Bones of Contention
In their discussion of the Northern Irish findings the researchers have
noted that “[t]he number of carriers of this haplotype in the generations
of family members who are now alive could be several hundred” (Korbonits et al. 2011: 48). Early last year this galvanized members of the
team to set up makeshift stalls in the car parks in shopping centres in the
pertinent area of Northern Ireland (East Tyrone and South Londonderry/
Derry). They engaged in “appealing for adults… to have their DNA tested for the altered gene”; the screening method involved encouraging the
customers to “giv[e] a saliva sample by spitting into a tube” (University
of London 2013). The results of the screening are forthcoming.
The Law
The law did not grant weight to the burial instructions of the deceased
in Byrne’s era. Consequently, Hunter and those in his pay did not act
unlawfully in preventing his wishes from being carried out. Further to
this, the law also upheld a ‘no property’ rule in both living and dead
bodies, meaning that the human body was not classified as property capable of ownership; one cannot ‘steal’ that which cannot be owned, and
thus Hunter and his allies were not guilty of the theft of Byrne’s corpse
(Muinzer 2013).
Despite this, there was a legal imperative to secure the disposal of corpses on grounds of both public health and public decency. In order to facilitate this necessity the law had developed a ‘duty to bury’ principle, under
which certain specific persons had a legally designated duty to bury the
dead. For example, the legal duty to bury a husba