The Incinerator

[Arnie M]

Here are the specs of the incinerator purchased by DM
Plenty of capacity ... up to 500 pounds at a time

 

[Arnie M]

On the mfg site there is a video showing how it works and the small amount of ash left over at the end

The first few minutes covers the important stuff .... the rest is mostly sales talk and customer testimonials (boring)

http://www.supernovamfg.com/

 

[Sillybilly]

Here are the specs of the incinerator purchased by DM
Plenty of capacity ... up to 500 pounds at a time

Hi Arnie and Welcome to WS !!

There was a lot of discussion of the two different models much earlier on the forum. As far as we know, the incinerator that was found on the farm was the SN250, not the SN500. The reason for the confusion is that the Globe & Mail made reference to the SN500 (but did not state that it was found on the farm). The Sun specifically referenced the SN250 as having been found on the farm.

see AD's post at:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9596542&postcount=80"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Incinerator[/ame]


Sorry I don't have time to find the specs on the SN250 right now, but they will be in the threads somewhere (just do a forum search for the term SN250). IIRC, the main difference was the smaller opening on the SN250 and capacity of 250 lbs.

 

[Coldpizza]

:welcome5: Arnie M!

 

[robynhood]

Welcome to Arnie M!....robynhood

 

[Juballee]

the incinerator may I remind you costs $15,ooo....that is very expensive to cremate animals when most animal rescue groups are Against killing....written loudly in there Goal statements ...they recue animals avoid ont human societies who KIll them...euthanize than...I worked as a volunteer rescue feral kittens....The last thing North Toronto cat recue wanted to hear was animals being KILLED!....Jubaloee...you were the first person who asked me and stated when Bessie posted NO FARMS OR AIRPOSTS in Canada require BY LAAW THAT AN INCIDERATOR be on their property ....now you stated again post #718 (above)......

"Hi Arnie and welcome. I actually put forth the same idea some time ago that it could be used to cremate small animals because it was posted that his uncle either runs or works at an animal clinic, or as a private business because pet cremation is so outrageously expensive, or that it could have possibly been bought to dispose of the 'road kill' of the skies when they were preparing to repair planes at the hanger. I like your idea about it possibly being tied to one of WM's charities, a lot of old ideas get twisted and repackaged, so it's refreshing to hear some new ideas, and I personally appreciate seeing another new open mind in the forum."..quoted Jubalee.... you asked me where you said planes and road KILL" ..robynhood!

First of all, an incinerator would not be used to euthanize animals, where on earth would anyone get that idea? I realize that many shelters are no kill shelters, and I have also volunteered at one, and they do actually have animals that die or need to be euthanized occasionally. Being that they are typically fiscally aware of every penny in their underfunded budgets, I doubt many small places can afford the expense of owning their own incinerator, and probably loathe the expense of having to pay an outside contractor to fulfill that role. So to me, the idea that seemed to be preposed suggested a charity to help shelters or even low income families who perhaps live somewhere where they cannot bury a beloved pet, to help to cremate the remains of pets, seemed like a possibility. But I realize that to some people, the only possibility is that it was used for nefarious reasons, and that is why, in my opinion, it should never have been released due to the publication ban, it is obviously too prejudicial to expect people to see it for any other purpose.

Secondly, and I cannot believe that this is still being discussed, it is the idea that I suggested that it is a LAW somewhere that I disagree with anyone saying I ever posted. I suggested it may be possible that there are animal carcasses in damaged planes, and that it may be necessary to removed said remains when repairing planes, and that it MAY even be required that due to health and safety regulations to dispose of animal remains in certain, hygienic ways. Never did I say that farms are required by law to have incinerators, and I stand by that, and if you would care to go back and read any remaining posts on the subject, and would like to post a link to the one that refutes my stand, please do so and I shall correct it to make sure that my position on the matter is more clear, and this idea that no one stands by, that there is a law requiring incinerators, can finally be dropped. Whether or not anyone feels that such a machine might or might not have been used for business purposes is a reasonable debate, but suggesting that it is a law is not open for debate, and I don't know why anyone would bring up that aspect again, when that was obviously not the intent of bringing the idea of bird strike remains back into the discussion. Please, quote where you believe that I said it is a law, or let the 'it's the law' aspect of this topic die, for once and for all.

 

[dizzy1]

Hi Arnie and welcome. I actually put forth the same idea some time ago that it could be used to cremate small animals because it was posted that his uncle either runs or works at an animal clinic, or as a private business because pet cremation is so outrageously expensive, or that it could have possibly been bought to dispose of the 'road kill' of the skies when they were preparing to repair planes at the hanger. I like your idea about it possibly being tied to one of WM's charities, a lot of old ideas get twisted and repackaged, so it's refreshing to hear some new ideas, and I personally appreciate seeing another new open mind in the forum. I wonder if perhaps it could have been involved a charity to help shelters or even lower income families cremate the remains of beloved pets when they cannot afford outside services? It is an interesting angle that I don't think has been approached yet.

But the truth is we don't know what it was bought for, although we have learned that it was bought by an employee, so perhaps that employee was the one who had nefarious plans. Also, we don't know that LB was abducted, but her parents seem to strongly believe that she left from what I can gather and that she will return home when she is ready, and I hope and pray that they are right. From what I recall, her parents had nothing but nice things to say about DM, even before it was announced that he wasn't the last person to contact her. The point is, that if my neighbour went missing last month, and I also bought a chain saw last month, and I have no trees, does that mean I murdered my neighbour? Maybe I took up ice carving, or want to learn to juggle them.

You are right, he could have been doing other things with it that we haven't even guessed at, for all we know he bought it to dispose of the rotting animals his dog kept rolling in. (I am half joking here, because I fully remember the the way my country dog had to roll in every smelly carcass or turd pile he encountered, thank you for posting that 2hope4, it brought back some memories!)

In regards to your first paragraph, I don't recall reading an article that the uncle runs/works at an animal clinic. MOO, but I guess in the end, it doesn't really matter what DM's (or an employee's) intentions were with the incinerator anyway. Whether TB was burned in a barrel, burned in a fire pit, or burned in an incinerator, it still doesn't change the fact that his body was burned.

BBM

MOO, but I don't recall it being stated that LB was possibly 'abducted'? I believe 'missing' is the term LE would use. And in regards to LB's parents, I think they 'strongly hold out hope' that Laura left on her own, and will return home when ready, not necessarily that they 'strongly believe'. MOO. They wouldn't have a missing person investigation if they didn't believe something bad could have happened to her IMO.


UBM

Not sure if this is the statement you're referring to when you state 'LB's parents had nothing but nice things to say' about DM:

Linda Babcock remembered Millard as a "polite and handsome" man who, to her knowledge, was never romantically involved with her daughter, although she said the two were friends.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/19/toronto-missing-woman-millard-connection.html

If so, I don't believe describing someone as 'polite and handsome' means you have nothing but nice things to say about someone. MOO, there are many polite, handsome people I've met in my day that I don't really like once I've gotten to know them. JMO

 

[Juballee]

When a person (family) owns a corporation all equipment , tools , supplies , vehicles , fuel, repairs etc will be purchased thru the corporation so that would be considered normal

DM would simply instruct his company purchasing agent to acquire the needed equipment (incinerator) , a couple of phone calls to the Manitoba distributor and it would be on the way. DW wouldnt even have to open his wallet or do anything except maybe sign his own company purchase order as an internal policy requirement.

When owners of corporations use vehicles for personal or recreational purposes the year end accounting will put that (usually small) portion of use into the column of personal income tax (of the user) ... the greater part of the cost is born by the corporation and is a corporate expense taxwise

I would still be curious what DM would have told his staff the reason for an incinerator ... I am sure the question would have come up .... not many aviator-car-guys have a need for a crematorium .

best wishes
AM

Sometimes in large businesses and corporations, employees make purchases through the business that even the owners might not be aware of, I believe it is just one of the many ways that employees can defraud a businesses, and I believe it costs businesses millions of dollars a year. When owners of corporations have many, many, vehicles and machines for business use, it is sometimes hard to keep track of where they all are and who was the last to use them, as well.

Personally, I don't know a lot of aviator-car guys, but I do know that when I go into a large garage or specialized work shop, that there are all kinds of machines that I cannot even guess at the use for.

Also, I believe an incinerator and a crematorium are two different things. I believe anyone can run an incinerator (many apartment complexes have them for their trash still) but that you need a special licence to run a crematorium.

 

[robynhood]

I guess again we will have to WAIT till this appears in court..as said many times that incinarator was carted away for a reason .......IMO...TB was found dead and HOW HIS BODY WAS BURNED BEYOND RECOGNITION REMAINS TO BE SEEN in court...!Who did this deed ..IMO will be PROVEN in court!.................as we all know DM & MS has been CHARGED!...IMO again the POLICE do not charged someone with such a horrendous crime unless they have evidence. AGAIN that shall be PROVEN in court. It is MY Strong belief as I am aloud to state that here ...I feel MS & DM have a lot of explaining to do...Yes it is their RIGHT IN CANADA to remain silent...as it is my right to say GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY....the end ...all respect given to the others who feel differently than myself...robynhood!

 

[MsSherlock]

Also, I believe an incinerator and a crematorium are two different things. I believe anyone can run an incinerator (many apartment complexes have them for their trash still) but that you need a special licence to run a crematorium.

Juballee, the difference between a crematorium and incinerator appears to boil down to the retrieval of the remains and both can be used for once living creatures.
http://hammondenvironmental.com/index.php?p=1_10

Also Ontario regulations for dead animal disposal

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/09-025.htm#4

 

[Archangel7]

As a pilot, I can safely say there is no need of anything to dispose of any such "roadkill in the sky."

Mid air contact with birds almost always severely damages aircraft or at the least they must immediately(prudently) land to determine damage extent.

Whether mid air impact of non rotating element(wings, fuselage-windshield)or rotating elements(engines) there is not enough left to warrant the purchase of an incinerator.

If disposal of aviation fuel products is even contemplated, think of the Environmental aspects of burning leaded fuels(avgas/100LL) with a poultry incinerator, to the atmosphere---it's laughable. However comedic that scenario is, it would still require some accommodation of "The Law." Meaning flue gas scrubbers etc., to "clean" the emissions to an acceptable level, which is quite a permitting, and construction project in itself.

No....... reasonable inductive reasoning favors, at the very least, an unreasonable purchase and imagined nefarious use of the incinerator given the condition of TB's remains and the freakish nature of this case.

 

[robynhood]

As a pilot, I can safely say there is no need of anything to dispose of any such "roadkill in the sky."

Mid air contact with birds almost always severely damages aircraft or at the least they must immediately(prudently) land to determine damage extent.

Whether mid air impact of non rotating element(wings, fuselage-windshield)or rotating elements(engines) there is not enough left to warrant the purchase of an incinerator.

If disposal of aviation fuel products is even contemplated, think of the Environmental aspects of burning leaded fuels(avgas/100LL) with a poultry incinerator, to the atmosphere---it's laughable. However comedic that scenario is, it would still require some accommodation of "The Law." Meaning flue gas scrubbers etc., to "clean" the emissions to an acceptable level, which is quite a permitting, and construction project in itself.

No....... reasonable inductive reasoning favors, at the very least, an unreasonable purchase and imagined nefarious use of the incinerator given the condition of TB's remains and the freakish nature of this case.

I am trying to most my strong agreement but it keeps saying post more so I am saying I agree agree agree....robynhood.

 

[Arnie M]

Whether model 250 or model 500 is not really important .... they are the same other than capacity. (250 pounds vs 500 pounds)

When interviewing the distributor the model 500 was mentioned (thus my saying 500) but I acknowledge other media said it was model 250

Mention has also been made that it is a "portable" model which could indicate it is mounted on wheels or a trailer and could be moved around.

As far as terminology we commonly use "incinerator" .... but in fact the machine is a crematorium (burns everything to grey ash with a few bones left) ... the ones funeral homes use work on the same principle ... a typical "garbage incinerator" or burning barrel does not get hot enough

There is no such thing as "aviation road kill" ... other than an occasional bird strike at altitude ... an airline company would not require an animal incinerator.

DM told the distributor he was getting it for farm animals which is a cover story for the real purpose. If he was going to do small animals for vet clinics and shelters you would expect he would have said so.

Only farmers with large operations would even consider having one .... I am talking huge barns with thousands of animals which typically have a couple of dead animals per day . Even if DM was planning a small cattle operation (highly doubtful) ... the last thing he would think of getting would be an incinerator. The economics and need are simply not there.

It is not coincidence DM had an incinerator on a remote rural property ... there would have been a plan in place ahead of time .... and if not for legit animal disposal it leaves the possibility it was to be part of a twisted plan for perfect murders .... aka Willie Pickton .... he put his victims thru a wood chopper and fed the fragments to his pigs .... brilliant sociopathic thinking.

In time I expect we will find underlying psychiatric issues are at the root of this whole story.

May not be DM so much as his cohorts .... DM is a follower , not a leader.

10 traits of a sociopath and how to spot them http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html

 

[MsSherlock]

As a pilot, I can safely say there is no need of anything to dispose of any such "roadkill in the sky."

Mid air contact with birds almost always severely damages aircraft or at the least they must immediately(prudently) land to determine damage extent.

Whether mid air impact of non rotating element(wings, fuselage-windshield)or rotating elements(engines) there is not enough left to warrant the purchase of an incinerator.

If disposal of aviation fuel products is even contemplated, think of the Environmental aspects of burning leaded fuels(avgas/100LL) with a poultry incinerator, to the atmosphere---it's laughable. However comedic that scenario is, it would still require some accommodation of "The Law." Meaning flue gas scrubbers etc., to "clean" the emissions to an acceptable level, which is quite a permitting, and construction project in itself.

No....... reasonable inductive reasoning favors, at the very least, an unreasonable purchase and imagined nefarious use of the incinerator given the condition of TB's remains and the freakish nature of this case.

Couldn't agree with you more Archangel7. As a pilot as well, I've had a couple of bird strikes and one dodge the coyote on the runway scene-it's certainly not an everyday occurrence and I find it seasonal. If the birds ended up dying, they also ended up in some farmers corn field about a mile away from the airport. Produced more dents in the fuselage than anything else. I've had periods where I'm an airport rat, been in many airports across the country along with numerous maintenance facilities-both large and small and have never, never, never seen an incinerator or crematorium. Sounds like the makings of a S King novel or incentive to make sure your AME gets paid!! :scared:

 

[robynhood]

thanks for all your responses above.. My posts have now makes perfect sense ...when asked about incinerators and cremation...the end ..robynhood...

 

[Alethea Dice]

Juballee, the difference between a crematorium and incinerator appears to boil down to the retrieval of the remains and both can be used for once living creatures.
http://hammondenvironmental.com/index.php?p=1_10

Also Ontario regulations for dead animal disposal

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/09-025.htm#4

Dispose of all deadstock within 48 hr of its death or immediately, if it begins to putrefy before 48 hr have passed.

Thank goodness we don't have to smell burning horses for days on end here in Ontario. That visual quite upset my stomach.

JMO

 

[ArianeEmory]

I know "DM didn't know about the existence of the incinerator" is a favorite theme that won't stop coming up until trial, but I somehow doubt DM didn't notice the incinerator on his property for a year, and that no one saw or questioned a multi-thousand-dollar purchase of that nature. We know DM liked his man toys, including large equipment like excavators and wood-chippers. I do not believe in a theory that has someone playing such a long con that they bought an incinerator 11 months ahead of time because they somehow knew DM was going to be test driving trucks, and thus would come into contact with a member of the public who could be killed and DM framed for his murder. Or that neighbors noticed the incinerator but DM did not.

 

[Archangel7]

If the transaction was for the purchase of an incinerator, the transaction could only take place and be shipped(per the OEM's website)..........The options for payment for the incinerator are check, cash, Visa, MasterCard or wire transfers. All check, credit card or wire transfer payments must be verified prior to shipment.

BBM

So depending on the above sales restrictions and the actual physical transaction, it would become obvious as to the contact, (purchaser) the verification(who paid and how paid).

Pretty much everything has a paper trail or metadata trail, with some exceptions to cash of course. However if cash was delivered to the OEM, and the trailer pulled home, there was some eyewitness contact and a receipt/release/paid in full/I am accepting this incinerator as presented, signature likely.

If a person met the above mentioned, verified sales conditions, he could possibly purchase the incinerator, as could DM, even from Europe. If it was purchased thru MillardAir any authorized person could purchase under that name.


ETA......I found the link stating specifically..... An employee of the Millard family’s aviation company, Millardair, handled the transaction around July of last year, Mr. Penner said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/

 

[Juballee]

As a pilot, I can safely say there is no need of anything to dispose of any such "roadkill in the sky."

Mid air contact with birds almost always severely damages aircraft or at the least they must immediately(prudently) land to determine damage extent.

Whether mid air impact of non rotating element(wings, fuselage-windshield)or rotating elements(engines) there is not enough left to warrant the purchase of an incinerator.

If disposal of aviation fuel products is even contemplated, think of the Environmental aspects of burning leaded fuels(avgas/100LL) with a poultry incinerator, to the atmosphere---it's laughable. However comedic that scenario is, it would still require some accommodation of "The Law." Meaning flue gas scrubbers etc., to "clean" the emissions to an acceptable level, which is quite a permitting, and construction project in itself.

No....... reasonable inductive reasoning favors, at the very least, an unreasonable purchase and imagined nefarious use of the incinerator given the condition of TB's remains and the freakish nature of this case.

Please see page 14 of this document as I believe it disputes your claims that there is no need to dispose of any 'road kill of the skies', and that mid air contact almost always severely damages aircraft. In fact, I believe at the end of the page they are discussing that even when dead wildlife is found on the runway, just pushing it aside is not a sensible solution as it attracts more wildlife. Now, granted, this is an American military publication, so much will not apply in Canada and public airports, but it is shown as scientific example of statistics on wildlife damage to planes, and issues connected to such. And much further down there is a small mention of recommending airports incinerate their waste to discourage wildlife, although, I am not saying that this is the kind of incinerator one would use for waste, just that the word leapt out at me when I skimmed a little further. I must admit I haven't had the time to read the entire article yet, it was just the first thing that appeared when I googled 'repair planes from wildlife damage', and it demonstrates my point, that planes can and do hit wildlife and may need to be repaired after, where there may be animal remains.

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafec...tions/BASH_Mn_21_Dec_09_N32.doc#_Toc176936179

And again, please note that it is not me mentioning any law that might or might not apply, I am only mentioning that it is possible that a large MRO could have to repair aircraft that had been damaged by wildlife and that it is possible that there could be remains, even if it is only bloody rags and feathers, that might need to be cleaned from said aircraft and possibly disposed of hygienically, in my personal opinion.

I am not saying whether I believe that this is what it was used for or not, I am just acknowledging that it is a possibility, so, please, don't everyone jump on me at once. I do not think that it is reasonable to reasonably assume that the purchase was unreasonable just because we do not personally know the reason for the purchase.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I guess I'm confused. Why are we talking about an incinerator needed for "air kill" / airplane maintenance when it was at the farm, not a hangar?