Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

stockshares

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I meant to reply earlier but was having laptop problems.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-remains-can-be-identified-1.3460016

Hundreds of babies buried in a mass grave in a former religious-run mother and babies’ home in Tuam, Co Galway can be identified because of major advances in DNA testing, a team of scientists have declared.

The expert technical group (ETG) highlighted difficulties with the exhumation and identification of the remains held in an underground chamber and an adjoining, disused septic tank, because remains are “commingled”.

There are 796 infants missing but they don't know yet how many are in that particular chamber or elsewhere on Bon Secours grounds in Tuam. Same as Bessborough in many ways.

Almost 3yrs since that article was published and nothing done.

Conveniently the expert Group setup by Katherine Zappone at the time found that it would be almost impossible to identify them .

I think it's safe to say that the GOV are not exactly determined to do justice by those Children.

John Hutton

stockshares wrote: »

The fact that your arguing over whether it was a vault or a septic tank that the children were thrown into says it all about you .

You blame the media for its reporting but don't blame the religious order who ran the home and neglected these children.

The important point Is there should be an inquest and whoever is responsible held to account.

It's irrelevant what it is that they were thrown into. It's the fact that they were thrown is the problem.

I have made many posts on this thread - go back and read them I am not going to repeat myself - it is sufficient to say that your characterization of my position is incorrect and grossly unfair.

I have offered a correction to people who are saying that certain things are "fact" or "beyond doubt" when they are very much not.

It is in the interest of everyone to get the facts right.

There were not 800 babies "dumped" or buried in a septic tank. This is beyond doubt, yet it gets stated as fact in the media and is embedded in the minds of most people in the country as being true. But it is in fact a myth.

It is beyond me why campaigners and the media keep persisting that the "800 babies in a septic tank" is true, because inevitably this will be more prominently debunked (it has already) when excavations occur. Then there will be the inevitable articles about it, and the worst aspect of these homes in the minds of the public will be debunked. The reality is is that the main idea in the minds of the general public (most are not as educated as posters here) about these homes is the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" story and that "nuns were cruel". When the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" myth is shown to be that, what will the perception be in the minds of the public? That things were not as bad as stated. Everyone here seems to be an avowed cynic as to motives of the modern iterations of the orders, so tell me this, why do you think they have offered so much money towards these excavations at Tuam? It's because they know it is not true and the investigation will debunk the most well known aspect of these homes.

As I said previously, 800 dead babies, even when you subtract from that the amount that could have been expected to die 'naturally', is still a horror story that is terrible enough without adding to it with deliberate (or ignorant/sloppy) mistruths. There's no need, it serves no one, and actually detracts from the terrible things that happened for the reasons I mentioned above - if you build up this story as the worst aspect of these homes (which it is in the minds of the general public), and then it is proven to be false, then the general perception will end up being that things were not as bad as was said. Whereas if you just went with the truth (it was obvious from the beginning that 800 babies were not buried in a septic tank) it was horrific enough to begin with !

Lets look at the facts that we do know (as of today) about the burials at Tuam:

• The rate of deaths was far in excess than that which would be expected in the general population.
• The vaulted chamber may have been used at some stage as part of a wastewater or sewage system. In fact it is probably probable that it was.This "vault" was a very large construction and might not be what people immediately picture when they think of a modern septic tank. What I mean here is that if you were to get into this vault it is a few meters high and you could walk around in it.
• It is clear that this chamber was decommissioned from whatever its use was in the late 1930s at the latest and may have been out of use and empty for some years before.
• This chamber was extensively reworked and modified, with a second 20 chamber structure built within the original chamber sometime in the late 1930s after the original chamber was put out of use.
• It is within this second structure, which the commission has clearly established is not a septic or sewage tank, that the remains have been found.
• This 20 chamber structure was not part of the original "sewage tank", despite suggestions from some otherwise.
• It is yet to be established what the exact original intended purpose of this 20 chamber structure is. I won't speculate.
• Almost 50% of the approx 800 deaths occurred before 1940 (around 47/48% or something like that). These, obviously, could not have been buried in the 20 chamber structure as it was not built until the late 1930s.
• The babies were not buried in coffins, there is witness testimony to this effect, and also that the bodies were not dumped in but rather "wrapped and stacked".
• It is likely that these children were all baptized (this is of relevance given the established tradition and practice for the burial of stillbirths and the unbaptized).
• It is likely that no statutory laws were broken in terms of the manner of the burial (i.e. no coffin), despite what we would regard as clearly inappropriate burials today.
• We do not know how many babies are buried in this structure, but we do know that around half must be buried elsewhere.
• We do not know where the other burials are.
• The residents of the Tuam Home were the responsibility of the Galway and Mayo County Councils.
• Responsibility for the burials of the deceased children rested with the local authorities and Galway County Council had a particular responsibility as the owner of the institution.
• One law that was clearly broken is in respect of the obligation on local authorities to keep a register of burials in public burial grounds. This was clearly the case when it comes to Tuam, as Galway County Council were the owners and responsible for it, they were obliged to keep a register. No such register has come to light.
• The Council had to have known about the burials. Their workers etc. were regularly on site maintaining the buildings, building stuff etc. they held meetings there, they owned it etc. etc.
• This is important because they knew about the burials when they began building on the site in the late sixties, did they build over remains?
• People still alive today must have some knowledge of where these burials are - locals, the nuns, the council.

The above are the facts which are established as of today - each of which is evidenced and based on the various reports all of which are available online. This is the truth, as established so far, and is altogether horrible enough without exaggerating it.

It is clear that the facts establish an altogether more nuanced picture than the story of nuns levering up a slab/manhole and chucking 800 dead babies into a septic tank.

People want the truth about what happened, there is an obligation on the media and on commentators to report the truth otherwise, as I have explained, if you build up myths which are not true, and they establish themselves in the mind of the general public as the "800 dead babies in a septic tank" has, and these are debunked later on, it undermines the perception that the general public have. This is especially the case when the truth is horrific enough to begin with. This is too important, and too distressing for relatives, to be casual with the truth because it makes a good story. Anyone who looked at the facts from the beginning could see that 800 babies in a septic tank story was untrue, Corless herself never even claimed that, but the media twisted it and told the easy - and false - story. This was wrong, and the damage of it is still clear to see as if you ask the man on the street he will think it established fact that 800 babies were dumped into a septic tank. Even in the last few weeks loads of respectable media have reported it.

I would ask posters here, before they attack me, to take the time to read and consider what I have written. None of it is in any way a "defense" of what happened, (it was clearly wrong) but so many here have called for the truth. If you report something that is untrue, and then have to retract it and say that the report is wrong, no matter how many caveats you add after it the message that goes out and is picked up on is that the report was "untrue". It's too late for nuance then.

Hundreds of dead babies, an unknown amount buried inappropriately with the location of the graves of the majority unknown, is altogether sufficiently horrific I would think...

John Hutton

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

He was trying to spin a whole new narrative in another thread called 'Commonly believed historical inaccuracies' a few days ago. No honour.

You say I have no honour and you post this? You accuse me of spin and you post this?

This is what I said in the other thread, I feel the need to post it here too and let posters judge for themselves the truth of what you have said and implied here:

John Hutton wrote: »

A controversial one here, that the Examiner (and all other outlets) recently reported:

The Galway historian, whose research established that 796 children were buried in a septic tank at a former mother and baby home in Tuam

The "800 babies in a septic tank" went round the world and has been almost universally accepted as established fact among the public and the media, and has been discussed a lot in recent weeks.

This is not the case at all and the lady who "established" this, never said or argued that 800 babies were dumped in a septic tank.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-the-trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393

John Hutton wrote: »

Yes, but it is a "commonly believed historical inaccuracy" that 800 babies were dumped into a septic tank in Tuam. The historian "behind" the claim never said it and doesn't believe it, yet it gets reported as "established" fact, as the Examiner put it. (None of this means that terrible things didn't happen, but we are talking about inaccuracies that are commonly held here).

This is nothing wrong about what I said in those posts, in the context of a thread on the History & Heritage forum in a thread about commonly believed historical inaccuracies. I think you should apologize for you post, it was most unfair.

Cluedo Monopoly

John Hutton wrote: »

You say I have no honour and you post this? You accuse me of spin and you post this?

This is what I said in the other thread, I feel the need to post it here too and let posters judge for themselves the truth of what you have said and implied here:

This is nothing wrong about what I said in those posts, in the context of a thread on the History & Heritage forum in a thread about commonly believed historical inaccuracies. I think you should apologize for you post, it was most unfair.

You know exactly what you were doing. There are still 800 babies buried in mass graves John. Many are missing. Some are in the sewerage system. You tried ro whitewash the story and discredit Catherine Corless. Terrible things happened indeed. Do you ever wonder why the nuns wont tell us where the mass graves are or why the mortality rates were extraordinary?

I think we are better off ignoring each other.

blanch152

stockshares wrote: »

Maeve O Rourke and Claire McGettrick have an article in the Irish Times refuting what the Commission said about the Clan Project in its report.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/mother-and-baby-homes-inquiry-s-lack-of-transparency-was-damaging-1.4466658?mode=amp

Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times repeated what the Commission said as fact and that article was linked to earlier in the thread



Quote from Clann Project article above. It's not the full article

The commission of investigation’s final report claims, inaccurately, that it “received 61 statements from Hogan Lovell [sic]”. By December 2018, Hogan Lovells had submitted a total of 82 signed statements to the commission. These statements came from adopted people, mothers, relatives and other survivors of institutional abuse and/or the injustice of Ireland’s coerced, secret adoption system. We included statements that fell outside the limited terms of reference to demonstrate that these terms were too narrow and to show that all witnesses had valuable and relevant evidence. We asked the commission to recommend that its investigation be widened.

The commission’s final report also alleges: “One group requested a public hearing. When asked for reasons why, no reply was received.” As reported in this paper, the Clann Project is the group to which the commission refers. The commission’s assertion is patently untrue. On May 3rd, 2016, JFMR and ARA sent a letter to the commission with our reasons for requesting a public hearing, one of which was to remind the commission of the value of transparency. At a hearing before the commission on May 9th, 2016, counsel for JFMR and ARA Colin Smith applied for a public hearing, arguing on the basis of applicable human rights standards that the commission should exercise its discretion in favour of transparency. The commission declined our request, and Hogan Lovells wrote repeatedly to the commission during the summer of 2016 seeking an explanation as to why. Copies of all correspondence are with the Editor

There isn't really an inconsistency there, just different perspectives. They say they submitted 82 signed statements, the Commission say they received 61, but the Clann Project admit that they included statements outside the terms of reference. If a statement is outside the terms of reference, then it isn't received by the Commission as part of their work, and that easily explains the difference.

Similarly, in relation to the public hearing, the Clann say they wanted one for transparency, the Commission say they asked for reasons and didn't get one. The Commission would need reasons as to how it would advance their work, "transparency" in the form sought by the Project wouldn't necessarily advance their work.

blanch152

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

You know exactly what you were doing. There are still 800 babies buried in mass graves John. Many are missing. Some are in the sewerage system. You tried ro whitewash the story and discredit Catherine Cordless. Terrible things happened indeed. Do you ever wonder why the nuns wont tell us where the mass graves are or why the mortality rates were extraordinary?

An active sewerage system?

Or a long disused underground vault once used in Victorian times for the disposal of waste?

I am not clear from reading the exchange between the two of you as to what exactly is being talked about.

Cluedo Monopoly

blanch152 wrote: »

An active sewerage system?

Or a long disused underground vault once used in Victorian times for the disposal of waste?

I am not clear from reading the exchange between the two of you as to what exactly is being talked about.

Please see the previous posts Blanch.

John Hutton

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

You know exactly what you were doing. There are still 800 babies buried in mass graves John. Many are missing. Some are in the sewerage system. You tried ro whitewash the story and discredit Catherine Cordless. Terrible things happened indeed. Do you ever wonder why the nuns wont tell us where the mass graves are or why the mortality rates were extraordinary?

I think we are better off ignoring each other.

More lies from you. How am I whitewashing, and how am I trying to discredit Catherine Corless? (if you are going to pretend to be standing up for her against an imagined slight you could at least get her name right!)

‘I never used that word ‘dumped’,” Catherine Corless, a local historian in Co Galway, tells The Irish Times. “I never said to anyone that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank. That did not come from me at any point. They are not my words.”

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mother-and-baby-homes-report-did-not-have-level-of-workmanship-needed-seanad-hears-1.4468652

Mother and baby homes report did not have ‘level of workmanship’ needed, Seanad hears.

Fianna Fáil’s Lisa Chambers calls for commission members to answer questions.

The State did not receive “the level of workmanship” that was required from the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes in its six-volume report, and commission members should answer questions, the Seanad has been told.

Fianna Fáil Seanad leader Lisa Chambers said the report outlined “complicity in mass human-trafficking, social engineering” and the cruel and inhumane treatment of unmarried mothers and their children.

But she said feedback on the report “was not positive” and she described as “obscene” the statement in the report that there was “no evidence” that children were harmed in the homes, when survivors had given testimony of the abuse they had received. “Direct testimony is evidence,” she said.

John Hutton

blanch152 wrote: »

An active sewerage system?

Or a long disused underground vault once used in Victorian times for the disposal of waste?

I am not clear from reading the exchange between the two of you as to what exactly is being talked about.

Blanch, the bullet points in my previous post lay out what we know about the burials at Tuam. (so far, more detail will emerge after the excavation).

To answer your question, it was most certainly not an active sewage system, but rather a separate structure built within an empty and disused underground vault.

John Hutton

The reaction and next steps in the six counties will be interesting to observe. There are a number of different factors here, not least that neither Sinn Féin or the DUP were in government for any part of it, although it does seem that paramilitaries were a factor in some instances for women entering the homes. It is suggested that FF and FG are reluctant to delve too deeply because their own political ancestors (and in many instance family) were in power at the time. This is not the case with the DUP and SF.

There has also been an argument that partition and the resultant dominance of the catholic church in the south led to the mother and baby and institution phenomenon, so that fact that almost the exact same thing happened in the north (although there appears to have been less deaths) right across the catholic and protestant religious divide in a society where the catholic church and Catholics were horribly discriminated against would suggest that it would have happened anyway, even if the influence of the catholic church was diluted in a united Ireland scenario with a million or so protestants. This is discouraging and certainly suggests deeper societal ills beyond one Church.

However, it is important to note, especially regarding the death rates, that the workhouses in the north (same as the souths county homes) were not examined.

There is an opportunity here for a joint north and south investigation into the whole thing, I would encourage the powers that be to look into this.

Bannasidhe

TheChizler wrote: »

Not that it's the core of the matter here but functionally a cess pool and septic tank are very different things. Both are types of sewage systems but it's a categorical syllogism to say they're the same.

The evidence suggests the bodies of deceased children and babies were placed in at least one subterranean chamber which at some point in time formed part of an extensive system for the disposal of human effluent.
Until an archeological/forensic examination is completed this remains conjecture and cannot be either dismissed or stated with certainty.

That better?

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-homes-northern-ireland-5336943-Jan2021/

Catholic and Church of Ireland primates express shame over mother and baby homes.

Archbishop Eamon Martin and Archbishop John McDowell have issued public apologies.

THE ARCHBISHOPS OF the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland have expressed shame over mother and baby homes.

More than 10,000 women and girls entered institutions for unmarried mothers across Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1990, and a report has revealed claims of inappropriate labour and being stigmatised at the homes, run by Catholic orders and Protestant clergy.

A “victim-centred” independent investigation was ordered by Stormont ministers and should be completed within six months.

The Bishop of Derry, Donal McKeown, said all historic records from the homes should be released in full.

“If anyone is trying to hide records or destroy records, that is a crime. Of course there is no reason why records should be withheld because people want to know who they are,” McKeown told the BBC.

First Minister Arlene Foster pledged the voices of survivors would be heard “loudly and clearly”.

Foster said: “It is with huge regret that we acknowledge the pain of those experiences and the hurt caused to women and girls who did nothing more than be pregnant outside of marriage, some of them criminally against their will.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

An active sewerage system?

Or a long disused underground vault once used in Victorian times for the disposal of waste?

I am not clear from reading the exchange between the two of you as to what exactly is being talked about.

Is an old sewage system more dignified than a new sewage system? Is this an effort at defending or dismissing the mass 'burial'/disposing of babies bodies?

The religious orders involved likely were anti-choice/anti-abortion. Yet this is how they treated inconvenient babies.

TheChizler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The evidence suggests the bodies of deceased children and babies were placed in at least one subterranean chamber which at some point in time formed part of an extensive system for the disposal of human effluent.
Until an archeological/forensic examination is completed this remains conjecture and cannot be either dismissed or stated with certainty.

That better?

It's always better to be speaking in facts that can't be disputed, it means the conversation can focus on the actual issue rather than getting sidelined by distraction.

John Hutton

I must say it is odd seeing someone using the name "James Brown" and an image of him (a well documented abuser of women) commenting on a thread like this!

Establishing the facts around the burial of the dead does not justify or defend - or whatever you want to say - the main issue, the fact that they died in the first place.

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

I must say it is odd seeing someone using the name "James Brown" and an image of him (a well documented abuser of women) commenting on a thread like this!

Establishing the facts around the burial of the dead does not justify or defend - or whatever you want to say - the main issue, the fact that they died in the first place.

FYI: I'm not really 'James Brown'.

Should I ask are you John Hutton the politician or John Hutton the Aussie rules footballer? :rolleyes:

I say it's an inconsequential sideline IMO. I was asking was the point raised to pick holes, dismiss or defend the mass disposing of babies.

John Hutton

James Brown wrote: »

FYI: I'm not really 'James Brown'.

Should I ask are you John Hutton the politician or John Hutton the Aussie rules footballer? :rolleyes:

I say it's an inconsequential sideline IMO. I was asking was the point raised to pick holes, dismiss or defend the mass disposing of babies.

Not inconsequential for those who are related to the people who died is it... If you think establishing the facts (which are still terrible) somehow dismisses, justifies or defends what happened that is more a reflection on you than anything else tbh...

No you are not James Brown, but chose the name and the image, one would assume as an homage, and actually paid for the privilege I believe? (I think only subscribers can edit it in the way you have). Good musician, terrible person, although to be fair you may not have known about the other side of James Brown. One of his kids wrote a book that's worth reading. Anyway, just an observation that I found it a bit odd.

As for John Hutton, that is not based on or inspired by anyone (well, aside from myself).

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1354413957361131521

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

Not inconsequential for those who are related to the people who died is it... If you think establishing the facts (which are still terrible) somehow dismisses, justifies or defends what happened that is more a reflection on you than anything else tbh...

No you are not James Brown, but chose the name and the image, one would assume as an homage, and actually paid for the privilege I believe? (I think only subscribers can edit it in the way you have). Good musician, terrible person, although to be fair you may not have known about the other side of James Brown. One of his kids wrote a book that's worth reading. Anyway, just an observation that I found it a bit odd.

As for John Hutton, that is not based on or inspired by anyone (well, aside from myself).

I am speaking on old sewers versus new sewers. That is all. I don't see the relevance or point other than for distractionary purposes.

Great musician. It's not really. He's a famous public figure. You can read into it as you wish. Odd as that is to me.

James Brown

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1354413957361131521

The state should get a forensic archeological dig carried out in Tuam. Bill the religious order and turn the site into a memorial dedicated to the dead to serve as a reminder and give some closure.

saabsaab

James Brown wrote: »

The state should get a forensic archeological dig carried out in Tuam. Bill the religious order and turn the site into a memorial dedicated to the dead to serve as a reminder and give some closure.

What about a Garda forensic unit also?

James Brown

saabsaab wrote: »

What about a Garda forensic unit also?

As long as it's done. I'd like independent people present too.

Igotadose

James Brown wrote: »

As long as it's done. I'd like independent people present too.

I can see the need for UN overseers. Why trust the gardai? Independent, non-Irish citizens.

John Hutton

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1354413957361131521

That is very much debatable and depends on the circumstance, particularly if remains are identifiable.

In a circumstance where someone has died in an institutional setting and a death cert has been issued, detailing an explained cause of death, there is certainly no legal requirement for an inquest (certainly under current law).

In any case, inquests are not the answer here, mainly because they cannot make any findings as to liability, either in a criminal or civil sense. They are very limited in the findings that they can make:

• Accidental death
• Death by misadventure
• Medical misadventure
• Suicide/self-inflicted death/deceased took his own life
• Unlawful killing
• Want of attention at birth
• Stillbirth
• Occupational disease
• Industrial accident
• In accordance with the findings of a criminal court
• Death by natural causes
• Open Verdict

In my opinion (I have some knowledge here...) they would simply return open verdicts for all concerned, or death by natural causes, or just adjourn indefinitely. (It would be very hard to put aside the record on a death cert unless examination of the remains revealed something extraordinary). I suspect that the two verdicts that people here would want are Unlawful Killing or Want of Attention at Birth. These verdicts would be unlikely in the extreme, lets have a look at both:

Want of Attention at Birth:
There are strict circumstances where this verdict can be returned. It must be proven, beyond reasonable doubt that the child was abandoned, that the mother wasn't known/found and that no one else is criminally suspected of being the cause of death. For obvious reasons this verdict could not apply here.

Unlawful Killing:
Again there are strict circumstances here that must be satisfied. There can be no criminal proceedings, the Garda investigation must have ended, no person can be named or hinted at as being responsible, and the unlawful killing must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Again, its obvious here that this verdict could not be returned.

The call for inquests here is, frankly, naive and won't get us anywhere. It will actually be counterproductive, even if it got off the ground which is unlikely. Such an approach (inquests) would actually benefit anyone who wants to hide or delay explanation of what happened, because it is, as I described, a blatantly obvious dead end which will give no clarity. Advocating for inquests is something which sounds good, but to anyone who knows anything about them would know is a dead end. So the politician in this instance is really making a mistake here if she thinks people will get answers or any sort of finality out of inquests. At best these inquests will take ages to be completed, will find nothing except that more investigation is needed, or perhaps even make findings of death by natural causes (although I suspect adjournments or open verdicts more likely).

Surely it's not beyond the wit of the government to set up a bespoke investigation to excavate any inappropriately buried remains, do DNA testing to try and identify the remains, and an investigation process to give an opinion (rather than a verdict) on the balance of probabilities as to what happened.

James Brown

TBF, we know bodies are dumped in and around the place. On a pure human decency level they need a proper memorial regardless of how the state/institutions might dodge any accountability, legal or moral.
It could be treated like the remains from the gas chambers or other mass graves born from atrocity. We don't need identify the remains to show respect.

John Hutton

James Brown wrote: »

TBF, we know bodies are dumped in and around the place. On a pure human decency level they need a proper memorial regardless of how the state/institutions might dodge any accountability, legal or moral.
It could be treated like the remains from the gas chambers or other mass graves born from atrocity. We don't need identify the remains to show respect.

Oh I agree, there should be a proper memorial. Deciding what this memorial should be might prove controversial (some relatives might want religious symbology etc, others might be decidedly against that for obvious reasons).


Maybe something like the wall in Glasnevin with the list of names?

Cluedo Monopoly

James Brown wrote: »

TBF, we know bodies are dumped in and around the place. On a pure human decency level they need a proper memorial regardless of how the state/institutions might dodge any accountability, legal or moral.
It could be treated like the remains from the gas chambers or other mass graves born from atrocity. We don't need identify the remains to show respect.

Catherine Corless has all the names of the 796 missing children. She did it in the most painstaking way at personal expense.

When she tried to access information from Galway County Council, she says she was told that she wasn’t allowed because she didn’t have a university degree. “That’s exactly what I was told. I couldn’t look at the records”.

She finally began to get the information when she contacted the registry office in Galway to try to get death certificates for every child who had died at The Home.

A week later they got back to me and said ‘do you really want all of these deaths?’ I said I do. She told me I would be charged for each record. Then she asked me did I realise the enormity of the numbers of deaths there?
Corless paid €4 for each death certificate and, between 2011 and 2013

The 796 children ranged from newborns to nine-year-old children, and the death certificates recorded that they had died from causes including malnutrition, neglect, measles, tuberculosis and pneumonia.

The boys discovered some concrete slabs loosely covering a hollow. They moved the concrete and discovered a hole, which Frannie Hopkins described as being “full of skeletons… of children”. In an interview, Frannie said that his parents told him that a local priest had said a mass at the site and the grave was then covered over again.

At 796 deaths, this means that one child died approximately every fortnight at The Home – a mortality rate far higher than the rate for other children in Ireland at the time.

I believe the list of names is printed in a makeshift memorial in Tuam. They do deserve a proper burial and a memorial.

https://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-corless-tuam-mother-and-baby-home-3268501-Mar2017/

Bannasidhe

TheChizler wrote: »

It's always better to be speaking in facts that can't be disputed, it means the conversation can focus on the actual issue rather than getting sidelined by distraction.

I was responding to a poster who referred to a interim report that denied the method of disposal involved any kind of sewage/septic system as if this was factual.
Such a report is meaningless until an excavation has been completed by experts.
I responded by linking to a blog post which contains images of the blueprints of the subterranean chambers which clearly identify them as being, at some point, part of a sewage system.

The indisputable fact is that hundreds of human remains were disposed of in suspicious circumstances by a religious order in Tuam.
Testimony indicates some of these remains were placed in a subterranean vaulted chamber.
Blueprints of the site indicate the existence of such chambers as part of a Victorian era sewage system.

It is immaterial if the chambers were used as a 'septic tank' at the time or not - although if memory serves the site was connected to the main sewage system while occupied by the Nuns.
Meaning they had a handy, no longer used, location available to hide their victims.

Disputing whether or not it was a 'septic tank' has been a distraction tactic going back as far as Catherine Corless's original revelations - which is why Izzy Kamikazi published the blueprints back in 2017.

Here we are , three years later, and the same "well, it wasn't actually a septic tank...actually" is being trotted out as if this mitigates the situation.

It does not.

It just shows the Nuns in Tuam couldn't be bothered digging a 700+ holes.

And makes me wonder what kind of person is looking for mitigating circumstances and/or feels the need to quibble about whether it was workhouse ****e or Nuns ****e that once flew through the chambers destined to house hundreds of dead children.

Cluedo Monopoly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It just shows the Nuns in Tuam couldn't be bothered digging a 900+ holes.

And makes me wonder what kind of person is looking for mitigating circumstances and/or feels the need to quibble about whether it was workhouse ****e or Nuns ****e that once flew through the chambers destined to house hundreds of dead children.

Tuam has 796 missing children. Bessborough is the home with 900+ missing children up to 5 years of age. The nuns have never indicated where the might be to any level of accuracy.

The pattern is repeated in other homes.

The report noted that the congregation “provided the Commission with an affidavit about burials generally and specifically about the Castlepollard and Sean Ross child burials but very little evidence was provided to support the statements in it”.

“The affidavit was, in many respects, speculative, inaccurate and misleading,” the report added.

“The Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary do not know where the children who died in Bessborough are buried. The Commission finds this very difficult to comprehend as Bessborough was a mother and baby home for the duration of the period covered by the Commission (1922 – 1998) and the congregation was involved with it for all of this time.

“The Commission finds it very difficult to understand that no member of the congregation was able to say where the children who died in Bessborough are buried.”

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was responding to a poster who referred to a interim report that denied the method of disposal involved any kind of sewage/septic system as if this was factual.
Such a report is meaningless until an excavation has been completed by experts.
I responded by linking to a blog post which contains images of the blueprints of the subterranean chambers which clearly identify them as being, at some point, part of a sewage system.

The indisputable fact is that hundreds of human remains were disposed of in suspicious circumstances by a religious order in Tuam.
Testimony indicates some of these remains were placed in a subterranean vaulted chamber.
Blueprints of the site indicate the existence of such chambers as part of a Victorian era sewage system.

It is immaterial if the chambers were used as a 'septic tank' at the time or not - although if memory serves the site was connected to the main sewage system while occupied by the Nuns.
Meaning they had a handy, no longer used, location available to hide their victims.

Disputing whether or not it was a 'septic tank' has been a distraction tactic going back as far as Catherine Corless's original revelations - which is why Izzy Kamikazi published the blueprints back in 2017.

Here we are , three years later, and the same "well, it wasn't actually a septic tank...actually" is being trotted out as if this mitigates the situation.

It does not.

It just shows the Nuns in Tuam couldn't be bothered digging a 900+ holes.

And makes me wonder what kind of person is looking for mitigating circumstances and/or feels the need to quibble about whether it was workhouse ****e or Nuns ****e that once flew through the chambers destined to house hundreds of dead children.

What a repulsive twisting on what posters have said here. So to you, an expert report is meaningless, but a blog post is fact, one which predated a significant amount of investigation. (I did not bring up this investigation and report first, another poster did, although it seems they didn't read it as it said the opposite of what they argued it did).

I wrote a long post where I detailed in bullet points what the established facts are about the burial. Please show where anything I said is incorrect.

Here they are again:

• The rate of deaths was far in excess than that which would be expected in the general population.
• The vaulted chamber may have been used at some stage as part of a wastewater or sewage system. In fact it is probably probable that it was.This "vault" was a very large construction and might not be what people immediately picture when they think of a modern septic tank. What I mean here is that if you were to get into this vault it is a few meters high and you could walk around in it.
• It is clear that this chamber was decommissioned from whatever its use was in the late 1930s at the latest and may have been out of use and empty for some years before.
• This chamber was extensively reworked and modified, with a second 20 chamber structure built within the original chamber sometime in the late 1930s after the original chamber was put out of use.
• It is within this second structure, which the commission has clearly established is not a septic or sewage tank, that the remains have been found.
• This 20 chamber structure was not part of the original "sewage tank", despite suggestions from some otherwise.
• It is yet to be established what the exact original intended purpose of this 20 chamber structure is. I won't speculate.
• Almost 50% of the approx 800 deaths occurred before 1940 (around 47/48% or something like that). These, obviously, could not have been buried in the 20 chamber structure as it was not built until the late 1930s.
• The babies were not buried in coffins, there is witness testimony to this effect, and also that the bodies were not dumped in but rather "wrapped and stacked".
• It is likely that these children were all baptized (this is of relevance given the established tradition and practice for the burial of stillbirths and the unbaptized).
• It is likely that no statutory laws were broken in terms of the manner of the burial (i.e. no coffin), despite what we would regard as clearly inappropriate burials today.
• We do not know how many babies are buried in this structure, but we do know that around half must be buried elsewhere.
• We do not know where the other burials are.
• The residents of the Tuam Home were the responsibility of the Galway and Mayo County Councils.
• Responsibility for the burials of the deceased children rested with the local authorities and Galway County Council had a particular responsibility as the owner of the institution.
• One law that was clearly broken is in respect of the obligation on local authorities to keep a register of burials in public burial grounds. This was clearly the case when it comes to Tuam, as Galway County Council were the owners and responsible for it, they were obliged to keep a register. No such register has come to light.
• The Council had to have known about the burials. Their workers etc. were regularly on site maintaining the buildings, building stuff etc. they held meetings there, they owned it etc. etc.
• This is important because they knew about the burials when they began building on the site in the late sixties, did they build over remains?
• People still alive today must have some knowledge of where these burials are - locals, the nuns, the council.

TheChizler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Disputing whether or not it was a 'septic tank' has been a distraction tactic going back as far as Catherine Corless's original revelations - which is why Izzy Kamikazi published the blueprints back in 2017.

I agree with everything you say and my only point is continuing to call it a septic tank allows the distraction to be brought up again and again. The fact that remains were put in something even ever associated with waste is bad enough, the description doesn't need to be made worse using disputable language.

John Hutton

You know, its disgusting what some posters here are at. I have already been accused in this thread of working for the church. As is probably obvious from the extent of time and attention I have given this thread, the length of posts etc. (which are only a fraction of the attention I have given this subject over the years personally) I do have a personal interest in this. The extent and nature of which is no ones business but my own and I wouldn't elaborate on it as if it gives me some sort of extra authority or sole "ownership" of it.

But let me tell you this, it makes the world of difference to many people whether the babies were dumped into a pile of sh!t in a septic tank or if they were wrapped and placed into a second multi chambered construction built contemporaneously with the burials, a second chamber built within a really large and long disused and decommissioned underground vault. A world of difference.

If you can't see why this matters, why a blatant mistruth about 800 babies being dumped into a septic tank in Tuam being spread by the media all over the world and repeated as fact, is an issue then you really need to have a good look at yourself.

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

What a repulsive twisting on what posters have said here. So to you, an expert report is meaningless, but a blog post is fact, one which predated a significant amount of investigation. (I did not bring up this investigation and report first, another poster did, although it seems they didn't read it as it said the opposite of what they argued it did).

I wrote a long post where I detailed in bullet points what the established facts are about the burial. Please show where anything I said is incorrect.

Here they are again:

• The rate of deaths was far in excess than that which would be expected in the general population.
• The vaulted chamber may have been used at some stage as part of a wastewater or sewage system. In fact it is probably probable that it was.This "vault" was a very large construction and might not be what people immediately picture when they think of a modern septic tank. What I mean here is that if you were to get into this vault it is a few meters high and you could walk around in it.
• It is clear that this chamber was decommissioned from whatever its use was in the late 1930s at the latest and may have been out of use and empty for some years before.
• This chamber was extensively reworked and modified, with a second 20 chamber structure built within the original chamber sometime in the late 1930s after the original chamber was put out of use.
• It is within this second structure, which the commission has clearly established is not a septic or sewage tank, that the remains have been found.
• This 20 chamber structure was not part of the original "sewage tank", despite suggestions from some otherwise.
• It is yet to be established what the exact original intended purpose of this 20 chamber structure is. I won't speculate.
• Almost 50% of the approx 800 deaths occurred before 1940 (around 47/48% or something like that). These, obviously, could not have been buried in the 20 chamber structure as it was not built until the late 1930s.
• The babies were not buried in coffins, there is witness testimony to this effect, and also that the bodies were not dumped in but rather "wrapped and stacked".
• It is likely that these children were all baptized (this is of relevance given the established tradition and practice for the burial of stillbirths and the unbaptized).
• It is likely that no statutory laws were broken in terms of the manner of the burial (i.e. no coffin), despite what we would regard as clearly inappropriate burials today.
• We do not know how many babies are buried in this structure, but we do know that around half must be buried elsewhere.
• We do not know where the other burials are.
• The residents of the Tuam Home were the responsibility of the Galway and Mayo County Councils.
• Responsibility for the burials of the deceased children rested with the local authorities and Galway County Council had a particular responsibility as the owner of the institution.
• One law that was clearly broken is in respect of the obligation on local authorities to keep a register of burials in public burial grounds. This was clearly the case when it comes to Tuam, as Galway County Council were the owners and responsible for it, they were obliged to keep a register. No such register has come to light.
• The Council had to have known about the burials. Their workers etc. were regularly on site maintaining the buildings, building stuff etc. they held meetings there, they owned it etc. etc.
• This is important because they knew about the burials when they began building on the site in the late sixties, did they build over remains?
• People still alive today must have some knowledge of where these burials are - locals, the nuns, the council.

Please show where I stated you personally said anything at all?

But for the record - I find actual blueprints (which were in the blog post I linked) to have greater weight then a interim report (which was not linked) published before any kind of forensic/archaeological investigation has taken place.

There has been no expert physical investigation of the site therefore no export report exists.

Personally, I find it repulsive when people feel the need to mitigate and quibble about whether or not the sewage system was in use at the time as if this has a material baring on the death and disposal of hundreds of children which occurred under the auspices of those claiming a moral authority.

My position was clearly stated - in my opinion such quibbling is a distraction tactic we have seen since Corless went public. It really doesn't matter if it was a sewage system or an icehouse - the fact is children who died due to neglect were disposed of in suspicious circumstances - by Nuns who didn't bother/need to dig holes.

The reason people need to engage in such a tactic is known only to themselves.

Bannasidhe

TheChizler wrote: »

I agree with everything you say and my only point is continuing to call it a septic tank allows the distraction to be brought up again and again. The fact that remains were put in something even ever associated with waste is bad enough, the description doesn't need to be made worse using disputable language.

I agree.

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please show where I stated you personally said anything at all?

But for the record - I find actual blueprints (which were in the blog post I linked) to have greater weight then a interim report (which was not linked) published before any kind of forensic/archaeological investigation has taken place.

There has been no expert physical investigation of the site therefore no export report exists.

Personally, I find it repulsive when people feel the need to mitigate and quibble about whether or not the sewage system was in use at the time as if this has a material baring on the death and disposal of hundreds of children which occurred under the auspices of those claiming a moral authority.

My position was clearly stated - in my opinion such quibbling is a distraction tactic we have seen since Corless went public. It really doesn't matter if it was a sewage system or an icehouse - the fact is children who died due to neglect were disposed of in suspicious circumstances - by Nuns who didn't bother/need to dig holes.

The reason people need to engage in such a tactic is known only to themselves.

Please, this is too much.

An expert team preformed investigations on the tank/burial ground. It included a forensic archaeologist, a human osteoarchaeologist and a consulting engineer who specializes in sewers and such.

With the greatest of respect to Izzy, I will go with their reports rather than her blog (which predated the expert investigation).

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

You know, its disgusting what some posters here are at. I have already been accused in this thread of working for the church. As is probably obvious from the extent of time and attention I have given this thread, the length of posts etc. (which are only a fraction of the attention I have given this subject over the years personally) I do have a personal interest in this. The extent and nature of which is no ones business but my own and I wouldn't elaborate on it as if it gives me some sort of extra authority or sole "ownership" of it.

But let me tell you this, it makes the world of difference to many people whether the babies were dumped into a pile of sh!t in a septic tank or if they were wrapped and placed into a second multi chambered construction built contemporaneously with the burials, a second chamber built within a really large and long disused and decommissioned underground vault. A world of difference.

If you can't see why this matters, why a blatant mistruth about 800 babies being dumped into a septic tank in Tuam being spread by the media all over the world and repeated as fact, is an issue then you really need to have a good look at yourself.

It is indeed disgusting.

Disgusting that some posters are trying to push a narrative that although the Nuns may have neglected children and babies to such extent that is caused their deaths in the hundreds - they (possibly) cared enough to wrap their dead bodies and place them carefully in chamber that, well, it could almost have been built for just such a purpose.

If the Nuns cared about those children the death rate would not have been so horrendous.

If the Nuns had cared those children would have had proper burials.

Disposing of the bodies in secret is nothing more than hiding the evidence. One does not hide evidence of having been caring.



From my perspective you are pushing a narrative seeks to mitigate the actions of the Nuns by presenting a more 'caring' scenario which is not supported by the evidence - the evidence is clear that hundreds of children and babies died in Tuam, that neglect was the direct cause of many of those deaths, that hundreds of human remains were not inhumated in anyway consistent with societal norms of the time nor were proper records kept of any burials.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach and look to yourself and why you are pushing this narrative.

And yes - you are trying to argue from authority, but likewise a simple search on this site will demonstrate my personal involvement in this going back many years and that I have undertaken a great deal of research.

As for what the media "spread all over the world" - I have no responsibility for that. Take it up with the media.

I have stated that in my opinion what matters is that these children died in the first place. People who continually quibble about the site of the disposal of the bodies but not address the causes of death are, in my opinion, attempting to distract from the the main issue which is hundreds in Tuam, and thousands Statewide, of dead children who were in the care of religious orders.

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

Please, this is too much.

An expert team preformed investigations on the tank/burial ground. It included a forensic archaeologist, a human osteoarchaeologist and a consulting engineer who specializes in sewers and such.

With the greatest of respect to Izzy, I will go with their reports rather than her blog (which predated the expert investigation).

Has the site been excavated?

No.

Therefore there is no expert report.

There is conjecture.

And as I said - the main issue is not the burial site, the main issue is the cause of the deaths.

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Has the site been excavated?

No.

Therefore there is no expert report.

There is conjecture.

And as I said - the main issue is not the burial site, the main issue is the cause of the deaths.

A team of archaeologists, following a non intrustive geophys examination sealed off the site and preformed excavations, including the digging of a number of trenches. They uncovered the chamber and examined it. They preformed expert examination of remains and radiocarbon dating of remains. The took soil and various other samples and took conclusions from results. They examined artifacts found within it (various items including plastic oil bottles that could not have been there before 1968 which obviously raises questions), examined the articulation of the remains and reached conclusions from that. They examined the structures themselves. They photographed and documented everything, drawings etc as would be expected in this type of investigation.

They also did a detailed investigation in records and archives etc about the structure, tracing all the history and records or sewage and water works at the site.

In other words, a forensic archaeologist did a partial excavation and they and their team did up a number of expert reports. They preformed excavations, conforming to the highest forensic protocols and archaeological standards. You may have missed that they did excavations which is fair enough because it was done fairly quietly. Perhaps you were only familiar with the initial geophys investigation. This is fair enough.

The entire site was not excavated (this will have to include peoples gardens).

In archeology it is rare that the entirely of a site would have to be excavated in order to draw conclusions. Sure, a fuller excavation might reveal more details and is certainly necessary in order to properly bury the dead, but a full excavation of the entire site not being carried out does not mean that the hitherto completed expert reports are to be binned and dismissed as conjecture, certainly not scrapped in favor of a blog post.

(This is most unfair on the blogger in question as I do not mean to denigrate her work, which is certainly well reasoned on the information she had and well meaning for sure, but it is the case that the reports of experts such as forensic archaeologists who dug the site must take precedence).

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is indeed disgusting.

Disgusting that some posters are trying to push a narrative that although the Nuns may have neglected children and babies to such extent that is caused their deaths in the hundreds - they (possibly) cared enough to wrap their dead bodies and place them carefully in chamber that, well, it could almost have been built for just such a purpose.

If the Nuns cared about those children the death rate would not have been so horrendous.

If the Nuns had cared those children would have had proper burials.

Disposing of the bodies in secret is nothing more than hiding the evidence. One does not hide evidence of having been caring.

From my perspective you are pushing a narrative seeks to mitigate the actions of the Nuns by presenting a more 'caring' scenario which is not supported by the evidence - the evidence is clear that hundreds of children and babies died in Tuam, that neglect was the direct cause of many of those deaths, that hundreds of human remains were not inhumated in anyway consistent with societal norms of the time nor were proper records kept of any burials.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach and look to yourself and why you are pushing this narrative.

And yes - you are trying to argue from authority, but likewise a simple search on this site will demonstrate my personal involvement in this going back many years and that I have undertaken a great deal of research.

As for what the media "spread all over the world" - I have no responsibility for that. Take it up with the media.

I have stated that in my opinion what matters is that these children died in the first place. People who continually quibble about the site of the disposal of the bodies but not address the causes of death are, in my opinion, attempting to distract from the the main issue which is hundreds in Tuam, and thousands Statewide, of dead children who were in the care of religious orders.

My point from the beginning of this thread is summed up by a line from the blog post you posted earlier:

Church, State, communities and families all played their part in the massive tragedy of Ireland’s institutional past. When all the secrets are told, nobody is going to come out of it smelling of roses.

I am also interested in establishing the facts, from beginning to end, which I am very much concerned are going to be lost in a concentrated effort to concentrate all blame on the catholic church. For instance, it has barely been remarked upon that the archaeologists excavating Tuam could not get any response from Galway County Council to their reports and queries about what they found. The council just completely ignored it. It is crystal clear that just as much, if not more-so than the nuns, the council must know more about the burials, yet their silence goes unremarked. The state is getting away with it.

I have pointed out umpteen times that the main issue is the death rate, not the burial. But the burial matters, otherwise why are we going to excavate them further?

In any case, I will conclude by saying that not only is your accusation of "narrative pushing", or justifying, or excusing or whatever you want to call it, untrue, it is most unkind. However, I do acknowledge that this is an emotive issue and it is easy to pick people up or interpret people wrong so I won't hold it against you, but I hope this post and my explanation will allow us to draw a line under and move beyond your mistaken accusation.

ShamNNspace

John Hutton wrote: »

Here they are again:

• The rate of deaths was far in excess than that which would be expected in the general population.
• The vaulted chamber may have been used at some stage as part of a wastewater or sewage system. In fact it is probably probable that it was.This "vault" was a very large construction and might not be what people immediately picture when they think of a modern septic tank. What I mean here is that if you were to get into this vault it is a few meters high and you could walk around in it.
• It is clear that this chamber was decommissioned from whatever its use was in the late 1930s at the latest and may have been out of use and empty for some years before.
• This chamber was extensively reworked and modified, with a second 20 chamber structure built within the original chamber sometime in the late 1930s after the original chamber was put out of use.
• It is within this second structure, which the commission has clearly established is not a septic or sewage tank, that the remains have been found.
• This 20 chamber structure was not part of the original "sewage tank", despite suggestions from some otherwise.
• It is yet to be established what the exact original intended purpose of this 20 chamber structure is. I won't speculate.
• Almost 50% of the approx 800 deaths occurred before 1940 (around 47/48% or something like that). These, obviously, could not have been buried in the 20 chamber structure as it was not built until the late 1930s.
• The babies were not buried in coffins, there is witness testimony to this effect, and also that the bodies were not dumped in but rather "wrapped and stacked".
• It is likely that these children were all baptized (this is of relevance given the established tradition and practice for the burial of stillbirths and the unbaptized).
• It is likely that no statutory laws were broken in terms of the manner of the burial (i.e. no coffin), despite what we would regard as clearly inappropriate burials today.
• We do not know how many babies are buried in this structure, but we do know that around half must be buried elsewhere.
• We do not know where the other burials are.
• The residents of the Tuam Home were the responsibility of the Galway and Mayo County Councils.
• Responsibility for the burials of the deceased children rested with the local authorities and Galway County Council had a particular responsibility as the owner of the institution.
• One law that was clearly broken is in respect of the obligation on local authorities to keep a register of burials in public burial grounds. This was clearly the case when it comes to Tuam, as Galway County Council were the owners and responsible for it, they were obliged to keep a register. No such register has come to light.
• The Council had to have known about the burials. Their workers etc. were regularly on site maintaining the buildings, building stuff etc. they held meetings there, they owned it etc. etc.
• This is important because they knew about the burials when they began building on the site in the late sixties, did they build over remains?
• People still alive today must have some knowledge of where these burials are - locals, the nuns, the council.

Just on the last point I've allways been surprised that a forensic investigatiin of the councils files from this period haven't been called for more vigorously . There are people still alive who were involved in the building works on the housing estate in the late 69s early 70s who would be able to throw some light on the matter. The Bon secours had the deceased nuns buried there reinterred elsewhere , the bodies of any children buried in the grounds were wards of the council and the councils responsibility to put it coldly

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

You know, its disgusting what some posters here are at. I have already been accused in this thread of working for the church. As is probably obvious from the extent of time and attention I have given this thread, the length of posts etc. (which are only a fraction of the attention I have given this subject over the years personally) I do have a personal interest in this. The extent and nature of which is no ones business but my own and I wouldn't elaborate on it as if it gives me some sort of extra authority or sole "ownership" of it.

But let me tell you this, it makes the world of difference to many people whether the babies were dumped into a pile of sh!t in a septic tank or if they were wrapped and placed into a second multi chambered construction built contemporaneously with the burials, a second chamber built within a really large and long disused and decommissioned underground vault. A world of difference.

If you can't see why this matters, why a blatant mistruth about 800 babies being dumped into a septic tank in Tuam being spread by the media all over the world and repeated as fact, is an issue then you really need to have a good look at yourself.

I find this post very odd. Would it not be more of a concern that they died, were left to die and bodies dumped over how functional or not the sewage system they were deposited into was?
I mean what was the 'multi chambered construction' built for? You seem to be suggesting it was some form of built for purpose mausoleum or something?
The dead 'wrapped and placed' for example. You paint your own picture here.
If my baby or mother were left to die and dumped in an unmarked mass hole in the ground, that would be my main issue not if it were a 'multi chambered construction' or not.

John Hutton

James Brown wrote: »

I find this post very odd. Would it not be more of a concern that they died, were left to die and bodies dumped over how functional or not the sewage system they were deposited into was?
I mean what was the 'multi chambered construction' built for? You seem to be suggesting it was some form of built for purpose mausoleum or something?
The dead 'wrapped and placed' for example. You paint your own picture here.
If my baby or mother were left to die and dumped in an unmarked mass hole in the ground, that would be my main issue not if it were a 'multi chambered construction' or not.

Of course the main and most important issue is that they died. But that does not mean that how they were buried is unimportant, but we are discussing the particulars of the burial in this "portion" of the thread, I'm not saying never mind the deaths. I'm not saying the burial is the main issue, although the burial in Tuam has certainly gotten the most media attention, and is the most misunderstood and misreported.

While it will not be popular to point out, it is nevertheless the case that a comparatively small minority of those who died would have died naturally even if they got the best care. The infant mortality rate in society was not zero. If we take your example of your baby or mother, if they died naturally is the manner of burial not of great concern? If they died of neglect etc. is their burial not of any concern? I do not think I am alone in being concerned about the manner of the burial of people who died. If someone turned around and said something like "sure it doesn't matter if they were dumped into a septic tank, sure they were dead and all you need to worry about is how they died, don't bother doing any excavation or reinterments" you would rightly condemn such an attitude and say that the burial, and what happened in that regard, was an important part of the story.

There are degrees of "importance" yes, but I do not feel that the manner of burial is unimportant. To discuss the burial, which is the main topic of discussion in the public mind, is not to say that other things are unimportant, or less important.

The whole point of these investigations is to establish the truth, as best we can with the evidence available, what happened. This includes how they were buried, as well as the experiences of the mothers, the deaths, etc. etc. etc.

If I were to talk about the adoptions, does that mean I am saying never mind the deaths? Of course not.

I am interested with the truth, and the detail of it. Addressing one of the most repeated and discussed claims about this whole horrid affair, the "800 dead babies dumped in a septic tank" claim is important.

EDIT: Just to add I do not think that the 20 chambered tank was a purpose built crypt. I'm not sure what it was, but would appear to be something to do with wastewater, but it is unclear if it were ever used. The "wrapped and placed" is not my own, remains appear to be articulated.

John Hutton

Just to add, I summed up and concluded my earlier lengthy post thusly:

Hundreds of dead babies, an unknown amount buried inappropriately with the location of the graves of the majority unknown, is altogether sufficiently horrific I would think...

Cluedo Monopoly

Children's Committee wants Chair of Mother and Baby Homes Commission to answer questions

THE OIREACHTAS CHILDREN’S Committee is set to invite the chairperson of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes to appear before it.

The committee made the decision at a private meeting yesterday and plans to send a letter to Judge Yvonne Murphy, the chair of the three-person commission, in the coming days.

Many survivors have criticised the report, in particular conclusions which state there was a lack of evidence of forced adoption and abuse, despite testimonies contradicting this.

“People were led to believe that the reason it was going to take so long was because everything was going to be gone through with a fine tooth comb, it would be really well put together, really well researched and analysed.

“And it just seems like, at the end of the day, it was just rushed, or that’s how it reads.”

The finding that there was “little evidence” of forced adoption makes no sense Funchion said, noting that many survivors gave testimony about being forced to give their babies away.

“It’s just difficult to understand how they came to those conclusions.

“We just feel that there are certain questions that we could put to her on behalf of various survivors and survivors’ groups who may not have the opportunity to do that themselves.”

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-homes-childrens-committee-5336612-Jan2021/

Funchion spoke very well in the Dail last week and really seems to care about this issue.

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

Of course the main and most important issue is that they died. But that does not mean that how they were buried is unimportant, but we are discussing the particulars of the burial in this "portion" of the thread, I'm not saying never mind the deaths. I'm not saying the burial is the main issue, although the burial in Tuam has certainly gotten the most media attention, and is the most misunderstood and misreported.

While it will not be popular to point out, it is nevertheless the case that a comparatively small minority of those who died would have died naturally even if they got the best care. The infant mortality rate in society was not zero. If we take your example of your baby or mother, if they died naturally is the manner of burial not of great concern? If they died of neglect etc. is their burial not of any concern? I do not think I am alone in being concerned about the manner of the burial of people who died. If someone turned around and said something like "sure it doesn't matter if they were dumped into a septic tank, sure they were dead and all you need to worry about is how they died, don't bother doing any excavation or reinterments" you would rightly condemn such an attitude and say that the burial, and what happened in that regard, was an important part of the story.

There are degrees of "importance" yes, but I do not feel that the manner of burial is unimportant. To discuss the burial, which is the main topic of discussion in the public mind, is not to say that other things are unimportant, or less important.

The whole point of these investigations is to establish the truth, as best we can with the evidence available, what happened. This includes how they were buried, as well as the experiences of the mothers, the deaths, etc. etc. etc.

If I were to talk about the adoptions, does that mean I am saying never mind the deaths? Of course not.

I am interested with the truth, and the detail of it. Addressing one of the most repeated and discussed claims about this whole horrid affair, the "800 dead babies dumped in a septic tank" claim is important.

EDIT: Just to add I do not think that the 20 chambered tank was a purpose built crypt. I'm not sure what it was, but would appear to be something to do with wastewater, but it is unclear if it were ever used. The "wrapped and placed" is not my own, remains appear to be articulated.

Whether it be an old Victorian sewer or more modern sewer isn't important IMO. That was the discussion.
The point is babies were dumped in an unmarked hole in the ground and how they got there. As pointed out we shouldn't allow any inconsistencies be used to distract, however septic tank is a different discussion to how old the sewer/chamber was IMO.

We will not get any truth or satisfaction for survivors unless outside people are brought in. The FF/FG state and religious institutions actively blocked and fudged investigations to the point were I wouldn't have any faith in them.

saabsaab

Below from Magill shows little progress re religious orders since 2006


https://magill.ie/archive/religious-still-denying-scale

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/forced-adoptions-an-appalling-vista-1.4468554

Forced adoptions: an appalling vista?

Mother and Baby Homes Commission very reluctant to draw conclusion that mothers were forced to give up their children

All of this indeed would be an appalling vista. Yet this is precisely what has been laid bare in the Mother and Baby Home Investigation. It heard evidence that all of the above - and more - played a part in the Irish adoption system. In the report’s own words:

‘Some witnesses told the Commission that they regarded their consents as free and informed… Others said their decision was informed but…not free as they had no real choice… A number of women said that they…had been ‘forced’ to [SIGN]by, for example, parents, adoption societies, mother and baby home staff, social workers or priests… Some stated adamantly that they had not actually signed… A few said that they had subsequently seen the forms in the adoption society files and…the signatures were not theirs.’

The Commission report quotes one young woman who brought her baby home after giving birth. ‘The parish priest put pressure on her to give the baby up for adoption, warning her that “no bastard child will enter my school”. Subsequently some women carrying documents arrived at her home - she had no idea who they were. They gave her no choice she said but forced her to sign the documents.’ Her baby was taken and no-one told her where it went.

But the Mother and Baby Home Commission avoided that conclusion.

In dismissing the argument, the Commission says it ‘found very little evidence that children were forcibly taken from their mothers’. It doesn’t define ‘forcibly’, but the addition of ‘taken’ strongly suggests it had only physical force in mind.

But this is another ‘straw man’ as very few mothers have ever alleged anything of this nature.

In fact, ‘forcibly’ has many synonyms: ‘pressure’, ‘coercion’, ‘under protest’ and ‘of necessity’ are a few, and although all of them seem apposite to the Irish experience, ‘of necessity’ - the absence of choice - is perhaps the most problematic. Is being denied a choice the same as being forced?

There can be ‘little doubt’, the report acknowledges, that unmarried mothers ‘had to make decisions which did not necessarily reflect what they wanted but reflected the fact that they had little or no choice’, but the absence of choice, it concludes ‘is not the same as ‘forced’ adoption’.

At no point, apart from the reference to ‘forcibly taken’, does the Commission say what would constitute a forced adoption, but we know it consulted a report on the issue from a highly regarded committee of the Australian Senate.

The 2012 Australian report states: ‘’The committee believes it to be incontrovertible that forced adoption was common. It occurred when children were given up for adoption because their parents, particularly their mothers, were forced to relinquish them or faced circumstances in which they were left with no other choice.’

How very familiar much of this will sound to anyone reading evidence given to the Mother and Baby Home Commission, yet its report states that in Ireland, ‘the Commission has not come across the sort of practices… that were outlined in the Australian [report].’

This is a truly puzzling verdict, given that both reports outline a great many features that were common to both jurisdictions, including practices - like the denial of alternatives - that in Australia did amount to forced adoptions. Physical force, although much more frequent in Australia, was never an essential feature.

Former residents of Ireland’s Mother and Baby Homes have argued that the denial of alternatives to adoption is an issue that wasn’t adequately dealt with in the Commission’s report.

The Catholic Church, they point out, believed that only ‘inadequate’ and ‘sinful’ women wanted to keep their babies. A misogynistic Church had weaponised illegitimacy, turning it from something that had been frowned upon historically, into a brutal mechanism for oppressing women. If society at large went along with this, that showed just how powerful the Church was.

Separating the child from its mother was part of her punishment as a sinner, while the pain of separation was a deterrent from sinning again. If unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies, why should they repent? Why would they stop sinning? The Church had a right and a duty to separate them.

The Australian government faced up to its appalling vista and dealt with it. It would be sad indeed if a fear of the consequences of doing likewise here meant the truth would continue to be denied.

John Hutton

Considering the accusations from previous posters about my alleged motivations and allegations and implications that I am engaging in distortions of the truth or misinformation about the burials at Tuam in order to somehow distract and justify what happened I think it is necessary to go into further detail on the whole "septic tank" thing, as the charge leveled against me is too serious to let pass. I feel that I must defend myself, and present some of the evidence, on the basis of which I say that the "800 babies dumped in the septic tank" story is untrue. We have already dealt with the impossibility of the numbers given the dates of construction, so we will look instead at the "septic tank" element of the story first.

Was it a Septic Tank?

The image below is of the tanks in question where remains were found. Each is separate and 2 to 3 meters deep. I won't post any images of the interior (for obvious reasons) but they are basically just separated concrete pits, vaults or "tanks", which have "entrances" as shown, and each had a cast concrete lid. (The use of concrete is suggestive of the age, i.e. they are not Victorian). It is not, truly, "in" the large original septic tank/cesspool but rather in its domain, directly adjacent to it, in the vicinity of the original tank. It is not a structure completely within the tank, as you can see it is accessible from the surface. You don't have to enter the original tank/vault to get to the 20 chambered structure where the remains are. The ground level has risen over the years, originally it would have been almost flush with the surface.

In any case, this structure was absolutely not a septic tank. Here are (some of) the reasons why:

* The Tanks/Vaults are not connected, meaning that it could not be used as a septic tank, as the effluent could not pass between them.
* Their design, being not easily accessible to empty or remove blockages, counts against the structure being used as a septic tank.
* A septic tank breaks down everything including solid waste allowing it to percolate away. This structure clearly does not allow that.
* A cesspit is a structure where the waste gathers and is manually emptied at intervals. The design of this structure certainly argues against this purpose.
* Could each tank be a cesspool? (A cesspool is a tank where the liquid waste is allowed to percolate away, with the solid remaining to be emptied). This could be the case but seems unlikely: 1. These structures are positively tiny for this use for such a large building with many many people staying there. They would be overflowing very quickly, remember they are not connected. 2. It's unclear how any waste would have reached these tanks. 3. As previously stated, they are not designed in a fashion that makes them accessible to empty or remove blockages.
* The date of construction of the vaults in question were remains were found is contemporaneous with or just after the blocking up (infilled with rubble) and decommissioning of the nearby (older) sewage constructions (filtration tanks) and the big cesspit. If it was a septic tank or cesspit why would you fill up the large ones you already have with stones and build smaller impractical ones, at the same time you are being connected to the main sewerage line? Perhaps as a short term effort to "tide them over" until they were connected, but this seems very unlikely.
* Soil samples taken from the interior of these vaults, when analyzed and tested, revealed far less of certain organic traces that result from sewage (I forget the technical terms here of the elements etc.) than would be expected from a tank used for sewage. The traces found can be explained by ingress from the adjacent old cesspit/pool.

So if it was not a septic tank, cesspit or cesspool what was it? The fact is we don't really know, they are, genuinely, a really weird design. Similar to how the construction was not "practical" for it to be used as a septic tank or cess pool, it was also impractical to use as a crypt, given the size of the openings in particular.

In my opinion, (which does have some supporting evidence but is not conclusive), I believe that the tanks were thought up of and constructed with the aim of using them as part of a drainage effort in order to use the existing culverts to funnel run off and storm water into these tanks, which would then percolate out from them, perhaps into the rubble filled large original cesspit. It is unclear if it was ever actually used for this. It may have been, if it was it was certainly only for a small amount of time. It then seems that either during construction or shortly after they changed their mind about whatever the original use of the tanks were to be and some more work/modifications were done on these tanks including blocking up one "entrance" (for a pipe or something, not a surface entrance) in one of the tanks and it was concreted over. The tanks, being directly adjacent to the existing burial ground (it is not correct to say that the burial ground was unmarked, it was clearly marked as such on maps up to the late 70s) were then used as burial vaults.

It is necessary to add that they could have been constructed for use as a cesspool/pit, but this seems unlikely for the reasons I outlined, and the timeline - they could have only ever been used for whatever they were used for before burials took place (if they were used for anything else) for a very short time-frame.

So the answer the question, the evidence is clearly against these structures being a septic tank.

Were the Bodies "Dumped"?

The allegation that the bodies were "dumped" into the "septic tank" is also a part of the story which I would suggest the evidence does not support.
Here are (again, some) reasons why:

*Excavations found evidence/remains of what is likely, in the archeologists opinion, a coffin.
*Wicker was also found.
*The articulation of the skeletal remains found, and their positioning, suggests that the bodies were placed into the vaults.

Does any of the above matter? Why should anyone care?

The nature of the burial, even if the dead were buried in exemplary fashion with expensive funerals with all the bells and whistles (they were not of course) it does not excuse, or diminish, or justify, or whatever word you want to use, any mistreatment in the home and the excessively high death rate. It does not make it less horrific, or terrible, or whatever word you wish to use.

However, the truth is important. It is important for people to know how and where their relatives were buried. It is important that the truth is told about these institutions and what happened. Not a version of the truth, but the truth. It does make a difference to relatives as to how the bodies were interred.

If you build a narrative on the foundation of a false and inaccurate allegation you undermine everything. The reality is that the majority of people, all over the world (if they heard about it) the first and main thing they know about the mother and baby homes is that the nuns dumped 800 dead babies in a septic tank. There will be many books and films etc. done about this in the years the come. If you are not honest and address issues and concentrate on the truth you make it very easy for people with nefarious agendas to come along and "debunk" the main "fact" they knew about the scandal. This is not good. This is why I passionately feel that this mistruth should never have been reported, and should not be reported now or defended as true. Instead, campaigners and those concerned should themselves acknowledge the truth and not push this line which does not stand up to the facts, and accuse those who point this out of having some evil (I don't use that word lightly) agenda.

I have shown a number of people the above image and others like it an explained the background. Most peoples reaction is of shock, they did not expect the "septic tank" to look like it does. They are shocked that the "800 dead babies dumped into a septic tank" claim is not true and not supported by the evidence. It would seem I explain in person better than I write because not one of these people has thought that I was somehow excusing, diminishing, justifying or minimizing what happened, or the deaths of these babies. Not one has accused me of spreading lies or disinformation, or "fake news" or whatever. If I went on after clearly evidencing that one of the biggest claims or "facts" they know about the Mother and Baby Homes and Tuam was false and starting saying or implying that other things are not true would any misinformation be given more or less credence by this person? I wouldn't do something like that, but others could. How will this person treat news reports, articles and speeches that repeat this error about the septic tank and make other (true) claims as well? The repetition and defense of the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" story undermines the credibility of those making other claims.

The truth is horrible enough: A majority, but not all, of the 800 or so babies who died at the institution in Tuam should not have died. Many babies were buried in tanks which were built for unclear purposes, they were not septic tanks, but they do not appear to have been built as crypts. The location of the majority of burials is unknown.

I am sorry for the length of this post, but the claims some posters made about me here has really upset and incensed me. Unless people have any further questions about the burials at Tuam (which I am happy to try and answer as best my research will allow) I am happy to answer, but otherwise I will consider this and my other posts a fairly comprehensive refutation of the original claim and my final word on the burials at Tuam. Everything I have said about the burials at Tuam is directly based on evidence, much of it from independent, unbiased, acknowledged experts. If you are going to contradict it and call me or imply I am a liar, a false narrative pusher, a peddler of fake news etc. you will need to provide evidence.

I would hope that posters would withdraw their accusations against me and my motives - I understand how things can be picked up wrong online - but if they don't I hope the kindly observer will treat those accusations as they deserve.

Gooey Looey

TLDR! Did you ever hear the expression, when your explaining, you're losing!