The Incinerator

[Alethea Dice]

Juballee, IMO, MSM did report that SL claimed that DM told him that he had been supplying LB with cocaine for months.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-probe-link-between-bosma-suspect-missing-woman-1.1286814

"Homicide detective Mike Carbone said LB, 23, and DM, 27, were “romantically linked, although I would not say they had a traditional dating relationship.”

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-probe-link-between-bosma-suspect-missing-woman-1.1286814

IMO, they may very well have been hanging out together. MOO

That doesn't explain why she stopped using her phone. In my experience, young people can't get along without their phone for a day, let alone a couple of weeks or more.

JMO

 

[ArianeEmory]

Not sure why it matters if we don't know when the incinerator arrived at the farm, but there was a private airstrip right across the road.

http://www.therecord.com/sports-sto...ate-airstrip-across-the-street-from-bosma-in/

Maybe the helicoptor made a few trips there.

JMO

There are MSM quotes stating it was delivered to the farm in July 2012.

 

[Alethea Dice]

There are MSM quotes stating it was delivered to the farm in July 2012.

Sorry, yes, you're correct. I believe it was on a trailer. I wonder where it was earlier, that the neighbours didn't notice it until around the time of the murder.

JMO

 

[Arnie M]

The incinerator could very well be one of the most crucial aspects in the case

A machine like that has a very narrow range of uses .... If DM can provide a legit reason for owning it then fine ..... and if it just turned out to be a one-time situation that it was used for TB then that is pretty straightforward (in a typical one-time murder situation).

However , if no legitimate reason for owning the incinerator is shown ... then it points toward a larger (macabre) plan for the future.

Possibly along the lines of the homemade slaughter video already produced by MS ... only for real this time ... "snuff films" have been around since the 1970's .

(*** A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation. Some filmed records of executions and murders exist but have not been made or released for commercial purposes.)

I am extremely reluctant to speculate on such macabre possibilities ... but the incinerator situation cannot easily be explained away .

It would change everything from a one - time - car - jacking - gone wrong ... to something much more sinister

Owning the incinerator is crucial as to motive ... the truck and TB situation then become secondary side effects (poor choice of words)

Stepping a little farther into macabre speculation ... maybe "they" experienced difficulty disposing of an ''earlier" body .... thus the purchase of the incinerator to remedy the problem for the future.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Are you suggesting DM hauled it back and forth to the airport to incinerate the occasional mangled Canadian goose or whatever? Maybe that's why he needed another truck with a hitch.

 

[MsSherlock]

Don't get me wrong, this subtopic has gone all the way over to hilarious, but again, can someone explain to me how many planes were arriving and departing from the farm?

Ariane-ironically, the farmer across the road does have a small private airstrip. Maybe DM was just being prepared in case the farmer took out a skein or two of geese on a regular basis with his Cessna and the dead geese fell on his farm? :sweep: :floorlaugh:JMHO

 

[MsSherlock]

That doesn't explain why she stopped using her phone. In my experience, young people can't get along without their phone for a day, let alone a couple of weeks or more.

JMO

Alethea, IMO, there's many reasons why LB may not use her phone. Maybe she got a "burner phone" so no one could trace her. Maybe someone got her a burner phone? Maybe she was strung out? Maybe she was being held against her will somewhere? Maybe she overdosed? IMO there's a slew of reasons why she may have stopped using her phone, some good and some bad. MOO

 

[dizzy1]

Thanks, but I was only commenting on the percentages of damages in strike events, since I've seen it posted a few times that there is usually damage to the plane when these events happen. Since only 1 of the 9 Waterloo events reported some possible damage, I'd say that matches up quite well with the 1% quoted in the Navy Manual.

Personally, I think it more likely that the incinerator was purchased to get rid of scrap brush, since it was reported they had been excavating at the farm during the winter and taking into account open burning bylaws in many municipalities.

JMO

BBM
JMO, but it would be cheaper/easier to apply for a simple burn permit like most country folk:

http://www.northdumfries.ca/en/ourtownship/BurnPermits.asp

 

[Alethea Dice]

Are you suggesting DM hauled it back and forth to the airport to incinerate the occasional mangled Canadian goose or whatever? Maybe that's why he needed another truck with a hitch.

Are you directing this to me?? You asked how many planes arrive and depart at the farm. I simply answered your question and commented that it may have been moved at some point since the neighbours hadn't noticed it before. I haven't said anything about it being used for geese.

People have suggested many different ideas throughout the thread about why the incinerator may have been purchased. It's quite normal in a discussion to bounce ideas around. Personally, if it wasn't used in the crime, I don't care why it was purchased. It's not illegal to own one and, if it wasn't used in a crime, it's a moot point. If it wasn't used, it won't be evidence. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for the trial to find out.

JMO

 

[ArianeEmory]

Are you directing this to me?? You asked how many planes arrive and depart at the farm. I simply answered your question and commented that it may have been moved at some point since the neighbours hadn't noticed it before. I haven't said anything about it being used for geese.

People have suggested many different ideas throughout the thread about why the incinerator may have been purchased. It's quite normal in a discussion to bounce ideas around. Personally, if it wasn't used in the crime, I don't care why it was purchased. It's not illegal to own one and, if it wasn't used in a crime, it's a moot point. If it wasn't used, it won't be evidence. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for the trial to find out.

JMO

Yes, a lot of ideas get suggested, or more frequently, hinted at. They don't always get followed through to a concrete conclusion, just an implication. So I sometimes try to get an understanding of what the poster is really saying, in real-world terms. Do people really believe the incinerator was moved back and forth to an airport to incinerate birds? This question shouldn't be offensive, except perhaps via my stereotyping of all birds in Canada as being Canadian geese.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Do people really believe the incinerator was moved back and forth to an airport to incinerate birds? This question shouldn't be offensive, except perhaps via my stereotyping of all birds in Canada as being Canadian geese.

<rsbm>
I have no idea. You're the first person I've heard to suggest this.

 

[Blomquist]

For DM's unbelievable thoughtfulness for the disposal of animals anywhere and for the purchase of the incinerator towards that noble and just cause.......

I am all for recommending and submitting DM for the Order of Canada.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit apparently.... ;-)

Now of course once we know who what and why about this pesky incinerator I suppose we can then start sending in our nominations....

 

[Blomquist]

BBM
JMO, but it would be cheaper/easier to apply for a simple burn permit like most country folk:

http://www.northdumfries.ca/en/ourtownship/BurnPermits.asp

I don't believe DM was 'most country folk' he was apparently a city dweller his whole life.

 

[Blomquist]

<rsbm>
I have no idea. You're the first person I've heard to suggest this.

Yes but as we have no idea how long the machinery was at the farm I guess the whole situation is guesswork...... I feel like this matter of the incinerator is going nowhere..... I feel a snooze coming on :HHJP:

 

[MsSherlock]

Yes but as we have no idea how long the machinery was at the farm I guess the whole situation is guesswork...... I feel like this matter of the incinerator is going nowhere..... I feel a snooze coming on :HHJP:

Thinking of the Eliminator SN250 and DM maintaining his constitutional right to remain silent, IMO, it would do him no harm to clear up all the speculation about this unique piece of farm equipment and let LE know what he did make this purchase. Whether that be "I didn't buy it", "I only ever used it to burn branches", "had a problem with coyotes". JMHO, but if there wasn't a trace of human DNA or remains in the machine and it was only used for burning wildlife and non-animal items, what harm would it do for DM or DP to clear this up immediately?

 

[Snoofo]

Thinking of the Eliminator SN250 and DM maintaining his constitutional right to remain silent, IMO, it would do him no harm to clear up all the speculation about this unique piece of farm equipment and let LE know what he did make this purchase. Whether that be "I didn't buy it", "I only ever used it to burn branches", "had a problem with coyotes". JMHO, but if there wasn't a trace of human DNA or remains in the machine and it was only used for burning wildlife and non-animal items, what harm would it do for DM or DP to clear this up immediately?

I cant see how that would make a difference. Even if they did clear it up, would LE not do the same forensic examinations on the machine? I don't think that information from the accused would help anyone but us sleuths right now (if it was released) and actually even most sleuths would doubt its truthfulness if it came from the accused.

If DM came out to say "I charged people a fee to cremate their dead pets", who would say "oh, okay, that explains it!" and go along their merry way?

So LE will complete their forensics and it's not like the subject of the Eliminator won't come up in Court (regardless of forensics results IMO!).

 

[Archangel7]

I cant see how that would make a difference. Even if they did clear it up, would LE not do the same forensic examinations on the machine? I don't think that information from the accused would help anyone but us sleuths right now (if it was released) and actually even most sleuths would doubt its truthfulness if it came from the accused.

If DM came out to say "I charged people a fee to cremate their dead pets", who would say "oh, okay, that explains it!" and go along their merry way?

So LE will complete their forensics and it's not like the subject of the Eliminator won't come up in Court (regardless of forensics results IMO!).

True but the previous posts were about why DM isn't actively helping DM if he's wrongly charged, with the results of that being his release or bail.

There is simply no legitimate reason for a person to sit in jail without bail with all the evidence and the accused's own "story" indicating his innocence. Even the completely involved and justly charged get bail.

And don't tell me a Justice System is going to keep a complete and obviously innocent person in jail just to appear reputable or for DM's own good. If that's true there is a much bigger Charter issue at hand than theft, confinement and murder.

Maybe being "remorseful" has a lot to do with DM's continued incarceration or the real estate hasn't sold yet.:floorlaugh:

By now DM and Team would know or at the very least know how the Crown will pursue their prosecution via the discovery process. Thus how to present their "story" in order to get bail.

DP has one last hurrah at Judicial Pretrial to layout how uninvolved, innocent and wrongly accused DM is. DM better hope that 4.1 Mil property closes before Sept. 12th.:floorlaugh:

 

[redheart]

Snoofo, I think the difference is many people say, "Well, if DM is innocent, why doesn't he/hasn't he helped LE all he can?" to which some people respond, "Exercising his right to remain silent doesn't prove guilt, and in fact is important so that it doesn't harm his case in the future". The problem is DP knows darn well that DM's refusal to help LE find TB when he was missing looks very bad in the public eye. The only way to spin that, from the lawyer's perspective, is to remind the public about his right to remain silent and hint at fears that it might harm his case. I think DP knows what a sinister element the incinerator adds to this case and if there was any way to negate that, he would have his client speak up, or speak for him. But, he can't. There simply is no good reason for DM to have had that incinerator. At least none that I've heard mentioned on here. The "reasons" I've heard discussed on here just don't make sense. MOO

 

[dizzy1]

I don't believe DM was 'most country folk' he was apparently a city dweller his whole life.

JMO, I live in the country, and had never even heard of an incinerator before this, I wonder how a city dweller like DM found out about it. Anyway, just to reiterate, whether the incinerator was used to burn TB's body or not, is a moot point IMO, the fact still remains that the body was burned.:moo:

"It's like a crematorium," the officer said. "How his body was disposed of would make the hair on the back of anyone's neck curl up."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/05/20130516-090354.html

 

[Arnie M]

My guess is that one of the two (DM or MS) will try to present themselves as "least guilty" in a confessional plea bargain type deal ... that is the only way the rest of the story can emerge ... I bet that is what is going on right now between the lawyers and police and prosecutors

"Loyal friendships" evaporate quickly in those situations and it becomes a case of saving one's own butt

If they are able to arrest a third suspect , then one of the three will make the claim they did not do the "actual killing" and try to plea for a reduced sentence by testifying .