"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

dav3

Snickers Man wrote: »

Terry Prone's letter, from its tone--

Prone was indeed spinning in that email, it’s quite obvious, similar to your attempts at spinning in this thread.
If you read the email again you’ll notice that she was ‘instructed’ by the Bon Secuors.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now what crimes are you talking about?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re referring to. Do you perhaps have me confused with someone else?

Bones were found at a site in Tuam, the nuns with the aid of their PR company tried to cover up the discovery by claiming the bones were from the famine period and had nothing to do with them.
Today, and only today, new evidence has emerged that the bones did indeed belong to babies, the important part is that they were dated back to the period of when the mother and baby home was operational and not belonging to the famine period.

I think you’d agree that all involved in the cover up have some explaining to do. The discovery of bones in a mass grave cannot be simply shrugged off as having a simple explanation and left at that. Nothing is off the table at this stage. Which is exactly what should be expected when a mass grave is uncovered at any time.

neonsofa

steddyeddy wrote: »

A mass grave in a septic tank would give most people cause to think either foul play or child neglect/abuse. Let's hope you don't think burying babies in secret is normal.

Can I ask, I don't have a great knowledge of religion- especially in those times, but am I correct in thinking that "illegitimate" children, born out of wedlock, were not baptised and therefore not entitled to a traditional catholic burial? Not at all justifying it obviously just asking if this was the case. Obviously there are alternatives to the traditional burial that don't involve septic tanks.

lazybones32

dav3 wrote: »

It doesn't appear that your judgements are based on the truth.

The type of tank is now irrelevant. Whether it was a septic tank or not, it doesn't make the actions any less horrific.

The "truth" is below.

The Commission has not determined x2....what "truth" does that reveal that contradicts an iota of what I wrote? If anything, it confirms what I've been saying.

What were the horrific actions you speak of?

steddyeddy

kbannon wrote: »

I'm well able to phrase things without requiring you to clarify. I never said it was normal and I did state that it was neglectful.
I'm just not going to adopt a Facebook set of emotions without any actual facts.
What I said was that there was no evidence of murder. I didn't say murder didn't happen but we currently have no knowledge of any nor is there, AFAIK, any allegations of murder apart from a few on here.

If I buried my family in secret, in a septic tank you wouldn't suspect foul play?

steddyeddy

neonsofa wrote: »

Can I ask, I don't have a great knowledge of religion- especially in those times, but am I correct in thinking that "illegitimate" children, born out of wedlock, were not baptised and therefore not entitled to a traditional catholic burial? Not at all justifying it obviously just asking if this was the case. Obviously there are alternatives to the traditional burial that don't involve septic tanks.

Yes some were but a mass grave in a sceptic tank leads me to believe foul play.

Colser

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Commission has not determined x2....what "truth" does that reveal that contradicts an iota of what I wrote? If anything, it confirms what I've been saying.

What were the horrific actions you speak of?

Do you have any issue with the "burials" regardless of the cause of death?

neonsofa

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes some were but a mass grave in a sceptic tank leads me to believe foul play.

As in allowing deaths to happen? Or causing them? I can't get my head around it to be honest. It was such a different time and I'm trying to remember that but it's horrific; but then some people are so...almost indifferent to it that I'm just confused and trying to understand, can't articulate my feelings really.

Spanish Eyes

I have no words left for this abomination WRT to little children in the care of those who professed to be of the Catholic Church.

But is was not only in Tuam. Believe me. Many so called Magdalens (WOMEN) were buried in the Convent grounds also. In unmarked graves.

Highly likely that many of their babies suffered the same undignified burial in a sewer too.

Jesus this country was/is totally fecked.

But it was impossible to talk about it until relatively recently. To be fair.

Such command and control by the CC, the nuns, the convents, the Magdalens, the mother and baby homes, and all the rest of it.

FFS.

I really hope we have moved on.

But then there is Grace, god love her and her peers.

Ave Sodalis

The sad thing is, the demonisation of single mothers is still fizzling out. I was born in 1994, and my mother had to fight tooth and nail to keep me. Another young woman wasn't quite as strong willed as my mother at the same time lost her child and she still has a haunted look about her eyes. The best thing is, the people who my mother had to fight off, the people who managed to take the other woman's child... these people are the most dedicated "pro-life" people out there.

There's still a huge amount of stigma attached to being a single mother. People are surprised when they find out I have a university degree. They take it as a matter of course when I say I'm working in a shop, and you can see the eyebrows go up when I tell them it's to save for a masters. Take a look at the ample threads on single parents on Boards, they aren't very pleasant. So even though there's improvements, I wouldn't be one bit surprised to still find people who would be secretly delighted to see the mother/baby homes and forced adoption back, and single parent allowance cut entirely.

smurgen

lazybones32 wrote: »

In AH?...on a bandwagon thread?! you must be out of your mind!

Do you think 68% mortality rate that some homes had was acceptable or normal?i would put my life on it that some of those 800 bodies will show signs of trauma causing death.this story is now again plastered all over the international news papers. Someone should pay for this.

Neyite

neonsofa wrote: »

Can I ask, I don't have a great knowledge of religion- especially in those times, but am I correct in thinking that "illegitimate" children, born out of wedlock, were not baptised and therefore not entitled to a traditional catholic burial? Not at all justifying it obviously just asking if this was the case. Obviously there are alternatives to the traditional burial that don't involve septic tanks.

The church are pretty hot about baptising so it would be a priority to get a baby baptised as soon as possible after birth. Anyone (don't even have to be a Catholic) can baptise a baby in an emergency and it will be seen as valid in the eyes of the church. I was baptised minutes after birth. You are even permitted to baptise in utero if the holy water can actually land on the baby -for example, during a c-section. That's how keen the RCC with regard to the sacrament of baptism.

I highly doubt that the nuns would have looked after unbaptised children. These children would have had morning prayers, those that could, went to a local catholic school, said prayers there, would have prepared for first confession and first holy communion along with other classmates.

So there is a high chance that many buried there unless stillborn, would have a baptismal cert.

neonsofa

Neyite wrote: »

The church are pretty hot about baptising so it would be a priority to get a baby baptised as soon as possible after birth. Anyone (don't even have to be a Catholic) can baptise a baby in an emergency and it will be seen as valid in the eyes of the church. I was baptised minutes after birth. You are even permitted to baptise in utero if the holy water can actually land on the baby -for example, during a c-section. That's how keen the RCC with regard to the sacrament of baptism.

I highly doubt that the nuns would have looked after unbaptised children. These children would have had morning prayers, those that could, went to a local catholic school, said prayers there, would have prepared for first confession and first holy communion along with other classmates.

So there is a high chance that many buried there unless stillborn, would have a baptismal cert.

Oh, I thought they weren't allowed be baptised if born to unwed parents. Every day is a learning day. Thanks.

lazybones32

Colser wrote: »

Do you have any issue with the "burials" regardless of the cause of death?

Well, I wasn't there so I don't know how the burial was conducted, so all I can do (until facts emerge - if they ever do) is imagine how they were conducted...I doubt they were drop-kicked into the ground by money-counting-nuns....or maybe they were? It'd fit some peoples narrative that the nuns did this as a mark of contempt but there could be a much more pragmatic reason to it.

We have a few paupers and famine graves here: that poor people couldn't afford as elegant and respectful a ceremony as others doesn't offend or upset me in the least.

Snickers Man

dav3 wrote: »

Prone was indeed spinning in that email, it’s quite obvious, similar to your attempts at spinning in this thread.
If you read the email again you’ll notice that she was ‘instructed’ by the Bon Secuors.

I'm not spinning anything. I'm merely stating (and asking) for facts.

dav3 wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what you’re referring to. Do you perhaps have me confused with someone else?

Now who's being facetious?

Here's what you said in a previous statement "Had all these deaths and ‘burials’ been legal and above board as you put in your hypothesis, it appears that these people went to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. The question would have to be asked why?"

Your are clearly implying here that illegality was committed. I'm merely asking what it was?

dav3 wrote: »

Bones were found at a site in Tuam, the nuns with the aid of their PR company tried to cover up the discovery by claiming the bones were from the famine period and had nothing to do with them.
Today, and only today, new evidence has emerged that the bones did indeed belong to babies, the important part is that they were dated back to the period of when the mother and baby home was operational and not belonging to the famine period.

:rolleyes:
It wasn't the discovery of bones that brought the number of deaths at the home to light; it was the researches of Ms Corless. Obviously, the bodies had to be somewhere, assuming they weren't, in their era, cremated. It's no surprise that they were found on the site of the home.

My only point was that the nugget which created the worldwide media frenzy was the "Bodies in a septic tank" hysteria. Which has now been disproved.

dav3 wrote: »

I think you’d agree that all involved in the cover up have some explaining to do. The discovery of bones in a mass grave cannot be simply shrugged off as having a simple explanation and left at that. Nothing is off the table at this stage. Which is exactly what should be expected when a mass grave is uncovered at any time.

There is a simple explanation, although some attempt at verification should be made by the investigators. These are the bodies of some or all of the people who died while at the home and whose deaths were notified to the authorities. As Ms Corless revealed.

4068ac1elhodqr

When you read this news, it sounds like it's not a million miles away from some sort of sick 'satanic child sacrifice' sci-fi novel.
Think even the ancient Aztecs did it all with a bit more dignity and respect, up to their sun god.

Know of a priest with a nice new Merc (and not your starter/lower executive type models, neither) and empty 20-bed property.
Isn't Greed still one of the 7 deadly sins?

smurgen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Well, I wasn't there so I don't know how the burial was conducted, so all I can do (until facts emerge - if they ever do) is imagine how they were conducted...I doubt they were drop-kicked into the ground by money-counting-nuns....or maybe they were? It'd fit some peoples narrative that the nuns did this as a mark of contempt but there could be a much more pragmatic reason to it.

We have a few paupers and famine graves here: that poor people couldn't afford as elegant and respectful a ceremony as others doesn't offend or upset me in the least.

You're trying to down play the findings in every way possible.famine graves?some of these graves are from the 1960's.very recent in my eyes.you clearly have an angle.what is your connection to the church?no one down plays something like this unless they have vested interests.

Seth Brundle

steddyeddy wrote: »

If I buried my family in secret, in a septic tank you wouldn't suspect foul play?

So what you're saying is that there's no difference between waiting on clarity on unexplained deaths and screaming "murder"?

juno10353

steddyeddy wrote:

a mass grave in a sceptic tank leads me to believe foul play.

Ms Corless investigated the fact that there were 793 death certificates issued by the state for the time period of the mother and baby home, yet there was no evidence of the children having been buried. This and local talk and knowledge led to this site being investigated. The site contains 2 sewage tanks. The bones of children havenow been found there. How many is yet unknown. Are all the dead children here in unmarked un consecrated ground or are there more sites. Could, as happened in other religous homes, some of the certificates have been faked and children sent abroad. There are so many unanswered questions and so many mothers and familys needing answers.

neonsofa

sup_dude wrote: »

The sad thing is, the demonisation of single mothers is still fizzling out. I was born in 1994, and my mother had to fight tooth and nail to keep me. Another young woman wasn't quite as strong willed as my mother at the same time lost her child and she still has a haunted look about her eyes. The best thing is, the people who my mother had to fight off, the people who managed to take the other woman's child... these people are the most dedicated "pro-life" people out there.

There's still a huge amount of stigma attached to being a single mother. People are surprised when they find out I have a university degree. They take it as a matter of course when I say I'm working in a shop, and you can see the eyebrows go up when I tell them it's to save for a masters. Take a look at the ample threads on single parents on Boards, they aren't very pleasant. So even though there's improvements, I wouldn't be one bit surprised to still find people who would be secretly delighted to see the mother/baby homes and forced adoption back, and single parent allowance cut entirely.

I dunno, it IS more difficult to get a degree if parenting alone. I did it myself and it was so hard to juggle childcare while working and attending college and then studying while at home, i didnt get a second. So I don't think the surprise is due to them thinking you're too big for your boots or anything, I think it is more a case of "oh fair play, didn't think you'd have the time/resources", because I get that too when I discuss my education and future ambitions. And in fairness i dont even kniw how i did it :pac: Or people being surprised to find out I'm in full time employment rather than on social welfare, it's not out of malice, more an acknowledgement that it is difficult to do these things as a single parent. Not that we deserve a pat on the back or anything for doing it, but it is more difficult cause you can't share the load. Not taking away from the judgement that still exists btw, but I don't think it is always negative judgement or assumptions. Sometimes people can just be giving you credit for what you did, and you should be proud

Neyite

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes some were but a mass grave in a sceptic tank leads me to believe foul play.

I wouldn't say foul play, but certainly neglect, poor nutrition or malnutrition in many cases would have ensured that the ordinary bugs and viruses that did the rounds hit them harder and often with fatal consequences.

Plus, if it was a home that arranged adoptions, then chances are the ones left behind were the ones that were not 'good' adoption candidates. Rich people who were able to bypass the adoption process by wafting money at the nuns would hardly take the kid with the club foot, or asthma over the cute healthy robust one. So the ones that remained could well have had neglected health issues that a life in an institution would have made worse.

So in regard to crime? The only ones I could think of is that there might be a breach of regulations for burial such as it must be in a box, in an approved burial location and to a certain depth. Or maybe a breach of environmental regulations, but I've no idea if they were even in place back then. Maybe someone with a legal background might have an idea on that.

Spanish Eyes

sup_dude wrote: »

The sad thing is, the demonisation of single mothers is still fizzling out. I was born in 1994, and my mother had to fight tooth and nail to keep me. Another young woman wasn't quite as strong willed as my mother at the same time lost her child and she still has a haunted look about her eyes. The best thing is, the people who my mother had to fight off, the people who managed to take the other woman's child... these people are the most dedicated "pro-life" people out there.

There's still a huge amount of stigma attached to being a single mother. People are surprised when they find out I have a university degree. They take it as a matter of course when I say I'm working in a shop, and you can see the eyebrows go up when I tell them it's to save for a masters. Take a look at the ample threads on single parents on Boards, they aren't very pleasant. So even though there's improvements, I wouldn't be one bit surprised to still find people who would be secretly delighted to see the mother/baby homes and forced adoption back, and single parent allowance cut entirely.[/QUOTE]

Maybe back in 1994.

But honestly, no one bats an eyelid at single parents these days anymore. Nor would anyone agree with what you say.

I take your point about it being difficult, probably still is, but the point is, non marital babies mean nothing to anyone now. Pity it wasn't the same back then, but we had the Catholic Church with such power over everyone back then.

Great that it has lost most of it now.

I would love to know what the Fathers had to suffer. Nothing from what I see and read. Lucky escape for them.

lazybones32

smurgen wrote: »

You're trying to down play the findings in every way possible.famine graves?some of these graves are from the 1960's.very recent in my eyes.you clearly have an angle.what is your connection to the church?no one down plays something like this unless they have vested interests.

I think it is you who is seeking to attribute an angle to me. I answered the question that was put to me. If you can't understand my reply, read it again and keep doing so until you get the point. (My point was that I didn't know how the burials were conducted)

My connection to the Church? I'm the transgender female pope -Francine I.

smurgen

Neyite wrote: »

I wouldn't say foul play, but certainly neglect, poor nutrition or malnutrition in many cases would have ensured that the ordinary bugs and viruses that did the rounds hit them harder and often with fatal consequences.

Plus, if it was a home that arranged adoptions, then chances are the ones left behind were the ones that were not 'good' adoption candidates. Rich people who were able to bypass the adoption process by wafting money at the nuns would hardly take the kid with the club foot, or asthma over the cute healthy robust one. So the ones that remained could well have had neglected health issues that a life in an institution would have made worse.

So in regard to crime? The only ones I could think of is that there might be a breach of regulations for burial such as it must be in a box, in an approved burial location and to a certain depth. Or maybe a breach of environmental regulations, but I've no idea if they were even in place back then. Maybe someone with a legal background might have an idea on that.

Child neglect is a crime.

SEPT 23 1989

The woman on the radio said today that she saw piles of two litre bottle size bundles wrapped in cloth stacked up against the walls

please helpThank YOU

smurgen wrote: »

Child neglect is a crime.

say that to Grace in 2017

smurgen

lazybones32 wrote: »

I think it is you who is seeking to attribute an angle to me. I answered the question that was put to me. If you can't understand my reply, read it again and keep doing so until you get the point. (My point was that I didn't know how the burials were conducted)

My connection to the Church? I'm the transgender female pope -Francine I.

You have an angle.you are downplaying.as it stands the comission is assigning government departments to take over the investigations and a coroner has been appointed to investigate the bodies.the structure is a decomissioned septic tank.my gut instinct is that the church neglected children in their care to the point of death and disposed of their bodies in the way they regarded the children,like unwanted rubbish.alot of evidence is pointing towards this conclusion which is why it is now being treated so seriously.

dav3

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Commission has not determined x2....what "truth" does that reveal that contradicts an iota of what I wrote? If anything, it confirms what I've been saying.

What were the horrific actions you speak of?

If you're incapable of understanding the report I'm not sure i can help you.

http://www.mbhcoi.ie/MBH.nsf/page/Latest%20News-en

The Commission is shocked by this discovery and is continuing its investigation into who was responsible for the disposal of human remains in this way.

Unknown Soldier

We all need to move on tbh.

jackboy

smurgen wrote: »

Child neglect is a crime.

Unfortunately it wasn't a crime back then. Giving a child a heavy beating was allowed. Feeding them just enough to keep them alive was also ok. The only possible crime is intentional murder.

Neyite

smurgen wrote: »

Child neglect is a crime.

You are absolutely right - I forgot that one, The chances of actually proving that after all this time are nigh on impossible though aren't they? There are feck all witnesses. The order have circled their wagons, as has the diocese. Witnesses are few and far between and probably wouldn't even know the full names of any of the children they witnessed being mistreated.

The state and society are culpable here too as well as the priests, doctors, nurses who had any hand in the care and rearing of these children.