AG bypassing the PH, not only in TB's case but also LB's doesn't look very promising of a not guilty verdict for the accused, or at least one of them. The fact the Crown can pinpoint the date of LB's murder on or around July 3rd, is a great indication. For both DM and MS to be charged in her murder, that's another factor showing who was involved and to show LE have the evidence to prove it. IMO LE have no remains to give to LB's family because she was completely or almost completely incinerated by the accused and her ashes/remains were disposed of somewhere, not to be found or somewhere which would make retrieving them impossible (swampy area or water). The lead prosecutor said this case involved "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history." After Millard and Smich were originally arrested, search warrants were executed to seize computers and cellphones which the OPP have analyzed. Information on those devices and evidence gathered after the fact by LE will seal the deal in a solid conviction. ALL MOO.

Clairmont: Police believe body of accused Bosma killer's girlfriend was incinerated

Homicide detectives believe Dellen Millard bought a gun illegally and used it to murder his father. And that he also murdered Laura Babcock and incinerated her body — just as he allegedly did with Tim Bosma.

The OPP's Detective Inspector Dave Hillman has been overseeing a massive multijurisdictional investigation, called Project Capella, into the Millard Sr. and Babcock deaths.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

 

[swedie]

Just caught the end of news report on CHCH news. CN has chosen to be tried by judge ONLY. Will post report when it becomes available.

 

[Juballee]

To me, choosing trial by judge suggests that a defendant may think that their case will be won on facts and law, and that perhaps the emotions of a jury, mixed with their lack of in-depth background knowledge of law, might only confuse things and lead to a conviction. But that is just my own wild speculation.

 

[Tamarind]

Regardless of what the police might say, the Coroner reported that no remains of Laura Babcock have ever been examined in Ontario. If she in fact ended up in an incinerator, either the Coroner's office or the Police investigators are negligent, or mistaken, or not quite being honest, or all of the above.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...a_babcocks_body_not_recovered_in_ontario.html
CN herself requested she go directly to trial and skip the Preliminary Hearing, not an imposed decision from the AG.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...cessory-to-murder-goes-straight-to-trial.html

CN has now selected a judge over a jury, not surprising when you consider the fact that the media has probably tainted any potential jury. JMO Also, juries cost time and money, so in my opinion the justice system will nudge her and others in that direction . Again JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

To me, choosing trial by judge suggests that a defendant may think that their case will be won on facts and law, and that perhaps the emotions of a jury, mixed with their lack of in-depth background knowledge of law, might only confuse things and lead to a conviction. But that is just my own wild speculation.

Why would DM and MS not elect a trial judged by judge alone, on the same grounds, then?

It could be that CN is going to enter a plea and there is no good reason to elect a jury.