County Attorney will not release autopsies of Yarnell 19 without a court order.

[Gravitycollapse]

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northern_az/prescott/county-withholds-autopsies-of-19-granite-mountain-hotshots

The Yavapai County attorney says autopsy reports and photos of the scene where 19 firefighters were killed in Arizona won't be released without a court order.

A letter sent to media organizations Monday says the records are being withheld under exemptions in Arizona public records law.

County Attorney Sheila Polk wrote that while the reports and photos are considered public records, the privacy interests of the firefighters' families override the public interest in their release. She was writing for the county sheriff and medical examiner, and the Maricopa County medical examiner, which performed the autopsies.

Numerous news agencies including The Associated Press have requested records regarding the June 30 deaths near Yarnell.

Media attorney David Bodney says courts have held autopsy reports to be public, and scene photos are also often released.

This seems kind of ridiculous. The public deserves to know what happened. Especially since it was such an unprecedented event.

[enlightenment]

1. The autopsies won't tell you what happened.

Not really. Those men were caught by the fire. They either burned first - or hopefully, died of toxic fumes before they burned. Reading the reports or seeing photos of their bodies won't tell you anything about WHY that happened.

The report that has - or will be - written from the investigation will perhaps explain the set of circumstances that led them to becoming trapped by the fire. That should be released.

Deaths like these are not unprecedented events. It's happened before (http://wildfiretoday.com/2013/06/30/history-of-multiple-fatality-wildland-fires/) and it will probably happen again. Fighting forest fires is a dangerous business and every man and woman who does it knows that. We owe them our gratitude and a little respect - which doesn't include publicizing photos of their charred corpses for the prurient pleasure of the viewing public.

Sorry if I sound lecturing, but there really is no rational reason to release autopsy photos to the public.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. There is absolutely a rational reason to release both the reports and the autopsies.

They are there to insure that there are no discrepancies between what actually happened and what will be reported after the investigation.

[enlightenment]

6. What do you suggest they autopsy report will say?

That the crew obviously deliberately ran into the blaze, merrily tossing their emergency tents into the wind?
This was a tragic accident, not a conspiracy. They didn't plan on dying and nobody was out to kill them. It doesn't serve the county or the state to play fast and loose with the truth.
The report could be released to independent investigators if anyone felt there was malfeasance, but the autopsy photos should NOT be released to the public. That would be an unnecessary cruelty to the families - and don't they have enough already? Bad enough their loved ones died, but they aren't eligible for any sort of compensation.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. It would absolutely serve the interest of the county and the state to conceal any wrong doing...

in a tragedy that has gripped the hearts of the nation and the world.

Or are you simply arguing that we let sleeping dogs lie?

[enlightenment]

9. What I'm arguing is that

I think this was an accident - a misfortune - a tragedy. Not some bloody conspiracy that has to be covered up.

If you want to believe that every bad thing that happens is somehow a deliberate act by an evil government, be my guest. Hell of a way to live, but that's your choice.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. I'm not saying this is a cover up.

I'm saying the public has a vested interest in knowing the records because there is a true interest for the state to want to keep any potential wrong doing under wraps.

[enlightenment]

17. But you're assuming that there is wrong-doing.

It was a horrible accident. I'm sorry, I just can't get behind your reasoning. I lived in Grand Junction, CO when the fourteen were lost on Storm King Mt - it was a horrible accident. Horrible things can happen when people fight forest fires.

What kind of "wrong doing" could there be? Really.

[FSogol]

10. +1. n/t

[djean111]

3. I agree.

If it were my son or grandson or whatever, I would feel he had given enough. At this point, looking at the charred corpses is just sad entertainment for some. I cannot think of any decent reason to release the photos.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. You cannot think of a single reason to release the photos?

I can think of many. If the state is attempting to cover up it's negligence or stupidity, it would be in its own interest to hide factually accurate things like photos or, assuming they also haven't been manipulated, autopsy reports.

[gopiscrap]

4. fucking attorney what an asshole

[FSogol]

8. Unrec. Sometimes accidents happen. Everything isn't a conspiracy.

Let the families have their privacy.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. They were public servants who died while on duty. En masse, might I add...

the public has a stake in knowing what happened.

[FSogol]

13. No, the public doesn't need to gawk at the photos.

It can be investigated without making it an f'ing circus.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Are you suggesting it can be investigated without public disclosure?

Because if you are, that makes no sense.

[FSogol]

15. A final report can be released. The dead firemen don't need to be paraded around

for some conspiracy-minded simpletons who think everything is an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Public disclosure is a standard, not an exception.

You don't need to resort to name calling to get your point across. I am not a simpleton and I do not want to parade photos of dead firefighters around. Please keep your emotions in check.

[djean111]

18. So you would be happy to read the autopsy reports and not look at charred corpses, then, I assume.

Because releasing those photos is absolutely parading them.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. I'm not sure you understand the definition of "parading."

[djean111]

20. Oh, yes I do understand.

Were those pictures going to be released to you, and only you, confidentially? You don't think that news outlets are also requesting them? They would be all over the internet. Paraded, as it were. Just because you personally would not do it, doesn't mean it would not happen.
Anyway, what would looking at those pictures prove? Seems to me the written words would tell the tale.