[MichaelZuo]

I was responding to 'The facts of his disappearance are known'.

Which is clearly not the case.

It can be supposed that the facts are known if we assume it was an entirely coincidental and unlucky day to pick for swimming in that area. But that's just a supposition. At best, an agreed upon supposition by the majority of the few hundred or thousand people who've deeply investigated the case. But that still doesn't equate to 'facts'.

[foldr]

We know he drowned. There are witnesses to what happened. If someone goes for a swim in the sea in rough weather, gets swept away by a current, and then is never seen again...I mean, you do the math. If you have some plausible alternative theory then let's hear it. But on the face of it, there is nothing remotely mysterious about Holt's death.

>I was responding to 'The facts of his disappearance are known'.

Not to be too pedantic, but I said "the facts of his disappearance are known...insofar as anyone has been able to discover them". That is, there is no secret cabal that has additional information about what happened. The Australian government is not concealing anything. All anyone knows is what we all know: that he went for a swim in rough weather and drowned.

[MichaelZuo]

Did anyone, or any group, in Australia circa 1967 have a serious grudge against him?