Charges Reinstated Against 3 Necrophiles
Nick Grunke, Alex Grunke, Dustin Radke
Wisconsin - Two years ago, when the site was a bit different, we posted an article about the three young men who attempted to dig up a corpse so one of them could have sex with it. They were busted before being able to get the body out of the grave and arrested. Since this happened in Wisconsin, the appeals court upheld dismissal of charges against the three claiming there was no law against necrophilia. But things have changed as the state Supreme Court is now stating that Wisconsin law makes sex acts with the dead illegal.
State law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent “whether the victim is dead or alive at the time………A reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead personâ€.
Third-degree sexual assault charges have now been re-instated against the three and they are now facing up to 10 years in prison. Read on for the gruesome details.
Back in 2006, Nicholas Grunke, 22, saw the obituary of 20-year-old Laura Tennessen . She had died a week prior in a motorcycle accident. Nicholas then enlisted the help of his twin brother, Alex and their friend 22-year-old Dustin Radke, to help in a plan that involved them digging up the corpse of Laura Tennessen so that Nicholas could have sex with her in a predetermined spot behind Grunke’s house.
So, on the night of 9/2/06, the three headed out to St. Charles Cemetery equipped with digging tools and a tarp. Along the way, they stopped at a Wal-Mart in Dodgeville where they bought condoms. At some point during their activities in the cemetery, a Village of Cassville Police Officer was dispatched to the area to investigate a report of an unoccupied, suspicious vehicle. When the officer arrived, he observed Alex Grunke walking toward the vehicle, dressed in black. He was also extremely nervous and sweating profusely. After some questioning, Alex he confessed that there were two people in the cemetery digging up a corpse. When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible. Nick and Dustin were nowhere to be found, but were arrested the following morning walking down the road 8 miles from the cemetery.
So, have fun in court Alex, Nick and Dustin. I hope this case drags on and on for you three creepy motherfuckers and I am more than happy to keep your three ugly faces right smack in the limelight. Just a shame that Laura’s family will have to deal with this on top of losing her. Fuck the three of you.
Edit:
Here is the original preliminary hearing for the three idiots. This was when the defense was stating that there was no law against having sexual intercourse with human remains. You also learn that Nicholas Grunke has had some issues, including threatening to blow up his school.
Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense.
I was referring to myself as public enemy #1. My desire for logical, factual arguments makes me rather unpopular. SugarGlider seems like she’s developing a similar stigma, for a similar reason. I was making a joke. As far as my views making sense? If I’m thinking about things logically, legally, and you’re thinking about them emotionally, I don’t expect them to make sense to you. We disagree, and that’s absolutely okay. Not everyone can agree all the time. Chill out, ma…Take a couple deep breaths. It’s just the internetz.
If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it.
No, no…You clearly misunderstood me. IF necrophilia is illegal, I would have no problem with a “conspiracy to commit necrophilia” or “attempted necrophilia” charge existing. Logically, it should exist, and that’s what these boys should get charged with. My problem is this: If that conspiracy charge does not exist for whatever reason, we shouldn’t go up a level and charge them with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s like charging someone guilty of attempted murder with murder.
Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed.
You’re right. But, if that’s the case, they should get to work on such a law, rather than charging these boys with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s my point.
My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown.
Again, the public enemy comment was in regard to myself. The only circumstance that should keep you from voicing your opinions is if you think they aren’t worth being heard. Certainly, a little rough handling from me shouldn’t prevent you. If you’re particularly sensitive, though, feel free to say so, and I’ll strap the kid gloves on. Just be sure not to start out as aggressively next time. If you’re aggressive, I’ll assume you can handle aggression. Fair?
As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…
Apparently, you could use a refresher. Look back through the posts and see who “attacked” first. Your intial post asserted that I was posting “ignorant shit”. Your next post asserted that I “get off” on having legal knowledge, and that I must not “like to be challenged”. I let you get off three clean shots before I became even the slightest bit uncivil. It’s pretty clear that you were on the attack, not me. If you disagree, please feel free to point out where I was attacking. I re-read those posts, and I just don’t see it.
For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.
That’s not true. We have rules and standards that determine course of action; precedent and guidelines. The average citizen has no say in most criminal legislation. Our government was specifically set up to limit or prevent entirely emotion from playing a role.
Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.
There’s nothing wrong with that, and I don’t mean to give anyone the impression that there is. In terms of legality, however, it behooves people to strap their unemotional cap on. I refuse to believe people can’t, I just think that they won’t. The theory behind legislation and criminal sentencing is very formulaic. It IS removed from emotion, which is why applying emotion to legal theory only serves to complicate conversation.
Ultimately, it’s my fault. I make a comment like, “I don’t believe necrophilia should be specifically criminalized,” and I’m looking to engage in, what boils down to, a conversation about legal theory. I should go hang out on some legal message board for that sort of thing, but there’s more controversy here, and I just can’t seem to drag myself away from that.
Post #49 by Kathy - says what I think.
While I appreciate Athena’s passion for the law and her desire for it to be applied properly, there are some instances that the law has not addressed that need to be - like this very issue. There are other instances that have been addressed by our laws but a satifactory resolution has not been made. In fact, how many current laws on the books, do we, the general public, think need to be revisited and revised for their ineffectiveness? There is always room for improvement in the laws and the law makers.
In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them - no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.
Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff - well, I’m not gonna touch that one……………………
Just kiddin’
I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit. However, I do think necrophilia should be made illegal, and so should attempted necrophilia. Unfortunately, it would be too late for these sickos, but it’s better than nothing.
And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you
In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them - no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power†to have any more ability to abuse the “power†they already have. That I have to support.
Thanks, Pooh. And here I was thinking I wasn’t being clear enough (I do tend to be a bit verbose).
Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff - well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’
Well, damnit, Pooh, it’s a double-edged sword.
The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh?
That’s the point of this story. They did commit a crime, as necrophilia was already illegal in the state, even though it wasn’t named specifically. The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent. The law never specifically stated that the person had to be alive or not.
The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.
And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration.
Well, that right there is the crux of the argument; the point that I recognize I have to be willing to agree to disagree. It’s not that I can’t sympathize…I mean, I can totally understand how necrophilia would fuck with the family of the deceased. But, from my (legal) perspective, we don’t have any criminal laws that protect the dead in any other circumstance, nor do we have any laws meant to protect or serve as vengence for the family of the victim (except in civil court). So, to me, this is establishing a whole new class of criminal charge (as there’s no legal precedent, that I can think of) because necrophilia is super fuckin’ icky.
That just doesn’t jive with me.
And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you.
It sure wouldn’t! You wouldn’t get to play Catholic School teacher any more - always smacking my knuckles with a ruler!
Its a deal. And, like I’ve said before, I respect your opinion and knowledge, I just don’t always agree. It’s nothing about your person, its nothing more than you see things one way and I see them another. Our past experiences skew our perceptions and since our pasts were different, we have different perceptions. Its all good, on my part anyway.
I have to go with solange on this one and the inanimate object thing. In my death, I want to be viewed as a person, who has passed. I don’t want to be a person one day and the next be viewed with as much empathy as say, a door knob. It get the literal definition. I do. But anything that WAS living has to rate higher than anything that NEVER had life in it. Just sayin’…………………………
Very, very good point Morbid.
The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent.
And that’s just the thing - I can’t think of a single precedent that establishes the deceased as a “person”, much like the unborn aren’t legally considered a “person”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be able to keep bodies in museums without prior consent, or use corpses for medical purposes without prior consent under any circumstance. Classifying a corpse as a person has some pretty broad implications that it doesn’t seem as though they’ve considered.
But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.
Athena, Isn’t there a law on the books called “desecration(sp) of remains or something like that? Or something like”disturbing a grave”?
I am not a lawyer or judge, even though, like other people, I like to play one on this blog. So for anyone who wants to read how they came to this decision (over a law that already existed) read this:
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/07/14/Necrophilia-is-against-the-law-Statute-is-not-limited-to-rapemurder
It goes into detail on why these three morons were charged correctly the first time, why it was appealed and why the State Supreme Court reversed it, re-instating the original charges.
She’s a Vulcan, damn it!
LOL - brb got to read the Morb’s link……….
Thanks for the link Morb, I am going to check that out. I was also under the impression that they did not actually get a chance to do the deed, if they did, then I think they should be charged accordingly. *off to see what the link says*
I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.
Interesting. Thanks for the link, Morbid. The decision focuses around consent and, in that respect, they’re obviously correct, as the dead can’t consent. Of course, they didn’t discuss what kind of precedent defining a corpse as a “person” might set. In fact, they didn’t touch the definition of “person”.
Legally, the term “person” is about as ambiguous as you get. A corporation is defined as a “person”, for example. I’m used to statutes that specifically define the general nouns used, but can’t find one for the sexual assault statute. If there is no definition, I suppose they can do what they want with the term. That offends my sensibilities, though.
How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!
It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.
If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.
If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault - you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge - I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)
Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.
In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there - the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.
I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you - especially on legal issues!
A dead person has no ability to consent, so you can’t really call it non-consensual, and in fact the “victim” hardly fits the definition of the word victim: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”
You can’t harm a non living person. I’m certainly not saying it’s OK to do such things, but “rape” is defined as against someone’s will, which in this case is not possible. They have no will.
Also this is not the case where he didn’t have the “balls” to go after a living person. That’s an awful lot of work to go through for some tail. This guy is obviously into gothic type stuff. That ugly died black hair is part of that whole goth/emo look. Goths are often obsessed with the dead and the macabre. People with sexual fetishes are very specific. He was interested in this activity because she was dead.
So people like this don’t move on to other crimes, just as child molesters are not interested in adults.
So I’m not saying this is OK, but I think it gets into a legal gray area that we have to watch out for. LIke when someone is charged with attempted rape when the “victim” doesn’t even exist, as in the case of police sting operations looking for online sexual predators. Yes, these people are dangerous and creepy, but you can’t charge someone with a crime against a person who doesn’t exist! You have to come up with a different charge, or make up new laws.
This reason this concerns me is that left unchecked people will be charged with all kinds of crimes that aren’t even possible! Police love to try and charge people with stuff, even if the person is innocent as a way to clean up their blotter. I think to charge someone with an attempted crime you really have to show that an attempt was made, or was even possible.
Unfortunately, our society has become very dysfunctional, especially where sex and relationships are concerned. The obsession with, and availability of porn has turned sex into something that doesn’t always require a second “person” as women are now nothing but objects.
This guy has a serious problem and needs help. Locking him up on a trumped up charge wont help anyone in the long run.