Why would Brown ask someone to match the TS slip and torn page when Feltus was told they fitted each other perfectly?
When Detective Superintendent Brown was interviewed by Stuart Littlemore about his efforts at matching the TS slip with the book it went like this, as accurately transcribed from Littlemore’s notes. It can be noted that Brown didn’t answer Littlemore’s question in the clear manner of a senior detective confident of his ground.
Littlemore: So that was the book belonging to the dead man, presumably?
Brown: Yes well, (clears throat) we established that it was the book er – I took it at the time, to a paper expert in Leigh Street, Adelaide er he was wor* – he was with Julius Combes (phonetic) who was the printers then, and he examined the cutting and also the book and he er – was satisfied that it was the same paper texture and er – the same / and it was, it was, it did come from that particular book.
Clive was kind enough to chase down what appeared to be the printer’s shop and came up with the following:
Per S & McD directory, 1948-1949, The only Julius in Leigh St was a Julius Cohn, Leather/Grindery Merchant.
From this information it becomes apparent that the ‘paper expert’ was in fact a nameless worker presumably with some knowledge of paper types employed in the leather / grindery business and was possibly an acquaintance of Brown and not, as Professor Abbott recently claimed, a specialist paper analyst based in Leigh Street, Adelaide.
Then we have the following comment written by Gerry Feltus in his book The Unknown Man, page 172.
“I was also advised (by reliable sources) that the area torn from the actual copy was smaller than that shown in the newspaper photograph, and that the the piece of paper with the words “Tamam Shud” fitted into the torn area perfectly.”
If we believe Feltus and the slip and tear were a perfect fit then there would have been little need for Brown to have the paper types matched.
But if we believe Brown, it appears he was attempting to match the actual slip with the larger tear as pictured below, and given the recent and robust discussions on the validity of hearsay then it looks as though we must believe Brown’s first hand account rather than Feltus’ reliable second-hand sources, and accept the fact that Brown did not have possession of the Freeman Rubaiyat at the time he visited Leigh Street, which could only have been a short time after Freeman allegedly handed it to Detective Sergeant Leane.
Header pic is Detective Superintendent Brown