OK, so now my original post has been corroborated by more than one sleuth and it looks like (as I thought) there was more than 1 piece of correspondence from MB postmarked prior to August 2, this is why I've been confused as to why people are dismissing more than 1 piece of evidence of MB being in the UK after "the FNMR passport" arrived in Oz. One thing I can understand, but 2 postmarked postcards from different places with different postmarks and date, and a phone call experienced by a close family member on a "locked in" (i.e. referenced to a known event being the Thredbo disaster) date? with the substance of the call that she was phoning from TW at a payphone and with no airport background noise? and an UK sleuth demonstrating the Cathay Pacific flight via Hong Kong would have had to have left UK before the phone call and the postcards?
Weigh that against a passport in a largely unknown (to anyone but AKA and MB) name entering Oz, and a dodgy medicare card use, and bank withdrawals - all in the context of a known forger and impersonator.
I have heard the argument that the postcards could also be planting proof of life in the UK BUT...why would the same person do both? If someone is wanting to make it look like MB arrived back by planting proof of life evidence in Oz would the case not be stronger if there was no conflicting "proof of life" in an other country, at the same time, on the other side of the world? And vice versa...but not both. It's only made it more intriguing and likely to be investigated hasn't it?...completely the opposite of what AKA would have wanted?
That's been my reasoning all along and now taking note of
@Peralta 's comment about being more explicit about laying it outing in more detail. I thought I had posted something like this way back when someone posted "which camp are you in? MB returned or not?".