Lancaster ED427 found

More on the Newark connection to the ED427 story can be found here http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Advertiser-appeal-traces-wartime-airmans-rel

Well my Pa ‘could’ have been in that hole, was RAF groundcrew so not likely (although he did get to fly fairly frequently on test.

Post War he took up gliding and powered. He nearly killed himself on various occasions.

So if it were his bones being shown I would not be in the slightest bit concerned. If DNA could identify them, my Sisters and I would be delighted to get them back. They are only the bones, not the man.

And I far rather see the bones than be in the position that the relatives must be in the case (on here) of a wreck where no remains were found. Despite the rather obvious facts.

Slight thread creep, but I wrote about this case two or three years ago. May be of interest. Its a bit wordy, but here it is:

LIBERATOR KL654

In June 2011 the Ministry of Defence Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre were asked by the author about news and internet reports relating to the discovery of a RAF B-24 Liberator in the Far East, KL564. Their response was brief, and summarised the position at the time of going to print with this book:

“In October 2010, the Ministry of Defence was provided with a report and photographs regarding Liberator KL654, detailing the results of a privately funded expedition that took place the previous year (August 2009) to the crash site. This explained that some 100 bone fragments had been recovered and were now held by the Malaysian authorities. After liaison with officials in Malaysia and the families of the crew members, through their representative, staff at the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre have agreed that the bones are the remains of the crew of this aircraft. Discussions are ongoing with the families representative over their wishes regarding identification of individual crew members and the planning for a funeral service in Malaysia. This will hopefully take place either at the end of 2011 or in 2012.”
The back-story, of course, is rather more detailed than the information contained within that statement from the JCCC although it rather pointedly highlights the differences between the recovery and identification of British and Commonwealth casualties and those suffered by American forces. On the one hand, as in the case of Liberator KL654, we have a “privately funded expedition” to recover the entire crew of a British bomber laying in a far-away jungle whilst on the other we have the American government expending vast amounts of money and committing considerable resources to search for and recover their war dead. This is certainly not implied or intended as any criticism of the JCCC or its staff who work tirelessly to ensure that cases like those involving KL564 are brought to a satisfactory and dignified conclusion. However, it is impossible within a book of this nature not to present the distinct contrast between the position of the British and American governments with regards to missing casualties. In this context we already have seen the stated US position to leave no stone unturned in that nation’s quest to bring home the missing. On the other hand, the British position (set out in Appendix I) is entirely opposite in its approach. To a very large extent it is likely that this is all driven by economics and available resources, and it is very clear that the accessibility of defence funding and manpower to complete such a tasking is readily available to the American military. It is also the case that there is a political will and resolve on the part of the American government to give this undertaking such a high degree of prominence. In part, that might have been driven by the POW/MIA lobby and campaign in America to one way or another properly account for those service personnel missing in Vietnam and where questions hung for so many years as to whether the missing were actually dead or still held captive. To an extent, that lobby still exists and comes to the fore once again in the last (and militarily most recent) case examined in this book. Either way, the British official position tends to suggest that the reason for not pursuing their missing war dead is not financial but instead is both practical and ethical:
“It is no longer feasible or possible to methodically excavate all known crash sites/ battlefields using official resources. The MOD discourages the disturbance of crash sites and battlefields other than where necessary……”
Applying financial considerations when presenting the MOD’s case for not pro-actively taking up cases like Liberator KL564 would, perhaps, be viewed somewhat negatively by the British public – notwithstanding the financial climate of 2011 and the severe constraints placed upon military and public spending. It is easy to see that elements of the British media would have a field day if it were suggested that Britain could not afford to deal with its war dead and that those who paid with all they had were simply being left in “some foreign field” because a grateful nation couldn’t afford to anything other than abandon them. The MOD, it seems, are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to presenting its position in relation to missing casualties. Whilst the position set out by them is clear there does seem to be some ambiguity when comparing that stance with the recent and ongoing work with the World War 1 Fromelles battlefield casualties as well as the fact that the MOD are often quoted as stating they are pleased when long lost casualties are accounted for. For example, when Flt Lt Gabriel Ellis and Sgt William Reidy were found in the wreck of their Mosquito in The Wash during 2005 an MOD representative stated: “It is good that we are still finding bodies of servicemen sixty years later because it gives families closure after all these years.” To an extent, then, the apparent MOD position regarding Fromelles and the recent discovery of missing RAF aircrew might be viewed as being at odds with the official MOD and governmental position towards missing casualties as set out in the JCCC statement. At best, it is all the product of muddled thinking. That said, if there is any fault then it lies with the policy and certainly not with the JCCC staff in their dealings with such casualty situations as they arise. However, there is an inevitability that the laid down policy will sometimes spill over into controversy. Such is the case with Liberator KL564 and this is highlighted by the Malaya Historical Group who state: “Since 1945 the wreck has been reported to the British authorities on twenty separate occasions from 1949 to 2007 and on each of those occasions the British government have refused to acknowledge or offer to send investigators.”
In looking in detail at the story of KL 564 and the aftermath of her discovery the starting point has to be the official entry in the Operations Record Book for 356 Squadron. It reads:
“23 August 1945. Cocos Islands. Three aircraft successfully dropped in the briefed receptions. Aircraft “R” is missing but believed successful. The cause of this loss is not known.
Liberator VI
KL654 “R”
Fg Off Watts J S (Pilot)
Fg Off Mason E D (2nd Pilot)
Flt Sgt Blakey J (Flt Engr)
Fg Off Dover W K (Nav)
Flt Sgt Turner A (W/Op)
Fg Off Bromfield J T (A/Bmbr)
Flt Sgt Towell R A (Front A/G)
Flt Sgt Ross W (Rear A/G)
Aircraft took off at 10.30hrs.”
How or why Liberator KL654 crashed into the dense Malayan jungle on a ridge of Gunung Telapak Burok mountain is unknown, but what we do know is that it was taking part in an operation to drop two officers or agents in order for them to locate small groups of British and allied prisoners of war and to liberate them and assist in their journey home. Officially, the war against Japan had ended six days earlier and thus there is no reason to suppose that KL654’s loss was anything other than a tragic accident. That said, the crew on board were still very much victims of World War Two, albeit that the conflict had officially ended just under a week earlier. However, we do know that KL654 left the Cocos Islands, flew to Toborjoeng then on to Kuala Selangor, dropped her ‘supplies’ on the target area of Post Langkap in the jungle of Kuala Pilah, Negri Sembilian, and from that point on made no further contact although the crash position would seem to be thirty miles or so off-track from her intended route home..
Clearly, there has been much debate and controversy down the years about the wreck of this aircraft and her crew. Was it really KL654? And did her crew actually die on board or did they survive the crash and perish somewhere in the jungle? And should an official expedition be mounted to search for and recover these missing men? They are controversies that have embroiled individual researchers, enthusiasts, newspapers, veterans, the British authorities in Malaya and the MOD back home as well as the Malaya Historical Society. Ultimately, however, the answers have now been provided and clear evidence that this is KL654 has been found at the site. Nothing could be more conclusive than the RAF serial KL654 still painted faintly on the fuselage, along with a large letter “R” painted in red . Not only that, but scatterings of bones and personal effects like rings have told their own story. As we now know from the MOD, a privately funded expedition (it is understood by a military helicopter pilot and a retired police officer) have established that a large number of bones have been recovered and it has been accepted that this indeed is KL654 and her crew.
The final chapter in the story of this missing RAF Liberator is yet to be told or written, but it seems certain that relatives of the crew will now have the satisfaction of knowing that their kin are accounted for. Furthermore, the remains will ultimately be given the sanctity of burial in a CWGC plot, albeit the route to that conclusion has been long and tortuous. Had these airmen been American servicemen then it is certain they would have been brought home long ago.

At least they are being recovered, you want to read something that pee’ s me off, read

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/386099-bringing-home-crew-kl654.html

A Newark connection in this story http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Relatives-sought-as-airmans-remains-are-foun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206547/World-War-Two-Lancaster-bomber-crewmen-s-remains-discovered-German-field-69-years-crashed.html

For all it’s other faults, must admit the Mail is good on these sorts of story

The photos now on the site only show people handling a small cardbox box of remains.

Remember, Stars & Stripes staff members are largely civilian journalists, and they’d have looked at the story as something from a very long time ago. Not being a part of the aviation history movement, they’re not as sensitive as we might be under the circumstances. If they did offer up an offensive photo, blame the web editor or photo editor, not necessarily the journalist or photographer.

Having said that, I had a number or “run ins” with S&S staffers during my time in the UK and was largely very unimpressed.

I am pleased the images are gone. It may have something to do with the fact that I had a quiet word with my contact on ‘Stars & stripes’. If so, thank you Kevin!

Looks like the pictures were removed just as well..

Let’s not be too hard on them.

They found what they were looking for and more and were very pleased to have done so – nothing more natural than to record the moment.

On later reflection they might possibly have overstepped the mark, but it is patently out of thoughtlessness, not ghoulishness.

And without these guys there would be no prospect of a CWGC burial in the near future.

Moggy

Quite agree – this excavation appears to have been well researched and planned and they were prepared for what they found and dealt with it accordingly.

I do feel that perhaps we in the UK have a rather different viewpoint to those in many European countries though – I have been exploring WWI and WWII battlefields for many years and have met many others who do the same, both British and from other countries – and have probably seen more human remains lying in situ than most. I have always found, that apart from a very few individuals with other motives, that the overriding attitude towards such remains is great respect and understanding of the sacrifice made by those whose remains they are – whatever side they fought on.

However, in many European countries (& further afield) where the battles actually took place and such finds are relatively common, there is a practical need to deal with such remains on an almost daily basis, which perhaps leads to a little familiarity on the part of the finders and conversely a bit of misunderstanding by those who have never had to deal with such things?

I know the pilot’s brother very well. He flew with the RAF as well. The family has not known what happened to the aircraft until about 2 years ago. As far as I remember it was only the 2nd op for this crew.

As far as I’m concerned, bones should be treated the same whether they’ve been buried for 1,000 years or 5 years.

That’s never going to happen though. We should just be grateful for what
they have achieved so far. I’m sure they meant no disrespect.

As far as I’m concerned, bones should be treated the same whether they’ve been buried for 1,000 years or 5 years. I don’t see that time makes a difference. Granted, it may not be nice for close relatives to see them being posed with but that aside these things need recording.

Unlike a certain Royal’s body but that’s another thread on another forum.

No excuse for allowing human remains to be photographed, it is too recent, had they been roman then it is very much a different story. Personally I would’nt like the remains of my family member displayed on the web for all to see. The bigger picture though is these young men will be remembered at least.

Let’s not be too hard on them.

They found what they were looking for and more and were very pleased to have done so – nothing more natural than to record the moment.

On later reflection they might possibly have overstepped the mark, but it is patently out of thoughtlessness, not ghoulishness.

And without these guys there would be no prospect of a CWGC burial in the near future.

Moggy

My tuppence for what it is worth. I once did some medieval archaeology which included the recovery of human bone fragments. No-one was fazed by this, the bits just went in the tray with everything else. However, remains recovered from an event “in living memory” (or even a bit older) surely deserve more respect. In particular, photography of the remains is neither necessary nor in our culture appropriate. Perhaps people in the heat of the moment don’t think about what they are doing.

Good that these remains have been found and hopefully will be buried by CWGC. It means that the relatives will have closure and a wider audience will think of these gents for at least a moment. Besides it brings the episode to a younger generation.
Uneasy about pix tho

I’m all for them digging the wreck and recovering what they can and interring them properly, however the photos with human remains seem very wrong. After all, go up 383 from that Lanc’s serial number and the crash site and bones could be those of my great uncle…

Uneasy feelings seeing the bone pictures I mean how would you like it to see someone holding an arm bone of your deceased relative like that?

I agree with that.

RIP to Flying Officer Bone and his crew, and all the rest of 49 Sqn. and 5 Group who never made it back.

There’s some info (and a picture) here.

http://www.bomberhistory.co.uk/49squadron/Main%20Menu.html

A.

In my opinion where archaeology dug human remains are found that are beyond tangible history ie at least 150-200 years old then they can be regarded as artifacts.. when there may be a living relative who remembers “great Uncle Arthur” etc then the remains should be treated with far more respect especially if the life had been lost in the line of duty….