The Incinerator

[ArianeEmory]

If nothing else, I'm glad to see more faith being expressed in jurors' ability to think clearly and objectively, since some were concerned potential jurors would be prejudiced by/convict based on the incinerator being part of the public awareness.

 

[skatergirl]

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.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/chilling-details-emerge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/

DM could have called and said he was an employee, or worked at Millardair JMO

 

[Blomquist]

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

I don't recall that I mentioned green wood!!!

I have dried out wood and burnt it.... and burnt some that wasn't died.... a little smokier. But wasn't there a function at the top of said incinerator that dealt with smoke if I recall correctly. Twas merely a suggestion as with everyone elses..... take it or leave it imo

 

[Blomquist]

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.

Actually I read somewhere that incinerators are used to burn wood/branches.... I believe a link was posted on here...will have a look for it.

I am wondering why incinerators are manufactured at all judging by the relentless attempts to prove their non worth JMO

 

[Blomquist]

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.

hmmm well if its a time consuming/laborious/dangerous way of getting rid of trees and branches then why would someone want one for a body which would obviously be a lot more time consuming/laborious and dangerous.... Makes much more sense to be for what it was said to have been purchased for.... animal/wildlife.

I still say it would have been easier to go to a remote spot and bury the evidence....... so I still think the incinerator is unrelated to TB....unless its a stage prop to cast suspicion and garner media attention as has been the case to date.......JMO

 

[Snoofo]

hmmm well if its a time consuming/laborious/dangerous way of getting rid of trees and branches then why would someone want one for a body which would obviously be a lot more time consuming/laborious and dangerous.... Makes much more sense to be for what it was said to have been purchased for.... animal/wildlife.

I still say it would have been easier to go to a remote spot and bury the evidence....... so I still think the incinerator is unrelated to TB....unless its a stage prop to cast suspicion and garner media attention as has been the case to date.......JMO

And if it's that easy for a neighbour to saunter over to another's land and walk through wooded lots by foot, why wouldn't DM not find a large lot owned by someone else and bury the body there?

 

[ArianeEmory]

DM could have called and said he was an employee, or worked at Millardair JMO

Yeah, I don't get how it's not plain that, if someone was a spokesman for a company being tangentially associated with a gruesome murder, one wouldn't try to be as vague as possible. A "MillardAir Employee" absolutely could be a way of avoiding saying Dellen Millard's name, and covering their butts on several levels. I'm sure whatever reporter asked the question tried to get them to name a name.

 

[SnooperDuper]

hmmm well if its a time consuming/laborious/dangerous way of getting rid of trees and branches then why would someone want one for a body which would obviously be a lot more time consuming/laborious and dangerous.... Makes much more sense to be for what it was said to have been purchased for.... animal/wildlife.

I still say it would have been easier to go to a remote spot and bury the evidence....... so I still think the incinerator is unrelated to TB....unless its a stage prop to cast suspicion and garner media attention as has been the case to date.......JMO

The Sun's article mentioned a different model of incinerator than what the Globe suggested DM had. If the Globe article is the more accurate one DM had an SN500 with an opening 2.5" x 1.5" and 23 cu ft capacity. You could put a whole person in that.

The problem with using such a container to fill it with branches and then incinerate them is that branches get tangled, and they are very springy, and it is just a nightmare to try and pack a container with them. They are usually stacked in big fluffy piles to dry out and then burned, or chipped. A thousand times easier. If you spent and afternoon with that incinerator and tried to load it with branches you would give up before burning your first load. It's just an insane concept.

As for burning wildlife, DM's farm's population of fauna just isn't going to justify spending 15 GRAND. You may see lots of wildlife in an area but you are going to see very little dead wildlife, in proportion to that...and dead things on the roadside are the township's or usually (ironically) humane society's issue.

I think the incinerator was bought to make someone disappear. I don't think there was a firm plan at the time it was purchased, but I think it was bought with criminal intent. IMO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

And if it's that easy for a neighbour to saunter over to another's land and walk through wooded lots by foot, why wouldn't DM not find a large lot owned by someone else and bury the body there?

Good point, but I think by leaving the body on his own land DM thought he had better control of the situation, vs. leaving it on other's property where DM had absolutely no control over access. On his own property he had a vague expectation of privacy.

 

[Blomquist]

The Sun's article mentioned a different model of incinerator than what the Globe suggested DM had. If the Globe article is the more accurate one DM had an SN500 with an opening 2.5" x 1.5" and 23 cu ft capacity. You could put a whole person in that.

The problem with using such a container to fill it with branches and then incinerate them is that branches get tangled, and they are very springy, and it is just a nightmare to try and pack a container with them. They are usually stacked in big fluffy piles to dry out and then burned, or chipped. A thousand times easier. If you spent and afternoon with that incinerator and tried to load it with branches you would give up before burning your first load. It's just an insane concept.

As for burning wildlife, DM's farm's population of fauna just isn't going to justify spending 15 GRAND. You may see lots of wildlife in an area but you are going to see very little dead wildlife, in proportion to that...and dead things on the roadside are the township's or usually (ironically) humane society's issue.

I think the incinerator was bought to make someone disappear. I don't think there was a firm plan at the time it was purchased, but I think it was bought with criminal intent. IMO.

Not a year in advance IMO.... just ludicrous to suggest it IMO....

No firm plan spending $15,000?? ...... Apparently wildlife remains were in it already...so that counts for something. IMO

And also IMO... all the words to counteract the possible use for branches etc...have yet to convince me.... JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Not a year in advance IMO.... just ludicrous to suggest it IMO....

No firm plan spending $15,000?? ...... Apparently wildlife remains was in it already...so that counts for something. IMO

And also IMO... all the words to counteract the possible use for branches etc...have yet to convince me.... JMO

There was never an article that stated remains had been found in it, of any sort

 

[Arnie M]

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:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Incinerator


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.

Thanks billy .... since we last spoke on the subject of the incinerator size I have come up with some new observations ... see if you agree

I am convinced the DM model is the larger SN500 ... (not the SN250)

For the following reasons
--the 500 model has a porch on it (platform to stand on)
--the 500 model has a larger fan motor
--the 500 model has a larger space between the burner and the control panel

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks billy .... since we last spoke on the subject of the incinerator size I have come up with some new observations ... see if you agree

I am convinced the DM model is the larger SN500 ... (not the SN250)

For the following reasons
--the 500 model has a porch on it (platform to stand on)
--the 500 model has a larger fan motor
--the 500 model has a larger space between the burner and the control panel

Yes, the 500 porch is clearly visible in the pic of DM's incinerator, so based on the fact the 250 does not have the porch (and it is not an option), I would agree that DM's model is the 500.

 

[swedie]

If DM had no evil intentions last year when he purchased the incinerator, he should have had no problem opening up to LE when arrested and explaining its purpose.

Ten more days... No bail yet, no other arrests. Hmm. MOO

 

[Arnie M]

If DM had no evil intentions last year when he purchased the incinerator, he should have had no problem opening up to LE when arrested and explaining its purpose.

Ten more days... No bail yet, no other arrests. Hmm. MOO

Yes , I would think so too .... it will be interesting when all the info comes out during trial .... we will all get to see how correct we were (or not)

As far as other arrests ... no third suspect picked up yet ... there was one LE officer who said there may not be a third (possibly one of the two was dropped off to follow with the Blue SUV) .... However in the first test drive both went along , DM drove, owner as front passenger , other person (MS ??) in rear seat .

I feel it is highly unlikely a lone test-driver could "subdue" JB en-route to Brampton ... and if 2nd person followed and met at Brampton it would probably require an outdoor scuffle to subdue the victim ... hard to say . If there is a third ... it could change everything ... one of the three would try to claim bystander status and spill their guts on the other two .... that is about the only way the whole story will come out ... unless full confessions are forthcoming ... which I doubt (good lawyers)

 

[swedie]

Yes , I would think so too .... it will be interesting when all the info comes out during trial .... we will all get to see how correct we were (or not)

As far as other arrests ... no third suspect picked up yet ... there was one LE officer who said there may not be a third (possibly one of the two was dropped off to follow with the Blue SUV) .... However in the first test drive both went along , DM drove, owner as front passenger , other person (MS ??) in rear seat .

I feel it is highly unlikely a lone test-driver could "subdue" JB en-route to Brampton ... and if 2nd person followed and met at Brampton it would probably require an outdoor scuffle to subdue the victim ... hard to say . If there is a third ... it could change everything ... one of the three would try to claim bystander status and spill their guts on the other two .... that is about the only way the whole story will come out ... unless full confessions are forthcoming ... which I doubt (good lawyers)

Arnie, I enjoy reading your concise and thoughtful posts. I don't know if you follow crime cases at all but I have followed numerous and I can say without a doubt, I have seen the majority end up with the arrested being the ones who committed the crime especially with modern technology and sciences. Especially went arrests happen so quickly as in this case. I believe quick arrests happen because LE has collected direct evidence right out of the gate. Also, there tends to be associates of the perps who are able verify and divulge information to LE (someone known to DM called in a tip re; tattoo). OR where more than one perp is involved, the other one(s) will throw the other under the bus; giving damning information and leading to more direct evidence. GREAT EXAMPLE; Terri Lynn M and Michael R. She threw him under the bus and of course he denied everything even when he knew he was the mastermind behind it all. Great thing though, MSM had everything right, even though we had little to work with prior to trial, as there was a PB in place also. The just of the information was there.

One just needs to use common sense when it comes to the obvious. IMHO what the media and LE have told us is in regard to this case is percisely what happened. It's about reading between the lines and common sense. I understand the PB being in place and agree with it. We want to be certain the accused get their "fair trial", therefore some details have to be held back.

I for one very much want to see justice served in a court of law for Tim and not see the perps get off on some ridiculous technicality by releasing too much info to the public. As we've already read and heard, DP has squawked about information being leaked. All :moo:

 

[swedie]

OT :yesss: The coward. Unless someone murdered him... he is where he belongs; hell. MOO

Ariel Castro: Convicted Cleveland kidnapper/rapist found dead in cell

http://www.19actionnews.com/story/23331636/convicted-cleveland-kidnapper-hangs-himself

 

[Arnie M]

Anyone else notice the red substance on the spare tire of the incinerator unit ?

If I was to speculate it may be blood ... it would be for the following reasons:
--the incinerator most likely would have been moved to a remote location on the farm before being put into operation
--most likely it would require DM's red truck
--because it uses a "pintle hitch" ... which TB's truck would not have , nor the blue SUV
--the body would have been loaded into DMs truck box , then truck driven to the incinerator and hooked up .... then truck & incinerator driven to the remote location on the farm.
--to unload the body would require two people , one standing on either side of the hitch
--the tailgate would be opened and would overhang the front portion of the trailer hitch so the natural place to set the body down would be on the spare tire area
--thus the possibility of blood residue there

I am reluctant to believe it for the following reasons
--there are no red stains on the white tire rim
--it would be surprising if they did not "clean it up" afterward
--unless they overlooked it or it was done at night
--the rest of the trailer and the top of the fender on the loading side look "clean" by comparison

Sleutherisms and comments are welcome

AM

 

[Arnie M]

I also noticed another red stain on the metal part of the frame behind the tire

Refer to the middle arrow in my blow-up picture .. go slightly to the right of the tip of the arrow

It actually shows up better in the original picture in my post #941 ... enlarge it slightly and you can see it better

 

[ArianeEmory]

Thanks billy .... since we last spoke on the subject of the incinerator size I have come up with some new observations ... see if you agree

I am convinced the DM model is the larger SN500 ... (not the SN250)

For the following reasons
--the 500 model has a porch on it (platform to stand on)
--the 500 model has a larger fan motor
--the 500 model has a larger space between the burner and the control panel

Excellent analysis. I think it's very clear what model it is now (I've tended not to get involved in the 'which model is it' debates, but I think this pretty much sums it up). Doesn't this also mean the model cost more like $15,000 than $6,000?

I've seen the red marks on the tire, chain, etc that you mention, but they look too bright/bordering on magenta hues to be blood, which would have surely oxidized browner (unless the neighbor took photos sooner than we know?). It looks like red spray paint to me.