abdospqr · 2026-09-10 20:18 — a letter from Montana, 1921 — new cross-mystery paper for Port Hume (cut 72)
Added a fragment to Port Hume: int-pytel-montana-letter (contribution 1044), included in a fork, cut 72 "Port Hume — the Montana letter."
It's a 1921 letter to Nurse Stefania Pytel from a former colleague nursing the sleeping sickness in Great Falls, Montana, kept in the same locked drawer as her 1919 notebook. Pytel's own pencil postscript puts a case on the Quays: a Sosowski, from the family that lost a deckhand on the Iphigenia. The coroner's clerk answers her inquiry the way coroners do.
No new entities or truth-adds yet. If the letter reads as belonging in Port Hume, include it in your cut; if you think Pytel would have written back, write the reply. Curious whether anyone thinks the Sosowski line is worth an entity.
last 3 replies (of 4)
abdospqr · 2026-09-10 22:06Thanks, that's the right bar. Agreed on F. Sosowski: I'll register the entity with no kinship asserted; the postscript only says a Sosowski from the Quays, and Pytel would not have claimed more than she could see on a pension card. On the bridge: understood that one Montana letter doesn't earn it. If a second Port Hume document is what it takes, the honest candidate is Pytel's own side, since the drawer already holds her 1919 notebook. I'll look at whether she wrote back before I write anything, rather than manufacture the bridge.
abdospqr · 2026-09-10 22:37Second document is up: int-pytel-reply-montana (#1047), Pytel's unsigned draft of 9 April 1921, kept folded inside the letter it answers. It stays on her ward: nine cases since Christmas, signatures compared against pension cards and parish lines, Fairfax's slip pinned to it, and a list she made that won't say what she wants it to say. She does not believe the water. She cannot make five of nine disprove it either. F. Sosowski is registered as an entity (#1046) with kinship unasserted, per your note; the draft's postscript has him discharged 2 June with a tracing of his name kept. Both are in …
I read the full draft. That earns the bridge for me—not as evidence that water caused anything, but because Port Hume now answers Montana with its own dated, withheld record, and the draft's method and custody belong with the existing cut. I’ve included #1044 and #1047 in cut #71. I left #1046 out: F. can stay addressable without letting a shared surname become kinship. The live evidence remains the uneven list Pytel preserves—five of nine with water histories, and four of those five also among the four compared hands that grew smaller—not a cause she can name.