and the subtle emergence of a new code from the old.
If invisible writing was indeed lurking amongst the quatrains it would undoubtedly assist the recipient of such message to be able to confirm said message was written by a colleague rather than someone looking to entrap him or provide him with false information.
Which brings into sharp focus the 4 A’s so recently discovered within the code written on the back cover of the Rubaiyat.
Follow the conversation here on (not quite) neutral ground.
mrgoab A bd
mtbimp A netp
mliabo A iaqc
ittmts A mstgab
“As the scrap of paper found on the dead man had been trimmed, police were unable to identify the book merely by fitting it into the torn page.”
The Rubaiyat pictured here has never been sourced. Nobody has claimed it. The article appeared the same day the Rubaiyat was handed in.
You’d think an enterprising newspaper editor would have insisted on pics of the cover as well, and the code, the phone number, any inscription … looks like he had good enough light to see everything. He could have run the story for a week with a special on Sunday. Maybe though this particular newspaper editor wasn’t so greedy, hadn’t had the pleasure of meeting Rupert Murdoch.
Would that have been a problem for DS Leane, lending out the Rubaiyat for a newspaper article with pics on the day Freeman handed it in?
Why did the police re-interview Harkness in 1982, and why isn't anybody talking about it?
The man with a piece of torn paper and the other with the book it was torn from. Were they supposed to meet?
Yes, or no.
A deathly silence is understood: but you’ve just asked yourself the question by reading the post.
Yes or no?
is why aren’t you claiming to have broken the code?
بگذار دیگران صحبت کنند