The Incinerator

[Blomquist]

1) the "steps" would certainly be looked at by LE especially if they were involved in the death as I previously stated. For example the steps would be considered if, a broken neck, blunt force trauma, etc. was found, but not likely looked at closely if the mail man shot her, detonated her, and or ran her over with his vehicle.

2) On the loss of car keys, most people start looking where they had them last/seen them last. As one looks, evidence is found, ideas are formed, maybe a spouse's testimony helps one remember/leads one to find more evidence or the keys.

The police started looking where TB was seen last and apparently they found more and more evidence, a spouse's testimony, formed ideas based on evidence found, that lead them to the arrest of DM/MS.

Amazing how similar, logical, reasonable, and efficient those two events are.
The end result is highly conducive to finding one's keys, not someone else's keys......the correct keys.

IMO this must be why so many charges get dropped and cases discharged. dismissed or acquitted.

I do not see how the police have found more and more evidence.... you may be privy to more info than most...but maybe not or else why be sleuthin' would be a question I may ask....

The 'evidence' so far appears to be a body at a farm owned by DM and the truck found at his mothers driveway.

The spouses testimony can only relay that she saw two people come to her house and leave when her husband left. She did not see what happened after that or who was involved.....

There is a burner phone apparently but so far no one knows who bought it or owns it as it is a 'burner' (anonymous) phone. They say the burner phone led them to DM.... but we have no idea how...whether DM called from it, whether someone claiming to be DM called from it or whether TB texts it and mentions DM by name.... we have no clue....either way...still no proof who was using phone, who called from phone or whose phone it was/is.... IMO

I see nothing highly conducive or conclusive in any of this.... just a few what appear to be carefully laid pointers.....which when added to the unknown facts makes for a very difficult case to solve IMO

 

[Juballee]

I'm not clear on how/why if the photographer was trespassing enters into this discussion. LE obtained the pic legally from the photographer and it constitutes legally obtained evidence; how the photographer acquired it doesn't factor into the criminal investigation. IF the person was trespassing, that would be a matter between DM and the neighbour in a civil action.

FWIW, DM's property appears approx. 200' wide. Anyone with a telephoto lens, wouldn't even have to set foot on the property to get a shot at that distance.

It would matter if evidence was obtained by civilians who may have contaminated the crime scene before it was secured by police. If those civilians trampled the crime scene before the police secured the scene, what else might they have destroyed, removed or placed there, and what other people could have had access to the crime scene to create the same evidentiary nightmare?

It was stated that their phone was confiscated, not a camera. I do not think that they have invented phones with long range telephoto capabilities yet, and if they have, I do not think that they are that common yet.

If I were going to be doing something I wanted to hide, I would be doing it closer to the middle of those 200 feet as opposed to at the edge, where passing neighbours can see you. Unless again, the neighbours were trespassing and disturbing a crime scene. Which not only lessens the credibility of their evidence, in my opinion, but the credibility of all the evidence obtained at the site after it was contaminated. That is why we have police to investigate and collect evidence using police procedures, instead of encouraging vigilante evidence gathering by concerned/nosy neighbours.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The location of the incinerator is the lower of the two circles on this map of DM's farm. It was located where the previous owner had a picnic spot. As you can see, the neighbours on the west probably would not be able to see through the bush to where the incinerator was parked. On the east is conservation lands (i.e., total privacy)

 

[Snoofo]

The location of the incinerator is the lower of the two circles on this map of DM's farm. It was located where the previous owner had a picnic spot. As you can see, the neighbours on the west probably would not be able to see through the bush to where the incinerator was parked. On the east is conservation lands (i.e., total privacy)

Thanks Snoop. How do you know this was the former owner's picnic spot?

 

[Sillybilly]

The location of the incinerator is the lower of the two circles on this map of DM's farm. It was located where the previous owner had a picnic spot. As you can see, the neighbours on the west probably would not be able to see through the bush to where the incinerator was parked. On the east is conservation lands (i.e., total privacy)

I think this pic gives a pretty good feel for where the crime scene investigation is in relation to the neighbouring property. There appears to be an actual footpath leading up to where the tarped item (incinerator?) is. We don't know if that path is on DM's property or the adjacent property:

from:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...-bosma-at-2548-roseville-news-photo/168745439

 

[SnooperDuper]

Thanks Snoop. How do you know this was the former owner's picnic spot?

It is mentioned in this NP article: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/17/dellen-millard-suspect-in-tim-bosmas-death-was-always-a-little-different-classmate-says/

Police have been scouring the farm since the weekend, setting up a large, enclosed tent over an area where the fields end and trees begin. It is believed this is where the charred remains of Mr. Bosma were found.

Police say his body was “burned beyond recognition” and confirm a large incinerator was found on the property.

“It seems a desecration of the land,” said Mrs. Snider. “We had a lot of good times there. Where the police tent is set up was our picnic area.”

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think this pic gives a pretty good feel for where the crime scene investigation is in relation to the neighbouring property. There appears to be an actual footpath leading up to where the tarped item (incinerator?) is. We don't know if that path is on DM's property or the adjacent property:

That is a great pic showing the shed on the property to the west...the house is northwest from this point

 

[Snoofo]

Ok thanks Snoop. The incinerator was not confirmed as being located under the tarp, at least not to my knowledge, but I suppose we shall assume it is under there (although its not always safe to assume).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[SnooperDuper]

Ok thanks Snoop. The incinerator was not confirmed as being located under the tarp, at least not to my knowledge, but I suppose we shall assume it is under there (although its not always safe to assume).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

You're right, here is a tidbit on that:

Trevor Dunn‏@trevorjdunn7h
Neighbour says forensic investigation tent is now set up over burnt soil he observed Friday - where incinerator was originally located

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn

 

[Snoofo]

You're right, here is a tidbit on that:

Trevor Dunn‏@trevorjdunn7h
Neighbour says forensic investigation tent is now set up over burnt soil he observed Friday - where incinerator was originally located

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn

Snoopendous!

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Juballee]

You're right, here is a tidbit on that:

Trevor Dunn‏@trevorjdunn7h
Neighbour says forensic investigation tent is now set up over burnt soil he observed Friday - where incinerator was originally located

https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn

So it seems like the neighbours must have trespassed to photograph the incinerator. Although it still seems too visible a spot if I were going to destroy evidence undetected, I would have probably tried to pick a more inconspicuous spot away from (obviously) prying eyes.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Neighbors being snoopy does not invalidate the significance of the incinerator's presence.

 

[robynhood]

I am just curious fellow websleuthers...may be you can clarify your thoughts :

1. TB Body was identified without a reasonable doubt ..POLICE told Sharlene ..Tim is dead...they had reasons to make this conclusion....correct?

2, Police reported TB body was Burned ...

3. Sharlene Bosma stated on T.V ...all I was left with was a darn" BOX"

4. There is an incinerator On DM property...and it is carted away ....

5. Police said there were burn marks on the field too....


So can you please help me to understand why all the questioning...not sure I understand...and I do respect others having doubts....it seems odd for sure that he would place TB RAM on his mom's driveway...real odd must admit....It shall be interesting when the VIDEO tapes APPEAR in court from the neighbour's home where TB truck was hidden....

It shall be also interesting when they show the test drive from the shops that caught TB truck/.......

this all remains to be seen ...IMO in court...and I do feel...IMO ...it shall be an OMG moment....time shall tell..maybe I am wrong....we will all NOT KNOW without a reasonable doubt...until the crown presents their case....I must admit this is all VERY VERY strange....robynhood....

 

[Alethea Dice]

This map from CBC has the locations on the farm marked. The tents look much farther back from the road than the picture sillybilly posted. Is the distance in the picture deceiving and really farther than it looks, or is this map wrong?

http://www.cbc.ca/kitchener-waterloo/features/millard-farm/

 

[Alethea Dice]

What bothers me about the incinerator is, if it was used and for whatever reason they didn't finish the job with it, why would they then remove the burned body from it? Why not just leave the body in it until they could finish? From the early reports:

But police are not certain if it was used to burn the Ancaster man's body, says Det. Sgt. Matt Kavanagh.

Kavanagh says forensic officers are trying to determine if the incinerator found on the property belonging to Dellen Millard in North Dumfries was used in connection with Bosma's murder or the disposal of his body.

http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/3233070-bosma-case-incinerator-found-on-millard-s-farm/

 

[redheadedgal]

Why not just leave the body in it until they could finish?

or, why not just leave the remains inside the incinerator to hide them?


this whole case makes little sense...

 

[Snoofo]

What bothers me about the incinerator is, if it was used and for whatever reason they didn't finish the job with it, why would they then remove the burned body from it? Why not just leave the body in it until they could finish? From the early reports:



http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/3233070-bosma-case-incinerator-found-on-millard-s-farm/

Right - and if you are DM and you did this, why go through all that trouble of burning in order to remove dna but still dispose of remains on your own property?

We dont know for certain yet that remains were found on DM's property, but we do know LE warrants were for farm, hangar and Maple Gate. TB's remains were found just after these searches with enough time for confirmation of maybe dental records or something like that.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Juballee]

Neighbors being snoopy does not invalidate the significance of the incinerator's presence.

I guess that would depend on your perspective. To me, knowing that nosy neighbours were wandering around on a crime scene prior to it being secured by police means that the neighbours could have disturbed, tainted, planted or obsconded with evidence. I would want to know if the neighbours somehow knew instinctively exactly where the incinerator was, or if they traipsed all over the crime scene looking for creepy souvenir photographs they could sell to the media?

It also means to me that they could be on the property so often that it seems to be a fairly public place that is frequently traversed by neighbours, making it a terrible place to leave evidence if you didn't want to get caught. Wouldn't it be a great way to eliminate suspicion from any damning DNA evidence you might have left at a crime scene, to be found wandering around on it, claiming it was just to take some photos because you live nearby?

 

[SnooperDuper]

This map from CBC has the locations on the farm marked. The tents look much farther back from the road than the picture sillybilly posted. Is the distance in the picture deceiving and really farther than it looks, or is this map wrong?

http://www.cbc.ca/kitchener-waterloo/features/millard-farm/

I think there is a bit of an optical illusion going on. The red shed is not right on top of the treeline as it seems in the pic sillybilly posted: there is some open meadow/field between it and the trees. The area where the tent was set up was referred to as a swampy area, meaning that it would be lower elevation than the red shed? The overhead map does not show the elevation. So, perhaps the pic is taken from an area of low elevation with the rise hidden by the trees?

 

[bessie]

I guess that would depend on your perspective. To me, knowing that nosy neighbours were wandering around on a crime scene prior to it being secured by police means that the neighbours could have disturbed, tainted, planted or obsconded with evidence. I would want to know if the neighbours somehow knew instinctively exactly where the incinerator was, or if they traipsed all over the crime scene looking for creepy souvenir photographs they could sell to the media?

It also means to me that they could be on the property so often that it seems to be a fairly public place that is frequently traversed by neighbours, making it a terrible place to leave evidence if you didn't want to get caught. Wouldn't it be a great way to eliminate suspicion from any damning DNA evidence you might have left at a crime scene, to be found wandering around on it, claiming it was just to take some photos because you live nearby?

Maybe, maybe not. The point remains: the incinerator was present.