Chapter 6 Roger Mystery 4, 5

Four pairs of jungle question marks Following DuPont's suggestion, I carefully investigated and verified the contents of St. Eustace's affidavit, and found that everything St. Eustace said was true and he was innocent.Meanwhile my friend, after a week of careful and extensive reading of the various papers, brought me this excerpt: Three and a half years ago there was a sensational news, that is, the sudden departure of the same Marie Roger from M. de Nablanc's perfume shop in the Rue Palais Royale, which caused as much public opinion as now.But a week later, she appeared in front of customers as usual, only a little emaciated.According to Mr. Nablanc and her mother, she was only in the country to visit relatives.The matter quickly died down.We estimate that her current disappearance is similar to the last time, and that in a week, or at most a month, she will be back among us again. — Evening Post, Monday, June 23

One of the evening papers yesterday mentioned the last mysterious disappearance of Miss Roger.Many people know that when she ran away from the Nablanc perfume shop, she was looking for a young naval officer who was notoriously dissolute.According to speculation, she only came home because they had a quarrel.This naval officer, named Lothario, is currently stationed in Paris, but for self-evident reasons does not wish to reveal his identity. —The Courier-Journal, Tuesday morning, June 24 The night before yesterday an extremely brutal atrocity took place in the outskirts of the city.There are six young people rowing and playing on the Seine River.A gentleman with his wife and daughter hired these young men to row them across the river.When the boat reached the other side, the three passengers disembarked and landed.They had not gone far, and the boat was out of sight, when the daughter suddenly found the parasol thrown in the boat.When she went back to get her umbrella, the group of young gangsters hijacked her, gagged her, carried her into the river, raped her, and then sent her to the original bank, not far from where she boarded the boat with her parents.The criminals are currently on the run.However, the police are stepping up their pursuit and several of them will be arrested soon. ——Morning News, June 25

We've received a letter or two accusing Manners of being one of the perpetrators of the rape of a teenage girl in the last few days.However, since Mr. Manners has been proved innocent by legal review, and the report letters are more than enthusiastic, but the evidence is insufficient, this newspaper believes that it is not appropriate to publish. ——Morning News, June 28. We have received several letters from readers in different terms and from various sources, all of whom believe that Marie Roger was killed by a gang of hooligans who made trouble on the Seine on Sunday.This newspaper believes that the speculation of these letters is credible.We will open up a column and post some of the letters one after another. ——June 30 "Evening Post"

On Monday, a bargeman employed by the tax office saw an empty boat floating on the Seine with its sails on the bottom.The boatman towed the boat to the barge office.The next day, someone took the boat away without greeting the staff of the barge office.The rudder of the ship remains at the barge office. ——Thursday, June 26, "Traffic News" After reading these abstracts, I feel that they are not only irrelevant, but also have little to do with the case.I'm waiting for an explanation from DuPont. "The first two of these excerpts," said Dupont, "I don't want to dwell on them now. I've copied them down to give you an idea of ​​how careless the police are. I've heard from the chief that they haven't even investigated the Marine. Officer. However, it would be foolish to assume that the two disappearances were not connected because of lack of evidence. Let us assume for the time being that the account of the Evening Post is true: that after the first Going home. Now we may as well regard the second elopement (if we really know that it is an elopement) as a second success of the flower thief, and not as another man's stealing. That is to say, depending on It is the "revisiting the mandarin dream" of the old lover, not the knot of the new lover. If one possibility is that Mary's old lover proposes to elope again, and the other possibility is that Mary is abducted by another man, then the two The only possible ratio is ten to one. Please bear in mind the fact that the first elopement was separated from the second hypothetical elopement by several months, and the time difference between the two is not too different from that of a naval ship. Is it possible Think of it this way: when Mary's lover kidnapped Mary for the first time, the good things were interrupted because of a mission to sea, so as soon as he returned to the country, he hurried to complete his unfinished business?"

"You must say that Mary's second departure was not the elopement that people imagined. Of course not, but can't we think that this departure is an attempted elopement? Except St. Eustace, maybe And besides Beauvais, we have no known respectable man who openly pursued Mary. There are no rumors of other men pursuing her, so it seems that the person who asked her must be a secret lover. Mary's relatives (At least most of the relatives) did not know this man, but Mary had a tryst with this man on Sunday morning. Mary trusted this man so much that she stayed with him in the dense woods around the Log Gate until dusk fell. Mary's Most of the relatives didn't know who this lover was. On the morning Mary left home, Mrs. Roger said 'I'm afraid I'll never see Mary again.' What was the meaning of this prophetic statement?"

"If it is inconvenient to think that Mrs. Roger secretly participated in the elopement plan, it can be assumed that Mary accepted the elopement plan of the lover. When she left home, she told others that she was going to visit her aunt in Drome Street, and asked St. Eus Darcy picked her up in the evening. At first glance, these facts are quite different from my assumption, but let's think about it. It is now known that she did meet a man and spent time with him at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. River, went to the wilderness of Yuanmumen. But when she agreed to be with that man, she must have thought of what she told others when she left home that she was going to her aunt's house. She must also have thought that when her fiancé was making an appointment What fear and doubt would have been in St. Eustace's heart when time failed her? I dare say she must have thought of these at the time. She must have foreseen the distressed look of St. Eustace, She had foreseen the skeptical expressions of the crowd. She did not dare to go back and face people's skepticism. However, if she decided not to go back, this kind of skepticism would be of little importance to her.

"Let's imagine her thinking like this: 'I'm going to meet someone, run away with him, or do something that only I know what it is. This thing must not be interrupted by others, it must be Plenty of time to evade pursuit. So I want you to think I'm going to see my aunt for the day, and I'm going to let Seustache pick me up in the evening. You'll get more time this way than the other way. , and reasonable. I asked St. Eustace to pick me up in the evening, and he wouldn't pick me up before evening. But if I didn't tell St. Eustace to pick me up in the evening, my escape time would be less, and people would think I shall be back before evening, and my failure to do so will soon cause disquiet. Besides, if I do intend to come back, and if I come back and explain that I have gone for a walk with somebody, then I will not have to be picked up by St. Eustace. I went. Because as soon as he came to pick me up, he would find out that I was lying to him, and if I was really lying to him, I would just leave without saying hello, and go back before dark, and then said I went to see my aunt That way he'll be kept in the dark and have no idea I've tricked him, but since I'm never coming back, or coming back in a few weeks, or hiding for a while, then it's okay for me The most important thing is to buy time.

"Judging from the information you have extracted, the general opinion on this unfortunate incident has always been that the girl was killed by a gang of hooligans. Of course, under certain circumstances, the public's opinion deserves attention, and the public spontaneously forms a certain In the case of an opinion, it should be treated as something akin to intuition, which is the property of a man of genius. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, I would go with the popular opinion, but its premise Yes, this kind of public opinion must not contain traces of being instigated by others. In this case, I think the "public opinion" is extreme. The third news I extracted is an incident of gangsters raping a girl. The public The opinion of the case of Marie is somewhat influenced by such cases. The body of Marie, a young, beautiful and well-known girl, was floated in the Seine, which of course shocked Paris. And the body was still bruised. Yet everyone heard Said that during the time Mary was killed, a gang of teenage hooligans committed a similar, albeit less severe, act of violence against another girl. An act known to the general public could affect the perception of another not yet known. The judgment of an atrocity that knows its cause, don't you think it is wonderful? The judgment of the public needs to be guided in direction, and the known atrocity steered it at the right time! The atrocity took place on the Seine Yes, and Marie's body was also found on the Seine. The connection between the two atrocities is too obvious. In fact, taking a known atrocity as evidence of another approximately simultaneous atrocity proves, in most cases, that the approximately simultaneous atrocity did not actually occur like the known atrocity. What a miracle it would be if a gang of rascals in such and such place committed a heinous crime, and at the same time, with the same means and with the same equipment, did the same crime! Yet Well, what is it, if not this marvelous coincidence, that the accident-driven view of the public would have us believe!

"Before going further in-depth, let's study the so-called murder scene in Yuanbenmen dense forest. Although this dense forest is deep, it is not far from the road. There are three or four large stones in the dense forest, which look like a sheet with Seat with backrest and footstool. A white dress was found on the upper stone, a silk scarf on the second stone, a parasol, a pair of gloves and a handkerchief. The handkerchief was embroidered with 'Mary Roger''s name. Cloth rags hung from the branches of the surrounding bushes. The ground had been trampled, and the bushes had broken branches, and there was every indication that there had been a fight.

"While the press applauds this great discovery in the jungle as much as the public, we have every reason to be skeptical. This is the scene, and I can believe it or not. If, as in Handelsblatt It is said that the scene of the real murderer was in the Rue Saint-André, and the murderer, if he was still in Paris, would naturally be terrified by the fact that the eyes of the public were watching the right direction. According to the ordinary way of thinking, the murderer would immediately think that he must take action. Some kind of action to divert people's attention. Therefore, since the dense forest around the log gate has been suspected, the murderer will naturally think of putting Mary's remains there for people to discover. Although the "Sun" believes that those in the dense forest The item has been sitting there for a long time, but it has not produced enough evidence to say so. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that there was a period of 20 days between the Sunday of the accident and the discovery of them by the two boys. Such a long time It is impossible for them to be there without being seen, the Sun said: 'The items were all moldy from the rain, forming hard clumps of mildew. A few items had growths around them. Grass. The silk umbrella surface of the parasol is strong, but the silk thread inside the umbrella is tangled together. The parasol is a folded type, and the upper part is moldy and rotten. When it is opened, it will be broken. Regarding a few items, grass has grown around it. , and even grass grew on the objects', apparently the two little boys said, from memory, because they did not tell others after they took these things home. It should be thought that the murder took place in the hot and humid In summer, at this season, the grass grows two or three inches high in only one day. In a week, the grass grows so dense and high that the parasols are completely buried and invisible. Let us return to "The Sun "Moldy" has been repeatedly emphasized in the "Moldy" newspaper. In this short paragraph, the editor mentioned the word "mildew" as many as three times. Could it be that he really doesn't understand what is "moldy"? He has never heard of the so-called 'mold', which is a kind of fungus, and one of the most common characteristics of this fungus is that it can grow and wither rapidly within 24 hours?

"It is then clear at a glance that The Sun's argument that these objects were 'at least three or four weeks' in the jungle is untenable. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that these objects would have been in the jungle for One week, that is, from that Sunday to the next Sunday. Anyone who knows a little about the suburbs of Paris knows that it is extremely difficult to find a "secluded" place except in the far suburbs Finding a secluded and secluded place in the wooden woods is impossible, don't even think about it. A person who loves nature and is bound by work in the metropolis all day long, let such a person try, let him in On weekdays when there are very few tourists, he goes to those beautiful places in the suburbs to satisfy his desire for quietness. Once he goes there, he will constantly see groups of hooligans making noise and violating people, so he will lose interest. He wanted to find a deserted place in the depths of the forest, but he would never find it. The depths of the forest became the dirtiest corners, the most polluted temples. The wanderer would be disgusted and hurried back to the polluted In Paris, it seems that the dirty city is somewhat cleaner than the suburbs where villains are rampant. However, since the suburbs are so crowded with hooligans on weekdays when there are fewer tourists, how miserable it will be on holidays! During holidays, the city's dirty People don't have to go to work, and there are fewer people in the city at this time, and criminals lack opportunities to commit crimes, so they flock to the suburbs. They don't come to the suburbs to get close to the beautiful nature, they come here to escape society All kinds of habits and constraints. What they yearn for is not the fresh air and green trees, but the "indulgence" conditions given by the rural environment. Here, whether it is in a roadside tavern or under the shade of a tree, friends and friends gather together, without People throw reproachful glances at them, they can drink and play and have fun, even if it's dark. I say this without embellishment, and many people have seen it with their own eyes. I have. So I would like to point out again that, under these circumstances, it is quite a miracle that the above-mentioned objects were left unnoticed for at least a week in the woods near Paris! "In addition to this, there are other reasons that can make people suspect that the objects in the dense forest are intended to divert people's attention from the real crime scene. First, please pay attention to the date when those objects were found You compare this date with the date of the fifth message I have extracted. You will find that the articles appeared as soon as a letter was sent to the "Evening Post". Letters from readers have different sources, but the same purpose Same thing, ie: draw attention to a gang of hooligans, saying they are murderers, and draw attention to Log Gate Wilderness, saying it was the scene of the murder. Of course, this situation does not mean that , because of letters from readers, because people's attention was directed by letters from readers in the newspaper, the two boys found those objects. But we can wonder this way: why didn't the children find these objects before? It is because these The item was not in the jungle at all before, it was put there by the "reader" who wrote the letter on the day of writing the letter, or shortly before writing the letter. "This dense forest is very special, very, very special. It is very dense. In the depths of the dense forest, there are several special stones arranged in the shape of a seat with a backrest and a footstool. This area is full of artistic atmosphere The dense forest is very close to Mrs. Deluc’s house, but only a few tens of meters. The two children of Mrs. Deluc’s family often carefully search for sassafras bark in the bushes of the dense forest. If you don’t believe me, I’ll take a bet. For a bet of one thousand, I said that at least one of them will sit on this "throne in the forest hall" every day. Anyone who came here when they were young and has not forgotten what is the nature of a boy will agree with me Same, take that bet. I repeat, those objects would be absurd if left undiscovered in the jungle, even for a day or two, so we can completely ignore the dogmatic ignorance of The Sun. We should It is believed that those objects were placed there at a rather late date. "Aside from that, I have other, stronger reasons to believe that things were put on the back. Now notice the artifacts in the way these objects are arranged. A white skirt rests on a stone that looks like a backrest, like a seat A silk scarf resting on a stone, a parasol, a pair of gloves and a handkerchief with the name 'Mary Roger' embroidered on the ground. Such an arrangement must have been a not too shrewd person. People, trying to make the 'site' look natural. But this arrangement is not natural. If these things are thrown on the ground, trampled on, it would be more real. In this In a narrow tree-lined place, after many people fought fiercely, the skirt and silk were still on the stone, which is impossible. It is said, "The ground has traces of trampling, and the branches of the dwarf trees are broken. It must be caused by fighting." '—but the skirt and silk scarf were still there, as if on a shelf. And the "Sun" said: "The cloth strips torn from the bushes are 10 cm wide and 20 cm long , one is the skirt of the jacket, mended, they look like torn strips.' The Sun accidentally put it right. It said the rags were 'like torn strips'. They It was indeed torn, and it was intentionally torn by hand. It is extremely rare for clothes of this texture to be torn into strips by thorns. If thorns or nails are nailed into the clothes, the cloth will be torn into triangles but never tear the cloth into strips. I have never seen this, and I imagine you will too. To tear a strip out of such a fabric requires two forces in different directions at the same time. If this A piece of cloth has borders on both sides, like a handkerchief, for example, and then, and only then, one force is sufficient to tear off one strip. But now we are talking about a garment, which has only one border. And never If the garment is torn in the middle, there is no edge. In this case, the thorns will never be able to tear it. However, even if there is a edge, there must be two thorns, and the selvedge must be left unsewn .If it is sewn on, it cannot be torn apart at all. Now we are faced with the fact that not only has it been torn off, but it has been torn into many strips. One of them is the skirt of the coat! There is another from the dress. That is to say, by the force of the thorns, they were completely torn from the dress without the hem! It is hard to believe. However, in the whole thing, This can only be regarded as a small doubt, but the more obvious doubt is that since the murderer carefully moved the corpse, he ignored these items so carelessly and left them in the dense forest. I want to deny this film The woods are the scene of the murder. There may have been a crime here, or, more likely, an incident at Madame Deluc's tavern. But this is not really important. We are not looking for a crime scene, but a Find out who the murderer is. My cumbersome deduction is firstly to prove that the arbitrary conclusion of the "Sun" is wrong, and secondly, to let you think and reason along the most natural way of thinking, and further Doubt: Is this murder a gangster?gangster did it. "As long as one thinks of the coroner's report, such doubts cannot but be revived, and I suffice to say that all the eminent anatomists in Paris scoffed at the inferences in the coroner's report concerning the number of hooligans, which they regarded as groundless. Not because the matter cannot be inferred in this way, but because, if this inference is groundless, is there no good reason for another inference? "Now let's think about the broken branches of the short trees mentioned in the article 'must be caused by fighting'. I would like to ask what this chaotic scene should indicate? It indicates that there is a group of hooligans. But it does not also indicate" "Isn't there a group of hooligans? One side is a helpless girl, and the other is a so-called 'gang of hooligans'. There is such a huge disparity in power. How could such a fierce fight happen? How could there be such a fierce fight? What a mess? Two big men just grab her by the arms, and everything is done. The girl must obey, and she must obey. My judgment is not to deny that this dense forest is a crime scene, but Denying that this dense forest is a crime scene committed by a group of people. If only one person committed the crime, it makes sense to leave traces of such a fierce struggle. "Besides, I have just mentioned the suspicious nature of the items at the scene. The criminal would be so foolish as to leave such evidence in the woods, waiting to be discovered. The fact itself is very doubtful. The criminal accidentally took the evidence It is almost impossible to stay there. The criminal thought of moving the corpse, but after a period of decay, the characteristics of the corpse will disappear. However, the criminal left the evidence that is more telling than the corpse at the scene— —I mean the handkerchief with the name of the dead man embroidered on it. If it were an accident, it would not have been a gang of criminals. It is conceivable that such an accident can only happen to a single person. Let us see Take a look: Someone killed Mary, and there was only him and the dead body in the woods. The motionless body on the ground made him shudder. When there are many people, they will encourage each other, and each one is daring, but when the murderer is alone, he is not so confident. He is guarding a corpse alone, trembling and at a loss. However, the corpse is no matter what It was also to be disposed of. He carried the body to the river, but left other evidence of the crime, because it was not only difficult, but impossible to get everything away at once, and to come back after disposing of the body These things are also easy. However, as he struggled to get the body to the river, the fear in his heart continued to increase. He always heard noises, and a dozen times, he thought someone was following him. Even the city Even the lights in the district made him suspicious. He was terrified all the way, stopped and stopped, and finally rushed to the river, perhaps with the help of a small boat, and disposed of this terrible corpse. At this moment, thinking of the ominous omen of retribution, even No matter how sweet the murderer is, he will not go back on this path of fear and experience all the chilling things. He will never go back. He has only one thought: to escape. He turned around and escaped from this terrible the bushes, revenge will come upon themselves. "If the murderer is a group of hooligans, they are a group of gangsters, and they are daring. Besides, each of these guys is quite courageous. There are many of them, so they won't be as scared as a single perpetrator. If negligence is possible with one, two or three people, then it is absolutely impossible for four people to be negligent. They will never leave any evidence behind, because they have enough people and can put the evidence in one fell swoop. All transfer away. No need to come back again. "Now let's look at the condition of the corpse's coat.' There was a slit more than 30 centimeters wide on the coat, which was torn from the hip up to the waist, but it was not torn. Tie a knot and fasten it.’ This is obviously to create a handle to carry the corpse. But, how many people would you think of using this method of transporting the corpse? If there are three or four people, There are grasping arms and grasping legs, the limbs of the corpse are just in use, and it is extremely convenient to lift. This buckling method is for one person to operate. This can not help but remind people of the description of the police station: "In the dense forest and Between the river, there was also a fence that was knocked down. According to the condition of the ground, it can be seen that someone dragged a heavy object to pass by. 'If the murderer is a gang, why did they knock down the fence just to drag a corpse? They could have carried the body over the fence with no trouble at all! Besides, why did they have to drag the body and leave such a long trail of trails? "Here we have to go back to a statement in the Handelsblatt, which I have just read once. The newspaper said: 'The murderer tore off a strip 70 centimeters long and 30 centimeters wide from the poor girl's skirt, It was tied under her chin and around the back of her head, which the murderer may have done to prevent her from screaming. From this, it can be seen that the murderer did not wear a handkerchief." "As I said just now, even the most filthy rascals always wear handkerchiefs. But it is not the question of whether rascals wear handkerchiefs. Now that one of Mary's handkerchiefs has been found in the woods, it is enough to show that The fact is not that there are no handkerchiefs as the "Business Daily" said. The murderer used a cloth strip instead of a handkerchief that is much more useful, which is enough to show that the murderer's purpose was not to 'prevent her from shouting.'. However, in the police testimony But he said that the linen gauze was "loosely wrapped around her neck and tied in a knot". Although this sentence is quite vague, it is quite different from what the "Business Daily" said. Although the cloth is made of linen , but it is 30 cm wide, and folded or twisted together, it is enough to form a strong belt. When the body was found, the cloth was twisted into a belt in this way. My inference is this: this single person committed the crime The murderer tied the belt around the waist of the corpse, and lifted the corpse for a certain distance—maybe from the dense forest to the river, or from other places. He felt that the corpse was too heavy to be lifted in this way, so he dragged it instead. Pulling. Evidence has also shown that the corpse is dragged. To drag it, you have to tie a rope or something around the head or feet of the corpse. It is best to tie the rope around the neck. However, in this way, the rope can be prevented from slipping. So the murderer suddenly thought of the cloth belt around the corpse's waist. The murderer would have used this ready-made belt, but the belt had been wound around the corpse several times. There was also a knot, and besides it was torn from the coat. The murderer thought it would be easy to tear another one from the petticoat. He tore one in this way, tied it around the neck of the dead man, and dragged the body in this way. To the river. The murderer's use of this troublesome and ineffective belt can only mean that there were no handkerchiefs at that time, in other words, he had already got the body out of the dense forest by this time (if the dense forest was really the scene words), he was on the road between the woods and the Seine. "But what does Madame Deluc's testimony say, 'A group of rascals ... eat and drink, make a lot of noise, wipe their mouths after eating, and walk the same way as young men and women without paying money. Go, don't come back till it's almost dark, and hurry off across the river.' "This so-called 'hurry' may be what Mrs. DeChank thinks of as haste, for she is lamenting the pastries and beer that were buried in vain, hoping to get at least a little compensation. Otherwise, since 'it's getting dark,' 'hurry "Of course, why did she need to emphasize the word 'hasty'? Even if a group of hooligans want to cross the river in a small boat when dusk is approaching, of course, they must hurry to the early morning rather than late, and they will walk in a 'hurry', which is not enough. weird. "When I say 'twilight is coming,' I mean that night has not yet come. It is 'it is getting dark,' which makes the hurry of the rascals so sharp to Madame Deluc's waking eyes.But it is said that Mrs. Deluc and her eldest son 'heard a woman screaming nearby' that night. How does Mrs. Deluc describe the time she heard the screaming?She said 'It's just getting dark'.But 'it's just getting dark' means that it was already 'dark'; and 'it's getting dark' means that the sky is still 'light'.From this it can be seen that Madame Deluc must have heard the screams after the rascals had left the log door.And yet, not a single newspaper, not a single policeman, who knows nothing but to carry out the orders of his master, took notice of this relationship, despite the numerous testimonies which, without exception, expressed the relationship I have described. "I will add the last argument for 'the murderer is not a group of hooligans'. This argument is also the most weighty one in my opinion. Since the police have announced the policy of heavy rewards for whistleblowers and amnesty for those who surrender, then this gang is all In a gang of hoodlums, there should be someone who will stand up and betray his accomplice. Each member of the gang may not be greedy for rewards, and may not be eager to escape, but he is afraid of being betrayed by others. So in order to avoid being betrayed by others, I act first. Betray others quickly. However, no one has come forward to leak the secret, which in itself is enough to prove that it is indeed a secret. That is to say, only one or two people in the world know The truth of the murder, other than that, only God knows. Five "sailor knots" "Let us now conclude this lengthy analysis. We have concluded that there are two possibilities for the murder, the possibility that it took place in Madame Deluc's tavern, and the possibility that the murder The crime took place in the dense forest on the outskirts of Roundwood Gate. The murderer was the lover of the deceased, or at least, someone who had a secret relationship with the deceased. This person had dark skin, this complexion, and the 'button' on the back of the deceased The "sailor's knot" and the "sailor's knot" on the hatband indicate that the murderer is a sailor. The deceased was a romantic beauty, but not frivolous. This person can make friends with the deceased, which shows that he is not an ordinary sailor. Various newspapers received This is also confirmed by the earnest letters we have received from readers. From the first elopement reported by the "Courier", we can easily form the idea that this sailor was the one who first seduced the unfortunate girl' Naval officer'. "And this point just reminds people that the dark-skinned gentleman has not shown his face for a long time. I want to interject here and talk about the skin of this gentleman. His skin is not ordinary dark, but dark enough. It made Valence and Mrs. Deluc unforgettable, and kept this skin color as the only characteristic in memory. But why didn’t this gentleman show up? Could it be that he was also killed by gangsters? If so, why only Left traces of the girl? If there were two murders at the scene, it should always be obvious through clues. Besides, where is his body? In most cases, the murderer will use the same method to dispose of the same crime Two corpses. But some people may say that this gentleman is still alive, but he is afraid to show up because he is afraid of being suspected of murder. He may indeed consider the matter in this way, because the testimony says that he was seen with Mary. But this It does not mean that he killed Mary. The first thing an innocent person thinks of in this kind of thing is to explain the truth of the matter and help the police identify the murderer. This is the best strategy. Someone saw him with the girl, and they Across the river in an open ferry, even a fool would understand that reporting the murderer was the best way to exonerate him. He couldn't have been innocent on that Sunday night without knowing that the atrocity had taken place. If he is still alive now, there is only one circumstance that prevents him from reporting the crime. "What method do we use to find out the truth? As we analyze step by step, we will find that the method will become more and more detailed and specific. Let's look up the details of the first elopement, look up 'naval officer' the whole history of his life, his present condition, and where he was at the time of the murder. Let us compare carefully each of the letters sent to the "Evening Post" to show that the murderer was a gang. Then, according to The writing style and style of writing are compared with the whistleblowing letters sent to the "Morning News" earlier to frame Manners. After the comparison, we will use the letters received by the two newspapers to compare with the Navy Let us compare the handwriting of the letters written by the officers. We will have to question and question Madame Deluc and her son, and to question and question the coachman Valence, to further clarify the appearance and behavior of the 'dark' man. As long as we can Asking, asking skillfully, will surely reveal useful things that the interrogee himself is not aware of. Next we will ask the bargeman who picked up the boat on the morning of Monday, June 23. This The boat 'without a rudder' was picked up before the body was found, and was taken away without calling the barge office. If we search carefully and persevere, we shall find the boat, for not only那个拾到船的驳船船夫能把它认出来，而且船舵现在驳船办事处。一个问心无愧的人，不会连问都不问一声，连船舵也不要了，径直把自己的船给取走。在此我要插入一个问题，驳船办事处并没登广告招领失船。船是悄悄地拖到办事处，又悄悄地被人取走了的。但是船主也好，船夫也好，既然没有广告，他怎么会星期二一大早就知道船被谁检去了呢？除非这人与航运业或海军有关，知道船舶方面的一切小小动态。 “至于那个单个儿作案的凶手把尸体拖往河边嘛，刚才我已经说过他很可能有一条船。现在咱们应该这样认为：玛丽·罗杰是从船上扔下去的。实际情况应该如此。凶手绝不会将尸体扔在岸边的浅水中一走了事。死者背部和肩部的伤痕是船底硌的。尸体上未系重物也证实了这一点。如果凶手在岸边抛尸，肯定会在尸体上系上重物。咱们现在只能推测凶手划船离岸时一时疏然，忘记带重物了。他投尸入水时，当然发现了这一疏忽，但是这时已没有别的法子，手边确实没东西。即使不系重物日后会有很多风险，但也总比返回那倒霉的岸边强。凶手抛下尸体后，就匆匆赶回市区，找了一个僻静的码头，一跃上岸。但是小船呢，他为什么不把它系住？他准是太着急了，来不及系船。再说，他觉得把船拴在码头上，这无异于留下了一份于己不利的证据。他本能地希望，把一切与这桩凶杀有关的东西都扔得越远越好。他不但要逃离码头，而且也不许这条船留在这里。他当然希望它远远地漂走，随波逐流。但第二天早上，这个倒霉蛋惊恐地得知小船已被人拾到，并被拖到了一个他每天都要去的地方——也许是出于工作需要每天都必须去的地方。到了夜里，他把小船偷走，但没胆量去把舵一起找来。现在这条无舵的小船在哪儿呢，这是咱们首先要查明的事情。只要找到了它，胜利就为期不远了。这条小船将会以惊人的速度把咱们引向那个星期天午夜划过它的人。这样一来，证据一环套一环，凶手就无从藏身了。” 我听到这里，不禁抽案叫绝，催促杜邦立即行动。杜邦笑了，他道：“下面的一切，该我们那位可爱的警察局长干了。”这时局长大人刚好造访，我于是迫不及待地让他去查。他相当困惑，又半信半疑，但还是勉强按“船——使驾人——海军军官——军官那天的行为”这条线索查了。这里不想以繁琐的取证细节劳累读者诸君，只想指出一点，结果与杜邦的推论丝毫不爽。凶手就是那个海军军官，而杜邦也因此得到局长许诺的虽然极不情愿给还是给了的酬金。 因此，从杜邦办案之后，我打心眼儿里不相信什么超自然的力量。我把一切都说成巧合，困为我所讲的这个故事说明了这样一点。我所使用的“偶然性规律”表明推断事实真相时，如果只见树木不见树林，过分注重细节，那么就会推出一连串的错误；反之，如果只见森林而不见树更令失之谬误，百思不解。