Skip to content

Were they supposed to meet?

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?

2 Comments Post a comment
  1. MyName #

    Was WHO (emphasis, not World Health Organisation) supposed to meet?

    The problem is that the paper was subsequently “trimmed” or “neatened” so that the tears no longer matched the book.
    This might mean:
    1) SM didn’t understand how the match worked
    2) SM (or the book owner) was trying an intercept that failed (one had a neat trimmed TS, and one had a book that was missing a roughly torn one)
    3) The book was torn roughly afterwards to mask the match
    4) The slip was neatened by the authorities at some point
    5) (Unlikely) the slip was neatened post-mortem (in this case, why not simply remove the slip)
    6+) Something else I haven’t thought of yet

    It’s hard to see the TS as something other than an identifier (the notion it’s a suicide note is difficult given it was hidden etc). But the idea of it as an identifier is difficult too – unless we accept that things aren’t what they seem.

    Suppose SM meets someone and identifies himself. He subsequently stashes the slip and his adversary (T1) doesn’t exactly notice how. They do business, or talk, or at least part of whatever they were meeting about, before SM ends up dead. T1 takes the wallet thinking the slip is in there. He subsequently realises that the slip is NOT in the wallet, and panics that he has a book matching the slip. He rips the neat cut out in the back to make it look torn and different, and ditches the book in the nearest car. But is this satisfactory? Why not rip the page out, or rip the whole page up? Why chuck it in a car, not a bin, or a storm drain, or something else? Why not burn the book (where are those matches, again?). Etc, etc, etc.

    February 25, 2021
    • MyName, you’ve taken the image of a torn page depicted by the media as being the real thing. It isn’t.
      There were no pictures taken of the book’s front cover, back cover or torn page. Feltus is specific about this. The only item released by the police for media coverage was the slip itself.
      Of the Rubaiyat published by the newspapers Feltus says, “Copy printed in media.”

      Of the torn page Feltus says, “Copy produced in media depicting actual copy of Rubaiyat.” (my italics)

      That should solve a couple of your problems.

      February 25, 2021

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