question: (CNN) -- At an auction at a gallery in New York recently, a piece of artwork sold for a higher price than had been anticipated by the auctioneers: $4,080. 

It wasn't a very big piece of art -- just 8-by-10 inches. Technically, it wasn't even art. It was a glossy black-and-white photograph. It had a slight imperfection: there were staple holes in the upper left-hand corner. 

Someone had written all over the front of the photograph. The person who had scrawled on it was, in fact, the subject of the photograph. He had written: 

"To Patricia Keating, with very best wishes, John Kennedy" 

That is what made the photo so valuable to someone: Kennedy had held it in his hands, had run his pen over it. The owners of Swann Galleries, where the signed photo was auctioned, believe that Kennedy had autographed the picture in 1956, when he was a United States senator. The picture itself wasn't worth much; but his signature, personalized to Patricia Keating. ... 

"As far as we know, she wasn't anyone famous," Rebecca Weiss, a Swann Galleries employee, told me on the day after the auction. "There's no particular significance to her name." 

Then why would someone pay more than $4,000 for the photo? 

Weiss told me that the identities of the buyers and sellers at Swann auctions are kept confidential, so she could not disclose who had consigned the photo for sale, or who had purchased it. But she said there is a pretty safe rule of thumb about the sale of autographs of renowned men and women: 
1. Who wrote on the image?
2. Whom was it too?
3. Where was it sold?
4. Was the selling price a shock?
5. What was the selling point?
6. Was it a big photo?
7. How big was it?
8. When did he sign it?
9. What was his occupation then?
10. Was patricia famous?
11. Was it release who bought it?
12. Was the photo considered art?
****
answer: 1. John Kennedy
2. Patricia Keating,
3. Swann Galleries
4. Yes.
5. Kennedy had held it in his hands
6. No.
7. 8-by-10 inches.
8. 1956
9. A United States senator.
10. No
11. No.
12. No


question: CHAPTER XXVII 

A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

If Jimmy had entertained any doubts concerning the effectiveness of this disclosure, they would have vanished at the sight of the other's face. Just as the rich hues of a sunset pale slowly into an almost imperceptible green, so did the purple of Sir Thomas's cheeks become, in stages, first a dull red, then pink, and finally take on a uniform pallor. His mouth hung open. His attitude of righteous defiance had crumpled. Unsuspected creases appeared in his clothes. He had the appearance of one who has been caught in the machinery. 

Jimmy was a little puzzled. He had expected to check the enemy, to bring him to reason, but not to demolish him in this way. There was something in this which he did not understand. When Spike had handed him the stones, and his trained eye, after a moment's searching examination, had made him suspicious, and when, finally, a simple test had proved his suspicions correct, he was comfortably aware that, though found with the necklace on his person, he had knowledge, which, communicated to Sir Thomas, would serve him well. He knew that Lady Julia was not the sort of lady who would bear calmly the announcement that her treasured rope of diamonds was a fraud. He knew enough of her to know that she would demand another necklace, and see that she got it; and that Sir Thomas was not one of those generous and expansive natures which think nothing of an expenditure of twenty thousand pounds. 
1. Who was confused?
2. What was a fraud?
3. Whose was it?
4. Who was righteous at first?
5. Did somebody perform a test?
6. What did Jimmy think Lady Julia would insist on?
7. Did Sir Thomas seem generous?
8. What did Jimmy expect to do to the enemy?
9. But what did he end up doing?
10. Who handed him the diamonds?
11. How did he feel after looking at them?
12. Did he turn out to be right?
13. What would Lady Julia make sure of?
14. In whose clothes did creases show up?
15. And how did he appear?
16. Did the necklace have rubies on it?
17. Who had a trained eye?
18. What color did Sir Thomas' cheeks turn at first?
19. What color next?
20. And then what finally?
****
answer: 1. Jimmy
2. diamonds necklace
3. Lady Julia
4. sir thomas
5. yes
6. another necklace
7. no
8. check him
9. demolish him
10. Spike
11. suspicious
12. yes
13. got necklace
14. sir thomas
15. like one who has been caught in the machinery.
16. no
17. Jimmy
18. red
19. pink
20. uniform pallor


question: Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani will be put to death for several charges of rape and extortion, charges that differ greatly from his original sentence of apostasy, Iran's semi-official Fars News agency reported Friday. 

Gholomali Rezvani, the deputy governor of Gilan province, where Nadarkhani was tried and convicted, accused Western media of twisting the real story, referring to him as a "rapist." A previous report from the news agency claimed he had committed several violent crimes, including repeated rape and extortion. 

"His crime is not, as some claim, converting others to Christianity," Rezvani told Fars. "He is guilty of security-related crimes." 

In a translated Iranian Supreme Court brief from 2010, however, the charge of apostasy is the only charge leveled against Nadarkhani. 

"Mr. Youcef Nadarkhani, son of Byrom, 32-years old, married, born in Rasht in the state of Gilan is convicted of turning his back on Islam, the greatest religion the prophesy of Mohammad at the age of 19," reads the brief. 

The brief was obtained by CNN from the American Center for Law and Justice and was translated from its original Farsi by the Confederation of Iranian Students in Washington. 

It goes on to say that during the court proceeding, Nadarkhani denied the prophecy of Mohammad and the authority of Islam. 

"He (Nadarkhani) has stated that he is a Christian and no longer Muslim," states the brief. "During many sessions in court with the presence of his attorney and a judge, he has been sentenced to execution by hanging according to article 8 of Tahrir -- olvasileh." 
1. Who is the dep governor of Gilan?
2. Was anyone tried there?
3. Were they convicted?
4. Who was it?
5. What did Gholomali accuse the media of?
6. What charge was brought against Nadarkhani in 2010?
7. What type of document contained that info?
8. Did it need to be translated?
9. What is Nadarkhani's fathers name?
10. How old is Nadarkhani?
11. Is he married?
12. Who obtained the brief?
13. From where?
14. What language was the original brief in?
15. Who translated it?
16. What did it state he denied in the brief?
17. Did he claim another religion?
18. Which one?
19. What his sentence?
20. How?
****
answer:
1. Gholomali Rezvani
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Youcef Nadarkhani
5. twisting the real story
6. apostasy
7. Iranian Supreme Court brief
8. Yes.
9. Byrom
10. 32-years old
11. YEs.
12. CNN
13. American Center for Law and Justice
14. Farsi
15. Confederation of Iranian Students in Washington
16. the prophecy of Mohammad and the authority of Islam
17. Yes.
18. Christianity
19. execution
20. by hanging