Discussion about this post

User's avatar
bill thompson's avatar

Watch the, "National Advisory Committee on Residential Schools Missing Children and Unmarked Graves" webinar on You Tube called, "Best Practises and Red Flags".

About 7 minutes into the video you will hear the sad tale told by Jacquie Bouvier, a Committee member, a member of the Survivors Circle and 3rd gen. IRS Survivor. Jacquie was born in 1952 and is now in her '70's. She attended Beauval and alleges she was abused there-No details of her abuse or abusers given in the video. Her Step Father apparently worked at the school at some point. Her Mother had also attended Beauval and was married previously in an arranged marriage by the school. When she was 90, Jacquie's Mum said she wanted a family ring with all 9 of her kid's birthstones on it. This is where its gets interesting.

Apparently the ring was to also have the stones of 2 infant girls from her 1st marriage, Jacquie's step sisters, whom Jacquie never knew had existed. One died at age 6 months in 1929 and the other at 9 Months Old in 1931. Note: neither of these infants were students! Her Mother took Jacquie to the COMMUNITY cemetary near the Beauval School. Indicating to an unmarked area of the cemetary she said, " I THINK this is where the girls are buried". So, an apparently bereaved Mother of 2 baby girls didn't know where they were buried? Never kept their graves marked or tended them? Seems odd doesn't it?

After Kamloops May 27, 2021 announcement, Jacquie came forward to join the Survivors Circle. Then she approached the Advisory Committee who helped her obtaìn the death certificates for her , "2 baby sisters". Yes, records of them exist! (No cause of death is mentioned in the video).

But now a GPR search of the Beauval cemetary was initiated and Jacquie waited to hear if they found her "missing baby sisters". You can find that video on the net too. Lo and behold, the searchers announced they found 93 unmarked graves! In a graveyard of all places! 79 children and 14 infants were "found"! (Undoubtedly these included Jacquie's non student step sisters).

Oh the trauma and sorrow and the anger towards the govt and church for the loss of these "missing" kids. No one in that video mentions that GPR cannot reliably detect graves, let alone indicate the ages of children. No one mentions the possible causes of deaths, it's left to one's imagination, hence the sorrow, trauma and anger. Even Kisha Supernant in the Advisory Committee video states exhumation is necessary and a full forensic examination is needed if the COMMUNITY wishes to proceed that far. Another presenter Emily Holland states about 1 hour into that video that, "Even if you exhume a GPR "hit" and find nothing, ITS NOT OVER! We have the oral testimonies of survivors as the Truth", suggesting searches should continue despite no evidence being found.

How many of these now unmarked graves are actually graves? How many contain children or infants remains? How many are non students, natives or non natives alike-its a COMMUNITY cemetary after all? How many are actually "missing" and were they murdered or did they die of natural causes ( as I assume Jacquie's sisters had died)? Why are taxpayers being forced to pay to find graves that may not belong to a native or a res school student, something which should be a family responsibility?

One more thing from the video-Emily Holland states, "if community searchers find bones that are older than say 500 years old and couldn't possibly be IRS students, don't tell anyone or leak it to the media. It will only increase "denialism". I guess that would be worse than finding nothing after excavating a GPR hit, but hey, they would still have their "Truth".

Expand full comment
Joan's avatar

Nina says, “Forester's article also omits important information about Annett's own notorious 2011 GPR search …”

Brett Forester isn’t the only one who has omitted mention of Annett’s meddling at the Mohawk Institute. Kimberly Murray herself has been conspicuously silent on anything to do with Kevin Annett, even though as Nina points out, Murray and others in the TRC were clearly influenced by the background noise he’d created. In fact, CBC as a NETWORK has barely mentioned Annett’s name in the two+ decades he’s been causing mischief. Why? Because his obvious lunacy would taint the credibility of the orthodox IRS narrative.

What does it say that in the four volumes of her final report – nearly 2000 pages – Kimberly Murray doesn’t even MENTION Kevin Annett or reference his 2011 ‘work’ at the Mohawk Institute? Of course she’d never want to be associated with him, a crackpot repudiated by the Mohawks and every other First Nation in the country. And OF COURSE she’d never want to acknowledge the influence he’s had on people’s perceptions of residential schools.

But he IS a part of the story of the ostensibly ‘disappeared’ children, and it’s plainly dishonest for Murray and her collaborators to have left him completely out of the picture. In a $10-million-dollar “study” he SHOULD have been mentioned, and his theories and actions unequivocally denounced.

It's not hard to see why Kimberly Murray wouldn’t want to pronounce on the rantings of Kevin Annett, pro OR con. To her mind, it’s safest just to “disappear” Annett from the public consciousness. He makes her and her collaborators look like they, too, could be lying in service of an agenda.

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts