Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Canada seems to be rerunning the Irish Mother and Baby home scandal - especially with regard to one home for "indigenous" children where 215 corpses were found, and the religious concerned are stone-walling everybody:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/identifying-childrens-remains-at-b-c-residential-school-stalled-by-lack-of-records/wcm/5c77fbfe-df97-4877-ac1c-96e7f0eb35f1

Death and suffering where ever the catholic church goes. It goes hand in hand with them calling people sinners.

Yet there are plenty that will excuse this death cult whenever possible.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The same applies.




Daly didnt say who the treats where from.



The whole point was to have a speedy investigation while people are still alive.

As someone in Academia I couldn't disagree more. Anyway, even if it was true, it doesn't matter, she has been president of the Royal academy. She has done it all. She is 72. Her university might not even allow her to supervise any more.
If she was younger and publishing a lot in recent years, I am willing to wager you 150 Euro that Daly will have future publications accepted but she might not be publishing any more anyway.

The Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes experienced “heavy pushback” from religious orders and was separately threatened with legal action at one stage, one of the members of the Commission has said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-commission-saw-heavy-pushback-from-religious-orders-1.4582405

THE LEGAL APPROACH of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes appears to have been heavily influenced by the lasting impact of the Ryan Commission into child abuse, an expert has said.

Máiréad Enright, a human rights lawyer, said that the threat of legal action from religious orders appears to have heavily influenced the approach of the commissioners in the more recent inquiry.

Indeed Professor Mary Daly, one of three commissioners involved, yesterday told an online event that “looming” legal threats impacted the commission’s work.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

She said any displeasure that people may have at the report “needs to be seen in the light of the rules and regulations under which we operated”. At one stage she said there was a threat of legal action against the commission during the course of its work and that it had to be “ultra-careful”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-what-did-prof-mary-daly-tell-the-oxford-seminar-1.4583204

Indeed, she inferred it. Enright stated it. Enright was also at pains to say one cannot blame a historian for bad legal decisions - that lies with the two former judges.

For anyone interested in a detailed review of the Commission:

https://thedublinreview.com/article/the-commission-and-the-survivors/

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-commission-saw-heavy-pushback-from-religious-orders-1.4582405

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-commission-legal-approach-5456553-Jun2021/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-what-did-prof-mary-daly-tell-the-oxford-seminar-1.4583204

Indeed, she inferred it. Enright stated it. Enright was also at pains to say one cannot blame a historian for bad legal decisions - that lies with the two former judges.

For anyone interested in a detailed review of the Commission:

https://thedublinreview.com/article/the-commission-and-the-survivors/

The Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes experienced “heavy pushback” from religious orders and was separately threatened with legal action at one stage, one of the members of the Commission has said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-commission-saw-heavy-pushback-from-religious-orders-1.4582405

If you pares that carefully, one realises that they don't' say if it is the Orders who threatened legal action. I'd love to know who it was and on what grounds. But it is good there was some pushback. There was a lot and is a lot of misconceptions being circulated.

eire4 wrote: »

I will again restate the hubris of Professor Daly is astounding and she has shown all the empathy to the vitcims of the mother and baby "homes" of a sociopath. A commission that was supposed to get to the truth has actually made things worse. She should be ashamed of herself and what she and her colleagues have done.

To me it sounds like any investigator commenting on an old case.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

But it is good there was some pushback. There was a lot and is a lot of misconceptions being circulated.

And this is where you and I will never see eye to eye.

It is not good that the religious orders - who claim to be charitable and acting in good faith - "push back" - what would have been good is if they truly repented, acknowledged their wrong doing, and openly provided every shed of information they have. A Collective Mea Culpa has been long lacking.

The misconceptions circulated were the decades of people believing these orders were charitable or acting in good faith.
Thousands of children died in their 'care'.
Many of whom lie in unmarked and unknown graves.

There must be a reckoning.
This commission is not it.

eire4

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/mother-and-baby-homes-commission-saw-heavy-pushback-from-religious-orders-1.4582405

If you pares that carefully, one realises that they don't' say if it is the Orders who threatened legal action. I'd love to know who it was and on what grounds. But it is good there was some pushback. There was a lot and is a lot of misconceptions being circulated.



To me it sounds like any investigator commenting on an old case.

Well I guess then you share similar levels of empathy with Professor Daly so considering what the victims in this case suffered.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thousands of children died in their 'care'.

One can only assume that when the religious orders believed they were taking care of children, that they decided to do it in the mafia sense of "taking care" of them.

The level of repeated deaths in numerous countrys and the manner in which the disposed of the bodies goes way passed being careless or just negligent in looking after the children. They outright just didn't like the children, they look down on them with disgust and hatred and treated them accordingly both in life and death.

I've seen people treat dogs better after death then the religious orders treated human beings.

I find it increasingly disturbing that some Catholics continue to try to excuse these abuses in one way or another.

Yellow_Fern

Cabaal wrote: »

One can only assume that when the religious orders believed they were taking care of children, that they decided to do it in the mafia sense of "taking care" of them.

The level of repeated deaths in numerous countrys and the manner in which the disposed of the bodies goes way passed being careless or just negligent in looking after the children. They outright just didn't like the children, they look down on them with disgust and hatred and treated them accordingly both in life and death.

I've seen people treat dogs better after death then the religious orders treated human beings.

Do you think people who die in any other institutions were buried better, mental hospitals, prisons, workhouses (which only closed in 1948 in the north)?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And this is where you and I will never see eye to eye.

It is not good that the religious orders - who claim to be charitable and acting in good faith - "push back" - what would have been good is if they truly repented, acknowledged their wrong doing, and openly provided every shed of information they have. A Collective Mea Culpa has been long lacking.t.

There is no alive who remembers what happened in Tuam about the tanks. People are entitled to be sceptical and probing about that. ANd it turns out the archaeology work disproven some of the media claims.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The misconceptions circulated were the decades of people believing these orders were charitable or acting in good faith.
Thousands of children died in their 'care'.
Many of whom lie in unmarked and unknown graves.

There must be a reckoning.
This commission is not it.

My great grand parents lie in unknown graves and died in a similar area. Burial records wasnt expected until later. If the homs had a normal death rate you'd still expect 3,000 deaths. What people like to forget is that these homes had publicly appointed doctors who were responsible for health. For some reason no one attributes any blame to them.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Do you think people who die in any other institutions were buried better, mental hospitals, prisons, workhouses (which only closed in 1948 in the north)?


There is no alive who remembers what happened in Tuam about the tanks. People are entitled to be sceptical and probing about that. ANd it turns out the archaeology work disproven some of the media claims.


My great grand parents lie in unknown graves and died in a similar area. Burial records wasnt expected until later. If the homs had a normal death rate you'd still expect 3,000 deaths. What people like to forget is that these homes had publicly appointed doctors who were responsible for health. For some reason no one attributes any blame to them.

There are none so blind as those who will not see springs to mind.

You are big on making counter-claims, but short on providing evidence which frankly puts your defence (of the indefensible) in the category of "no they didn't because I say they didn't" or sweeping it under the proverbial carpet - "well back in the day..."

If fact I suspect you haven't read all of this thread - if you had you would find a great many posters did provide evidence to support what the survivors said happened in Tuam.

Mark Hamill

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Do you think people who die in any other institutions were buried better, mental hospitals, prisons, workhouses (which only closed in 1948 in the north)?

Which is an argument that those institutions should be equally held to account as we want the mother and baby homes held to account, not that mother and baby homes get a free pass.

Besides, if we can only expect church run institutions to be as badly run as any other institute, then what good are church run institutions actually for?

Yellow_Fern

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is an argument that those institutions should be equally held to account as we want the mother and baby homes held to account, not that mother and baby homes get a free pass.

Besides, if we can only expect church run institutions to be as badly run as any other institute, then what good are church run institutions actually for?

I dont think being buried with a simple marker with a degradable marker in 1940s Ireland is a scandal. If bodies are being thrown into a septic tank then yes. I agree some of the homes were very badly run. Tuam and Bessborough come to mind. It is worth mentioning the inadequacies of Tuam is why it was closed. It is worth mentioning these had different management structure, some like Tuam were county homes. Others were religious institutions like Sean Ross. It would be interested to see what impact these structures had on care and how much poor care was driven by individual bad apples.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For anyone interested in a detailed review of the Commission:

https://thedublinreview.com/article/the-commission-and-the-survivors/

An excellent (and maddening) article. The Journal has now republished it here:

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/catriona-crowe-mother-and-baby-home-commission-report-5461499-Jun2021/

The commission and its report do not have a shred of credibility left.

Yellow_Fern

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An excellent (and maddening) article. The Journal has now republished it here:

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/catriona-crowe-mother-and-baby-home-commission-report-5461499-Jun2021/

The commission and its report do not have a shred of credibility left.

She has some good points about record storage. She actually praises many aspects of the report

Mark Hamill

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I dont think being buried with a simple marker with a degradable marker in 1940s Ireland is a scandal. If bodies are being thrown into a septic tank then yes. I agree some of the homes were very badly run. Tuam and Bessborough come to mind. It is worth mentioning the inadequacies of Tuam is why it was closed. It is worth mentioning these had different management structure, some like Tuam were county homes. Others were religious institutions like Sean Ross. It would be interested to see what impact these structures had on care and how much poor care was driven by individual bad apples.

So, wait, you don't actually know if the likes of Tuam where just bad apples or if religious homes in general were badly run, you are just wishing they were? But at the same time claiming they were no worse than anywhere else at the time?

Tuam was only closed in 1961 (after 36 years of operation) it had investigations from as late as 1949 which reported "everything in the home in good order and congratulated the Bon Secour sisters on the excellent condition of their Institution".
, and there have been reports coming from similar homes in other countries (like Canada, for a recent example). These attitudes and inadequacies in these homes were not isolated in occurrence or obstructive to their continued operation.

Yellow_Fern

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So, wait, you don't actually know if the likes of Tuam where just bad apples or if religious homes in general were badly run, you are just wishing they were? But at the same time claiming they were no worse than anywhere else at the time?

Tuam was only closed in 1961 (after 36 years of operation) it had investigations from as late as 1949 which reported "everything in the home in good order and congratulated the Bon Secour sisters on the excellent condition of their Institution".
, and there have been reports coming from similar homes in other countries (like Canada, for a recent example). These attitudes and inadequacies in these homes were not isolated in occurrence or obstructive to their continued operation.

We know for certain that Tuam and Bessborough were particularly bad. Tuam was a state home, termed a county home, basically the direct descendant of a workhouse. We know a lot about Tuam, partially as one of the two laywomen who ran it was interviewed on tape in the 1980s. Bessborough was run by order and was a larger affair with a long and complex history but had some very bad management in the war years. Regina Coeli was another religious one it was one that was very well run. Dunboyne was another very run one.

Other famous county homes were Pelletstown, and Kilrush. Other order run homes were Sean Ross, Castlepollard (the Sacred Heart homes).

I am not a doctor, but I feel a lot of the mortality in Tuam and Bessborough was caused avoidable negligence/ and bad apples and the appointed doctors not doing their jobs.

Mark Hamill

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

We know for certain that Tuam and Bessborough were particularly bad. Tuam was a state home, termed a county home, basically the direct descendant of a workhouse. We know a lot about Tuam, partially as one of the two laywomen who ran it was interviewed on tape in the 1980s. Bessborough was run by order and was a larger affair with a long and complex history but had some very bad management in the war years. Regina Coeli was another religious one it was one that was very well run. Dunboyne was another very run one.

Other famous county homes were Pelletstown, and Kilrush. Other order run homes were Sean Ross, Castlepollard (the Sacred Heart homes).

I am not a doctor, but I feel a lot of the mortality in Tuam and Bessborough was caused avoidable negligence/ and bad apples and the appointed doctors not doing their jobs.

So we have two differently run homes (Tuam and Bessborough) that were terrible, and two homes (Regina Coeli and Dunboyne) that were apparently run well according to you, but you feel that Tuam and Bessbourough where just "bad apples"? Lucky us that we have your feelings to decide the matter.

Unfortunately for your feelings, the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes reported that Regina Coeli had 743 infant deaths during its operation (13.5% of all the children who went through it from 1930 to 1998 died. For comparison, Irelands overall infant death rate was 9% in 1917 and 4.5% in 1950). In fact, the Commission states of all 18 homes it investigated (including Ard Mhuire in Dunboyne) that there was "appalling level of infant mortality".


All of your posts are filled with the most vacuous of wishful thinking. You are literally presenting your feelings as evidence without any reference to factual evidence I found with all of 10 seconds of googling. And what worse, by doing this, your arguments are inadvertently white washing and excusing for-profit child murder.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All of your posts are filled with the most vacuous of wishful thinking. You are literally presenting your feelings as evidence without any reference to factual evidence I found with all of 10 seconds of googling. And what worse, you are doing it to white wash and excuse for-profit child murder.

Mod warning: Given this is a sensitive topic, it is against the rules of the charter to use emotive terms such as 'murder' in this context unless supported by credible 3rd party sources that state murder took place. I would also ask you to play the ball rather than the man in any comments you make. Any feedback via PM or to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

aloyisious

One unavoidable conclusion is that the "care-givers" in charge of the homes ARE totally responsible for the Christian care they DIDN'T provide to the living and the dead in their charge in line with the Christian ethic they professed to hold themselves to. No amount of "we weren't alone in this" will wash that away.

What has shown up is that the religious orders didn't have a leadership level which would carry out an overview and right the wrongs in the homes by removing those responsible for unchristian practices in the homes when the evidence of wrongdoing was present in the fatality statistics. Christian belief wouldn't be necessary for adults to know the secretive burial practices for the dead of the homes were totally wrong.

Yellow_Fern

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we have two differently run homes (Tuam and Bessborough) that were terrible, and two homes (Regina Coeli and Dunboyne) that were apparently run well according to you, but you feel that Tuam and Bessbourough where just "bad apples"? Lucky us that we have your feelings to decide the matter.

Unfortunately for your feelings, the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes reported that Regina Coeli had 743 infant deaths during its operation (13.5% of all the children who went through it from 1930 to 1998 died. For comparison, Irelands overall infant death rate was 9% in 1917 and 4.5% in 1950). In fact, the Commission states of all 18 homes it investigated (including Ard Mhuire in Dunboyne) that there was "appalling level of infant mortality".


All of your posts are filled with the most vacuous of wishful thinking. You are literally presenting your feelings as evidence without any reference to factual evidence I found with all of 10 seconds of googling. And what worse, you are doing it to white wash and excuse for-profit child murder.

Infant mortality peaked at over 8% in the war years. In rural areas it peaked at 6.5%, in cities it went to 9.5%. In Sligo it reached above 12.8%. but I wouldn't say that means to imply that Sligo mothers were criminals. There are many homes to consider, Dennyhouse and Castlepollard would be two others that much safer than famous ones.

There is no evidence that any of the burial practises were secret. Forgotten is no equal to secretive.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Infant mortality peaked at over 8% in the war years. In rural areas it peaked at 6.5%, in cities it went to 9.5% but I wouldn't say that means to imply that urban mothers were criminals. There are many homes to consider, Dennyhouse and Castlepollard would be two others that much safer than famous ones.

There is no evidence that any of the burial practises were secret. Forgotten is no equal to secretive.

What is lacking is evidence of burials.
If memory serves Catherine Corless could find burial records for only two of the children who died in Tuam, but death records showing that 796 children had died at the home.

In a statement The Sisters of Bon Secours said

We acknowledge in particular that infants and children who died in the home were buried in a disrespectful and unacceptable way.

And here you are parsing it to say "it might have been disrespectful and unacceptable but it wasn't a secret"

It's time you produced some evidence that the existence of a mass grave at Tuam wasn't a secret.
Or that the people of Cork just 'forgot' where 800 dead children are buried in the grounds of Bessborough, and the records were somehow lost meaning planning permission to build was denied on the grounds the site could be a burial ground.

Mark Hamill

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Infant mortality peaked at over 8% in the war years. In rural areas it peaked at 6.5%, in cities it went to 9.5%. In Sligo it reached above 12.8%. but I wouldn't say that means to imply that Sligo mothers were criminals. There are many homes to consider, Dennyhouse and Castlepollard would be two others that much safer than famous ones.

There is no evidence that any of the burial practises were secret. Forgotten is no equal to secretive.

Dennyhouse was a Magdelene Laundry and Castlepollard had an infant mortality rate of 60.2% for the first 5 years of its operation (1935-40)!
Are you seriously going to keep throwing out random names of mother and baby homes, assuming no horror stories have come up? Are you not even going to bother googling them yourself first to check?

And you numbers don't dispute mine. 9%, even 12.8%, in the war years, still dropped to 4.5% by 1950 and continued to drop to 0.6% by 1998. Regina Coeli had an average rate of 13.5% from 1930 to 1998.

Yellow_Fern

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dennyhouse was a Magdelene Laundry and Castlepollard had an infant mortality rate of 60.2% for the first 5 years of its operation (1935-40)!
Are you seriously going to keep throwing out random names of mother and baby homes, assuming no horror stories have come up? Are you not even going to bother googling them yourself first to check?

And you numbers don't dispute mine. 9%, even 12.8%, in the war years, still dropped to 4.5% by 1950 and continued to drop to 0.6% by 1998. Regina Coeli had an average rate of 13.5% from 1930 to 1998.

I am not disputing your figures, I am pointing out the lack of context and a flawed narrative. Google isnt our friend. The repot is quite clear that the homes varied.
I am quoting the report.

Mother and baby homes were greatly superior to the county homes where, until the
1960s, many unmarried mothers and their children were resident. Conditions in the county homes were generally very poor; this, of course, was also true for the other residents who were mainly older people and people with disabilities. The women in county homes have been largely forgotten. They included women on a second or subsequent pregnancy and women from the poorest families.

page 8 ( executive summary)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What is lacking is evidence of burials.
If memory serves Catherine Corless could find burial records for only two of the children who died in Tuam, but death records showing that 796 children had died at the home.

In a statement The Sisters of Bon Secours said

And here you are parsing it to say "it might have been disrespectful and unacceptable but it wasn't a secret"

It's time you produced some evidence that the existence of a mass grave at Tuam wasn't a secret.
Or that the people of Cork just 'forgot' where 800 dead children are buried in the grounds of Bessborough, and the records were somehow lost meaning planning permission to build was denied on the grounds the site could be a burial ground.

Burial registers are not so common. In my own family genealogy project I haven't located any. They were not a legal requirement until very late.

smacl

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not disputing your figures, I am pointing out the lack of context and a flawed narrative. Google isnt our friend. The repot is quite clear that the homes varied.
I am quoting the report.

When someone says that 'Google isn't your friend' in the context of a heavily contested report while solely relying on that report to validate their own point of view it sets alarm bells ringing. That this report has been called into question by very many people qualified to make such assertions is a matter of public record, has been documented in respectable media and this can all be searched for using services such as google. The report is in no sense the totality of the information and valid opinion in play.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Burial registers are not so common. In my own family genealogy project I haven't located any. They were not a legal requirement until very late.

This canard again.

There have been laws dealing with the sanitary aspects of the burial of human remains on the Statute Book since 1887.

Provisions include very clear specifications as to what should happen if anyone died of an infectious disease - which include typhoid, TB, diphtheria, cholera, Scarlet fever, many gastro-intestinal issues such a dysentery (aka the bloody flux). All of which appear on death certs of children for which there are no records as to how/where their remains were disposed of. Their remains should, as a matter of law, have been handed over to the coroner.

Furthermore it was illegal to 'open' a burial ground (or any other site for the disposal of large numbers of deceased persons) without the express permission of the local authority. There is no evidence such permission was obtained.

The 1887 Act makes it clear that part of it's intent was to "prevent a violation of the respect due to the remains of deceased persons"

Now consider the Bon Secours Sisters admitted children who died were buried in a disrespectful and unacceptable way. Or to put it another way - a violation of the respect due to the remains of deceased persons occurred.

They. Admitted. It

A vault under a church or chapel that had been designated as a burial place prior to 1856 could still be used but only to inter members of the family or other persons with the written permission of the head of the family.
That clearly rules out any subterranean chambers under a Mother and Baby home as suitable place to dispose of human remains.



It's frankly a ridiculous argument to contend that because you do not know where your ancestors were buried it follows that the nuns acted within the law in disposing of human remains illicitly.

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Google isnt our friend.

It certainly isn't the catholic church's friend. Things were a lot easier for the church in Ireland when it could censor any information it didn't like.

eire4

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It certainly isn't the catholic church's friend. Things were a lot easier for the church in Ireland when it could censor any information it didn't like.

What really is galling is that after all the damage and flat out evil they have inflected on so many for so long that over the past couple of decades has been bit by bit exposed they are still fighting tooth and nail against the victims be it threatened law suits or not coming clean with records etc. Just contemptable behaviour really and showing no remorse even really as their actions show.

Hotblack Desiato

The dripfeed of revelations of horror over so many years seems to have insensitised most of the Irish people, I can't understand how we still allow such an organisation to exist in this country never mind run schools and hospitals that we pay for.

uptherebels

eire4 wrote: »

What really is galling is that after all the damage and flat out evil they have inflected on so many for so long that over the past couple of decades has been bit by bit exposed they are still fighting tooth and nail against the victims be it threatened law suits or not coming clean with records etc. Just contemptable behaviour really and showing no remorse even really as their actions show.

They will protect their money,assets and fleeting vestiges of influence above anything else.
Morals, compassion, repentance these are just things preached to the plebs to keep them docile and the donations coming in.

eire4

uptherebels wrote: »

They will protect their money,assets and fleeting vestiges of influence above anything else.
Morals, compassion, repentance these are just things preached to the plebs to keep them docile and the donations coming in.

Sadly your 100% accurate in what you say there.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This canard again.

There have been laws dealing with the sanitary aspects of the burial of human remains on the Statute Book since 1887.

Provisions include very clear specifications as to what should happen if anyone died of an infectious disease - which include typhoid, TB, diphtheria, cholera, Scarlet fever, many gastro-intestinal issues such a dysentery (aka the bloody flux). All of which appear on death certs of children for which there are no records as to how/where their remains were disposed of. Their remains should, as a matter of law, have been handed over to the coroner.

Furthermore it was illegal to 'open' a burial ground (or any other site for the disposal of large numbers of deceased persons) without the express permission of the local authority. There is no evidence such permission was obtained.

The 1887 Act makes it clear that part of it's intent was to "prevent a violation of the respect due to the remains of deceased persons"

Now consider the Bon Secours Sisters admitted children who died were buried in a disrespectful and unacceptable way. Or to put it another way - a violation of the respect due to the remains of deceased persons occurred.

They. Admitted. It

A vault under a church or chapel that had been designated as a burial place prior to 1856 could still be used but only to inter members of the family or other persons with the written permission of the head of the family.
That clearly rules out any subterranean chambers under a Mother and Baby home as suitable place to dispose of human remains.

It's frankly a ridiculous argument to contend that because you do not know where your ancestors were buried it follows that the nuns acted within the law in disposing of human remains illicitly.

A burial place being registered is not a registrar of burials which you mentioned last post. Totally different things. Everyone involved in running Tuam is long dead. The sisters knowledge is based on the same knowledge as ours. I have read the archaeological reports of the site and I respectfully disagree. There is a lot we don't know about the mode of burial but in so far as we know it was not disrespectful.
Whether or not the coroner was involved or not should be determined by the the appointed medical office at Tuam who doesnt really seem to have been so bothered.

smacl wrote: »

When someone says that 'Google isn't your friend' in the context of a heavily contested report while solely relying on that report to validate their own point of view it sets alarm bells ringing. That this report has been called into question by very many people qualified to make such assertions is a matter of public record, has been documented in respectable media and this can all be searched for using services such as google. The report is in no sense the totality of the information and valid opinion in play.

Most of the criticism of the report concern why only 60 odd testimonies were included in the main commission investigation report as opposed to the 500 used in the confidental commission, record curation and testimony transcription. The topics I have been posting are based on records which are both uncontested and more reliable than memory which is one of the worst kinds of evidence.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It certainly isn't the catholic church's friend. Things were a lot easier for the church in Ireland when it could censor any information it didn't like.

Off topic post.

Yellow_Fern

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The dripfeed of revelations of horror over so many years seems to have insensitised most of the Irish people, I can't understand how we still allow such an organisation to exist in this country never mind run schools and hospitals that we pay for.

By your logic we should ban the gov too and the HSE?