CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Andrew Upton]

1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said:

The point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that the GRU did not know what Irish Guards officers were wearing in 1915, and probably didn't know that the body they found dated to 1915. Their assessment of the remains would have been on the evidence in front of them (which they may well have misinterpreted). Given that the men were probably not Guardsmen and very probably not 1915-men, they would have had, I suspect, no idea what an irish Guards officer of 1915 wore. To be fair, they probably didn't much care, either.

 

I'm not saying it is or it isn't - just that it's another factor to throw in to the mix.

 

This is exactly one scenario I have been outlining as a possibility all along. We have clear evidence the men responsible received no specialist training as regards identifying casualties. We have clear evidence that when it came to identifying specialist regimental insignia (the fact it was a Grenadier Guards button in the earlier accounts I've listed earlier says volumes in my book) they struggled sometimes. We have clear evidence that in the period the body was reported that those doing the work were considered more concerned with speed and numbers recovered than accurate identification. All factors that could add up to an entirely plausible scenario where the remains of an OR with surviving insignia that looked rather officer like could have led to his being mistaken for such.

 

9 hours ago, QGE said:

 

While anything is possible, we need to look at the known facts and separate them from speculation: 

...

 

Potential for Confusion. It has been suggested that in a scenario where all the clothing has decayed beyond recognition and only some insignia remains, this might create the conditions for confusion between an Irish Guards OR and and Irish Guards Officer. The inference is that an IG OR's shoulder badge could be confused as an Officer's pip. This would of course have to assume the IG part of the shoulder title was missing. Given the backing plate that locked the two together, this seems less likely. It also does not explain why a single 'star' would be confused for two stars. It would require at least two errors by the GRU. Other suggestions for the candidate (Jacob) would also need the GRU to confuse LRB's blackened brass insignia with that of the Irish Guards 

 

...

 

I still believe that a transcription error of Lt for 2nd Lt is the most likely explanation. There are hard examples of this king of mistake in other GRU reports; UBS  Lieut overwritten in hand with 2nd Lt. That this happened in the Kipling's case can never be proved and like all the other theories, will remain speculation. I dont belive we will get beyond the fact that there is no more than a 50% chance it is Kipling. The introduction of alternatives such as Jacob or Irish Guards ORs simply further reduces the probability it is Kipling. 

 

Where to start...

 

Firstly, you quite effectively contradict yourself in that argument. If you "still believe that a transcription error of Lt for 2nd Lt is the most likely explanation. There are hard examples of this king of mistake in other GRU reports; UBS  Lieut overwritten in hand with 2nd Lt." then your earlier point "It also does not explain why a single 'star' would be confused for two stars" is entirely irrelevant. It becomes a simple fact that the term LIEUT appears in a number of demonstrable cases to have been just as easily applied to casualties who were both 2nd Lieutenants and full Lieutenants. Those doing the recovery see what is or appears to be a single rank star - they might use the generic LIEUT to record the rank. QED.

 

Also, why would the IG part HAVE to be missing? Yet once again, if we accept the (demonstrable) lack of specialist knowledge on regimental insignia by those doing exhumations then their seeing what is or appears to be a rank star over the letters IG would not necessarily immediately alert them to the casualty likely being an OR as it would a collector or researcher with specialist knowledge. Even in the period, use of shoulder titles on officer SD in certain regiments was not uncommon (two examples shown below - both notably 2nd Lieutenants). This was even more commonly used by officers in certain orders of dress, tropical KD in particular. Whoever did the recording needed only a vague knowledge that the presence of an abbreviated regimental shoulder title on a SD epaulette did not automatically rule out the possibility of the owner being an officer, and combines it with the apparent rank star. With the information above, in one go that would give the recorded details of Lieut., Irish Guards...

 

https://postimg.org/image/69bqga1en/

 

 

Or:

 

https://postimg.org/image/uxvemzdsp/

 

 

Edited 7 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks, Andrew - looks like I'm agreeing with you. Both riflemen, I see - RB and (I assume) 60th. Any commonality there, do we think?

[brummell]

Another potential indicator of an officer which I don't think has been discussed so far would be their Sam Brownes. Tanned leather takes decades to decompose, and some officers (particularly Guards officers, I would imagine) may have worn waxed ones, which might have prolonged their life still further.  Even if not, a plain unwaxed example would last plenty long enough to still be in evidence after only a few years.  Boots, for example, are still being dug up even now.

 

As we know, some of the records have indicated numerals and stars as the identifying marks, but Sam Brownes are non-metal items which would have been a good indicator of an officer.  WO1s also wear them now, but I'm not sure if that was the case back then, particularly on active service?

 

 

- brummell

 

Edited 7 September , 2016 by brummell

[Andrew Upton]

50 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

Thanks, Andrew - looks like I'm agreeing with you. Both riflemen, I see - RB and (I assume) 60th. Any commonality there, do we think?

 

As far as I can tell, units with Rifles heritage seem to have been one of the main ones to utilise OR's shoulder titles on officers SD, but I have also seen them used to units such as the MGC, Tank Corps, etc. Sometimes with a bronzed or blackened finish to match the standard officers badging, sometimes still in their original bright issue finish. There appears to have been little rhyme or reason in units like the last two as to their wearing, and they are by no means common. But just present enough to need consideration...

 

31 minutes ago, brummell said:

Another potential indicator of an officer which I don't think has been discussed so far would be their Sam Brownes. Tanned leather takes decades to decompose, and some officers (particularly Guards officers, I would imagine) may have worn waxed ones, which might have prolonged their life still further.  Even if not, a plain unwaxed example would last plenty long enough to still be in evidence after only a few years.  Boots, for example, are still being dug up even now.

 

As we know, some of the records have indicated numerals and stars as the identifying marks, but Sam Brownes are non-metal items which would have been a good indicator of an officer.  WO1s also wear them now, but I'm not sure if that was the case back then, particularly on active service?

 

The problem we keep frustratingly coming back to is we don't know what prompted the report to make the identification of rank and regiment. A well preserved body buried soon after death with the remains of obviously officer pattern clothing, insignia and kit intact is one thing. At the other end of the spectrum is a body that's little more than a heap of skeletal remains that have been exposed to the elements for most of the war, additional shellfire, rats perhaps is another... one of the known problems with leather equipment in trenches was it proved attractive to rats... That and everything in between are equally possible based on the basic evidence we have.

 

It's not a case of simply accepting the remains were an officer or not... it's accepting the very real possibility that those doing the work may have been mistaken to a greater or lesser degree. If the latter is true then the identity of the man in the grave is still very likely to be only one of a very few casualties. But if the former is true then a very big can of worms is opened up. And we've sadly already seen the CWGC's and others reluctance to allow even the very suggestion of either in the light of some very good evidence to the contrary.

 

Edited 7 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[laughton]

Do I have any "for or against" our theory that Law is at the green coordinates and Kipling is at the purple coordinates? We Canadians don't have the same access to the war diaries to get the precise specific locations, which are very important to us in our work. If we were to go to the CWGC, as we do on other cases they submit to us, we would have to argue that they can not come to a conclusion based on the information provided.

Quote

http://cefresearch.ca/lt-wylie-and-2nd-lt-kipling-loos-british-cemetery/

If we take the Holt’s information to be a factual secondary reference (the book) to the primary reference (the period war records), then the O.C. (Officer Commanding) Lt. Col. Lesley Butler reported that they (2nd Battalion Irish Guards) are arriving from the north west from Auchy-lez-la-Basse (if I have the names correct), which is in sector 44a.A.22 which is directly above 44a.G.4 (map 44a is the same as 36c). Thereafter it says that No. 2 Coy was to advance on the left of No. 3 Coy straight at the centre of the wood, right up to and including Chalk Pit (noted as “War Diary”). It is then reported that Nos. 2 and 3 Coys reached the far side of Chalk Pit Wood “with small loss“, then soon after 2nd Lt. Pakenham-Law was wounded in the head and died later in hospital. Lt. Col. Butler is then reported to have issued orders to take the pit itself (these words should be checked against the original documents – not available in Canada). 2nd Lt. Clifford is reported to fall after 2nd Lt. Law but before 2nd Lt. Kipling. Next it is reported that Lt. Col. Butler wrote a statement that confirmed that 2nd Lt. Kipling had reached just beyond PUITS 14, and shortly thereafter he is reported hobbling back to the buildings of PUITS 14 apparently shot in the leg.

That puts 2nd Lt. Law at the intersection of the green coordinates on the north side of the woods and 2nd Lt. Kipling at the purple coordinates on the south side of the woods at PUITS 14. As stated previously, this is not presented in any form that it is proof of the location of either 2nd Lieutenant Law or 2nd Lieutenant Kipling. All that this proves is that no researcher can categorically state that they have identified the final resting place of 2nd Lieutenant John Kipling or 2nd Lieutenant Parkenham-Law.

 

[IanA]

2 hours ago, QGE said:

 

An example on the right (proper left) in this group including our subject. click

I see no 'plus fours' in that photograph.

[brummell]

I would call them jodhpurs personally, but I knew perfectly well what MG meant, as I suspect everyone else does.

 

 

- brummell

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, IanA said:

I see no 'plus fours' in that photograph.

 This is a better example.  

Edited 7 September , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

Where to start...

 

Firstly, you quite effectively contradict yourself in that argument. If you "still believe that a transcription error of Lt for 2nd Lt is the most likely explanation. There are hard examples of this king of mistake in other GRU reports; UBS  Lieut overwritten in hand with 2nd Lt." then your earlier point "It also does not explain why a single 'star' would be confused for two stars" is entirely irrelevant. It becomes a simple fact that the term LIEUT appears in a number of demonstrable cases to have been just as easily applied to casualties who were both 2nd Lieutenants and full Lieutenants. Those doing the recovery see what is or appears to be a single rank star - they might use the generic LIEUT to record the rank. QED.

 

Also, why would the IG part HAVE to be missing? Yet once again, if we accept the (demonstrable) lack of specialist knowledge on regimental insignia by those doing exhumations then their seeing what is or appears to be a rank star over the letters IG would not necessarily immediately alert them to the casualty likely being an OR as it would a collector or researcher with specialist knowledge. Even in the period, use of shoulder titles on officer SD in certain regiments was not uncommon (two examples shown below - both notably 2nd Lieutenants). This was even more commonly used by officers in certain orders of dress, tropical KD in particular. Whoever did the recording needed only a vague knowledge that the presence of an abbreviated regimental shoulder title on a SD epaulette did not automatically rule out the possibility of the owner being an officer, and combines it with the apparent rank star. With the information above, in one go that would give the recorded details of Lieut., Irish Guards...

 

 

 

Andrew

 

I am not sure I follow much of the above. The GRU report which includes the UBS Irish Guards Lieut also includes a UBS Irish Guards [OR] identified by his 'numerals' They are on the same sheet, signed by the same GRU Officer.  Are you suggesting that the same GRU Officer, faced with two bodies, both with Irish Guards numerals (or part thereof) could conclude one was an Officers' rank star and the other was an OR's shoulder title? Aside from these two there are at least three other Irish Guards ORs identified by their 'numerals' by the same GRU. I suspect there are two dozens more if one could be bothered to extend the trawl.  It means that the same GRU saw at least four Irish Guards numerals (and probably many more) and concluded they were ORs yet we are being asked to consider the probability that a further Irish Guards' set of numerals was confused as being an Officers rank star. Possible yes, but improbable in my view.

 

To be clear, we know mistakes were made. The same sheet contains two errors on another individual (name spelling and date of death, despite a cross being in place). While there are many possible scenarios, we have to weigh up what was probable. While possible, I think the probability of a GRU faced with the same type of numerals mistaking one as rank stars and the other four as OR's numerals is low, particularly within the same burial group. Identification from 'numerals' was by far the most common way of establishing regiments if the GRU data is any guide. 

 

Of the 165 Irish Guards killed at Loos, 90 have no known grave (54%). If we look at the 85 men who were killed in September during the Irish Guards assault on the Chalk Pits etc, the number with no known grave is 76, representing 89% of this cohort. The Irish Guards missing at Loos are highly concentrated into a four day period 27th-30th Sep 1915 as much of the ground remained in no-man's land.  At risk of stating the obvious, it also means the recovered UBS Irish Guards would be in a very concentrated area. I suspect the number of Irish Guardsmen identified by numerals will run into dozens.

 

In 1914-18 some 23 of the 112 Irish Guards Officers who were killed have no known grave (20%). For Loos it was just 3 out of 7 fatalities (if we include Kipling as 'missing'). The Irish Guards did not return to Loos, meaning the likelihood of finding any of the 90 Irish Guards' body among the 20,610 unfortunates left on the Loos battlefield was incredibly low: 0.04% probability in fact. The probability of finding one of the three missing Irish Guards Officers was lower still at 0.015%.One might consider that fact that among the thousands of UBS, only one was identified as an Irish Guards Officer. Given the rarity of this one might expect a GRU to do some double checking (as they appear to have done with the Grenadier Officer) given they would have seen a number of St Patrick's stars on the OR numerals. Just a thought. 

 

It would be interesting to know if the GRUs had lists of the missing. One assumes someone did in the organisation.  If they did they would have known that there were 29 missing Irish Guards OR for every missing Irish Guards Officer. Extending this for the 14,990 of the British Army commemorated on Loos Memorial, there were 25 missing Other Ranks for every missing Officer. Put another way, the GRUs on the Loos battlefields would be handling 25 ORs for every Officer and by extension their experience in recognising OR insignia would reflect these proportions.

 

By way of reference during the Great War there were 23 missing Irish Guards Officers with no known grave and 997 Irish Guards ORs with no known grave. This means that there were 43 missing ORs for every Officer in the Irish Guards.

 

This is just what I believe. I am not trying to convince anyone. I am sure everyone can make their own informed decisions on the available information. MG

 

 

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Guest

[IanA]

10 hours ago, brummell said:

I would call them jodhpurs personally, but I knew perfectly well what MG meant, as I suspect everyone else does.

 

 

- brummell

I think I am creating a distraction - which was not really my intent but, in a thread where things are being picked apart and examined minutely I merely questioned a statement which I thought to be doubtful. I still haven't seen an illustration of anything which remotely resembles 'plus fours'. The illustration in #610 shows what I think officers of the time would call 'slacks' being pinched in by puttees. If is, of course, perfectly possible that a 'temporary gentleman' might refer to such a look as resembling plus fours.

[Muerrisch]

Martin,

 

please is there anything in the available Diaries or regimental records to suggest that the dead of Loos were systematically "buried" as such?

 

I have in mind records where units or brigades, once in possession of a battlefield, searched for their dead and gave them proper rites in hasty common graves. This was army practice from Waterloo through Isandhlwana right up to Goose Green.

 

Reading the considerable number of witness statements from survivors of IG's ordeal, I have the impression that officers and men had to be left where they fell, or at best were buried by the debris of war.

 

If this is so, in 1919 the GRU would be faced with "one lay here, one lay there, one lay round the corner" and any clearance operation would be at great risk of missing a substantial proportion.

 

In passing, I think you will find that the typescript GRU record to which you refer was not signed in mss by the officer i/c [away from my records].

[Guest]

On 9/8/2016 at 09:52, Muerrisch said:

Martin,

 

please is there anything in the available Diaries or regimental records to suggest that the dead of Loos were systematically "buried" as such?

 

I have in mind records where units or brigades, once in possession of a battlefield, searched for their dead and gave them proper rites in hasty common graves. This was army practice from Waterloo through Isandhlwana right up to Goose Green.

 

Reading the considerable number of witness statements from survivors of IG's ordeal, I have the impression that officers and men had to be left where they fell, or at best were buried by the debris of war.

 

If this is so, in 1919 the GRU would be faced with "one lay here, one lay there, one lay round the corner" and any clearance operation would be at great risk of missing a substantial proportion.

 

In passing, I think you will find that the typescript GRU record to which you refer was not signed in mss by the officer i/c [away from my records].

 

The diaries and histories are not particularly helpful in this regard. In short it largely depended on the outcome of the battle. For the Guards at Loos many of their fatalities remained in No-Man's Land, or near it, making burial difficult or impossible. The data shows this in sharp relief. 

 

Edit: One might also consider the fact that in formations with high casualty levels, the battalions and Brigades were often quickly taken out of the line, meaning they were not always present to bury their own dead. 

 

It was common practice for the battlefield to be cleared of the dead (if possible) for a number of obvious reasons (morale, hygiene etc). Formations also had quite well organised salvage crews whose work would clearly help identify locations of the dead as they scored the battlefield for salvage. Clearly if a battle ebbed and flowed across an area that ended up as No Man's Land, a higher proportion would of course end up in inaccessible areas. This is what happened at Loos in the area attacked by the Guards. Occasionally we see exceptionally high proportions of No Known Graves (NKG). Gallipoli is probably an extreme example (78% NKG), compounded by the fact that truces for burial parties to operate were rare. On the Western Front Loos is a good example as it was the scene of a large set-piece battle that ended in rather static lines for some time.  

 

The area that the Guards Div attacked at Loos was generally speaking the furthest extent of the battle for some time. A cursory glance at later (1917) trench maps shows how little the front line moved in this area. This is why (I think) there is such a high proportion of 'missing' as a % of all those killed at Loos and for the Guards in particular. As a reference point the data comparing Loos (Official dates) with the rest of the Great War is shown below. Note the high differentials and the particularly high spike for the Scots Guards who over-extended in the attack. 

 

 

No Known Graves (NKG) Great War v Battle of Loos

 

Regt.....% NKG War......%NKG Loos

GG...............43%...............72%

CG...............40%................72%

SG...............52%................83%

IG.................44%................67%

WG...............35%...............76%

 

KOSB............54%...............83% 

All Units.........NA.................76%

 

Very close to three quarters of Guardsmen killed at Loos have no known grave. I have included the KOSB as a Regiment that had particularly high casualties at Loos by way of comparison. As a very rough measure some 76% of all men killed at Loos have no known grave.... some 14,000 men from 25th Sep to 13th Oct 1915. I think this largely reflects the difficulties in recovering the killed in no-mans' land or in exposed areas of the British line. Incidentally the Foot Guards accounted for 5.6% of the men who fell at Loos who have no known grave.

 

Given the narrow frontages and limited advances, the missing would be largely distributed in very well defined corridors and this is reflected in some of the GRU reports. The RSF springs to mind in one of the concentration reports. MG

 

Edit: History of the Medical Services might shed some light. I may revert. MG

 

 

Edited 9 September , 2016 by Guest
Correct 'NKG' figures for Loos

[Guest]

An idea of the situation in the immediate aftermath of the Guards attack. This is an account left by an Officer of the 3rd Bn Grenadier Guards. Some mention of the dead still in the trenches etc.. MG

 

 

3RD GRENADIER GUARDS

 

GUARDS DIVISION                     

 

BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE                     

 

FRANCE                     

 

 

 

 

Many thanks for your letters of 27th, 28th, also two from father which I got yesterday. I will now try and give you a slight account of our doings during the last few days but as they have been so varied it will be rather difficult

 

As I think I told you in my last letter I went up to the trenches on the night of September 29th to take over command of the remnants of No. 1 Company. I started off from the transport field with the cookers at 05:30, in the rain. We had to go about 2 miles along the main road and then turned off to the left to get into Loos. Just before we got into the village a Jack Johnson exploded about 15 yards from the loading wagon but none of us were hit. The Battalion was holding a disused German communication trench running straight out on the left of Loos, and the lines were roughly as follows:-

 

When I arrived at 07:30, No. 4 Company with remnants of No.1 Company had just come in from digging trench B. This they had been doing all day under heavy fire and they were very exhausted having had no food for 24 hours. We soon got them some food and settled down for the night.

 

As you see by the diagram the trench we were holding was the second line. The ground slopes down slightly from Trench A and then up again to Trench B. It was over this ground that the Attack was made on Monday, one Company having attacked the farm and wood.

 

September 30th, Thursday.

 

Stood to arms at dawn. Did not sleep in the night as it was so wet and cold. My Company holds the part marked in black and with several machine guns in it. The Trench is very shallow in parts but we cannot dig down as it is full of dead, so our only hope is that they do not shell us. The men are trying to scoop holes for themselves underneath the wall of the trench. I went round and talked to them about the attack, they were in extraordinary good spirits and quite ready for another go.

 

During the morning I started reorganizing the Company, which was no easy job with only two Sergeants left. We also started to dig a trench behind a bit of the line, as there were about 15 dead Germans lying there who badly needed burying as they were beginning to get high.

 

Thank goodness it is a nice sunny day and the men can dry their kit a bit, what there is, is very much torn but as there is any amount lying about they can make theirs up a bit.

 

About 12:00 the Commanding Officer came round and told me to take half of the Company to trench A and get in touch with our 2nd Bn, which I did. The new trench was much deeper and safer.

 

Nothing doing much in the morning but after lunch the Bosches began shelling a bit, but most of their attention was directed at the mine head at Loos which I suppose they thought was an observation post.

 

About five of our aeroplanes came over and were heavily shelled but without success. I have seen no Taubes yet and I believe they hardly ever go up now.

 

We were to have been relieved at 19:00 by the Suffolks but they never turned up till 12:00 (midnight)

 

 

 

1st October. (Complete my first year’s service).

 

Started off 02:00 and marched back about 6 miles to a village about 3 miles SW of B. Got in at 06:00 absolutely dead beat. Slept till 15:00 in the afternoon, when I got up and had breakfast. They had just finished calling the roll call and our casualties in No. 1 Company as follows:

 

Officers:      Killed 0   Wounded  2   Missing   1

 

NCOs and Men: Killed 8   Wounded 55   Missing 39

 

The Officers wounded are Vivian and Ritchie but neither of them are bad. Poor Crabbe is missing but I am sure there is no doubt he was killed whilst getting over the wall of the farm, as I have asked those who were near him.

 

Fifty men came up from base this afternoon for No. 1 Company, so I have got quite a good Company now.

 

I am messing with No. 2 Company as they have only two Officers left and I am by myself.

 

What a joy it is to have a bed again and not such a bad one either.

 

2nd October.

 

Paraded at 09:00 and read out various things to the men, one thing especially worth repeating:-

 

 “An English Officer who was in A------- on the 25th reports that the Germans when they recaptured one of their trenches collected all the British wounded, placed them between two traverses and there bombed them to death.”

 

I think this will help our fellows know what to do when their revenge comes.

 

I had to collect the names of those who had done well in the attack. The only means of finding out as all the Officers are casualties was to ask the men. They were all unanimous about Ritchie, I believe he did splendidly. Several of the men were also specially mentioned.

 

How long we remain here I don’t know, but don’t think for long.

 

The enclosed are two buttons off one of the aforementioned Bosches. I believe he was a Bavarian – Give Ru one, I got a letter from him today. When you write please thank him for it. Tell him I have not been able to find one of the helmets he mentions, but will do my best next time I am up.

 

Our casualties in Officers killed were extraordinarily light considering – only one – and six wounded, but I am afraid 1st Coldstream Guards and Scots Guards took a bad knock. In our 4th battalion I hear Miles Ponsonby died of wounds, and Tommy Thorne killed.

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Guest

[Andrew Upton]

16 hours ago, QGE said:

 

I am not sure I follow much of the above. The GRU report which includes the UBS Irish Guards Lieut also includes a UBS Irish Guards [OR] identified by his 'numerals' They are on the same sheet, signed by the same GRU Officer.  Are you suggesting that the same GRU Officer, faced with two bodies, both with Irish Guards numerals (or part thereof) could conclude one was an Officers' rank star and the other was an OR's shoulder title? Aside from these two there are at least three other Irish Guards ORs identified by their 'numerals' by the same GRU. I suspect there are two dozens more if one could be bothered to extend the trawl.  It means that the same GRU saw at least four Irish Guards numerals (and probably many more) and concluded they were ORs yet we are being asked to consider the probability that a further Irish Guards' set of numerals was confused as being an Officers rank star. Possible yes, but improbable in my view.

 

Assumptions once again - so you know for a fact that the officer signing off the sheet personally watched over each and every one of those bodies as they were recovered? Saw each and every piece of evidence as it was recovered? That it was in fact the exact same team doing the exhumation and recording of details in every case? That the level of preservation between each and every one was equal? An answer of no to any one of those allows room for variation and perhaps error in how the information was recorded.

 

We already have good quality evidence that the level and accuracy of recorded detail could and did vary even within the same sheet of information. It is far more likely that the evidence on one sheet most likely came from a variety of different sources (the information from several different teams working within the same area at the same time being collated into one source seems most likely). Variations in the level of preservation of remains combined with differing experience and interpretation by the teams working on them could easily account for some being recorded more accurately than others. And I suspect the officer who signed off the sheet was probably doing so more in an administrative role, relying on those doing the hard work to supply the details, than in any heavily active role.

 

 

[Muerrisch]

1 hour ago, Andrew Upton said:

Assumptions once again - so you know for a fact that the officer signing off the sheet personally watched over each and every one of those bodies as they were recovered?

 

Andrew, if you look at the ONLY evidence regarding the recovery and identity of the remains believed by the CWGC to be John Kipling, you will see that your assumption that an officer signed off the typescript is incorrect.  The mss is not available and was probably ephemeral.

 

The name of "2/Lt AH Domaille" is typed " for Lieut OC 18th Labour Coy."

 

We have one other set of facts: Kipling believed that he was a 2/Lt, his CO believed that he was a 2/Lt,, Brigade ditto,, Division ditto, his father Ditto. The battalion did not lose a full Lieut. "missing" or "missing believed wounded" in that action, nor before nor later in the Loos area. The GRU recorded a Lt Irish Guards, presented no Means of ID.

 

No properly informed and briefed jury in the land would agree with CWGC or Parker & Legg, who strain to demonstrate, unsuccessfully, that the body "MUST" be that of Lt J. Kipling.

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Muerrisch
one " short

[Muerrisch]

Martin, thank you. I deduce that the remains believed by CWGC to be those of Parker  Kipling could well have been been found by the GRU on the surface or part-buried. The testimonies of soldiers quoted by Parker & Legg suggest "in a shell hole" or "part buried", the latter by shell-fire rather than human hand. Small wonder that the evidence is slim to non-existent.

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Muerrisch
whoops

[Guest]

Andrew, let's agree to disagree. MG

[Andrew Upton]

1 hour ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Andrew, if you look at the ONLY evidence regarding the recovery and identity of the remains believed by the CWGC to be John Kipling, you will see that your assumption that an officer signed off the typescript is incorrect.  The mss is not available and was probably ephemeral.

...

No properly informed and briefed jury in the land would agree with CWGC or Parker & Legg, who strain to demonstrate, unsuccessfully, that the body "MUST" be that of Lt J. Kipling.

 

Forgive me - mss? If there was no one central source signing off the work on the page that could potentially add weight to any argument that just because a number of other IG soldiers are recorded variously on the same page that the same standards of identification were applied equally between them is not automatically true.

 

30 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

I deduce that the remains believed by CWGC to be those of Parker could well have been been found by the GRU on the surface or part-buried. The testimonies of soldiers quoted by Parker & Legg suggest "in a shell hole" or "part buried", the latter by shell-fire rather than human hand. Small wonder that the evidence is slim to non-existent.

 

If some or all the IG dead in the area were exposed to similar conditions for a similar length of time, also further evidence of the very real possibility that the information relating to their identification would have been based closer to the worst case scenarios I have outlined earlier than best case... 

 

14 minutes ago, QGE said:

Andrew, let's agree to disagree. MG

 

I'm quite happy to agree to disagree - just be certain if you continue to try and poke holes in my arguments I will also continue to quite happily poke back as I see fit .

 

I'm still waiting on confirmation of some information from the Guards Museum, which is frustrating but I want to be 100% certain if possible before posting what I already have.

 

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

Martin, thank you. I deduce that the remains believed by CWGC to be those of Parker could well have been been found by the GRU on the surface or part-buried. The testimonies of soldiers quoted by Parker & Legg suggest "in a shell hole" or "part buried", the latter by shell-fire rather than human hand. Small wonder that the evidence is slim to non-existent.

 

 I believe you mean the remains of Kipling not Parker ! 

 

given the conditions, I suspect very shallow graves (bodies and natural fibres decay faster in shallow burials), just below the surface and graves that might well have been churned over by later artillery bombardments. The Guards had been withdrawn within days so everything would have been done rather hastily. Statistically the burials in the field during the battle were proportionally very small in number. The returns show high ratios of 'missing' who were subsequently presumed killed. 

 

The data posted earlier shows 3 in very 4 fatalities at Loos have no known grave. The battlefield, and no man's land in particular would have been littered with dead. 

 

From some background research on the rates of decay of natural fibres, I think there is a good chance most of the uniforms were at a very advanced stage of decay, probably beyond recognition. None of the GRU reports mention uniform as a method of identification, only existing crosses from earlier burials, Identity discs, numerals  and the odd boot, spoon or oil sheet. Clearly local conditions matter a lot, but shallow, wet, alkaline burials seem to accelerate the proces and most sources claim will will decay within a year. ...so 4 years might have provided considerable opportunity for nature to do her work. ...

 

MG

Edited 8 September , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

2 minutes ago, QGE said:

I believe you mean the remains of Kipling not Parker ! 

 

I do believe I do! 

Will edit accordingly. Its Col. Parker's thesis that is buried, not his body. Sorry Col. Parker.

12 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

Forgive me - mss?

 

mss in italics was taught to me as "manuscript" ie handwritten. As opposed to tss = typescript.

[brummell]

3 hours ago, QGE said:

From some background research on the rates of decay of natural fibres, I think there is a good chance most of the uniforms were at a very advanced stage of decay, probably beyond recognition.

 

There was a piece by the Prince of Wales in the paper last week on the merits of wool, in which he wrote of an experiment he conducted.  He buried a woollen garment and a synthetic garment in earth and dug them up after six months.  The woollen garment had entirely disappeared.   The silk and/or cotton used for linings are even less robust.

[Andrew Upton]

7 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

mss in italics was taught to me as "manuscript" ie handwritten. As opposed to tss = typescript.

 

Ah, duly noted.

 

3 hours ago, brummell said:

There was a piece by the Prince of Wales in the paper last week on the merits of wool, in which he wrote of an experiment he conducted.  He buried a woollen garment and a synthetic garment in earth and dug them up after six months.  The woollen garment had entirely disappeared.   The silk and/or cotton used for linings are even less robust.

 

It's no coincidence that when it comes to remains of buried textiles being recovered in an archaeological content that it is those pieces of material that had been either in direct contact or close proximity to metal items (iron and copper based items being predominant) that are most likely to be best preserved, or indeed the only remaining evidence in more historic cases. See for example the collar badge to Henry John Innes Walker I posted earlier, complete with a large chunk of the original SD epaulette material preserved behind.

 

One of the things that can cause this is a process called Textile Mineralization. Some details below, but essentially during the process of corrosion occurring in the metal object some of the minerals it is composed of leach into the fabric nearby. In extreme cases the entire fabric can effectively rot away yet be replaced by a mineral carbon copy of the same. This can yield valuable archaeological evidence in historical burials for example where details of warp, weft, etc etc of cloth used in the period might be preserved:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440397902867

[Guest]

 

Ref History of the Guards Division Vol II, page 330-332

 

"The officers wore khaki serge jackets of a pattern differing slightly from that of the Line and with the badges of rank on the shoulder-straps  instead of on the forearm as in the Line. Khaki peaked caps, cord breeches of the "ride and walk" type, puttees and brown ankle boots completed the costume of the dismounted officer. Mounted officers wore brown leggings and ankle boots, or alternatively brown field boots. Every officer was equipped with a Sam Brown belt, haversack, water-bottle and field glasses and was armed with a sword and revolver .......

 

..After the Battle of Ypres 1914, officers discarded their swords and carried walking sticks instead....

 

..... About this time [Jan 1915] dismounted officers began to adopt loose knickerbockers instead of the cord breeches worn in the early months of the war. These knickerbockers, familiarly known as "plus-fours" continued to be worn throughout (and after) the war......

 

...... Officers' dress for battle or the line consisted of steel helmet, service dress as described above, belt, box respirator, haversack, water-bottle and revolver. From 1917 onwards it became usual for officers to wear for battle jackets and trousers of the pattern issued to other ranks, with only the badge of rank on the shoulder straps for distinction"

[Guest]

This map from 1917 provides an idea of just how little the front line moved from the end of the Battle of Loos 1915. The line running roughly from Loos (at the bottom) to Hulluch (directly north of Loos) hardly moved in the subsequent two years. Any British fatality left in no-man's land, or near to no-mans land where the ground could be observed might have simply remained there. Note the area to the immediate East of Chalk Pit Woods remained in German hands Chalk pit woods is on a forward slope, meaning some  (most?) of the ground was observable, particularly when the Germans still occupied Hill 70 (later taken by the British). 

 

The post operations reports for Sep 1915 describe the area of Chalk Pit Woods being under fire from Bois Hugo and the Keep (taken by the British by 1917 but still in German hands in Sep 1915)

 

Original is on the McMaster Univ website. MG

[Chris_Baker]

It adds no more to the identification of the man buried, but you may be interested to see what the Red Cross enquiry service had on this.

 

Source: http://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Search/#/3/2/107/59459/British and Commonwealth/Military/kipling