JFK Jr's burial at sea

The amount of hardware put into service searching first for survivors, then searching for remains, was totally out of normal procedures.
If I were to be tossed into the sea off the coast of the Vineyard, would several Coastguard ships, several Coastguard aircraft, several Navy ships, several Air Force aircraft, and a host of state police and civilian search and rescue teams be sent to find me??
Simple answer, nope!
The Coastguard would likely spend a couple of days looking for my floating remains, then call it a wash, pin a label on my name saying “shark food”, and the authorities would ask for anything showing up on the beach to be returned. All done, finis, sayonara.
People in special “places” get special treatment, always have, always will.

FixedBack

The USC performs burials at sea, mostly for active or retired military personnel. But the USCG will also bury civilians. Civilian requests are sent up the chain of command and if approved, burials are conducted while vessels are on training or whenever a ceremony would not interfere with ship’s duties. Most involve just sprinkling ashes of a cremated person though casket burials are also permitted. The casket must meet federal regs that govern objects placed in the sea. For casket burials, the vessel must be at least 3 miles out in water at least 600 feet deep.


“Quoth the Raven, ‘Nevermore.’”
E A Poe

OK, JFK, Jr. wanted to be buried at sea.

And I suppose that since married couples are known to have things in common, Carolyn could well have shared this love of the sea and wanted the same disposal.

So how about Lauren? Did she coincidentally prefer this method, or was it just a matter of convenience?

I can only imagine the anger most of you would feel if JFK Jr.'s family had wanted him buried in Arlington (with his parents and brother). I’m even willing to bet that the naysayers would’ve said “why didn’t they just throw his remains into the sea”? I think it was a simple and fitting tribute to be buried at sea. Have a little respect.

Why recover their bodies if only to put them back into the sea ?

Simply, some wacked out Weekly World News Reporter with a scuba liscence would have taken his underwater camera down to the wreckage and gotten a shot of the remains, presumably still strapped to their seats, and had it be the front cover for their magazine. How they died is tragic, let them rest in peace with dignity, which tabloids cannot do.

Speaking of dignity, and lack thereof, has anyone heard the results of the autopsy?

Not just reporters Shirly, how would you like the general populace being able to put on scuba gear and do an “Alas poor Yorick” with your skull?

Not that the activities would be limited to Shakespeare. People are quite insane. I could see this exchange:

Nut #1: Hey, what should we do tonight?

Nut #2: We could go diving off Gay Head, and maybe skull-f*ck a Kennedy if the mood hits us.

Nut #3: What the hell, ‘Frasier’ is a repeat tonight.

The Church originally frowned on cremation because it was thought to deny that the entire body would be resurrected at the Last Day. (Plus, I believe cremation was one of the methods the pagan Romans used, and that in itself would likley make the early Church opposed to it.) The RC and Anglican churches changed their positions on it in the 60s. It may be (and I admit I’m speculating) that the ban on scattering the ashes is a vestige of the original opposition to cremation - symbolically, the remains of the body should be kept together to await the resurrection.

Plausible enough, jti, thanks–however, I can’t help but recall that the Church has (had?) always put fairly large faith into Pieces o’ Saints (aka relics)! Oh, well; they’ve shrugged off bigger inconsistancies than that before.
–Alan Q