The Incinerator

[ArianeEmory]

I think this is underestimating jurors' intelligence and ability to follow instructions, and WAY overestimating the amount of time the potential jury pool spends on Websleuths.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think this is underestimating jurors' intelligence and ability to follow instructions, and WAY overestimating the amount of time the potential jury pool spends on Websleuths.

What does this have to do with spending time on Websleuths? All the information is out there in the media. A person doesn't have to have even heard of Websleuths to hear it and see it and read it and already have their own thoughts and ideas.

A jury isn't selected on their level of intelligence, or their ability to discard any previous opinions. A jury is composed of a cross-section of the general public, all walks of life, basically picked off the street. Hence the name a "jury of one's peers". They are asked if they know the accused or anyone connected, if they will swear to be impartial, and are asked to look into the face of the accused. They are then either accepted or declined by either side, defense or prosecution.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

What does this have to do with spending time on Websleuths? All the information is out there in the media. A person doesn't have to have even heard of Websleuths to hear it and see it and read it and already have their own thoughts and ideas.

A jury isn't selected on their level of intelligence, or their ability to discard any previous opinions. A jury is composed of a cross-section of the general public, all walks of life, basically picked off the street. Hence the name a "jury of one's peers". They are asked if they know the accused or anyone connected, if they will swear to be impartial, and are asked to look into the face of the accused. They are then either accepted or declined by either side, defense or prosecution.

JMO

I have to agree. Nobody I know knows I post on these boards and I dont know if they've heard of them. But I've never brought up the case to someone who didnt know about it and even those who have paid attention to very little seem to have heard this rich guy is charged, he probably killed this missing woman and his dad too ... "and why does he own an incinerator?"

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sillybilly]

I have to agree. Nobody I know knows I post on these boards and I dont know if they've heard of them. But I've never brought up the case to someone who didnt know about it and even those who have paid attention to very little seem to have heard this rich guy is charged, he probably killed this missing woman and his dad too ... "and why does he own an incinerator?"

Sent using Tapatalk 2

<bbm>

Jurors will know that Tim was burned in some manner. If the incinerator was not used and therefore does not constitute evidence at trial, jurors will recognize that, even if they heard about such an item prior to trial, it doesn't factor in or the prosecution would have presented it as evidence. If there are one or two dumb bunnies that can't see that, i'm sure the other reasonable members of the jury will be able to enlighten them.

However it happened, whether in a barrel, a woodstove, a firepit ... doesn't change the fact that his burned body was found on DM's farm. If the incinerator was not involved, presumeably the Crown will be able to present evidence or an explanation as to where and how such burning transpired.

If it is entered as evidence, the defence will be able to provide all the alternate explanations that we have heard here.

 

[robynhood]

..interesting Snoof that no one knows about Tb case...I wonder if you live in S ont...because everyone I know ....is well versed on that man in Lancaster who died and all he did was try and sell his truck on Kijji....I first saw this news flashed all over my fb page as soon as TB went missing. I live far away from Lancaster but everyone in Toronto and York region know about it .PLus the ppl where I live now all know about TB and I live in a large city but we are surrounded by FARMS!..JIMO...It was plastered all over every social media and every paper. My friends out in Calgary even know ....robynhood...one of the MOST WIDELY Published murder in S.ONT...robynhood

 

[Blomquist]

I think this is underestimating jurors' intelligence and ability to follow instructions, and WAY overestimating the amount of time the potential jury pool spends on Websleuths.

Well we don't actually know the IQ of potential jurors...so it's safe to say that many may be swayed by media coverage, rumours and circumstantial information. Just talking to people about anything in the media finds me hearing that many think anything in the media is true. It's quite mind blowing to me how some people I meet have no independent viewpoint, and base most knowledge on news articles and the like. I am not saying this is anyones fault... in fact I think the media has a lot to answer for. Also as AD says, the neighbours spoke out of turn and should not have been reporting on things that they were told not to. This is the problem.... people become judgmental and make determinations based on there own belief systems...without thinking that their belief system is not part of the case...and is of no actual relevance in the scheme of things.... only the facts and things that support those facts are relevant....or should be JMO as always and no malicious intent on any level is being implied....JMO

 

[Snoofo]

..interesting Snoof that no one knows about Tb case...I wonder if you live in S ont...because everyone I know ....is well versed on that man in Lancaster who died and all he did was try and sell his truck on Kijji....I first saw this news flashed all over my fb page as soon as TB went missing. I live far away from Lancaster but everyone in Toronto and York region know about it .PLus the ppl where I live now all know about TB and I live in a large city but we are surrounded by FARMS!..JIMO...It was plastered all over every social media and every paper. My friends out in Calgary even know ....robynhood...one of the MOST WIDELY Published murder in S.ONT...robynhood

Sorry RH you misread or maybe I wasnt clear. I dont know anyone who HASN'T heard of TB's case including the LB and WM side-stories and the incinerator. (I did say people I know don't seem to know about WS or the fact that I've been posting here along with you all wild'n'crazy snoofs).

I live in Toronto. Even if the case isnt on everyone's mind anymore, everyone remembers when I mention kijiji test drive and Ancaster guy.

(FYI this was a hot story here for a week or so but at the time Rob Ford started dominating headlines with the crack video scandal).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Alethea Dice]

<bbm>

Jurors will know that Tim was burned in some manner. If the incinerator was not used and therefore does not constitute evidence at trial, jurors will recognize that, even if they heard about such an item prior to trial, it doesn't factor in or the prosecution would have presented it as evidence. If there are one or two dumb bunnies that can't see that, i'm sure the other reasonable members of the jury will be able to enlighten them.

However it happened, whether in a barrel, a woodstove, a firepit ... doesn't change the fact that his burned body was found on DM's farm. If the incinerator was not involved, presumeably the Crown will be able to present evidence or an explanation as to where and how such burning transpired.

If it is entered as evidence, the defence will be able to provide all the alternate explanations that we have heard here.

Will the jurors recognize that? Or will they wonder if forensics just couldn't prove it was used? If it wasn't used, it simply won't be presented. There will be no explanation of why it wasn't presented. We can only hope that the Crown will be able to show how and where the burning did take place, as that may be the only thing that will remove the incinerator from the jurors' minds. Sure it doesn't change the fact it was burned or where it was found. But if it didn't happen at the same place as the body was found, then where it happened and how it happened could change some assumptions.

JMO

 

[Blomquist]

Will the jurors recognize that? Or will they wonder if forensics just couldn't prove it was used? If it wasn't used, it simply won't be presented. There will be no explanation of why it wasn't presented. We can only hope that the Crown will be able to show how and where the burning did take place, as that may be the only thing that will remove the incinerator from the jurors' minds. Sure it doesn't change the fact it was burned or where it was found. But if it didn't happen at the same place as the body was found, then where it happened and how it happened could change some assumptions.

JMO

Absolutely...maybe he was pulled burning from the truck and only the back seats were damaged.

Maybe the burning took place in the barn

Maybe it was gasoline and matches

Maybe there is a large fire pit with high bricked sides


Who knows... but plenty of possibilities regarding incinerator as with who was present or intercepted a test drive. jmo

 

[ArianeEmory]

Will the jurors recognize that? Or will they wonder if forensics just couldn't prove it was used? If it wasn't used, it simply won't be presented. There will be no explanation of why it wasn't presented. We can only hope that the Crown will be able to show how and where the burning did take place, as that may be the only thing that will remove the incinerator from the jurors' minds. Sure it doesn't change the fact it was burned or where it was found. But if it didn't happen at the same place as the body was found, then where it happened and how it happened could change some assumptions.

JMO

You think someone burned Tim's body somewhere else and then moved the burned, smoking remains to the farm?

 

[Blomquist]

You think someone burned Tim's body somewhere else and then moved the burned, smoking remains to the farm?

Well we dont know at this point do we....? Who says they were still smoking upon discovery? Could have been burned and subsequently doused.... thats the point, we do not know yet what has actually happened.

 

[Sillybilly]

Will the jurors recognize that? Or will they wonder if forensics just couldn't prove it was used? If it wasn't used, it simply won't be presented. There will be no explanation of why it wasn't presented. We can only hope that the Crown will be able to show how and where the burning did take place, as that may be the only thing that will remove the incinerator from the jurors' minds. Sure it doesn't change the fact it was burned or where it was found. But if it didn't happen at the same place as the body was found, then where it happened and how it happened could change some assumptions.

JMO

I would think if the defence suspects jurors may have preconceived ideas wrt the incinerator, they can address that by assuring the jurors that the incinerator was never brought into evidence because forensic testing indicated it was not used in the burning of human remains.

 

[Juballee]

<rsbm>

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the incinerator is the only item that makes people assume guilt and I'm not sure where you got that impression. However, it adds to the perception of guilt, and the horror of it is forever embedded in people's minds, even if the testing reveals that it was not involved in the crime. If forensic testing finds nothing in the incinerator, it will not be presented as evidence in court, but because it has been revealed in the media, that image is still in the jury's thoughts, whether unconsciously or not. It can't be erased. If it's found to have nothing to do with the crime, it should not even have been disclosed, as that subconsious knowledge remains and characteristically affects a person's perception. This is probably why the police asked the neighbours not to speak to the media about it. And the neighbours should have honoured that request.



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

Another example is the knowlege in potential juror's minds of WM's suicide and LB's disappearance. So far, neither has been determined to be a murder and DM has not been charged in either case, as far as we know. In spite of that, the questions and thoughts are still there and can sway a juror's perception, where they are automatically assuming guilt and must be convinced of any chance of innocence. It is supposed to be the other way around in a court of law - innocence is to be assumed and guilt must be proven. I agree with DP that this is persecution by media and sways the public to presume guilt.

The worry is that, if any or all of these types of things contribute to a finding of guilt, when the outcome may have been different without that knowledge, DM would have grounds for a successful appeal. I'm not saying that LE don't have enough evidence without those things, maybe they do. The only point I'm trying to make is that these types of things, that should not even enter into the decision, can (and probably will) impact the potential jury's ability to presume innocence, as their perception of the crime is already set. By law, an accused has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and if that can't happen, his Charter rights have been violated.

JMO

I could not agree with you more!!!

And I have noticed that everyone I have spoken to about the case not on WS also has decided DM must be guilty because of what they have heard in the media. I haven't heard of anyone who hasn't heard of the incinerator or the disappearance of LB, but I hear from a lot of people that say they didn't even know that a second suspect was arrested.

 

[Blomquist]

I would think if the defence suspects jurors may have preconceived ideas wrt the incinerator, they can address that by assuring the jurors that the incinerator was never brought into evidence because forensic testing indicated it was not used in the burning of human remains.

Yes but the point being made is that people have already heard of the incinerator and it has cast suspicion that will be hard to erase...regardless of of prosecution saying it was not used for the body.... It has been made to look like the incinerator was bought for criminal means regardless of whether used in this case or not. This has therefore cast suspicion on DM in relation to 'unknown' criminality which imo has blackened him before the trial gets off the ground.... We can try to say it hasn't till we are blue in the face....fact remains.... it has IMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

You think someone burned Tim's body somewhere else and then moved the burned, smoking remains to the farm?

I don't know where the burning took place, but I wouldn't find it any less believable than that they cut him up, put him in the incinerator, partially burned him, and then removed his remains from the incinerator and left him on the ground in the same vicinity.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I would think if the defence suspects jurors may have preconceived ideas wrt the incinerator, they can address that by assuring the jurors that the incinerator was never brought into evidence because forensic testing indicated it was not used in the burning of human remains.

They could address that, but would they? I don't believe I've ever heard of a trial where evidence that is not being presented has been given any explanation as to why it's not. I would like to think an announcement would be made to the public in advance if was determined not to have been used, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that either. If it wasn't used, we may just never hear it mentioned again.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

They could address that, but would they? I don't believe I've ever heard of a trial where evidence that is not being presented has been given any explanation as to why it's not. I would like to think an announcement would be made to the public in advance if was determined not to have been used, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that either. If it wasn't used, we may just never hear it mentioned again.

JMO

I can't see a good defence lawyer not addressing it if they felt any member of the jury had been exposed to such information that could have a negative impact on a verdict for their client.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I can't see a good defence lawyer not addressing it if they felt any member of the jury had been exposed to such information that could have a negative impact on a verdict for their client.

Maybe. I'm not sure of the precedent of a defense lawyer bringing into focus something that has not been presented to the jury unless it could actually clear their client. Would he want to take a chance on the slim possibility that the jurors didn't hear about it or form any earlier opinions because of it, thereby only drawing attention to something that should have been disregarded in the first place? I would think this would more likely be discussed in a request for a change in venue or a request for dismissal, which wouldn't be heard in front of a jury.

JMO

 

[robynhood]

..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.

 

[dizzy1]

Yes but the point being made is that people have already heard of the incinerator and it has cast suspicion that will be hard to erase...regardless of of prosecution saying it was not used for the body.... It has been made to look like the incinerator was bought for criminal means regardless of whether used in this case or not. This has therefore cast suspicion on DM in relation to 'unknown' criminality which imo has blackened him before the trial gets off the ground.... We can try to say it hasn't till we are blue in the face....fact remains.... it has IMO

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.