The Incinerator

[lanman]

I'm going to take a guess and say I bet there are different types of incinerators purpose-built for different functions. One built for trash may be different from one built for deadstock or bodies.

I agree. Also, I would think someone who has worked around incinerators for 50 years knows what they are talking about.

"Small, who has worked with burners, boilers and incinerators for more than 50 years, had received a call from Anne Semenovich, asking to inspect a used machine. When she pointed to a particular incinerator, Small was concerned it wouldn't fit the needs of her residential acreage, since it would typically be used to burn animal waste. "

As for using it to burn garbage...

"During cross-examination, Small conceded the incinerator might have been used to burn garbage, although he said most people use large metal drums for that."

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=8f9a9908-756c-4f89-8ac6-c6cf7701854d

 

[skatergirl]

Well if thats the case.....I guess the linking of DM to the disappearance of LB becomes null and void.... I have always thought it odd that DM could be in Europe and Canada at around the same time !!!!!!!!!!!!........ Unless of course someone else had his Cdn phone whilst he was away !!!! Which is another possiblity.....

Not only that...if anyone is suggesting DM was a drug dealer , he certainly couldn't have been a good one ...with 3 month hiatuses from 'business' JMO

BBM

lol BQ, with modern transportation, he could be in Europe within a rough time frame of 9-10 hours of having last been in Toronto

 

[Arnie M]

I'm going to take a guess and say I bet there are different types of incinerators purpose-built for different functions. One built for trash may be different from one built for deadstock or bodies.

You are correct ArianeEmory ... thank you

A typical campfire is an (open air) incinerator .... a basic enclosed incinerator is typically a 45 gallon steel drum (burning barrel) with the top removed , throw in your garbage and set it on fire .... these were very common before modern curbside garbage pick up .... many rural folks and farmers still use them .... throw all the household garbage in it and burn daily .... every few months dump out the ashes and tin cans and take the ash residue to the landfill .... or dump it in a pit on the farm.

Another type of common incinerator is a larger steel enclosure (like a large barrel) ... with a bit of a smokestack out the top and an opening in the bottom for incoming air ... fire is hotter , less smoke , and less chance of burning debris blowing around the yard. They used to be common around junk yards , back of large retail stores (for burning all the cardboard packaging) etc

Those type are fueled by the contents ... garbage , paper , plastics , scrap wood ... the fire goes out once everything burns.

..............

The animal disposal incinerator/crematorium is something completely different .

It is a sealed compartment with a lid on it , it is lined with firebrick .... there is an opening in the bottom where an outside source of fuel is injected (propane or diesel) ... plus an electric fan-blower forcing air into the opening (provides a sufficient oxygen supply).

The result is a large , hot , blow-torch type flame that quickly burns the contents .... as well some models have an upper chamber where additional fuel and air is injected to help burn the smoke particles ..... operating temperatures are typically in the 1000* range

These animal type incinerators have a small market and limited application because they they are expensive to buy , they consume a lot of fuel and require an electrical power source.

Nobody would ever use them to burn wood scraps or garbage because of the high operating cost .... for example if someone wants to burn wood all you do is pile it up and put a match to it. Nothing else is required.

An animal carcass will never burn on its own (70% water) ... thus the requirement of a 1000* blow-torch in a closed compartment (takes an hour or two.)

Large livestock / bird barns can justify the equipment and fuel expense because they must dispose of dead animals / birds on a daily basis and must stop any potential disease from spreading (bird flu etc)

Summary ... the DM incinerator has a small application of use and that is what makes it so unique in this criminal case.

Additional trivia .... if DM and associates did not fully accomplish their intended disposal it is because
--they did not let the unit run long enough
--unit ran out of fuel
--they did not bring a portable generator to power the fans (110 volt)
--nighttime panic/pressure to exit the area quickly (nosy neighbors)
--urgency to attend to the stolen truck (remove seats, hide truck)

Even if the whole thing had been well planned out in advance ... the perps would have had several high-pressure - hectic hours to accomplish what they did .

I expect rural sleuthing neighbors will contribute timeline witness info to LE regarding the activities on Roseville during those days and hours

I expect city sleuthing neighbors will provide some timelines to LE regarding parking of trailer at MB's driveway

Long live observant sleuthing neighbors.

A.M.

 

[Arnie M]

,
Waste fuel and animal compassion is the basis of the following conjecture

A bit more sleuthing in favor of legitimate reasons for the M-operation owning an animal incinerator

-- it was ordered and purchased while WM was alive and running the company
--WM had a life long compassion for animals and animal welfare
--WM may have made a charitable/compassionate decision to provide cremation services to pet owners , animal shelters etc
--that model of crematorium can be powered by waste fuel
--airport operations have plenty of waste fuel ... used oil ... gallons of jet fuel and avgas are routinely drained from lower tanks to remove any traces of grit and water .... underground storage tanks and delivery tankers often empty water traps in the system which also drains off some fuel
--that model of incinerator is typically fueled by diesel fuel ... which is similar to home heating fuel ... which is similar to kerosene ... which is similar to jetfuel . (all are compatible for incinerator use)

..............

However , here are reasons I feel it would not be practical
--the incinerator purchased is the propane fired type
--airport operations already have environmentally compliant ways of using the contaminated fuel
--hangars and buildings can be heated with waste fuel and oil .(most efficient)
--Herman-Nelson aircraft pre-heaters burn that type of fuel (always a need)(winter)
--the incinerator would use a smaller amount of fuel (would not solve airport disposal needs)
--it would be a time consuming hassle saving only a few dollars in a multi-million dollar aviation overhaul facility
--a wise and efficient business manager would not make such a decision

The only applicable wild card is that WM had a history of using his funds and assets and aircraft to promote animal welfare (protest seal hunts ) (wildlife films) ... those endeavors are done for reasons of the heart and not for economic reasons.

So we must allow for the slim possibility the incinerator was for legit purposes and any illegitimate use was coincidental. Personally I doubt it .... but we must consider all the alternatives

Long live multi-directional-sleuthism

AM

 

[Alethea Dice]

Wrong thread again !! The dates were initially being considered in relation to the incinerator purchase. I would add that whether he and his phone were in Europe, he could have ordered the incinerator by phone from there just as easily as if he was sitting in his condo, or wherever, in Canada.

He could have ordered it by phone from anywhere, but the salesman has already confirmed that it was an employee who arranged for the purchase.

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/national/chilling-details-emerge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/

 

[Alethea Dice]

I agree. Also, I would think someone who has worked around incinerators for 50 years knows what they are talking about.

"Small, who has worked with burners, boilers and incinerators for more than 50 years, had received a call from Anne Semenovich, asking to inspect a used machine. When she pointed to a particular incinerator, Small was concerned it wouldn't fit the needs of her residential acreage, since it would typically be used to burn animal waste. "

As for using it to burn garbage...

"During cross-examination, Small conceded the incinerator might have been used to burn garbage, although he said most people use large metal drums for that."

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=8f9a9908-756c-4f89-8ac6-c6cf7701854d

These small concessions often do seem to come from the expert witnesses once they are cross-examined by defense, don't they.

JMO

 

[lanman]

These small concessions often do seem to come from the expert witnesses once they are cross-examined by defense, don't they.

JMO

Yes, but fortunately, the jurors are usually smart enough to know when the defense is asking trick questions. The lawyer also could have asked if the incinerator could have been purchased to roast marshmallows, and the expert would probably have to say yes.

 

[Archangel7]

Yes, but fortunately, the jurors are usually smart enough to know when the defense is asking trick questions. The lawyer also could have asked if the incinerator could have been purchased to roast marshmallows, and the expert would probably have to say yes.

And that's exactly what the Crown should have asked on rexam/redirect.

Mr. x, as a professional/expert in incinerators with 50 yrs. experience would you also say anything less than what it was designed to burn could be burned, say lesser things like garbage and even marshmallows, for instance?

The pathetic cross-exam. question by the defense was likely seen as such by the jury.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Yes, but fortunately, the jurors are usually smart enough to know when the defense is asking trick questions. The lawyer also could have asked if the incinerator could have been purchased to roast marshmallows, and the expert would probably have to say yes.

I wouldn't exactly call it a "trick" question. Although in that particular case it was a rather redundant question, since the victim's body was found in the incinerator and the killer had even stated that she wanted to burn her husband in it. IMO, it was a pathetic for the Crown to call this expert witness in the first place. It really didn't matter what she had obtained the incinerator for or what it was typically used for, it's what she ended up using it for that matters. The same will apply to DM's case if it is found that it was used or that TB's body was still inside it. It won't matter why he bought it in the first place the previous year.

However, I find many times these types of questions from the defense are more a method of "pointing out the obvious". The Crown will not ask their own expert witnesses any questions that will lead to an answer not directly pointing to what they are trying to prove.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

The inability or refusal to accept the reality of the evidence is painfully obvious in many prior juries. Several famous ones come to mind. I can definitely understand a potential need for the Crown to oversimplify and provide remedial help for the slow to grasp.

 

[Blomquist]

Yes, but fortunately, the jurors are usually smart enough to know when the defense is asking trick questions. The lawyer also could have asked if the incinerator could have been purchased to roast marshmallows, and the expert would probably have to say yes.

Now theres a thought !!!! What if it was purchased for marshmallows ?

 

[Blomquist]

The inability or refusal to accept the reality of the evidence is painfully obvious in many prior juries. Several famous ones come to mind. I can definitely understand a potential need for the Crown to oversimplify and provide remedial help for the slow to grasp.

But what about those who simply do not agree that the evidence is viable or feasible.... do they have to be pressured to relent ?

 

[Sillybilly]

But what about those who simply do not agree that the evidence is viable or feasible.... do they have to be pressured to relent ?

I believe "reality of the evidence" and "slow to grasp" might be the key factor here. Hopefully jurors will have a decent IQ to grasp what the evidence reflects.

A quick google brings up this US based information (just haven't had time yet to research Canadian equivalent):

from:
http://www.relentlessdefense.com/wh...-justice-system/jury-selection-is-a-misnomer/

Those summonsed for jury duty are required to provide basic background information on matters such as:
•Highest level of education
•Employment or school status
•Marital and parental status, including the ages of any children
•Spouse’s highest level of education
•Spouse’s employment or school status
•Involvement of any household or family member in any prior legal proceedings, including any criminal charges, civil proceedings, and prior jury service

Finally, the questionnaire asks whether the individual’s background, experience, employment, training, education, knowledge, or beliefs might affect his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror.

The answers to these questions provide clues to the potential juror’s likely prejudices, level of intelligence, and fitness for jury duty. From a juror’s answers, demeanor, attitude, attire, and command of the English language, criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors attempt to divine his biases, aptitude, and abilities. Contrary to the commonly held belief that for criminal defense lawyers the more-dimwitted-the-better, defense lawyers prefer jurors with high levels of education, especially those who likely possess well-developed analytical skills.

 

[Archangel7]

But what about those who simply do not agree that the evidence is viable or feasible.... do they have to be pressured to relent ?

FYI, it's called deliberation. If they "relent" it then become unanimous and called a verdict. And obviously there have been/will be some who will not see the evidence because of their own prejudicial reasoning.

ETA...if it really was a situation as you are trying to imply, the juror or jurors would become a witness especially wrt a juror/jurors competency as a witness in inquiry to the validity of a verdict or indictment, at least Stateside and I doubt Canadian Justice is remiss on this subject either.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_606

 

[Alethea Dice]

The inability or refusal to accept the reality of the evidence is painfully obvious in many prior juries. Several famous ones come to mind. I can definitely understand a potential need for the Crown to oversimplify and provide remedial help for the slow to grasp.

Many times, I'm sure, it's not that the jury doesn't accept the reality of the evidence, but merely that there isn't enough there to remove reasonable doubt, or that there is sufficient opposing evidence to create reasonable doubt.

JMO

 

[Blomquist]

I would say that the chance of many or any deer dropping dead on DM's farm is zero. Just my opinion. We have a farm and never in 13 years have I ever happened across a dead deer. Actually, I have never happened across anything dead. My neighbour a cattle farmer does not have an incinerator, nor does any farmer around my area. It completely baffles me why a city boy who owns land without animals would have an incinerator. Burn barrel, yes, incinerator, no.

Actually I have a family member who hunts regularly and it happens that deer sometimes get shot and left if a hunter fails to come back. Thats why my family member uses night vision cameras and leaves them in trees to see if the actual area is good for hunting, so that he can also prepare to remove the deer after the hunt. Deer are extremely heavy and require some strength to bring home.... so on occasion some are left (not ever by my family member, but he has seen it happen where he comes across a dead deer)..... not often, but it happens...JMO

Nevertheless.... the other wildlife that are not hunted are plenty IMO

I would also think that burning trees and the like would be a use for an incinerator.....especially if planning to clear an area for building !! I remember cutting down tree branches and having to dispose of them.... a right pain in the butt.... JMO

 

[Blomquist]

I believe "reality of the evidence" and "slow to grasp" might be the key factor here. Hopefully jurors will have a decent IQ to grasp what the evidence reflects.

A quick google brings up this US based information (just haven't had time yet to research Canadian equivalent):

from:
http://www.relentlessdefense.com/wh...-justice-system/jury-selection-is-a-misnomer/

So who determines what they are 'slow to grasp'? Or even if they are 'slow to grasp'?

Could it just be that they quite intelligent but refuse to accept what they are being pressured to 'grasp' ???

 

[Murphys_Law]

Actually I have a family member who hunts regularly and it happens that deer sometimes get shot and left if a hunter fails to come back. Thats why my family member uses night vision cameras and leaves them in trees to see if the actual area is good for hunting, so that he can also prepare to remove the deer after the hunt. Deer are extremely heavy and require some strength to bring home.... so on occasion some are left (not ever by my family member, but he has seen it happen where he comes across a dead deer)..... not often, but it happens...JMO

Nevertheless.... the other wildlife that are not hunted are plenty IMO

I would also think that burning trees and the like would be a use for an incinerator.....especially if planning to clear an area for building !! I remember cutting down tree branches and having to dispose of them.... a right pain in the butt.... JMO

As a rural dweller with significant quanties of bush and trees to dispose of annually I can't think of a worse/more time consuming/laborious/dangerous way of getting rid of it than using an incinerator with a small opening/door.

Brush/small (under 6") stuff is chipped and burnable logs are cut, then split and used or sold.

That said, many rural folk with smaller quantities of brush to dispose of, simply burn in piles ...open controlled burns. Again this is way easier than cutting each branch to fit an opening that is less than 2'x2.

Further, we do know that Millard had a chipper in his hangar collection of toys.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Actually I have a family member who hunts regularly and it happens that deer sometimes get shot and left if a hunter fails to come back. Thats why my family member uses night vision cameras and leaves them in trees to see if the actual area is good for hunting, so that he can also prepare to remove the deer after the hunt. Deer are extremely heavy and require some strength to bring home.... so on occasion some are left (not ever by my family member, but he has seen it happen where he comes across a dead deer)..... not often, but it happens...JMO

Nevertheless.... the other wildlife that are not hunted are plenty IMO

I would also think that burning trees and the like would be a use for an incinerator.....especially if planning to clear an area for building !! I remember cutting down tree branches and having to dispose of them.... a right pain in the butt.... JMO

You can't burn green wood. What you do it cut it down, pile it, let it sit for a year, THEN burn it. Before then it is too wet to burn. I suppose you could use an incinerator...but clearing land using that incinerator would be like emptying a bath with a teaspoon.

It would make more sense just to use a wood chipper on it and then you wouldn't care if it was green or not.

C

 

[Sillybilly]

So who determines what they are 'slow to grasp'? Or even if they are 'slow to grasp'?

Could it just be that they quite intelligent but refuse to accept what they are being pressured to 'grasp' ???

In the article I posted, they make reference to "level of intelligence" in the selection process. If they are a reasonably intelligent juror, and disagree with the others, they can do one of two things ... ultimately come to the same understanding as the other jurists based on extensive discussion, or hold out because they haven't changed their mind ... resulting in a hung jury.