Local families who handed over purported cremains for analysis at Colorado Mesa University as part of the Sunset Mesa Funeral Home case could see the results of that testing become part of evidence in an unrelated lawsuit.
A letter dated Wednesday informs the families who had ashes tested at the university that CMU has been subpoenaed for five years’ worth of its analyses of cremains and the results.
Those reports include the names of decedents and may also include the names of survivors, the letter states. The letter is signed by Jacquie Rich Fredericks, First Assistant Attorney General for Colorado, who is listed as counsel for CMU in the matter.
The notification apparently went out to everyone who had ashes tested at CMU in 2018 after allegations arose concerning Sunset Mesa’s practices.
The local funeral home, since closed, was accused by the state and people who purchased cremation services of returning something other than human ashes, or of returning the incorrect cremains.
Sunset Mesa’s operators, who deny all allegations, have also been accused of harvesting and selling bodies and body parts without permission. Former owner Megan Hess and her mother Shirley Koch were indicted earlier this year on allegations of mail fraud and shipping diseased body parts.
In an unrelated case, Kent Funeral Homes LLC, which operated several funeral homes in the state, on Dec. 1 permanently relinquished its funerary and crematory registrations. Under the stipulated agreement with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Office of Funeral Home and Crematory Registration, Shannon Kent — who is also the coroner of Lake County — agreed to never again seek registration for funeral and crematory establishments.
The final agency order and stipulation discusses the complaint of a Leadville woman, Elizabeth Witthoeft, who arranged for the cremation of her stillborn son with Bailey-Kent Funeral Home in 2019. The state document says the funeral home did not provide written notice to Witthoeft that the baby’s cremation would be performed by another of the Kent Funeral Homes, nor did it tell her that she could ask questions about the agreement to DORA. The state also says the funeral home did not provide Witthoeft with paperwork concerning the cremains.
When she received them, Witthoeft “believed the cremains returned to her exceeded the expected weight for a stillborn child and submitted them for forensic analysis,” the stipulation says.
The analysis determined the ashes contained elements of a perinatal infant, but also bone fragments of an older and larger individual, as well as metal.
Bailey-Kent Funeral Home did not provide evidence of chain of custody when requested, the stipulation also says.
The Dec. 1 document says that on Oct. 2 of this year, authorities from Lake and Eagle counties served a warrant at Bailey-Kent’s Leadville location.
The sheriffs’ offices of these two jurisdictions “found the premises to be in an unsanitary condition and with the presence of biological waste,” the state documents says.
The agencies also found a body that was not properly refrigerated, unlabeled cremains, bodies in refrigeration that had not been wrapped properly and lacked identifying paperwork, and paperwork scattered several feet deep on the floor of the business.
An initial order of suspension dated Oct. 13 said investigators were greeted with a “strong odor of decomposition” and then discovered used body bags, medical gloves and other equipment with dried bodily fluid on them, as well as a sealed casket with dirt on it which contained a male that had been exhumed. “Several bodies” in refrigeration were wrapped in sheets and blankets.
The building was “red-tagged” and Lake County Public Health removed the biological waste on Oct. 5.
Bailey-Kent denied the state’s allegations, but acknowledged that if they were proved, these would constitute a violation of state law. The respondents agreed to never seek funeral establishment registrations again and Shannon Kent agreed that neither he nor someone acting on his behalf would provide funeral services or cremations in Colorado.
The state’s order applies to him, Bailey-Kent Funeral Home, Everett Family Funeral Home and Crematory, Everett Family Funeral Crematory, Hegmann Funeral Service, Runyan Mortuary Inc. and Runyan-Kent Mortuary.
The Attorney General’s notification letter on Wednesday states Witthoeft and David Roemer, identified in published reports as Witthoeft’s fiancé, have sued Kent Funeral Homes LLC over the alleged mishandling of the baby’s cremains, which CMU later analyzed.
“We’re still in the investigative stage of the lawsuit,” said attorney Paul Yarbrough, who represents Kent Funeral Home in the Witthoeft matter, but not in the DORA actions. The funeral home denies the suit’s allegations, Yarbrough said.
“We certainly want to get all information that could have bearing on claims in the case and we want to review them and test whatever the allegations are against our client.”
Yarbrough also said the defense does not believe the suit’s claims are legitimate.
Whitthoeft’s attorney could not be reached for comment Friday.
Yarbrough said CMU was subpoenaed as part of fact-finding in the case, which has not yet been set for trial.
“That was the reason for the subpoena. We’ll see what that shows,” he said, going on to defend his client.
“The Kents are wonderful people and I’m privileged to represent them. We’ll see how the evidence shakes out during discovery, but I really think very highly of them.”
The university is required to comply with the subpoena, but said via Rich Fredericks’ letter it would give the court a list of people who object to having the results of their analyses disclosed.
“Since when the analyses were done, there was not an expectation by those that requested the analyses that their information might be involved in someone else’s lawsuit, the university is providing you with this notice,” the letter states.
The university can’t guarantee how the information will be used, or whether it will be shared beyond the Witthoeft case, but said people can request their reports remain confidential. Those who want information to be confidential were directed to reply by Jan. 6, 2021, to an email listed in the notification they received.
Although a list of those who want to keep the analyses confidential will go to the court, the court may still order that all information to be disclosed.
Katharhynn Heidelberg is the Montrose Daily Press assistant editor and senior writer. Follow her on Twitter, @kathMDP.