A COUNCIL OF WAR
At nine that evening, Inspector Burnley knocked at the door of the
Chief’s room in the Sûreté. Lefarge was already there, and, as
Burnley sat down, M. Chauvet said:--
‘Lefarge is just going to tell his adventures. Now, Lefarge, if you
please.’
‘As arranged on Saturday,’ began the detective, ‘I went to Dijon
yesterday and called on Mlle. Daudet in the rue Popeau. She seems a
quiet, reliable girl, and, I think, truthful. She corroborated M.
Boirac’s and the butler’s statements on every point, but added three
details they omitted. The first was that Mme. Boirac took a
wide-brimmed hat, but no hatpins. This seemed to strike the girl as
very strange, and I asked why. She said because the hat was useless
without the pins, as it would not stay on. I suggested the lady must
have been so hurried she forgot them, but the girl did not think that
possible. She said it would have taken no appreciable time to get the
pins, as they were stuck in the cushion at Madame’s hand, and that a
lady would put in hatpins quite automatically and as a matter of
habit. In fact, had they been forgotten, the loose feel of the hat,
even in the slight air caused by descending the stairs, would have at
once called attention to the omission. She could offer no explanation
of the circumstance. The second detail was that Madame took no
luggage--not even a handbag with immediate necessaries for the night.
The third seems more important still. On the morning of the
dinner-party Madame sent Suzanne to the Hotel Continental with a note
for Felix. Felix came out and instructed her to tell Madame he had
her note and would come.’
‘A curious point, that about the pins,’ said the Chief, and, after a
few moments’ silence, he turned to Burnley and asked for his report.
When this had been delivered and discussed he went on:--
‘I also have some news. There has been a telephone call from the
manager of the Hotel Continental. He says it can be established
beyond doubt that Felix returned to the hotel at 1.30 on Sunday
morning. He was seen by the hall porter, the lift boy, and the
chamber-maid, all of whom are agreed on the time. All three also
agree that he was in a quite normal condition, except that he was in
a specially good humour and seemed pleased about something. The
manager points out, however, that he was habitually good-humoured, so
that there may be nothing remarkable about this.’
M. Chauvet took some cigars from a drawer and, having selected one,
passed the box to the others.
‘Help yourselves, gentlemen. It seems to me that at this stage we
should stop and see just where we stand, what we have learnt, if we
have any tenable theory, and what still remains to be done. I am sure
each of us has already done this, but three minds are better together
than separate. What do you say, Mr. Burnley?’
‘An excellent idea, monsieur,’ returned the Inspector, congratulating
himself on his cogitations earlier in the day.
‘Perhaps you would tell us how you approached the problem, and we
shall add our ideas as you go on?’
‘I started, monsieur, with the assumption that the murder was the
central factor of the whole affair, and the other incidents merely
parts of a design to get rid of the body and divert suspicion.’
‘I fancy we are all agreed there, eh, Lefarge?’
The Frenchman bowed, and Burnley continued:--
‘I thought then of the method of the murder. Strangulation is such a
brutal way of killing that it seemed the work either of a maniac, or
a man virtually mad from passion. Even then it would hardly have been
used if other means had been available. From that I argued the crime
must have been unpremeditated. If it had been planned, a weapon would
have been provided.’
‘A good point, Mr. Burnley. I also had come to the same conclusion.
Please continue.’
‘If this was so, it followed that some person, when alone with Mme.
Boirac, had suddenly been overcome with absolute, blind passion.
What, I asked myself, could have aroused this?
‘A love affair, causing hate or jealousy, naturally suggested itself,
but I could not fit it in. Who could have felt these passions?
‘Considering Felix first, I did not see how he could experience
either hate or jealousy against a woman who had eloped with him. It
is true, a lover’s quarrel might have taken place, resulting in
something approaching temporary hatred, but it was inconceivable this
would be bitter enough to lead to such a climax. Jealousy, I did not
believe could be aroused at all. It seemed to me that Felix would be
the last man in the world to commit the crime.
‘Then it occurred to me that hate and jealousy would be just what one
might expect to find in Boirac’s case. If he were guilty, the motive
would be obvious. And then, when M. Lefarge discovered yesterday that
a cask similar to that in which the body was found had been unpacked
in Boirac’s study, I felt sure this was the solution. However, since
hearing the explanation of the presence of that cask, I admit I am
again in doubt.’
‘I agree with all you say, Mr. Burnley, except that we should
remember that the passions of hate and jealousy could only arise in
Boirac’s mind in a certain circumstance, namely, that he was aware
his wife had eloped, or was about to elope, with Felix. If he were in
ignorance of that, it is obvious he could have had no such feelings.’
‘That is so, sir. Yes, it would only be if he knew.’
‘And then, again, it would only be if he really loved his wife. If
not, he might be vastly annoyed and upset, but not enough to throttle
her in the blind passion we have spoken of. If they were not on good
terms, or if there was some other woman in Boirac’s life, he might
even view her action with delight, as a welcome relief, particularly
as there were no children to complicate the question of a divorce.’
The Chief looked inquiringly at his companions.
‘I agree with that too, sir,’ said Burnley, answering the look.
‘And I, monsieur,’ added Lefarge.
‘So then, we have reached this point. If Boirac was in love with his
wife, and if he knew she had eloped or was about to do so, he would
have had a motive for the crime. Otherwise, we can suggest no motive
at all, either for him, or Felix, or anybody else.’
‘Your last words, monsieur, open up possibilities,’ observed Lefarge.
‘Might it not have been some other person altogether? I do not see
that we are limited to Felix or Boirac. What about Le Gautier, for
instance, or some one we have not yet heard of?’
‘Quite so, Lefarge. That is undoubtedly a possibility. There are
others, François, the butler, for example, into whose actions we must
inquire. The possibility of Madame’s having had some former lover
must not be forgotten either. But I think we should make up our minds
about these two men before we go farther afield.’
‘There is another point,’ resumed Burnley. ‘The medical evidence
shows that only a short time can have elapsed between the time Madame
left her house and the murder. We assume, on the hotel manager’s
testimony, Felix went to London the morning after the dinner-party.
If so, did Madame accompany him? If the former, it points to Felix,
and if the latter, to Boirac.’
‘I think we can deduce that,’ said Lefarge.
‘And how?’
‘In this way, monsieur. Leave aside for a moment the question of the
identity of the murderer, and consider how he got the body into the
cask. This cask we have traced fairly well. It was packed in the
showrooms in the Boulevard des Capucines, and in it was placed a
statue. Then it travelled to Waterloo, and the evidence that it was
not tampered with _en route_ is overwhelming. Therefore the body was
not in it when it arrived at Waterloo. Then, for twenty-two hours, it
disappeared. It reappeared at Charing Cross, for it is too much to
suppose there are really two casks in question, and travelled back to
Paris, and again it is quite impossible that it could have been
interfered with on the journey. At Paris it left the Gare du Nord at
5.20, and disappeared again, but it turned up at the State Railway
goods station at 6.10 p.m. the same evening, and returned to London
by long sea. On arrival in London it contained the body. It is
certain the change was not made during any of the three journeys,
therefore it must have been done during these disappearances in
London or Paris.
‘Of these disappearances, take that in Paris first. It lasted fifty
minutes, and, during that time, the cask was conveyed between the
Gare du Nord and the rue Cardinet goods station on a horse cart. How
long, monsieur, should that journey have taken?’
‘About fifty minutes, I should think,’ returned the Chief.
‘I thought so too. That is to say, the whole time of the
disappearance is accounted for. We may reckon, also, it would take
some considerable time to open, unpack, repack, and close the cask,
and it seems to me it would have been utterly impossible for it to
have _both_ been opened and to have made that journey in the time. It
made the journey, therefore it wasn’t opened. Therefore the body must
have been put into it in London.’
‘Excellent, Lefarge. I believe you are right.’
‘There is a further point, monsieur. If my suggestion is correct, it
definitely proves Madame Boirac went to London while alive, because
her dead body obviously could not have been brought there. If we
consider this in relation to the point about the medical evidence
raised by Mr. Burnley, I think we shall be forced to conclude she
crossed with Felix on Sunday.’
‘It certainly sounds probable.’
‘If she crossed with Felix, it seems almost certain that he is the
guilty man. But there are a good many others things that point to
Felix. Suppose for a moment he is guilty, and picture him faced with
the question of how to dispose of the body. He wants a receptacle to
remove it in. It suddenly occurs to him that only a few hours before
he has seen the very thing. A cask for statuary. And, fortunately for
him, he has not only seen it, but he has learned where to get a
similar cask. What does he do? He proceeds to get that similar cask.
He writes to the firm who use them, and he orders just such a piece
of statuary as will ensure his getting the kind of cask he wants.’
‘What about the false address?’
‘Of that, monsieur, I cannot suggest the explanation, but I presume
it was with some idea of covering his tracks.’
‘Please continue.’
‘I suggest then, that he got the cask on arrival in London, brought
it to St. Malo, unpacked and probably destroyed the statue, packed
the body, took the cask to Charing Cross and sent it to Paris,
travelling over in the same train himself. In Paris he got a cart,
and took it from the Gare du Nord to the rue Cardinet goods station,
travelled back to London, and met the cask at St. Katherine’s Docks
on the following Monday.’
‘But what was the object of all these journeys? If his purpose was to
get rid of the body, why would he first get rid of it, and then
arrange an elaborate scheme to bring it back again?’
‘I saw that difficulty, monsieur,’ admitted Lefarge, ‘and I cannot
explain it, though I would suggest it was for the same purpose as the
false address--in some way to divert suspicion. But more than that,
monsieur. We have evidence that the black-bearded man who met the
cask on its various journeys was like Felix. But we have so far found
no other black-bearded man in the entire case. It seems to me,
therefore, it must have been Felix.’
‘If M. Lefarge’s theory is correct,’ interposed Burnley, ‘the letter
about the bet must have been written by Felix. In this case, could
this letter and the journeys of the cask not have been devised with
the object of throwing suspicion on Le Gautier?’
‘Or on Boirac?’ suggested the Chief.
‘Boirac!’ cried Lefarge, with a rapid gesture of satisfaction. ‘That
was it, of course! I see it now. The whole of the business of the
letter and the cask was a plant designed by Felix to throw suspicion
on Boirac. What do you think, monsieur?’
‘It certainly presents a working theory.’
‘But why,’ queried the Englishman, ‘should Le Gautier’s name be
brought in? Why did he not use Boirac’s?’
‘It would have been too obvious,’ returned Lefarge, delighted with
the rapid strides his theory was making. ‘It would have been crude.
Felix would argue that if Boirac had written that letter, he would
never have signed it himself. It was a subtle idea introducing Le
Gautier’s name.
‘If Felix did it,’ Burnley continued, ‘it would certainly clear up
the difficulty of the authorship of the letter. He is the only man we
have discovered so far that would have had the necessary knowledge to
write it. He was present at the Café Toisson d’Or, and had joined
with Le Gautier in the lottery, and therefore knew that part of it.
The discussion about criminals evading the police and the bet between
Le Gautier and Dumarchez, neither of which we believe took place, he
could have invented to account for the receipt of the cask, and
finally, he would naturally know the details about the last journey
of the cask, since he himself arranged them.’
‘Quite so,’ cried Lefarge eagerly, ‘it all works in. I believe we are
beginning to see light. And we must not forget Suzanne’s evidence
about the note. It is clear Madame and Felix had an understanding for
that night. At least, we know of messages passing between them and
the reply of Felix points to an assignation.’
‘An important point, certainly. And yet,’ the Chief objected, ‘there
are difficulties. That singular point about the hatpins, for example.
What do you make of that, Lefarge?’
‘Agitation, monsieur. I would suggest that this lady was so excited
at the action she was about to take that she hardly knew what she was
doing.’
The Chief shook his head.
‘I don’t know that that is very satisfactory,’ he said. ‘Might it
not, as also the fact that she took no luggage, mean that she never
left the house at all? That she was murdered that same evening of the
dinner-party, and the hat and coat removed to make a false scent? I
suppose you have considered that?’
Burnley answered at once.
‘I thought of that first of all, monsieur, but I dismissed it as
impossible for the following reasons. First, if she was murdered on
Saturday night, what was done with the body? It could not have been
put into the cask in the study, as I had thought at first, for that
was full. The statue was not unpacked till two nights later, on
Monday. We know, indeed, it was not put into the cask, for that was
returned direct to Messrs. Dupierre’s and found to be empty.
Secondly, it could not have been hidden anywhere else in the house,
for François and Suzanne made a thorough search on the Sunday, and
the corpse would have been too big a thing for them to have
overlooked. Further, if she was murdered in the house, either Felix,
Boirac, or some third person or persons must have done it. Felix
could hardly be the man, as I do not see how he could have removed
the body without a confederate, and we have not found such. Boirac
would perhaps have had more chances of disposing of the body, though
I do not see how, but he had a complete alibi. Lastly, I felt
strongly that François, the butler, was to be believed. I could not
imagine him party to the murder, and I did not see how it could have
been done at the time you suggest without his knowledge.’
‘That certainly seems probable. In fact, when you add it to M.
Lefarge’s point that the body must have been put into the cask in
London, it seems to me almost conclusive.’
‘I also feel sure it could not have been done then,’ observed
Lefarge, ‘though I don’t agree with Mr. Burnley that Boirac’s alibi
is good.’
‘Well now, I was rather inclined to accept the alibi,’ said M.
Chauvet. ‘What part of it do you consider doubtful, Lefarge?’
‘All of it from the time Boirac left the works. We don’t know whether
that American exists at all. As far as I can see, the whole thing may
be an invention.’
‘That is quite true,’ admitted the Chief, ‘but it didn’t seem to me
so very important. The crucial point, to my mind, is the hour at
which Boirac says he returned home--a few minutes past one. That is
confirmed by François and by Suzanne, and I think we may accept their
statement. But we have a further rather convincing incident. You may
recollect Boirac stated that when he was halfway home from the Gare
Quai d’Orsay it began to rain? You very properly tried to check even
so small a point by asking François if his master’s coat was wet. He
replied that it was. Now, I made inquiries, and I find that night was
perfectly fine till almost one o’clock, when a thick, wetting rain
began to fall. We know, therefore, quite definitely that Boirac was
out until the time he said. Therefore he could not have done the deed
before 1.15. Also, we know that he could not have done it after that
hour, because the lady was gone, and also the butler and maid were
about. Therefore, if Boirac did it at all, it must have been after
that night.’
‘That seems unquestionable, monsieur,’ said Lefarge, ‘and when you
add to that the fact that we have, so far at any rate, been quite
unable to connect Boirac with the letter or the cask, and that we are
practically certain Madame travelled to London, I think he may almost
be eliminated from the inquiry. What do you say, Burnley?’
‘Well, I think it’s a little so soon to eliminate any one from
inquiry. I confess that point of motive struck me as being very
strong against Boirac.’
‘That also, by the way, seems to show the deed was not done by Boirac
that night,’ the Chief went on. ‘Your point is that he killed his
wife because she had run away with Felix. But if he came home and
found her there, she obviously _hadn’t_ run away. Hence the motive,
for that night at least, falls to the ground.’
The three men laughed, and M. Chauvet resumed:--
‘Now, to sum up our present position. We know that Mme. Boirac was
murdered between 11.30 p.m. on the Saturday of the dinner-party, and
the following Monday evening, when the letter purporting to be from
Felix and ordering the statue, was written. Obviously only Felix,
Boirac, or some third person could be guilty. There is not, so far, a
scintilla of evidence of any third person being involved, therefore
it almost certainly was one of the other two. Taking Boirac first, we
find that under certain circumstances he would have had a motive for
the crime, but we have not yet been able to obtain any evidence that
these circumstances existed. Apart from this, we can find nothing
whatever against him. On the other hand, he has established a strong
alibi for the only time during which, so far as we can now see, he
could have committed the crime.
‘Against Felix there are several suspicious circumstances. Firstly,
it is proved he received a note from Madame, presumably arranging a
meeting. Then we know he took advantage of the husband’s absence on
the night of the dinner to have a private interview with her. That
went on from 11.00 till at least 11.30, and there is reason to
believe, though not proof, till 1.00. Then we believe Madame went to
London, either actually with Felix, or at the same time. We conclude
that for three reasons. First, she wrote to her husband that she had
done so. The value of this evidence will, of course, depend on the
opinion of our handwriting experts, whose report on the genuineness
of this letter we have not yet received. Second, she could not have
remained in the house, either alive or dead, as it was thoroughly
searched by the servants, who found no trace of her. Neither could
her body have been put in the cask in the study, for that contained
the statue, and was not unpacked till the following Monday evening.
Third, it is certain from the journeyings of the cask that the body
was put into it in London, for the simple reason that it could not
have been done anywhere else. Therefore she must have travelled to
that city.
‘Further, the letter presumed to be written to Felix by Le Gautier
could be reasonably accounted for if Felix himself wrote it as a
blind to cover his actions with the cask, should such be discovered.
It is clear that it was written with some such purpose, as half of
it--all about the bet and the test--is entirely untrue, and evidently
invented to account for the arrival of the cask. Now, we may take it,
Le Gautier did not write that letter. On the other hand, Felix is the
only man we have yet found who had sufficient information to do so.
‘Again, we know that a black-bearded man like Felix arranged the
journeys of the cask. So far, Felix himself is the only black-bearded
man we have found. On the other hand we have two strong points in
Felix’s favour. First, we have not been able to prove motive, and
second, his surprise when the body was found in the cask appears to
have been genuine. We have undoubtedly a good deal of evidence
against Felix, but we must note that not only is this evidence
circumstantial, but there is also evidence in his favour.
‘The truth is, in my opinion, that we have not yet sufficient
information to come to a conclusion, and I fear it will take a lot of
work to get it. Firstly, we must definitely prove the authorship of
that letter about the lottery and the bet. And here, it seems to me,
the tracing of that typewriter is essential. This should not be so
difficult, as I think we may take it that the author used the
typewriter himself. Therefore, only machines to which the possible
writers could have had access need be examined. I will send a man
to-morrow to get samples from all the machines Boirac could have
used, and if that produces nothing, he can do the same in connection
with Le Gautier, Dumarchez, and the other gentlemen whose names we
have. I presume, Mr. Burnley, your people will take similar action
with regard to Felix?’
‘I expect they have done so already, but I will write to-night and
make sure.’
‘I consider that a vital point, and the next is almost equally
important. We must trace Felix’s movements from the Saturday night
till the Thursday evening when the cask containing the body was
despatched from Paris. Further, we must ascertain by direct evidence,
if Madame travelled with him to London.
‘We must similarly trace the movements of Boirac for the same period.
If none of these inquiries help us, other points would be the
confronting of Felix and Boirac with the various luggage clerks that
did business with the black-bearded man with the cask, in the hope
that some of them might possibly identify him. The tracing of the
carters who brought the cask to and from the various stations might
or might not lead us to the men from whom they got their
instructions. An exhaustive inquiry into the past life of Mme. Boirac
and all the suspected men is also likely to be necessary. There are
several other directions in which we can prosecute inquiries, but I
fancy the above should give us all we want.’
The discussion was carried on for some time longer, various points of
detail being more fully gone into. Finally, it was arranged that on
the following morning Burnley and Lefarge should begin the tracing of
Felix’s movements from the night of the dinner-party until he left
French soil, after which Burnley would continue the quest alone,
while Lefarge turned his attention to ascertaining Boirac’s movements
during the crucial period.