Now that Ireland is as infested with various Christ-haters, leftists and Islamists as the rest of the free world no thanks to the EU's social-engineering immigration rules, these ugly and distorted stories have been dug up to make the rounds. Wake up to the reality that you are being manipulated.
I did see that. And that's good to know.
However, when it was being discussed, everyone thought it was a septic tank and was discussing it from that perspective, which makes it just as reprehensible because it's the justifying it when they thought it was.
This particular story (Tuam) was NOT something just "dug up" (ironical choice of words) to inflict harm on the Catholic church in Ireland but was recent enough that a long-overdue investigation had to be started after so many outcries from regular Irish citizens and international human rights groups forced it when the story came out. Once the outcry over the story settled down and media distortions and inaccuracies were filtered out, the only manipulation going on at this point is directed towards anyone who would DARE even discuss the story by some who seem unable to tolerate criticism directed at their church, no matter how many facts are established in the end. We shouldn't forget that recent scandals have already been uncovered over clerical sex abuse by Irish priests and bishops in schools and churches - something that was covered up and swept under the rug by higher ups for a long time - so it is not unexpected that the pump was already primed for further exposure of additional negative news involving the Catholic church in Ireland. This story did not happen in a vacuum and it is disingenuous to chalk it all up to bigotry that it was published in the first place. Air and light are the best ways to resolve human failings, pretending nothing bad ever happens is not how to correct them.
Established?
So you are saying a probability has been established? It's more like a possibility, for those structures were not exactly common, and there would remain some question as to when the structure was installed.
I've seen the primary info that has so far been available, and that's all it is. A possibility.
The local researcher Corless is herself Catholic -- I think.
She never said that the "septic tank" aspect had been proven, but that according to the information she had, it did fit the evidence as to strong possibility, for old maps do indicate there was a septic tank somewhere near there in past times...
But--- it could have been a burial vault, and the old disused septic tank some yards away, for all we know, so far...
But who put the burial vault in, if there was one there?
It likely was not there during the "work house" era of the facility, or else the other bodies which HAVE BEEN exhumed would have been placed within it, instead of being buried more conventionally.
I do not recall the exact year these I speak of were discovered, but it may have been as recently as 2012. Did you know about those?
The Northerly ans West side of the property was being redeveloped. Houses and streets ---- which included mechanized earthwork. They found a body or two accidentally, then some sort of official professional archeologist was brought in to do some more excavation. They found a few more. less than a dozen in all(?) adult corpses which had been surface buried, four or five feet deep. No coffins, just wrapped in blankets, but buried in orderly fashion.
Please pardon this additional note -- but that allegation also came from ONE source, and has been for the most part refuted, for the man says otherwise in other interviews....
There was one single uncorroborated "story" where a single writer claims that he interviewed this same witness -- and got "only twenty or thirty" is pretty thin.
In a later interview with the man who opened up the site in '72 (I listened to a recording) he said his friend (who was 14 years old at the time) had gone into the structure (whatever it was) and that it was 8 or 9 feet deep and about twenty feet square, and that it was full of bones heaped in a pile, and there being very many -- though he did not say exactly how much, but if memory serves, the "20 or so" reported in the one article, was well enough refuted, as far as I could tell.
In that interview, he also mentioned seeing cloth or rags though (as in remains of burial shrouds, it is assumed) which does differ from previous reporting which had left readers picturing the deceased infants being put into this structure (whatever it really is) totally naked.
Other anecdotal witnesses claim to have seen small cloth-wrapped bundles, presumed to be bodies of infants having been lowered into the ground by several nuns, and a 'workman" of sorts, on one occasion.
Those together indicate well enough for me to assume the bodies were wrapped in cloth -- which is "decent" burial custom, and does indeed refute one of the original erroneous bits of info.
As to the number of infant bodies alleged to have been seen by the witness who opened the site in the 70's, I saw that one item which claimed "only 20 or so" in it's original form, and again, it is a single article which is in conflict with other available information, coming more directly from this same witness.
That aspect is what prompted me to write this addendum to the last note of discussion.
Thank you for your patience. I hope..