The Incinerator

[redheadedgal]

After hearing of DM's arrest, maybe Saturday or Sunday, that set off the neighbour's hinky metre about the incinerator or the moving of it. He went over to check things out and upon doing so smelled something terrible.

is this your opinion or can you provide a link that a neighbor smelled something? i have no recollection of this -- thanks.

 

[bessie]

is this your opinion or can you provide a link that a neighbor smelled something? i have no recollection of this -- thanks.

The word "maybe" signals to me an idea, or a theory, not a statement of fact.

 

[Snoofo]

The word "maybe" signals to me an idea, or a theory, not a statement of fact.

I interpreted "maybe Saturday or Sunday" as unsure of the date, with the events listed sounding more certain. You could replace the two days with Wed or Thurs and the incinerator with the parked trailer in Kleinburg and know the only uncertainty is the date (in that case because both were reported). So IMO it does sound like reporting events rather than guessing at them.

 

[Juballee]

I guess my question would be: why, then, do the neighbors get dissed so much in this thread? For being nosy, for destroying evidence, for spending "more time on his property than DM did," for being only in it for the fame (seriously?), for harming DM's defense, etc? There is definitely some level of implied blame. It's not their fault DM owned an incinerator, not their fault he went on a test drive with a man who ended up dead and burned on his property. The neighbors snapping pics and calling LE does not invalidate the incinerator's existence, does it?

I am not in any way trying to bash the neighbours, I am sure that they are just curious people who thought that they were doing the right thing when they trespassed and then decided to disobey an offer's orders (although perhaps it was just a suggestion) by leaking possibly prejudicial pictures to the press that at that point may or may not have been actual relevant evidence as far as anyone knew. It's not their fault that they chose to do that, I imagine many of us would be tempted to do the same things.

It does kind of show that the property and the actual incinerator were so unsecured that they could basically be accessed by anyone at anytime, though.

And that reminds me, if I'm ever going to commit a serious crime, I should go and wander onto the crime scene publicly at my first chance, and maybe take some selfies and give them to the police, so that my DNA can be excluded by the forensics team along with the officers who attended it.

 

[Snoofo]

And that reminds me, if I'm ever going to commit a serious crime, I should go and wander onto the crime scene publicly at my first chance, and maybe take some selfies and give them to the police, so that my DNA can be excluded by the forensics team along with the officers who attended it.

(Snipped for space)

LOL! Not saying this is the case here but I have to say Jubes just made a very good point!
:clap:

 

[Archangel7]

And that reminds me, if I'm ever going to commit a serious crime, I should go and wander onto the crime scene publicly at my first chance, and maybe take some selfies and give them to the police, so that my DNA can be excluded by the forensics team along with the officers who attended it.

sbm

Illogical.

Reconciling the "selfies," DNA, prints, hair, alibi, etc. with justification to be there, the timeline of the crime, how it was done, yada, yada would either point to you if you were involved or not, thus excluding you. See, that's the wonderful thing about evidence, it isn't prejudicial(by definition) or emotional........and tells whom is and isn't involved.

 

[Blomquist]

sbm

Illogical.

Reconciling the "selfies," DNA, prints, hair, alibi, etc. with justification to be there, the timeline of the crime, how it was done, yada, yada would either point to you if you were involved or not, thus excluding you. See, that's the wonderful thing about evidence, it isn't prejudicial(by definition) or emotional........and tells whom is and isn't involved.

Really ??? Well if thats the case, why have trials? Surely by the logic stated above there would be no need as the evidence tells you the answer every time... Why not just throw people in jail for life and throw away the key !!! No point them defending themselves as the evidence has all the answers......

Sorry but that is not very logical or accurate to me.... JMO

IMO evidence is not always available, evidence can often be planted, evidence can also be set up to point to things by way of deception, evidence can be incorrect as in wrongly identifying people....and so on...... One thing evidence does not have at all times.... is all the answers.... so....sorry have to disagree.... MOO

 

[ArianeEmory]

I am not in any way trying to bash the neighbours, I am sure that they are just curious people who thought that they were doing the right thing when they trespassed and then decided to disobey an offer's orders (although perhaps it was just a suggestion) by leaking possibly prejudicial pictures to the press that at that point may or may not have been actual relevant evidence as far as anyone knew. It's not their fault that they chose to do that, I imagine many of us would be tempted to do the same things.

It does kind of show that the property and the actual incinerator were so unsecured that they could basically be accessed by anyone at anytime, though.

And that reminds me, if I'm ever going to commit a serious crime, I should go and wander onto the crime scene publicly at my first chance, and maybe take some selfies and give them to the police, so that my DNA can be excluded by the forensics team along with the officers who attended it.

And people act like we pull the "neighbors were involved" implication out of nothing but thin air.

The problem with trying to explain away every single detail that points to DM is that it's a zero sum game you guys are playing--you're just pointing fingers at other potentially innocent people.

 

[Archangel7]

Really ??? Well if thats the case, why have trials? Surely by the logic stated above there would be no need as the evidence tells you the answer every time... Why not just throw people in jail for life and throw away the key !!! No point them defending themselves as the evidence has all the answers......

Sorry but that is not very logical or accurate to me.... JMO

IMO evidence is not always available, evidence can often be planted, evidence can also be set up to point to things by way of deception, evidence can be incorrect as in wrongly identifying people....and so on...... One thing evidence does not have at all times.... is all the answers.... so....sorry have to disagree.... MOO

Trials are where the accused gets to face the charge, face those accusing him and the evidence they have.

Then the "State"(in this case) must prove what they charged is true and correct based on evidence (they have found and shared with accused), beyond a reasonable doubt while the accused has to prove nothing.

According to some posting here, their illogical way of trial would entail trying most of Ontario, Hells Angels, SL, the Mafia, AS, all of DM's neighbors and even the hockey players that Wed. or Thus. night that the trailer showed up:floorlaugh:

so....sorry have to disagree....

 

[swedie]

It's very disconcerting to read numerous posts continuously assuming the neighbours of DM's farmland to be nothing but nosy, accusations of destroying, contaminating the crime scene and being up to no good. Could it be, those doing so are upset to the fact these are people who were paying attention to the case, wanting to assist LE in solving this disgusting crime? I find nothing these neighbours did offensive or harmful to the investigation in any way. If it hadn't been for these concerned neighbours, TB may not have been found to bring that closure to TB's family. I highly suspect it was the media who approached the neighbour about the pictures he took, revealing that information before LE came to him asking for his evidence, requesting he not speak to the MSM about anything else he knew regarding his findings and this case. If he was looking for five minutes of fame, IMHO he would have divulged, spewing much more information as to what he discovered to the MSM for them to print before the PB came into effect.

It is my opinion the neighbour took the pictures to secure proof/evidence the incinerator was on the property for fear it would soon vanish off the property. For one to simply walk onto the property, snap a picture or two and walk away is eminently probable so I hope this brings some comfort to those suspecting the crime scene evidence was destroyed, contaminated or obliterated. I highly suspect LE found definitive evidence such as tire tracks, boot or shoe prints left from the murderers.

We have no idea of the relationship between DM and his neighbour so to assume he was trespassing is totally assumption. This neighbour may have had conversations with DM in the past and DM may have welcomed him to keep an eye on the farmland or have access to it. Also, could the neighbour be the person who rented the land from DM to plant crops? At this time we have no way of knowing, so to assume the neighbour had bad intentions and was up to no good, is immature and all speculative in MHO. For all we know, the neighbour may have stored equipment in DM's barn. Yes I am making assumptions also but chose to post in a non accusing, positive fashion as far as the neighbour goes. HTH.

From the very beginning of this case, LE have asked for the public's assistance in helping to solve this crime and IMO this is exactly what the neighbour did. He was very observant and suspicious of activities going on around him (assuming he may have witnessed/heard suspicious activities the night TM was murdered) and did contact LE with his findings, which in turn proved to have a huge impact on this case, mainly locating Tim. All JMHO. Thank you Mr. concerned neighbour for your tips and evidence to assist LE in solving this horrendous crime. :tyou::thewave:

Anyone with information is asked to call the police tip line set up for this case at 905-546-2100, or to call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477.

 

[Sillybilly]

And people act like we pull the "neighbors were involved" implication out of nothing but thin air.

The problem with trying to explain away every single detail that points to DM is that it's a zero sum game you guys are playing--you're just pointing fingers are other potentially innocent people.

:waitasec:

The equation seems to be that if all evidence to date that points to DM points to his innocence, then conversely, all those to whom no evidence points ... must be guilty of something?

 

[Archangel7]

"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value." - Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.

Edward Locard........"Every contact leaves a trace."

He is the father of the Locard's Principleit holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence.

 

[Blomquist]

:waitasec:

The equation seems to be that if all evidence to date that points to DM points to his innocence, then conversely, all those to whom no evidence points ... must be guilty of something?

Well thats a twisting of words if ever I have seen it.... it is feasible that people on the peripheries of this case may be involved...itgoes without saying imo.... No-one is sleuthing the neighbours here...just pointing out any anomalies.... such as ignoring LE advice... trespassing at a very opportune moment, and snapping a pic possibly before the farm was ever identified as a relevant crime scene. Not to mention (but I will) that they had been on the property PRIOR to when this all went down...... we have no idea why....but many here have suggested that a property without a fence is open to all at any time according to the rules of trespass... (not sure why its ok to roam across someone elses property in the middle of nowhere (remote) to take a look at something that may or may not be there). I have never dreamed of taking a walk through property belonging to another just to view what may or may not be there....let alone go back for a snapshot..... JMO

 

[Blomquist]

"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value." - Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.

Edward Locard........"Every contact leaves a trace."

He is the father of the Locard's Principleit holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence.

I think this confirms that it is the factual evidence that is needed not the circumstantial.... thank you

 

[swedie]

Something I found very interesting and makes me highly suspicious is the FACT LE also hauled away not only the incinerator but also the Bobcat... :sick:

Some things fit so nicely together and are perceptible, while some things leave room for speculation IMO. What I find interesting is when LE searched the hangar they found stolen vehicles. I have seen pictures of this Bobcat in the hangar prior to it's move to the farmland. This leads me to assume the Bobcat was also a stole vehicle. If they had the gall to steal a trailer and motorcycle in broad daylight, I can see them being stupid enough to steal a Bobcat also. Not to mention the BO's test drive in broad daylight. Why was the Bobcat hidden amongst the trees in the swampy area on the farmland? Yes I did say hidden. :moo:

There was mention in an article I posted back there about DM excavating in the winter... Someone IIRC Redhead suggested contaminated soil or something to that effect. Seems like an odd time of year to be concerned with contaminated soil. Cold and freezing temperatures tend to affect/kill off contamination and the ground would be harder to work in the winter months. My assumption is DM was just trying out the Bobcat that was brought out of hiding from the hangar. Just another play toy he felt like firing up in December IMHO.

The point I am making is, LE hauled the Bobcat away because it was also connected to some crime. I highly doubt, should there not have been any connection, they wouldn't have bothered with it. Hopefully they found the rightful owner. :yesss: Yes all :moo:

 

[Sillybilly]

Well thats a twisting of words if ever I have seen it.... it is feasible that people on the peripheries of this case may be involved...itgoes without saying imo.... No-one is sleuthing the neighbours here...just pointing out any anomalies.... such as ignoring LE advice... trespassing at a very opportune moment, and snapping a pic possibly before the farm was ever identified as a relevant crime scene. Not to mention (but I will) that they had been on the property PRIOR to when this all went down...... we have no idea why....but many here have suggested that a property without a fence is open to all at any time according to the rules of trespass... (not sure why its ok to roam across someone elses property in the middle of nowhere (remote) to take a look at something that may or may not be there). I have never dreamed of taking a walk through property belonging to another just to view what may or may not be there....let alone go back for a snapshot..... JMO

Well, let's see if anyone else saw the meaning behind what you perceive to be my twisted words. Maybe some sarcaso, but not twisted. <modsnip>

So what if the neighbour trespassed? It has zero to do with the evidence the pic represents because it was legally obtained by LE. So what it's a property without a fence ... no different than if some dude is stabbed in an alley on a public street. The evidence is what the evidence is. Just because someone walked across what ultimately proved to be a crime scene doesn't negate the value of evidence legally obtained by law enforcement.

 

[swedie]

I think this confirms that it is the factual evidence that is needed not the circumstantial.... thank you

Oddly but true, many guilty verdicts are reached by jurors on circumstantial evidence, beyond a reason of a doubt. Great example Drew Peterson...guilty of murdering his wives. HTH. :seeya:

 

[Juballee]

sbm

Illogical.

Reconciling the "selfies," DNA, prints, hair, alibi, etc. with justification to be there, the timeline of the crime, how it was done, yada, yada would either point to you if you were involved or not, thus excluding you. See, that's the wonderful thing about evidence, it isn't prejudicial(by definition) or emotional........and tells whom is and isn't involved.

Okay, so what I hear you saying is that I will also need an alibi and a reason to be there, good to know

 

[Sillybilly]

I think this confirms that it is the factual evidence that is needed not the circumstantial.... thank you

Not at all ... any case can be comprised of both direct and circumstantial. There have been peeps convicted on mostly circumstantial (Scott Peterson, Tim McVeigh come to mind).

 

[redheadedgal]

I interpreted "maybe Saturday or Sunday" as unsure of the date, with the events listed sounding more certain. You could replace the two days with Wed or Thurs and the incinerator with the parked trailer in Kleinburg and know the only uncertainty is the date (in that case because both were reported). So IMO it does sound like reporting events rather than guessing at them.

exactly. thank you.