Duquesne grave marker story prompts influx of information
The mystery surrounding the lost tombstone of a local veteran that was found in Duquesne has been solved.
Well, sort of.
It's still unclear how the grave marker of Marine and World War II veteran Charles R. Deemer came to be lost in the area of Viola Avenue and Fourth Street, where a street department worker found it several years ago.
But folks at Duquesne VFW Post 188, who'd taken the granite stone in for safekeeping, now know more about Deemer, who hailed from Brentwood and was retired from the former Mackintosh-Hemphill Foundry in Pittsburgh.
“We found the family the day after the article ran,” said VFW Post manager John Burke, referring to a story in The Daily News last week about the mysterious tombstone.
People began contacting the newspaper and the VFW Post immediately with copies of obituaries and information about Deemer, who was born on June 20, 1919, and died April 28, 1993.
Folks at St. Basil Parish in Carrick, which conducted Deemer's funeral Mass, Cieslak & Tatko Funeral Home in Brentwood and St. Wendelin Cemetery in Carrick were helpful in unraveling the mystery.
The VFW reached family members of Deemer who live in Brentwood and learned the marker apparently is a duplicate stone that was never placed in the cemetery. It is believed a worker who'd been hired to clean the family's garage removed the granite marker but it is still not clear how it ended up in Duquesne.
Burke said the VFW was given permission by the family to keep the spare marker in front of their post, where it had been ceremoniously installed this past Veterans Day.
“The family is OK with us keeping it,” said Burke, who noted the post still plans to have a celebration honoring Deemer on his birthday.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Auberle ‘Real Talk’ session with police gets heated
- McKeesport police officer hurt in fall through attic floor
- Weather helps advance work on Forward roads
- Charges held for court against McKeesport man in Crawford Village shooting
- Renzie Park gets more local sales tax revenue in $96.9M Regional Asset District budget