6 British soldiers found in Comines-Warneton

[Seadog]

Nice ideas Rod but who do you think is willing to pay for the DNA and other procedures that you mention?. If you think that the British MOD are likely candidates then I am afraid that both you and the rest of us will be disappointed. I am even doubtful that they (MOD) have the facilities and know how to conduct the primary research necessary. Remember that if such analysis is used in this case it would set a precedent for all future cases and I think that the MOD will be "shaking in their boots" at such a prospect.

Regards

Norman

[Steven Broomfield]

Just to be contentious here.

It is assumed that bodies exhumed should be DNA tested to see if descendants can be identified. OK - who pays? We assume the CWGC. Who pays for the CWGC? You and I, and every other tax payer. Next: how many tax payers are actually interested?

It's all well and good to criticise the CWGC for NOT doing what we think they should do, but the simple fact is that DNA testing a soldier on the off-chace that a descendant somewhere might be on a DNA data base waiting to be reunited with a great grandfather they never met is a bit of a long shot.

Call me unsentimental, but if there is nothing on the body easily to identify it, I would question the need to go to DNA tests, etc, in the hope we might find someone.

Just my view: it might not be popular, but how many tax payers are really willing to fork out money for a series of tests which are such a long shot and which probably don't apply to the huge mass of the population?

[keithmroberts]

After Fromelles, there can surely be no doubt, that the MOD are fully aware of the processes required to obtain the required forensic information. They may not have the skills or equipment "in House" , but they know exactly what would need to be done, and they are aware of university departments with the required expertise and equipment.

I actually think it is quite simply a matter of money. Norman's point about the setting of the precedent is surely spot on.

If the location as suggested in an earlier post places some limits on the time scale, then a quite limited exercise with records would produce a list of the missing from the two named regiments. What would be interesting indeed is to see how large those lists were. If the watch that was found proved to identify one body, then of course the dates of death could be narrowed down, probably to within a few days, greatly improving the chances of identification, and making a search for surviving relatives for the DNA matching a much more viable task than otherwise.

Keith

[Richard Osgood]

Hi all,

DNA is the very last stage. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done before this - map work, diary work (where relevant), close examination of any kit found in direct association (good archaeology needed here to be sure of the association),forensic anth, perhaps isotopes, dental records if they survive (as some do in Aus). Once you have narrowed the list of possible candidates down it is then that you can consider DNA match. As we found out with Alan (Mather), it is a long road.

cheers

R

PS our work cost the British taxpayer £0 but the Aus govt. paid for a number of DNA checks

[Ogilwy]

Norman,

I think you're forgetting the MOD have Shrivenham. This is now Cranfield University as well, and does contain all the facilities needed. I'm sure lecturers there like Richard Holmes would be more than able to conduct the investigation.

In addition the forensic archaeology taught there is producing excellent results and producing some very competant forensic archaeologists (some of whom I have had the pleasure of working with). I don't know if this would be the location but it is certainly an option. I also know of at least one other location that would have the scientific know-how within the MOD's empire so I think you might be surprised.

Steve and Keith make an improtant point though. If the initial number of possibilities is not reduced to a workable figure DNA testing is of no use. It is only worth while if you have something to compare it against. The use of Isotopic analysis to determine the location someone grew up can be very useful. If the strontium isotopes can identify the person came from a location then all those not from there can immediately be eliminated. This could reduce your numbers dramatically and in that case make the use of DNA worthwhile. it is not however infallable. If the test on one of the Lanc's came back as Manchester then it may still only eliminate a few possibilities. Worse still imagine a Pals Battalion where everyone comes from the same area!

Keith, I'm sure you are right, the MOD are well aware of all of this, and I think that doing the right thing (and being seen to do so) will be a major driver to obtaining the money if required. The infrequent nature of this occurance and certainly the fact that not all would benifit from huge amounts of spending would I think remove the worry about setting a precedent. That has already been set with Fromelles anyway so I'm not sure that's an issue.

I hope the pesimism is not warrented and don't believe it will be. Maybe I'm just going through an optimistic period! Hopefully it will wear off soon and I can go back to my normal grumbly self!!

A fine weekend to you all, I'm going back to preparing for a parade tomorrow !!!!!

Rod

[Seadog]

Lots of sensible and interesting points being made here, I realise of course that there must be a reasonable amount of human remains exhumed for a case to be made for the extraction of DNA samples even if there is a remote or no chance of the soldier(s) being identified at the time and prior to reburial in a war cemetery. I do however reiterate my point that this data should be retained together with the GPS location of the find and any documentation that is relevant to the discovery.

I would like to see what in terms of the numbers involved would be a very small addition for the CWGC to undertake, that is the notification on their war cemetery database the fact that such remains have been buried in a specific war cemetery together with the plot references. If at some point in the future the data or investigative techniques become available to identify the soldier(s) then at least the primary evidence and DNA sample will be available.

On the subject of the Flanders 6 if you look at Post 23 it states that one of the found could be a serjeant and if this is the case and if the remains are also identified to a regiment, given that these finds as described as dating to 1914 the chance of identification seems likely. Problem is that when these remains are in the custody of the CWGC will the MOD take the trouble to pursue this line of inquiry?

Regards

Norman

[John_Hartley]

but how many tax payers are really willing to fork out money for a series of tests which are such a long shot and which probably don't apply to the huge mass of the population?

I've no problem, as such, with the MoD undertaking a DNA test on recovered bodies. There are only a few found and costs would be extremely minimal.

It is the "what happens next" that should be of concern to taxpayers. Steve suggests that there will be few willing to cough up for a possible matching test. And he's right. But, I have every confidence that once it is known that bodies are being tested there will become a clamour for the state to pay for ancestors to be tested because it "might just be great uncle George". A nightmare in the making, IMO.

[Seadog]

Your opinion of course John, but you have missed the fact that with the present state of the publication of the discovery of the missing in the UK the chance of any member of the public actually being aware of DNA testing being applied let alone the fact that the men have been found is remote.

Regards

Norman

[dfaulder]

I've no problem, as such, with the MoD undertaking a DNA test on recovered bodies. There are only a few found and costs would be extremely minimal.

It is the "what happens next" that should be of concern to taxpayers. Steve suggests that there will be few willing to cough up for a possible matching test. And he's right. But, I have every confidence that once it is known that bodies are being tested there will become a clamour for the state to pay for ancestors to be tested because it "might just be great uncle George". A nightmare in the making, IMO.

I think you are right and this is probably what will happen if the MOD (or whoever) is (in this respect) dragged kicking and screaming into the present-day world. If they (or whoever is responsible) took a more pro-active role they could propose/define/negotiate a set of (public) protocols as to what should be done. This could cover:

1. When are remains "a body"; Didier in his follow up mentions "half a skull and a leg" being found. Presumably (?) there is already a protocol that says whether this half skull and leg gets a grave of its own, or whether "other arrangements" are made (what are they, and how much has to be found to be treated as a body?)
2. Standard processes prior to burial - including I would hope the attempted taking of a DNA sample from the remains.
3. Identification of a short-list of "the missing who may be a match".
4. How short must a short-list be for the MOD to be willing to pay for sampling of relatives. (I would suggest over a 100 is problematic)
5. Steps to advertise for relatives of those on the above short-lists
6. How many relatives will be sampled (given that it is said that 10% of children are not the genetic children of their fathers (!), probably more than one y-DNA and more than one Mt-DNA should be taken.)
7. When the MOD will be prepared to accept for matching processed DNA sample data from relatives who are not on a "paid for short-list".

Each of these will be controversial, but I cannot seem how they can be avoided without a complete "open season" on testing every toenail against every relative of the missing - which is a nonsense.

David

[John_Hartley]

David

I think you highlight most of the practical issues. The contraversy will come with any definition of what is "reasonable". A practical approach by the MoD would say that the history of some battlefield areas means discoveries are likely to produce only a relatively small number of possible candidates. Similarly, other bodies might be discovered in areas of fighting where units, and therefore candidates, cannot be narrowed down and, therefore, a DNA test of applicants becomes financially impossible. Such a distinction will be hard to "sell" to folk who do not understand the history and just know their ancestor was killed and has no known grave.

[Steven Broomfield]

Another thought. If I'm reading this correctly, there seems to be an undercurrent of suggestion that the CWGC/MOD are trying to keep this quiet in some way, presumably to prevent a scenarion such as Mr Hartley suggests.

I'm intrigued, then, that this has appeared in the Tottygraph - but ONLY (so far as we know) in the Tottygraph. The fact that it has appeared there indicates that, if there is a desire to "keep it quiet", the CWGC/MOD aren't doing a great job. The fact it has appeared in only one paper might also indicate that there isn't a lot of interest in the Press.

I hate to say this, but is it possible the finding of not many bodies is actually not terribly newsworthy? Is it one of those things that matters a lot to people it matters to, but not much to those to whom it doesn't matter?

[John_Hartley]

Steve

There are some members here (as there are in the wider community) who will always think that official bodies, like the MoD, are "up to something". It's not something I find there's much point in discussing.

John

[Agh57]

I think the other thing to bear in mind is that a lot of this DNA testing business assumes that (i) there are surviving relatives; (ii) the surviving relatives are aware that one of there ancestors is "missing"; (iii) the surviving relatives know roughly where the "missing ancestor" was on the front at the time the ancestor went "missing" and the date the ancestor went "missing"; and (iv) the surviving relatives are interested in any of this anyway.

I'm not against any of the comments that have been posted on here in principle, but the idea of publicising, creating and maintaing a DNA database may not be cost effective.

I think part of the reason Fromelles was so succesful was due to the scale of the bodies found and the new cemetery etc. This made it far more "newsworthy" for the media. Not that I agree with this but this appears to be the case.

Would the Telegraph have covered this story if it hadn't been Remembrance Week??

[keithmroberts]

I suspect as a former civil servant that someone has drawn up a neat little policy, rejecting "secrecy", but indicating that unless finds are above a certain scale then there is no need to "officiously" seek publicity. As the media only respond to news that is neither salacious nor foul if they are beaten about the head with it, such an approach would be sufficient to keep most things quiet. Add to that a reduction in the number of press officers as part of current economic policy and there you are.

Keith

[Didier]

Gooed morning everybody,

just to clear up a little detail. Stop calling them "the Flanders 6", they weren't found in Flanders but in a small place called Warneton which is in Wallonie. May I suggest the "Warneton 6" ?

Also you need to know the role CWGC plays in this matter. They don't have anything to say in this. The responsibility concerning identification lies with the British MOD and only they can decide what will happen.

DNA testing costs +/- € 500,00 per test

Didier

[Seadog]

Didier, I understand that the CWGC has not been involved in the identification process with regard to the 6 British Soldiers. However the fact remains that the CWGC have made a statement indicating that their "Exhumation Officer" does play an important role in the exhumation and identification procedures, certainly in France and since the BL-15 were found in France I would have expected that he/she was involved with this discovery. I would be very interested to learn more about this function and if you can throw any light on this please do so. You can read the full text of the 2009 email which includes mention of the "Exhumation Officer" via the link below (Post 96).

GWF Topic

Regards

Norman

[Korrigann]

Gooed morning everybody,

just to clear up a little detail. Stop calling them "the Flanders 6", they weren't found in Flanders but in a small place called Warneton which is in Wallonie. May I suggest the "Warneton 6" ?

Also you need to know the role CWGC plays in this matter. They don't have anything to say in this. The responsibility concerning identification lies with the British MOD and only they can decide what will happen.

DNA testing costs +/- € 500,00 per test

Didier

In 1914 Warneton/Waasten still was Flandern. It only became part of the Walloon region in 1963. This is only a small detail in this discussion, I know, but I like historical correctness.

[Seadog]

Thanks for the clarification that is why I have referred to the British soldiers as the "Flanders 6" as when they died in the service of their country they were serving in Flanders.

Regards

Norman

[cdr]

The use of the term " Flandern" is certainly not a sign of historical correctness. Didier is quite right to point out that the current location is in the Walloon region. It is this region that has its part to play in what happens with these remains. An emphasis on the term " Flanders " might even be counterproductive.

Carl (from Gent)

[Joris Ryckeboer]

Correct Carl.

After a lot of discussions in Flanders (with for example the trial against the Diggers), procedures are clear in Flanders about treatment of archeological finds (also not WW related! look at the medieval finds under the market place of Pops and in Leuven). Having the best good-will and a lot of experience as an amateur archeologist (the Diggers, Roelens, Ramses, and a lot of other people), isn't enough anymore to treat finds. It has to be handed over to professionals with the needed permissions by the local government.

As Didier said; in Wallonia, rules were not quit clear at the stage of the accidental discovery. Except the rule when finding humain remains; calling the police.

That what it is about.

But I understand also Norman, they served in Flanders, as always stated.

And it is also for sure; Belgian goodwilling people, will treat every find with the needed respect, within the limits of their possibilities and laws. As you could read in all the posts about founds.

Kind regards.

[David_Underdown]

If anyone's convinced the MOD is hiding something, they can of coures put in an FOI request - or even if they'd jsut to check what has been done and documented so far.

[Didier]

I've been thinking about this "exhumation Officer". The people of the CWGC which I work with are those of the Northern Area at Ieper.This doesn't include France. I have never heard about an "Exhumation Officer", probably because it has no use in Belgium.

As I have said before. Before the police can identify a body as being a warvictim and before I can determinate the nationality the body has to be exhumed. No point of calling any body else for that matter. Should I call every possible nation ? The Belgians (being myself), the Germans, the French, the Australians, the Canadians, the...what evers? Thats a lot of people! Keep in mind that the people from the CWGC are representing not only the British. Most of the countries of the Commonwealth want to have there say in the matter. The CWGC are the link between the Belgian autorities and the nation from which the warvictim comes. They are also limited to what is told to them.

Didier (also from Gent)

[dfaulder]

Didier

Thanks for your further contribution. You put into words one of the apparent contradictions that has been troubling me; that the only known "exhumation officer" is with an organisation which would appear to be third in line in the sequence of responsibility (Local "authority" - Police?, MOD of relevant nationality, CWGC) - and then he/she only operates in France!

I struggle to understand the process. Suppose:

1. A farmer ploughs up "some bones". He reports them to "the authorities"
2. Someone decides whether these bones are indeed human
3. Someone decides whether there should be a more extensive search (I imagine that if a farmer ploughed up one femur, he would want the second one found, to avoid a second lot of disruption!)
4. Someone decides whether the remains are the result of a "crime", or are of a war casualty - and if so whether the probable nationality of the remains (or more accurately the nationality of the probable military unit) can be identified. This someone is in effect starting the "identification process".
5. If the remains are deemed to come from a "British Unit", they are passed to the relevant MOD. (Or does this only happen if someone determines that the remains constitute "a body"? I still wonder what constitutes "a body". Obviously a toe does not constitute "a body", but on the other hand you don't have to find all the toes before you conclude that you have found "a body". Is there a criteria - or is it down to the judgement on the day of whoever in the above chain is making the decision? What happens to "part bodies" - I don't think outside France you have Ossuaries?)
6. The MOD presumably then does something concerned with identification - they can't just be "carriers" between the local "authority" and the CWGC.
7. The MOD than pass the remains to the CWGC for burial. Presumably the CWGC "exhumation officer" has been called in before this stage - if we have correctly understood the role to be concerned with the recovery of bodies found outside existing CWGC cemeteries.

Can anyone "fill out" the detail of the above (say for Belgium or France) - or am I being unreasonable in expecting the process to be so defined?

David

[Aurel Sercu]

I have been present when remains of many dozens (100 - 150)of fallen soldiers were found (in Boezinge) : British, French, German. (Until 2004.) Never have I seen a CWGC Exhumation officer. Never has the MOD been involved, not in the finding nor in the actual exhumation.

The procedure (in a nutshell) was :

- Calling the police ; we (the Diggers) had the same person there, who had gathered some experience throughout the years.

- We and the police contact determined it was a military war victim, not civilian, and not a crime.

- Remains and personal items found with the remains taken to the police HQ in Ypres (later : military base in Langemark-Poelkapelle)

- CWGC contacted by the police for the British remains, which were taken to the CWGC in Ypres.

- Reburial later. (A matter of months, depending on in how far it was possible to identify. Which was not the case. But we were not involved in this.)

- Similar procedure for French and German remains.

- I guess CWGC may have contatced MOD in some (?) cases, but I have no details and no further information on that.

Aurel

[Joris Ryckeboer]

David and Aurel,

A quick respons; (Didier; correct me if wrong!)

The new procedure in Belgium which includes the newly laws/procedures on archeology (which also includes battlefield archeology)

1. Discovery

2. Local Police informed

3. Belgian MOD informed by Local Police in Belgium if they identify the victim is WW1 or WW2 and not a victim of a crime as Aurel stated. (Now after the transition of the MOD; The Belgian National Institute for Veterans and Victims of War; Didiers work)

I think in France, at this stage, CWGC is allready involved.

4. Local (of the local community) archeologists informed (if it's strongly believed more soldiers are buried on the spot) Permission to start a archeological site is needed.

5. MoD of the victims informed(if identified)

6. Handed over to the CWGC or Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge for reburial.

I also believe that the CWGC or VDK is informed in an early stage by Didier. But they have to attend the different MoD's (British, Australian, Canadian,...).

Kind regards,

Joris