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

Remembered Today:

CWGC News; The Identification of the Unknown Fallen


jaykayu

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PRC said:

The grim reality is that I suspect a lot of their workload is caused by individuals chasing previous enquiries,

Good point when considered in conjunction with your next point

1 hour ago, PRC said:

Everytime I buy a death certificate I have to give it serious consideration on my income level - so if actually the CWGC were to turn round and say thoses cases were accepted or rejected it would really help me.

... or those already in the system as 'pending'/under investigation

My cash is in limited supply too.  Before buying a DC I always check/ask CWGC if a case hasn't been submitted previously - and ask for any outcome generated. 

Generating 'unnecessary' work for CWGC I'm afraid - if only they made more such info publicly available.

4 hours ago, dickaren said:

Another annoying thing (for me) about CWGC is they do not regularly update the list of ID and mis ID cases, the last time being June 2021.

Which is where the likes this sort of info made publicly available and being kept up to date would really help CWGC - and could save some of their cash too

1 hour ago, PRC said:

If the CWGC don't have such a tracking system in this day and age I would be very surprised. The system could be automated to generate reports as needed - probably daily, and auto-feed the CWGC website. One for non-comms, one for identifications \ mis-identifications and we'd all be a lot happier. If that system told me that each of the seven cases I'd submitted was with the JCCC since xx/xx/xx it would still be a massive advance. A short description of next steps would be brilliant - specialist input on medical record \ retrieval of specific documentation would seem good reasons for it not moving on, and a date of follow-up.

Again the point is made.

1 hour ago, PRC said:

There is a internal business case here begging to be written, showing how the commission can deliver more for less.

1 hour ago, PRC said:

however struggling to see why these sorts of ethos and communication changes shouldn't be either cost neutral or actually generate a saving.

Quite! - and would likely be so much better for all parties.

= If only we could get CWGC to be more transparent/communicate more effectively so as to better frame/explain their process and decisions then they would likely help themselves as well.

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a current civil servant, one of my previous rolls was an Appeals Officer. 
 

the minimum number of cases I had to look at each day was 3.  So basically 2 hours for each case, from picking it up, looking at it, making the decision, writing up the report, the letter to the customer and presenting the case to the senior appeals officer before actually putting the letter into the postal system.  
 

some were clean cut and could be opened and closed the same day but others we had send out for further information 

So everything I did, had to be recorded and 

I do feel that the CWGC are lacking in the human touch in these cases.  
they look at a case presented to them, then pass it on to th NAM but they do not tell the researcher they have done so and then the NAM to the JCCC 

sometimes if there has been more then 1 researcher the JCCC will only tell the researcher who submitted there case first 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2022 at 17:36, PRC said:

So on the basis of speaking truth unto power, is this something perhaps the IFCP could take up? How close are your ties organisationally to the CWGC?

That's really a question for Terry. I do know that he has some level of communication with the higher ups there, but also that he has his own frustrations with them. I suspect he won't have the kind of influence you may be hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

I suspect he won't have the kind of influence you may be hoping for.

I doubt if there is anyone on the forum who has "influence" so that wasn't what I was looking for. It's more a question of whether anyone at IFCP has had a chance to glimpse behind the curtain to see who the movers and shakers are, and what motivates them. Having worked in the civil service I've seen senior managers who have been totally unmoved by the greatest injustices inflicted by the system, but will run around like headless chickens and lose bowel continence when an MP's letter lands on their desk with the equivalent of a pensioner constituent need extra money to feed her cat or because their carpets don't match their curtains. (And yes, saw both of them and had to stand up to demands that I get creative with the law to make the problem go away -  probably why none of my acting promotions ever got made permanent!)

At the moment the likes of @Matlock1418, myself and others, (and probably you!) are trying to deal with a grey, faceless blob with no idea of what makes it tick and what it would need to make it jump out of it's current rut when it comes to communication. Any insight, even if it can't name names on open forum, would still be an improvement, and if there is an existing private \ backdoor way in to CWGC that any organisation has and were open to sharing it for just this one issue, then that would be better still. In my opinion it would be a win \ win for all - but fully accept that others may differ over any proposed solution or not even see that there is a problem at all.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PRC said:

I doubt if there is anyone on the forum who has "influence" so that wasn't what I was looking for. It's more a question of whether anyone at IFCP has had a chance to glimpse behind the curtain to see who the movers and shakers are, and what motivates them.

Again, that would probably be Terry. Any communication I've had with CWGC has only been with regard to my own enquiries, same as the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The problem sometimes is that some researchers seem to be really putting themselves "in the market". This (Dutch language) article makes clear what I mean: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/10/18/jonge-student-identificeerde-al-negen-onbekende-soldaten-uit-de/

Although I agree that some form of acknowledgement is appropriate for those who helped in the identification, I think this kind of press attention whereby there is way more attention for the researcher than for the actual soldier, is not really my taste. There's a real danger in this evolution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AOK4 said:

The problem sometimes is that some researchers seem to be really putting themselves "in the market". This (Dutch language) article makes clear what I mean: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/10/18/jonge-student-identificeerde-al-negen-onbekende-soldaten-uit-de/

Although I agree that some form of acknowledgement is appropriate for those who helped in the identification, I think this kind of press attention whereby there is way more attention for the researcher than for the actual soldier, is not really my taste. There's a real danger in this evolution.

Very pleased Cpl Herbert PEARCE, 11151, Worcestershire Regiment https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/1636434/herbert-pearce has been identified but, as you indicate, a shame so little about him in the articles and unfortunate so much about the chap who brought to the attention of CWGC et al.

Fair play and well done etc. - but really, did you need so much ink young sir?

Much I think due to modern media tastes but, as you alluded by your post, an evolution that may need to be best avoided or at least toned down.

I wouldn't/don't want to be personally named for those cases I have brought for commemoration - but would like CWGC et al to make more acknowledgement of the many 'unnamed' person(s) who got them on the right track(s) in the first place, rather than them seeming to hog most of the credit for themselves.

M

Edited by Matlock1418
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/09/2022 at 18:21, jaykayu said:

Released on CWGC website 27 September 2022

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNKNOWN FALLEN

recov-and-reded-4.jpg?rmode=max&width=10

 

At the end of the two World Wars, extensive efforts were made by both the military authorities and the CWGC to identify the last resting place of those who were listed as ‘Missing’. 

Despite these efforts, many graves in the care of CWGC could not be fully identified at the time. However, as further information has come to light over the years, and through the diligence of researchers, the public, families, the CWGC, national defence authorities, and relevant agencies, it has occasionally been possible to name some of those whose graves were previously marked as ‘Known Unto God’.

The decision to identify an individual is made by the national defence authority. The process of identification requires a high level of evidence and in the first instance, this evidence is submitted to the CWGC and is thoroughly reviewed following a robust and transparent research methodology. It is then forwarded to the national defence authority who carry out their investigation to locate evidence, interpret data and ensure all proposals are considered thoroughly. This collaborative investigation process ensures that the outcomes are reliable and consistent.

When identification can be confirmed, and where direct descendants can be traced, the national defence authority officially informs the family. It is important that it is the national defence authority who informs the family, as speculative identification can cause considerable distress to families if proved incorrect. The national defence authority will write to the original submitter(s) of the evidence informing them of the outcome of the investigation, and a public announcement is made.

The CWGC and the national defence authorities make every effort to acknowledge the efforts of everyone concerned with an identification. Where consent is forthcoming and data protection regulations and national privacy laws permit (and these will vary depending on the country), we will name the individual(s) who submitted the case on the CWGC website. Should a Rededication Ceremony take place, they may be invited by the national defence authority and be publicly recognised within the service.

There are many people who provide the catalyst for these investigations. Some may have submitted identical or opposing cases for the same grave and in other cases a more limited submission may include the crucial evidence. Collectively, CWGC and national defence authorities will endeavour to ensure that all who wish to be, or can be named, are recognised.

Regardless of the pathway and the researchers or agencies who may contribute to an identification, the most important acknowledgement must go to the service member, their sacrifice, their units, and their family. All those involved should be rightly proud of their contributions, even if not everyone can be acknowledged in all communications.

https://www.cwgc.org/our-work/news/the-identification-of-the-unknown-fallen/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very interesting that CWGC are taking the time in the above piece to state that they and the national defence authority of an identified soldier e.g. MOD or a Commonwealth defence force, 'make every effort to acknowledge the efforts of everyone concerned with an identification' e.g. researchers, subject to consent and local data protection laws etc. And that these researchers may be invited to the rededication ceremony. 

I think they must have been under some pressure to do so because of 1) not acknowledging the work of individual unpaid researchers who first submitted cases in the past, and 2) often then claiming they did this research themselves (e.g. see this in topic).  They've clearly been feeling the heat from somewhere!  However, in the paragraph they put in bold, they then clumsily, patronisingly and politically (my opinion) try and move the attention on from criticism of them to prioritising the acknowledgement of the soldier and family. 

 

There are 3 rededication ceremonies today in Belgium 

Wednesday 19 October

Dadizeele New British Cemetery

10.15am; Rededication service for Second Lieutenant (2Lt) Herbert Ernest Martin of the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).

Perth Cemetery (China Wall), Belgium

11.30am; Rededication service for Private (Pte) Thomas Parry of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers.

Ypres Reservoir Cemetery, Belgium

2.30pm; Rededication service for Corporal (Cpl) Gilbert Willcocks of the Army Service Corps.

I wonder if the CWGC has asked they original researchers if they wouldn’t mind there names being put in their own press releases or on there website about today ceremonies. 
 

There are many stories, why the researchers do what they do or how they come across a particular grave, which they could give a name. 
 

from walking in the cemeteries, looking at a particular battalion, regiment, battlefield etc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the cwgc has gone back on there word already

20 OCTOBER 2022

REDEDICATION CEREMONIES FOR TWO GREAT WAR SOLDIERS AT VICHTE MILITARY CEMETERY, BELGIUM

reded18-19oct-1.jpg?rmode=max&width=1000

 

The final resting place of Private David Christie Graham, S/25903, Black Watch (Royal Highlanders) and Second Lieutenant Frank Wood, 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers killed in World War One have been identified and now been honoured in Services of Rededication at their graves in CWGC Vichte Military Cemetery, Belgium on 18 October 2022.

The services were organised by the MOD’s Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC), also known as the ‘MOD War Detectives’. The services were conducted by The Reverend Andy Nicolls, CF. Both soldiers were previously commemorated on the CWGC Tyne Cot Memorial.

The rededications of Pte. Graham and 2Lt Wood were two of six happening around Ypres, Belgium over the 18 and 19 October for soldiers lost in World War One with each ceremony attended by family members and representatives from the current day equivalents of these casualties’ regiments (Royal Fusiliers, the Mercian Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps and the Royal Regiment of Scotland).

Louise Dorr, MOD JCCC case worker said:
“Our thanks go to several of our regular researchers, who have investigated these six graves and been able to prove who is buried in each of them. Thanks to their efforts we have been able to confirm their findings and return these soldiers’ names to them. I’m so honoured to have been able to be here to rededicate their final resting places.”

Pte. Graham and 2Lt Wood's headstones were replaced by the CWGC as part of the rededication. 

Director for the Central and Southern European Area at the CWGC, Geert Bekaert, said: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Matlock

Thank you for posting the article which highlights the research of Michael Vanmarcke. It would have been appropriate if he had told the truth regarding the case of Corporal Herbert Pearce.

I presented this case to the CWGC in December 2015. The following year the CWGC contacted me to say that they supported my evidence and that the report had been sent to the JCCC. In 2017 I received an email from this department informing me that my case had been rejected on the grounds that they could not exclude the possibility that this grave was that of an unknown British prisoner of war. In 2018 I received an email from David Avery requesting that I resubmit my original report to the CWGC as another individual had sent in a near identical report and that he wished to resubmit the case to the JCCC. 

One of the many issues that I have with this research is that the difference between a case being approved or rejected can be simply down to which of the " War Detectives " has viewed the evidence. I have had the same issue with the cases of Second Lieutenant Frank Wood and Second Lieutenant Herbert Martin. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, micks said:

Matlock

Thank you for posting the article which highlights the research of Michael Vanmarcke. It would have been appropriate if he had told the truth regarding the case of Corporal Herbert Pearce.

I presented this case to the CWGC in December 2015. The following year the CWGC contacted me to say that they supported my evidence and that the report had been sent to the JCCC. In 2017 I received an email from this department informing me that my case had been rejected on the grounds that they could not exclude the possibility that this grave was that of an unknown British prisoner of war. In 2018 I received an email from David Avery requesting that I resubmit my original report to the CWGC as another individual had sent in a near identical report and that he wished to resubmit the case to the JCCC. 

One of the many issues that I have with this research is that the difference between a case being approved or rejected can be simply down to which of the " War Detectives " has viewed the evidence. I have had the same issue with the cases of Second Lieutenant Frank Wood and Second Lieutenant Herbert Martin. 

 

 

Some where else on this forum, but I can’t find it 

the other problem with the JCCC is that they sometimes only tell the first person who submitted a case.  
 

as someone had submitted case and only found it had been accepted by the JCCC when photos of the rededication service had appeared on the war detectives Facebook page 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, micks said:

One of the many issues that I have with this research is that the difference between a case being approved or rejected can be simply down to which of the " War Detectives " has viewed the evidence. I have had the same issue with the cases of Second Lieutenant Frank Wood and Second Lieutenant Herbert Martin. 

The approval of a case is done by several members of JCCC in an adjudication session, not by a single person. But I am not sure if that was also the case back then.

My original case of Second Lieutenant Frank Wood was also rejected in 2017. It took 2 years to collect more evidence and in 2019 a new report was submitted, this was then approved in August this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, LDT006 said:

The approval of a case is done by several members of JCCC in an adjudication session, not by a single person. But I am not sure if that was also the case back then.

My original case of Second Lieutenant Frank Wood was also rejected in 2017. It took 2 years to collect more evidence and in 2019 a new report was submitted, this was then approved in August this year.

My understanding is that 1 person will look at the case and will make the decision and take it to their line manager who May agree or not agree

then it is taken to a board, which look at a number of cases 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, micks said:

Matlock

Thank you for posting the article which highlights the research of Michael Vanmarcke. It would have been appropriate if he had told the truth regarding the case of Corporal Herbert Pearce.

Actually it was @AOK4 who originally posted but your subsequent post and others found here do seem to highlght a consistently perceived problem from our perspective.

M

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...