HMAS SYDNEY
RESEARCH
AUSTRALIA’S FORGOTTEN SON
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ON THE BURIAL SITE OF THE BODY AT
CHRISTMAS ISLAND
Dedicated to the
memory of Rosslyn Page
GLENYS MCDONALD AM JP BA
February 2006. (Retyped &
modified June 2006).
1.
INTRODUCTION
Several titles have been used over the past six decades to
refer to the body of the unknown sailor retrieved from the ocean near Flying
fish Cove, Christmas Island on 6 February 1942, however the title I believe
most apt is coined by Bryan Clarke – Australia’s Forgotten Son.
A number of books and papers have told the story, and a
great number of submissions on the subject were forwarded to the Joint Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Sinking of HMAS
Sydney.
These works deal with many aspects of the story. They include:
-
Extensive
examination of the carley float which contained the corpse,
-
Reference
to possible missing evidence alleged to have been delivered to Navy
headquarters in Western
Australia on 25 February 1942,
-
Clothing
and footwear, both on the corpse and in the float,
-
The
identity, and ‘perfect set of teeth’ of the unknown sailor,
-
Researched
evidence and drift analysis that the body came from HMAS
Sydney,
-
Evidence
that the burial of the sailor was delayed, and
-
Submissions
suggesting the location of the gravesite.
Much of this evidence is summarised in chapter 7, “The
Unknown Sailor” in the Report on the Loss of HMAS Sydney
produced by the Parliament of Australia, March 1999. However, by the very nature of the call for
submissions to the Inquiry, some misinformation has been included in the
Inquiry papers, particularly with reference to the location of the gravesite of
the sailor.
In addition, some
important evidence has been overlooked, or its impact dissipated by the very
bulk of material submitted.
For this reason I believe another paper
on the facts of the matter is justified, with a particular emphasis on the
burial of the sailor.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the interest and
research work devoted to ‘Australia’s Forgotten Son by Jonathon Robotham, Bryan
Clark, Michael Montgomery, Barbara
Winter, John Doohan, Gordon Laffer, Jack Heazlewoods, Keith Hasleby, John bye,
Rosslyn Page, Kevin Lourey, Wes Olsen,
Ted McGowan, and Brian O’Shannassy, who with myself, have determined never to
allow the forgotten son of our nation to remain in an unmarked grave in the
Indian Ocean and lost to the people he gave his life for.
The aim of this paper therefore is to review evidence and
summarise information concerning the whereabouts of his grave, and how and why
the Navy search in 2001 was not successful.
I do not apologise for the length of this paper and I realise it
requires dedication to our nations lost son to read it fully.
Have
you that dedication?
The research of others has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the body and float were Australian.
Battle damage to the float, the absence
of other ships that could account for the float given the timeframe and tides,
suggest only one possible source – HMAS Sydney; therefore I do not intend to expand on
those areas. I will however expand on
evidence concerning the shoe found in the carley float, as presented in my book
Seeking the Sydney – A Quest for Truth published
by UWA Press in 2005.
2.
CHRISTMAS ISLAND – SETTING THE SCENE
Christmas Island (135 sq km) is a lonely mountainous island
in the Indian Ocean, located some 2600 km north of Perth.
the cliffs are steep and the island covered with dense rainforest. Large deposits of phosphate of lime attracted
primary interest prior to WW11; however the island was also strategically
important for observation and soon attracted the attention of the Japanese
navy.
All was not well on the island in the weeks between the
arrival of the unknown sailor, his burial and the Japanese invasion. The chaos included attacks on local shipping,
death and mutiny. The island population
consisted of Chinese, Malay and Indian miners and labourers, and Sikh
policemen. Many of the European families were being evacuated and the Hong Kong and Singapore Royal Artillery Detachment were
at first undecided whether to defend the island or not. The detachment consisted of one British
Officer, Captain Leonard Williams, aged 36, 4 British N.C.O’s – Giles, Cross,
Thurgood and Tait. The detachment also included 27 Indian
soldiers.
On 20 January 1942 the Eidsvold
was torpedoed close to the island and her crew made it to shore.
On or about the 6 February the unknown sailor was retrieved
from the ocean.
Submarine sightings continued following the torpedoing of
the Eidsvold, and on 15 February
periscopes were sighted near another vessel just arrived in port, the Islander.
The fort’s remaining gun, which had not been dismantled, fired at
the submarine as it moved towards the Islander
and it was thought made a successful hit and the submarine was assumed
sunk.
The date of the funeral of the unknown sailor was likely to
have taken place between 15 and 17 February.
The archival evidence states that: an
inquest, which had been delayed owing to illness of an official, was in
progress when J. Baker departed the island aboard the Hermion on 17 February. J. Baker has stated in later publications
that he was present at the funeral. The
‘official’ who delayed proceedings was either Dr J. Scott-Clark, or more
probably, Thomas P. Cromwell, the District Officer.
However, it is the research of Rosslyn Page who clinches the
most likely dates of the funeral. Ross
discovered in a conversation with a Mathew Vadakethu, that he also attended the
funeral. However Vadakethu was not on
the island when the body washed ashore as he was acting as temporary wireless
operator on the Islander. This ship returned to the island early on
15 February. Therefore the funeral was
conducted at a time between Vadakethu’s arrival on the 15th and
Baker’s departure on the 17th.
I suggest the funeral took place on the evening of 16 February 1942, and
the official report was written up the next day, 17th, when the Hermion sailed. The report was delivered to Naval
Headquarters, Fremantle by the Harbour Master, Captain Reginald Smith following
his departure from the island aboard the Islander
on 18 February 1942.
Ros Page’s research suggest “the gang” – a group of Chinese
coolies or labourers employed by the Christmas Island Phosphate Company and
supervised by the Chinese Mandor, Thong Chee, dug the grave. It is assumed the grave would have been at
least six feet deep as others in the European cemetery. A full military funeral was conducted for
this serviceman.
My research suggests that the body was buried in a coffin,
which has been challenged, others preferring the idea that the body would have
been carried to the difficult site in canvas.
The references I located for a coffin were:
(a)
Jonathon
Robotham in his unpublished manuscript Eagle
in the Crow’s Nest stated, in order
not to touch the perished flesh unduly, the coffin was built to conform to the
body as it lay. Robotham was one of
the earliest researchers into the loss of
Sydney.
(b)
Paper
presented to 1997 Forum Fremantle by Ros Page also stated the body was believed
to have been buried in a coffin, although this could not be proved.
(c)
Interview
with Brian O’Shannassy who attended a burial in the cemetery in 1952, that body
was in a coffin.
Even if it was early practice to carry the body up the cliff
in a shroud, it has to be remembered that this body arrived in a badly
decomposed state, and was not laid to rest for a further ten days. The island had no morgue, and no freezing
facilities which could have been utilised.
There was ample labour and timber to build coffins.
The Japanese shelled the island on 7 March, just four weeks
after the unknown sailor was retrieved from the ocean. On 11 March the Sikh Platoon gun crew
mutinied and murdered Captain Williams and the four British officers and their
bodies were thrown down the cliff into the sea.
A Japanese force of 850 officers and enlisted men finally invaded the
island on 31 March 1942.
Initially I considered these bodies could have been buried
in unmarked graves in the old European cemetery. In addition there were others killed during
the shelling of the island to consider.
However, those killed in the shelling were allegedly non
Christian, and oral history, as reported in Neale’s book, indicate that the
British bodies were thrown down a blowhole near the District Officers house,
and that an eyewitness looked over the cliff and saw a white bed sheet floating in the sea with bodies wrapped inside. Further confirmation that the British bodies
were not interred in the old European cemetery came from a submission to the
Inquiry by the Christmas Island Shire, and recorded all Christian deaths. The list included the unknown sailor, whose
burial location was listed as “old cemetery”.
It also included the five murdered soldiers, but their burial location
was listed as “sea”, indicating the bodies were not recovered and interred.
Whilst all the graves in the old European cemetery have
concrete borders and headstones, possibly paid for by their families, it is
obvious that there would have been no time during this chaotic period to do
anything with the simple earth mound grave of the unknown sailor, other than to
perhaps place a simple wooden cross on it.
The evidence supports this fact.
SUMMARY
It would appear that the grave of the unknown sailor is the
only unmarked grave in the old European cemetery, and it did not have concrete
borders or headstone. It may or may not
have had a simple wooden cross initially which was lost by the early 1950’s.
3.
ARCHIVAL
EVIDENCE
The first archival evidence comes from Shipping Intelligence
Report No 137/1942. It contains a report
dated 23 February 1942 from J. C Baker aboard the MV Hermion. The bold highlight
in statements is the author’s emphasis.
The report states:
On or about 6 February an object was seen drifting past the island, and
on investigation, this proved to be a Carley float. This float was grey in colour, the usual oval
shape, and had rope beckets on the outside.
Inside the float was a wooden decking held in place by a form of net
roping. On this decking was a corpse and
a canvas shoe. On investigation ashore, the following
was ascertained:
(a)
The corpse
was clothed in a white boiler suit, the pockets were empty and there was
nothing to establish identity. The shore
doctor established that the body was that of a white man. All the flesh was gone from the right arm,
also the eyes and nose were missing.
Otherwise, the corpse was decomposing in parts.
(b)
The shoe
was not on the foot of the corpse, but was found beside the body. It
was probably branded “CROWN BRAND PTY 4” BUT Baker was not quite certain
regarding “Crown” or “4”.
(c)
The Carley
float had been damaged in places, apparently by shrapnel or machine gun
fire. One piece of metal, obviously not
a bullet, was found embedded in the kapok filling. Another piece of metal, strongly resembling a
machine gun bullet, was found in the kapok, the outer covering of the float
being perforated by a small round hole.
The float was marked No 2 on the outside covering, and, when the
covering and kapok were stripped from the inner metal framework, the following
brand was found in two places, “MADE IN N.S.W ANNEALED ZINC INSIDE”.
The same archival report also states that the pilot at Christmas Island had informed Baker that barnacles on the
float were 6” long (indicating the float could have been in the water for
eleven weeks), and there were barnacles inside the float.
Two days following Baker’s report was Captain J. R Smith’s
account on arrival in Fremantle aboard the Islander. There were a few subtle differences
between the reports given by the two men and the authorities preferred Captain
Smith’s version. It was stated that:
Captain Smith considered the carley float of naval issue and it
contained a bullet hole in the decking and suffered shrapnel damage. Smith provided information about the
framework on the float and red yarn within the strands, which was considered
important. The names Smith remembered
were a little different to Baker’s recollections – “LYSAGHT DUA-ANNEAL
ZINC. MADE IN AUSTRALIA”, “PATENT”.
The canvas shoe
found on the float was branded either
“McCOWAN” or “McEWAN” also PTY followed by a crown and/or a broad arrow.
Lieutenant Commander James Rycroft RANRV, Staff Intelligence
Officer, Fremantle interviewed Captain Smith, and this gives further credence
that Captain Smith handed over the medical report, bullet and part of the
float.
4.
ADDITIONAL
EARLY DOCUMENTATION AND MEMORIES
Several works stand out as relevant for clarifying early
recorded memories of those involved:
·
Eagle in
the Crow’s Nest by Jonathon Robotham.
·
J. W Brown’s letter to J. K Atkinson of the West
Australian newspaper in 1949.
·
We Were
the Christmas Islanders M Neale (1988) which retold the memories of Baker;
and
·
Jack Pettigrew the person I call “the keeper of
the grave” because he showed others the location.
4.1 JONATHON ROBOTHAM
Robotham was a VDC guard at Carnarvon where the Germans from
HSK Kormoran were imprisoned after
coming ashore at Red Bluff and 17 Mile Well.
He escorted them on the Centaur to
Fremantle, and later in 1943 he was appointed Intelligence Officer guarding the
German officers in Victoria. His interest in the battle and the unknown
sailor continued all his life, and he confiscated and had access to all manner
of documents.
Robotham adds to our information on the float and corpse,
but one has to take on faith that he recorded his information accurately. He confirmed that the District Officer, Tom
Cromwell read a service, and that the body was committed to an unmarked grave after being examined
by the medical officer. Robotham listed
what he termed ‘facts’ of the matter.
One needs to remember that Robotham was the earliest known
researcher into the loss of HMAS Sydney and
the Christmas Island body. He was convinced he knew the facts
of the matter of the corpse. He
certainly appears to have additional evidence, which was not mentioned in Smith
or Baker’s initial reports or later conversations. Where did he get these facts?
One reasonable hypothesis I suggest, is that Robotham had
access to the information provided by Dr Scott Clark, which anecdotal and
archival evidence indicates was delivered to Naval headquarters, Fremantle by
Captain smith on 25 February 1942, along with a portion of the carley float and
a bullet.
It is reasonable to assume that this missing file was File
612/231/446 that was destroyed on 5 July 1980.
In May 1989 the then Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, relayed the
following information to researcher Bryan Clark:
It has been established that File No 612/231/446 concerning ‘lifesaving
equipment’ (carley float?)
but the
reason for the file’s destruction is not known byNavy Office.
Robotham’s list of
‘facts’ are written in the first
person and signed by Dr Scott Clark. He
is unlikely to have met Dr Scott Clark as he became a prisoner of the Japanese,
but survived internment and returned to England where he died in the
1980’s.
The list below is transcribed from Robotham’s unpublished
manuscript held at the Battye Library.
·
The state
of the body is consistent with death two months prior.
·
There was
no identity disc.
·
Clothing
was a boiler suit with plain black buttons (this was crossed out).
·
One foot
was bare and had been nibbled by fish or big crabs. One
shoe was on and the other was in the float.
The shoes were black, had no toe caps were marked DD and an arrow
between and stamped with the name McKeon and Sons Sydney Size 7/4. [Naval
contractor RAN].
·
A pelagic
crab was within the man’s mouth.
·
The float
was made of galvanised metal and inside one of the hollow members was the mark
and name of a firm of Evans Deakin and Co Bros Bris Qld. There were different types of cordage binding
the float together and they had in them strands of coloured yarn. [Naval
contractors].
·
The man
was not wounded but there were what I took
to be pieces of shrapnel in the metal compartments and a few jagged holes. Some pieces of metal had apparently gone
clean through and others had stopped inside.
REPORT BY RMO SCOTT CLARKE
Scott Clarke signs his name with an ‘e’. The main discrepancy between these ‘facts’
and earlier archival reports appears to relate to the canvas shoe versus the
black shoe, and whether, in addition to a canvas shoe that did not fit the
body, there was a pair of black shoes/boots, with one actually on one foot of the corpse, whilst the
other foot was bare.
It is quite possible, given the severe state of
decomposition of the corpse, that it was the doctor who discovered that one leg
was encased in a boot, whilst the attention of Baker and Smith would have been
on what they found when they searched the raft.
My belief is that the unknown sailor wore black boots – size 7/4 and a
pair of white canvas shoes on the raft indicated that it originally carried at
least one other person.
A black boot also received significance in a submission to
the Inquiry from retired Naval Lieutenant Commander Ronald Bagley, who stated
that on 21 September 1945 HMAS Barcoo picked
up prisoners of war from Makassar. One prisoner, who had been captured on Christmas Island, had in his possession a RAN black boot
with the broad arrow, size and other details stamped on it. He would not part with it because he believed
it came from Sydney. LCDR Bagley understood this man to be a
minister of some sort.
Ros Page and I discussed this and felt that for a prisoner
of war to have carried this boot with him during his entire internment, and
immediately informed Navy personnel upon his rescue, indicated it must have
come from the Christmas Island unknown sailor.
Ros, in her usual thorough manner, contacted Bagley who stated he
believed he could have misheard the word ‘minister’ for ‘administrator’. If so, the person was most likely Tom
Cromwell, the island’s district officer (Administrator) in 1941-42. Cromwell was interned in the Celebes during the latter part of the war. No trace of this boot has ever surfaced, but
it was RAN issue and did contain a shoe size.
Another clue to support my theory that Robotham’s research
came straight from Scott Clark’s medical report is that only one name is given
for the name in the shoe. Unlike the
memory recall of Smith and Baker who had two renditions, McCowan and
McKewan. Robotham mentions one name McKeon & Sons Sydney.
In the Inquiry submissions, the Minister for Defence confirmed that:
A check of the Commonwealth Gazettes for the period 1938 to 1941 showed
that Jas McKeown & Sons Pty Ltd were suppliers of both light boots and canvas shoes
to the RAN during this period.
It is possible that Robotham or his manuscript typist simply
left out the ‘w’ from McKeown.
4.2
J.
BROWN ACCOUNT
The second early recording of the recovery of the float and
the corpse was a letter to the press, circa 1949 from Jazz Brown, the sergeant
of the Christmas Island platoon of the Singapore Volunteers. In reference to footwear he stated:
A pair of boots was also on
the raft which our medical officer said could not have been worn by the dead
man, this led us to believe that there may have been others on the
raft…..Distinguished markings on the boots were a broad arrow and the letter
Pty which seemed to confirm our opinion that the dead man was an Australian
naval rating.
When referring to the burial site he stated:
We took the body ashore and buried it with full military honours. And there it rests on that island in the Indian Ocean in the little cemetery on the hillside under
the towering cliffs.
4.3 M. NEALE
We
Were the Christmas Islanders.
M Neale’s 1988 publication included additional memories from
Joseph Baker to those reported in the archives on 23 February 1942. The prose was a little subjective:
…and a pathetic looking shoe beside the body revealed that its owner
had probably been an Australian as it was Australian Government issue.
…we carried him up the hillside to a lovely park site overlooking the
cove and surrounded by a mass of bougainvillea.
Figure 1 Photograph showing two
Sydney sailors wearing boiler suits &
black boots.
Figure 2 Photograph of two
Sydney sailors wearing boiler suits, one
wearing white canvas shoes, and the other black boots.
Jim Lavender was one of the sailors in Figure 2
(right). He served on
Sydney for three and a half years. He confirmed that they had black boots and
white canvas shoes, which they polished.
The white shoes should not have been worn with overalls (boiler suits),
however some of the men, when doing painting work, would wear old service issue
shoes. The man on the left of this
picture had been painting.
SUMMARY
It would appear from initial and early recorded memories
that there was confusion as to whether the float contained a canvas shoe or a
black boot. I suggest there is a case
for both – one fitting the body and the other not, indicating the float
originally held more than one person.
The body on Christmas Island wore a black boot size 7/4 made by Jas
McKeown & Sons Pty Ltd, Sydney – RAN suppliers of footwear.
4.4
JACK PETTIGREW
No person who attended the funeral of the unknown sailor is
alive today to my knowledge, so there are no first level people to locate the
grave for us. However, Jack Pettigrew,
who attended the funeral remained on the island for a number of years.
Jack Pettigrew became, what I call, ‘the keeper of the
grave’ of the unknown sailor because he was responsible for telling a number of
people the story and showing them the burial site. He was supervisor to Thong Chee, whose crew
dug the grave and was taken prisoner of war when the Japanese invaded the
island. Initially he was interred on
Christmas Island, then was sent to Surabaya and
then the Celebes. He returned to the island in 1946 and
remained there for the next sixteen years.
One of the many coincidences in my research is that Jack’s
wife Gwen is an aunt of an acquaintance in Harvey where I live. I worked with the family to look through photographs
and search for an 8mm film taken by the family whilst staying with the
Pettigrews’ on Christmas Island to see if
there is any vision of the grave. Gwen
Pettigrew is still alive and living in England but is unable to assist
further.
If the Navy or Department for Defence wished to locate the
unmarked grave up to 1950, there were a number of people alive who could have
provided first hand details of where the sailor was buried. It is abhorrent that this did not happen, as neither
the Christmas Island cemetery records, nor the
Commonwealth War Grave records identify the location. Today we need to rely on second hand reports
by those shown the grave by that initial generation. My biggest concern is that there is only one
or two of these ‘second level’ people alive today and their recollections will
be lost to us shortly.
5.
SECOND
LEVEL REPORTS
The most promising memories, interviews and statements are
listed here. Naturally there is some
disparity amongst them.
5.1
KEVIN LOUREY
In various statutory declarations and correspondence,
particularly to the Inquiry, Kevin Lourey recalled that during his time on Christmas Island (1948-68) the graves in the Old European
cemetery were maintained in good order.
He worked as Assistant Civil Engineer and did some survey work to
establish a water reticulation system and this incidentally included survey
work around the old cemetery. I have
been unable to find copies of this survey.
He confirmed that all graves he was aware of had concrete surrounds and
headstones, except for the grave of
the unknown sailor.
Lourey confirmed that the grave many people, including the
Commonwealth War Graves, believed was the correct grave (Howard grave) was
different to his location foe the unmarked grave of the unknown sailor. The unknown sailor’s grave had been shown to
him by several people including Malay Haji/Docman Binebar, Chinese Thong Chee,
Matthew Vadakathu and Jack Pettigrew, all who attended the funeral. Lourey was the first person to confirm the
island legend that the body ‘had a perfect set of teeth’. Many of the islanders involved in the
retrieval and burial of the sailor had told him this.
Lourey’s information can be précised as follows:
-
The
grave was on the west side of
the island, in the old cemetery
behind the Christmas Island Club.
-
The
grave measured 4’ x 6’, marked with a simple wooden cross without an
inscription.
-
In
1950 there was still a mound in existence.
-
In
1969 there was still a slight mound.
-
All
the graves in the cemetery, except the unknown sailor, had concrete
borders and headstones prior to the cemetery being closed.
-
Lourey
was adamant that there was no other
unmarked grave in the cemetery.
Kevin Lourey placed a mark on a 1995 survey map of the
cemetery, indicating where he believed from memory the grave was. This is shown in Figure 3 and the mark is
adjacent to the graves of Stewart and Jonsson, in a line, but some distance
from Prideaux’s grave. It was pointed
out to Lourey that a large boulder now covered the spot he suggested. Lourey had no recollection of any boulder in
this area, and the boulder may well have been washed down the cliff in later
years. However there is a large rocky
outcrop in this area, identified in a 1908 sketch map of Flying Fish Cove.
The length of time Lourey spent on the island, and the fact
that several people present at the funeral showed him the grave, makes his
recollections very important and worthy of consideration. Unfortunately at this present time Mr Lourey
is very ill and unable to assist further.
Figure 3 Lourey’s suggested gravesite on survey
map compiled by Dr Martin Gibbs.
5.2
BOB FORRESTER
Bob Forrester worked on Christmas
Island as a surveyor from 1953-73, and his memories are also
recorded in Bryan Clark’s 1989 article.
I interviewed him this year and he told me he lived in the Chief Engineer’s house right on the border of the
cemetery near Robinson’s grave. His
knowledge of the existence of the grave of the unknown sailor did not come
until his dog found a bone following a large storm in 1961 or 1962, (probably
the big storm of 1958). Prior to that he
had not even heard the story, as it never came up in conversation, and he was never shown the grave by anyone who
knew the location.
Once Forrester heard the story he noted there were several
earth mounds around the cemetery between the graves, and he believed these
indicated additional burials. This flies
counter to the recollections of Lourey, who firmly stated that the unknown
sailor was the only unmarked burial site.
It is possible that additional earth from digging graves lay alongside
them, and it is in the area alongside the Lewis grave (1950 burial) that Bob
Forrester assumed the grave of the
unknown sailor lies. This was confirmed
in later discussions with him. He
admitted he had no idea of the existence
of the naval seaman but located what
I
think would be the grave.
Dr Gibb’s 1995 archaeological survey also canvassed the
possibility that:
..there
is some evidence to suggest other features, possibly including other graves,
formally existed within the boundaries of the cemetery. There are several apparent alignments of
stone and concrete fragments generally running along the line of the slope.
It is equally possible that these concrete fragments came
from attempts at retaining the cemetery site.
Forrester described the heavy storm, where the whole area
known as Drum site washed down the hillside and covered the cemetery with
silt. His carport was covered feet
thick, as was the Christmas Island Club.
Later he cleared away areas silted over and discovered three terraces
near the house. This description
suggests to me that the grave would not have been washed away in this storm,
but could have been buried deeper under additional silt.
The fact that Bob Forrester was never actually shown the
grave by anyone with the knowledge, makes his contribution to the location of
little assistance.
5.3
DAVID POWELL
In 1998 David Powell, a surveyor who worked on Christmas
Island 1959-84, signed a statutory declaration for the Inquiry, in which he stated
he had made a detailed survey of the old European cemetery.
Powell was aware of the grave of the unknown sailor, but
only from a passing comment by Jack Pettigrew – that’s the grave over there of the chap who came in on the float. Powell also recalled the position of the grave was on the lower side of the cemetery.
This does not appear to have been a detailed examination of
the grave, more a reference from nearby, and in passing. This observation appears to be backed up by
Powell’s revelation that he did not include the grave indicated by Pettigrew on
his 1970 survey. He chose instead
Howard’s grave (a grave missing a headstone) as ‘unknown’, and although it
differed from the grave Pettigrew indicated, it (Howard’s)
was unmarked,
and it was the only site recognisable as a burial plot, so I assumed that I had somehow
misunderstood Pettigrew’s exact meaning.
So began many years of people thinking the Howard grave was
that of the unknown sailor. This
impacted on the work of Hasleby and Doohan to have him honoured, and led the
Commonwealth War Graves to give out incorrect information. This situation continued until the missing
Howard headstone was located at the bottom of the cliff, possibly knocked there
during storm damage. For years the
Howard grave carried a cross and dedication, incorrectly identifying it as the
grave of the unknown sailor.
Powell detailed in his Inquiry submission the storm of 1958
that deposited large amounts of silt over the cemetery from a redevelopment
area known as Drum site. He also
confirmed large boulders occasionally broke away from the hillside in rock
falls, with a large landslide of rocks in 1972.
Given the fact that Powell received only a passing reference
to the correct grave, which he was not confident he remembered sufficiently to
include on his survey, we can only confirm that he remembered the grave being
on the lower side of the cemetery. He
marked this area, which is shown in Figure 5.
5.4
JOHN KERR
According to information supplied to the Inquiry, John Kerr,
the person responsible for locating the missing Howard headstone, remembers
playing on the grave of the unknown sailor in the late 1970’s. His recollection is that there was no sign of
the grave after the mid 1980’s.
Kerr made a statement on Channel 7 Anzac Report (1997) on
his recollection of the location of the grave.
I have not read the transcript of this report and I do not know if Kerr
was shown the grave by someone who attended the funeral, which seems
unlikely. In fact, from John Doohan’s submission
to the Inquiry, (Vol 9 P 2085) it appears John Kerr was assisting Doohan with
his work to commemorate the mistaken Howard grave. Following the location of the Howard
headstone, Doohan indicated that Kerr continued searching. Doohan stated that:
John Kerr’s search indicated
what appeared to be a flattened area where Sydney’s sailor’s grave-mound was, long ago
remembered to be, situated a little further down the hillside.
From my memory of watching the Channel 7 program, it would
appear that Kerr’s site is closer to the large rock than Powell’s.
Figure 4 Photograph
of Howard grave with Sydney memorial organised in 1994 by John
Doohan.
Figure 5 The
area selected by Powell, the boulder referred to by Kerr, both in relation to
the boulder position selected by Lourey.
It is obvious to me that of these oral testimonies the one
that carries the most weight is that of Kevin Lourey. He had been shown the grave by several of the
people who had attended the burial and he had surveyed the area. However, there is one further testimony,
which is by far the most convincing, because it comes with PROOF of the right area; an area not too dissimilar from those
given above.
5.5
BRIAN O’SHANNASSY
Brian O’Shannassy worked on Christmas
Island from 1950-52. He was
quoted in Bryan Clark’s article Australia’s
Forgotten Son as having been shown the grave by Jack Pettigrew and having
taken a photograph of it with his box brownie camera.
Brian O’Shannassy initially contacted me by telephone on 27
May 1999 and told the following story.
Unfortunately this was after the
publication of the Inquiry’s final report.
When living on Christmas Island in 1950 he had been in
conversation with Jack Pettigrew over drinks at the bar, and the subject of
Sydney was raised. Pettigrew offered to show him the grave of
the unknown sailor, believed to have come from Sydney, and a few days later they went to the
old European cemetery in Lourey’s jeep.
O’Shannassy took with him his box brownie camera.
He remembered the grave was located near a row of tombstones
in what appeared to be the right hand corner of the cemetery, near the
boundary. The grave was visible,
unmarked with no railings, headstone or wooden cross. He took a photograph and because the earth
mound was not significant enough he ensured he got the row of nearby graves in
the photograph so he could relocate the grave if necessary. The mound he believed, was to the right hand
side of the line and at the back of the photograph near what he believed was
the border of the cemetery where the foliage was dense.
When I asked him if he still had the photograph I was
informed that he has just given it to a David Inglis. (Former Secretary to the British Phosphate
Commissioners). I asked if the Inquiry
had been given a copy and was told they had not. In retrospect, it is sad that I was not to
see an official copy of this
photograph for another five years, because I was aware then of the great
significance of it, but at the time I felt it was in the capable hands of other
researchers.
O’Shannassy was not aware of the Inquiry into the loss of
Sydney and therefore had no opportunity of
sending in a submission of his own. His
initial knowledge came when he received a call from his friend Lourey who had
appeared before the Melbourne Hearing of the Inquiry (1 May 1998). Lourey asked if O’Shannassy still had the
photograph he had taken of the old European cemetery, which he confirmed. O’Shannassy did not know that the location of
the grave was one of the terms of reference for the Inquiry until he was told
to obtain a copy of the Inquiry’s final report (March 1999). It was only then that O’Shannassy realised
the significance of his information. In
2004 I received a copy of his photograph from O’Shannassy and a digital copy
from Ted McGowan. The original
photograph is yet to be returned to O’Shannassy, but I have seen the page in
his photograph album where the photograph once sat.
Figure 6 Original O’Shannassy photograph circa
1950
Unfortunately the grave of the unknown sailor, situated to
the right of this line of graves does not show up, but O’Shannassy insists it
was there, and was the sole purpose he
took the photograph. He knew no
other person and had no other interest in this cemetery which was hard to
access and off the beaten track. It had
to be accessed through private living quarters.
The reader can see from the earlier survey maps that these
graves are from front to back: Ryan, Jonnson (spelling from Christmas Island
Cemetery Board list), Stewart and Ystenes.
O’Shannassy stood on the end of the Ryan grave to take the
photograph. What is also significant is
that all the headstones are different and this sequence appears nowhere else in
the cemetery. This formation is unique
and therefore pinpoints the area.
I realise the sad sage of
Sydney has been littered with fraud, but in
the personal interviews and conversations I have conducted with O’Shannassy, I
find him consistent, truthful, honest, articulate and an exceptionally upright
citizen. Now at 79 years of age he is becoming
increasingly frustrated that no one is willing to take any notice of his
ability to locate the grave.
It is possible that O’Shannassy just snapped a photograph of
the old European cemetery, and then in later years suffered an ‘add on’
experience and believed this photograph showed the area of the unknown
sailor. This is possible, but unlikely,
particularly as Lourey knew he had taken a photograph; he had no other reason
for taking such a picture; his story has remained unchanged for years; and there
is early archival evidence of this. He
wrote an article for his local RSL magazine in about 1952 retelling the story
Jack Pettigrew told him, and gave an interview for Clark’s
Naval Historical Review in 1989.
I find it incredible that the Inquiry could address a term
of reference concerning the location of the gravesite of the unknown sailor on Christmas Island and not make inquiries about Brian
O’Shannassy or his photograph. Although
there was only passing references to O’Shannassy’s photograph in submissions, a
much more in depth conversation about O’Shannassy took place in the interview
with Lourey at the Melbourne Hearing. It
is just so sad that Lourey did not mention the photograph.
Senator Sandy McDonald –
Do you know of anybody else who claims to
know the exact location of the grave?
Mr Lourey –
I have a friend, with whom I am still in
contact, who was on the island for the first two years that I was there. He lives in
Perth, and he remembers the site of this
grave and he remembers the discussion that he had also with Jack Pettigrew.
Unfortunately the Perth Hearing had already taken place, and
Brian O’Shannassy was never interviewed, and his knowledge (or photograph) was
not mentioned in the final report. As I
stated earlier, it was possible his information was lost in the bulk of
information submitted.
Once O’Shannassy had an opportunity to read the Inquiry’s
final report he forwarded his photograph to David Inglis. What followed was a series of events, which
remarkably appeared to overlook the importance behind this photograph.
-
Inglis
acknowledged receipt of the photograph in a letter to O’Shannassy on 30
March 1999. He had shared and given
this photograph to researcher Ted McGowan whose bother Tom was lost on
Sydney and had a perfect set of
teeth. It appears that both Inglis,
McGowan, and even Lourey, did not realise that this was a photograph taken
to identify the burial site of the unknown sailor, and they considered it
merely an additional photograph of the cemetery, which they intended to
use as a reference in relation to other photographs Inglis had obtained
from British Phosphate files.
O’Shannassy cannot understand how this occurred, but it did.
-
McGowan
and Inglis’s focus was squarely on photographs from the BPC files of the
Lewis funeral which took place in January 1950. McGowan believed he could see a mound in
one of these photographs and he showed and discussed this with Inglis and Lourey at a meeting they held. The focus of Inglis and McGowan from
that time was on this location which was near to the mark Lourey had
originally placed on the survey map indicating the area he believed the
grave to be. McGowan actually
stated that the O’Shannassy photograph was meaningless to him at the time.
To my knowledge I am the only researcher
who has interviewed and had O’Shannassy’s testimony filmed. Both Ted McGowan and my calls to the Minister
for Defence and the Navy, in numerous correspondences have never resulted in an
interview of this key witness. Why not? McGowan also has another witness who has not
been interviewed. As this is his
research, and we are working independently on this matter, I will not include
it here.
A family member took the
following photographs of the area in the cemetery depicted in the O’Shannassy
photograph at the end of 2005.
Figure 7 Line of graves.
Figure 8 Side of Ystenes and
Stewart graves.
Figure 9a Photographs
of Lewis funeral January 1950 considered important by Inglis and McGowan, which
depict an illusionary mound.
Figure 9b Shows unique headstone
formation.
Perhaps of some relevance, the
burials of the men in this line of graves occurred in the following years.
RYAN W. J (41) 19.07.1917
JONSSON J. F (38) 25.12.1907
STEWART B. 10.09.1909
YSTENES K. (61) 14.12.1948
It is interesting to note that
O’Shannassy places the grave of the sailor to the right of Ystenes grave. Ystenes was buried in 1948 over six years
after the unknown sailor, so perhaps there is some sequence in the site chosen.
SUMMARY
·
There may be other people who might remember
being shown the location of the grave.
However, as shown, care must be taken to ensure they are ‘second level
people’ and were shown the grave by those who attended the funeral. I believe I have shown that people such as
Forrester and Powell have only limited contribution to make but Lourey and
O’Shannassy’s contribution is considerable.
·
It must be remembered that O’Shannassy states
the sole purpose of taking his photograph was to identify the side and that
this unique formation of headstones appears nowhere else in the cemetery.
·
There were passing references in the Inquiry
submissions and hearings that O’Shannassy both knew the location of the grave
and had photographed it. He should have
been interviewed or asked to provide a late submission.
·
O’Shannassy was not aware of the Inquiry and did
not put in a personal submission.
·
When he did receive a copy of the Inquiry report
and recommendations dated March 1999, O’Shannassy made his photograph available
to David Inglis who in turn gave it to Ted McGowan. Both men initially overlooked or did not
understand the significance of the photograph and remained focussed on
photographs of the Lewis funeral of January 1950.
·
Ted McGowan did not provide copies of any of
these photographs to the Inquiry, but showed Lourey the photographs.
·
It appears from information collated that the
grave is on the west and lower side of the cemetery, near a track and the
corner of what appeared to be the border of the cemetery. The grave is a flat, unmarked earth grave.
6.
NAVY POSITION
6.1
1949
The first known interest by the Navy in the Christmas Island float and corps was in May 1949. The Naval Officer in charge of Fremantle
wrote to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Melbourne – George Oldham, and
requested that statements in an attached copy of a press article by J. K
Atkinson concerning Brown’s memories be confirmed
from records held and any information added which would be of value.
Oldham indicated there
might have been a prior investigation.
He stated in a 23 April 1949 minute that the current correspondence
resuscitates a matter which was bought under
notice during the war and which is believed to have been investigated at the
time, although no records can be found.
Yet
another instance of missing archives concerning Sydney as highlighted in my book Seeking
the Sydney. A
Quest for Truth. Oldham
was aware of the shipping intelligence reports previously quoted and available,
so he must have been referring to another larger investigation.
Oldham’s own ‘detailed investigation’ has long been held in
utter disbelief by Sydney researchers. Whilst acknowledging that the footwear and
probably the boiler suit belonged to a Royal Australian Navy officer or rating,
provided the shoe was leather and not canvas, he went on to decide in his
conclusion that the carley float located at Christmas Island did not come from
Sydney. He
made no attempt therefore to record the whereabouts of the grave.
His investigation was not too thorough, even on the shoes
and clothing, as he appears to have taken advice from the 1949 Director of
Stores, and not considered service providers for 1939-41. I have shown that white canvas shoes and
black boots were RAN issue.
Not a promising start for the Navy.
6.2
BODY REMOVED BY NAVY
There have been anecdotal stories that a body was removed
from Christmas Island in 1946 by the British
frigate HMS Rother, the first allied
ship to visit the island post war.
It would seem unusual that the UK would have an interest in
exhuming an Australian seaman. It is
conceivable that Rother, termed a
relief ship by the Christmas Islanders, might make inquiries regarding the
bodies of the British officers and men killed in the mutiny just prior to the
occupation by the Japanese. They may
have been looking for their own, not like us.
Another of my informants suggested a Navy ship visited the
island in the sixties following his requests for information on the body. Navy ships frequently visit Christmas
Island during tours of duty, but Lourey stated that during his
years on the island (1948-68) no body was ever removed.
If the Navy did exhume the body, it is strange this
information has not come forward prior to the Navy search of 2001.
6.3
1993 TOM FRAME
In 1993 Navy historian Tom Frame published his book HMAS Sydney Loss & Controversy and
appeared to support Oldham’s conclusions. This Navy position appeared to hold right up
to the Inquiry in 1998. It should be
noted that Frame was not writing on behalf of the Navy, but as an individual.
Frame r