The Incinerator

[Blomquist]

..AGAIN the trial will ADDRESS EXACTLY HOW TB BODY WAS BURNED BEYOND RECOGINITION....JMO ..I believe there was a reason that incinerator was carted off by LE. there was also a reason there were burn marks on his property.

Yes no doubt the trial will consist of dealing with what happened to the body ! The incinerator may have been 'carted off' to rule out its involvement in the crime. Burn marks suggest that the body was on the ground not in the incinerator JMO

AGAIN IMO I have often been told while in Family COURT actually by my lawyer ..." YOU should have gone to Law school .AS you just did half my work."

Family Court is very different to Criminal Court imo. Lawyers do love it when people do the running around for them.... they then get paid for the work people have done... it's not fair really is it.


IMO I loved kids and there Parents so I chose teachers college at a very early age...

I helped trouble kids( behavior problems and also kids with special needs......JFYI

Thats a very admirable job imo


I believe as I have stated several time....JMO when a body is burned many things cannot be eliminated ...obvious like teeth....a definite id can be made as you know from dental records....

Absolutely

I do not have to really write what has been written her over and over..imo ..seems obvious...as someone wrote we just have to connect the dots ....makes perfect sense to me ...JMO again

No absolutely I agree you shouldn't have to write it over and over... but what seems obvious to one may not seem obvious to another... some people connect the dots in other ways.... We need to find the correct way to join the dots.... and IMO that is why we are here sleuthing this case.... I actually think that a lot of important points have been brought up and addressed.




....robynhood.....I cannot see any reason for a incinerator on land that was probably leased like the land behind my house acres ....remember no livestock ....again my opinion ....dots will connect by the crown

Just because one doesn't see the need, doesn't necessarily mean there was no legitimate need. I'm sure it will come out at the trial if it is at all relevant JMO




....and I will gladly tweet the trial ...I am sure Sharlene Bosma will find some RELEIF...again MY OPINION ....I know I would if my husband was killed on a test drive ....she said :" it was just a darn truck ...bring MY husband back to me ...his 2 year old daughter needs her daddy"....robynhood.

That would be great if you tweet at the trial... I am thinking of going too.... maybe we can sit and tweet together .... ;-)

Yes all children need their daddy's.... and their mommies. I think its sad when loss of life causes the family involved great pain. My heart goes out to all tragedies and the the pain it causes.... family life is not the same especially for the children.... and I can see you care about children RH...

Purple responses

 

[Blomquist]

MOO, whether they used the incinerator or not, the fact remains that TB's body was burned beyond recognition, and that is the shocking, horrific and indisputable fact, it doesn't really matter what steps they took for TB to end up that way. The suspicion relates to the fact that TB's truck was found in his Moms driveway (in a trailer registered to Millard Air), and the body was discovered at a farm owned by DM. There are lots of other little incriminating facts, but those are the two most damning pieces of evidence casting suspicion IMO.

I don't actually agree that they are the most damning facts..... unless of course video footage shows that DM was the one dropping off the body and the trailer.... I could place a stolen car on your driveway... would that make you guilty of stealing it?

 

[Carli]

Oh, and speaking of farmer's fields, here are some additional insights...

"What kind of fertilizer is in wood ashes"
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7924&DisplayType=flat&setCookie=1

Lots of nutrients....

http://www.compostjunkie.com/composting-wood-ashes.html

Also lots and lots of uses in weed and pest controls. Several studies have been conducted regarding the addition of nitrogen to wood ash. Human urine has been used effectively for this purpose but the more usual additive is animal (especially hog) waste.

Another use, one that I'm sure would also resonate with a newly minted gentleman farmer, is to assist in the complete destruction of ash trees devastated by Southern Ontario's infestation of Emerald Ash Borers. (Are there ash trees on the Ayr farm?)

http://www.toronto.ca/trees/eab.htm

Anyway, just my 2 cents to point out that, several posts to the contrary notwithstanding, there are many other purposes for incinerators besides using them to hide the remains of people you've murdered and chopped up.

 

[swedie]

<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

Only in Canada they say I beg to differ respectfully but that is JMO. Turn to HLN and that's all you get is 24/7 media coverage on accused murderers awaiting their trial, then the trial, then more coverage on the verdict outcome, debating, rumours, potential evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, everything that happened in the person's life from the time they said their first cuss word at four years of age, to being caught out after curfew as a teenager, to growing pot plants on rooftops. Their whole life is scrutinized. A few great examples; OJ, C Anthony, G Zimmerman. Look at all the media attention those cases got, again 24/7. IMHO and the mass majority of the people who followed those cases believed the evidence was overwhelming in all three cases and the murderers all found not guilty, walked away scott free. AGAIN, look at the MR trial. Yes I will more than likely refer to TS's case often to make my point where I feel necessary so HTH. What did we (those who followed the case closely) find out via the MSM, before the PB, which wasn't true? NADA, ZIP, ZILCH. Everything turned out to be true. Rumours and speculation abound...that's a whole different story. Far too many rumours and innuendos.

Maybe judges should not put PBs on serious cases. It would help to clarify the truth instead of speculation. So, if the incinerator wasn't used, MSM should reveal that fact so there is no speculation right?! Makes sense to me. Seeing as DP seems to like the American way, wonder what his take is on the PB. I bet he is all for it. I just keep wondering when DM is going to do the old switcharoo in lawyers. That's just something I've considered and not sure why but something tells me he may not be happy with DP for some reason or another. Guess time will tell. :moo: If IIRC wasn't there mention DP and DM had met once prior to DM's arrest?? I feel certain I had read that somewhere right after DM's arrest. If true, wonder what that meeting was about? MOO

As SB and others have stated in above posts, the FACT TB's body was burned shows evil intent and trying to get rid of evidence. If TB died from human combustion, then let the public know that instead of hiding behind a PB. Let the facts come out. Sheesh the way the above named trials played out in the US of A, where there was no PB, make one wonder if DM and MS would stand a darn good chance of walking scott free even if guilty and no PB. :moo:

When it comes to the jurors, the judge will instruct them as to what to consider while making their decision. He will provide them with a rundown of all of the evidence they are to take into consideration, whether it be circumstantial or direct. They will have all of the evidence in the deliberating room, which they can go over until their hearts are content. If the incinerator was not involved in the death of TB, it will not come into evidence obviously. Therefore the jurors SHOULD NOT consider it. IF there is one, two, three or even eight jurors who have that nefarious thought stuck in their head because they heard it in the early days before the PB, they cannot use it as an excuse for finding the accused guilty. IF they try, I am certain there will be one, two, three or four jurors who will make it very clear it was not brought into evidence, therefore it has no bearing on the murder. Even if they do not voice their suspicion, again, I am certain a verdict will be reached based upon the actual evidence presented. It's very disheartening to think there are people out there who do not give credit to a jury system, assuming they would let false information, suspicions and/or assumptions persuade and cloud their minds in such a serious case as this. ALL JMHO and :moo::moo:

 

[Carli]

..AGAIN the trial will ADDRESS EXACTLY HOW TB BODY WAS BURNED BEYOND RECOGINITION....JMO ..I believe there was a reason that incinerator was carted off by LE. there was also a reason there were burn marks on his property.

AGAIN IMO I have often been told while in Family COURT actually by my lawyer ..." YOU should have gone to Law school .AS you just did half my work."
IMO I loved kids and there Parents so I chose teachers college at a very early age...

I helped trouble kids( behavior problems and also kids with special needs......JFYI


I believe as I have stated several time....JMO when a body is burned many things cannot be eliminated ...obvious like teeth....a definite id can be made as you know from dental records....

I do not have to really write what has been written her over and over..imo ..seems obvious...as someone wrote we just have to connect the dots ....makes perfect sense to me ...JMO again....robynhood.....I cannot see any reason for a incinerator on land that was probably leased like the land behind my house acres ....remember no livestock ....again my opinion ....dots will connect by the crown ....and I will gladly tweet the trial ...I am sure Sharlene Bosma will find some RELEIF...again MY OPINION ....I know I would if my husband was killed on a test drive ....she said :" it was just a darn truck ...bring MY husband back to me ...his 2 year old daughter needs her daddy"....robynhood.

With respect to the identification, SB has been quite forthcoming, hasn't she, regarding her exchanges with LE. To my knowledge, a request for dental or other medical records was never mentioned, although I could be wrong on that. As we know, other items, such as jewellery, for instance, would not be destroyed by fire, but SB referred to ALL that was left of her beloved husband was delivered to her in the box. No wedding ring. No wrist watch or belt buckle or other ornaments. Sleuthers will recall that Kavanaugh originally stated http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2013/05/14/police-update-tim-bosma-case

""We are convinced by the totality of the evidence that these are the remains of Tim Bosma," De Caire said. "The evidence indicates that the remains were burned.""

Alert sleuthers will also be aware that "totality of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" is a sufficient threshold for proof of guilt in a civil cases it is only one of three elements in a criminal case.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Standard_of_Proof

While proof of murder in the absence of a body has been found in a very few cases, more generally it is to be hoped that LE has proof that the incinerated remains they discovered were those of Tim Bosma to a standard of proof far beyond that suggested by "a balance of probability".

 

[robynhood]

interesting post #685...( Carli)....I never said that dental records were HOW they identified TB...I was actually trying to figure it out. I did find your post informative Carli.

I believe this PB has caused a lot of stress as to ppl understanding what is going on...

I understand why the PB ban is in place as it protects a fair trial...as mentioned early today.

However it is also is creating a lot of frustration as we all want WHOM EVER murdered TB to be caught.

IMO it is still quite scary if the wrong ppl are in JAIL....and what ever happened to TB that night is very Horrifying....IMO it feels like there is a group of ppl involved in doing some very underhanded dealings...IMO it still worries me when I saw all the posts of PICK UP trucks that went missing( seem unrelated to DM) ....especially the one in day light near Wallmart in Bathurst ST & CLARK area ...IMO very scary happenings....JIMO robynhood.

 

[dizzy1]

I don't actually agree that they are the most damning facts..... unless of course video footage shows that DM was the one dropping off the body and the trailer.... I could place a stolen car on your driveway... would that make you guilty of stealing it?

I believe it would take more than a stolen car parked in my driveway for me to be arrested for theft. Of course, If this stolen vehicle was found parked in my (or my mom's) driveway, inside a trailer registered to me, and this stolen vehicle belonged to a man who had been reported missing for almost a week, I suppose I would have some explaining to do. I would guess I would have even more explaining to do when they find said missing man's body burned beyond recognition on a property owned by me, and stolen vehicle/s in a hangar belonging to me. I would guess that even if the most upstanding citizen were in this type of situation he would have some explaining to do. And if this upstanding citizen instead chooses to remain silent, then I guess they should expect to hang tight in Barton Street Jail until LE completes the investigation, and the truth sets this upstanding citizen free. Unless of course during the course of the investigation, LE finds more evidence linking this upstanding citizen to the crime, then I would suppose that rather than getting the chance to be released on bail, this upstanding citizen would have to wait until trial to prove his innocence. JMO

 

[Juballee]

I believe it would take more than a stolen car parked in my driveway for me to be arrested for theft. Of course, If this stolen vehicle was found parked in my (or my mom's) driveway, inside a trailer registered to me, and this stolen vehicle belonged to a man who had been reported missing for almost a week, I suppose I would have some explaining to do. I would guess I would have even more explaining to do when they find said missing man's body burned beyond recognition on a property owned by me, and stolen vehicle/s in a hangar belonging to me. I would guess that even if the most upstanding citizen were in this type of situation he would have some explaining to do. And if this upstanding citizen instead chooses to remain silent, then I guess they should expect to hang tight in Barton Street Jail until LE completes the investigation, and the truth sets this upstanding citizen free. Unless of course during the course of the investigation, LE finds more evidence linking this upstanding citizen to the crime, then I would suppose that rather than getting the chance to be released on bail, this upstanding citizen would have to wait until trial to prove his innocence. JMO

Actually you could be arrested for theft on far less than a stolen car in your driveway, and you would be forced to go through the same procedures and court dates even if you were innocent and could easily prove it, because any thing you say can and will be held against you in a court of law, (unless you'd like to plead guilty right now and save yourself the time and expense of a lawyer and a trial...)

 

[dizzy1]

With respect to the identification, SB has been quite forthcoming, hasn't she, regarding her exchanges with LE. To my knowledge, a request for dental or other medical records was never mentioned, although I could be wrong on that. As we know, other items, such as jewellery, for instance, would not be destroyed by fire, but SB referred to ALL that was left of her beloved husband was delivered to her in the box. No wedding ring. No wrist watch or belt buckle or other ornaments. Sleuthers will recall that Kavanaugh originally stated http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2013/05/14/police-update-tim-bosma-case

""We are convinced by the totality of the evidence that these are the remains of Tim Bosma," De Caire said. "The evidence indicates that the remains were burned.""

Alert sleuthers will also be aware that "totality of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" is a sufficient threshold for proof of guilt in a civil cases it is only one of three elements in a criminal case.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Standard_of_Proof

While proof of murder in the absence of a body has been found in a very few cases, more generally it is to be hoped that LE has proof that the incinerated remains they discovered were those of Tim Bosma to a standard of proof far beyond that suggested by "a balance of probability".

UBM

Could you link the article where it refers to TB's "incinerated remains", rather than "burned beyond recognition"? TIA

BBM

I'm not sure I understand, is it being suggested that the body discovered may not be that of TB? Please explain? I find this quite upsetting, as I refuse to belive LE would ever release TB's body to SB and family for burial without making an absolute positive identification. MOO JMO IMHO

 

[robynhood]

I agree I DOUBT Le would arrive at SB door and say we found your husband without a "reasonable doubt" as link says and I heard police state that too..if they did not have significant ...evidence...NOW naturally we are not going to hear" HOW" due to that PB>>>>>...... which has us all wondering what they found...

frustrating ...and obviously we must WAIT till court for them to reveal it all! .......I know this is a totally different case but I know a person who was there when Tori's dad got that dreadful call....POLICE mean what they say when they say beyond a reasonable doubt...IMO........

Please do provide us with a link ...Cari if you know differently?...asking kindly as this would be dreadful...IMO...robynhood.

 

[Carli]

UBM

Could you link the article where it refers to TB's "incinerated remains", rather than "burned beyond recognition"? TIA

BBM

I'm not sure I understand, is it being suggested that the body discovered may not be that of TB? Please explain? I find this quite upsetting, as I refuse to belive LE would ever release TB's body to SB and family for burial without making an absolute positive identification. MOO JMO IMHO

I know of no reference to "incinerated remains" rather than "burned beyond recognition". That's the point. SB stated that all her husband's remains were delivered to her in a little box. Presumably its contents consisted of ashes. Certainly LE would not be permitted to dispose of human remains without the family's permission. The trial will (hopefully) provide the forensic details that allowed LE to determine that the ashes found were those of TB and not, for instance, those of WM or, for that matter, anybody else. MOO :moo:

 

[Blomquist]

I know of no reference to "incinerated remains" rather than "burned beyond recognition". That's the point. SB stated that all her husband's remains were delivered to her in a little box. Presumably its contents consisted of ashes. Certainly LE would not be permitted to dispose of human remains without the family's permission. The trial will (hopefully) provide the forensic details that allowed LE to determine that the ashes found were those of TB and not, for instance, those of WM or, for that matter, anybody else. MOO :moo:

I agree, I feel sure the remains were ashes, what I find strange is that there is no mention of SB being asked for permission to complete the cremation.

Do we know if LE actually proceeded with this before asking for any idenfication by family... I mean maybe they had clothing or something. I doubt very much if the box given to SB was merely a watch and a wedding ring.... there had to have been ashes and I cannot imagine it would be part ashes and part unburnt remains...so it appears that a formal type of cremation had apparently taken place without any formal ID'ing of the body by family. JMO

 

[bessie]

I agree, I feel sure the remains were ashes, what I find strange is that there is no mention of SB being asked for permission to complete the cremation.

Do we know if LE actually proceeded with this before asking for any idenfication by family... I mean maybe they had clothing or something. I doubt very much if the box given to SB was merely a watch and a wedding ring.... there had to have been ashes and I cannot imagine it would be part ashes and part unburnt remains...so it appears that a formal type of cremation had apparently taken place without any formal ID'ing of the body by family. JMO

What do you mean by "formal ID'ing of the body by family"? A visual identification?

 

[bessie]

UBM

Could you link the article where it refers to TB's "incinerated remains", rather than "burned beyond recognition"? TIA

BBM

I'm not sure I understand, is it being suggested that the body discovered may not be that of TB? Please explain? I find this quite upsetting, as I refuse to belive LE would ever release TB's body to SB and family for burial without making an absolute positive identification. MOO JMO IMHO

You needn't be upset. The medical examiner's office would not certify a death certificate nor release remains without confirming the decedant's idenitity. Where a visual identification is impossible, the confirmation would be obtained through dental records or DNA.

 

[dizzy1]

I know of no reference to "incinerated remains" rather than "burned beyond recognition". That's the point. SB stated that all her husband's remains were delivered to her in a little box. Presumably its contents consisted of ashes. Certainly LE would not be permitted to dispose of human remains without the family's permission. The trial will (hopefully) provide the forensic details that allowed LE to determine that the ashes found were those of TB and not, for instance, those of WM or, for that matter, anybody else. MOO :moo:

I believe this was discussed before, but once the coroners investigation is completed, the body is released to the funeral home of the families choice (who would arrange transportation of the deceased from the coroners office to the funeral home). IMO, the coroner would not hand the remains directly to SB. What was left of TB's body was most likely sent to the funeral home for cremation. When my close family member passed away, he was cremated, and was subsequently handed to my family in a small box.

When will the body be released for our viewing?
When a body is sent for an autopsy, the body cannot be viewed until AFTER the autopsy has been completed. Please arrange to have a funeral home transfer your loved one’s body to the funeral home for viewing, after the autopsy has been completed. In most circumstances, the body is released immediately after the autopsy is completed. You do not need to call the Coroner to obtain information regarding the release of your loved one’s body. The funeral home will contact the hospital directly to determine time of release for the body and inform you accordingly.

http://www.coroner-york.com/insurance.html

 

[Blomquist]

What do you mean by "formal ID'ing of the body by family"? A visual identification?

Yes I do actually. While someone is deemed to be burned beyond recognition maybe they had a birth mark, mole or some type of disfigurement on any part of the body that had not been affected by burning. jmo Also maybe next of kin or other family member could identify boots or wristwatch or rings etc.

Speaking from experience, having to identify a family member that was in a very nasty car accident, LE usually have to get some kind of formal identification. For example when LE showed up at my home they asked me which car was being driven, asked me if said person was home or did I know their current whereabouts. I said that they were out in their car and that I did not know the exact location of them now, but that they should have been travelling on a certain road heading home.

Based on that information they proceeded to ask me to sit down..as they believed that the person had been killed in a car accident in their car. I was asked to take my time and call family to sit with me and that at some point during that day the body would need to be identified. This was a head on collision !!! So you can imagine, it was not a pretty sight.... I was not expected to just receive cremated boxed remains ! I had to somehow make an identification. I was told it had to be next of kin or an immediate family member if next of kin was not available (for example if they too had been in accident and unable to identify)

So IMO, it would make sense that SB was asked to at least identify whatever she could. Be it feet, hands, shoes, rings or a watch. I know its rather graphic to think about but the actual process of identifying someone you love very much is not exactly something out of Disney... JMO based on my own experience.

Had there been nothing to identify body wise due to extensive charring then the teeth would have been the way to go IMO...and SB would have needed to provide details of where his dental records were kept. However the short time it took to identify TB...leaves me wondering how this was done so quickly ....unless in fact SB had some part in the identification process or a close family member. JMO

In my loved ones case....The identifying of the body took place at the hospital where the body was taken...it had not yet gone to the Funeral Home as stated in a post above.... They do not know which Funeral Home to take it to, until the family decides where its going....and whether or not they wish for a burial or cremation. So IMO SB did have some input before she received that little box. She would have been the one to decide on a cremation or burial of the remains.....and may have been the one who identified any existing remains or personal effects...JMO

 

[dizzy1]

I agree, I feel sure the remains were ashes, what I find strange is that there is no mention of SB being asked for permission to complete the cremation.

Do we know if LE actually proceeded with this before asking for any idenfication by family... I mean maybe they had clothing or something. I doubt very much if the box given to SB was merely a watch and a wedding ring.... there had to have been ashes and I cannot imagine it would be part ashes and part unburnt remains...so it appears that a formal type of cremation had apparently taken place without any formal ID'ing of the body by family. JMO

MOO, but these allegations that LE would take a guess at who's body they were releasing to SB and family are totally unfounded. It is not up to LE to "complete the cremation", that is up to the family, and the funeral home. They would never make a positive identification of TB using "just clothing or something". Why would there be any "mention of SB being asked to complete the cremation", that would be between the funeral home and SB. And "formal ID'ing of the body by family"? MOO, but since TB's body was burned beyond recognition, he was not recognizable, so it would take the means of a professional to identify the remains via DNA, dental records, etc.

 

[swedie]

I believe this was discussed before, but once the coroners investigation is completed, the body is released to the funeral home of the families choice (who would arrange transportation of the deceased from the coroners office to the funeral home). IMO, the coroner would not hand the remains directly to SB. What was left of TB's body was most likely sent to the funeral home for cremation. When my close family member passed away, he was cremated, and was subsequently handed to my family in a small box.

http://www.coroner-york.com/insurance.html

Dizzy, thank you for your <modsnip> post. I speculate SB had TB (what was left of him) cremated for the fact she would not want to have to deal with the thought of the perps and what they did to her husband, would be a satisfactory state in which to bury someone, if that makes sense. It was SB's wish one day when her husband did depart, she would get the opportunity to hold his hand or kiss his face one last time. But the evil doers did not leave her that hope. She got the final decision on how her husband's remains would be handled opposed to how the horrific and disturbing way the perps left him. IMO there was enough remains and not just ashes for LE to come back with such a quick ID. MOO.

RIP Tim.

 

[Blomquist]

I feel certain I had read that somewhere right after DM's arrest. If true, wonder what that meeting was about? MOO

It's not really relevant to the case though...so imo it doesn't matter why they met JMO

As SB and others have stated in above posts, the FACT TB's body was burned shows evil intent and trying to get rid of evidence. If TB died from human combustion, then let the public know that instead of hiding behind a PB. Let the facts come out. :moo:

Yes whoever tried to remove their forensic evidence from TB's body obviously did not want to be caught..... thats why it's odd that the accused allegedly placed the truck/trailer at his mothers home and left the body at the farm... why remove forensic evidence only to leave exhibits strategically placed linking directly to yourself??? I suppose spontaneous combustion is always a random possibility but I feel quite unlikely given the circumstances. JMO

purple responses... just to break the monotony of colour... ;-)

 

[Sillybilly]

I feel certain I had read that somewhere right after DM's arrest. If true, wonder what that meeting was about? MOO

<rsbm>

You are correct swedie:

from:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3240784-millard-hall-lawyers-locked-in-ethics-dispute/

Paradkar, who met his client through a mutual acquaintance months ago, was named as Millard's lawyer at his very first court appearance on May 11 and has been very public, speaking regularly to the media about his client and the case.