Skip to content

the francis conundrum

Of all the pseudonyms used in Gerry Feltus‘ book only Mr Francis remains improperly named, and Feltus is steadfast in his understanding of the reason for such secrecy.


In his own words: “Police should not betray a confidence and if people request their identity not be revealed they must respect their wish.” [p388]

The policeman who declined to reveal the identity of the person who handed him the Rubaiyat was DS Leane. That decision was unlikely to have been made without his superior officer’s knowledge and consent.

This policy goes all the way up the line.

DS Leane should not betray a confidence secret, and if his DI requested that the identity of the person who gave him the Rubaiyat remain confidential secret, he must respect his wish.


Where was the Rubaiyat found?

Who found it?

Why the secrecy?


  1. Ellen #

    Today Mr. Francis would be a person of interest.

    May 3, 2017
  2. …. not if he was working with an Australian security organisation.

    May 3, 2017
  3. Even back then, “Mr. Francis” should have been a person of interest. (Same for “Mrs. Thompson”.) Neither were. Different times maybe? Maybe not. The levels of corruption then and now appear to be about the same.

    May 5, 2017
  4. Misca, how much of Feltus’ fiction – re Mr Francis – do you believe?

    May 5, 2017

Comments are closed.