Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

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


.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

It has been illegal to just dig a hole in the ground and bury someone, never mind many someones, without the express permission of the local authority since 1887.
It is also been illegal to place bodies in a subterranean chamber unless that chamber is under a church or chapel and had been a designated private burial vault prior to 1856.
It is illegal to illicitly dispose of the remains of a person who died of an infectious disease. The coroner has to be notified and they then assume control.


The evidence shows illegal disposal of human remains took place in Mother and Baby homes.

The Sisters of the Bon Secours who ran Tuam apologised for being disrespectful.

You are not only trying to parse - you are actually trying to deny what the Bon Secour Sisters have already admitted.

Plus we know general location of the burial sites - what we do not know is who is buried there or exactly where because the Nuns did not keep - or allege there are no - records.
Which for people who kept account of every farthing in their possession is a telling admission. They were meticulous in keeping track of what they considered valuable.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

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

The State certainly has questions to answer but as the current Govt was not in power when Mother and Baby Homes were in operation - and the HSE did not exist - do try and stay on topic and dial down the hyperbole.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not saying no laws were broken. I am making the point that the lack of burials which you mentioned is very unlikely to be a law violation. The 1887 law on permission of burial places is a more compelling case.
The concrete structure was found to be broken and no loner a chamber when excavated. So its not a vault. The question is was it a vault when burials too place? Maybe it was shattered by construction works in the 1970s.

In regards coroners, I know coroners were involved in deaths in some homes but I am not sure about Tuam. The Children Act 1908 gives some exemptions from holding inquest for deaths in kids homes. Not sure if it applies here. To be frank, I imagine I would be familiar with the situation then the sisters.



I was responding to the intemperate remark by someone else that Catholicism should be banned or and that catholics considered responsible for this. In relation to Tuam, I dont think even the Bons sisters are legally responsible for damages as it was a Local authority home but I am no lawyer.

Indeed. What you are saying is a mass of contradictions as you bend over backwards to make excuses for actions the Bon Secours Sisters have already admitted and apologised for. It's quite a sight to see.

On the subterranean chamber: You have stated a few times you read the archaeological report (on what was a preliminary investigation in case anyone thinks it was a full excavation). The reports state the original Workhouse graveyard does not appear on O.S. maps but investigations - historical and archaeological - have lead archaeologists to conclude with a large degree of certainly where it was located. It was not in a subterranean chamber.
It is a site containing adults in coffins, all properly and respectfully buried.

Testimonies of witnesses speak of the remains of babies buried in swaddling cloths. Not in coffins. The speak of parts of the grounds collapsing and small skulls being present in the resulting sink holes.


The fact is you are not sure about anything and are throwing out what ever pathetic excuse you can think of while making statements backed up by zero evidence.

I would have to criticise Crowe. Adoption regret is immensely common, even in the best managed adoptions. The fact that mothers who lost their children suffer hurt isn't evidence of abuse or need for redress. People have found evidence of transcription error but there is no evidence it was deliberate or used to download the womens' experiences. Crowe referred to the system as incarnation but whether it was incarnation isn't clear at all. Regarding mortality, why is no attention paid to the responsibility of medical officers who were in charge of health care of these children?

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Off topic post.

MOD

This has only just come to the attention of the mod team and has been rightfully sanctioned as backseat moderation.

Yellow Fern - you presume too much in this forum. It is not for you to decide what is or is not relevant. If you have an issue report it.
After a delay of this length I would normally leave it with an in-thread warning but you have already used up all the latitude the mod team are willing to extend to you in these here parts.

Do not respond in thread

Quinn is just a peddler of nonsense and claptrap.

robindch wrote: »

Not condoning defacement or destruction either, but if the facts are as they appear to be - and I've no reason not to believe that they're broadly accurate - the anger is understandable and as you say, somewhat mystifying that nothing similar has happened here given the greater crimes of the church and its various representatives here in Ireland.

Agree with you on both counts. The behaviour of the church in so many ways is unconscionable. But the culture genocide as well as the deaths they played such a prominent role in is outright evil IMHO and I do not use that word lightly at all.

Legislation for exhumations at Tuam is finally to reach Cabinet.

It's only taken eight years or so. So far.

Compare & contrast...

Let's hope the secrecy and shame of the past is finally at an end.

Yet another year passes and no apparent progress whatsoever.

Is the title of this thread correct?
I thought the 'mass grave' aspect of it was debunked and the numbers are to be determined.

A proper excavation should happen mind you.

Eh what? Who mentioned the Russians?

SFAIK, all the deaths were registered as they occurred. The causes of death stated on registration included tuberculosis, convulsions, measles, whooping cough, malnutrition and influenza. The figure of 796 burials on the site is arrived at by taking all the registered deaths and subtracting those known to have been buried at other locations — I think only two, but certainly not a large number.

The deaths occurred between the 1920s and the 1960s, the full period of operation of the home. Given the number of children known to have been in the home, the implied death rate is at least twice the national average mortality rate for children during this period. The stated causes of death are not in themselves implausible — all these conditions were endemic in Ireland at the time, and could be fatal — but the high fatality rate suggests that the children were unusually vulnerable and/or that they received substandard care when ill. SFAIK there's nothing so far to suggest that any of them were murdered.

A full forensic excavation of the site began twelve months ago. This will include identifying the exact location of all remains, recovering as many of the remains as possible, forensic examination of the remains, identification of as many as possible, and reburial. I've no idea what the timescale for the operation is but, with approximately 800 individuals to be located, recovered and examined it can't be short. I also don't know to what extent the forensic examination will focus on confirming the cause of death, or how feasible this may be after so many decades.

(For many decades before becoming a mothers' and babies' home in 1925, the local government operated the premises was operated as a workhouse. It's possible that some of the burials date from this period and, if that is so, the implied death rate would be lower. But so far no evidence at all has emerged to suggest that there were any burials on site during the workhouse period, and on-site burial is not known to have been practiced at other workhouses. The forensic excavation now under way will presumably establish how many, if any, of the burials predate the mothers' and babies' home.)

Just curious, but how were children's deaths in those homes verified? Did someone simply fill in a form for the GRO or did a gp have to see the body? If only two burials were at other locations, and if the site survey doesn't find the remains of nearly 800 children, what happened the bodies? I'm no fan of John Waters but he could have a point when he says it's hard to believe that the nuns callously disposed of dead children in an underground chamber.

Is it possible that those death registrations were false and those children went to local childless couples or were sent to couples in other countries and then registered as the natural child of those couples?

It is well known that false birth registrations of babies happened - it was a well run system involving gp's, midwives, nuns, priests and possibly some local registrars (some were also dispensary doctors). They were all complicit in hiding the true identity of stolen children even though it was illegal, so falsifying death certs might not be that far-fetched.

Let's not be making excuses. The infant death rate in the Tuam home in the 1940s was substantially worse than the poorest slums in the country.