Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Call from MOD War Detectives


LDT006

Recommended Posts

https://www.facebook.com/wardetectives/ 

Calling all amateur genealogists! Can you help us find the whereabouts of the family of Pte (1791) John Wilson of 6th Black Watch? He was born in 1888/1889 in Govan Hill, Glasgow and died while serving in France on 30 July 1916. He may have been married to Helen Wilson or Brown, but we haven't been able confirm this.
Thank you so much for your help!

Something for the experts here? @PRC?

John Wilson: https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/822733/john-wilson/ 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The register of soldiers effects, Lists his Sister administratrix Helen H .W Brown  (Helen H Wilson or Brown) 

 Helen being his sister not his wife ?

There appears not to be a WFA dependants  pension record in respect of this soldier, which indicates no claim was made, as he had no dependants

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pte John Wilson, age 27, native of Glasgow, but resident Auchterarder for many years. Formerly employed as vanman with Mr R N Smith, grocer, Auchterarder.   Dundee Courier - Monday 7 August 1916

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auchterarder Roll of Honour

Private John WILSON lived at Strathern House. He enlisted 7th August 1914 in the 6th battalion of the Black Watch. Home service at North Queensferry, south Queensferry, Dalmeny, Inverkeithing, Wormit, Dundee, Bedford. Served France from 2nd May 1915 to 30th July 1916. Killed. He died 30th July 1916.

 

Edit I think it should be Strathearn House

Edited by Skipman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LDT006 said:

... Can you help us find the whereabouts of...

But when he saw many of the

Pharisees and Sadducees come

to his baptism, he said unto

them, O generation of vipers,

who hath warned you to flee

from the wrath to come?

Matthew 3:77

If you do give the JCCC information then only do it with an advance agreement in writing that your input will be fully acknowledged. Otherwise they will take your information and publish it as if it were entirely their own research.

PT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do give the JCCC information then only do it with an advance agreement in writing that your input will be fully acknowledged.Otherwise they will take your information and publish it as if it were entirely their own research.
 

that’s quite correct, they never acknowledge anybody who help with tracing families or researchers who bring cases to the CWGC about an unknown is now a possible known soldier sailor or airman 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chesterboy said:

If you do give the JCCC information then only do it with an advance agreement in writing that your input will be fully acknowledged.Otherwise they will take your information and publish it as if it were entirely their own research.
 

that’s quite correct, they never acknowledge anybody who help with tracing families or researchers who bring cases to the CWGC about an unknown is now a possible known soldier sailor or airman 

Is that the way of it

 

https://www.facebook.com/wardetectives/

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PaulTudge1916 said:

If you do give the JCCC information then only do it with an advance agreement in writing that your input will be fully acknowledged. Otherwise they will take your information and publish it as if it were entirely their own research.

PT

MMM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LDT006 said:

Something for the experts here? @PRC?

Certainly not an expert and unfortunately Scotlands "another country, they do things differently there":)

More importantly for me, the end goal is to track down living relatives. I would never feel comfortable about doing that in open forum and never at all on facebook.

Can I suggest you monitor the request on facebook and provide updates here for those who are not members.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited by PRC
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chesterboy said:

If you do give the JCCC information then only do it with an advance agreement in writing that your input will be fully acknowledged.Otherwise they will take your information and publish it as if it were entirely their own research.

that’s quite correct, they never acknowledge anybody who help with tracing families or researchers who bring cases to the CWGC about an unknown is now a possible known soldier sailor or airman 

14 hours ago, Skipman said:

Is that the way of it

11 hours ago, RaySearching said:

MMM

I have knowledge of some longstanding and ongoing ID cases where the MoD / JCCC in convivence with the CWGC have effectively stolen the work of independent researchers and issued press releases effectively claiming that they have identified and proven the cases. Outright lies. I also know for a fact that this issue (contravention of the terms of the Civil Service Charter) is currently actively being pursued with the Secretary of State For Defence, and in a broader sense (incl incompetence) is currently being pursued with the Director General of the CWGC, I also know that the people who are actively pursuing these issues have had their efforts to reveal the truth constrained.

PT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, PaulTudge1916 said:

I have knowledge of some longstanding and ongoing ID cases where the MoD / JCCC in convivence with the CWGC have effectively stolen the work of independent researchers and issued press releases effectively claiming that they have identified and proven the cases. Outright lies. I also know for a fact that this issue (contravention of the terms of the Civil Service Charter) is currently actively being pursued with the Secretary of State For Defence, and in a broader sense (incl incompetence) is currently being pursued with the Director General of the CWGC, I also know that the people who are actively pursuing these issues have had their efforts to reveal the truth constrained.

PT

 

What's their game or gain?

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Evening All

I can see this becoming something big, I hope!  During one of my cases I mentioned that I had been in contact with the family. They said that I should not be doing this because it may cause upset. Now I realise why. Good job on one of my cases I did contact some family members because they had 2 pieces of vital evidence that clinched the case. It was going to be declined because it could not be proven that he had been wounded and that he was a signaller. The family had a photo of him in hospital and a page in a book which stated that he was indeed a signaller. Glad I didn't listen to them. 

This has to be addressed because there must be hundreds of independent researchers world wide that discover unknown soldiers, sailors and airmen from both world wars around the world. And they should be officially recognised for the work they do. There must of been hundreds and hundreds of unknown casualties identified over the recent years. Some of these cases take at least in my case 2 or 3 years to complete. The Late Richard Laughton has contributed greatly in doing this. We are not asking for a medal for doing this, just some kind of official mention. But at least I am personally proud that we get them named, buried and remembered.

Kind Regards

Andy        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PaulTudge1916 said:

Sorry don't understand what the question is.

PT

What's their game stealing other people's research and what have they to gain by doing that?

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all this banging on JCCC and not receiving credit? I don't understand it.

Nobody is stopping a researcher to publish his work before it is approved by JCCC/MOD (like Richard Laughton did), to contact the family or even go to the press/TV.... and thus receive full credit.

I hope that some researchers are trying to find the family and share it with JCCC through private mail. These researchers can contact the family and then receive credit from the family and JCCC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with LDT006.

If people can’t or don’t want to assist with the request to assist in the process of tracking down living relatives of John Wilson, then they needn’t. It’s not a case of who gets the credit, surely?

MB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We appear to be experiencing a similar situation in Canada - not "stolen valour" but perhaps akin to border-line plagiarism through the use of selective omission of external research documentation.  This accidental and/or overt omission creates the impression the identifying of an Unknown Soldier in Canada was wholly achieved with "in-house" expertise.

The late Richard Laughton, over the past 5-7 years, has submitted about 50 detailed cases to the authorities - the closest recognition to date appears to be an indirect reference to "independent researcher".  Laughton was not ever seeking personal recognition but only to bring closure for surviving family members. 

Nevertheless, early indications suggest much of his research work (1) first alerted authorities to probable solvable cases, (2) significantly distilled out improbable cases, and (3) in many instances was able through logical deduction to bring about a near to conclusive identification of an Unknown Soldier.

With such a slow file closing pace at present; it is unfortunate the responsible authorities deem it prudent to ignore expert external resources.  In their 2020-2021 Annual Report, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission estimates there are 188,925 Unknown Soldiers with their annual budget being in the range of 70+ million British Pounds.  It begs the question – are they just gardeners now?

At present we are beginning to document some cases of Unknown Soldiers from the Canadian Expeditionary Force - emphasis is on the historic work of the late Richard Laughton, one of the moderators of the CEF Study Group discussion forum. 

The primary objective is to facilitate the expedition of closing Unknown Soldier files while there are still some relatives alive.

 

Borden Battery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... someone keeps deleting/hiding posts from several threads I’m currently following. In fact a whole thread disappeared today whilst I was writing a reply, the OP and other contributors raised valid questions and replies to the discussion, although some, I feel, had a condescending tone. The removal of threads and individual posts is counter-productive to continuity and open discussion on any such platform, I’m not privy to any reasons why these posts nor thread were removed.

With the digital release of CWGC burial records at our fingertips 24/7 and further online IWGC archival material which offers so much more than what we see above ground, this coupled with other valuable research material has brought about many 'amateur' researchers. Such research into war dead will often lead to anomalies that require further investigation and may eventually involve organisations in the first instance such as CWGC. I have no idea the number of cases the commission and in turn its ordered chain deals with from the grim harvests of the old battlefields but, I suspect the number of cases has somewhat rocketed in the past ten years or so. This increase must be due to dedicated amateur and independent researchers and their access to this ever increasing online archival material.

Giving a named headstone to one who made the ultimate sacrifice and who remained missing for a hundred years or the addition of a previous un-commemorated burial are the ultimate goals in this area of research. To achieve this, a thorough investigation is required which often involving multiple source material. The investigation should result in case report of compelling evidence that be shown to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the research is correct.

Sadly the names of Thomas George Bedford, William Mansell and Arthur George Warner will no doubt perpetually remain on those memorials to the missing. Whilst there is an element of their graves being probable, the evidence is too thin, there will be hundreds if not thousands more like them. Tens of thousands more will never even have this pitiful chance of scoring this goal and the tragedy of Achiel Verholl, still buried as an Unknown Belgian Soldier deserves to be mentioned here.

Further still there are those cases identified as being the work of Richard Stiles during the 1920’s, sometimes with glaring mistakes that have remained for 100 years. The thought of removing the name of Abraham Ellison from a headstone and added to the Menin Gate and carving Unknown British Soldier into the now void headstone just seems absurd, but these cases exist. A case report recently submitted to the CWGC will have great ramifications for the grave of Abraham Ellison if this particular case is accepted for amendment. There is no compelling evidence to suggest just who was buried here, but the evidence is compelling enough to say it is not Abraham Ellison. Can these mistakes be questioned and rectified today or will such mistakes also remain in perpetuity?

Once a case is identified and a case report submitted to the CWGC, the evidence presented needs to be further scrutinised by authority. Only when an individual case meets with the authorities specified criteria will it be accepted by them for amendment or inclusion of commemoration. Having access to individual service records often holds the compelling evidence that is often needed for positive identifications. This is probably why there are several Commonwealth groups researching in this area and perhaps no solely British ones with the absence and disarray of UK service records. I can’t really see any benefits for having a solely British group, personally I find the GWF and the knowledge of its members network works well for me and others in this way. Many GWF members will freely offer their valuable guidance, opinions and knowledge on an open platform. There is no single template to build a case report, each individual case will somewhat dictate its own format and course. For those who may struggle with this aspect I strongly recommend looking at case reports submitted by the late Richard Laughton, some are easily accessible online along with many discussions.

I’m not overly acquainted with the whole process once a case report has been submitted and accepted on credible merit for further investigation by the authority. Does the JCCC (MoD) have full control of how each case is handled and ultimately the final decision over each and every case including those of the Commonwealth and Dominion countries?

I have no desire to question the arduous work that CWGC nor JCCC are committed to, I have great admiration and pride for the organisations that continue to honour and commemorate war dead. I also see a great advantage for the ‘War Detectives’ (I suppose the name fits todays culture…) and their standing on social media platforms, I applaud this approach with a clear ability to reach out for that clinching piece of evidence or much more poignantly seeking out next of kin. I see a sizable effort of encouragement being offered here by the JCCC with its potential for individual and community input on a global scale.

I have to be honest, I don’t know when the process of identifying the war dead was taken out of the CWGC’s hands and placed in the hands of ruling government – so perhaps it does beg the question ‘Are they just gardeners now?’

I know of several past and present members of the GWF that investigate, research and submit such identification case reports to the CWGC. I’m not personally acquainted with any of these people other than open and private online conversations we’ve taken part in. I’d like to think the drive to share and submit such research is very similar. Having discussed several cases with forum members over the years, I'm sure we have numerous files relating to possible and probable identifications but with little compelling evidence, case reports just not worthy of submitting in their present state. They do remain for whenever a name may ring a bell or attention is drawn from elsewhere and we may be able to offer details that could further bolster a case or in more personal circumstances, inform a family of our findings for their own interpretations.

As an unpaid amateur researcher, acknowledgement for work I submit is something I ask for in some instances, this recognition is often offered without question and there are times when I do not seek any recognition what so ever. Each investigation and piece of research has its own circumstances which may direct its course and the involvement of others. Should I wish to be credited for anything I submit to anyone at any time, I will simply ask and make sure this is agreed with all involved parties from the outset.

A recent case of mis-identification has been submitted and is still awaiting a reply, it does already have full acknowledgment from next of kin who quelled my reservations and have been involved throughout the initial process. We haven't spoken about any recognition for ourselves, I've not thought about it and at present don't necessarily seek anything further in this matter, of course we seek recognition of the case and hopefully a positive outcome. I doubt anything further could be added to the case report and I don’t need any credit from any authority for the leg work nor for pushing it under their noses, I have the acceptance and knowledge that the family are well informed of the probabilities involved.

I now see ‘theft’, ‘stolen valour’ and ‘plagiarism’ have reared their ugly heads in the direction of these organisations and its sad to read. Is it really coming to this? I’m not familiar with any particular case nor privy to any agreement or pre-arrangement which may have taken place and as such cannot comment on any circumstances where any crime may be evident. The basis of these applied terms appears to revolve around case reports submitted and the authors not being acknowledged, their research in some way being stolen by the authority. Are the CWGC or JCCC acting in deliberate ways to undermine and the oust the amateur foot slogger? Have crimes clearly been committed by either of these organisations?

With the current absence of any evidence surrounding any claim of criminal activity this area of discussion will continue to be distasteful. I’d be happy to being enlightened with specific details in the matter.

I can only regurgitate which has been suggested previously when a lack researcher recognition was discussed on GWF. I didn’t take part in the discussion but came away with the impression it was discouragement of cases submitted by amateur, independent or out-of-house researchers. I’m not sure how or why this would affect any credible case report submitted to the CWGC and sensed a storm in a tea cup.

Seeking light for those who remain lost in the darkness of conflict is part of my driving process when these anomalies are found. The light is not for me to bask in although there is a sense of achievement and personal pride involved. Any acknowledgement or recognition with all its glory, honour and valour belongs to the poor sod that gets the named headstone, elements of which may perhaps, in essence, be shared by tomorrow’s family for the sacrifice made.

Edited by jay dubaya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the lack of information of a case, that is ongoing is what I’m having problems to understand.  
 

a case I submitted in 2017 and I only found that the case had been accepted by the JCCC this year, when looking at the cases lists on the CWGC website that it’s status had been changed. 
 

when the CWGC passes the case, to the NAM therefore you should receive an email to say it’s been passed to the next stage.  When the NAM passes it the JCCC, therefore you should get an email. 
 

There should be a basic proper process being followed but it it never is.  
 

One case, which was accepted in 2020, the email contained the words ‘We agree with your findings’. It will be nice to see what the press releases state when the rededication service takes place. 
 

I have an idea, that the next case of mine,  that is accepted.  I will ask for copies of the CWGC, NAM and JCCC reports.  To see how the case was looked at and reasoning behind to send it to the next stage. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

With the digital release of CWGC burial records at our fingertips 24/7 and further online IWGC archival material which offers so much more than what we see above ground, this coupled with other valuable research material has brought about many 'amateur' researchers. Such research into war dead will often lead to anomalies that require further investigation and may eventually involve organisations in the first instance such as CWGC. I have no idea the number of cases the commission and in turn its ordered chain deals with from the grim harvests of the old battlefields but, I suspect the number of cases has somewhat rocketed in the past ten years or so. This increase must be due to dedicated amateur and independent researchers and their access to this ever increasing online archival material.

Exactly. 

The response to my two cases was something like... "The original grave recovery team didn't come to the same conclusion, we don't why, but they knew more than you, so we shouldn't question their decision."

I was quite disappointed with that response from David Avery at CWGC.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan24 said:

Exactly. 

The response to my two cases was something like... "The original grave recovery team didn't come to the same conclusion, we don't why, but they knew more than you, so we shouldn't question their decision."

I was quite disappointed with that response from David Avery at CWGC.  

 

I’ve had something similar, in the past.   
 

On another case, it does some strange, that when you present them with a case, that had a rank, regiment, two sets of medal ribbons that they could not match it to someone in the 1920’s, when the remains were found

but 100 years later, they can easily agree there is clearly only 1 candidate, that can be matched. 
 

they had books to work through, service papers etc which could take weeks, even months to look through.  But we have the internet, as long it’s on the internet, we have access to multiple records within seconds. 
 

All you have to do, is look at the cases of John Kipling, Fergus Bow-Lyons and even Wilfred Owen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan24 said:

The response to my two cases was something like... "The original grave recovery team didn't come to the same conclusion, we don't why, but they knew more than you, so we shouldn't question their decision."

Even when that decision can be proved to be wrong today? 
The case report I recently submitted questions such validity of an identification made during 1925. The information that proves they were wrong in their identification was without any doubt whatsoever available then as it still is today... it was clearly never consulted by an IWGC investigation. I can offer absolutely no reason why this vital piece of evidence was never examined, in my opinion and that of others, it offers irrefutable proof to a true identity.

I can understand the IWGC wanted as much closure as possible for grieving families. The timing of many of these mistakes coincides with the final verifications of many cemeteries and memorials to the missing.

There is a detailed contemporary IWGC investigation report within the CWGC archives. This report is illuminating in many areas, in particular how easily the IWGC at the time were willing to accept identification. It was the family that refused to believe and so the case dragged on for several more years. Eventually the body would be found and positively identified... not by the IWGC.

I believe we have the right to question historical investigations that are blatantly wrong even when it may remove a name from a headstone and offer no alternative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...