What do you mean, the incinerator isn't broken?
LATER: I refuse to even consider the accusation that Marsh had something naughty on his hard drive. (We webloggers often use the non-word "pr0n" rather than risk turning up in some Googlesearches we'd rather not.) It is my belief that nine out of any ten randomly-selected hard drives will contain at least one picture that someone would label "pr0n", thus its presence on a hard drive is indicative of absolutely nothing. The word is no longer an objective label, if it ever was: It is a value judgment.
And I can think of any number of valid reasons why someone who makes his living dealing with dead bodies might have a need for pictures of some of them.
This story is grotesque enough without turning it into a witch hunt. When was the last time you cleaned out your hard drive?
LATER STILL: OK, I admit it, I'm weakening on the "pictures of dead bodies" argument.
But I still insist that the presence of naughty images on Marsh's hard drive is the most normal thing we've heard about this case, and utterly irrelevant.