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..