In this long "clue-dropping" letter, Yeend mentioned a Sydney legal firm, Minter Simpson, and said that they were "the organisational base" for the secret army. He went on:

Then there was Walter's brother-in-law NH "Wilbur" Wright - an expert in signals and communications. He was at TKS with two of the Rosenthal boys and was often in their house. No doubt NHW was useful to the secret army as a communications man. He took his holidays with the Friends in the rented house in Collaroy...Then there was Walter's good friend George Sutherland - an engineer, also TKS, all a network really!

 

And he concluded:

The basis of the Friend objection is the association with a force which might be seen as overthrowing the legally constituted government. Their wishes must be respected. Thus I end where I began but I feel you will be vindicated in the end.

(Take particular note of Yeend's reference to "the Friends...the rented house in Collaroy", for that will become important - see below.)

Then nothing for almost a year. On March 18 1996 he wrote "in great haste":

No change in the Friend position...I still have the matter in my daily work file for you are right but we are prevented from proving it...

His second-last hand-written letter (on King's note-paper) arrived a year later on March 4, 1997. He had just read a new copy of Rananim I had sent him in which I had mentioned Steele's CUP Kangaroo. Yeend again dismissed the possibility, put forward by Steele, that Cooley might have been based on Sir John Monash. He said:

Dr Davis and Dr Steele just don't understand the TKS community which is one extended family...If Davis and Steele were [not] so involved they might see how Rosenthal, Friend, Wright et al fit the mould.

Yeend's last hand-written letter came on April 23 1997.

It said that "our Headmaster" was looking at correspondence between us going back to 1994.

Five days later I received my last letter from Peter Yeend. It was type-written (I suspect for copying purposes) and it terminated our exchange. It ended:

 

I offer sympathy, for your dilemma is often faced by historians, but I can suggest no practical solution.

He had done his best, and more. I am most grateful, and deeply indebted, to him. (And I fully appreciate the professional quandary he found himself in.)

However, the door that had creaked open had now been shut again.

Once more, I was back on my own (though with the ongoing help of my loyal band of questing ferrets).

Also, there were a few loose-ends I still needed to clear up.