(cc @sheilaahern.bsky.social )

9) In essence, the OLC press release raises more questions than answers & despite issuing a PR, the order remains as opaque as ever about its activities, which is of no assistance to families seeking truth & justice.

8) Additionally, I note that the 1993 exhumations are conspicuous in their absence from OLC’s press release. Furthermore, the order does not specify whether their ‘review’ has examined the State mandated eye-witness record of the exhumations, or whether they’ve accounted for all 155 women.

7) For a start, while OLC say they’ve identified ‘three more gravesites’, we’re aware of at least 9 further unmarked plots at Glasnevin where women from High Park & Sean McDermott St are buried.

6) It will take time to examine the new inscriptions/headstones & compare them to the data in the Magdalene Names Project databases (jfmresearch.com/home/magdale...)

But on the face of it, I’m not hopeful that this is the end of the matter.

5) Using publicly available data we uncovered significant errors in JP’s research. Who carried out the OLC ‘review’ & will the order now acknowledge the flaws in JP’s work?

More importantly, will the State now establish an independent investigation into the HP exhumations?

4) Our analysis is impeded by the fact that the order refuses to open its records. An exception is Jacinta Prunty, whose flawed research on HP’s records was used by the McAleese Ctte to wrongly conclude that all 155 women exhumed in 1993 are accounted for. See Ch8 of: jfmresearch.com/books/irelan...

3) 🚨Whether the rectifications are accurate/adequate remains to be seen. It will take time to establish to what extent the issues we’ve been highlighting over the past 2 decades are resolved. This is slow, careful work. Accuracy & ethical considerations take priority over speed.

2) Has OLC contacted relatives of women buried at Glasnevin, including @consumerfrank.bsky.social who has been seeking answers for years?

Has the State been informed, since previous research commissioned by the Order was used to shut down questions about HP? [See (4-5)👇]

2/2 The concern shouldn't be about an adoption agency's funding, but about the myriad reasons why it's still considered acceptable for children to be permanently removed from their family & country of origin as a 'solution' to temporary problems & in fulfilment of the wishes of adults.

5) Finally, I do not contend that 'affected people' is a perfect term & if anyone has a better suggestion I'm open to hearing it!

My motivation is to ensure that nobody is left behind, that everyone impacted by this system feels represented in matters directly affecting them.

4) Importantly, how a person identifies has no bearing on whether human rights violations occurred—institutionalisation and forced family separation are abusive regardless of people's preferred terms.

ℹ️ See this Clann Project submission: clannproject.org/wp-content/u...

3) Using the collective term ‘survivor’ also runs the risk of:

❌Excluding mothers who didn't give birth in Mother & Baby or County institutions;

❌Excluding people who do not identify as 'survivors'.

2) Amongst other things, using the collective term ‘survivor’ runs the risk of:

❌Reinforcing the false narrative that human rights abuses were perpetrated in institutional settings only;

❌Excluding people who were not born in Mother & Baby or County institutions;