Skeleton found under Padiham pavement

Burnley and Pendle Citizen: The worksite where the bones were found The worksite where the bones were found

SHOCKED workmen discovered human remains after digging up a pavement to lay cables.

The bones, believed to more than 150 years old, were found in Church Street, Padiham, yesterday.

Workmen had been digging up the pavement to lay cable for superfast broadband when they made the grim discovery of ribs, pelvis and teeth.

Work was immediately halted and police were called.

The bones were found outside the retaining wall of St Leonard’s Church.

Rev Mark Jones said: “I think it gave the workmen quite a shock. It must have been quite upsetting.

“When the graveyard was moved to make way for the road, the bodies were exhumed and reinterred at the back of the church, but some must have been missed.

“It wasn’t a shallow grave. Before the Victorian era, bodies were just piled up in graveyards. People were a lot less squeamish about it.

“Many poor people would have had no stone at all.

“The Victorians started to use headstones as a way of displaying their wealth.

“Nowadays, we think of graves as family plots.”

The bones are believed to have come from an unmarked grave in the old cemetery which originally extended a metre outside the church wall.

The graveyard was scaled back in the 1930s to allow the road to be widened.

The remains would have been buried eight foot under the ground but five foot of soil was removed when the work was carried out.

Police were called to the church by workmen to check the remains.

Crime Scene Investigation officers said there were no suspicious circumstances and gave the remains to Rev Jones, who will now re-bury them in the church graveyard.

He said: “There is no way of finding out which family the bones belong to. There has been a church on that bit of land since the 1400s.

“If you count them, only 10 to 15 per cent of the graves in that graveyard were marked.

“I suspect the rest of the skeleton has either gone with time, or is still buried there.”

A Lancashire Police spokesman said CSI attended the scene at around 11.30am yesterday, and said there were no suspicious circumstances.

Nobody from DDK civil engineering was available for comment.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:40am Wed 14 May 14

rudis_dad says...

Would a DNA sample not be taken with a view to tracing this person's descendents, if not making an identification? If there were teeth, there's a good chance that there's DNA to extract. Surely it's standard procedure these days in any case to extract DNA from any human remains found in circumstances such as this?
Would a DNA sample not be taken with a view to tracing this person's descendents, if not making an identification? If there were teeth, there's a good chance that there's DNA to extract. Surely it's standard procedure these days in any case to extract DNA from any human remains found in circumstances such as this? rudis_dad
  • Score: -9

9:47am Wed 14 May 14

adamdesk says...

is it the Brook house
is it the Brook house adamdesk
  • Score: -7

9:49am Wed 14 May 14

adamdesk says...

is it THE BROOKSIDE
is it THE BROOKSIDE adamdesk
  • Score: -7

10:11am Wed 14 May 14

bubble of reason says...

It'll be Dug.
It'll be Dug. bubble of reason
  • Score: 6

10:57am Wed 14 May 14

Mikeee47 says...

Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days.
It would have been different if it was a murder.
The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works..
Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days. It would have been different if it was a murder. The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works.. Mikeee47
  • Score: 5

11:41am Wed 14 May 14

befuzzled says...

DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!!
DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!! befuzzled
  • Score: 15

11:48am Wed 14 May 14

clickhere says...

befuzzled wrote:
DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!!
I thought people in Padiham were - related that is.
[quote][p][bold]befuzzled[/bold] wrote: DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!![/p][/quote]I thought people in Padiham were - related that is. clickhere
  • Score: 16

11:56am Wed 14 May 14

rudis_dad says...

befuzzled wrote:
DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!!
Really? So how did they manage to determine that the the remains found under a car park in Leicester were Richard III, if not by matching DNA from the teeth with a known descendent? And all that after 500-odd years....
[quote][p][bold]befuzzled[/bold] wrote: DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!![/p][/quote]Really? So how did they manage to determine that the the remains found under a car park in Leicester were Richard III, if not by matching DNA from the teeth with a known descendent? And all that after 500-odd years.... rudis_dad
  • Score: 11

11:57am Wed 14 May 14

rudis_dad says...

Mikeee47 wrote:
Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days.
It would have been different if it was a murder.
The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works..
Not really a police matter, is it? It's not like the remains were found in suspicious circumstances, but even though I would have thought that the Home Office would have to have been involved.
[quote][p][bold]Mikeee47[/bold] wrote: Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days. It would have been different if it was a murder. The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works..[/p][/quote]Not really a police matter, is it? It's not like the remains were found in suspicious circumstances, but even though I would have thought that the Home Office would have to have been involved. rudis_dad
  • Score: 16

12:11pm Wed 14 May 14

befuzzled says...

rudis_dad wrote:
befuzzled wrote:
DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!!
Really? So how did they manage to determine that the the remains found under a car park in Leicester were Richard III, if not by matching DNA from the teeth with a known descendent? And all that after 500-odd years....
Well you have kind of answered your own question there as you have said "known" descendant.... This person is unknown. Royal Family lineage is well documented, so a true descendant can easily be identified.
[quote][p][bold]rudis_dad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]befuzzled[/bold] wrote: DNA testing the remains would not be an effective way in identifying who the person was, given that 150 years have gone by, the diversity of the genes in reproduction would potentially show they are related to nearly everyone in Padiham!![/p][/quote]Really? So how did they manage to determine that the the remains found under a car park in Leicester were Richard III, if not by matching DNA from the teeth with a known descendent? And all that after 500-odd years....[/p][/quote]Well you have kind of answered your own question there as you have said "known" descendant.... This person is unknown. Royal Family lineage is well documented, so a true descendant can easily be identified. befuzzled
  • Score: 18

12:42pm Wed 14 May 14

flagstone says...

Worked himself to death trying to save up for a season ticket hahahaha
Worked himself to death trying to save up for a season ticket hahahaha flagstone
  • Score: 9

3:38pm Wed 14 May 14

HelmshoreMan2010 says...

Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard.

A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene!
Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard. A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene! HelmshoreMan2010
  • Score: 14

7:56pm Wed 14 May 14

woolywords says...

The problem here is that you have nothing to compare the DNA to, apart from the Police database of criminals.
Other tests could show where this person spent their formative years, by the chemicals and minerals absorbed in their teeth but that would be of no help in naming them.
What isn't mentioned in the article is that a lot of people were buried surreptitiously in the past, as their family couldn't afford a burial service for their loved one. Rather than be buried in the Paupers Plot beyond the graveyard wall, bodies were buried in the dead of night, usually in a recently dug grave.
The problem here is that you have nothing to compare the DNA to, apart from the Police database of criminals. Other tests could show where this person spent their formative years, by the chemicals and minerals absorbed in their teeth but that would be of no help in naming them. What isn't mentioned in the article is that a lot of people were buried surreptitiously in the past, as their family couldn't afford a burial service for their loved one. Rather than be buried in the Paupers Plot beyond the graveyard wall, bodies were buried in the dead of night, usually in a recently dug grave. woolywords
  • Score: 6

9:02am Thu 15 May 14

Real Ale Up North says...

No doubt had a bad pint in the Starkie Arms - and didn't make it home.
No doubt had a bad pint in the Starkie Arms - and didn't make it home. Real Ale Up North
  • Score: 0

10:38am Thu 15 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

Mikeee47 wrote:
Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days.
It would have been different if it was a murder.
The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works..
Was it a murder though? No, just skeletal remains they forgot to move when they relocated the cemetery.

Do you ever look in the mirror and ask yourself the question "why am I such a monumental bellend "?
[quote][p][bold]Mikeee47[/bold] wrote: Cant do wont do, that's the police attitude, same with car crime, you have to demand they finger print you car(at the highest level) to catch databased scrotes these days. It would have been different if it was a murder. The scene would be sterile, DNA would be done forensics the works..[/p][/quote]Was it a murder though? No, just skeletal remains they forgot to move when they relocated the cemetery. Do you ever look in the mirror and ask yourself the question "why am I such a monumental bellend "? Steven Seagull
  • Score: 5

10:39am Thu 15 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote:
Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard.

A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene!
Just that bellend police hater Mikeeeeeee.
[quote][p][bold]HelmshoreMan2010[/bold] wrote: Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard. A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene![/p][/quote]Just that bellend police hater Mikeeeeeee. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 3

12:22am Fri 16 May 14

Mikeee47 says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
HelmshoreMan2010 wrote:
Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard.

A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene!
Just that bellend police hater Mikeeeeeee.
sticks and stones and all I'll tell my mum on you, oh bellend spell my name right.
HOW OLD ARE YOU ? 5
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HelmshoreMan2010[/bold] wrote: Are people really questioning why the police didn't go full CSI on a body found in a graveyard. A DNA test of this nature isn't cheap and is tax payers money don't forget. Even if they thought it could get results I doubt it even crossed their mind to do one. It's a body in a graveyard not a 150 year old crime scene![/p][/quote]Just that bellend police hater Mikeeeeeee.[/p][/quote]sticks and stones and all I'll tell my mum on you, oh bellend spell my name right. HOW OLD ARE YOU ? 5 Mikeee47
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree