Skip to content

12 Facts and conclusions drawn from contemporary evidence

The picture of the Rubaiyat used by the press was not of the one handed in by Mr Francis.

No picture of the Francis Rubaiyat was released.

The picture of the torn page used by the press was not taken from the book handed in by Mr Francis.

No picture of the torn page in the Francis book was released.

The code was written in pencil on the rear cover of the Rubaiyat.

No picture of the pencilled code was released.

The police were able to read the code by using ultra-violet light.

No picture of the ultra-violet enhanced code was released.

The telephone number of a woman living close to where the body was found was written in pencil on the rear cover of the Rubaiyat.

No picture of the telephone number was released.

There was a name written on the back cover of the Rubaiyat.

No picture of this name was released.

Accounts of indentations on other surfaces caused by writing the code are only heresay.

There is no account of the police overwriting the code to make it more legible.

There is no account of either army or navy coding personnel overwriting the code to make it more legible.

A picture of the overwritten code was made available to the press.

A picture of the Tamam Shud slip was made available to the press.

The real identity of Mr Francis has never been made public.

The real circumstances of the finding of the Rubaiyat have never been made public.

There was no missing leaf.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s