Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

John Hutton

Gooey Looey wrote: »

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

Truly a well considered and invaluable contribution, thanks for letting us know that you have neither the energy or ability to read more than a few sentences. :rolleyes:

James Brown

Dumped in a septic tank compounds the story. Placed in a victorian sewer does too. Placed wrapped in a chamber sounds better but none of the above take away from the horrors perpetrated upon the victims.
Thats my take. The worst of it is all true. Babies died and the bodies were dumped in an unmarked hole. What the hole was won't change that. The facts are important, its a pity the FF/FG state and religious orders won't allow the facts see the light of day.

Gooey Looey

John Hutton wrote: »

Truly a well considered and invaluable contribution, thanks for letting us know that you have neither the energy or ability to read more than a few sentences. :rolleyes:

Because you've been waffling on there for how many posts trying to deflect from the neglect. These dead children were neglected and the bodies dumped and not given a proper respectful burial!

John Hutton

Gooey Looey wrote: »

Because you've been waffling on there for how many posts trying to deflect from the neglect. These dead children were neglected and the bodies dumped and not given a proper respectful burial!

Sure how would you know or be qualified to say anything about my posts when you say you haven't read them? :pac:

If you had, you would see that I am not deflecting from anything...

Gooey Looey

John Hutton wrote: »

Sure how would you know or be qualified to say anything about my posts when you say you haven't read them? :pac:

I've read some and tried the last one, it's just hand waving!

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

What a repulsive twisting on what posters have said here.
[/LIST]

John Hutton wrote: »

You know, its disgusting what some posters here are at.

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.

John Hutton wrote: »

A team of archaeologists, following a non intrusive geophys examination sealed off the site and preformed excavations, including the digging of a number of trenches.

(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 wrote: »

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 am sorry for the length of this post, but the claims some posters made about me here has really upset and incensed me.

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.

I suspect I am the poster alluded to here - that same poster accused of "repulsive twisting".

The same poster who had my polite, but firm, questioning of your motivation in continually seeking to highlight the original purpose of the final resting place of an unknown number of dead infants over the culpability of the Religious Orders described as "disgusting".

I believe I was also told to look at myself on a few occasions.

No- I do not retract my statement that I question your motivations. I am unsure, however, what you feel I have directly accused you of bar attempted deflection/spin, and I most certainly never called you a liar.

I do believe you are engaging in spin. For example - you are arguing as if a preliminary geo-phys and some small excavations = clear evidence.
It does not. Geo-phys is a guide, nothing more. It cannot and does not provide definitive evidence of what lies beneath the surface. Archaeologists may not, at times, fully excavate a site - this is generally not by choice but due to lack of funding or time. No archaeologist I have ever worked with would claim a few small excavations - or speculative trenches -tell all there is to know about a site.

A preliminary investigation was carried out. That is all. In 2019 then Minister Zappone began the process to carry out a full excavation. Until this is completed no definitive statements can be made - yet here you are definitively arguing that no bodies were placed in a chamber that was at some point in time used to dispose of human bodily waste.
You cannot claim this as a truth as the evidence is not yet there to support your claim - and the evidence could well disprove it.

Bizarrely enough you also state the purpose of the chambers is unknown (so it could be sewage related), and deny you implied they were purpose built crypts while suggesting they could have been purpose built crypts - as if the Nuns who didn't feed babies and infants would shell out for a crypt for them - and then wrap their malnourished corpses before placing them in the contemporaneously built crypt within the vault of unknown purpose.

I don't recall anyone claiming the bodies were dumped in sh!t by the way. Perhaps someone said they were dumped as if they were sh!t - they were certainly treated that way when alive.

You made a great deal about the M&B home being linked to the mains in the late 1930s (I believe that occurred in 1938 but open to correction) therefore those subterranean chambers were not needed by the Nuns as a sewage system. What did the Nuns use from 1922 until the late 1930s?

You call other people disgusting and tell them to have a look at themselves and now state you are incensed because they question you, your interpretations, and your motivates in expanding such a great deal of effort in arguing that 700+ dead children were absolutely not disposed of in any part of a sewage related system.

The fact is the vast majority of posters who have responded to you, myself included, have said quite clearly we don't care if it was a sewage system - we care that they died. We care that they were disposed of in a way that not only went against societal conventions (overseen in the main by the Roman Catholic Church) for funerary arrangements, but also in a secretive and underhand way which denied their next-of-kin closure and the knowledge of the fate of these children.

They were denied dignity and love in life and were disposed of in the same way. That is what matters. That above all else.


I actually admire the work you have done, however I disagree that the evidence is clear that no bodies were placed in a defunct sewage system, I do not concur with your interpretation of the available evidence, and I question why you devote so much effort to what I consider is, in the great scheme of things, one of the least important aspects of this whole sordid saga.

If my disagreeing incenses you perhaps you need to take a look at yourself?

TheChizler

Without getting into the people looking at people bit, in fairness I don't think John claimed there were no remains buried in that particular modern structure at all (unless you're referring to the larger original sewage structure?), just that there could not be the remains of 800 infants in there. In fact the report he got the picture from (5th Interim Report into the Tuam home) presents categorical proof that there were a number of infant skeletal remains found.

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I suspect I am the poster alluded to here - that same poster accused of "repulsive twisting".

The same poster who had my polite, but firm, questioning of your motivation in continually seeking to highlight the original purpose of the final resting place of an unknown number of dead infants over the culpability of the Religious Orders described as "disgusting".

I believe I was also told to look at myself on a few occasions.

No- I do not retract my statement that I question your motivations. I am unsure, however, what you feel I have directly accused you of bar attempted deflection/spin, and I most certainly never called you a liar.

I do believe you are engaging in spin. For example - you are arguing as if a preliminary geo-phys and some small excavations = clear evidence.
It does not. Geo-phys is a guide, nothing more. It cannot and does not provide definitive evidence of what lies beneath the surface. Archaeologists may not, at times, fully excavate a site - this is generally not by choice but due to lack of funding or time. No archaeologist I have ever worked with would claim a few small excavations - or speculative trenches -tell all there is to know about a site.

A preliminary investigation was carried out. That is all. In 2019 then Minister Zappone began the process to carry out a full excavation. Until this is completed no definitive statements can be made - yet here you are definitively arguing that no bodies were placed in a chamber that was at some point in time used to dispose of human bodily waste.
You cannot claim this as a truth as the evidence is not yet there to support your claim - and the evidence could well disprove it.

Bizarrely enough you also state the purpose of the chambers is unknown (so it could be sewage related), and deny you implied they were purpose built crypts while suggesting they could have been purpose built crypts - as if the Nuns who didn't feed babies and infants would shell out for a crypt for them - and wrap their malnourished corpses before placing them in the contemporaneously built crypt within the vault of unknow purpose.
I don't recall anyone claiming the bodies were dumped in sh!t by the way. Perhaps someone said they were dumped as if they were sh!t - they were certainly treated that way when alive.

You made a great deal about the M&B home being linked to the mains in the late 1930s (I believe that occurred in 1938 but open to correction) therefore those subterranean chambers were not needed by the Nuns as a sewage system. What did the Nuns use from 1922 until the late 1930s?

You call other people disgusting and tell them to have a look at themselves and now state you are incensed because they question you, your interpretations, and your motivates in expanding such a great deal of effort in arguing that 700+ dead children were absolutely not disposed of in any part of a sewage related system.

The fact is the vast majority of posters who have responded to you, myself included, have said quite clearly we don't care if it was a sewage system - we care that they died. We care that they were disposed of in a way that not only went against societal conventions (overseen in the main by the Roman Catholic Church) for funerary arrangements, but also in a secretive and underhand way which denied their next-of-kin closure and the knowledge of the fate of these children.

They were denied dignity and love in life and were disposed of in the same way. That is what matters. That above all else.

I actually admire the work you have done, however I disagree that the evidence is clear that no bodies were placed in a defunct sewage system, I do not concur with your interpretation of the available evidence, and I question why you devote so much effort to what I consider is, in the great scheme of things, one of the least important aspects of this whole sordid saga.

If my disagreeing incenses you perhaps you need to take a look at yourself?

It is clear you were ignorant of the fact that excavations took place. This is not a crime or a slight against you in any way. You said none had and there were no expert reports, despite the fact that they did and there are. You said that any conclusions were speculative in the absence of any excavations and/or expert reports. You rubbished any reference I made to reports in favor of a blog post written by someone who is not a forensic archaeologist and did not dig the site.

Now that it is demonstrated that significant excavations took place by a team of experts, (you were wrong to say none occurred and there were no expert reports) you are trying to shift the goalposts and say that this was a minor "speculative" excavation from which nothing can be drawn. This is nonsense. The excavation (of which there were two excavation phases) has decisively evidenced and reached a number of conclusions. If you are seriously arguing that an excavation of 14% of a total site and the uncovering and investigation of structure is insufficient to draw any conclusions about the nature of the structure you may as well bin all our history books, because the archaeology in the vast majority of them is useless by your standards - although I see you have also moved the goalposts here by now saying that such an excavation cannot tell us "everything". :rolleyes:

It was initially stated as fact by another poster that babies were dumped in a septic tank. I, with a great deal of restraint, said that this was far from clear and people should stop preempting final investigations and report. I thought this was fair, and also pointed out that the commission actually says that it was not a septic tank. Then people, including yourself but you are not the only one, made insidious and terrible claims about "what I was at" and my motivations.

In an instance were hundreds of babies have died, obviously in terrible circumstances, could being accused of "spin", "deflection", "distraction" and allusions to "motivation" be interpreted as anything other than a grievous insult and attack? What is spin? Spin is, at its core definition, propagandizing in a misleading way. How is accusing me of this "polite"? We are taking about the deaths of children, probably as most serious a topic we can get. You didn't say "John, I can see where you're coming from with your conclusions there, but I don't actually agree with them, I'd rather wait until the place is fully excavated. Until then we should just say it would appear they are buried inappropriately and leave it at that, and concentrate on other matters." I wouldn't agree with you, I don't think further excavation will tell us more about the structure, rather it will be about counting and identifying the bodies and determining causes of death etc, but if you said that it would be fair enough. But you didn't say that, instead you accuse me of "spin", "deflection" and question my motives!! But it's alright because you were "polite"... and all the work and effort I have done on this topic was done out of spin, and questionable motives (yet somehow "admirable" too).

I have explained what my concern is about this story a few times now, but I will try again to explain why it is important that we have things right. If you concentrate on, defend, report and push a story which is demonstrably false, and this story is the predominant one in the minds of the public, and indeed common memory and history, and this story is subsequently demonstrated conclusively as not being true you UNDERMINE EVERYTHING. It will end up being "you remember that Tuam babies story where they said 800 babies were dumped by nuns into a septic tank? Turns out that ain't true!". The general public will not go into nuance beyond that.

If you are serious about holding institutions to account do you not see how people being able to undermine and demonstrate the impossibility of the main claim that's out there undermines this effort? A whisper here and there, "you know that 800 babies in a septic tank is a lie? Yeah, look at this, makes you wonder what else was wrong eh? We've been treated unfairly here". Can you not see?

Secondly, for those who have relatives who died in the home, it is of vital importance how and where they are buried! There is a difference between thinking your child (who may have been one of the small minority who died "naturally") was fecked into a tank full of sh!t (seriously, this is what the majority think of when you say septic tank) when this was not the case! The same applies if the child was one who died "unnaturally". How can you not see this? How can you not see that the idea of dead children being dumped into pits of sh!t compounds the horror for relatives? How can it not be important to establish the reality of what happened with these burials and not to keep perpetuating what is a false story, namely that 800 babies were dumped in a septic tank? Do you really not understand?

It is distressing to have my motivations questioned in such a way, on such a topic. It is most unfair, not least because EVERYTHING I have said is based on reports and on clear evidence. It has all been carefully considered with much effort put in, no throw away comments here. It is beyond insulting to have hard work and research dismissed as being done for "spin".

I am a Catholic, I do not deny or hide that, nor am I ashamed of believing in God. I have spend much time explaining this whole scenario to people. You must know that there are people out there who actually are saying that this whole thing was a myth (i.e deaths and abuse) and this 800 babies in a septic tank story is ammunition to them! Especially when they are talking to people who naturally do not want to believe such horrible things. Ammunition! Most people do not read reports, people do not read threads, people do not read several thousand word posts in threads, they go on what they hear from people and snippets from news. In the latest coverage the first few lines of many articles or commentaries, or speeches made some reference to "800 babies dumped in a septic tank". Can't you see how this demonstrably false claim can be used by people to try and undermine everything that follows? I've been pulling my hair out!

This has to be done right, which is why I am frustrated with people who make the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" remark, and so disappointed and nigh on infuriated with those who keep making it who should know better (i.e. journalists and now people in this thread). Its not as if the demonstrable truth is not fcuking terrible enough!

At a minimum, if for some reason you don't want to accept expert reports and evidence and want to wait, at a minimum, you need to call out and refute the "800 dead babies dumped in a septic tank" whenever you see it and say that "there cannot be 800 babies in the septic tank, more than half are buried elsewhere and we need to wait for a full excavation to be sure that it is a septic tank because it may not be."

If you don't, you will surrender the narrative to people who will, as I refer to above, exploit the debunking of the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" and follow up with conspiracy theories and lies or confusion about what happened. If you don't believe me you should, because I'm dealing with it all the time. (Most of the people doing this are in super serious denial and just refuse to believe this could happen. As I said, the "800 dead babies in a septic tank" myth is ammunition and confirmation to them for the head in the sand perspective.)


This is why I'm pissed off. This is why your, and others such as Cluedo man, scurrilous accusations that I'm "spinning" and trying to mislead people is so upsetting, and unfair. The fact that you are doubling down on it is very disappointing indeed, I would ask you, and others, again to reflect on it, in light of what I have said in my defense.

James Brown

For the record the septic tank doesn't come into it for me and as salacious as it may be its not something even mentioned in passing by the numerous survivors lucky enough to be broadcast by Joe Duffy and others. So I don't see why anyone would get hung up on it.
Also who has tried to dismiss these crimes by citing the septic tank? The church and FF/FG state have been ignoring the whole thing for decades and even today are putting up roadblocks. Septic tank story or not.
We need people from outside of Ireland to investigate. Our state is either unwilling or incapable.

John Hutton

James Brown wrote: »

For the record the septic tank doesn't come into it for me and as salacious as it may be its not something even mentioned in passing by the numerous survivors lucky enough to be broadcast by Joe Duffy and others. So I don't see why anyone would get hung up on it.
Also who has tried to dismiss these crimes by citing the septic tank? The church and FF/FG state have been ignoring the whole thing for decades and even today are putting up roadblocks. Septic tank story or not.
We need people from outside of Ireland to investigate. Our state is either unwilling or incapable.

Lots of people have... theres a world outside of twitter and even RTE. I can assure you that the septic tank story is constantly referred to, its infamous, particularly internationally.

If someone wants to randomly insult you and attack you for being a catholic it's the first thing out of their mouths, well either that or a pedophilia reference.

There is a considerable amount of people going around denying that crimes took place, and using the debunkable 800 babies story as a means... as I said I have extensive experience dealing with this.

Think of it this way, let's say you are in a group that you really love and trust, it's the most important thing in the world to you. You are then told that leaders in that group did a million terrible things, You wouldn't want to believe it, but when presented with evidence you would have to accept it. And face up to it, and maybe, in some way, address your own behavior and organisation of the group to prevent anything like that from happening again. Reform and a reckoning. Painful, necessary but ultimatly good for all involved.

But let's say there was one accusation that was particularly horrific and terrible and this was the main accusation that absolutely everyone knew about and believed. Someone then comes to you and demonstrates that this could not have occured as claimed, it was impossible and is false. They then say that all the other stuff, that you didn't want to believe possible, is all lies, exaggerations and nonsense too. Do you not see how people can believe this, or how others can conclude that if the most prominent claim was false then others are too and convince themselves of this?

Hence no change, no acceptance, no reckoning

This is what happens, which is why I get so worked up over this. It's too important.

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

Lots of people have... theres a world outside of twitter and even RTE. I can assure you that the septic tank story is constantly referred to, its infamous, particularly internationally.

If someone wants to randomly insult you and attack you for being a catholic it's the first thing out of their mouths, well either that or a pedophilia reference.

There is a considerable amount of people going around denying that crimes took place, and using the debunkable 800 babies story as a means... as I said I have extensive experience dealing with this.

Think of it this way, let's say you are in a group that you really love and trust, it's the most important thing in the world to you. You are then told that leaders in that group did a million terrible things, You wouldn't want to believe it, but when presented with evidence you would have to accept it. And face up to it, and maybe, in some way, address your own behavior and organisation of the group to prevent anything like that from happening again. Reform and a reckoning. Painful, necessary but ultimatly good for all involved.

But let's say there was one accusation that was particularly horrific and terrible and this was the main accusation that absolutely everyone knew about and believed. Someone then comes to you and demonstrates that this could not have occured as claimed, it was impossible and is false. They then say that all the other stuff, that you didn't want to believe possible, is all lies, exaggerations and nonsense too. Do you not see how people can believe this, or how others can conclude that if the most prominent claim was false then others are too and convince themselves of this?

Hence no change, no acceptance, no reckoning

This is what happens, which is why I get so worked up over this. It's too important.

I get that. It doesn't take away from what happened and the state/religious orders claim to accept it went on. So what others may think doesn't come into it for me. I rarely post or check Twitter by the way. I listen to RTE Radio 1 and occasionally NPR along with various papers. Again, I get your point. I disagree on the importance. I've not witnessed any authority deny based on the septic tank.
Let's be very clear, IMO the church lost all trust and credibility a long time ago.
The onus is on the state to address these crimes on the part of the survivors and not be worrying about protecting reputations of today as shown with the not fit for purpose report and generally poor follow through.
I think you making it about the septic tank, especially off a discussion on how old the sewer was or wasn't is the distraction here, intended or not.

the kelt

TheChizler wrote: »

Without getting into the people looking at people bit, in fairness I don't think John claimed there were no remains buried in that particular modern structure at all (unless you're referring to the larger original sewage structure?), just that there could not be the remains of 800 infants in there. In fact the report he got the picture from (5th Interim Report into the Tuam home) presents categorical proof that there were a number of infant skeletal remains found.

Or hes trying to deflect and distract from the church getting flak. Par for the course really.

"well that bits not true, and that bits not true , thats not entirely accurate and no evidence of that bit, society to blame blah blah blah" Try and distract the discussion and make it all about one big thing that turned out to be false!!! da da da, well if thats false i wonder if the rest is accurate?

Little by little, chink by chink keep chipping away and chipping away at the validity of things over time and voila eventually try and potray a sense of "was it really all that bad, sure a few bad ones etc"

Been the same approach in this country since the church scandals started, will be the same with the next one and the one after that and the one after that. Deflect, distract and sow doubt to deflect blame.

Cluedo Monopoly

John Hutton wrote: »

Lots of people have... theres a world outside of twitter and even RTE. I can assure you that the septic tank story is constantly referred to, its infamous, particularly internationally.

If someone wants to randomly insult you and attack you for being a catholic it's the first thing out of their mouths, well either that or a pedophilia reference.

There is a considerable amount of people going around denying that crimes took place, and using the debunkable 800 babies story as a means... as I said I have extensive experience dealing with this.

Think of it this way, let's say you are in a group that you really love and trust, it's the most important thing in the world to you. You are then told that leaders in that group did a million terrible things, You wouldn't want to believe it, but when presented with evidence you would have to accept it. And face up to it, and maybe, in some way, address your own behavior and organisation of the group to prevent anything like that from happening again. Reform and a reckoning. Painful, necessary but ultimatly good for all involved.

But let's say there was one accusation that was particularly horrific and terrible and this was the main accusation that absolutely everyone knew about and believed. Someone then comes to you and demonstrates that this could not have occured as claimed, it was impossible and is false. They then say that all the other stuff, that you didn't want to believe possible, is all lies, exaggerations and nonsense too. Do you not see how people can believe this, or how others can conclude that if the most prominent claim was false then others are too and convince themselves of this?

Hence no change, no acceptance, no reckoning

This is what happens, which is why I get so worked up over this. It's too important.

It's a fair point and I think I may have previously filed you alongside walshb in this thread wrt to certain subjects/whataboutery. At the same time there is very very little evidence that the organisations and leaders involved will ever 'face up to' these crimes no matter how damning/accurate the reporting. They have hindered these investigations and continue to do so. They have never been forthcoming with information. The commission repeated the same. All they do, time and time again, is issue pre-prepared apology statements. We have to remember that 9000 children died in these homes and most are buried 'inappropriately'. There is also no evidence of internal agitation or investigations which would seem logical/necessary/mandatory to any other non-religious/normal organisation.

TheChizler

the kelt wrote: »

Or hes trying to deflect and distract from the church getting flak. Par for the course really.

"well that bits not true, and that bits not true , thats not entirely accurate and no evidence of that bit, society to blame blah blah blah" Try and distract the discussion and make it all about one big thing that turned out to be false!!! da da da, well if thats false i wonder if the rest is accurate?

Little by little, chink by chink keep chipping away and chipping away at the validity of things over time and voila eventually try and potray a sense of "was it really all that bad, sure a few bad ones etc"

Been the same approach in this country since the church scandals started, will be the same with the next one and the one after that and the one after that. Deflect, distract and sow doubt to deflect blame.

I don't know, he's said several times that clearly horrible things were done in these homes, I'm not sure how you walk back from that. The above is making negative assumptions about someone's character based on no evidence which isn't something I'm prepared to do.

I'm noticing a trend lately online, maybe it's always been there, but if you point out any inaccuracies being made by a cause that has a bit of momentum you're suddenly written off as being 100% against that cause even though you might strongly support it. I find myself on the receiving end of that quite a bit because I absolutely HATE misrepresentations, made by both my "side" or the other. I think it detracts from your goals by giving the opposition an argument they can easily tear apart, they don't even need to create a strawman; you're handing them one. It's great if you need to generate a bit of outrage (and tbh you need a bit of outrage sometimes to get things going, I don't think we'd have any MBH investigations without it) but ultimately if you want truth and real justice it doesn't help. The court of public opinion doesn't result in justice. The truth so far is outrageous enough.

Bannasidhe

TheChizler wrote: »

I don't know, he's said several times that clearly horrible things were done in these homes, I'm not sure how you walk back from that. The above is making negative assumptions about someone's character based on no evidence which isn't something I'm prepared to do.

I'm noticing a trend lately online, maybe it's always been there, but if you point out any inaccuracies being made by a cause that has a bit of momentum you're suddenly written off as being 100% against that cause even though you might strongly support it. I find myself on the receiving end of that quite a bit because I absolutely HATE misrepresentations, made by both my "side" or the other. I think it detracts from your goals by giving the opposition an argument they can easily tear apart, they don't even need to create a strawman; you're handing them one. It's great if you need to generate a bit of outrage (and tbh you need a bit of outrage sometimes to get things going, I don't think we'd have any MBH investigations without it) but ultimately if you want truth and real justice it doesn't help. The court of public opinion doesn't result in justice. The truth so far is outrageous enough.

And I agree with you.

But I honestly don't think that is what is happening here.

It looks to me like a poster made a statement about 'septic tanks' - another poster then dismissed this as true based on an interim report.
Yet another poster (myself) linked to evidence that seems to demonstrate the vault was part of a Victorian sewage system. At no point did I state it absolutely was.

What we have here is one person making absolute statements and getting a tad abusive ("repulsive", "disgusting"), describing how incensed and p!ssed off they are if their dismissal of any suggestion the vault formed part of a sewage system when that has not been established as fact is questioned.

We need to wait for a full investigation before anyone can say with certainty.

That is my position. I do not know for certainty what those chambers are, but my experience of Victorian institutional architecture leads me to think it might have been part of an extensive system for removing human waste. If it is not I am quite interested in finding out what it was for tbh.

Rather than accept this as a fair point, the poster had continued to argue it is absolutely not connected to sewage. Lengthy posts. And yes, I question why they are so invested in pushing this narrative. Particularly when they become so 'incensed' when someone disagrees.

I - and others - have also clearly said we do not care care what the original purpose of the vaults were - we care that infants who died due to systematic neglect were placed there in an apparently out of sight out of mind callousness by those charged with their care.

But despite this - once again a lengthy post appears full of bristling indignation explaining how anyone who says "it might be part of a Victorian sewage system we won't know until a full investigation takes place" is wrong and needs to look at themselves.

Yes, all of that does make me wonder why a poster has so much investment in the least important part of this whole thing.

For my part I am no longer going down the "septic or not septic" tangent.
I have been as clear as I can that I think it is deflection, that I am waiting for the final report, and that it makes not a whit of difference to me if it was designed for sewage or ice - I doubt very much it was a wee crypt built by the Nuns to house their victims as has been implied.

stockshares

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.

@John Hutton might be referring to my post above which he might found insulted his character .

John, regardless of what the Babies were out into the fact is that they are still there, many years later.

That should tell you that they were wronged and deserve Justice.

Instead of focusing on that, you focus your attention on what
they were out into which is irrelevant

Cluedo Monopoly

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/copies-of-mother-and-baby-homes-report-to-be-made-available-at-county-galway-libraries/

Copies of the Commission of Investigation’s recently published Mother and Baby Homes report are to be made available in county Galway libraries.

At this week’s County Council meeting, Independent Councillor Geraldine Donohue proposed making physical copies of the report available so people can read it at home.

The County Chief Executive Kevin Kelly supported the proposal and confirmed that copies of the commission of investigaton report would be sent to all 29 libraries in the county.

Councillor Donohue argues the move is important as many people can’t access the document online because they may not own a computer or lack the necessary IT skills.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

@John Hutton might be referring to my post above which he might found insulted his character .

John, regardless of what the Babies were out into the fact is that they are still there, many years later.

That should tell you that they were wronged and deserve Justice.

Instead of focusing on that, you focus your attention on what
they were out into which is irrelevant

I think that it’s very relevant. It’s one thing to be dumped unceremoniously in a concrete receptacle full of excrement. It’s another thing to be placed with ceremony in a concrete receptacle. Which description catches the public’s imagination?

John Hutton

stockshares wrote: »

@John Hutton might be referring to my post above which he might found insulted his character .

John, regardless of what the Babies were out into the fact is that they are still there, many years later.

That should tell you that they were wronged and deserve Justice.

Instead of focusing on that, you focus your attention on what
they were out into which is irrelevant

Nothing I said, in any way detracts, excuses or justifies what happened. In the course of my posts I made this point repeatedly, and pointed out how the claims about 800 babies dumped in a septic tank actually enables deniers in what they do.

In my posts I have repeatedly said that wrong things happened and people died who should not have. I have also offered opinions on what should happen in terms of investigations (such as my post about inquests) in order to get to the bottom of things. None of this is in any way denying or arguing against justice etc. Its the opposite.

I am interested in the facts, truth and what evidence proves. If you are not rigorous on these points, and a simplistic narrative is accepted which the evidence does not support, particularly when it comes to particular horrific incidences, eventually it gets pulled down and often then collapses on and drags down other true claims when a revisionist history is eventually written. This has happened so many times.

The best basis, above what people on here can say, for establishing the truth is the commission and various interim reports. Is it the final word? No. But they need to be engaged with rigioursly beyond vague claims about scholarship and binning reports from forensic archaeologists in favour of blog posts. It needs to be evidence based.

If you are talking about prosecutions, legal proceedings etc you have to be comprehensive, you cant wing it. In that realm you cant make allegations about someone's motivations and accuse them of spin as a way to avoid engaging with evidence and facts and expect a good resolution.

John Hutton

TheChizler wrote: »

I don't know, he's said several times that clearly horrible things were done in these homes, I'm not sure how you walk back from that. The above is making negative assumptions about someone's character based on no evidence which isn't something I'm prepared to do.

I'm noticing a trend lately online, maybe it's always been there, but if you point out any inaccuracies being made by a cause that has a bit of momentum you're suddenly written off as being 100% against that cause even though you might strongly support it. I find myself on the receiving end of that quite a bit because I absolutely HATE misrepresentations, made by both my "side" or the other. I think it detracts from your goals by giving the opposition an argument they can easily tear apart, they don't even need to create a strawman; you're handing them one. It's great if you need to generate a bit of outrage (and tbh you need a bit of outrage sometimes to get things going, I don't think we'd have any MBH investigations without it) but ultimately if you want truth and real justice it doesn't help. The court of public opinion doesn't result in justice. The truth so far is outrageous enough.

Brevity is not my strong point as you can tell, but this is basically what I'm saying, so thank you.

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

Brevity is not my strong point as you can tell, but this is basically what I'm saying, so thank you.

But with respect John, you have time and time again argued the vault was not part of the old Victorian sewage system when the fact is until the final report is concluded no one can state anything with certainty.

You may be correct. You may be incorrect.
You have invested so much in categorically arguing the correctness of your position before the final report that it raises questions.

You are the one not waiting for the full investigation before making definitive pronouncements.

That is why you are being challenged by me anyway, I question why you are so invested in one particular conclusion being correct that you cannot agree that at this juncture there simply is not enough evidence available to make any statement of fact bar the location of the remains of 700+ dead infants in Tuam has yet to be established.

John Hutton

Just to be clear, my particular annoyance is not based on people not agreeing with me, although I have pointed out how this strawman is unhelpful. Disagreement and debate is fine, this is what discussion is all about.

My 'indignation' is primarily based on the allegations about my motivations and being accused of spin etc. Can you think of a worse thing to be accused of, in this context?

My lengthy posts are primarily aimed at a refutation of the claims made about me. They are an explanation of my motivations and a thorough explanation of the evidential basis on which I made my statements, and a clear explanation of why I think this topic is of vital importance. It is most unfair to cast aspersions at someone's statement and motivations and then when they explain and defend themselves basically point to their defense and say that the fact you have defended yourself is damning.

In any case, if some people (and I appreciate the comments from others) want to persist in their unfounded, grossly insulting, and false, claims about me then that is their business, but everyone can see it for what it is. Little more can be said, and there is little point engaging further on this point.

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But with respect John, you have time and time again argued the vault was not part of the old Victorian sewage system when the fact is until the final report is concluded no one can state anything with certainty.

You may be correct. You may be incorrect.
You have invested so much in categorically arguing the correctness of your position before the final report that it raises questions.

You are the one not waiting for the full investigation before making definitive pronouncements.

That is why you are being challenged by me anyway, I question why you are so invested in one particular conclusion being correct that you cannot agree that at this juncture there simply is not enough evidence available to make any statement of fact bar the location of the remains of 700+ dead infants in Tuam has yet to be established.

But concrete conclusions about the nature of the vault have been reached based on the excavation of the vault. If I were to turn to you and say that we must hold off on saying that there are any dead babies in the tanks, even though there is irrefutable evidence of this, including samples and radiocarbon dating etc. you would rightly tell me to do one.

If we want to discuss things in terms of archaeology, if I told you not to accept any evidence or reports on excavations of a site like, say, Dowth because every inch of it has not been excavated you would say this was stupid.

The archaeologist reports have established some facts, upon which my posts are based. There is enough evidence to make some statements of fact. Certainly enough to say that another statement of fact, namely that 800 dead babies were dumped into a septic tank cannot be true, certainly in its entirety.

If you do not accept the bona fides, or qualification, or whatever of the expert report writers (remember you said there were none, which implies I was either lying or mistaken in saying there were) or some of the facts they established, or my interpretation of the report then the onus is on you to make an argument why and engage with the facts, not just cast aspersions on my motivations and move on.

If you just said we should hold off until a final excavation report before commenting on it, that would have been fine, but in addition to that you have cast grave aspersions on me personally, and my motivations based on my discussion of the existing expert reports. This is grossly unfair. How could one not address such claims?

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

But concrete conclusions about the nature of the vault have been reached based on the excavation of the vault. If I were to turn to you and say that we must hold off on saying that there are any dead babies in the tanks, even though there is irrefutable evidence of this, including samples and radiocarbon dating etc. you would rightly tell me to do one.

If we want to discuss things in terms of archaeology, if I told you not to accept any evidence or reports on excavations of a site like, say, Dowth because every inch of it has not been excavated you would say this was stupid.

The archaeologist reports have established some facts, upon which my posts are based. There is enough evidence to make some statements of fact. Certainly enough to say that another statement of fact, namely that 800 dead babies were dumped into a septic tank cannot be true, certainly in its entirety.

If you do not accept the bona fides, or qualification, or whatever of the expert report writers (remember you said there were none, which implies I was either lying or mistaken in saying there were) or some of the facts they established, or my interpretation of the report then the onus is on you to make an argument why and engage with the facts, not just cast aspersions on my motivations and move on.

If you just said we should hold off until a final excavation report before commenting on it, that would have been fine, but in addition to that you have cast grave aspersions on me personally, and my motivations based on my discussion of the existing expert reports. This is grossly unfair. How could one not address such claims?

This really is my final comment on this as I genuinely believe it is a tangent which detracts from the main issue.

I said there is no final report. Not that there was no report. What exists is a interim findings based on a limited preliminary investigation. In no way can this be considered the final word. In fact , the report you are basing everything on is such that it is felt further investigation is warranted. Which is why then Minister Zappone began the steps to ensure a full investigation occurs - because it is necessary.

You may be happy to conclude we have learned all there is - I am not. I require more evidence.

Funny you should mention Dowth but not Newgrange where quite a bit of investigation occurred and yet the findings are still disputed.
It is a foolish academic who declares we have learned all there is to learn - particularly when that is based on preliminary investigations. You may wish to do such a thing - I never would. I will continue to qualify statements until absolute, irrefutable, proof positive is presented. To do otherwise is to set oneself up for a reckoning - or to put it another way, it's a stupid thing to do imo. I learned this lesson the very hard way over 20 years ago.

As for my politely questioning your motives - I have to say you taking umbrige is a bit rich given your use of terms such as "repulsive" and "disgusting" when describing other people's motives. At no point did I use such language to refer to you, and I clearly stated why I was asking questions of your persistent attempts to make the location the focus of discussion.

If you had merely stated that the preliminary evidence tends to support your hypothesis none of this bickering would have occurred. But that is not what you did John, you presented limited evidence and claimed it was proof positive that the vault in question was not part of the sewage system, and compounded this by suggesting it may have been a crypt built contemporaneously with the 'burials' - it was this last comment that incensed me as it reeks of spin.
There is zero evidence there is a purpose built crypt and to even suggest it might be is to muddy the waters. And that is why I question your motives.

John Hutton

I've recieved a rather vile message on my personal social media in reference to this topic, so it would seem I am fairly identifiable from my previous posts on this account, particularly those from last night. Posting late at night is imprudent kids, I also should have just used a name of a famous person, I take it all back James Brown!

I just delete and block, but it is still disturbing so I will likely be closing this account shortly.

I do need to point out, in case anyone might think otherwise, that I am confident that it was no one here I am engaging/disagreeing with, because it seems it was from what some might term Gemma types, (or "rad trads" which are an american imported issue in catholic circles, insignificant in number but very loud) some of whom I alluded to previously, this was apparently not well received.

All the best everyone,

John

John Hutton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This really is my final comment on this as I genuinely believe it is a tangent which detracts from the main issue.

I said there is no final report. Not that there was no report. What exists is a interim findings based on a limited preliminary investigation. In no way can this be considered the final word. In fact , the report you are basing everything on is such that it is felt further investigation is warranted. Which is why then Minister Zappone began the steps to ensure a full investigation occurs - because it is necessary.

You may be happy to conclude we have learned all there is - I am not. I require more evidence.

Funny you should mention Dowth but not Newgrange where quite a bit of investigation occurred and yet the findings are still disputed.
It is a foolish academic who declares we have learned all there is to learn - particularly when that is based on preliminary investigations. You may wish to do such a thing - I never would. I will continue to qualify statements until absolute, irrefutable, proof positive is presented. To do otherwise is to set oneself up for a reckoning - or to put it another way, it's a stupid thing to do imo. I learned this lesson the very hard way over 20 years ago.

As for my politely questioning your motives - I have to say you taking umbrige is a bit rich given your use of terms such as "repulsive" and "disgusting" when describing other people's motives. At no point did I use such language to refer to you, and I clearly stated why I was asking questions of your persistent attempts to make the location the focus of discussion.

If you had merely stated that the preliminary evidence tends to support your hypothesis none of this bickering would have occurred. But that is not what you did John, you presented limited evidence and claimed it was proof positive that the vault in question was not part of the sewage system, and compounded this by suggesting it may have been a crypt built contemporaneously with the 'burials' - it was this last comment that incensed me as it reeks of spin.
There is zero evidence there is a purpose built crypt and to even suggest it might be is to muddy the waters. And that is why I question your motives.

Well then let me apologise and say that at no stage did I mean to suggest that it was a purpose built crypt. I did go to an effort to state that the evidence does not support this, but perhaps I was insufficiently clear. But to state for the record, I do not believe it was a purpose built crypt.

I agree, lets leave it here.

Bannasidhe

John Hutton wrote: »

I've recieved a rather vile message on my personal social media in reference to this topic, so it would seem I am fairly identifiable from my previous posts on this account, particularly those from last night. Posting late at night is imprudent kids, I also should have just used a name of a famous person, I take it all back James Brown!

I just delete and block, but it is still disturbing so I will likely be closing this account shortly.

I do need to point out, in case anyone might think otherwise, that I am confident that it was no one here I am engaging/disagreeing with, because it seems it was from what some might term Gemma types, (or "rad trads" which are an american imported issue in catholic circles, insignificant in number but very loud) some of whom I alluded to previously, this was apparently not well received.

All the best everyone,

John

I am appalled this happened to you John.

I too have been the target of vile attacks on other social media platforms where my occupation and former employer was named to call for a pile on.
In my case it was Alt-Right so called "Patriots" - a nasty experience I would not wish on my worst enemy. Now I block and move on.

On a personal note I would be sad to see you close your account. While we have crossed swords on a number of occasions I do value the cut and thrust of debate with you and consider that you come from a genuine place on a site where far too often people post in bad faith.
And I do take on board what you say, and it does make me consider my position on topics.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40213724.html

Galway County Council has said it is “profoundly sorry” for its failings in relation to the care of mothers and children at the Tuam Mother and Baby Home.

"The invisible and voiceless, particularly vulnerable women, innocent beautiful precious newborn children; little girls and boys, who should have survived, grown and thrived, learnt and laughed, worked and played, participated in society and perhaps even led it."

"We also remember today those for whom this apology is sadly too late,” Mr Charity said.

To the shame and sorrow of all of us, this Council did not ensure that those who died in the Tuam Mother and Baby Home were afforded the dignity of an appropriate place of rest, which was the very least that they deserved.

Chief Executive of Galway County Council, Kevin Kelly, said that the lack of respect and dignity afforded to the women and children in death was "particularly upsetting" and a source of great hurt and sorrow.

"There is no description which can more aptly or appropriately apply to Ms Corless other than to acknowledge her as a 'heroine', who is deserving of all of our admiration, and of our profound and deepest respect, for bringing the dark history of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home out into the open.

He said the Council has and will continue to "actively assist the ongoing work to implement the Government’s agreed course of action and response for the Tuam site".

"No one can change the past; however, it is important that we accept and learn from it, acknowledge the sad and painful truth, the personal impact and heavy burden carried by survivors and humbly acknowledge our failings," he added.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that it’s very relevant. It’s one thing to be dumped unceremoniously in a concrete receptacle full of excrement. It’s another thing to be placed with ceremony in a concrete receptacle. Which description catches the public’s imagination?

As they are unmarked and not buried, it can't have been very ceremonious. Either way why they died, who is responsible and what we are going to do about it are the main questions IMO.

James Brown

John Hutton wrote: »

I've recieved a rather vile message on my personal social media in reference to this topic, so it would seem I am fairly identifiable from my previous posts on this account, particularly those from last night. Posting late at night is imprudent kids, I also should have just used a name of a famous person, I take it all back James Brown!

I just delete and block, but it is still disturbing so I will likely be closing this account shortly.

I do need to point out, in case anyone might think otherwise, that I am confident that it was no one here I am engaging/disagreeing with, because it seems it was from what some might term Gemma types, (or "rad trads" which are an american imported issue in catholic circles, insignificant in number but very loud) some of whom I alluded to previously, this was apparently not well received.

All the best everyone,

John

Sorry to hear that. No call for it IMO.
change your name and come back

James Brown

James Brown wrote: »

As they are unmarked and not buried, it can't have been very ceremonious. Either way why they died, who is responsible and what we are going to do about it are the main questions IMO.

Not every grave is marked nor in many cases is the exact position of the grave known.
How these unfortunates died may never be known due to the passage of time. Should every infant death from 1920 be investigated? Where do we draw the line?

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Not every grave is marked nor in many cases is the exact position of the grave known.
How these unfortunates died may never be known due to the passage of time. Should every infant death from 1920 be investigated? Where do we draw the line?

I believe we should look into and investigate every unmarked mass grave by religious orders where they either don't know or won't say were the bodies are buried, (hardly very 'ceremonious').
How many dead babies would warrant a look do you think? Five or more?
This needs to be addressed. The fact that it has gone on for generations should be an incentive, not a reason to let bygones be bygones.

saabsaab

If possible a DNA register should be made for all remains possible. It might be an idea to concentrate on say 50 suitable cases where records exist say since 1950 to see if a case for prosecution could be made. Some say nohing illegal was done but has anyone looked for forensic evidence I don't think so.

James Brown

saabsaab wrote: »

If possible a DNA register should be made for all remains possible. It might be an idea to concentrate on say 50 suitable cases where records exist say since 1950 to see if a case for prosecution could be made. Some say nohing illegal was done but has anyone looked for forensic evidence I don't think so.

By the death rates alone there was in the least negligence, (not forgetting the selling of babies and blocking of information).

saabsaab

James Brown wrote: »

By the death rates alone there was in the least negligence, (not forgetting the selling of babies and blocking of information).

True there should be real consequences for this.

mrslancaster

James Brown wrote: »

By the death rates alone there was in the least negligence, (not forgetting the selling of babies and blocking of information).

This link is an old article from IT, it says the gardai, adoption authority, various state agencies & govt departments were all aware of baby trafficking, falsifying records & other illegal activities. So not only the religious but also registered midwives & politicians involved. It looks like it was well known for years.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-baby-black-market-1.1847804?mode=amp

James Brown

mrslancaster wrote: »

This link is an old article from IT, it says the gardai, adoption authority, various state agencies & govt departments were all aware of baby trafficking, falsifying records & other illegal activities. So not only the religious but also registered midwives & politicians involved. It looks like it was well known for years.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-baby-black-market-1.1847804?mode=amp

Numerous stories of the local Garda, Priest and doctor, with the knowledge of the local authorities, going to pick up young children and women. The state was complicit at every level. Might explain the whitewash.

Igotadose

With regard to the woman who is taking a case against a congregation, the state and the HSE: https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-courts-5333070-Jan2021/ anyone know if there's a gofundme, and whether or not there's a way to see the filing? As that other fellow stated, there are a lot of potential laws that could be used, but none seem fit for purpose exactly. Could the government pass bespoke legislation to speed along cases like this one as one expects there would be many and the sooner justice is done, the better.

Really, lack of exactly applicable law shouldn't be an obstacle. Remember the Nuremberg Trials? That jurisprudence came to be at the end of WWII, before the Trials began. Well, there appear to have been grievous crimes committed over decades at the Mother and Baby homes. In order to expedite justice, it may be that new laws are needed.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/aliceeire/status/1354407830707724291

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/HollyCairnsTD/status/1354520329511706630

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/mother-and-baby-homes-report-contradicts-survivors-lived-experiences-1.4457411

Survivors have known for years about high death rates, the exploitation of children who were fostered out, the cruel impact of illegitimacy laws and the taunting of women as they gave birth. What has left survivors devastated when it comes to this report is the contradiction of their lived experiences, having relived trauma to give their testimony.

We now know that 9,000 children died in the mother and baby institutions. When the interim report was released on burials, a mother had to find out from the anonymised details that her son was buried in a Famine graveyard, despite having made multiple freedom of information requests to the State for records it turned out they had all along.

“Don’t say sorry to me,” were the words one mother had for the Irish Government. “Ask my forgiveness and help the living.”

Many survivors are people of faith but feel betrayed by silence within the church. I think of a Tuam survivor I met at the Knock shrine, devoted to his church, who was told to “leave it” by his priest when trying to search for his mother.

The challenge of a report compiled behind closed doors is trusting necessary questions have been asked. This report inevitably leaves many questions still unanswered.

Her first-born child, her daughter Evelyn, died in Bessborough and she is still searching for her. “I’ll never be at peace until I know where she’s buried,” she says.

The report heaped abuse upon abuse. The pain still affects many many people today. I believe it will take a more honest cabinet and government to right these wrongs.
.

stockshares

John Hutton wrote: »

I've recieved a rather vile message on my personal social media in reference to this topic, so it would seem I am fairly identifiable from my previous posts on this account, particularly those from last night. Posting late at night is imprudent kids, I also should have just used a name of a famous person, I take it all back James Brown!

I just delete and block, but it is still disturbing so I will likely be closing this account shortly.

I do need to point out, in case anyone might think otherwise, that I am confident that it was no one here I am engaging/disagreeing with, because it seems it was from what some might term Gemma types, (or "rad trads" which are an american imported issue in catholic circles, insignificant in number but very loud) some of whom I alluded to previously, this was apparently not well received.

All the best everyone,

John

I'm sorry to hear that John and I hope you don't leave the thread.

I have no time for Bullies and I am aware that there is a type of person who will use the M+B Home Scandal to further their own agenda.

I hope you didnt take my previous post as a personal attack. There have been a number of people in this thread previously who have gone out of their way to defend the Church and I don't think you are one of them .

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40216430.html

The chair of the Oireachtas children's committee has called on Roderic O'Gorman to provide an update on the investigation into the leaking of the Mother and Baby Homes report.

Sinn Féin TD Kathleen Function who chairs the committee, has written to the Children's Minister asking that he release details about the investigation which he ordered after parts of the report were leaked.

Sinn Féin received legal advice earlier this month that leaking the letter constituted a criminal offence and has urged Mr O'Gorman to report the matter to the gardaí.

"This breach of trust caused considerable distress and upset to survivors. The nature of the details contained within the report are deeply sensitive and many survivors feel re-traumatised by the insensitive way in which they were revealed," Ms Function wrote in a letter to the minister.

Meanwhile, the committee has also invited members of the commission to attend to answer questions about the final report.

Senator Erin McGreehan, who is a member of the committee said: “This report, particularly its language in the summary, needs to be queried. We owe it to the women and the children who were born in these homes. They feel let down by this language and feel their testimonies are not believed."

Cluedo Monopoly

The government are really starting to look as bad as the religious orders now in terms of hiding information.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40217090.html

Mother and baby homes: Audio recordings of personal interviews have been destroyed.

The destruction of audio recordings of the personal interviews given by survivors of mother and baby homes has been described as "thwarting of natural justice".

Survivors believe their stories, which they say are not reflected in the recently published report, will never be properly told as recordings of the accounts they gave to the Mother and Baby Home Commission of Investigation have been destroyed.

Raising serious questions as to why the audio was so quickly wiped, co-founder of the Adoption Rights Alliance Susan Lohan said:

"It adds fuel to a widely held view that this report was at best a whitewash and at worse a cover-up. I would see this as a corruption of a really important witness testimony."

John Hutton

People need to be really careful as to what they say about the report and its authors, lest they leave themselves open to defamation claims. Criticism of the terms of reference and the actions and choices of the people involved are one thing, but people need to be careful not to go to far.

If you start accusing report authors of corruption and the like it mightn't end well... (at least if you are not a TD making these claims under privilege in the Dáil)

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1355462229844500481

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40217036.html

The voices of survivors have been destroyed.

More than 550 people made contact with and spoke to the Confidential Committee.

In his State apology, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said the final report of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission gave survivors what they have been denied for so long: "their voice, their individuality, their right to be acknowledged".

In reality, the voices of those who were silenced for decades, and indeed generations, have yet again been scrubbed.

The commission’s terms of reference required it to establish a Confidential Committee to provide a forum for former residents in the institutions under investigation and those who worked in these homes during the relevant period "to provide accounts of their experience in these institutions in writing or orally as informally as is possible in the circumstances".

However, Bessborough survivor Noelle Brown said her account been "shoehorned" into the report and did not reflect what she said.

I had to beg for that transcript, which is essentially 222 questions with a lot of box-ticking and there are at least 10 inaccuracies on it.

“They had one job, to transcribe accurately my testimony or extracts from my testimony to fit into this."#

TheChizler

I haven't seen it mentioned yet so I thought I'd point out that it's extremely common to delete audio recordings once they've been transcribed when doing this kind of research. It's quite often a condition of ethics approval before starting.

I'm not saying that was the case here, or it's right or wrong, and I can definitely see how it's problematic when there are questions surrounding accuracy. Just saying their deletion isn't a smoking gun for cover up by itself in case people are thinking it's proof. It may well be some evidence in favour of it.

saabsaab

TheChizler wrote: »

I haven't seen it mentioned yet so I thought I'd point out that it's extremely common to delete audio recordings once they've been transcribed when doing this kind of research. It's quite often a condition of ethics approval before starting.

I'm not saying that was the case here, or it's right or wrong, and I can definitely see how it's problematic when there are questions surrounding accuracy. Just saying their deletion isn't a smoking gun for cover up by itself in case people are thinking it's proof. It may well be some evidence in favour of it.

Why would it be a condition to destroy recordings? Seems daft.

TheChizler

saabsaab wrote: »

Why would it be a condition to destroy recordings? Seems daft.

Protecting privacy of contributors when anonymising results, no idea if it applies here or not.