By Tracy Dingmann

The man known as the “Cookie Bandit” was undoubtedly a bad guy.

Joseph Henry Burgess earned his nickname because he survived for years by stealing food and supplies from cabins in the Jemez Mountains where he lived.

When he died in a police shootout a year ago, Burgess was the chief suspect in the murder of Sandoval County Sheriff Deputy Sgt. Joe Harris. Burgess was also suspected in the 1972 killings of a Canadian couple and the 2006 death of a man last seen camping in the Jemez Mountains.

But the July 9 Journal story about the disposal of Burgess’ body in the Journal was a bit over the top.  (Read “Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Killer’s Cremation” here.)

As we learn from the story, Burgess’ body was cremated by Sandoval County after his family failed to claim his body from the state Office of the Medical Investigator.  His cremation cost $600 and was done at taxpayer expense.

The story included angry quotes from Sandoval County Sheriff John Paul Trujillo.

“I don’t think the taxpayers should pay,” Trujillo said. “The fact is he had family to take his body. I don’t think county residents should have to pay for someone who killed one of our deputies.”

I respect Trujillo’ opinion, but I wonder what he thinks would have been a suitable alternative. Because what happened to Burgess was exactly what was called for by state law.

When Burgess’s family failed to claim him after two weeks, the state declared him indigent.  As required, Sandoval County disposed of his body and paid for it through the county’s indigent fund, which caps the cost of disposals at $600.

Would Trujillo have preferred that the state dump Burgess’s body at his family’s doorstep instead?

From the story:

“State law requires the county to take care of any bodies that are unclaimed or declared indigent, even if they have family,” said County Manager Juan Vigil. “It doesn’t matter where the person is from, if the person dies or is discovered in your county, it is that county’s responsibility.”

“It might be offensive, but we have to follow the law,” he said.

The Journal gave Trujillo a prominent platform for his criticism.  But again, what is the alternative?

In my opinion, the Journal story certainly didn’t do much to calm down the rhetoric. The impression I got after reading this supposedly objective news story was thinly-veiled outrage at the notion of taxpayers paying for the burials of poor people – not to mention a suspected murderer.

I predict we’ll see a Journal editorial soon about the outrage of taxpayer dollars being used to pay for burials of the indigent.

I’ll be interested to see what they come up with as an alternative.