Skip to content

a denial of intelligence: part 1

Late July: Leane takes possession of the Rubaiyat. Canney interviews Jessica. Jesssica views the bust. Boxall interviewed by the police in Sydney.

Late July: After the letters were revealed on the rear cover of the Rubaiyat Leane sought the assistance of the Navy Office at Port Adelaide.

Late July: A copy of a similar Rubaiyat and photos of the letters were sent to the Director of Naval Intelligence in Melbourne.

August: The Navy Office at Port Adelaide responds to Leane. Negative result. No record of a word from Melbourne.

September: Leane reproduces the list of capital letters from the Rubaiyat and releases the details to the media.

~<~<~>~>

Where am I wrong here?

The police smeared over the indentations, photographed the result, grabbed a similar copy of the Rubaiyat and mailed it to Eric Nave.

Did they forget to give him the Moseley st. phone number?

Did they forget to give him the names of Boxall and Harkness?

Did they forget to give him a current summary of the case?

Would it have helped Eric Nave to have some case provenance?

Imagine Mr Francis leaning over Leane’s shoulder as he sifted through the Somerton Body file, deciding what to include and what not to in his submission to the Navy Directorate. The end of a conversation.

‘It’ll all be in the press next week and by then we should have a decision. Can’t have those Navy wallahs getting in the way of an ongoing police investigation, can we, Lionel?’

2 Comments Post a comment
  1. James #

    Absolutely I think they would have limited the data they gave the code breakers. Firstly that sor fo arrogance is typical of forces who don’t want other people to tell them all the rest of their ideas are wrong, and secondly with something like this you need people looking at it who wouldn’t be influenced by it’s background and therefore make no assumptions.

    That said, just because we have nothing to say “they gave the codebreakers the full backstory” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. One of the reason for missing “detail” in a lot of this Somerton stuff is that the detail simply wasn’t important at the time. And may not be now, either

    July 19, 2017
  2. Thank you, James: noted.

    July 19, 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s