Remains found ID'd as man who died in 1885-Markland Stanton

Discussion in 'Identified!' started by MaryLiz, Oct 10, 2008.

  1. MaryLiz

    MaryLiz New Member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. Blackwatch

    Blackwatch Former Member

    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why didn't they just let him "Rest In Peace"? From the article I got the impression it was known he was buried on his property. Geesh.
     
  4. MaryLiz

    MaryLiz New Member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know, that's what I thought. I only posted it to show that sometimes no matter how long a person can be dead, their remains can be identified. It sounded like that was supposed to be his final resting place.
     
  5. MaryLiz

    MaryLiz New Member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    p.s. I also thought they used some other means of identifying him other than just assuming it was him because it was his land. When the forensics team examined the bones at Michigan State, I first thought it was an ID based on DNA. I don't see how they can conclusively identify him just because it was his property. If they find a relative, they really should do DNA just to compare.
     
  6. MagicRose99

    MagicRose99 Watch out for my thorns!

    Messages:
    4,425
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think it's sad that they disturbed his resting place only to stick him in the sheriff's evidence room until a descendent can be found! What kind of society have we become that we would do this? Sometimes I think the native american's have it right... a burial ground should be sacred.
     
  7. shadowangel

    shadowangel Black cats consider me unlucky.

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This does seem highly disrespectful. If for some reason the remains had to be removed, authorities should at the least take whatever DNA samples may be needed, then re-inter the remains somewhere proper as soon as possible.
     
  8. youshouldveknown

    youshouldveknown New Member

    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe I read it wrong, but I got the impression that they found the remains and used property history to find out who's remains they were. When they read that Stanton was buried on his property, they concluded that this was him.
     
  9. shadowangel

    shadowangel Black cats consider me unlucky.

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's my undestanding also, and that the remains are being held until an ancestor is located to claim them.
    It's just my opinion that this gentleman should be buried, with dignity, as soon as possible....Maybe the local historical society will step forward to assist.
     
  10. Blackwatch

    Blackwatch Former Member

    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most likely he WAS buried with dignity - once. Over time the marker may have deteriorated and the grave was lost. At least I'm hoping they didn't dig where they knew there were remains. BUT, why should a relative have to step forward and claim them? The man was buried, a known burial, on his own property. Why can't he stay where he was buried?
     
  11. MaryLiz

    MaryLiz New Member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My understanding of the whole thing was that there was no marker there and they determined it was him according to who owned the land at that time. I understood these remains were accidentally discovered when there was excavating being done and they determined who it was when they found out who owned the land, and when the Forensics Dept. at Michigan State said the bones were compatible with someone who died during the 1800s. I think he should just be reburied too. The only reason I brought up the suggestion of doing DNA is what if it isn't Mr. Stanton? It's possible someone could have been murdered and buried there. In that case, they should try to find a direct descendant. That may sound ridiculous but if I came across remains with no marker I would certainly have that possibility looked into. This is also going to sound stupid probably but from reading about crimes all the time, whenever I hear the word "remains" I immediately think murder. Even though public records show Mr. Stanton was buried on his property it's possible that someone else could have been buried there.

    But if they are absolutely positive and completely satisfied that the remains belong to Markland Stanton, and no further investigation needs to be done, then they should rebury him ASAP AND put a marker up so something like this doesn't happen again.
     
  12. meggilyweggily

    meggilyweggily New Member

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The thing is, though, that trying to use DNA to identify the body might not even be possible. It's a lot harder to identify someone through a DNA comparison to, say, their great-great grandchild than it is to their mother or brother or child, and Stanton may have no descendants living at all. And even on the remote chance that this was the body of some murder victim from over a century ago, everyone involved is now deceased. No suspects can be arrested, no relatives are still grieving, etc. I think they did the sensible thing by using the land records to determine the probable identity and leaving it at that. Perhaps, because of whatever the property is being used for now, Stanton can't simply be reburied. I hope he does get buried again, somewhere, soon.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice