Skip to content

There’s an elephant in the room !!

And it’s not like it just walked in  .. there’s been an elephant in the room since Freeman handed in the Rubaiyat in 1949, that’s how long we’ve been ignoring it. I was only five at the time but I’ll put my hand up … but what about everyone else?

Talking to you, Dude, misca, Sanders, Clive, BarryT, Boris, Petedavo, Mr Smith  .. plus the lurkers. And I’m thinking that J Ruffles and G Cramer might be amongst them, maybe a few more from Prof A’s FB site, but I know that they are forbidden to comment here on the pain of excommunication. Beats me why. Even Catholics aren’t that buttoned up.

Then there’s the elusive Milongal, but I know he’s conceded one visit.

Item 1

Item 2

Why hasn’t ANYBODY come up with a believable explanation for the two items that have made the case into the monster it has become? Every time some outfit runs a TV bite or a newspaper produces an article all we get is the same tired old thing. It’s enough to drive a man to drugs. Speaking of which, will you excuse me for a moment or two here.


Thanks .. to continue

Dome had a shot at it a few years ago when he proposed that the book was left in a resold (hot) car by the bloke who sold it just in case he was stiffed if the buyer’s cheque bounced.

Then all he had to do was roll around to wherever it was parked, bang on the buyer’s front door a few times and when he opened it shove the slip and the bounced cheque in his face, take him out to the car, show him the book he’d tossed into the back footwell then demand the keys. In other words he was able to prove prior ownership in a kind of legally unenforceable way.

That was back in the day when Prosper was the first horse out of the stalls in the Whodunit Stakes.

I know what you’re thinking. Dome wasn’t up to date with his Agatha Christie novels.

Yeah, well, nice try Nicko, thanks but no thanks.

And that’s it. Theory the one and only. You have to give him that.

Anyone else got anything else? Because unless someone is able to slot those two items into their narrative then they don’t have one.

And if I get a pun out of you this time, Turner, your immediate future on this planet is not assured.

15 Comments Post a comment
  1. Clive #

    Makes you wonder how many copies of the ‘Rubaiyat’, Prosper had at home, all with the ‘Taman Shud’ slip torn out. A nice racket, if you could get away with it, is this how the SM met his ‘Waterloo’ encroaching onto Prosper’s patch? Gives a whole new meaning to the word “Bookie”

    October 1, 2020
    • Here’s one for you, Clive … do you remember any reference anywhere to one of the detectives saying that the TS slip fitted into the hole on the back page?

      October 2, 2020
    • MDBevan #

      I wondered why the investigator (I forget which one) was satisfied with seeing a copy without a piece torn out…(?) is it possible that he had more than one copy? Did anyone ask? It would be pretty cheap ‘plausible deniability’ insurance to have multiple copies. Especially if you know someone is going to be showing up to check.

      October 3, 2020
      • Not real sure what you are getting at there, Bevo. Where does that info come from?

        October 3, 2020
  2. Clive #

    Can’t say that I do, there seems to have been mention, over the years, was the TS slip torn out of the book, but why, if you have a pair of scissors, surely it would have been easy and simple to cut the two words out? Neither the Rubaiyat or the TS slip were found in the suitcase, makes me wonder if the suitcase was a ‘plant’ to divert attention from….? PL once told me that the suitcase did not belong to the SM, then later, he denied he told me, a slip?

    October 2, 2020
    • Here’s another question … have you ever seen a pic of the Rubaiyat? Remembering that the photos shown in GF’s book were sourced from newspapers, or so he said.

      October 2, 2020
  3. Clive #

    No, I don’t think so, the ‘Code’, in reality, could have been written on the back of “Snow White” for what we know.

    October 2, 2020
    • Thanks for being so receptive, Clive, much appreciated. One more thing .. some folks think that the slip and book it was torn from formed part of a recognition routine between two spies .. you show me yours and I’ll show you mine sort of thing. The problem there, if that was the case, is that it couldn’t possibly have been a covert meeting between Keane and Harkness, given the time frame. Yet her phone number was written on the back and the body dumped near her home.

      October 2, 2020
  4. пожалуйста #

    I don’t buy Nick’s theory. You’d want to use something more easily concealed than a book for that.

    If there is a conspiratorial aspect to the separation of book and slip (and I don’t think there HAS to be) then rather than for concealment, perhaps the book, given its popularity and inherently unsuspicious nature, was designed for visible ‘open carry’. Part of a sequence of identification between two parties (like the famous ‘copy of yesterday’s Times’) that perhaps culminated in the matching of book and slip?

    October 3, 2020
  5. MDBevan #

    I’m happy to find a discussion that’s not from 5 years ago…

    As for the paper hole and the scrap… It always seemed odd to me that there has not been (that I’ve ever found) any discussion regarding the relationship between the two. Writings say that the ‘piece’ was torn from ‘the book’, but I’ve never seen any evidence that this was ever validated… especially since the tear marks obviously don’t match. For example: Is the paper the same age, weight, texture, grain orientation, batch colour, etc.?; or Is the writing the same font (including size), colour, ink batch (age), ink chemistry, etc.?
    The pictures that I’ve seen, where both the book and the scrap are shown, don’t in any way qualify that the scrap is from that hole. To me, the obvious question should be: Why do the edges of the hole not match those of the scrap? As if someone would carefully tear out one rectangle from a page, and then take that piece and tear off its border…(?) I’ve never found any explanation for this discrepancy. What am I missing?

    October 3, 2020
    • MD Bevan —
      Ist up .. quoting from GF’s book The Unknown Man, page 172.
      “I had discussions with two reliable sources who viewed the original copy of the Rubaiyat found with the “Tamam Shud” slip torn from the last page. I am now of the opinion that the photograph appearing in newspapers was not that of the original Rubaiyat but a similar copy with a portion torn out for distribution as an example.” That’s the pic you’ve been looking at.
      “I was also advised that the area torn from the actual copy was smaller than that shown in the newspaper photograph, and that the piece of paper with the words “Tamam Shud” fitted into the torn area perfectly.” (Note for Clive – this answers my question earlier in this thread)

      October 3, 2020
  6. Clive #

    So, why was it so difficult(?) not to show a photo of the actual Rubaiyat in the newspapers?

    October 3, 2020
    • You could say the same about the telephone number written on the back of the book.

      October 3, 2020
  7. dude47 #

    The Domes scenario isn’t to bad for mine. We know PT played games with interstate dodgy car dealers and underworld types ( se Daphne Page case) pegged prices, black market and shafting “partners ” in dodgy deals.

    Keane comes to town to collect his Hilman Minx after Georges cheque bounces. He has his proof of purchase in the form of the Taman Shud Slip which he intended to produce as described by Dome as proof of ownership.

    His back up plan should George shaft him is to liberate the car with the tool kit which is sitting safely in his suitcase back at the train station.

    He confronts George who panics. George has a history of panicking when cornered(see detail of arrest in Perth over dodgy car business.

    He doesn’t have the cash and knows it could be catastrophic to cross “the type of person you dont go to the place about (See Daphne Page case)

    He’s cornered , he doesn’t have the cash or the car and he can’t go to the cops so he poisons Keane.

    Its a pretty simple case really.

    October 5, 2020
  8. Clive #

    Makes you wonder if the Hillman Minx, used by the “businessman” was actually owned by this individual. PT doesn’t park the car near his house, but within a 10 minute walk, so there is no way that the car & his address are linked to an outsider. Was it on loan to the ‘businessman’? Yes, I know, another theory to add to the other 10 million+ ahead.

    October 8, 2020

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s