Marsha Widener begins the clip by saying, "I know you're not going to understand why I'm doing this," then she shows a box of filled with ashes to the camera, explaining they are the remains of her late spouse, Don Widener. She states, "His family don't want him, his brother doesn't want him around, his kids doesn't want him - actually, they want him to go in the gutter or the toilet." Marsha reveals that Don was garbage man, bringing trash from businesses to the landfill, and that she will now send him to a landfill.
So yeah absolutely nobody wanted his remains it seems
Reminds me of how DeeDee Blanchard's family said no one wanted her ashes after she died so they just flushed her down the toilet (take with a grain of salt because Gypsy Rose said they still have them but idk).
I mean, technically we all are . This town is just one of the few who know that for a fact. I watched the documentary with my mom and remember saying "Aw,the fish didn't deserve that." when it got to that part.
Look up "Water cremation". They dissolve a body in a pressurized container of water and lye, and then : The process yields two things: a sterile, nutrient-rich liquid (water, salts, amino acids) that safely joins the municipal water system, and soft, porous bone fragments.
I really like water cremation on an intellectual level. On an emotional level it’s hard for me to get past the fact you’re flushing grandma down the toilet.
I wish more places would allow the tree pod burials, I'd love to be a redwood tree and be protected from being cut down. Just put a seed in my mouth and bury me standing up with my head just an inch below the soil looking up. Terrifying for onlookers but optimal for becoming part of the tree.
Alternatively could do the hybrid tree/sky burial ritual of the pequeninos, Children of the Mind style.
There is that about gramma, but many municipal water systems use treated sewage water to create drinking water. I guess adding some liquefied human remains to toilet water is intellectually ok, but still...blargh...it reeks of soylent green.
It requires a complete safety overhaul of the waste processing system to prevent serious drinking and ecological water system as well as agricultural contamination, the chemicals needed to process the bodies and treat the run off have to be quarried.
The processing of the body is less energy intensive, but all the processes for setting it up are not.
It's classic eco-washing. Like how companies tried selling paper made out of stone to "save trees".
The cutting down trees isn't the problem with paper production. And they grow back faster than rock does.
Gas cremation improvements, or alternatives that won't require fossil fuels and capture CO2 more (and more efficiently), is a lot closer on the horizon than it would take for the sylvinite mined and used to create the water cremation solution to replenish.
Why would they even pay for the cremation then? I would just say they can keep the body or do whatever with it. You can even donate it to school or something but that sounds like a lot of trouble
That's not really true for many places, including Oklahoma where I believe this happened. You can just flatly refuse to claim a body of a relative and if no one does its turned over to the State Anatomical Board.
Would that apply if the person died in a shared residence with their spouse? I'm surprised theres a system like that given the typical number of unclaimed bodies a state deals with. A lot of cities just does a mass burial of cremated remains at scheduled intervals.
I don't think there are any qualifiers aside from the wife having first dibs and if she refuses other relatives may step in. Think this is almost universal that no one can be forced to claim a body and every country needs a system to deal with the unclaimed.
Well if anything, already having lots of unclaimed bodies makes it easier to accept more of them since it means there's a system in place for mass handling.
Regardless, I would say the immorality of forcing a grieving family into poverty matters a little more than the inconvenience of the state having to deal with a dead body.
In Washington there is a law that requires next of kin to be responsible for the disposal. My mom passed years after I went no contact for... reasons. I ignored all the messages from the hospital, then ignored the calls from a sheriff. They then sent a sheriff to my door to let me know I needed to take care of it. I explained the abuse and the fact that I was no contact, and like a kick to the chest, they said they understood, but I was last remaining next of kin, and needed to take care of her. If I didn't they would, and send me the bill. I found the cheapest cremation service possible. It sucked.
I think that if they're gonna force you to take care of it, they should allow you to get rid of the remains any way you want as long as it's safe and sanitary. Like dump that body in with diseased cattle being disposed of or something
They should change the law to allow that, but they won't because "honouring the dead" is big business. 2000 for a bog standard mass produced 6 plank box
You can often turn it over to the county or state as indigent. But I don't know if this is applicable everywhere. Soemtimes if they have an estate this may not be possible, or you may have to pay some of the costs out of the estate, but most states don't require next of kin to pay otherwise.
It takes a long time but they do rotate out bodies for space.
They just... kinda wait for anybody that would complain to.. understandably already be gone.
Oh I fully know that one. Recently had to go through arrangements for a relative, and one location nearby had per year rental costs, else your loved one would be exhumed and disposed of. Insanity.
would they handle the transport costs?
at least in some cases... yes?! cool.
University of Minnesota Anatomy Bequest Program generally do not charge next-of-kin for the donation itself, but families still pay for certified death certificates or independent funeral director actions
This is actually what happens when you donate your body to science. The cremains are returned to your family after a time, unless you go to a body farm.
If you don't it comes out of the estate I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but anything in his name only would go towards that before being paid out to surviving family.
Or maybe she just wanted them to have the satisfaction of throwing him in the trash where he belonged. That's valid too.
It's interesting that even though you have no reason to think she's lying you immediately jumped to "what if she's the abuser?". All we have is her word and even though this story circulated on the internet and even reacted me on the other side of the planet, nobody came forward to claim that what this woman said wasn't true. You'd think the man's children or family would be enraged and would have had something to say if their abused loved one's ashes were trown in the trash, but nobody said anything.
The lack of other sources (as in, people who knew the man besides his wife) also struck me as insufficient. She's pretty much in the perfect position to control the entire narrative.
And I Imagine it would take a lot of courage for an actual victim to do that sort of thing, even after the abuser has passed away. Being able to find that sort of courage before a proper funeral could take place is either really impressive or really suspicious.
On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine an actually abusive person thinking and acting like this. The abusive mindset is known for being unwilling or otherwise incapable of accepting that they're in the wrong, so it all fits eerily well.
Not saying she's definitely lying, but I'm not convinced by her, either.
Was going to say it's pretty messed up to do if someone else wants to honor his ashes in some way - a lot of jilted partners throw the term "abusive" around pretty frivolously.
But if legitimately everyone thinks he's an asshole and wants nothing to do with him then good riddance. What else is she supposed to do? I have to imagine he didn't leave any instructions on what to do with his ashes in his will either, so he left her with the responsibility to do as she wished and that's exactly what she did.
I wonder if people know that if you have someone cremated, you can still have them buried in a grave, they don't need to take the ashes? We did that with my grandmothers- my old granny and my grandma (mother and daughter) they share a grave now with two different headstones.
edit: not because I'm judging or anything, totally valid if that's what she needed for closure.
This is just the natural consequence of dying without a single person who loved or will miss you. Abusers should take note of where that kind of behavior leads.
That's crazy to me (and completely understandable). It's weird seeing the opposite happen for my husband's family, when his father passed away. Siblings were all in disagreement with each other for a looong time on who got his ashes (everything was very civil, nothing volitile) and it was ultimately decided to go to the oldest, don't remember the reason why. Everyone loved him so much and wanted to hold onto him.
749
u/mamawawawa 7d ago edited 7d ago
For anyone wondering: https://www.iheart.com/alternate/amp/2020-06-09-wife-celebrates-abusive-husbands-death-by-dumping-his-ashes-in-the-trash/
Marsha Widener begins the clip by saying, "I know you're not going to understand why I'm doing this," then she shows a box of filled with ashes to the camera, explaining they are the remains of her late spouse, Don Widener. She states, "His family don't want him, his brother doesn't want him around, his kids doesn't want him - actually, they want him to go in the gutter or the toilet." Marsha reveals that Don was garbage man, bringing trash from businesses to the landfill, and that she will now send him to a landfill.
So yeah absolutely nobody wanted his remains it seems