The Egoroff mystery

Author: Pamela Etcell

{1} Private Andrew Egoroff was twenty-six years of age when he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) at Blackboy Hill in Western Australia on 5 July 1915. He was assigned to the 51st Battalion and then to the 4th Field Bakery during the reorganisation of March-April 1916. His body now lies in the St. Sever Cemetery Extension in Rouen. His death appears quite straightforward: depressed because his marriage was postponed and feeling increasingly isolated from his fiancée, he shot himself in the heart with a revolver, dying almost immediately. A Court of Enquiry was assembled; several witnesses gave testimony, the verdict was delivered, and there, the matter concluded.^[1]

{2} Andrew Egoroff was born in Saratoff Russia, and his next of kin is recorded as his mother, Vaselesa Stepanova Egoroff. Before enlisting in the AIF, he had spent three years as an Engine Driver 1st Class with the Russian Navy. He was 5 ft. 8 ins. (172.7 cm) tall, weighed 159 lbs (72.2 kg), had a chest measurement of 35 ins. (88.9 cm), stated his religion as Greek Church, had a fair complexion with blue eyes and fair hair, and had been employed as a timber worker before enlistment. From enlistment to death, Private Egoroff was not hospitalised. His dossier details two crimes: on 31 March 1917 he broke out of camp without a pass and was absent for seven hours. This earned him a forfeiture of six days pay; the second incident was only a few days later, on 3 April 1917, when he absconded for one day. For this he was awarded a forfeiture of seven days pay.^[2]

{3} On 30 May 1918, Private Egoroff died shortly after a shot from a revolver was fired into his chest. The first officials on the scene were Gendarmerie Brigade of Darnetal. The Brigade’s statement is as follows:

On the 20th of May at 20.40 on being informed that an Australian soldier had committed suicide at Mr. Rochedereux’s house Rue de Longpaom at Darnetal, we went on the spot and saw in an ancient Café Hall the body of this soldier lying on the ground.

Close to his right hand was a revolver still containing 5 cartridges and an empty case. His coat and shirt unbuttoned allowed us to see a few drops of blood on his chest, where the bullet had penetrated. On our arrival the man was dead.^[3]

It is worth noting at this point that Madame Pain, who was a servant at Mr. Rochedereux’s, called the Brigade to the house. Madame Pain had clearly informed them prior to their arrival that the death was a suicide. I believe this information would clearly have influenced the inquiry from the beginning.

{4} The Gendarmerie Brigade obtained statements from the two people inside Mr. Rochedereux’s house on their arrival: Madame Pain, and her daughter, Madame Julienne de Biase:

Statement of Madame Pain, maiden name Hervien Mariem servant at Mr. Rochedereux’s 22 Rue de Longpaom at Darnetal (age 40)

Since December last my daughter Julienne Pain (widow name de Biase) residing rue Nationale at Rouen used to see an Australian soldier named Egoroff billetted at Rouen. They were to be married in April last, but on account of papers being delayed the marriage could not take place. Since then Egoroff had become gloomy and my daughter often complained of his bad temper. In order to quiet her, I advised my daughter to come to my house which she did today. At about 4 in the afternoon Egoroff came to my house and enquired from me where my daughter was. I told him she had gone, he then left. At about 8 he came back, still asking for my daughter. I told him again she was not in and he seemed upset. A few minutes after I left him alone in order to put my grandson to bed. I had hardly got to the staircase when I heard a shot and Egoroff called me. I went at once to him and found him lying on the ground. His shirt was opened and he had a few drops of blood on his chest. Egoroff died almost instantly without my being able to give him help.

Report of Widow de Biase (maiden name Pain Julienne) Age 19, Dealer, 35 Rue Nationale Rouen

For about 6 months I have known an Australian soldier named Egoroff Alexander, mobilized at Rouen. We were to be married last April but papers being delayed and owing to his bad temper I had given up the idea of getting married. Although Egoroff still continued to come to my house, he became gloomy and often spoke of suicide. This made me anxious and I had decided to go to my mothers. Egoroff could not bear this. Knowing that he often carried a revolver I was afraid he would make mischief. I made up my mind to go to my mother this morning at Darnetal, where I was tonight when Egoroff presented himself for the second time, but as I did not want to speak to him I did not appear. At 8 my mother told him I was not there and when she had left him alone he shot himself in the chest.

{5} There are a number of aspects worth noting within these two statements: the first feature of note in comparing the two statements is the similarity in their descriptions of the reasons Private Egoroff’s marriage to Madame de Biase was postponed or cancelled, and his subsequent state of mind. The second, and most intriguing aspect of the statements is Madame de Biase’s designation of Andrew Egoroff as “Alexander Egoroff”. Why did Madame de Biase name her fiancé incorrectly? Thirdly, Madame de Biase sets down a number of images – Egoroff’s bad temper, his gloomy nature and thoughts of suicide, his carrying of a revolver and her worries that he might “make mischief” – to situate and connect his death to suicide. Fourthly, Madame de Biase clearly states that she did not meet with Egoroff on the evening he died.

{6} The Unit Diary of the 4th Australian Field Bakery was noted daily by the Officer in Charge, Captain E. Isaachsen. The entry for 31 May 1918 is:

Report received from A.P.M. Rouen, that at 9.30 p.m. on the previous night No. 2808 Private A. Egoroff was found dead in a Café with a revolver wound in the chest.

Necessary action is being taken to assemble a Court of Inquiry.^[4]

His recordings for 2 and 5 June 1918 are almost identical:

Captain E. Isaachsen detailed as member of Court of Enquiry with reference to death of No. 2808 Private A. Egorroff [sic].^[5]

This is relevant because Captain Isaachsen has not, at this stage, pre-supposed the cause of death.

Accession Number: E03430

Personnel of 4th Aust. Field Bakery photographed at Rouen, 22 Sept. 1918.
Capt. E. Isaachsen is seated in front, sixth from right.

{7} A Court of Enquiry was assembled at No. 10 General Hospital, Rouen, on 2 June 1918. The President of the Enquiry was Major E. S. Penrose of the 3rd Essex Regiment. The Enquiry members were Captain E. Isaachsen, Officer in Charge of the 4th Australian Field Bakery, and Lieutenant J. G. Williams, who was attached to the 906 Garrison Guard Company.^[6] The first witness was Captain Francis R. Fraser RAMC, Pathologist at Number 10 General Hospital, Rouen. The summary of the post mortem carried out by Captain Fraser is:

Revolver wound of Thorax. Penetration of Heart and R lung. Haemopericardium and R. Haemothorax.^[7]

{8} This summary requires explanation: the thorax is “the chest”, and the pericardium is the “sac surrounding the heart”.^[8] A Haemothorax means that “a collection of blood [accumulates] within the chest cavity”.^[9] The post mortem, therefore, reveals that Private Egoroff received a revolver bullet wound to the chest, which then penetrated his right lung and heart. This caused the pericardium and the thorax to fill with blood. Either the wound to the heart and right lung, or the difficulty in breathing caused by the haemorthorax, were severe enough to cause the death of Private Egoroff.

{9} Captain Fraser made a further statement to the Enquiry. He said that there was:

… no evidence on the body to show whether the wound was self inflicted or otherwise and that in my opinion the muzzle was not in contact with the body.^[10]

It is to be expected that Captain Fraser had experience with powder burns and the entry of bullets from various distances. It is therefore significant that he notes especially that the muzzle was not touching the body when the bullet entered. It would be somewhat difficult, although certainly not impossible, to turn a revolver on one’s ribcage and pull the trigger without the muzzle touching the body. This raises the possibility of the trigger being pulled by someone else.

{10} The second witness to the Enquiry was Lieutenant A. H. B. Hartford, RAMC, of Number 3 Stationary Hospital. His statement is:

On the 30th. May 1918, at 9.5 p.m. [sic], I went to Café de la Forge, Rue Longpaom, Darnetal at the request of the French Police. I found in the corner of the bar the body of the deceased soldier – No. 2808. Pte. A. Egoroff. He was dead. The body was warm. Rigor Mortis was incomplete. I found a small gunshot wound in the fifth right intercostil [sic] space. There was a tear in the shirt about 2 inches long opposite the wound. The clothing was not burnt. I saw no powder blackening on the shirt. I believe the wound was the cause of death.^[11]

The intercostal space is that which runs between each rib bone.^[12] This report by Lieutenant Hartford means, therefore, that the bullet entered Private Egoroff’s body halfway down his right ribcage. That the shirt was not burnt, and no powder apparent, again suggests the involvement of another person.

{11} The third witness to the Enquiry was Lieutenant H. P. Austin, AAPM, Rouen. His statement is:

At Rouen on 30th. Ulto at about 9.30 p.m. I was called upon the telephone at my office and was told there was an Australian soldier lying in a café at Darnetal. I went to the café and found Lieut. Hartford R.A.M.C and the French Gendarmes already there. I took charge of the effects of the deceased which included a small Colt revolver, 11 rounds of ammunition and 1 empty case. The revolver was already unloaded. From his papers I found him to be No. 2808. Pte. A. Egoroff. 4th Aust. Field Bakery. I ordered his removal to the mortuary.^[13]

{12} The fourth and final witness to the Enquiry was Private Egoroff’s fiancée, Madame Julienne de Biase. Her statement is:

I have known Egoroff for some time, and for about a month he has had ideas of suicide. There were no particular reasons for these ideas. Since settling up the affairs of my husband, who did not wish me to speak to his children [sic]. On the 30th. May he came to my house in Rue Nationale, and put a revolver on my table. I told my mother of this, and became afraid. My Mother put the revolver under some coal, and I went to live with her at Darnetal. He came and asked him [sic] to pardon him for all he had done. I replied I could not, and would not marry him. He came to the Café and asked for his revolver, and my Mother thinking he might get into trouble for not carrying it with him, told him that the revolver was at Rue Nationale. He left the café and returned about 7.15 p.m. with the revolver. He then went out behind the house, and followed me about. My mother told me to go up to my room – and put the bady [sic] to bed. My Father was having his dinner in the kitchen and my Mother went upstairs also. Being alone in the Café, he committed suicide.^[14]

{13} It can be observed that there are a number of inconsistencies between this statement provided to the Enquiry and those furnished to the Gendarmerie Brigade of Darnetal a few days earlier. These differences evoke some reservations with one or both of her accounts and that of Madame Pain. In the Gendarmerie statement, Madame de Biase states that Egoroff was gloomy because the wedding had been delayed and she had given up the idea of marrying him. In the Enquiry statement she maintains that there were no specific reasons for Egoroff’s thoughts of suicide. As with her previous statement, she reiterates and underlines Egoroff’s suicidal tendencies. She establishes the existence of a revolver in the Gendarmerie statement and its presence is significantly increased in her Enquiry statement. In the Enquiry statement, Madame Pain hides the firearm, but unwillingly provides its hiding place to Egoroff because she is worried he might earn the wrath of his superior officer if he does not carry it with him. In the Gendarmerie statement Madame de Biase states that she did not want to speak to Egoroff and so did not appear. Madame Pain told him several times that her daughter was not there. In the Enquiry statement Madame de Biase asserts that Private Egoroff appeared at the café and he followed her about. This would indicate that she did, indeed, spend some time in his company. Madame Pain’s Gendarmerie account also maintains that Egoroff did not get to see Madame de Biase, which is what consequently upset him and drove him to suicide. Madame de Biase’s statements about being told by Madame Pain to go up to her room, and putting the baby to bed, are ambiguous: it is unclear exactly to whom she is referring as putting the baby to bed, herself or her mother. Madame Pain’s account clearly states that it was she who was conveying the child to bed. Madame de Biase asserts that her mother was upstairs at the time of the shooting, however Madame Pain maintains that she barely progressed further than the staircase before Egoroff shot himself. Madame de Biase’s father makes his first appearance in his daughter’s Enquiry statement; he is in the kitchen eating a meal. Madame de Biase states that Egoroff, being alone in the café, committed suicide. Madame Pain maintains that after she turned towards the stairs, Egoroff shot himself, called to her, and then died almost instantly.

{14} There were two letters found on the body of Private Egoroff. The first reads:

No date
Forgive me Mrs [or Miss?] Furets, and do not ………
I have finished all my suffering. She has not understood me [did not understand me].

And the second:

May 30th 1918

Greeting dear companion Mislia [Michael]
I send you my friendly greetings and thank you for your letter. I am alive and well and am still in France, but I do not know what it is that warns me that this will be my last letter to you. Everything to me is wearisome and adverse. Mislia my comrade, do me a service. I have lost my best friend’s address. If you will be so kind, … him in some way. His name is Theodore Miloff. Latterly he has been at Djarolton and subsequently I have not heard from him. If possible … and give my address for which I shall be very thankful to you.

Well, now dear comrade au revoir. Excuse this letter, but I am in a very fault finding mood.
Once more. Au revoir.

Your friend.
(sgd) Andrew Egoroff.

There are no notations on the Court of Enquiry records that the writing on these letters was verified to be that of Private Egoroff. There are also no attempts to explain the letters.

{15} There is a distraction and an enigma posed by Alexander Egoroff. This is the name of the man Madame Julienne de Biase claimed to have known for six months and to have been going to marry. Private Alexander Egoroff was thirty-three years of age when he enlisted at Liverpool, New South Wales, on 5 July 1915 – the same date Andrew Egoroff enlisted in Western Australia. He was born in Pronski, Russia, and his next of kin is recorded as his father, Alec Egoroff. He was 5 ft 6½ ins (168.9 cm) tall, weighed 166 lbs (75.4 kg), and had a chest measurement of 37 ins. (94 cm). His complexion was fresh, with blue eyes and brown hair. His religion is recorded as Greek Russian Church and he was a motor driver at date of enlistment. He had no previous military training. Alexander Egoroff was assigned to the 17th Battalion and was twice wounded in action, the second time receiving a gunshot wound to the left arm which caused him to be returned to Australia in December 1917.^[15] It is possible that Alexander and Andrew Egoroff were related; certainly there are similarities in build and background, and they enlisted on the same date. The men’s places of birth, Saratoff and Pronski, are approximately 450 kms from each other. I would like to have been able to build and argue a case of mistaken identity, and I cannot explain why Madame de Biase calls her fiancé Alexander rather than Andrew, but there is nothing to suggest that the dead Australian soldier was any other than Andrew Egoroff of the 4th Australian Field Bakery.

{16} Captain Isaachsen made this statement to the Enquiry:

[I am] … unable to say whether the man was to blame, and unable to state whether any other person was to blame.^[16]

Brigadier General L. Phillips, Commanding Rouen Base Brigade, decided that this was a case of:

Death by self-inflicted revolver wound. No one to blame.^[17]

The official finding of the Court of Enquiry was:

The Court having viewed the body and having carefully considered the evidence are of the opinion that the deceased No. 2808. Pte. A. Egoroff, 4th Aust. Field Bakery, met his death by a self inflicted revolver wound. That he was not on duty at the time of the occurrence, and that no other person or persons are to blame.^[18]

{17} I believe that the Court of Enquiry did not determine the real events of the Egoroff death. Suicide as cause of death was introduced to the proceedings before police reached the scene, and certainly the statements of Mesdames de Biase and Pain, and the letters carried by Private Egoroff, reiterate and underline the likelihood of this outcome. That Madame Pain would notify a man of the whereabouts of his revolver when he is clearly unstable and is frightening his fiancée, is also questionable. There are clear inconsistencies in the statements of Mesdames de Biase and Pain, and the possible role of Monsieur Pain has been ignored. It does not seem probable that a man would be in the kitchen eating his dinner while an unbalanced individual was loose with a revolver around his wife and daughter. There were no powder burns on Private Egoroff’s chest or shirt. The ownership of the revolver is never established. There is no attempt to explain the letters or determine the author, but I question why Private Egoroff would request a friend to discover another friend’s whereabouts, and pass on his own address, if he was planning his own demise.

{18} Forensic Pathologist Dr Karin Margolius of the Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Perth, very kindly offered to examine the Court of Enquiry records and render a professional opinion as to the events. Taking the evidence of the first witness to the Court of Enquiry that there was a “Revolver wound of Thorax. Penetration of Heart and R lung. Haemopericardium and R. Haemothorax”,^[19] Dr Margolius says that these injuries are consistent with the wound. She states that Egoroff could have called out to Madame Pain, and that he would have been unconscious within one minute and dead within five minutes.^[20]

{19} This first witness also said that “… the muzzle was not in contact with the body”.^[21] Dr Margolius states that there is a different pattern on the skin depending on how far the muzzle is from the skin when the revolver is fired. If the firearm is pressed to the body it makes an indent; there was no indent from the muzzle noted. There is recoil from the firing of a revolver, which, if touching the skin, makes an abrasion. There was no abrasion noted. This means the revolver was fired from a distance of at least one centimetre from Egoroff.^[22]

{20} The second witness to the Court of Enquiry stated that “I found a small gunshot wound in the fifth right intercostil [sic] space”.^[23] Dr Margolius explains that there is no detail noted regarding the track of the bullet through the fifth right intercostal space. Part of the lung is directly in front of the heart, and therefore the bullet could have entered from almost under the arm, to directly in front. The small gunshot wound indicates that there was some distance from revolver to skin – at least one arm’s length. There are a number of possible scenarios from this. If Egoroff was standing and pulled the trigger, he would have had to do so with his thumb. Egoroff could have been leaning forward and pulled the trigger with his toe. He could have been lying on his side, and pulled the trigger with his thumb.^[24]

{21} The Gendarmerie Brigade de Darnetal claimed that there were “… a few drops of blood on [Egoroff’s] chest”.^[25] Dr Margolius describes how forensic pathologists examine collapse wounds to determine exactly how the body fell. Collapse wounds are those that occur when a body falls and collides with pieces of furniture or other items. There is nothing noted to this effect on any of the medical statements. The drops of blood indicate that Egoroff was standing upright when the bullet entered his chest, and that he fell backwards onto his back. There would have been more blood on his chest if he had fallen forward or sideways, so he was not leaning forward or lying on his side when the revolver was discharged.^[26]

{22} The third witness to the Court of Enquiry stated that he found “… a small Colt revolver”.^[27] Dr Margolius ascertained that service revolvers at this time were the Colt .455 and the Webley .455. The bullets from these would make a big hole in the skin. It can be concluded that the firearm was not a service revolver. Smaller Colt pistols of the period were the .25 and the .32. The Gendarmerie Brigade de Darnetal found, at the scene, “… a revolver still containing 5 cartridges and an empty case”.^[28] This information discounts the likelihood that the weapon was a Colt .25, which is not a revolver but an automatic with a six-shot magazine. The revolver carried, therefore, is likely to have been a Colt .32 – a personal weapon, not government issue. This firearm is consistent with the size of the wound.

{23} The second witness to the Court of Enquiry stated that “There was a tear in the shirt about 2 inches long opposite the wound”.^[29] Dr Margolius states that a tear in the shirt is consistent with a revolver wound and it would be expected to be there. A two-inch tear indicates that the firearm was fired at a distance from Egoroff, or that Egoroff was wearing a piece of outer clothing like a jacket. This same witness said that “The clothing was not burnt. I saw no powder blackening on the shirt”.^[30] Dr Margolius believes that this is the crux of the whole case. She explains that no burning or powder indicates no contact between the firearm and the clothing. As previously stated, the revolver was fired from a distance of at least one arm’s length. Forensic pathologists can determine how a person was holding the gun by the spray of gunpowder on the hand, foot, or whatever was used to pull the trigger. There is nothing noted about gunpowder spray on the reports. These Colt revolvers leave burnt and unburnt gunpowder residue and produce a flame when discharged. The above quote means that the distance between the gun and Egoroff’s chest had to have been sufficient not to burn.^[31]

{24} The Brigade of Darnetal’s statement confirmed that Egoroff was wearing a coat over his shirt: “… his coat and shirt unbuttoned allowed us to see his chest”.^[32] Dr Margolius explains that if Egoroff was wearing the coat when he was shot, it must have been open or the bullet would have damaged it, and this has not been described. She then proposes that if the coat were open and only a shirt covered Egoroff’s chest, she “would have expected to see some burning around the entrance hole in the shirt”.^[33] The Brigade did not describe Egoroff’s “shirt as being so open as to be able to shoot himself in an exposed area”.^[34] Dr Margolius therefore hypothesises some possible scenarios: the first is that the Brigade of Darnetal and the doctors missed the damage to the coat. If the coat was not damaged, however, then it was not in the pathway of the travelling bullet. There can only be, therefore, two other explanations: when Egoroff died, an intervening target, such as another garment, was stained by the burnt gun powder and has not been described. That the intervening garment has not been described means that either it has simply not been described, or that someone removed Egoroff’s jacket or outer shirt before the Gendarmerie Brigade de Darnetal arrived. The only other explanation is that:

The barrel of the weapon was so far away as not to get any burnt gun powder on his shirt – so either he had VERY long arms (which I doubt) or someone else did it.^[35]

In other words, the lack of gunpowder residue and burning means that it was a distance injury that killed Private Egoroff and that someone else pulled the trigger.

{25} The mystery of Andrew Egoroff’s death cannot be solved satisfactorily with a definitive solution provided. Dr Margolius would not be drawn into speculating who might have pulled the trigger that sent the bullet crashing into Andrew Egoroff’s chest. After eighty-five years, the trail might be too cold to allow further investigation. At the very least, I believe the death was under-investigated and was not caused by suicide. It may have been murder, manslaughter or self-defence. I also believe that the Court of Enquiry determined its finding in a way that would close the affair as quickly as possible, with as little disruption, and culpability assigned, to the French citizens involved.

The author

Pamela Etcell is a History tutor at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia, and has a Bachelor of Arts degree with majors in History and Aboriginal & Islander Studies; her Honours thesis was entitled The representation of American Presidents in feature films of the twentieth century. She is now in the final stages of a doctoral thesis, which was inspired while trying to find mention of bakeries in the historiography of the First World War (her grandfather was a baker in the 2nd Australian Field Bakery at Calais in that conflict). She came across the case of Andrew Egoroff while identifying the names of the more than 700 men who served in the five AIF bakery units.

References

^[1] NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[2] NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[3] P.V. No. 206, 30 May 1918, Gendarmerie Brigade of Darnetal, “Ref. Australian soldier Egoroff having committed suicide”, in NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[4] AWM4, Control symbol 25/41/1-29, 4th Australian Field Bakery, 31 May 1918.

^[5] AWM4, 4th Field Bakery, 2 June 1918, 5 June 1918.

^[6] Court of Enquiry Official Report, in NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[7] Captain Francis R. Fraser, RAMC, Pathologist No. 10 General Hospital, “Summary of Post Mortem examination”, in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[8] James Bevan, A pictorial handbook of anatomy and physiology (London: Mitchell Beazley Publishers Ltd., 1978), pp.21, 30.

^[9] Pixel Perfect, Inc., Dr Schueler’s home medical advisor: the Doctor is IN!, Version 3.0, 1991-1993.

^[10] Captain Francis R. Fraser, RAMC, Pathologist No. 10 General Hospital, statement in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[11] Lieutenant A. H. B. Hartford, RAMC, No. 3 Stationary Hospital, statement in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[12] Bevan, Pictorial handbook, p.39.

^[13] Lieutenant H. P. Austin, AAPM, statement in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[14] Julienne de Biase, statement in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[15] NAA, B2455, Alexander Egoroff.

^[16] Captain E. Isaachsen, “Report on accidental or self-inflicted injuries”, in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[17] Brigadier General L. Phillips, “Report on accidental or self-inflicted injuries”, in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[18] Court of Enquiry, “Official Finding”, in Court of Enquiry Official Report, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[19] Fraser, “Summary of Post Mortem examination”, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[20] Dr Karin Margolius, personal conversation with author, 1 November 2002.

^[21] Fraser, “Summary of Post Mortem examination”, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[22] Margolius, 1 November 2002.

^[23] Hartford, statement, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[24] Margolius, 1 November 2002.

^[25] Gendarmerie Brigade of Darnetal, “Ref. Australian soldier Egoroff having committed suicide”, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[26] Margolius, 1 November 2002.

^[27] Austin, statement, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[28] Gendarmerie Brigade of Darnetal, “Ref. Australian soldier Egoroff having committed suicide”, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.

^[29] Hartford, statement, NAA, B2455, Andrew Egoroff.