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.[1]

 

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.[2]  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.[3]  The detachment also included 27 Indian soldiers.[4]

 

On 20 January 1942 the Eidsvold was torpedoed close to the island and her crew made it to shore.[5] 

 

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.[6]  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 15^th and Baker’s departure on the 17^th.  I suggest the funeral took place on the evening of 16 February 1942, and the official report was written up the next day, 17^th, when the Hermion sailed.[7]  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.[8]  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.[9]

 

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[10].  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.[11]

 

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.[12]

 

The list below is transcribed from Robotham’s unpublished manuscript held at the Battye Library.[13]

 

·        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][14].

·        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.[15]

 

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.[16]

 

It is possible that Robotham or his manuscript typist simply left out the ‘w’ from McKeown.[17]

 

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.[18]  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.[19]

 

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.[20]  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.[21]

 

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.[22]

 

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.[23]

 

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.[24]

 

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.[25]

 

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.[26]

 

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.[27]

 

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.[28]  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.[29]

 

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.[30]

 

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.[31]  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.[32]

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.  [33] 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.[34]

 

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 raised a reasonable point, that the Navy should not be expected to expend their limited resources on trying to prove the origin of the float and the corpse.  He challenged researchers to demonstrate that all of the alternative origins of the float were discounted.  He determined that Oldham’s conclusion of 1949 that the float did not come from Sydney was the more reasonable conclusion.[35]

 

His challenge was taken up with some magnificence by many researchers, prominent amongst them Rosslyn Page and John Bye.  Their work was sufficient to change Frame’s opinion, and he was man enough to admit it.

 

 

6.4              1997 J. STRACZEK

 

Senior Naval Historian and Archives Officer J. H Staczek compiled the Department for Defence’s submission to the Inquiry.  Whilst this submission did attempt to consider all options, such as a suggestion that the original occupants of the float may have jumped from some ship, or that they originated from some other vessel, by far the most amazing statement was:

A merchant seaman from a sunken vessel could have been given the shoes (Naval service issue) as part of an issue of clothing after being picked up by a warship.  This aspect should not be disregarded and needs to be considered in the process of proof and elimination.

 

I personally find this statement incredible, and the bracket addition is mine.  Whilst I can understand how all scenarios require full investigation on the way to ensuring proof beyond reasonable doubt, it would seem that Staczek’s submission, and Tom Frame’s before him, put the onus on to ordinary Australians to do the research, with the Government and the Navy washing their hands on the matter.  I contend they cannot do that.  The Minister for Defence is responsible for any Australian serviceman buried following active service, and it is the service the man belonged to that has the ultimate responsibility.  This places Australia’s Forgotten Son on Christmas Island firmly under the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Navy and the Department for Defence.

 

 

7                    1999 THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY REPORT

 

It appeared the Government and the Navy had taken up their duty when the largest number of recommendations of the Inquiry concerned Australia’s forgotten son.

 

7.1       The relevant recommendations are:

 

·        The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government arrange for an assessment of the condition of the cemeteries on Christmas Island, and provide sufficient additional funding to the Christmas Island Shire Council to allow restoration and maintenance work to be undertaken.

·        The Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Department of Defence attempt to locate the grave of the unknown sailor on Christmas Island, by sending a small team (including an archaeologist) to the island; and,

·        Should the gravesite be accurately located, the Minister for Regional   Services, Territories and Local Government issue an order for the exhumation of the remains for the purpose of identification.

·        The Christmas Island Shire Council be fully informed and consulted about any proposed exhumation; and

·        Attempts be made to contact the relatives of those also buried in the Christmas Island old European cemetery before any exhumation order is made.

·        The Department of Defence provide the families of those lost on Sydney with a copy of their relatives medical records,  such as exist, if requested to do so by the families, at no cost to the families.

·        Should the remains on Christmas Island be positivelyidentified, the Australian Government ensure that the next of kin be involved in the decision making process regarding the reinterment of the remains and any commemorative activities;               

·        If the remains are returned to mainland Australia for burial, a memorial cairn be erected on Christmas Island marking the original burial site; and

·        If the remains are not positively identified, they be reinterred in an appropriately marked gravesite on Christmas Island.

 

7.2    THE RESPONSE

 

Whilst the hopes of a great many people were high, these were recommendations only.  The response of the Parliament came fifteen months later in June 2000.

 

Recommendation 5:  Christmas Island was to receive $8000 for rehabilitation works in the old European cemetery, and $8500 for rehabilitation in the old Chinese cemetery.  The Department for Transport and Regional Development has indicated that funding is available for work to proceed.

 

Recommendation 6 (a) and 6 (b):  Stated that Navy Headquarters in conjunction with the Office of Australian War Graves and the Department of Transport and Regional Services would attempt to locate the grave of the unknown sailor, the Deputy Chief of Navy would commence an investigation into the issues relating to the location and recovery of the unknown sailor on Christmas Island, using appropriately skilled personnel.  In particular, it was stated that a special Ordinance may have to be made to permit an exhumation order to be issued, should a gravesite be accurately located.

 

Recommendation 7(a):  The Government concurred with the recommendation that CI council be fully informed.

 

Recommendation 7(b):  The Government rejected the recommendation to contact families due to funding constraints.

 

Recommendation 8:  The National Archives and the Department for Defence to pick up costs associated with this recommendation.

 

Recommendations 9 (a), (b), (c):  In essence stated that all Commonwealth Service personnel, whether positively identified or otherwise, should be interred in the nearest Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery to the place of death.  If the family wish the body to remain on Christmas Island, the grave should be marked, location recorded and maintained in perpetuity.  If the remains are not identified the body should be removed to the closest war cemetery on the mainland.  (Author – this is the Geraldton War Cemetery).

 

 

8.         2001 THE SEARCH

 

     

8.1      The Navy moved quickly.

 

In November 2000 Lieutenant Commander Richard Chartier, an aviator and specialist in aircraft accident investigation, was given responsibility for the task. He decided on a two-phase process.  Phase one would involve taking Kevin Lourey back to the island to see if he could locate the grave.  Chartier also planned to take Ted McGowan, who believed the unknown sailor could be his brother, and who believed he had a photograph that showed the earth mound with a cross. (Lewis funeral 1950.)  The team would also include a RAAF forensic anthropologist/archaeologist Denise Donlon.

 

It is not clear if the Government gave the service additional funding to do this or if the task came out of their existing budget.  One would suggest that given the immense interest in the Inquiry into the loss of Sydney and in particular the body of the unknown sailor, that it deserved an additional grant.

 

The Navy had also been charged with the task of sponsoring a two day seminar to assist in determining a search position.  This was held on 16 November 2001, and the Navy decided to complete the Christmas Island search in time for a report to this forum.  In hindsight it is a shame the task was rushed.

 

 

8.2       DE-BRIEF OF THE 2001 NAVY SEARCH

 

In hindsight we can always make recommendations for how something could have been done better, especially if it is not successful.  The following is not meant as criticism, but merely an honest review of the process.

 

I met LCDR Chartier at dinner the night before he presented his report to the Navy Wreck Location Seminar in Fremantle on 16 November 2001.  He was sincere, and genuinely disappointed that his team had not located the body.

 

8.2.1        PHASE ONE SEARCH, JUNE 2001.

The first thing that became obvious was that the task was underestimated, and therefore the timeframe underestimated.  Chartier admitted when his Phase One team members arrived on Christmas Island on 8 June 2001 it was a shock to see the cemetery.  ..The greatest shock was its steepness, and the cemetery covered with impenetrable vegetation, fallen trees, boulders of assorted sizes and other debris.[36]  In addition some of the buildings, which had been landmarks in Lourey’s day, had been demolished and the boundaries of the cemetery were not visible.

 

It would have been wise, considering Phase One involved taking Kevin Lourey to the island to test his memory, to have the cemetery cleared up to the standard it was in Lourey’s day, prior to the Australian Government taking responsibility.  Phase One was delayed while approximately 400 sq meters was cleared.  Half of this was cleared slowly by hand.  This took time.

 

Whilst this was taking place Ted McGowan compared the photographs he had of the Lewis funeral and showed them to Cartier.  Chartier explained:

However this comparison also revealed that what genuinely appeared to be a mound with a cross and a man walking past, the key to Ted’s belief of the location of the grave, proved to be an optical illusion.[37]

           

Once the photograph was shown to represent an optical illusion, McGowan stated in later correspondence that his contribution to the search was negated.  The Department for Defence search then rested totally, and very heavily, on the shoulders of Kevin Lourey. It is therefore a pity that all the photographs in McGowan’s possession were not studied by the Navy before embarking on Phase One.  The Navy understandably did not want McGowan to show the photographs to Lourey on Christmas Island, (unfortunately he had already studied them with McGowan and Inglis).

 

As I previously stated, this is an attempt at a de-brief of the search and is in no way meant to criticise people who did their best to resolve this issue for us all.  Although the existence of the O’Shannassy photograph was reported to the Inquiry secretary by Inglis on 31 March 1999, it is apparent that McGowan and possibly the Inquiry only realised the significance of it in December 2001, after the failed Navy search.  McGowan then sought to rectify matters, collecting statutory declarations from O’Shannassy in 2002 and 2004.

 

However the onus does not lay with McGowan.  One would have hoped that the Navy team leader would have been made aware of the transcript of the Melbourne Hearing where O’Shannassy was identified as the only person other than Lourey with the capacity of locating the grave.  He should have been interviewed and possibly taken to Christmas Island with Lourey.

 

Lourey’s task was onerous, and shortened by the need to excavate the site.  He was particularly bewildered with the changes that had occurred since he last visited a well maintained cemetery in 1969.  He stated he did not think he would be able to locate the grave.  What he was confronted with differed considerably to his memory of the site.  Even following the clearing, Lourey was only able to point out the area where he remembered the grave to lie with some degree of confidence.  There is a case that he could have been confused/influenced by the Lewis funeral photographs shown to him earlier.

 

Around 12 sq meters near Lourey’s position was quarantined for future excavation[38].  No actual grave/body was located.  It is questionable whether the Department for Defence should have proceeded until the grave was accurately located.  It never was.  Lourey was unsure therefore the process should not have moved on.[39]

 

8.2.2        PHASE TWO SEARCH 24 AUGUST – 7 SEPTEMBER

It is surprising then that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, issued an exhumation order to allow Phase Two to proceed.  (See footnote 39).  Phase Two was conducted between 24 August and 7 September (14 days).  The team this time consisted of Chartier, Donlon, two forensic dentists and a forensic pathologist who was rotated the second week.

A total area of 38 sq meters was excavated and about 20 cu meters of material weighing 32 tonnes, removed.[40]

 

The team did not complete their task – they ran out of time.  Under a chapter heading Termination, Chartier stated that The excavation work was terminated after 12 continuous days of very hard work when it became obvious there was no time available for a forensic examination should any remains be found before our departure on 7 September.  On the other hand Denise Donlon believes the area chosen for excavation was well excavated and sieved.[41]

 

This does not read to me like a scenario that fulfils the spirit of the Inquiry and its recommendations.   In fact, I believe no exhumation order was to be applied for until the grave was accurately identified.  At no stage did this occur.  Even Chartier used the words – with some degree of confidence.

 

Figure 10        Area excavated by the Navy in relationship to correct area.

Figure 11        Recent photograph of the Navy excavated area.

 

SUMMARY

Attempts by Ted McGowan and myself to gain support through the Navy and Minister for Defence for a Phase three search, or to have O’Shannassy interviewed have thus far fallen on deaf ears.  In fact I have been informed that the search was not meant to be ‘open-ended’.  Even the great contribution of Kevin Lourey has been treated harshly, despite the onus for locating the grave being placed solely on his shoulders.

 

At the Navy Wreck Location Seminar on 16 November 2001, Professor Peter Dennis stated in summing up, and with particular reference to the failed search on Christmas Island:

All told it was a prime example of the problems of oral history: essentially they were working on the evidence of one person, which Glenys would have said does not meet her test of corroborative support.  The result was that nothing was found.  My concern is that if you have conceded the principle of mounting a search, with all the cost that is involved in that, then someone says, essentially, “Whoops, I got it wrong.  The grave was not over there, it was somewhere else”, to what extent are you obliged to follow up that change of mind if you prefer a different recollection.  I don’t impute any bad motives to the individual: memories change over time.  But I thought that was very useful example of one of the difficulties of oral evidence.

 

Some thought Professor Dennis’s words a little harsh.  I would like to state here that had Dennis’s Inquiry report, for which he was responsible:

• Included that there was another, in addition to Lourey capable of locating the grave,
• Who had a photograph of the grave, and
• Who could have been called to give evidence,

then the search may have had a more successful outcome.

 

In answer to his query about to what extent are you obliged to follow up, my answer is unequivocal – we have a responsibility to follow up.

 

At best, attempts to honour the Inquiry recommendations can be considered rushed, poorly funded and pushed by the Government for an outcome in time for the 60^th Anniversary and the Navy Wreck Location Seminar.

 

 

9.    MY RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Recommendation One:  The Department for Defence interview Brian O’Shannassy.

 

Recommendation Two:  A Department for Defence team return to Christmas Island, taking Brian O’Shannassy with them.  Once O’Shannassy has suggested an area, that this area be checked using ground radar.  If cost prohibitive, then Australian companies with this expertise be asked to assist in the location of Australia’s Forgotten Son.

 

Recommendation Three:  Once the grave has been accurately identified the forensic experts return to the island to do their work.

 

Recommendation Four:  The Government provide funding to the Navy to complete the task properly.

 

The above information is a summary of my own work, the work of other researchers and submissions to the Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Sinking of HMAS Sydney.  I must acknowledge the wonderful assistance the Inquiry INDEX compiled by Mr Ron Ziesing has been to my research.

 

Will the Government and Navy continue to reject requests for another phase to search and locate Australia’s Forgotten Son?  Will we stand condemned as a nation for leaving this man overseas in a forgotten cemetery, overgrown by the jungle and neglect?

 

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

 

I am pleased to report that the Minister for Defence and Chief of Navy have been in touch recently, and Mr John Perryman, Senior Naval Historical Officer has visited Perth and interviewed Brian O’Shannassy and Say Kit Foo..  Perryman’s report and recommendations were forwarded in April.  The evidence is being viewed as new evidence and should result in at least, a working party being formed to take this matter to fruition.

 

I attach a copy of the Chief of Navy’s most recent correspondence on this matter.

 

Glenys McDonald June 2006.