Chapter 5 Roger Mystery 1, 2, 3

Roger Mystery a perfume girl A sensible person would not believe in coincidences.But there are wonderful coincidences in the world, which can shock even the most intelligent people, and thus make the supernatural existence acclaimed.People's dubious mentality can only be eliminated by the deduction of "contingency" science, that is, "probability calculus".As for this kind of calculus, it is actually a kind of pure mathematics, where we apply the most rigorous scientific method to the mind to analyze the most difficult to explain phantom and ghost phenomena. At the request of everyone, I will announce the strange case here. In chronological order, a main line runs through a series of incredible "coincidences".And its other line is the "Mary Roger Murder Case" that happened recently in New York.

A year ago, in my essay "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," I described how my friend Dupont was brilliant and analytical.At the time, I didn't expect to write his crime-solving story again.However, recent astonishing events have compelled me to put it on paper again.In view of all the things I have heard lately, it would be unnatural for me to remain silent about what I have heard and seen. When Dupont uncovered the murders in the Rue Morgue, he immediately put them behind him and resumed his old habits of contemplation.He was in a daze all day long, and I had the same breath as him.We still live in our house in Saint-Germain, weaving the mundane world around us into fantasy.But our dreams are not disturbed.Due to Dupont's outstanding performance in the murders in the Rue Morgue, the Paris police department took him in a different light.Dupont's name became a household name, and his solution to the mystery was actually quite simple.He never told the police chief about this, and no one except me, it can be said, knew.In this way, it is no wonder that everyone thinks it is a miracle, and believes that his high analytical ability is due to his superhuman intuition.DuPont is honest but blunt. He could explain things clearly, but he is lazy by nature. After the incident, he loses interest and is too lazy to bring up the old story.Therefore, he became a popular figure in the eyes of the police, and the Paris Police Department wanted to ask him for help in many cases.The most important of these was the murder of a girl named Mary Roger.

This happened two years after the murders in the Rue Morgue.Mary Roger was the only daughter of the widow Estelle Roger.She lost her father when she was young, and the mother and daughter have lived in the Rue Saint-André since his father's death.Mary helped out the mother who ran the family inn.The girl was well-mannered, and when she was 22 years old, her beauty caught the attention of a perfumer named Nablanc.Monsieur Nablanc had a shop in the basement of Palace Street, and his customers were speculators from that area, and Mr. Nablanc knew very well that his business would be prosperous if he had the pretty Mary sell his perfume.So he hired him with a lot of money, and Mary readily accepted it, but her mother was not very willing.

The prediction of the perfume shop owner came true, and the beauty of the blonde made his shop famous.The girl had worked in the store for more than a year, and one day she suddenly disappeared, which made the regular customers who supported her confused and flustered.Mr. Nablanc couldn't tell where she had gone, and Mrs. Roger was in a panic.The newspapers immediately played up the matter and warned that they were also preparing to file a case for investigation.But on a sunny morning, Mary, who had been missing for a week, suddenly returned to the counter of the perfume shop.She was in good health, but looked slightly sad.Of course, except for greetings from relatives and friends, she would not answer any inquiries.Mr. Nablanc was the same as before, knowing everything.And the caliber of Mary and her mother was that she was staying with relatives in the country for a week.So things quieted down and were forgotten.The girl, apparently in order to get rid of rumors and curiosity about her, resigned from her boss shortly thereafter and returned to her mother's house in the Rue Saint-André.

About five months after returning home, the girl suddenly disappeared again, which caused panic among relatives and friends.For three days there was no news of her, and on the fourth day her body was found floating on the Seine, on the opposite bank of the Rue Saint-André, not too far from the deserted countryside around the solitary log gate. It was clearly a murder, and because of the brutal nature of the case, the sensitive Parisians could not help but be interested in it because of the victim's youthful beauty and, above all, her previous fame.I can't think of anything like it that has had such a wide-ranging and strong impact.People have been talking about this hot topic for weeks on end.The police department was particularly serious about the case, and the full force of the Paris police force was of course used to the maximum extent.

The police don't think the murderer would have escaped very far, because the police began to investigate as soon as the body was found.But a week later, the murderer is still at large.At this time, the police thought it necessary to offer a reward for the compilation, and the reward was 1,000 francs.Meanwhile, the sprawling investigation continues in full swing, with police questioning witnesses aimlessly.With no clues in the case, the public has become increasingly curious.After ten days, it was suggested that the bonus should be doubled.Two weeks passed without any further progress in the case, and the inherent prejudice of the Parisians against the police was vented in several disturbances.On seeing this, the police chief announced himself, "A reward of 20,000 francs for the capture of the murderer," or, if there were more than one murderer, "20,000 francs for each murderer."It was also announced that if the accomplices came forward to report, they could receive a full amnesty.In addition to the text of the announcement, there is also a private reward offered by a citizens' committee, saying: In addition to the reward offered by the police, the committee rewarded another 10,000 francs.The total bounty would thus amount to at least 30,000 francs.The girl was originally a commoner, so the bounty was exceptionally high.

two around the body Everyone thought the murder would be solved right away.The police also arrested several suspects, and the case seemed promising, but after interrogation, it was found that none of the arrestees had anything to do with the case and had to be released.Oddly enough, three weeks after the incident, there was still no way to solve the crime, so rumors spread and the matter reached Dupont and me.We were together for about a month; we didn't go out much, we seldom read the papers, and it was the Chief of Police who first informed us of the murder.He visited us on the afternoon of July 13th and talked with us late into the night.In order to bring the murderer to justice, he tried his best, but failed, so he was quite angry.He said with the typical air of a Parisian that his honor was at stake, that the public was watching him, and that he would pay any price to solve the mystery.He concluded with a tongue-in-cheek compliment on Dupont's "excellent talents," and offered a handsome fee.

My friend did not accept the Commissioner's flattery, but readily accepted the terms of the reward, although the reward would not be honored until after the case had been solved.After the conditions were settled, the bureau chief immediately got down to business, explained his views, and made a lengthy comment, which was not limited.Dupont sat firmly in the armchair he used to sit in, listening attentively.He always wears a pair of sunglasses. During the director's seven or eight hours of talking, Dupont occasionally glanced out from under the sunglasses. From his eyes, it is not difficult to see that he is so sleepy. of.

The next morning, I went to the police station to retrieve the detailed transcripts of all the testimonies, and went to the Beijia Newspaper Office to get a copy of each of the newspapers that published the case.After I eliminated those untrue news, the content of this batch of materials is as follows: On Sunday, June 22, 18XX, at 9 o'clock in the morning, Mary Roger left her mother's house in the Rue Saint-André.On going out she said hello to a gentleman named Jacques St. Eustace, and said she was going to spend the day with her aunt in the Rue Drome.The Rue Drome is a short, narrow, densely populated street not far from the Seine, only two miles from Madame Roger's by a short cut.St. Eustace is a tenant of Mrs. Roger's household clients and Mary's boyfriend.He said he would pick up Mary in the evening and accompany her home.But it rained heavily that afternoon, and he thought that Mary might stay overnight at his aunt's house, so he didn't pick her up as promised.In the evening, Mrs. Roger, who was in her seventies and frail, murmured that she might "never see Mary again."However, her words did not attract people's attention at the time.

It was not until Monday that it became known that the girl had not been to the Rue Drome at all.A day passed, and there was still no news of her, so everyone looked everywhere.It was not until the fourth day of her disappearance that her exact whereabouts were known.On that day, Wednesday, June 25, a gentleman named Beauvais went with a friend to look for Marie in the area of ​​the log gate on the other side of the river in the district of Saint-André, where they heard that fishermen on the Seine had found a dead woman floating in the water.After being dragged to the river, Mr. Beauvais identified the corpse as "Perfume Girl".And his friend recognized the dead man at first sight.

The dead man's face was covered in dirty blood, some of which flowed from his mouth.Most drowned people foamed at the mouth, but this dead man had no foam on his face.The flesh of the deceased has not yet changed color, and there are bruise marks and nail marks on the throat.His arms were bent over his chest, already stiff.The right hand is clenched into a fist, and the left hand is half opened.There are two circles of abrasions on the left wrist, which are obviously caused by the rope and rope.The right wrist is also partially bruised, and the back is full of scars, especially around the shoulder blade.The fisherman tied the body with ropes and dragged it ashore, but there was no bruising.The neck of the deceased was severely swollen, and no incisions were seen, nor were there any serious injuries.Around her neck was a lace sash, which had been cut into the flesh and was barely visible, fastened just below the right ear.After the forensic examination, it was determined that the deceased was no longer a virgin and had been violently raped.The body was found in such good condition that it was not difficult for relatives and friends to recognize it. The clothes of the deceased were messy and torn.There was a 30-centimeter-wide slit on the coat, which was torn from the hip up to the waist, but it was not torn.The cloth was wound three times around the waist and fastened with a knot at the back.The shirt under the coat was made of hemp gauze, and a half-meter-long slit was torn out very evenly. It seemed that he was very careful when tearing it off.The one that was torn off was loosely wrapped around her neck in a knot.Between the linen and the lace strap was fastened a hat-strap, to which was attached a bonnet.The chinstrap was tied not with the knots women usually tie, but with the slippery knots of sailors. After the body was identified, the body was not sent to the morgue as usual (because doing so was redundant), but was hastily buried not far from the shore.Beauvais kept quiet, trying to keep the matter under wraps, and the public didn't know until several days later.But a weekly newspaper picked up the story, and the police exhumed the body and reexamined it.As a result, nothing was detected other than the above.The police showed the clothes to the deceased's mother and friends, who all confirmed that it was exactly what the girl was wearing when she went out. At this time, the public's curiosity is growing.The police arrested several suspects and released them all.St. Eustace was especially suspected.At first he couldn't tell where he was on the day Mary went out, and then he handed over to the police station an affidavit listing in detail what he did every hour that day.Time passed day by day, and there was still no progress in the case, so countless contradictory rumors spread quickly, and journalists were busy speculating and analyzing.Most striking of these speculative analyses, is the idea that Mary Roger is still alive—the body fished from the river is another unfortunate.I think it would be a good idea to excerpt these speculations to the reader, and the following passages are taken from a newspaper called The Star: On Sunday morning, June 22, 18XX, Miss Roger left her mother's house, saying that she was going to see her aunt or other relatives in Drome Street.Since then, no one has seen her, and she has disappeared.So far, no one has claimed to have seen her after she left her mother's home.We have no evidence that Mary Roger was alive after nine o'clock in the morning on Sunday, June 22, but we have evidence that she was alive until nine o'clock that morning.At 12 noon on Wednesday, a female body was found floating on the river bank near the log gate.If it is assumed that Mary Roger was thrown into the river three hours after she left her mother's house, then there are only three days between her leaving the house and the appearance of the body-three days and one hour.But if Mary had indeed been murdered, it would make no sense to think that the murderer had done so early enough to throw her body into the river before midnight.Murderers usually choose to commit crimes when the moon is dark and the wind is high, rather than in broad daylight.It can be deduced that if the female body in the river is indeed Mary Roger, then the dead body has only been soaked in the water for two and a half days, at best not more than three days.Experience has shown that the bodies of drowned persons, or those thrown into the water immediately after a violent death, require six to ten days for their severe decay to surface.Even if a cannon is fired at a corpse submerged in water for less than five or six days to force it to surface, it will sink again afterward.Therefore, we can't help but ask, in this case, what force caused the corpse to surface in advance in violation of the rules of nature?If the dead man had been killed and the body had been left on the bank until Tuesday night, there would have been traces of the murderer on the shore.In addition, even if a person is thrown into the water two days after death, the body may not float up so quickly.What's more, if it's a murder case, the murderer is too stupid to throw the body without a heavy object.At that time, fastening heavy objects was a piece of cake. The editor further deduced that the body must have been soaked in water for more than three days, at least 15 days, because the body was so decomposed that even Beauvais could not recognize it.Then he changed his style of writing and started attacking Beauvais.The article is as follows. From what facts, then, was Mr Beauvais convinced that it was the body of Mary Roger?As soon as he tore off the sleeve, he said that he had found the mark, which proved that the deceased was Mary.It was generally agreed that the "marks" he was referring to must be scars or something.In fact, he only touched the dead man's arm and touched the fine hair on it-this is a bit too mysterious.Mr. Beauvais did not return that evening, and at seven o'clock he sent word to Mrs. Roger that her daughter's case was still under investigation.To take a step back, Mrs. Roger was too old and too sad to be present at the scene. When the body was found to be Mary's, there should always be a relative or friend who went to the scene to learn about the autopsy.But no one came up with it.Nothing seemed to have happened in Saint-André Street, not even the lodgers who lived in Mrs. Roger's house had heard anything.Mr. St. Eustace, Mary's fiancé, who was also one of the tenants, confessed that he did not know of the discovery of the body until Mr. Beauvais came to his room the next morning.We are amazed that everyone is so indifferent to such an important matter of life and death. The newspaper went out of its way to describe the indifference of Mary's relatives, suggesting that they did not really think the body was Mary's.The implication of the article is self-evident: Mary, with the help of relatives and friends, left the city for another place because someone accused her of losing her virginity.The body of a woman fished up from the Seine looked a bit like Marie, so relatives and friends took this opportunity to convince the public that she was dead.However, the "Star" is too early to draw conclusions.In fact, relatives and friends were not so indifferent to Mary's death.The old lady was already extremely weak, and with such a stimulus, of course she couldn't go to the scene.As for St. Eustace, he was so distraught, agitated, and delirious that Beauvais had to find a relative and friend to take care of him and strictly forbid him to participate in the exhumation.In addition, although the "Star" said that the re-burial was paid for by the public, it was said that the family of the deceased strongly refused a private gift for the purchase of the tomb, and that none of the relatives of the deceased attended the funeral, all of which were refuted by the facts.Later, the "Star" wrote another article, trying to pour dirty water on Beauvais. The article said: Now a new change has taken place in the case. It is said that a Mrs. B went to Mrs. Luo's house just in time for Mr. Beauvais to go out.Mr. Beauvais said to Mrs. B. that a policeman would come in a moment.He told Mrs. B. not to say anything to the police, but to tell him when she got back. It was clear that Mr. Beauvais knew something that was not known.Without Mr. Beauvais, the case would be hopeless. No matter where you start, you must attack Mr. Beauvais first.For some reason, he was determined to run the case on his own, without anyone else.According to one person involved, he cleverly squeezed the male relatives of the deceased out of the case investigation.It seems that he is extremely opposed to the family members looking at the dead body. Another example was cited in the article to make Mr. Beauvais even more suspicious.A few days before the girl's disappearance, someone visited Mr. Beauvais's office, which happened to be absent.The person found a rose in the keyhole of the door, and a small message board with the word "Mary" hanging beside it. The impression we have had so far from the papers is that Mary was murdered by a gang of rascals who carried her across the river, spoiled her, and killed her.However, the influential Handelsblatt vehemently opposes this first-rate opinion, and I quote a few passages from it here: We believe that the investigation has gone astray, since the object of the investigation has always been the Log Gate wilderness on the other side of the river.Mary is a well-known woman, so if she walks three blocks, no one will see her.Whoever sees her will remember her, because everyone who knows her is interested in her.She left home when there were many people on the street. ... If she went to the Log Gate or Drome Street, at least a dozen people would recognize her along the way.However, no one has reported that she saw her after she went out, and apart from the testimony of "he said she was going out" provided by relevant people, there is no evidence that she really went out.Her clothes were torn, tangled, and knotted so that the body became a package to be carried.The murderer would not have had to do so if the murder had indeed occurred on the outskirts of Log Gate.It is true that the body was found on the water near the log gate, but this is not sufficient to prove that the murderer abandoned the body there. ...The murderer tore off a 70cm long and 30cm wide piece of the poor girl's skirt, tied it under her chin, and wrapped it behind her head, probably to prevent her from screaming.Judging from this, the murderer did not wear a handkerchief. However, just a day or two before the Chief of Police came to visit us, the police received an important piece of information which would have overturned the main thesis of the Handelsblatt.When Mrs. Deluc's two little boys were playing in the woods, they accidentally walked into a seat with a footstool deep in the dense forest, and found a white skirt on the stone that looked like a backrest, and a stone that looked like a seat. A silk scarf.There are traces of trampling on the ground, and the branches of the dwarf trees are broken, which must have been caused by fighting. Between the dense forest and the river, a fence was also found that was knocked down. According to the condition of the ground, it can be seen that someone dragged a heavy object to pass by. . A weekly newspaper called "The Sun" commented on this discovery as follows: These items have been there for at least three or four weeks, and they have all become moldy due to the rain, and they have hardened into hard moldy lumps.Grass grew around and even on some of the objects; the silk of the parasol was solid, but the threads inside were tangled.The parasols were collapsible, and the upper part was moldy and rotten and would break when opened. ...The strips of cloth torn off by the bushes were all about 10 centimeters wide and 20 centimeters long.One is the skirt of the jacket, which has been mended.Another one was torn from the skirt.They hang on the thorns a foot above the ground, like torn strips of cloth. ... Therefore, it can now be said with certainty that the scene of the murder has been found. Immediately after this major discovery, new evidence appeared. Mrs. Deluc claimed that she opened a roadside tavern not far from the river bank, opposite the wilderness of the log gate.The area was deserted and desolate.On Sundays, the city's hooligans cross the river in boats and come here to mess around.About three o'clock in the afternoon on the Sunday of the accident, a young girl and a dark-skinned youth came to the tavern.They stayed here for a while.Just follow the path towards the dense forest.Madame Deluc's attention was drawn to the girl's dress, and she paid special attention to the scarf.Not long after the two left, a group of hooligans came.They ate, drank, quarreled, wiped their mouths after eating, and walked along the road that the young couple walked without paying the money. They came back when it was almost dark, and hurried away across the river. It was just after dark that night, when Madame Deluc and her eldest son heard a woman's scream nearby, the voice was shrill and short.Mrs. DeChank recognized not only the scarf found in the jungle, but also the clothes of the dead man.A stagecoach driver named Valence has now confessed that on the Sunday of the accident he had seen Marie Roger crossing the Seine in a ferry with a dark-skinned young man.Valence knew Marie, so he could not mistake her.The objects found in the dense forest, after identification by Mary's relatives, were identified as belonging to the deceased. On the advice of Dupont, I gathered a great deal of evidence and information from the newspapers.In addition to the above, there is one more important thing.Shortly after the discovery of Mary's clothes, St. Eustace, Mary's fiancé, was found lying dying near what was believed to be the scene of the murder.Beside him was an empty bottle labeled "LAUDITIN".From the breath out of his mouth, it could be smelled that he had taken poison.He died without saying a word, and found a letter in his possession, which briefly stated that he loved Mary so much that he decided to kill himself. Three truths come from the details Du Pont carefully read the information I extracted, and said: "You can see without me telling you that this case is much more complicated than the murder in the Rue Morgue. Although the methods of this case are very cruel, it is still an ordinary thing. Criminal crime. Because of this, people think that this case is easy to solve. In fact, it is also because of this that this case is really not easy to solve. Because of this, at first the police department thought that there was no need to offer a reward, thinking that the chief’s subordinates could immediately Find out what happened. They can imagine ways to kill—all kinds of ways. They can imagine motives for murder—all kinds of motives. Since so many ways and motives make sense, they take it for granted that Believe in one of the methods and motives. Take the falsehood as the truth, think it is easy, but it is difficult to do it. Therefore, I think that if a person uses his own wisdom to explore the truth of things, then he should have the ability to transcend Common sense. The question to ask in such cases is not 'what happened?' but 'what of what happened that has not happened before?' For the trained mind, 'unusual circumstances' It is the key that opens the door to success. Judging from the condition of the bodies found at the round wooden door, we don't need to worry about suicide or homicide.Some people think that the dead man was not Mary Roger, but the police department put a reward on the murderer of Mary Roger, and the agreement we reached with the police chief also found the murderer of Mary Roger.You and I know the director well, so don't trust him too much.If we start with that body and end up finding a murderer, it turns out that the body is not actually Mary's.Or, let's assume that Mary is still alive, use this as a survey population, and finally find her in good shape.In either of these two cases, our efforts are in vain, because in this way, Mr. Director will not give money.Therefore, even if it is not for the sake of justice, but only for our own sake, the first thing we must do is to verify the body of the dead body to see if the deceased is the missing Mary Roger. "The views of the Star have a great influence on public opinion, and the newspaper itself considers its views to be important. But the conclusions in that article seem to me to be nothing more than the enthusiasm of the author. Let us bear in mind that: Generally speaking, the purpose of newspapers is not to explore the truth and reasons of things, but to concoct a point of view and create a sensation. Only when exploring the truth and creating a sensation do not contradict each other, the press is willing to discuss The truth of the matter. A newspaper will not be popular with the public if it presents only ordinary opinions. It is only considered profound by the public when it is very different from the ordinary opinion. Reasoning is quite like literature, except that some shocking The theory will immediately be universally appreciated. In fact, whether it is reasoning or literature, the theory of surprise is the lowest level of things. "What I mean by this is that the claim that Mary Roger is still alive in The Star is a false alarm, an exaggeration, and grandstanding to attract readers. Let us analyze some of the paper's views. This thread, regardless of the inconsistency it showed from the beginning. "The author's first purpose was to show that the time between Mary's disappearance and the discovery of the floating body was short, so that the body could not be Mary's. So the reasoner deliberately narrowed this time to the minimum, at the beginning Conjecture, saying: "If Mary was really murdered, it doesn't make much sense to think that the murderer did it early enough to throw her body into the river before midnight. 'We naturally have to ask: why?Why doesn't it make sense to think that the girl was killed five minutes after she left the house?Why doesn't it make sense to think that the murder happened at a certain time of day?Homicides can happen at any time.As long as the murder occurred at any time between 9:00 am and :45:45 pm on Sunday, the murderer would have enough time to 'throw the body into the river before midnight'.Therefore, the author's conjecture is tantamount to this: the murder did not happen on a Sunday at all.To allow the Star to speculate like this would be to allow it to speculate wildly.It can be imagined that the writer's mind was ingrained in this way, 'If Mary was really murdered, it doesn't make sense to think that the murderer should have done it early and had to throw her body into the river before midnight.And it doesn't make sense to also think that the body has not been thrown into the river after midnight. '—This statement may seem contradictory, but it is not as absurd as the one published in the newspaper. " Dupont continued: "If I just want to refute the point of view of the "Star", the above comments are enough, and the matter ends here. However, the task of Xiangzai is not to comment on the "Star" article, but to find out the truth. That sentence in "The Star" has only one meaning on the surface, but it has a subtext. The murderer would not risk getting the body to the river before midnight, day or night. I don't think the author is right. The author thinks that the murder happened in such a place that the murderer had to drag the body to the river In fact, the murder could have happened right by the river, or on the river at all. In this way, the body could be thrown into the water at any time of the day, day or night, because it is the most convenient Methods. "The Star writer argued that if the body was Mary's, it had been in the water for a very brief period. In this way, he narrowed his reasoning considerably to suit his own needs. He went on to say: 'It has been proven that drowning The dead body of a dead person, or a dead body thrown into the water immediately after a violent death, takes six to ten days to rise to the surface due to severe decay. but after the fact, it sinks again.' Every Parisian paper acquiesces in this view except the Monument, which vehemently rejects the 'drowned body' paragraph, Five or six instances are given to show that it does not take as long as The Star claims for a drowned body to rise. However, it is somewhat inappropriate for The Monitor to use a few special examples to refute the general point of The Star. Clever. Even if it gives not five but fifty instances of dead bodies surfaced in two or three days, these are exceptions to the 'rule of nature' that The Star claims. As long as Acknowledging this 'rule of nature' (the "Monitor" does not deny this 'rule', but emphasizes that there are exceptions), "The Star"'s argument is still very convincing. "You will see right away that to refute The Star's argument, you must first refute the 'law of nature' that the Star puts forward.Therefore, this rule must be discussed first.The human body is about the same specific gravity as the water of the Seine, neither lighter nor heavier than the water of the river.That is to say, under normal conditions, the buoyancy of a person's body is equal to its displacement.The body of a person with small bones and a lot of fat is generally lighter than that of a person with large bones and thin body, and the body of a woman is generally lighter than that of a man.The specific gravity of the water in the river is sometimes affected by the tide coming from the sea.However, even if we don't take into account the sleepiness of sea water, it can still be said that very few people's bodies will sink in fresh water.A person who falls into the water can almost always come to the surface, as long as he is willing to fully immerse himself in the water, so that the displacement of the body is enough to float himself.For those who cannot swim, it is best to adopt the straight posture when walking on land: tilt the head back as much as possible, submerge in the water, and only let the nose and mouth out of the water.In this way, you can float without any effort.However, the body's weight and its water displacement are not easy to keep in balance, and one of them will overtake the other if one is not careful.For example, when one arm is stretched out, the arm loses the buoyancy of the water and becomes an extra weight, and the head sinks accordingly.And if you use the buoyancy of a small piece of wood, you can stick your head out of the water and look around.When people who can't swim struggle in the water, their hands are always lifted up, but their heads are always stretched out as usual, so that their noses and mouths are immersed in the water.When he was struggling to breathe in the water, water entered his lungs, and at the same time, a large amount of water also entered his stomach. The stomach and lungs were originally filled with air, but now they are filled with water, and the weight changes. The whole body is heavier than before.Generally, this added weight is enough to sink the body.But if it is a person with a lot of fat and small bones, he will not sink.Therefore, even if such people drown, they will still float on the water. "Once the body sinks to the bottom of the river, it stays there until for some reason it becomes lighter than water again. The decay of the body will cause this. The decay will produce gases, which will fill the tissues and internal organs. , making the whole body swell terribly. As more and more gas is filled, the volume of the corpse becomes larger and larger, but the weight does not increase. In this way, its specific gravity is lighter than that of water, and the corpse floats to the surface. But The decay is affected by various factors, some factors accelerate the decay, and some factors slow down the decay. The temperature of the season, the purity and mineral content of the water, the depth and flow of the water, the body temperature of the dead body, The presence or absence of disease, all of these factors can affect the rate at which a corpse decomposes. So it's hard to tell exactly how long it will take for a corpse to rise to the surface due to decay. Sometimes it may surface for an hour, and sometimes it may not rise at all 1. Some chemical liquids can make the corpse never rot, mercury dichloride is one of them. However, in addition to rot, the fermentation of vegetables and other things in the stomach will also produce gas, and other organs may also be caused by this Gas is produced for that reason, causing the corpse to float out of the water due to inflation. A shot at the corpse will only cause some vibrations to force the corpse to break away from the soft soil at the bottom. At this time, the effects of other factors will cause the corpse to float. Get up. The shock will also remove the stickiness from some of the decayed tissue, allowing the viscera to swell under the action of the gas. Once the whole point of the matter is clear, it can be conveniently used to test the claims of The Star.It said, 'Experience has shown that drowned bodies, or bodies thrown into water immediately after a violent death, take six to ten days to surface due to severe decay.This passage now appears to be extremely contradictory and unreasonable.Experience has not proved that a "drowned man's body" takes from six to ten days to surface due to severe decay. Both science and experience tell us that there is no fixed time for a dead body to surface. Furthermore, if bombardment Corpse, force it to the surface, leave it alone, and it won't sink again' unless the corpse is so decayed that the gas inside the corpse has escaped. There is a difference between a dead body thrown into the water immediately after a violent death. Although the author of the article admits this difference, he classifies the two together. I have just said why a drowning person is heavier than water .I also said that a man who can't swim sinks only when he struggles to get his arms out of the water and his head to breathe underwater, so that the air is squeezed out of his lungs. But 'violent to death A body that is thrown into the water immediately afterwards does not struggle and breathe in this way. It is therefore the usual natural rule for such a body that the body does not sink at all. The Star apparently ignores this fact. We don't see the body until it's extremely decomposed, when the flesh separates from the bones under tremendous pressure. “现在咱们再来讨论讨论《星报》的另一个观点：尸体可能不是玛丽·罗杰的，因为照它看来，刚刚过了三天，尸体怎么会浮上来呢？她是一个女人，即使是淹死的，也有可能沉不下去。即使沉下去了，也有可能在24小时内重新浮上来。但是并没有人认为她是淹死的。如果她是被害后才抛下水去的，那么随时都有可能发现她漂在水面。 《星报》又说：'如果死者遇害后，尸体一直放在岸边，一直放到星期二晚上才扔下水，那么在岸上就可以发现凶手的痕迹了。'这句话乍看起来很难辨出推理者的用意，其实推理者是预料到别人会对他的观点提出反驳，即，尸体在岸上放了两天，迅速腐烂，比沉在水里腐烂得还要快。他认为，如果此具尸体是这样的话，它有可能星期三就会浮出水面。他认为，只有在这种情况下，它才会这时漂浮。于是他赶紧指出尸体并没有放在岸上，因为，如果放在岸上的话，“那么在岸上就可以发现凶手的痕迹了。”你对这一推论一定也感到好笑，尸体放在岸上的时间长短，怎么会增加凶手的痕迹呢？你不明白，我也不明白。 “这家报纸接着说：'何况，如果事情真象大家所想的，是桩凶杀案，那么杀人凶手也太蠢了些，抛尸时居然不系重物，在当时系重物本是一件举手之劳的事'。你看，这种思维逻辑有多么混乱可笑！包括《星报》本身在内，没有一家报纸说这具尸体不是凶杀致死，因为暴力留下的痕迹太明显了。推理者的目的是想说尸体不是玛丽的，他想证明玛丽并未被杀——而不是想证明尸体的主人并未被杀。然而他的这番评论只能证明后面一条。尸体上未系重物，凶手抛尸时理应系重物，所以尸体不是凶手抛入水中的。作者只证明了这一点。他甚至没探讨死者究系何人。《星报》不遗余力地论述，只不过是否定了它刚刚承认的事实。它说：'我们完全相信，打捞上来的这具尸体是一位被谋杀致死的女性。' “这并不是这位推理者自相矛盾的唯一例子，他总是不自觉地做出有悖于自己论点的推论，我已经说过，他的目的很明显，是尽可能缩短从玛丽失踪到发现尸体这一段的时间长度。可是他却总是强调：姑娘离开母亲家后，就再没有人看到过她。他说：'我们没有证据说6月22日星期天上午9点钟以后玛丽·罗杰仍在人世。'由于他的观点显然是片面的，他至少应该不提这一问题。假如真有人在星期一或星期二见到过玛丽，那么时间长度就又大大缩短了，而根据他的理论，尸体是女店员的可能性也就大大减少了。可是说来有趣，《星报》是由于充分相信这样说可以加强自己的论点，所以才坚持这样说的。 “咱们再读一读该报对博韦辨认尸体的看法。关于胳膊上汗毛的描写，《星报》显然是信口雌黄。博韦先生不是傻瓜，绝不会一上来就看汗毛，仅仅凭胳膊上的汗毛就断定死者的正身，每个人的胳膊上都有汗毛。《星报》文中所说的话非常含糊笼统，这正好暴露出它在篡改证人的证词。证人一定说到了汗毛的某种特别之处，准是在颜色、疏密、长度等状况方面有什么特别之处。 “《星报》还说：'她的脚很小——其实女人的脚都是很小的。她的吊带袜不成为任何证据，鞋子也不成为任何证据，因为吊带袜和鞋子都是市场上成批出售的。她帽子上的假花当然也属于上述情况。博韦先生坚持指出的一件事是，死者吊带袜上的吊钩是翻转过来的，往下移了一些。这其实也说明不了什么问题，因为妇女大都不在商店里试吊带袜，而是买一双回去，如果不合适就再将吊钩调整。'从这段文字中不难看出，作者绝不是在认真推理。如果博韦先生在寻找玛丽尸体时发现一具女尸，这具女尸在体格和外貌上都与失踪的姑娘差不多，那么他不必多考虑死者的穿戴，尽可放心地认为自己已经找到了玛丽的尸体。如果除了体格和外貌相似外，他又在尸体的胳膊上发现了特别的汗毛，与玛丽生前他所看到的汗毛一样，那么他对这一辨认的准确性就更有把握了。汗毛越具特殊性，他的辨认准确性就越大。如果玛丽的脚小，尸体的脚也小，那么死者就是玛丽的这一可能性便又增加了——不仅仅是以算术级增加的。除此之外，再加上死者的鞋子与她那天失踪时所穿的鞋子一样，尽管这种鞋子可能是'成批出售的'，那么死者是玛丽的可能性就几乎达到了无疑的地步。有些东西本身并不足以作为辨尸证据，但通过它与其它证据相吻合，便构成了确凿的证据。比如说，死者帽子上的花与失踪姑娘帽子上的花是一样的，花儿每增加一朵，证据的可靠性就增加几倍。证据可靠性的增加，不是象做加法那样相加，而是象做乘法那样百千相乘。现在再来看看死者的吊带袜，这双吊带袜同玛丽生前穿的一样，这点倒没什么。但是这双吊带袜的吊钩翻转过来，因此变紧了，而玛丽离家时，她的吊带袜也是吊钩翻转，收紧过的，这一点便变成确凿无疑。《星报》对缩紧吊带袜的解释，只能说明它坚持自己的错误观点而已。吊带袜是有弹性的，翻转吊钩，这本身就不寻常，自身可以变长变短的东西，当然不需要借助外力来调节长短。玛丽用翻转吊钩的方式收紧吊带袜，那准是因为某种偶然的情况。所以，单单吊带袜本身就足以证明死者系玛丽。但是说死者就是玛丽，这并不是因为死者穿有玛丽的吊带袜，或穿有玛丽的鞋子，或戴有玛丽的帽子，或帽子上有玛丽戴的花，也不是因为死者的脚同玛丽的大小相仿，或胳膊上有特殊的记号，或身材与外貌酷似玛丽，而是困为死者具有所有的这些特征，正所谓样样齐全。在这种情况下《星报》的编辑大人还真的怀疑死者就是玛丽，他实在就没必要请律师为证人做心智状态调查了。他认为从律师们的闲谈中拾些牙慧，拉大旗作虎皮，为明智之举。其实，律师们大都是法庭成见的应声虫。我要在此说明，有许多事物虽然不被法庭承认为证据，只要有有识者认可便是最好的证据。因为法庭只讲事物的普遍性，根据已被大家公认并且已成为文字的原则办事，而不讲事物的特殊性，根据特殊的情况来办事。法庭墨守成规的作风，以及不具体事情具体分析的态度，形成了一个固定模式，即：在任何一段相关联的时间中，最大程度地获得可获得的真相。从总体上看，这种模式是明智的。但是在许多单个的案子中，这种模式却会产生错误。 “至于说博韦值得怀疑的那段，只应对它嗤之以鼻。你已经充分调查过这位好好先生，他是个爱管闲事的人，人挺浪漫，心眼儿不多。大凡这样的人，遇上刺激的事情，会有点举止失措，引起神经过敏者或别有用心者的怀疑中伤。根据你的报刊摘录看，博韦先生同《星报》编辑私下交谈过几次，他不管那位编辑对案情的看法，把自己的意见一古脑提出来，说尸体肯定就是玛丽的。这使编辑先生大为不快。《星报》说：'他坚持说尸体是玛丽的，但是除了上述的证据外，他再拿不出别的证据来使人相信他所做的辨认了。'现在且不评论《星报》所说，只说说这一点：在这类案子里，某人对某事极为了解，因此对某事深信不疑，但他却完全可能说不出一个简单的道理，使别人也相信他的深信不疑是有根据的。辨认人的事情尤为如此，没多少道理可言。每个人都认得出自己的邻居，然而却很少有谁能说出他认出领居的道理。博韦先生对自己的辨认深信不疑，这完全是正常的。《星报》编辑大可不必为此生气。 “我觉得，用'浪漫而好管闲事'来解释博韦的可疑行径，要比作者所推论的'博韦有罪'合理得多。一旦接受这种'度人以善'的解释，就不难理解锁孔上的玫瑰花、来客留言牌上的'玛丽'、'将死者的男性亲属挤出此案'、'反对家属看尸体'、嘱咐Ｂ太太在他本人回来之前不要同警察谈话，以及'他决心自己独揽此案进程、不容别人插手'之类的事情了。依我看，博韦肯定是玛丽的追求者之一，玛丽曾对他卖弄风情，而他则想让人们认为他与玛丽有极为密切的特殊关系。对此我不想多说。至于玛丽的母亲及亲人对玛丽之死所持的冷淡态度，如果他们真的相信尸体是玛丽的，那么漠不关心当然就不合情理了。不过有关的证据已经将《星报》的这一说法完全驳倒，他们对玛丽之死并不是麻木不仁，漠不关心。现在咱们姑且认为'尸体身份'的问题已经解决。且认为尸体就是玛丽的，然后再一步步往下分析。” 我插嘴问道：“你对《商报》的观点如何看法？” “它的观点比其它报纸的叫喊值得注意得多。它所做的推论是尖锐而又有一定学术性的。但是它所依据的前提在两点不够准确。《商报》想说明，玛丽出家门不远就被一伙流氓劫持。它说：'玛丽是一个大众都认得的女子，如果她走过三个街区，那么就不会没有人看到她。'这是一个久居巴黎之人所持的观点，他用自己的知名度与这位'香水女郎'的知名度相比较，于是马上认定，玛丽在街上走同他在街上走一样，会碰上认识的熟人。这种论点若要成立，前提必须是玛丽一定要象那位官员一样在自己特定的熟人多的街区之内。然而玛丽的出门行走，总的来说可能是没有规律的。在她最后一次出门的时候，咱们几乎可以这样说，她走的路线并不是她常走的。《商报》所认为的那种玛丽会象别的名人一样被人认出，这种两个人的完全相似，只有在两个人都横穿全市时才会发生。在这种情况下，如果两个人的熟人相等，那么他们也就有同样的机会遇到同样多的熟人。我个人认为，如果玛丽在某一时候上街，在从她家到她姑妈家的许多路线中拣一条去走，那么她不仅可能，而且大有可能没碰上一个熟人。这类问题应该这样看：即使巴黎最有名的人，他的熟人，在巴黎的总人口中也只是沧海一粟。 “不论《商界》的观点看上去多有说服力，只要一考虑到这位姑娘出门的时间，这种说服力就大大减少了。《商报》说：'她离家出门时，正是街上人多的时候'。其实井非如此。那是上午9点钟，上午9点钟确实正是街上人多的时候，但星期天例外。星期天的上午9点钟，人们大部在家里准备去教堂。善于观察的人都会注意到，每个安息日，从早上8点到10点钟，城里格外冷清。10点到点钟街上就熙熙攘攘了。但9点钟却没有多少人。 “还有一处也可以看出《商报》的观察不仔细。它说：“凶手将这个可怜姑娘的裙子撕下70公分长、30公分宽的一条，绑到了她的下巴底下，绕到脑袋后面。凶手这样做可能是为了防止她喊叫，由此看来，凶手是没有带手帕的。 '咱们回头再分析这种论断是否有根据，不过编辑用'凶手是没有带手帕的'这句话，是想表明凶手属于流氓中最下等的。然而，他所说的这种人，即使不穿衬衣，也总是带手帕的。你应该也已注意到．近年来，十足的下流痞也总是身带手帕的。 " 我问道：“怎么看《太阳报》的文章呢？” “极为可惜此文的作者生下来时不是一只学舌的鹦鹉，如果是，他肯定会成为同类中的佼佼者。他的文章不过是把那些已经见报的看法重复一遍而已。他勤奋可嘉，把各家报纸上的观点收集到一起。他说：'这些物品在那里显然已经至少三四个星期了。现在可以肯定地说，凶杀现场已被找到。'《太阳报》在文中重述的这些事实，根本无法消去我对这一问题的怀疑。” “现在必须先看看其它方面的调查。你一定注意到，验尸是很草率的。当然，死者的身份问题很好确认，但是还有其它问题也需确定。死者是否遭过抢？她出门时是占戴有珠宝首饰？如果戴了，那么发现尸体时珠主首饰还在吗？这些问题非常重要，可居然没有这方面证据。还有一些问题也很重要，必须亲自调查这些情况。圣尤斯达西自杀案也要重新调查。虽然我并不怀疑他与玛丽之死有关，可还是要一步步把事情弄清楚。他交给警察局长的那份关于他星期天行踪的具结书，也得查查说的是不是实话。这类的具结书很容易被弄得神神秘秘的。不过，如果圣尤斯达西在具结书中所言全是实话，咱们就可以不再去调查他了。他自寻短见，确实很有些可疑，但只要他在具结书中没有撤谎，那么即使他有关联，也可以理解。咱们不必多在他身上下工夫了。” “我的想法是，咱们且不去管这桩惨案中的各种内部因素，而从外往里攻。进行这类调查时，人们往往只顾研究直接证据，而全然不管那些附带的细节。这是一种错误。法庭审理案件时也常常失当，它只对明显有关的事情进行查证、讨论。实践和正确的理论表明，真相大部来自那些看起来似乎无关的事。根据这一原则，现代科学才总是考虑偶然性因素。人类知识的历史始终表明，无数重大的发现都是通过不重要的偶然事件实现的，归根结底为了科学的不断进步，必须尽量留有余地，允许意想不到的发明通过偶然机遇来实现。以想象为基础，这已是人们常做的事情了，人们已经承认意外事件是基础结构的一部分。我们认为机遇是一件完全可以计算进去的因素。我们甚至可以用数学公式去计算那些未曾斯待、未曾想象的东西。 “我重申一遍，真相大部来自细枝末节的小事。这不仅是事实，而且涉及到了重要的原则。在本案中，我就是要本着这种原则，先不去调查那些人们已调查了好久却毫无收获的重点线索，而去研究与其相关的环境证据。你去核实那份具结书，而我再范围更广泛地看看报纸资料。到目前为止，咱们只是弄清楚了调查范围。说真的，如果我广读报纸之后，仍无调查方向，那就怪了。”