http://cbs5.com/crime/child.murder.a...2.1807517.html
Maurice Dubois said his memory of his 14-year-old daughter Amber will be forever marred by an autopsy photograph of her battered body."
Forgive me for appearing callous but this statement caught my eye. If Amber had been killed and left in the desert for over a year then how much of 'her battered body' would remain? I had heard that there were only scattered bones remaining. Has anyone heard of anything different? Is he speaking of her skeletal remains or an actual physical body? Or is he speaking in semantics for effect.
I have a couple of possibles on this:
What if the skull were crushed? That would be pretty terrible to see.
It is possible that just seeing her remains as a pile of bones laid out could have been traumatic for him, especially if there were clothing remnants that could be seen and identified. Not wanting to be graphic, but evidence of animals gnawing on bone is gruesome.
BTW, the area this was found in was not a desert, it is covered in brush. The condition of the body would be different depending on if it were in a shallow grave, actually scattered around, under the brush, or in the direct sunlight. Also if it were wrapped in anything (a trash bag or tarp, perhaps).
Again, not meaning to be graphic but I have this guinea pig that the vet placed in a plastic bag when she died. I buried her in the bag, and her sister not in a bag about a year later. I accidentally hit their graves about a year after that while digging up a bush (the root system was larger than I thought), and the bagged piggie was scary. The other was only bones.
Sorry if that was TMI, just wanted to say there could be lots of reasons an autopsy picture could freak a person out. No parent expects to bury their child.