Talk:Tri-State Crematory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think that the title of the last section is a bit misleading: half of it discusses general recommendations about cremations in the US, and, actually... I had already heard about this case before, at the time when the explanation was that the oven was broken, and now that I've heard it was not, I wonder:
Why the heck did this Brent Marsh person not use the crematorium oven and instead disposed of the bodies by other means!? Is there any explanation about it?
Has the case gone to court? David.Monniaux 22:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we'll ever know what posessed Brent Marsh to not cremate the bodies, and do the sick, horrible, despicable, things that he has done. I haven't heard too much one way or the other about this case lately, the last I heard was he was awaiting trial. I would think that when the cases against him were decided one way or the other that it would be big news.
I don't think that the title of the last section is misleading though. About the only way to discuss part of the reasons why this thing occured is by examining the depth of regulation, or lack thereof, regarding crematoriums in the United States.
- JesseG 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think it's better to say Reasons this Tradgey Occured instead of naming it as a Lack of inspections which caused this tradgey to occur. Because in that section, I did not only highlight the lack on inspections, I also highlighted the lack of regulation. So I believe that it would be better to leave that section as "Some Reasons this Tradgey Occured"
JesseG 03:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Reason refers to doing something on purpose, like motifs for not cremating. Lack on inspections or lack of regulation may allow it to happen, but is not a reason, and not even a cause. Please write tragedy properly.--Patrick 22:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I changed the wording of the section about Marsh's pleading guilty as part of a plea bargin. It looked too much like the article I read on CNN, and I did have concerns that it might have led to copyright issues.
JesseG 02:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
There is a totally incorrect and inaccurate reference in the "Motives" section. The prosecutor in Georgia at an early bond hearing raised the issue of pornography and dead body images on a computer found at the site, which apparently concerned the judge, and bond was denied. A day or two later, the state investigator who inspected the computers on the property protested that conclusions were jumpted to by the prosecution, and that his investigation was not complete when the allegation was made. The computer in question had just been obtained by the defendant's mother from a local college. She had not yet even used the computer. All material on the hard drive had been put there when the computer was part of the network at the local college. The GBI investigator resigned over the affair, which was well documented in later hearings. Don't you need to check the facts before you put them on the web like this? georgiacracker
Another lack of facts: the sheriff's department that you link to isn't even in Georgia! You're looking for the Walker County Sheriff's Office, not Bradley County, TN. I looked around on the Bradley and Walker County sites but they don't have any information on the case anymore, and the GBI's info was limited to DNA testing results. I'm going to go ahead and remove the link. Moonsword 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is his "mug shot" ? I think it should be added to the article.
