Fromelles16: July 19th events

[ianw]

Thanks for that Matt. Interesting to see what will happen but the lining up of the relatives in Aus is interesting - and they would be a mighty disappointed group of people if the DNA work didn't now go ahead.

[Guest tafski]

There seem to be a lot of opinions being thrown around here but I have yet to see any member from the UK step up to the plate and state that they are going to assist Victoria in working out just who the UK soldiers might be!!!

Please ... instead of giving all the reasons why something can't be done try finding the reasons why it CAN be done ... the soldiers buried at Fromelles deserve our thanks not our personal opinions.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

Sandra

many have opinions and are entiltled to them on this forum. as for working out who the uk soldiers are i refer you to toms post the DNA profiles as he states a mass grave with that many souls in will surely be contaminated there fore i would believe DNA testing would not be 100% in identification, also has anybody taken into consideration the cost of carrying out such a large scale DNA testing project

just my thoughts

tafski

[Fedelmar]

Most definitely tafski ... every member has the right to voice an opinion ... but that is not the point I was making.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Mat McLachlan]

Now that I've thrown my two cents in, I might as well make it four...

I'm no DNA expert, but I did learn quite a bit during the making of the documentary about the Westhoek Five (the five Aussie soldiers uncovered in Belgium in 2006). I don't have the expertise to go into the whys and what-fors of the whole process, but I can share with you the basic outline of events with the Westhoek Five - the process bears many similarities to Fromelles (if they do indeed decide to DNA test).

The bodies were found in battlefield graves, in various states of deterioration. They were exhumed before DNA testing was even suggested, so there was an issue of contaminated samples from the beginning. The Belgian Institute of Criminology was well aware of this, so took the precautions to avoid DNA contamination that are a pretty standard part of criminal proceedings (this would make sense - the scientists who trace IDs using DNA sampling have to stand by their conclusions in court, so it would seem a pretty basic schoolboy error if they didn't have procedures in place to exclude foreign DNA from the samples). For example, they thoroughly scrubbed all the bones, broke them down and filed them to powder before they took the sample, took two samples from different parts of the bodies, etc.

When we interviewed them, the scientists were at pains to stress that the DNA evidence on its own wasn't enough to identify the soldiers. All it could provide was a likelihood of the modern and old DNA samples matching. The soldiers were only identified by a combination of historical research and DNA matching. This is pretty much the case at Fromelles. There is a historical paper trail of men likely to be buried in the pits, and if DNA comparisons with descendants indicate a high probability of a match, that will most likely be enough for the relevant authorities to declare a positive ID.

It is all speculation at this stage, but my discussions with the Army History Unit and the scientists who DNA tested the Westhoek Five suggest that there's nothing technical that would make DNA testing a problem at Fromelles (IMHO). The issues seem to be purely political - the UK's position that they don't DNA test remains, and the cost of carrying it out on such a large scale.

Having said that, both the UK and Aus governments seem to be following the line that we owe it to these men to give them a proper burial, so it would seem to me to be a PR nightmare if they dig them up and then don't DNA test them. It's just my opinion (as speculative as anyone else's) but I get the impression the governments are positioning for a future announcement that there will be DNA testing - the setting up of an official descendant's register being the most obvious clue.

Cheers,

Mat

[Fedelmar]

Thank you Matt ...

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Seadog]

Quote:

"the setting up of an official descendant's register being the most obvious clue."

Very interesting but am I missing something here, hasn’t a descendants register already been set up apparently for 40% of the supposed Australian remains. Eagerly awaiting official confirmation of proposed DNA testing or not.

Norman

[Fedelmar]

www.fromelles.net

I think that the family research being done by Tim and myself will most certainly be far greater than 40% additionally there are other factors to be taken into account such as skeletal defects prior to enlistment, height, dental records ... in my opinion, it would mean a process of elimination of the evidence.

I guess when the authorities are ready for us to know what they will and will not be doing in terms of identification they will tell us. I am not fussed either way on that matter. Meanwhile ... I will continue to research the Australian boys to compile their family histories to assist in identification. This includes adding documents and other information supplied to the AIF by the Germans via the Rad Cross.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Seadog]

Hi Sandra, not meaning to be difficult just trying to understand the current position. Post 497 from Tim states that 40% of the descendants of the 176 sets of remains thought to be buried at Pheasant Wood have been located. Therefore I understand that if DNA matching is undertaken by the authorities then 70 sets of remains could be potentially identified by this method. Is my understanding correct please?

Best Wishes

Norman

[Fedelmar]

Hello Norman ... that was probably the figure at that time (although Tim has the figures and not me I am clear across the other side of the country). As recently as yesterday I located two other families.

I'm not meaning to be difficult either I just prefer to remain open minded on the figures.

However having said that, knowing what I know of the large amount of work that I have done on this and similar research projects over the last 20 plus years I would say we stand a good chance of finding a sizeable percentage of the families of these Fromelles boys. (One of the reasons why I keep urging for the UK research).

Furthermore, I can guarantee that there is certainly 1 we will never be ably to identify and as recently as this morning it was 2. Tim and I had a long discussion about him this morning and nutted out a plan to research him in the UK (Tim has access to UK records that I don't) and after considerable effort on Tim's part we traced the family. All that remains is to find a descendant.

I did post somewhere a sample of the work we are undertaking so that people could see what it entails ... it may have been on another Fromelles thread.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Seadog]

Thanks again for the response Sandra, much appreciated.

Best Wishes

Norman

[green_acorn]

I thought it would be informative to get a more official position on the background and examinations conducted. I think paragraph five on the Regulations covering war dead is particularly pertinent in explaining why things sometimes take longer than we may like. This is from www.army.gov.au/ahu/ an article by the Head of the Australian Army History Unit, Mr Roger Lee:

Roger Lee, AHU Head, reports

In an unfortunate irony, the disastrous First World War Battle of Fromelles, fought near the small picturesque French village of that name, is now much better known to Australians than almost any other battle fought on the Western Front during that war. Thanks to the intense public and media interest in the story of the search for and discovery of about 170 of the missing from the battle, Fromelles now appears much better known than such militarily critical and successful battles as Pozieres, Mont St Quentin or even Polygon Wood. This is especially ironic for a nation that reputedly values success above all else, as Fromelles was a failure, and a particularly bloody failure.

Much has been written about the battle, some of it is reasonably good. The purpose of this brief article however, is to describe the treatment of the dead and hypothesise on how around 170 of our war dead could be 'misplaced'.

In 2003, a Victorian schoolteacher, Mr Lambis Englezos, approached Army with a theory. Having been drawn into the story of the battle of Fromelles, particularly the high number of dead buried as unknowns, by a visit to the battlefield site some years earlier, he had researched all he could find on the dead and the missing. His research led him to suspect that many of the missing were buried in eight pits on a site behind German lines, in a field just south of a wood known by the Germans as Pheasant Wood, about half a kilometre north east of the village of Fromelles.

Together with some dedicated colleagues and with the support of a wide range of military historians, Lambis asked Army to investigate the site.

Under the regulations that cover dealing with our war dead, speculative searching is expressly forbidden (and has been since the 1920s) unless there is compelling circumstantial evidence. Army formed an Expert Panel of eminent military historians to examine Lambis's evidence. The Panel met three times in all. The doubt about Lambis's case centred on two issues: had the site really been used as a burial site and if so, how had such a major burial site been missed in the post war battlefield clearance operation that saw more than 100,000 sets of remains recovered from scattered battlefield graves and re-interred in official war cemeteries? The evidence for the existence of the pits themselves was conclusive. British aerial reconnaissance photos of the area before and after the battle clearly show the area without pits just prior to the battle, with the pits just after the battle and with three of the pits still open at the end of the war.

The first time the Panel met the evidence was seen as strong but not sufficient to warrant an investigation. Undeterred, Lambis went away and dug up more information. The Panel had also tasked Army with seeking further information from German Archives. The evidence presented to the second meeting was sufficient to prompt the Committee to recommend Army undertake a non-invasive examination of the site, using advanced scientific methods such as ground penetrating radar. The survey, undertaken by an experienced team of battlefield archaeologists from the Glasgow University's Archaeology Research Department (GUARD), proved decisive in the process. Its findings demonstrated that the area had indeed been used as a burial site and, more importantly, suggested it had not been disturbed since the burial pits had been first filled in.

On the basis of this initial report, Army decided that sufficient evidence existed to justify a physical examination, including an excavation of the pits themselves. In view of GUARD's proven expertise from the initial survey and their proven experience working with the French Archaeological authorities on such investigations, Army asked GUARD to undertake the next stage to prove conclusively, one way or another, whether remains were in fact present at the Pheasant Wood site.

Planning originally was for the investigation to begin on 1 April 2008, but the northern winter had other ideas and the ground was still too sodden to enable machinery and people to access the site. Work was delayed until 23 May to enable the ground to dry out. GUARD assembled an impressive team to undertake the excavation, including experienced and highly credentialed forensic anthropologists, archaeological survey experts, battlefield archaeologists, a soil scientist and an osteologist. Their task was disarmingly simple: to determine whether remains were present, to advise on the likely total number of remains present on the site and to advise, if possible, on the possibility of extracting DNA to aid in any scientifically based identification process ...

See the next instalment for a description of the excavation.

When I see the next instalment I will post it,

cheers,

Chris H

[Fedelmar]

You can listen to Major General Mike O'Brien's lecture on the excavation here:

http://www.shrine.org.au/content.asp?Document_ID=1929

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[tripit]

www.fromelles.net

I think that the family research being done by Tim and myself will most certainly be far greater than 40% additionally there are other factors to be taken into account such as skeletal defects prior to enlistment, height, dental records ... in my opinion, it would mean a process of elimination of the evidence.

I guess when the authorities are ready for us to know what they will and will not be doing in terms of identification they will tell us. I am not fussed either way on that matter. Meanwhile ... I will continue to research the Australian boys to compile their family histories to assist in identification. This includes adding documents and other information supplied to the AIF by the Germans via the Rad Cross.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

hi Sandra

I have been trying to find out if quick lime has been used in the buring of the men in Fromells , if used would this make any change`s to the D N A testing

if and when carried out. ??

When you go home tell them of us and say" For your tomorrom we gave our today. "

cossack

[Fedelmar]

Cossak ... in my previous post I listed a website that has a lecture by Major General Mike O'Brien. You can listen to it and I do know he discusses the issue of the use of quicklime.

If you can't see the link previously here it is again.

http://www.shrine.org.au/content.asp?Document_ID=1929

The one you want to be listening to is titled: The Investigative Dig at Pheasant Wood Fromelles. Just click on that line and it will take you direct to the audio file.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Ozzie]

Sandra, It doesn't appear to be there. Do you have a more direct link to it please.

Cheers

Kim

[Fedelmar]

What a blob ... it was there this morning as I listened to part of it ... all of the Fromelles ones have been taken down and a new lot put up.

Apologies all.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

PS:

I contacted the Shrine and asked if it was possible to put it up again ... fingers crossed.

[tripit]

Sandra, It doesn't appear to be there. Do you have a more direct link to it please.

Cheers

Kim

sandra .

sorry not able to find the lecture on the info given . tried the N I B. audio section

think have found it on Aussie . libray thank you , now have to wait for down load

excuse any spelling errors waitig for new jey board.

We you go home tell them of us and say

" for your tomorrow we gave our today"

cossack

[tripit]

What a blob ... it was there this morning as I listened to part of it ... all of the Fromelles ones have been taken down and a new lot put up.

Apologies all.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

PS:

I contacted the Shrine and asked if it was possible to put it up again ... fingers crossed.

hi Sandra not able to find the lecture on the info given ,

R N I B. audio service have fount it for me on the Australian audio info for the blind

thank you for the help .

We you go home tell the of us.

"for your tomorrow we gave our today"

cossack

[Fedelmar]

Wonderful Cossack ... do hope you enjot it

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Andrew P]

For those that missed the thread in the Soldiers section, Pte George Storey of the 51st Battalion AIF has been identified through the use of DNA.

He was one of the 5 bodies found last year and now 3 have been identified.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...mp;#entry982250

[ianw]

Yes, Andrew, that's a 60% success rate for DNA ID allied with solid historical research. That's a long way from the nil % success rate suggested by some. Can it be denied to the Fromelles Four Hundred?

[IanA]

Can it be denied to the Fromelles Four Hundred?

A Y chromosome DNA analysis costs in the region of $200 American. If there are 400 bodies and only one possible matching relative, we are looking at a cost of $160,000 before costing the painstaking business of trying to match up disarticulated bones in a pit. It seems a formidable undertaking.

[ianw]

I wouldn't disagree that this is a formidable undertaking - but , in Governmental terms, the DNA costs would be trifling. In the UK , we take the DNA profile of even petty criminals and have millions on record, so it's not that we don't have the infrastructure in place.

[truthergw]

This whole business is fraught with problems. A facet which may not even be thought of by one commentator is of vital importance to another and so we inadvertantly upset others, as interested and well meaning as ourselves. I cannot see why it is so important that each body be interred in his own grave with his name on the stone. I realise it is important to others but cannot understand why. We have exhumed or partly exhumed these bodies and I feel now that we have, we must re-inter them. My personal preference would have been for a mass grave so that their remains can continue to lie close by their comrades in arms. As they have done for the past 90 years. If they are to be given separate headstones so be it but I'll bet my bottom dollar that many will remain unidentified. We know who is in the pits and their names are recorded and displayed in proud commemoration for all to see. They are not missing, they are here.

[ianw]

Truthergw - I don't want to revisit this fundamental question. I don't feel qualified to. Some of the relatives have expressed themselves. I would just say that in general terms, the British did not do mass graves. After due consideration, I see no reason to go against this, though I accept that you have an arguable point.

If you want to do DNA testing, you have to exhume the remains and if you exhume the remains, it would suggest that you should do the DNA testing. The empirical evidence from the DNA ID's achieved for the other Australian soldiers suggests that there is a reasonable chance of ID success - but of course many will indeed remain unidentified. Personally, I would rate a hit rate for IDs of say 10% to 20% a strong success but I can see how someone else could view it as a failure and not worth the intrusion. As you say, some folk will be unhappy whatever the decision.