FIND in
<--prev V208 next-->
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:16:30 -0500
Subject: Re: (urth) PEACE: the sepia photo
From: Adam Stephanides 

on 8/4/02 9:42 PM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey@stic.net wrote:

> Adam Stephanides expressed doubt that Candy was the woman Miss Hadow saw in
> the photo

To be precise, I was only doubting that the photo Miss Hadow saw was the one
Charlie described.
> I don't see how the text can allow for anyone other than Candy to be the
> woman in the photo.

Indeed, the photo Charlie says he put in the letter is certainly of Candy.
But my suspicion is that the photo he describes is the one Weer shows to
Miss Hadow.  That is, either
1) Charlie said in the letter he was going to enclose one photo, but instead
placed two different photos in the letter for some reason; or
2) The photos Weer showed to Hadow were never in the real letter at all;
they appear only in Weer's reconstruction of the incident.  This would also
mean that the conversation with Miss Hadow never really took place either,
at least not as described in the book.  This latter is my preference.

Another thing: if the photo is indeed of Candy in a G-string and pasties,
then for the reasons you give in your earlier post, it should not be "faded
sepia," since Candy has only been stripping for two years.

> Hadow makes no further comments about the pictures. Is
> that just because she is afraid to, or does she, like Weer, recognize the
> other man? As secretary to a senior plant officer, she has probably been at
> the plant for some time and knows the late Smart by sight. (Besides, Smart's
> picture is on the wall of Weer's office.)

If Hoadow knows Smart by sight, then the second man in the photo is unlikely
to be Smart.  If Hadow had recognized him as Smart, she would not have
referred to him as "that other man with him," or been unsure about his



<--prev V208 next-->