Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

BlinkingLights

It's called brain washing.

I mean, this is the same organisation that we are actually debating leaving in charge of the vast majority of schools and rolling out secular, publicly run schools is for some reason controversial ?!!?

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

I've both heard and read people claiming Catherine Corless claims were false and untrue, I;m conflicted, in one way this is deeply sad but in another I'm, glad to see she was proven right with the hard evidence of the crimes of the church. They thought so little about baby's that they disposed of their body's in a ****en septic tank!

They couldn't give a sh*t about them when they died, they hardly gave have a sh*t when these 'bastards' as they dubbed them were alive.

hinault

aloyisious wrote: »

Regardless of the system's operational status, the fact remains that it was used as a convenient location for the nuns to conceal the bodies. Were it to be found in council or the home records that the system was operational at the time then it would only damn the nuns and their order even further. The first could be described as unchristian, the second only as anti-christian. Looking at the deaths logbook shown on RTE news, one of the death entries seemed to be something declarable only by a qualified medical doctor.

Hmmmm. If this was secret as you allege above, why did the nuns keep a register? And why hand the ledger over to the local authority from where Corless accessed it, if this was supposed to be secret? If you wanted to keep something secret would you surrender incriminating evidence of that secret to the (prosecuting) state?

Hotblack Desiato

Hinault,

Do you agree or do you deny that serious crimes were committed by these nuns? No 'it was acceptable at the time' if you will, as these were crimes at the time same as they are now.

Yes or No.

aloyisious

hinault wrote: »

Hmmmm. If this was secret as you allege above, why did the nuns keep a register? And why hand the ledger over to the local authority from where Corless accessed it, if this was supposed to be secret? If you wanted to keep something secret would you surrender incriminating evidence of that secret to the (prosecuting) state?

No real point in arguing that the nuns didn't follow the normal practice of burying the dead in graves when they continually concealed the dead in part of a underground sewerage system over at least one decade, thereby making it an established practice at the home. The ledger was a requirement of law which the nuns running the home could not dodge or conceal. As for the ledger becoming an item of interest to the (prosecuting) state, that followed on from the local woman, Catherine Corless, looking into her family tree history locally. Were it not for her, the discovered dead would still be lying concealed in the sewerage system without any semblance of christian burial. The contents of the ledger may yet become a point themselves, as to the accuracy of the entries.

Neyite

hinault wrote: »

Hmmmm. If this was secret as you allege above, why did the nuns keep a register? And why hand the ledger over to the local authority from where Corless accessed it, if this was supposed to be secret? If you wanted to keep something secret would you surrender incriminating evidence of that secret to the (prosecuting) state?

It was probably to do with recording income rather than deaths. The state paid the Order an amount each week to care for these children.

So maybe the deaths were recorded in the ledger to claim a funeral payment from the local authority or state too?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I don't think the septic tank thing has been resolved yet, ie whether it was a sewer or not at the time the bodies were disposed of.

As far as we know, it was a disused former cesspit.

We are probably going to see a lot of hypocrisy emerging now too. People who ordinarily would have no problem with a near full term foetus being aborted and binned, will be complaining bitterly at the thoughts of 1930's "babies" not receiving a proper burial at the hands of the church.

Disposal of a late-term foetus is in accordance with the wishes of the parent(s). Many TFMR women have brought their foetuses back from the UK. Others would not choose to do this. That is their choice. I doubt it was the choice of any parent of these children that their bodies be thrown into a cesspit, but even if it was that would be illegal now and was illegal at the time. I don't know what the danger quotes around the word babies are for. We now know that the bodies of children up to three years of age were disposed of in that pit.

And people who turn out to be long lost relatives of the "babies" suddenly developing an interest and wanting to be put on a pedestal. Maybe they are even in with a chance to get some compo for their emotional distress.

That's just nastiness for the sake of it.

looksee

There does not appear to be any actual indication that the place where the bodies were found was a cesspit. It may have been, but it was not apparently in use. It was just a large concrete pit divided into sections. How is it different to a vault? How do we know it was not custom built. It could well have been blessed. The children were not thrown into it, they had apparently been placed, wrapped in a cloth, stacked in much the same way bodies are placed in a crypt. It could have been built many years before for storage or indeed as a crypt. The alternative was to put tiny babies each in individual graves, not a common practice at the time, and requiring considerable labour and land.

There was a great deal wrong with the whole situation, but most of the wrong was the treatment of the mothers and babies, and the extremely high mortality rate at a time when mortality rates generally were falling. The point I am making is that the major wrong of all this was not the treatment of the bodies - the indignation and concern currently being shown reflects a left over religious attitude of preserving the body for judgment day - it was probably just a pragmatic solution at a time when babies' likelihood of survival was low.

The issue is fact that the mortality continued despite the increased survival rates in the general population.

BlinkingLights

It would seem odd, given the level of expertise involved in the investigation at this stage, including the use of high tech ground penetrating radar that they would be unable to identify what the structure was.

It's a series of interconnected chambers in the ground. That to me sounds very like an old sewerage treatment facility that may have been built before the building was ultimately connected to a public sewer.

That wouldn't be unusual in 19th century buildings.

Many of them would have disused septic tanks and similar structures under gardens or similar grassy areas.

Small towns typically got public sewer facilities in the 20th century, whereas cities typically had them in the 1800s and even earlier. So a lot of old septic tanks would exist around towns, particularly at large institutions.

There's also no significant waterway in Tuam so they were not disposing of sewage into a near by river. So septic tanks were essential.

If you discharged significant sewage volumes into the very small River Nanny it would have been a significant visible problem

Seth Brundle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hinault,

Do you agree or do you deny that serious crimes were committed by these nuns? No 'it was acceptable at the time' if you will, as these were crimes at the time same as they are now.

Yes or No.

Exactly what serious crimes are you claiming took place? What evidence of serious crimes is there?

eviltwin

kbannon wrote: »

Exactly what serious crimes are you claiming took place? What evidence of serious crimes is there?

Have a read of the testimony of survivors of these places. There was widespread abuse, beatings, imprisonment,, neglect, overwork, lack of adequate health care intervention. It wasn't a holiday camp, these people suffered far more than what was considered acceptable for the time.

aloyisious

kbannon wrote: »

Exactly what serious crimes are you claiming took place? What evidence of serious crimes is there?

The Examiner has an article on the home today, which includes repeats of information made public some years ago, including the nuns asking for children's upkeep money from parents for years after the children had left the home or had died there. The story includes an internal HSE note made at a HSE teleconference in October 2012 with then assistant director of Child and Family Services, Phil Garland, and then Medical Intelligence Unit head, Davida De La Harpe.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/tuam-babies-scandal-will-only-get-more-shocking-444383.html

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

There does not appear to be any actual indication that the place where the bodies were found was a cesspit.

Catherine Corless found the plans from when the building was built and it's marked as such on the plans.

Edit: Not Catherine Corless, see next post.

Hoagy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Catherine Corless found the plans from when the building was built and it's marked as such on the plans.

Izzy Kamikaze has a blog page with photos of some early plans.

http://izzykamikaze.tumblr.com/post/89770303451/vaults-under-tuambabies-site-are-part-of-sewage

recedite

It seems quite likely that these underground vaults had been built as septic tanks for the workhouse in 19th Century. By the time the nuns started using them as burial vaults in 20th Century, I would think it likely that any residual compost had been removed for use as a farm fertilizer. The way the bodies were wrapped in cloth and stacked is identical to the way early Christians were buried in catacombs in Rome, ie it is a more "Christian" method than cremation or even digging a grave.

Also you can still find mausoleums around the country where the bodies of extremely wealthy people were placed, so there is nothing disrepectful about it.
The individual nuns may not even have had sufficient engineering knowledge to know what the original purpose of the vaults was. They may have thought that they were using a purpose built tomb. But whether they knew or not, I don't see anything illegal or disrespectful about the burial method.
The scandal is the high mortality, and the malnutrition that these unfortunates suffered during their brief lives. Despite the state and others paying the nuns to look after them.

kylith

recedite wrote: »

Also you can still find mausoleums around the country where the bodies of extremely wealthy people were placed, so there is nothing disrepectful about it.
The individual nuns may not even have had sufficient engineering knowledge to know what the original purpose of the vaults was. They may have thought that they were using a purpose built tomb. But whether they knew or not, I don't see anything illegal or disrespectful about the burial method.
The scandal is the high mortality, and the malnutrition that these unfortunates suffered during their brief lives. Despite the state and others paying the nuns to look after them.

Yeah... specially built and consecrated mausoleums and catacombs where people are interned with funeral rites are exactly the same as old cesspits where bodies are put with no records :rolleyes:

aloyisious

super furry posted this item in The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged). Ta, super furry.

http://www.thejournal.ie/list-names-tuam-babies-children-3270019-Mar2017/?utm_source=shortlink

MrPudding

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

They were bog-standard nuns and there's still too many of them.

Yeah. Like he said, religious nutters.

MrP

satguy

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Am I reading this right? They left kids to die?!?

I'm sure some of the nuns had no problem speeding things up..

Fr Jack was bang on..

goose2005

looksee wrote: »

There does not appear to be any actual indication that the place where the bodies were found was a cesspit. It may have been, but it was not apparently in use. It was just a large concrete pit divided into sections. How is it different to a vault? How do we know it was not custom built. It could well have been blessed. The children were not thrown into it, they had apparently been placed, wrapped in a cloth, stacked in much the same way bodies are placed in a crypt. It could have been built many years before for storage or indeed as a crypt. The alternative was to put tiny babies each in individual graves, not a common practice at the time, and requiring considerable labour and land.

There was a great deal wrong with the whole situation, but most of the wrong was the treatment of the mothers and babies, and the extremely high mortality rate at a time when mortality rates generally were falling. The point I am making is that the major wrong of all this was not the treatment of the bodies - the indignation and concern currently being shown reflects a left over religious attitude of preserving the body for judgment day - it was probably just a pragmatic solution at a time when babies' likelihood of survival was low.

The issue is fact that the mortality continued despite the increased survival rates in the general population.

If it was a vault or crypt it would have been registered as such. What justification was there for not recording the deaths?

hinault

aloyisious wrote: »

No real point in arguing that the nuns didn't follow the normal practice of burying the dead in graves when they continually concealed the dead in part of a underground sewerage system over at least one decade, thereby making it an established practice at the home. The ledger was a requirement of law which the nuns running the home could not dodge or conceal. As for the ledger becoming an item of interest to the (prosecuting) state, that followed on from the local woman, Catherine Corless, looking into her family tree history locally. Were it not for her, the discovered dead would still be lying concealed in the sewerage system without any semblance of christian burial. The contents of the ledger may yet become a point themselves, as to the accuracy of the entries.

The nuns weren't trying to dodge or conceal anything.


A dead body was discovered at the site in 1974. The local authority did nothing.

Except fill the site containing the burial site with rubble.

hinault

Neyite wrote: »

It was probably to do with recording income rather than deaths. The state paid the Order an amount each week to care for these children.

Probably?

Have you evidence that the state paid the order at Tuam?

satguy

There were very few organizations that could go head to head with the Christian Brothers for pure evilness,, But the Nuns out did them, and that's the truth.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

No real point in arguing that the nuns didn't follow the normal practice of burying the dead in graves when they continually concealed the dead in part of a underground sewerage system over at least one decade, thereby making it an established practice at the home. The ledger was a requirement of law which the nuns running the home could not dodge or conceal. As for the ledger becoming an item of interest to the (prosecuting) state, that followed on from the local woman, Catherine Corless, looking into her family tree history locally. Were it not for her, the discovered dead would still be lying concealed in the sewerage system without any semblance of christian burial. The contents of the ledger may yet become a point themselves, as to the accuracy of the entries.

EDIT: Further to mine above, I've been thinking about what has been reported so far on the commission finding of bodies, on what was done in relation to placing the bodies in the underground chamber, on the list Catherine Corless provided of the reported deaths at the home from the early decades of the last century and the reports that the structure may have been used from circa the mid-20th century onwards only.

Reading those as factual, one might be inclined to presume those whom died at the home in the early decades were buried elsewhere than in the underground chamber (unless carbon-dating by the commission proves otherwise). That, if accepted, would reasonably infer that it was not necessary to use the chamber for burial purposes. Questions were raised by locals repeatedly over the past few days as to why the nearby existing graveyard was not used by the nuns for interment purposes, instead of the chamber. Hopefully I might have dotted the I's and crossed the T's reference the facts known of the use of the chamber by the nuns as a reliquary for the bodies of the dead children.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

We are probably going to see a lot of hypocrisy emerging now too. People who ordinarily would have no problem with a near full term foetus being aborted and binned, will be complaining bitterly at the thoughts of 1930's "babies" not receiving a proper burial at the hands of the church.

Umm, I think the biggest hypocrisy here is that the RCC claims to be 'pro life', then carries on like this when it thinks no one is looking! Also remember the "Children need their mothers for life, not just for 9 months" bull**** during the marriage referendum? Obviously that doesnt apply if the RCC can make money from forcibly taking them from their mother and selling them, only when they are at 'risk' of gay parents!

Neyite

hinault wrote: »

The nuns weren't trying to dodge or conceal anything.


A dead body was discovered at the site in 1974. The local authority did nothing.

Except fill the site containing the burial site with rubble.

The local authority -Galway County Council - who paid the stipend per mother and baby at the home for the care of the inmates? That stipend being the average industrial wage that could support an entire (catholic) family elsewhere.

The ones who are responsible for providing burial grounds to the public?

The ones who inspected this home, found them to be ticking along just nicely despite the fact that it had the worst death rate of all the homes in Ireland,which was usually a bit higher than the average, and were aware of the fact that the Tuam Home had more than double the infant mortality rate to that outside the walls.

Yes, I can see why they would fill in a mass grave with rubble in 1974. Someone presumably decided doing that was better than awkward questions being asked.

hinault

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, I can see why they would fill in a mass grave with rubble in 1974. Someone presumably decided doing that was better than awkward questions being asked.

So Galway CoCo washed their hands as well.

I think the penny is starting to drop with you.:P

Neyite

hinault wrote: »

So Galway CoCo washed their hands as well.

I think the penny is starting to drop with you.:P

I just spotted your earlier question requesting proof that the local authority were paying these homes. The book, Banished Babies by Mike Milotte details the amounts and references his sources for those amounts. He explains in quite good detail the funding. It's only a few quid on Amazon Kindle.

Reading that was when the penny dropped as you call it - the state, the local authorities, the Gardai on occasion, the orders and society all played their part to differing degrees in what happened.

hinault

Neyite wrote: »

I just spotted your earlier question requesting proof that the local authority were paying these homes. The book, Banished Babies by Mike Milotte details the amounts and references his sources for those amounts. He explains in quite good detail the funding.

So the book details how much money Tuam received?

Neyite

hinault wrote: »

So the book details how much money Tuam received?

No. Nobody except the order at the time would know how much money Tuam received in total. Their money came from a variery of sources - donations, statutory payments from the local authority, fees from parents of the girls, sale of home made crafts the women made which were sold at Galway Market amongst others. If you want to know how much money Tuam received I suggest you contact the PR firm the Bon Secours hired a few years ago and ask.