The Incinerator

[swedie]

Thanks, Swedie. I was looking at the more complete video of the interview and thought that was your link. (Too many windows open, I guess.)

I'm not sure why the CBC news announcer in your link states that they "locked eyes" because that clearly is not what was said in the interview. Here is the approximately 27 minute interview.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Hamilton/ID/2399140975/

At 1 minute into the interview, the reporter states "it seemed, you know, when he was scanning the courtroom, that he saw you for a moment as you were looking at him".

The interviewer's own tweet from the courtroom:

Nil Köksal‏@nilkoksalcbc1 Aug
Those 2 min. visibly difficult for Sharlene #Bosma.Fighting tears before seeing Millard,she began to shake violently when he entered

The CBC article:

"It's hard for Sharlene to sit in the courtroom. She shakes when asked about seeing Millard in the prisoner's box, and being in his line of vision as he scanned the room."

And again, from the Spec:

"Then, as he has done before, he takes a long, slow look around the courtroom.

He has no idea who Sharlene is.

His eyes do not land on her. Not even for a second. There is no glimmer of recognition."


The only reason I can see for the announcer to exaggerate what actually occurred by saying they "locked eyes", is to sensationalize the story and create a bigger emotional impact.

This is why, when possible, I prefer to see the video of what actually was said, rather than trusting completely in a reporter's slant in their quest to sell the story and get views.

JMO

Thank you for that full video interview AD. It speaks for itself. The fact DM and SB looked at each other, whether it was a brief moment or a long moment, they made eye contact period. When it is written they locked eyes, to me that means they both looked at each other at the same time, their eyes meet. I didn't take it as they were staring each other down, and if that is what the writer was trying to get across he/she I believe would have wrote it that way IMHO.

The fact there is a PB on this case, SB has to remain tight lipped as to what she can say to the interviewer or anyone else in the MSM. By listening carefully and observing, I can tell she is very confident in what she is saying and what she does know/recall. The deep feelings one develops emotionally and physically upon seeing a perpetrator again can only happened to someone who has been traumatized. Their recollection/sight of a perp's face brings horrible symptoms on for the victim, or in this case SB. E.i., the interviewer was in the courtroom and witnessed SB physically shaking and other reporters say she wept.

What is very telling is the way she talks about and emphasizes "THEY"(13:25) She speaks with certainty, but also with hurt and anger when speaking of them which to me means there is no mistaken who them or they are on her part. She knows they came for the truck, doesn't know what went on inside the heads of the accused, what happened inside the truck. What I take away from this interview, SB is a very confident, emotionally strong, intelligent and a courageous woman who will fight until the bitter end to seek justice for her husband, who had no hidden agenda in this case, she wants the public to remember him not only because of this case, but who Tim truly was, a loving husband, father, son, brother, uncle and friend. :moo:

 

[swedie]

I noticed this thread is getting off track. Any response to my last post should probably by taken to another thread such as general discussion.

Regarding the thread I started concerning mental health, FYI I notified mods to let them know I had made it and left it up to them as to whether they felt it was appropriate in which they could delete it or leave it at this time. I see they have locked it for now and will reopen if they feel there is enough interest or if it become relevant in this case.

Typically as I stated in my post above: It is not common practice here in Canada in our judicial system to release a criminals mental disorder unless they are blaming or considering to blame the crime on a mental disorder. The only time that information would be released/used is in their defense. HTH. Thank you mods.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Thank you for that full video interview AD. It speaks for itself. The fact DM and SB looked at each other, whether it was a brief moment or a long moment, they made eye contact period. When it is written they locked eyes, to me that means they both looked at each other at the same time, their eyes meet. I didn't take it as they were staring each other down, and if that is what the writer was trying to get across he/she I believe would have wrote it that way IMHO.

Except that they didn't make eye contact. She was simply in his line of vision as he scanned the courtroom. She was sitting a few feet away from him and, of course his eyes would pass her as he looked around the courtroom. If the interviewer meant that they made eye contact or locked eyes, I'm sure she would have said so, rather than just that it seemed he might have seen her when he was scanning the courtroom. It is the discussion about the interview in the news brief in your link that, for whatever reason, chose to exaggerate/dramatize the interview. Not the interview itself, or the writer of the article.

JMO

Perhaps if the mods feel this would be better suited to another thread, they could be so kind as to move the whole conversation, so that the context of the discussion isn't lost. I will leave that up to their decision.

 

[Blomquist]

BBM It's called hypnosis but IMO not a very good explanation. I believe Dr. Sanrk helped with the theory. Uh huh, uh huh. :shush::lol:

:

No it is not hypnosis..... hypnosis is not a mental illness JMO MOO

 

[kaley]

Incomplete burning doesn't make sense. If you have an incinerator designed to make remains nothing more than ash and small bone fragments, why would you not follow through and make the remains completely unidentifiable, and again, why wouldn't you dispose of them elsewhere, like scattering the ashes of a loved one? Who goes through all that trouble and then doesn't bother to follow through, especially when it comes to something so important, that doesn't make sense to me still.

Maybe the incinerator stopped working properly and he was forced to stop burning the remains. If the incinerator was made for burning small animals such as chickens (I read this somewhere I can't remember where) then maybe burning a human body caused it to shut down. IMOO

 

[Sillybilly]

Maybe the incinerator stopped working properly and he was forced to stop burning the remains. If the incinerator was made for burning small animals such as chickens (I read this somewhere I can't remember where) then maybe burning a human body caused it to shut down. IMOO

I'm thinking along those lines too kaley. Not necessarily that the incinerator shut down as such, but ... considering the size of small animal bone compared to those of a human, I would think the burn process would take much longer for full human remains. Could be the incinerator just ran out of propane with the required length or frequency of cycles required to totally disintegrate a complete human body.

 

[Juballee]

I'm thinking along those lines too kaley. Not necessarily that the incinerator shut down as such, but ... considering the size of small animal bone compared to those of a human, I would think the burn process would take much longer for full human remains. Could be the incinerator just ran out of propane with the required length or frequency of cycles required to totally disintegrate a complete human body.

Does anyone here still have the specifications of the incinerator, with tank size and running times?

Would it be difficult to get more propane if someone ran out? I would think that with so many days to do it, that a trip for a refill couldn't have been out of the question.

 

[Sillybilly]

Does anyone here still have the specifications of the incinerator, with tank size and running times?

Would it be difficult to get more propane if someone ran out? I would think that with so many days to do it, that a trip for a refill couldn't have been out of the question.

I don't have time to rummage, but iirc, it was the "Eliminator SN250" and specs should be somewhere in the Incinerator thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213364"]The Incinerator - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Alethea Dice]

Does anyone here still have the specifications of the incinerator, with tank size and running times?

Would it be difficult to get more propane if someone ran out? I would think that with so many days to do it, that a trip for a refill couldn't have been out of the question.

Here are the specs for the incinerator.

http://supernovamfg.com/250.html

http://supernovamfg.com/prod_gen.html

It burns 100 pounds per hour, 1200-1600 F degrees. It uses about 45 minutes of fuel during an 8 hour burn.

As for the size of the propane tank, I have no idea, or how long a tank that size would last.

JMO

 

[skatergirl]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9749118&postcount=760"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #2[/ame]

Does anyone here still have the specifications of the incinerator, with tank size and running times?

Would it be difficult to get more propane if someone ran out? I would think that with so many days to do it, that a trip for a refill couldn't have been out of the question.

On the supernova mfg. website, there are no specifications for the size of propane tank, but here is some info about fuel usage
SuperNova Incinerators are by far the most efficient in their respective applications. Once the units are fired with waste materials, swine, cattle, horses, poultry or the remains left from processing, fuel consumption becomes very minimal. The incinerators are using about 45 minutes of fuel during an 8-hour burn.

Our patented SuperNova Incinerators contain and direct the flow of the heat so that the waste materials inside the incinerator maintain the required temperatures by actually cooking itself. This allows the customer to save money due to less fuel consumption.

http://www.supernovamfg.com/prod_gen.html

I did not see any information on this site with regards to actual size of the tank, or how long it would run.
For comparison-
http://elitefuel.amqsoftware.com/images/propane-tank-chart.gif

Based on the chart, I am going to estimate the tank on the trailer is a 120 gallon unit, or 250lbs. A 250 lb tank has a BTU rating of 5,401,272. To determine the burn time the BTU of the tank is divided by the BTU of the unit, which is 250,000. At 100% efficiency the unit would deplete the propane supply in 21.6 hours. However, and I don't know how to calculate this part, the efficiency is decreased as the fuel source is used up, thus decreasing the total burn time available.

Here also is a photo of the incinerator
http://images.scribblelive.com/2013/5/14/a1efdc99-d2dd-4eac-8b96-a241a2e93cc8_500.jpg

IMO, this is a permanently mounted propane tank, so in order to refill the tank, the entire unit would have to be taken to a propane filling station. HTH

 

[lanman]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #2


On the supernova mfg. website, there are no specifications for the size of propane tank, but here is some info about fuel usage
SuperNova Incinerators are by far the most efficient in their respective applications. Once the units are fired with waste materials, swine, cattle, horses, poultry or the remains left from processing, fuel consumption becomes very minimal. The incinerators are using about 45 minutes of fuel during an 8-hour burn.

Our patented SuperNova Incinerators contain and direct the flow of the heat so that the waste materials inside the incinerator maintain the required temperatures by actually cooking itself. This allows the customer to save money due to less fuel consumption.

http://www.supernovamfg.com/prod_gen.html

I did not see any information on this site with regards to actual size of the tank, or how long it would run.
For comparison-
http://elitefuel.amqsoftware.com/images/propane-tank-chart.gif

Based on the chart, I am going to estimate the tank on the trailer is a 120 gallon unit, or 250lbs. A 250 lb tank has a BTU rating of 5,401,272. To determine the burn time the BTU of the tank is divided by the BTU of the unit, which is 250,000. At 100% efficiency the unit would deplete the propane supply in 21.6 hours. However, and I don't know how to calculate this part, the efficiency is decreased as the fuel source is used up, thus decreasing the total burn time available.

Here also is a photo of the incinerator
http://images.scribblelive.com/2013/5/14/a1efdc99-d2dd-4eac-8b96-a241a2e93cc8_500.jpg

IMO, this is a permanently mounted propane tank, so in order to refill the tank, the entire unit would have to be taken to a propane filling station. HTH

There just happens to be a very large propane refilling station 2 km south of the farm in Ayr...very large meaning a million liters of onsite supply. 24 hr delivery as well as customer pickup.

 

[skatergirl]

There just happens to be a very large propane refilling station 2 km south of the farm in Ayr...very large meaning a million liters of onsite supply. 24 hr delivery as well as customer pickup.

Interesting, but if they had not thought to fill the propane before beginning to use the incinerator, if it was used, it would be very brazen of them to either take the incinerator to the filling station, or have the tank refilled on-site, if there was in fact a partially burned body in the unit. Not to mention, if either option were taken advantage of, the actions would be traceable, adding to the evidence. MOO

 

[lanman]

Interesting, but if they had not thought to fill the propane before beginning to use the incinerator, if it was used, it would be very brazen of them to either take the incinerator to the filling station, or have the tank refilled on-site, if there was in fact a partially burned body in the unit. Not to mention, if either option were taken advantage of, the actions would be traceable, adding to the evidence. MOO

Well don't rule it out....there was a woman in Edmonton who called in the incinerator repair man when her husband was still inside it!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2010/11/01/edmonton-semenovich-trial-day-one.html

 

[skatergirl]

Well don't rule it out....there was a woman in Edmonton who called in the incinerator repair man when her husband was still inside it!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2010/11/01/edmonton-semenovich-trial-day-one.html

Not ruling anything out with this case, believe me:scared:

 

[Sillybilly]

I would imagine the propane tank was empty enroute from Manitoba > Ontario, and then we don't even know if the tank was ever completely or partially filled after it arrived and/or at what point any such filling would have taken place.

 

[Juballee]

Well don't rule it out....there was a woman in Edmonton who called in the incinerator repair man when her husband was still inside it!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2010/11/01/edmonton-semenovich-trial-day-one.html

Wow! Now I wonder how big her incinerator was, and how much fuel it burned?

Wouldn't it be possible to bypass the tank if it were empty and instead hook up barbecue tanks if you ran out of propane and didn't want to haul the trailer anywhere or have a delivery made? And don't some old farms often have on site fuel storage and pumping stations for farm vehicles and machinery?

 

[ArianeEmory]

I've always been of the opinion that if they used the incinerator (and I lean towards believing they did, since it was seized, even though other large pieces of equipment such as the wood chipper were not), that it was used improperly. Hence the early (non-LE) reports of scorch marks/burn areas on the ground. The incinerator is meant to be operated on a concrete pad. In turn, I wouldn't be surprised it they didn't use it properly in other ways, such as miscalculating fuel or burn times.

SB said she was handed TB's remains in a box. I don't think we know if TB was fully cremated by mortuary personnel after the fact, though.

 

[lanman]

Wow! Now I wonder how big her incinerator was, and how much fuel it burned?

Wouldn't it be possible to bypass the tank if it were empty and instead hook up barbecue tanks if you ran out of propane and didn't want to haul the trailer anywhere or have a delivery made? And don't some old farms often have on site fuel storage and pumping stations for farm vehicles and machinery?

There's a picture of the incinerator here (picture 7 of the slideshow)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2010/11/04/15964701.html

I'm guessing the tank connection is the same as a BBQ tank, so yes, I also think you could use several smaller tanks.

As for refilling from another tank on the farm, I don't think so. Filling a gas cylinder is a little more involved than pumping liquids like gasoline or diesel fuel.

 

[lanman]

I've always been of the opinion that if they used the incinerator (and I lean towards believing they did, since it was seized, even though other large pieces of equipment such as the wood chipper were not), that it was used improperly. Hence the early (non-LE) reports of scorch marks/burn areas on the ground. The incinerator is meant to be operated on a concrete pad. In turn, I wouldn't be surprised it they didn't use it properly in other ways, such as miscalculating fuel or burn times.

SB said she was handed TB's remains in a box. I don't think we know if TB was fully cremated by mortuary personnel after the fact, though.

I think they used it as well for the same reasons. I don't agree about it needing a concrete pad though. I posted an article several weeks back that showed the inventor using the unit on the back of a trailer that looked to have a wooden bed. He was demonstrating how the outside was cool to the touch even when it was operating.

I think the burn marks were more likely from it being emptied (hot ashes)

 

[Archangel7]

I've always been of the opinion that if they used the incinerator (and I lean towards believing they did, since it was seized, even though other large pieces of equipment such as the wood chipper were not), that it was used improperly. Hence the early (non-LE) reports of scorch marks/burn areas on the ground. The incinerator is meant to be operated on a concrete pad. In turn, I wouldn't be surprised it they didn't use it properly in other ways, such as miscalculating fuel or burn times.

SB said she was handed TB's remains in a box. I don't think we know if TB was fully cremated by mortuary personnel after the fact, though.

In my experience the Coroner releases the body/remains directly to the next of kin/family/etc. "on paper or legally so to speak." It is normal for that release to happen, yet the body/remains will physically go directly from Coroner to Funeral Home or Crematory.

Cremation or Burial Arrangement are not normally the responsibility of the Coroner, except somewhat on Pauper and UIDs.

SB didn't elaborate either way and a good DA or Crown Counsel would compassionately coach her and make sure of that.