The Incinerator

[expat cdn]

Again, as I mentioned before. When a killer rewinds the timeline in his mind and "sees"/ "realizes" a possible link to him, he tries to severe that tie, be it alibi, burning evidence, dismemberment, etc.

The killer can't realize something in advance. It has to happen first. People make insignificant eye contact all the time and maybe at some point, DM/MS realized "hey she may remember that as a significant emotional event" and tie us by her vivid memory of that. So now, we must do something to erase any type direct evidence tie to us via coroboration. After all many folk look alike or similar.

Didn't MS have the "skill" to play a deranged killer and doesn't DM have an incinerator? So as I pointed out before, in some cases with the "skills" and equipment available, sometimes the combination is obvious to the killer(s) or in the example I gave, Butcher and Bayou is similar in concept to "Deranged Killer" with an Incinerator at their disposal.

Why would it/is it hard to mentally link(suspect) a person(s) acting as a "disturbed killer" in a video with a burned body(and possibly dismembered) and a person with a farm and an incinerator but it's not difficult for some to come to other, more outlandish scenarios?

Certainly, would not be the first time, case in point....Mark Twitchell in Edmonton, fancied himself a Dexter type killer/film maker.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0....wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twitchell-in-prison/

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twitchell"]Mark Twitchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Juballee]

Again, as I mentioned before. When a killer rewinds the timeline in his mind and "sees"/ "realizes" a possible link to him, he tries to severe that tie, be it alibi, burning evidence, dismemberment, etc.

The killer can't realize something in advance. It has to happen first. People make insignificant eye contact all the time and maybe at some point, DM/MS realized "hey she may remember that as a significant emotional event" and tie us by her vivid memory of that. So now, we must do something to erase any type direct evidence tie to us via coroboration. After all many folk look alike or similar.

Didn't MS have the "skill" to play a deranged killer and doesn't DM have an incinerator? So as I pointed out before, in some cases with the "skills" and equipment available, sometimes the combination is obvious to the killer(s) or in the example I gave, Butcher and Bayou is similar in concept to "Deranged Killer" with an Incinerator at their disposal.

Why would it/is it hard to mentally link(suspect) a person(s) acting as a "disturbed killer" in a video with a burned body(and possibly dismembered) and a person with a farm and an incinerator but it's not difficult for some to come to other, more outlandish scenarios?

I believe you said in an earlier post that you didn't think that DM had the stomach to dismember a body, and that was why in your option there were significant enough remains found to id the body? But now you seem to be saying that he dismembered the body because he smiled at SB, wouldn't it make more sense in your proposition that it would have been easier/safer for a psychopath to just go back and eliminate the witness who might identify him instead of hoping that destroying the evidence will somehow make the witness forget what he looked like?

Erasing any direct evidence, as you say, would mean going back and erasing the memory of the witness, and if it is an imperative part of the after crime realizations to reduce the risk of apprehension, there was plenty of time and opportunity to easily kill SB too. They could have driven TBs truck back to his home and told her to come out quick, her husband has taken ill and needs her help, and then they could have eliminated the only witness. But they didn't.

And yes, logically you cannot realize something has happened before it happens, but you can certainly plan ahead and try to anticipate common ways in which criminals get caught, and in my opinion, avoiding the potential for eye witness would be part of any murder's general plan. So going to the front door of your victim after making an appointment with him, and smiling at witnesses would not seem like a decent plan to most criminals, in my opinion.

And by your reasoning, people who have the skills to play surgeons on television should have no problem performing surgery should the need arise. But what I find more likely, from your previous post, is the idea that yes, someone with the skills and mindset to dismember a body is more likely to dismember a body, and having previous experience with such gruesome acts would likely desensitize the culprit so that it gets easier to do each time. Which again, makes me think that this was done by a professional killer who has been doing this for OC for some time since the other reasons for dismemberment that you previously mentioned to not apply to DM.

 

[Archangel7]

I believe you said in an earlier post that you didn't think that DM had the stomach to dismember a body, and that was why in your option there were significant enough remains found to id the body? But now you seem to be saying that he dismembered the body because he smiled at SB, wouldn't it make more sense in your proposition that it would have been easier/safer for a psychopath to just go back and eliminate the witness who might identify him instead of hoping that destroying the evidence will somehow make the witness forget what he looked like?

Erasing any direct evidence, as you say, would mean going back and erasing the memory of the witness, and if it is an imperative part of the after crime realizations to reduce the risk of apprehension, there was plenty of time and opportunity to easily kill SB too. They could have driven TBs truck back to his home and told her to come out quick, her husband has taken ill and needs her help, and then they could have eliminated the only witness. But they didn't.

And yes, logically you cannot realize something has happened before it happens, but you can certainly plan ahead and try to anticipate common ways in which criminals get caught, and in my opinion, avoiding the potential for eye witness would be part of any murder's general plan. So going to the front door of your victim after making an appointment with him, and smiling at witnesses would not seem like a decent plan to most criminals, in my opinion.

And by your reasoning, people who have the skills to play surgeons on television should have no problem performing surgery should the need arise. But what I find more likely, from your previous post, is the idea that yes, someone with the skills and mindset to dismember a body is more likely to dismember a body, and having previous experience with such gruesome acts would likely desensitize the culprit so that it gets easier to do each time. Which again, makes me think that this was done by a professional killer who has been doing this for OC for some time since the other reasons for dismemberment that you previously mentioned to not apply to DM.

DM was not alone in this murder/theft/confinement as per the currently laid charges. So try to not limit your perspective to just DM.

Erasing direct evidence(SB seeing them)is much easier done by attempting to eliminate any corroborative direct evidence on the body by incineration/combustion/burning/etc. Eliminating any physical, direct, corroborative evidence is more effective (and more simple) than a whole another murder.

There are always dynamics in a murder when more than one killer is involved. Some examples could be "we have to kill him, SB saw us" or why the heck did you kill him, now we have to burn him to eliminate any ties because SB saw me" or other.

On the going back and telling SB to come out back, her husband is sick, do you think this "invisible OC" would have had qualms about that, I mean in for a penny in for a pound, with a drug cartel on hot standby to get going on an assumed unsecured, CBSA ignored hangar?

On the play a surgeon, do surgery. You missed the point. A dismemberment in the real world "looks" way, way different than a surgery, just as an autopsy looks nothing like a surgery other than scalpel is used.
The potential inclination, or at the least the thought would be there given the rehearsing/playing the disturbed killer vs a totally unfamiliar psyche.

Once again, share, display or otherwise provide some form of reasonable proof we all can get behind and thus help you free a falsely accused man/men.

Have any here called the tip line and given the police these tips on who is blackmailing/framing these two? I mean that sincerely.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Again, as I mentioned before. When a killer rewinds the timeline in his mind and "sees"/ "realizes" a possible link to him, he tries to severe that tie, be it alibi, burning evidence, dismemberment, etc.

The killer can't realize something in advance. It has to happen first. People make insignificant eye contact all the time and maybe at some point, DM/MS realized "hey she may remember that as a significant emotional event" and tie us by her vivid memory of that. So now, we must do something to erase any type direct evidence tie to us via coroboration. After all many folk look alike or similar.

Didn't MS have the "skill" to play a deranged killer and doesn't DM have an incinerator? So as I pointed out before, in some cases with the "skills" and equipment available, sometimes the combination is obvious to the killer(s) or in the example I gave, Butcher and Bayou is similar in concept to "Deranged Killer" with an Incinerator at their disposal.

Why would it/is it hard to mentally link(suspect) a person(s) acting as a "disturbed killer" in a video with a burned body(and possibly dismembered) and a person with a farm and an incinerator but it's not difficult for some to come to other, more outlandish scenarios?

Then is it also your opinion that, once DM realized that he could potentially be linked to the crime, part of his severing of that tie was to move the truck to his mother's driveway??

I would think that part of trying to erase evidence pointing to yourself would be to not only move the truck far away, maybe burn it as well, but also to remove the burned/dismembered remains away from your property. Why still leave everything pointing directly at yourself if you've finally realized that you may very well become a suspect.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

No.....Wouldn't the definition and interpretation of their attempt to stop the trail and or sever any tie be just that(stopping it in their view)? Meaning anything else might be done or continued on their part, based on thinking success was accomplished in the act of stopping the trail/severing the ties. So for ex. if I think I have robbed a store of it's money and I think I have effectively stopped the trail and prevented tying me to the crime, why wouldn't I possibly store the cash at moms?

 

[Alethea Dice]

No.....Wouldn't the definition and interpretation of their attempt to stop the trail and or sever any tie be just that(stopping it in their view)? Meaning anything else might be done or continued on their part, based on thinking success was accomplished in the act of stopping the trail/severing the ties. So for ex. if I think I have robbed a store of it's money and I think I have effectively stopped the trail and prevented tying me to the crime, why wouldn't I possibly store the cash at moms?

Well, cash is a little easier to hide unless you're going to string it across her front porch and shine neon lights on it. To me, stopping the trail would involve getting rid of the most noticeable ties, not just disguising one of them and leaving it, and more, right on your property. For example, a dead body on your property is still murder, regardless of whether it can be determined who that body belongs to. A stolen truck is still stolen, regardless of whether the owner can be found. If you think you may become a suspect, there is a good chance that LE will come knocking at your door(s).

JMO

 

[Juballee]

DM was not alone in this murder/theft/confinement as per the currently laid charges. So try to not limit your perspective to just DM.

Erasing direct evidence(SB seeing them)is much easier done by attempting to eliminate any corroborative direct evidence on the body by incineration/combustion/burning/etc. Eliminating any physical, direct, corroborative evidence is more effective (and more simple) than a whole another murder.

There are always dynamics in a murder when more than one killer is involved. Some examples could be "we have to kill him, SB saw us" or why the heck did you kill him, now we have to burn him to eliminate any ties because SB saw me" or other.

On the going back and telling SB to come out back, her husband is sick, do you think this "invisible OC" would have had qualms about that, I mean in for a penny in for a pound, with a drug cartel on hot standby to get going on an assumed unsecured, CBSA ignored hangar?

On the play a surgeon, do surgery. You missed the point. A dismemberment in the real world "looks" way, way different than a surgery, just as an autopsy looks nothing like a surgery other than scalpel is used.
The potential inclination, or at the least the thought would be there given the rehearsing/playing the disturbed killer vs a totally unfamiliar psyche.

Once again, share, display or otherwise provide some form of reasonable proof we all can get behind and thus help you free a falsely accused man/men.

Have any here called the tip line and given the police these tips on who is blackmailing/framing these two? I mean that sincerely.

I am sorry, but I still do not understand how it would be more important or reasonable to do a half-arsed job of getting rid of the evidence pointing towards you in order to make the witness forget that they saw you? Does destroying the body make the eyewitness testimony less credible, in your opinion? And if, as you proposed earlier, it is actually harder to dismember a body if you've never done it before, wouldn't it be easier to instead repeat what you have already done perfectly fine (ie. murder an innocent person)?

And I, personally, have never, even in books or movies, heard of the thought process that would say "SHE has seen us so we must kill HIM". Wouldn't it be either "We can't kill HIM now, SHE has seen us" or "SHE has seen us, we have to kill HER too"?

And in my theory, based on my own opinions from what I have gathered here, even more than what I have read in the media, (at least here people are forced to declare their opinions as opinions and don't try to pass it off as fact), there would be no need for OC to kill the witness because: a) She didn't see the OC killer and could not identify him; and b) She did see the person OC was trying to frame as the last person to see the victim alive, and that can only help OC solidify their set-up.

And again, playing a violent character in a video does not condition people to become a violent real life killer any more than playing the Professor on Gilligan's Island conditioned Russell Johnson to build things out of coconuts in his spare time, in my opinion. It's just acting.

 

[Juballee]

Well, cash is a little easier to hide unless you're going to string it across her front porch and shine neon lights on it. To me, stopping the trail would involve getting rid of the most noticeable ties, not just disguising one of them and leaving it, and more, right on your property. For example, a dead body on your property is still murder, regardless of whether it can be determined who that body belongs to. A stolen truck is still stolen, regardless of whether the owner can be found. If you think you may become a suspect, there is a good chance that LE will come knocking at your door(s).

JMO

I would just like to add to this, that in my opinion, even if they initially thought that a test-drive murder was a fool proof plan, wouldn't they possibly be listening to the media to see how the case was progressing to gauge whether or not they would continue to be successful in remaining anonymous? And when they heard on the news that the suspects matched their descriptions and that everyone was looking for the truck they had, I would think that they would then, in the 4 days of freedom of movement and time to reconsider things have decided to possibly remove all their ties to the remaining evidence, by say taking the truck to that Native Reservation where it is commonly known that stolen vehicles are often found torched, or removing the remains to a property not in any way connected to them?

 

[lanman]

I would just like to add to this, that in my opinion, even if they initially thought that a test-drive murder was a fool proof plan, wouldn't they possibly be listening to the media to see how the case was progressing to gauge whether or not they would continue to be successful in remaining anonymous? And when they heard on the news that the suspects matched their descriptions and that everyone was looking for the truck they had, I would think that they would then, in the 4 days of freedom of movement and time to reconsider things have decided to possibly remove all their ties to the remaining evidence, by say taking the truck to that Native Reservation where it is commonly known that stolen vehicles are often found torched, or removing the remains to a property not in any way connected to them?

Before the tattoo description, all LE had was not much more than it was a tall guy and a short guy. Not exactly much for DM and MS to worry about. It was not until May 10th that LE released more details.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/10/tim-bosma-missing-persons_n_3254021.html

This, IMO, is when DM and MS would have started to worry. (because of the tattoo)

DM was arrested the next day. Not exactly lots of time to go back to the farm and finish getting rid of the evidence or to move the truck again.

 

[Blomquist]

:seeya:

Before the tattoo description, all LE had was not much more than it was a tall guy and a short guy. Not exactly much for DM and MS to worry about. It was not until May 10th that LE released more details.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/10/tim-bosma-missing-persons_n_3254021.html

This, IMO, is when DM and MS would have started to worry. (because of the tattoo)

DM was arrested the next day. Not exactly lots of time to go back to the farm and finish getting rid of the evidence or to move the truck again.

They were releasing information before that IMO...and anyone who heard the news about TB and a phone being found, or the fact that the wife saw them or the alleged 1st test drive guy saying they visited him..... I think if you killed someone it would be very difficult to put it on the back burner (no sick pun intended) until such time as you are in the spotlight. JMO

IF you knew there was evidence on your doorstep I would imagine you would be in a state of panic not working on your house with friends or calmly driving along the road. Obviously DM had been followed for some time that day before being arrested. LE would not have descended onto Cawthra Road by helicopter....so safe to assume IMO that they had followed him....maybe to see where he went that day.....and arrested him on his way home. Had he been anywhere incriminating I think we would have heard about that, as it would have sealed their case and they would have broadcast it. IMO MOO

 

[Archangel7]

I am sorry, but I still do not understand how it would be more important or reasonable to do a half-arsed job of getting rid of the evidence pointing towards you in order to make the witness forget that they saw you? Does destroying the body make the eyewitness testimony less credible, in your opinion? And if, as you proposed earlier, it is actually harder to dismember a body if you've never done it before, wouldn't it be easier to instead repeat what you have already done perfectly fine (ie. murder an innocent person)?

And I, personally, have never, even in books or movies, heard of the thought process that would say "SHE has seen us so we must kill HIM". Wouldn't it be either "We can't kill HIM now, SHE has seen us" or "SHE has seen us, we have to kill HER too"?

And in my theory, based on my own opinions from what I have gathered here, even more than what I have read in the media, (at least here people are forced to declare their opinions as opinions and don't try to pass it off as fact), there would be no need for OC to kill the witness because: a) She didn't see the OC killer and could not identify him; and b) She did see the person OC was trying to frame as the last person to see the victim alive, and that can only help OC solidify their set-up.

And again, playing a violent character in a video does not condition people to become a violent real life killer any more than playing the Professor on Gilligan's Island conditioned Russell Johnson to build things out of coconuts in his spare time, in my opinion. It's just acting.

Burning the body is an attempt by DM and MS to destroy direct evidence, of and on the body, that along with corroborative evidence via eyewitness testimony would undeniably tie them to the crime.

Can you understand that? Does that make sense and can you see it from their point of view?

It has nothing to do with trying to "get" SB to forget what she saw ok?

A successful destruction of the body, from the standpoint of eliminating usable physical evidence, would prevent a direct link to DM&MS via prints, DNA registry, etc. and only leaves an eyewitness description from SB that would probably fit many thousands of people. Plus remember, there would be no corroborative evidence on the body to confirm the correct two people if the police paraded the likely suspects past her. OK, are you still following this?
It makes SB's eyewitness account less provable(finding the correct two) again, because the body has no evidence to back or support anybody she picks out of a lineup or whatever.

On the hard to dismember comment......there are two potential components
of difficulty or "hardness," one is the resolve, guts, nerves, etc. and two is the physical ability or "skill " or to just muddle thru.

People in jobs that deal with horrific events become more desensitized than those that are not exposed. Frequent exposure to violence can have an affect on people. Gilligan nor the professor are suspects.

Come on, your making this harder than it is. "She has seen us we must destroy the evidence of, or on TB(the body)" or we will have to kill him for the truck. Yes, but she's seen us. It's ok will burn him and (in their mind) eliminate the evidence.

On your theory........the police have evidence that supports, from the beginning, a sworn affidavit that lists that DM &MS committed between them the following charges, Confinement and theft over $5K and 1st degree murder.

Those are facts, that is the reality. No Gilligan's Isle, No OC boogieman.

If the evidence continues to implicate them and is shown to a jury anywhere, they won't see daylight on their head for decades.

IMO

 

[Juballee]

Before the tattoo description, all LE had was not much more than it was a tall guy and a short guy. Not exactly much for DM and MS to worry about. It was not until May 10th that LE released more details.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/10/tim-bosma-missing-persons_n_3254021.html

This, IMO, is when DM and MS would have started to worry. (because of the tattoo)

DM was arrested the next day. Not exactly lots of time to go back to the farm and finish getting rid of the evidence or to move the truck again.

A LOT can happen in one day!

And, just to play devil's advocate, the fact that the police were actively searching for any suspects in the disappearance should have been enough to tip them off when we consider how many people disappear every year in this country that we never ever hear about, like LB would have remained if she had not had the fortune to have been aquatinted with someone who later became infamous.

Plus, they would have been aware that the truck was being sought from day one, and certainly had time in 3 or even 2 days to take it further than Vaughan.

 

[Archangel7]

Well, cash is a little easier to hide unless you're going to string it across her front porch and shine neon lights on it. To me, stopping the trail would involve getting rid of the most noticeable ties, not just disguising one of them and leaving it, and more, right on your property. For example, a dead body on your property is still murder, regardless of whether it can be determined who that body belongs to. A stolen truck is still stolen, regardless of whether the owner can be found. If you think you may become a suspect, there is a good chance that LE will come knocking at your door(s).

JMO

Maybe they thought: no way anyone would tie them to the crime. You do understand the concept of a trail being found(at TB's) and abruptly ending with only a physical description that fits many in North Amer?

If they thought with some assurance they had ended the trail, they wouldn't hesitate to continue on with life, they had ended any ties right?

No way there would have been a trail to the farm if they had done the job correctly. Even if a body is found on your farm, there has to be some more evidence to tie it together. Eyewitness isn't always a help. If the body was done properly and no ID or evidence could be found it wouldn't easily point to any one or two people.

Same with a stolen truck, no evidence of someone external to the owner? Just another unsolved auto theft.

So if a murder is done poorly by the killers, it must be a set up? Is that the new standard? If DM & MS are/were set up it would have shown by now likely or in the very near several days. IMO

 

[Carli]

Burning the body is an attempt by DM and MS to destroy direct evidence, of and on the body, that along with corroborative evidence via eyewitness testimony would undeniably tie them to the crime.

Can you understand that? Does that make sense and can you see it from their point of view?

It has nothing to do with trying to "get" SB to forget what she saw ok?

A successful destruction of the body, from the standpoint of eliminating usable physical evidence, would prevent a direct link to DM&MS via prints, DNA registry, etc. and only leaves an eyewitness description from SB that would probably fit many thousands of people. Plus remember, there would be no corroborative evidence on the body to confirm the correct two people if the police paraded the likely suspects past her. OK, are you still following this?
It makes SB's eyewitness account less provable(finding the correct two) again, because the body has no evidence to back or support anybody she picks out of a lineup or whatever.

On the hard to dismember comment......there are two potential components
of difficulty or "hardness," one is the resolve, guts, nerves, etc. and two is the physical ability or "skill " or to just muddle thru.

People in jobs that deal with horrific events become more desensitized than those that are not exposed. Frequent exposure to violence can have an affect on people. Gilligan nor the professor are suspects.

Come on, your making this harder than it is. "She has seen us we must destroy the evidence of, or on TB(the body)" or we will have to kill him for the truck. Yes, but she's seen us. It's ok will burn him and (in their mind) eliminate the evidence.

On your theory........the police have evidence that supports, from the beginning, a sworn affidavit that lists that DM &MS committed between them the following charges, Confinement and theft over $5K and 1st degree murder.

Those are facts, that is the reality. No Gilligan's Isle, No OC boogieman.

If the evidence continues to implicate them and is shown to a jury anywhere, they won't see daylight on their head for decades.

IMO

It's certainly refreshing to see someone with so much faith in the infallibility of LE imo. Then, of course, trials are held, when other facts come to light, that so often only serve to screw up everything. imo.

 

[Archangel7]

It's certainly refreshing to see someone with so much faith in the infallibility of LE imo. Then, of course, trials are held, when other facts come to light, that so often only serve to screw up everything. imo.

I have little love for Canadian Police and their political driven agendas. I do know how police investigation works however, and courts, and evidence, etc., thus the statement about the evidence will convict or exonerate, not the police.

Evidence always speaks the truth, cops may not. So far it points to DM and MS.

 

[Blomquist]

Burning the body is an attempt by DM and MS to destroy direct evidence, of and on the body, that along with corroborative evidence via eyewitness testimony would undeniably tie them to the crime.

That is allegedly an attempt by them....no one has been found guilty at this point. Nothing has tied them to the farm as far as we know. All there is allegedly is a first test drive guy who claims to have described witnesses and SB who has also described what she allegedly saw. So at most they may be tied to arriving at Bosma home and leaving with TB. We do not know what happened after that at this point insofar as DM/MS are concerned. Maybe there were others in the SUV that was following and also if the vehicle that dropped them off was a different vehicle then we have potentially got at least one other person of interest there too.IMO


Can you understand that? Does that make sense and can you see it from their point of view?

Their point of view ??? IMO I am not interested in their point of view.... I want facts not viewpoints.... JMO

It has nothing to do with trying to "get" SB to forget what she saw ok?

IMO that is not what was mean't JMO

A successful destruction of the body, from the standpoint of eliminating usable physical evidence, would prevent a direct link to DM&MS via prints, DNA registry, etc. and only leaves an eyewitness description from SB that would probably fit many thousands of people. Plus remember, there would be no corroborative evidence on the body to confirm the correct two people if the police paraded the likely suspects past her. OK, are you still following this?
It makes SB's eyewitness account less provable(finding the correct two) again, because the body has no evidence to back or support anybody she picks out of a lineup or whatever.

On the hard to dismember comment......there are two potential components
of difficulty or "hardness," one is the resolve, guts, nerves, etc. and two is the physical ability or "skill " or to just muddle thru.

Have you got a link suggesting TB was dismembered ? I am just looking for the logic...

People in jobs that deal with horrific events become more desensitized than those that are not exposed. Frequent exposure to violence can have an affect on people. Gilligan nor the professor are suspects.

I thought DM flew helicopters.... where was he involved in violence ever?

Come on, your making this harder than it is. "She has seen us we must destroy the evidence of, or on TB(the body)" or we will have to kill him for the truck. Yes, but she's seen us. It's ok will burn him and (in their mind) eliminate the evidence.

On your theory........the police have evidence that supports, from the beginning, a sworn affidavit that lists that DM &MS committed between them the following charges, Confinement and theft over $5K and 1st degree murder.

A sworn affidavit is not an instrument that guarantees anything. DM and MS could write up an affidavit.... Police always 'swear' affidavits...and how many times have they been proved wrong....plenty IMO...which means they are not past lying on an affidavit to show to all how good and clever they are.

Also you will notice that lawyers almost never get their clients to swear affidavits.... thats because in the court game an affidavit is supposed to stand as truth...so you can see in this game the LE already have a stronger position regardless.

Affidavits of LE are a joke these days...IMO .... People should be doing their own affidavits and making the lawyers use them, that way its equal from the outset. Affidavits stand as truth in law unless rebutted and the rebuttal stands without proof otherwise. .... lawyers are being paid by people and IMO a lawyers duty to the court is nothing. Their duty should be to the people paying them. When an affidavit is notarized it has the same power as if it had been sanctioned by a judge. Lawyers are not prompted to get affidavits from clients...instead the client has to get in the box and plead...yes plead for mercy IMO.

When you sue LE yourself without a lawyer or in Civil court you will definitely do an affidavit as the rules in that court change..... its all court games....IMO


Those are facts, that is the reality. No Gilligan's Isle, No OC boogieman.

I do not see it your way at all JMO

If the evidence continues to implicate them and is shown to a jury anywhere, they won't see daylight on their head for decades.IMO

There is no evidence that is continuing to implicate them from what we know so far....IMO. We have no idea who was present, who showed up, how many there were etc etc.... If I was on that jury I would be making the prosecution sing and dance for their supper because they would need a hell of a lot more than they claim to have for me to convict. Every last witness would be raked over the coals, no stone would be left unturned.... but hey I know many people would join a witch hunt just to watch the burning at the stake but thats JMO...

purple this time

 

[Blomquist]

I have little love for Canadian Police and their political driven agendas. I do know how police investigation works however, and courts, and evidence, etc., thus the statement about the evidence will convict or exonerate, not the police.

Evidence always speaks the truth, cops may not. So far it points to DM and MS.

Shame that evidence didnt work for Guy Paul Morin, Stephen Truscott et al eh ??? JMO

Let me tell you a story... when GPM was in jail I knew someone at the jail who held a high position. The guy was a nasty piece of work imo (not GPM the jail worker) Said jail worker told me that GPM was definitely guilty, he could see it in his eyes and that worker treated GPM like dirt. I said... I have a feeling this guy is innocent, it doesn't add up. I was ridiculed.. ... (so I am used to it ;-) ) but eventually the truth came out years later after GPM had lost years of his life and his reputation. I happened to mention to the jail worker about GPM 's innocence and was told "Well I didnt like the guy".......

This case is one reason why we should be protecting the rights of all accused people..... many miscarriages of justice occur....and when they do it means there is a criminal on the loose and someone else has lost their freedom their dignity and their reputation because of it. Injustice to one is injustice for all IMO.... The list of wrongly accused grows daily...

If someone murdered a family member of mine, I would want the right one jailed not any one ! JMO

 

[Juballee]

Burning the body is an attempt by DM and MS to destroy direct evidence, of and on the body, that along with corroborative evidence via eyewitness testimony would undeniably tie them to the crime.

Can you understand that? Does that make sense and can you see it from their point of view?

It has nothing to do with trying to "get" SB to forget what she saw ok?

A successful destruction of the body, from the standpoint of eliminating usable physical evidence, would prevent a direct link to DM&MS via prints, DNA registry, etc. and only leaves an eyewitness description from SB that would probably fit many thousands of people. Plus remember, there would be no corroborative evidence on the body to confirm the correct two people if the police paraded the likely suspects past her. OK, are you still following this?
It makes SB's eyewitness account less provable(finding the correct two) again, because the body has no evidence to back or support anybody she picks out of a lineup or whatever.

On the hard to dismember comment......there are two potential components
of difficulty or "hardness," one is the resolve, guts, nerves, etc. and two is the physical ability or "skill " or to just muddle thru.

People in jobs that deal with horrific events become more desensitized than those that are not exposed. Frequent exposure to violence can have an affect on people. Gilligan nor the professor are suspects.

Come on, your making this harder than it is. "She has seen us we must destroy the evidence of, or on TB(the body)" or we will have to kill him for the truck. Yes, but she's seen us. It's ok will burn him and (in their mind) eliminate the evidence.

On your theory........the police have evidence that supports, from the beginning, a sworn affidavit that lists that DM &MS committed between them the following charges, Confinement and theft over $5K and 1st degree murder.

Those are facts, that is the reality. No Gilligan's Isle, No OC boogieman.

If the evidence continues to implicate them and is shown to a jury anywhere, they won't see daylight on their head for decades.

IMO

Condescension aside, in my opinion your explanation is only half logical, in that you seem to be saying that getting rid of half of the evidence halfway (meaning destroy the external evidence on the body but leave it on your property and hide the truck but only in a trailer on another property that would quickly be linked to you) would have made them feel wholly secure in remaining free, enough not to have tried that extra little bit and gone the whole way and just move the body to an remote area not connected to you, and burn the truck or sink it in the bottom of a lake, again, not on a property easily linked to you. Or how about this, not a common idea to most of us, but as I believe you said before, criminals tend to use the tools at hand, so why not use the incinerator to reduce the body to ash and small crushable bone fragments, and then use one of the personal aircraft that you could certainly solo in to dump the remains in a way that they could never be recovered? Wouldn't a nice airplane ride be preferable to spending years wondering if that knock will ever come on the door to ask you about a body found on your property? Hiding evidence still does not eliminate witnesses or their damning testimony.

Nothing that was done to TB's person or property after the fact could alter SB's eyewitness testimony, whether it is accurate or not, and I don't really think that is even an opinion, that is just logic. Her eyewitness account could have been taken immediately, before the killer had even decided what to do with the body, that doesn't change her statement or it's impact later. Each piece of evidence must be taken on its own merit and should be able to stand without the aid of other evidence that without which it would be found unsupportable or unsubstantiated, from what I know. So her eyewitness testimony must stand on its own merit, regardless of what the other evidence suggests, even if she picked out completely different people or was unable to make an identification. If 5 pieces of evidence point towards A but 2 pieces point towards B, does that automatically discount the validity of the 2 pieces, or of the 5 pieces, or of both? It is up to each juror to weigh the evidence as a whole.

And back to the dismemberment comment, I believe you were earlier saying something about punks being able to jump a man from behind but not having the guts to dismember the body, and someone pointed out that DM has no butchering skills that we know of, maybe you are suggesting the body was not dismembered? After all, the state of the remains found is still a matter of speculation.

If people who have jobs that desensitize them to blood and violence are more at risk to themselves commit violent crimes, than statistics should show that morticians, boxers, paramedics and police officers would all have higher murder rates than the average, would they not?

Being charged buy the police is not a fact that can be used against you in a trial, and it is possible that the officers who swore out the affidavit did so prematurely, before all the evidence was collected. If it turns out during the course of the investigation that some of the evidence isn't matching, it is up to the police whether or not they want to continue investigating that particular avenue of the investigation or if they want to ignore it and continue where they feel it easier to prove guilt. And I don't want to nitpick here, but the police have been known to swear out affidavits on people who turn out to be innocent, in reality.

 

[Archangel7]

Condescension aside, in my opinion your explanation is only half logical, in that you seem to be saying that getting rid of half of the evidence halfway (meaning destroy the external evidence on the body but leave it on your property and hide the truck but only in a trailer on another property that would quickly be linked to you) would have made them feel wholly secure in remaining free, enough not to have tried that extra little bit and gone the whole way and just move the body to an remote area not connected to you, and burn the truck or sink it in the bottom of a lake, again, not on a property easily linked to you. Or how about this, not a common idea to most of us, but as I believe you said before, criminals tend to use the tools at hand, so why not use the incinerator to reduce the body to ash and small crushable bone fragments, and then use one of the personal aircraft that you could certainly solo in to dump the remains in a way that they could never be recovered? Wouldn't a nice airplane ride be preferable to spending years wondering if that knock will ever come on the door to ask you about a body found on your property? Hiding evidence still does not eliminate witnesses or their damning testimony.

Nothing that was done to TB's person or property after the fact could alter SB's eyewitness testimony, whether it is accurate or not, and I don't really think that is even an opinion, that is just logic. Her eyewitness account could have been taken immediately, before the killer had even decided what to do with the body, that doesn't change her statement or it's impact later. Each piece of evidence must be taken on its own merit and should be able to stand without the aid of other evidence that without which it would be found unsupportable or unsubstantiated, from what I know. So her eyewitness testimony must stand on its own merit, regardless of what the other evidence suggests, even if she picked out completely different people or was unable to make an identification. If 5 pieces of evidence point towards A but 2 pieces point towards B, does that automatically discount the validity of the 2 pieces, or of the 5 pieces, or of both? It is up to each juror to weigh the evidence as a whole.

And back to the dismemberment comment, I believe you were earlier saying something about punks being able to jump a man from behind but not having the guts to dismember the body, and someone pointed out that DM has no butchering skills that we know of, maybe you are suggesting the body was not dismembered? After all, the state of the remains found is still a matter of speculation.

If people who have jobs that desensitize them to blood and violence are more at risk to themselves commit violent crimes, than statistics should show that morticians, boxers, paramedics and police officers would all have higher murder rates than the average, would they not?

Being charged buy the police is not a fact that can be used against you in a trial, and it is possible that the officers who swore out the affidavit did so prematurely, before all the evidence was collected. If it turns out during the course of the investigation that some of the evidence isn't matching, it is up to the police whether or not they want to continue investigating that particular avenue of the investigation or if they want to ignore it and continue where they feel it easier to prove guilt. And I don't want to nitpick here, but the police have been known to swear out affidavits on people who turn out to be innocent, in reality.

No condescension written, you seem to have trouble understanding and or following what was/ is being laid out. So simply trying to help you understand.

I listed in the examples of using or not using the incinerator discussion the possibility(in answer to a question posted) that they were punks enough to jump a man from behind but not man enough to do what it took to use the incinerator? or very similar, and it was a given as a reason to a poster's question. Once again you are not following what was posted and it makes it difficult to constantly reply to what you think you read.

Again...in a logical manor, if a person is desensitized to horrific events. When a situation arises that needs, suggests or mandates getting one's hands bloody, that person would likely and logically be way more inclined than a squeamish, not ever exposed person. Does that make sense? No one is talking about "risk" concerning like boxers, paramedics, etc. We are talking probability on an event that has already occurred and their back against a wall.

That's ridiculous and incorrect to say that a sworn affidavit(charges) cannot be used in court. I personally KNOW for a FACT if the affidavit is wrong and or the charges are wrong, that the charged person walks. For example: The arresting officer allowed the detective to do the paperwork and the paperwork used the code for "burglary of a dwelling house" in the affidavit. The guy was caught "red handed" in a BUSINESS, so right smack dab in the middle of court, with me on the stand about to testify, they let the guy walk, and proceeded to start the next case.

I do however agree that the politics of policing in Canada stink, and I do agree an innocent man was charged, tried, and punished via litigation and defense fees in the Ian Thompson case of self defense of his home. No definite, certain exculpatory evidence was available.

I also have told you if DM & MS are the wrong folks, the evidence will show that and they will be set free. You do understand the concept of exculpatory evidence right? The Crown cannot suppress it nor refuse to give it. If the DNA comes back in a few days(8-9 weeks? from May 14thish?)it could turn them back into choir boys.:floorlaugh:

 

[Blomquist]

No condescension written, you seem to have trouble understanding and or following what was/ is being laid out. So simply trying to help you understand.

That statement itself in my opinion is condescending. I understood perfectly what was being said by the poster.... as I said previously I found your post far less comprehendable ... JMO far be it for me to criticize your understanding of your own words IMO


I listed in the examples of using or not using the incinerator discussion the possibility(in answer to a question posted) that they were punks enough to jump a man from behind but not man enough to do what it took to use the incinerator? or very similar, and it was a given as a reason to a poster's question. Once again you are not following what was posted and it makes it difficult to constantly reply to what you think you read.

Sorry but with respect I find your above paragraph less than fluent in the understanding dept. Could you possibly rephrase it...especially this sentence please : "I listed in the examples of using or not using the incinerator discussion the possibility(in answer to a question posted) that they were punks enough to jump a man from behind but not man enough to do what it took to use the incinerator? " ...TIA

Again...in a logical manor, if a person is desensitized to horrific events. When a situation arises that needs, suggests or mandates getting one's hands bloody, that person would likely and logically be way more inclined than a squeamish, not ever exposed person. Does that make sense? No one is talking about "risk" concerning like boxers, paramedics, etc. We are talking probability on an event that has already occurred and their back against a wall.

So actors in thrillers, horrors and those portraying murderers in movies should be deemed extremely dangerous in your opinion ?? I think that by following the logic in your post (s) it would be safe to say that police officers, paramedics, undertakers, doctors, nurses, actors and army and military personnel are the ones with potentially murderous tendencies. IMO NOt that I follow that logic...but thats what it appears to say to me... MOO

That's ridiculous and incorrect to say that a sworn affidavit(charges) cannot be used in court. I personally KNOW for a FACT if the affidavit is wrong and or the charges are wrong, that the charged person walks. For example: The arresting officer allowed the detective to do the paperwork and the paperwork used the code for "burglary of a dwelling house" in the affidavit. The guy was caught "red handed" in a BUSINESS, so right smack dab in the middle of court, with me on the stand about to testify, they let the guy walk, and proceeded to start the next case.

IMO you miss the point...sworn affidavits stand until such time as they are successfully rebutted. Now, its not always possible to rebut an affidavit...especially if said affidavit is a lie...how do you know that you can disprove a lie .... what if you have no alibi for example? JMO

I do however agree that the politics of policing in Canada stink, and I do agree an innocent man was charged, tried, and punished via litigation and defense fees in the Ian Thompson case of self defense of his home. No definite, certain exculpatory evidence was available.

Many people have found themselves in this situation... we can't cherry pick which wrongfully convicted person we use as the poster person... there are many...a google search will bring up many lists... and thats not including the lesser initial charges of some.


I also have told you if DM & MS are the wrong folks, the evidence will show that and they will be set free. You do understand the concept of exculpatory evidence right? The Crown cannot suppress it nor refuse to give it. If the DNA comes back in a few days(8-9 weeks? from May 14thish?)it could turn them back into choir boys.:floorlaugh:

I understand more than you may think... and if someone has been charged, anything the police throw at them will be deemed truth until such time as they can prove otherwise...what I am saying is that without being there and seeing what happened the defense can only try to poke holes in the case by disproving or identifying the so called evidence as pure speculation or a blatant lie.... etc etc....

DNA is the least of this matter IMO.... I am quite sure DM's DNA will be at his farm !!! JMO

purple