Former funeral director accused of indignities

Press, 12 September 1984, Page 3

Former funeral director accused of indignities

PA Auckland A former funeral director faced 17 charges of offering indignities to human remains when he appeared for a depositions hearing in the District Court in Auckland yesterday. He also faced another 17 charges of neglecting to perform the appropriate duties to human remains, two of attempting to pervert the course of justice, and one count of false pretences. An application for suppression of name was rejected by the Justices of the Peace, Mrs A. V. Fitzpatrick and Mr W. H. Christmas. However, they granted interim suppression, pending an appeal against their de-

cision by defence counsel, Mr Graeme Jenkins. The names of all but police witnesses were suppressed. One witness said that from December, 1981, to January, 1983, he worked for the defendant as a trainee funeral director. At first, he said, the defendant had high standards, but subsequently the witness objected to some practices. The witness said that twice between May, 1982, and January, 1983, he saw the defendant put internal organs into rubbish-disposal bags and place them into the caskets of unrelated bodies. The defendant had said it was easier to do so and saved time. Another witness, said she worked for the defendant

from early 1980 to 1981. She said she discovered the defendant was putting stillborn babies, or babies who had died soon after birth, into coffins with unrelated deceased adults. She saw this happen at least a dozen times. The witness said sha spoke to the defendant about the matter. He told her that it was standard practice for funeral directors and saved expense for the parents. He said that if she told anybody about it he would “get her.” She was frightened of the defendant. She had seen displays of his temper and she thought he might physically harm her. A further witness told the hearing he began working for the defendant about 1982-83. He still believed the

defendant was “the best.” The witness said viscera bags in bodies were supposed to be removed, the organs cleaned, and the bags replaced in the bodies from which they had come. That happened sometimes. Two or three weeks after beginning work he discovered that bags were not being returned to the appropriate bodies, but were being put into coffins about to go to the crematorium. As he was new to the job, he thought this was hygienic and saved disposal problems. He saw bags transferred to other coffins more than 90 times. The witness said that at one stage he called a meeting with other staff members because the defendant was starting to remove viscera from Maori bodies as well. The defendant was asked 'to stop taking the internal organs away from Maori deceased. The defendant said he was making sure the bodies were in good condition when returned to homes or marae. will continue