31 replies to this topic

[Tyrim]

The remains of 15 British WWI Soldiers have been found at Beaucamps Ligny.  Their uniforms identify them as being from the York & Lancaster Regiment.   The names of the men from that regiment who were lost in that area, at that time are know.  

It should be a simple matter to identify these Soldiers through their DNA and reinter them with their name on their tombstone.  While this has been done in a few cases for British Soldiers and in more than a few for Australian Soldiers current procedures do no require that such testing be performed.  Without DNA identification these men are certain to be consigned to Unknown graves.  

Members of the forum do not want to lose these Soldiers again.  A campaign has begun to contact Members of Parliament and the media to get backing for changing the identification process to include DNA testing for all remains that are found.

This is something everybody can help with.

Full information is on this thread

http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=149216

[corisande]

Quote

It should be a simple matter to identify these Soldiers through their DNA

I am a bit lost on this. I probably understand DNA better than most.

To identify remains, you need to compare two lots of DNA, the bones that have been recovered, and a living descendant (male).

What I am unclear on is this.

1.If I had a relative known to be "unknown", could I go to MOD (or whoever) and ask for a DNA test on my DNA, so that if bones were discovered in future, they would be check against my DNA automatically.

2. Do MOD (or whoever) automatically take and database DNA of bones recovered.If not, why not? Cost? No legal obligation?

Is therefore what you are asking, is that MOD are legally obliged to database all remains found for DNA?

[Tyrim]

corisande,

Excellent questions.  I would refer you to the main thread where there has been some, although limited, discussion of your concerns.

I think the general thrust there is to deal with the present opportunity, i.e. a limited population from a know source where precise identification is likely to be successful.  It could also be a good test to determine the procedures that would be required when identifying future remains.  

Once these Soldiers' are reinterred a wonderful opportunity to identify them will be gone forever so there is pressure to do something now.

The Main thread is at:

http://1914-1918.inv...pic=149216&st=0

[corisande]

Quote

I think the general thrust there is to deal with the present opportunity, i.e. a limited population from a know source where precise identification is likely to be successful. It could also be a good test to determine the procedures that would be required when identifying future remains.  

Your main thread there is not about the science of DNA testing, its practicalities or its costs. It is about sending letters to MPs about these limited number of remains. You put this thread here which is presumably to widen the debate.

My point is that if the law made DNA testing obligatory on the authorities, then a DNA bank would be built up. The cost and effort for a limited number is not really "cost effective". The cost of a letter to an MP (them answering it, getting replies from Gov Ministers, etc) is roughly the same as 1 DNA test. For 50 letters you could get the whole testing done.

These remains are not a "special case", but get attention because there is a group. In the same way that a coach crash with 50 fatalities gets more attention than a car crash with one death. The one skeleton dug up next week is, to me, just as important to identify as the group.

But the way of dealing with it, needs to be a system. Set up a DNA bank, and set up a DNA testing procedure for people who could prove they had dead relatives in France in WW1.

There are all sorts of other practical problems - the bones are in France, therefore outside the jurisdiction of UK law (I assume). So you have to get co-operation of French Government. You need to agree what markers are tested - the more DNA markers tested the more expensive each test. If you limit the markers to, for example male markers, it would be a lot cheaper, but more difficult to track the male line to living males.

So do you have the figures for a DNA test on a set of bones, and the cost of the different DNA tests on living people to make matches. You need those costs if you are to get anything done. In the end, I am afraid, it will come down to "funding". And if you limit your campaign to just this group, then he decision making process of politicians is so long that the bones will be re-interred before anyone agrees. They will just kick this into the long grass.

Then next big find of unknown bones, same letter writing will occur.

I am not knocking your efforts here, they are commendable. But I honestly believe there is much more to this than this one group.

[chrissparrow]

There are all sorts of other practical problems - the bones are in France, therefore outside the jurisdiction of UK law (I assume). So you have to get co-operation of French Government. You need to agree what markers are tested - the more DNA markers tested the more expensive each test. If you limit the markers to, for example male markers, it would be a lot cheaper, but more difficult to track the male line to living males.

Dear All,
I believe the form is that the bodies are reported to the local police and when they are satisfied that they died in the war they are handed over to the CWGC. It is then their call on DNA tests, headstones etc. Should we, therefore, be petitioning them, not MPs?

Chris

[John Hartley]

chrissparrow, on 14 July 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

It is then their call on DNA tests,

I believe it would be the MoD's call, not CWGC (the Commission only has a responsibility to bury the bodies,not to identify them). And, therefore, lobbying of MPs would be the sensible route.

[Ken Lees]

Would it not be more sensible, in these financially difficult times for all organisations, to work towards a DNA sample being taken routinely in the case of any remains discovered? It would not be necessary to analyse the sample, but to store it until such time as DNA testing becomes cheaper and easier. Then, subject to the DNA being stored and preserved correctly (I know almost nothing about DNA), it might be possible in future to identify "unknowns" buried after a DNA sample had been taken and to subsequently change the headstone.

Ken

[seadog]

The excellent results at Pheasant Wood utilising DNA matching has set the precedent for the future. Any discoveries of fallen soldiers from the Great War MUST now be subject to similar investigative techniques under the auspices of the MOD. The Beaucamps-Ligny 15 are a case in point; there is no excuse for not applying the same level of effort that has been done with the Pheasant Wood finds to these 15 British Soldiers of 1914 found in France. To do any the less is not acceptable. I believe that DNA should henceforth be extracted where possible from ALL finds of soldiers remains for that is the least that we can do to give them the dignity of the chance of a name in their final resting place.

Norman

[Heid the Ba']

Tyrim, on 13 July 2010 - 04:13 PM, said:

Members of the forum do not want to lose these Soldiers again.  
http://1914-1918.inv...howtopic=149216

Do not presume to speak for me; some members of the forum may wish this, others may not.

As has been pointed out the costs of this are far higher than you seem to think, and allied to this are the legal issues of ownership and security of DNA databases for the indefinite future.

[David Faulder]

Heid the Ba, on 14 July 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

Do not presume to speak for me; some members of the forum may wish this, others may not.

As has been pointed out the costs of this are far higher than you seem to think, and allied to this are the legal issues of ownership and security of DNA databases for the indefinite future.

I'm not sure that I agree about the "indefinite future"; it depends how you go about it.

If remains are found and if a sample is obtainable then you can advertise for relatives of those missing from a similar place, date, and unit.  (Notice the big if.)  In many cases amateur genealogists may do some of the initial tracing - but would hopefully leave making contact with living relatives to the appropriate MOD agency (provided they made clear that they were willing to do this).

In some cases like Fromelles and Beaucamps-Ligney, the group of possible identities is restricted and this is relatively easy to manage and no long lasting DNA databases need be retained.

Problems will arise when remains are discovered with little to tie them to a date or a unit.  In these cases I guess a decision will be made as to the likelihood of achieving a match (there could be a massive number of potential relatives).  I would hope that such a decision making process could be reasonably transparent.

Where DNA records are kept, they only need to keep the records of recovered (and unidentified) remains.  If a potential relative's DNA does not match, "the record" could be returned (possibly in some form of bar coded type record*) to them - if another set of remains were then discovered they could re-submit the record.

* I realise that this might involve a huge amount of data, but I remember reading in the 1980s of an application whereby you could use an ordinary dot matrix printer to print an A4 sized bar-code as a means of backing up a substantial amount of data.  (I think it may have been in BYTE).

I think the main issue is the resolve of the authorities; they will be partly influenced by funding considerations, but also I suspect (like many bureaucracies) by wanting to avoid a phaff and to have a quiet life by just "sweeping things under the carpet".

David

[John Hartley]

Seems sensible to me that, as a DNA sample can be taken, then it should be taken (I'm assuming here that the cost of doing so is considered "reasonable").

It is not the taking of the sample that is likely to be a contentious issue, but what happens thereafter when there is a clamour for the state to pay for DNA matching with hundreds, potentially thousands, of folk who lost an ancestor "somewhere, sometime during the war" and reckon a newly discovered body might just be Great Great Uncle Fred.

[David Faulder]

John Hartley, on 14 July 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

>><< with hundreds, potentially thousands, of folk who lost an ancestor "somewhere, sometime during the war" and reckon a newly discovered body might just be Great Great Uncle Fred.

I have often wondered whether the MOD should keep a (voluntary) register of Next of Kin of the missing - then they could contact you if remains were discovered to see if you (or a relative) want to attempt a match.

Somewhat naively, when my father died, one of the places I informed was the MOD [Historic  Casualty and Deceased Estates Casework, Joint  Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)], giving them updated Next of Kin details for my Grandfather; they did not want to know!

David

[Tyrim]

Heid the Ba', wrote:  "Do not presume to speak for me; some members of the forum may wish this, others may not."


I did not presume to speak for the Forum, for you or for anyone else.  If you look again you'll find that I wrote, "Members of the forum..." I did not say, "The Members of the forum..." Nor did I say, "All Members..."   As it is unqualified would you not agree that a "Some" is implied?


corasande wrote "Your main thread there is not about the science of DNA testing, its practicalities or its costs. It is about sending letters to MPs about these limited number of remains. You put this thread here which is presumably to widen the debate."

I did not start the main thread.  After seeing it and thinking it a worthwhile thing to do, I put this one up to call attention to it.  

But you are right,  This is a complex subject and a thorough debate is appropriate.  It's not in my area of expertise but I look forward to following the arguments.

[seadog]

Consider this, a few years ago there was extensive industrial development in Belgium, near to the village of Boezinge which is close to Ypres and lies on the front lines 1914 – 1917. During these developments a total of 207 individual sets of soldier’s remains of all nations British.German and French were discovered.

The British accounted for 91 of this total and to the best of my knowledge only only ONE soldier was identified by the artefacts found with his remains so 90 were buried as “Known Unto God”. If the authorities deemed to use the facility of DNA matching then in my opinion many more soldiers would have been named and their relatives have a focal point for remembrance. I tell you this as an example of the MOD not using the available resources and techniques which must be open to serious question. There is still a web site relating to the finds in Flanders as below.

http://www.mausershooters.org/diggers/

Regards
Norman

[Heid the Ba']

Tyrim, on 14 July 2010 - 05:48 PM, said:

I did not presume to speak for the Forum, for you or for anyone else.  If you look again you'll find that I wrote, "Members of the forum..." I did not say, "The Members of the forum..." Nor did I say, "All Members..."   As it is unqualified would you not agree that a "Some" is implied?

At the risk of descending into pedantry, I can only go by what is written.  I could as easily imply "All" as imply "Some".  Thank you for the clarification.

[seadog]

Eh?

[Tyrim]

Sorry for the diversion, seadog, I think we're back on track again.

[seadog]

No problem, keep up the good work. I for one am 100% in favour of DNA samples being extracted from the "found" mortal remains of British WW1 Soldiers and where possible all efforts being undertaken to attempt a positive identification, nothing will sway me from this opinion least of all the cost of undertaking such investigations.

If we really want to see how another country values the sacrifice of its soldiers we need look no further than the USA who treat such investigations with the reverence and importance that they so rightly deserve. This is the least that we owe to those who died for this country.

Regards
Norman

[Jack Alexander]

I think the cost implications of using DNA to identify the remains of the Missing would be horrendous.

Due to the peculiarly thorough research that I've undertaken on one unit, the 16th Royal Scots, I am currently in contact with the families (including direct descendants) of a large majority (male and female)of the original members of the battalion.

16RS was effectively destroyed on 1 July 1916 in the fields between Becourt Wood and Contalmaison. The remains of most of the dead were concentrated (almost immediately) on the site we now know as Gordon Dump Cemetery, where there are still just over a thousand unidentified interments.

Imagine (for example)that we convince the authorities to test all the surviving 16RS relatives. We then have to open the graves of every 'unknown' soldier at Gordon Dump in order to extract bone material for testing. The ensuing publicity alerts the good folk of Newcastle, where the local newspaper mounts a campaign to find relatives of the Tyneside Irish. The same happens in Grimsby and Cambridge with the rest of 101 Brigade. The testing continues - indefinitely, or do we declare a time limit?

This would be a grisly business: it comes close to desecration of the graveyard. There is also the problem of contamination. I'm no scientist but we'd have to at least consider the possibility that badly damaged bodies buried side-by-side might have somehow become 'mixed up' at some stage.

Suppose, however, that beyond reasonable doubt we are successful in identifying a substantial number of previously unidentified men. It follows that they would be entitled to new headstones - and that the faces of the Royal Scots piers (and maybe the Northumberland Fusiliers, Lincolns and Suffolks, too)at Thiepval would  have to undergo substantial alteration. These are unaffordable costs and we are talking about only one cemetery.

Up and down the Western Front there are CWGC graveyards whose origins can be traced back to a particular unit - be it a battalion, a battery, a brigade, or a division. By concentrating their research effort on these units, local historians could conceivably present the government with hundreds of Gordon Dumps.

The desire to restore to the unknown the simple dignity of a name is commendable. Morally it stands beside the efforts of Fabian Ware to keep accurate records of the graves in the first place. In practical terms, however, it's too expensive. And maybe not just financially. If you start digging some of the smaller graveyards, would you not compromise their historical integrity to such an extent as to justify removal of the remains and reburial elsewhere? That's been suggested before - and for much less laudable reasons. And, again, I don't doubt there's some merit in creating the 'relatives' database (suggested above)and keeping it until DNA testing has become less expensive (and/or invasive). But who funds the database? Who keeps the material? And where?

I've thought about this more than most folk. Having studied all of the available records relating to 16RS and its members on 1 July and to the construction of Gordon Dump, I reckon I know the identity of at least two of the unknowns. I suspect they are in adjoining graves, close to one of their identified pals. One has living close family: the other less so (although a nephew could be found). I've always been conscious of two things: the fundamental integrity of the graves in which these men have lain for nearly a hundred years. I'm not sure I want to be the instrument of disturbance.

And precedent. How could CWGC allow me to indulge my narrow preoccupation with the men of McCrae's (no matter how sincere my motivation), when in the age of the internet it might open up a potential flood of families demanding the same rights?

[Kevin H]

I agree the 15 sets of remains should be DNA tested but a number of valid points are made here.

The fact is the Govt has said it intends to slash public spending including by on average 25%.  Given the Afghanistan campaign and emands for better equipment for the front line, this will mean jobs / resources being switched or cut from other MoD tasks. However much we may want it, does anyone really see the MoD spending / investing in this area,  I fear this is an area ripe for cutting.

KH

[David Faulder]

The post (two up) asks about disinterments as part of a massive project to identify the missing; this expands the scope of what I think has been the previous focus of this thread.  There are three main situations:

(1) Disturbing existing official graves would be highly controversial - I would certainly feel it was going too far.  

However what about the situation (2) where remains are discovered (as in ploughed up or otherwise unwittingly brought to the surface)?  Where remains are discovered there is a new opportunity to identify the remains at very little cost of disturbance (the taking of a sample from remains that are already in the open); I think this is an opportunity that should be taken.

The other situation (3) is where we become aware of bodies that are not in formal graves but in pits or unmarked burials, or possibly even just covered over by the effects of artillery fire or the movement of soil.  There is an argument for saying "let them continue to lie undisturbed", but formally mark the "graves".  In some cases these will be in inconvenient places and will need to be moved - analogous to the post war situation where exhumations and concentrations took place.  Again if bodies have to be moved, there is an opportunity for identification.

I would strongly argue for "taking opportunities" for identification but not for a wholesale exhumation of the Western Front.  I certainly would not want places like Gordon Dump to be disturbed.

 IMG_1858-1 (Custom).JPG   34.55K   0 downloads

David

[corisande]

I rather fear that, as always with politicians, they will go through the motions of appearing to help you "I have forwarded you letter to the relevant Minister"

But in the end will give you the brush off that is implied in this thread "The minister would like to help you in the case of these 15 men, but the government have to have a procedure that is fair too all remains found in the past, and might be found in the future. The government has therefore asked the CWGC to look into the possibilities of DNA testing of remains found in British battle-fields". And that is the last you will hear of it.

The only way it could work, would be if the government agreed in principle to bones being tested for DNA, and a charitable trust agreed to fund the operation of testing bones and descendants.

[Jack Alexander]

I agree completely, David.

However, once you establish a well-publicised precedent of routinely preserving DNA material from new discoveries, there will (I think) be pressure for a wider scheme to address the already buried Missing. The CWGC was founded on the principle of equal treatment for all, regardless of military rank or civilian station. At the moment, it's beginning to look as if lads who have lain undiscovered for a hundred years are receiving greater consideration than those 'Known Unto God' who have been waiting patiently since 1919.

On balance I think we should probably not test for DNA unless every missing soldier has the chance to benefit. The Fromelles discovery is not that different from Gordon Dump. GD (and other similar cemeteries) is just a more organised version of the original Fromelles burial. It took a substantial campaign to track down the Fromelles families. Many of the GD families are already available. I keep in touch with most of the folk that I traced and the subject of DNA is never far from the conversation when we talk about a missing father, grandfather or uncle. Interestingly (and it may be an age thing) about half of those I've spoken to have told me that they disapprove of the disturbance of a grave - even if it means that their relative might be identified after nearly a century. Those who are committed enough to care are content to see the name at Thiepval, which is (after all) little more than a giant headstone. For the moment I think I agree with them.

[chrissparrow]

Can anyone actually put a price on DNA testing?

Chris

[George Armstrong Custer]

I applaud Jack Alexander's post #19 as a valid alternate point of view to others which have been expressed here. I agree that opening the Pandora's Box of DNA in respect of Great War remains is not a wise use of funds when unprecedented cuts in every area of the State are being applied. Over and above that, I'm not convinced by the argument that just because we can do something automatically means we ought to. And hard though it may be to accept, the level of interest of members of this forum in the subject is not shared by the general populace - particularly if it were explained to them the potential on-going scale of the drain on public finances that could result from increasing demands from various Great War special interest groups for the DNA project to be ever extended.

If DNA ID-ing was available from 1918, then yes, there would have been a convincing argument for deploying it to give what is now called 'closure' to those most immediately affected by the deaths of these soldiers - ie wives, children, parents, siblings. But all parents and wives are themselves dead now, as are most children - those born in 1918 are now 92, and how many of today's 92-year-olds lost a father in 1918 whose remains are likely to be ID'd from DNA before they themselves die? And almost all children of dead Great War soldiers who were old enough to remember their fathers will now be dead. So why apply all this time, effort and public money to ID the great, great uncle or whatever of people who may have no more than a passing interest?  So they can be dragged to a newly inscribed gravestone by some History Channel documentary, whose presenter will attempt to cajole them into emoting for the cameras? Enough already - let the dead of 14-18 rest in peace and, where that applies, anonymity. The people to whom they really mattered as a part of their lives, and who literally 'remembered' them, are themselves dead too now.

George