THE BLACK GOWNS
"An extraordinary event has taken place, a series of facts have been
discovered, every one of them of such importance in the 'Impasse Ronsin
Affair,' that the mystery is bound very soon to be cleared, and the
three men in the black gowns and the red-haired woman you saw that night
will be found and arrested.... We hold the clue of clues!"
These words were spoken to me at Bellevue on June 19th, 1908, three
weeks after the crime, by one of the inspectors who almost daily called
on me.
"What have you discovered, M. Pouce," I eagerly asked.
"I cannot, I must not tell you now. All I can say is that it is about
the black gowns worn by the murderers...."
"Have they been found? Have their owners been traced?..." I was frantic
with excitement.
"Madame, I am not allowed to speak on the matter. But I can tell you
this: Your troubles will soon cease and the murderers will be in our
hands.... Don't ask me any more questions. I cannot answer them. And now
will you kindly look at this photograph, and tell me if you see any one
there who reminds you... of some one."
The photograph represented a group of three persons: two men and a
woman. I seemed to recognise one of the men, a bearded person with sharp
shaped features and keen eyes.
"There is a striking likeness," I said, "between this man and the
red-bearded individual who on the night of May 30th-31st, stood near the
door of the corridor, in the room, and who never spoke."
M. Pouce showed his delight: "We are on the right track, madame," he
said in tones of great satisfaction. "I thought that was one of the
men." And once more he repeated: "We shall run the murderers down."
Inspector Pouce was mistaken and so was I--as I realised months
afterwards--the bearded man of the photograph was not one of the
murderers. He was Mr. Burlingham, an American journalist, and I will
deal in another chapter with the story of this false scent.
It was several weeks after the day when Inspector Pouce showed me the
photograph, that I learned all about the "extraordinary facts" which he
had not been at liberty to reveal to me before, the facts which had made
him assert that "the mystery would soon be unravelled."
When the reader has heard what those facts were he will not fail to
admit that Inspector Pouce was right to call them "extraordinary"; they
were indeed more than that; they were conclusive. Here they are:
_On Sunday_, _May 31st_, 1908, at about 10 P.M. a _contrôleur_ of the
Paris _Métropolitain_ (Underground) called Villemant, picked up in a
carriage of that railway two documents which had some connection the one
with the other.
One was a visiting card bearing the name of Mme. Mazeline, on which were
written the address of two wig-makers and of a _theatrical costumier
called Guilbert_, and a card of invitation to the exhibition of M.
Steinheil's paintings, in the Impasse Ronsin. The two were together on
the floor of the compartment, and had undoubtedly been lost by the same
individual.
M. Villemant also stated that the seat where he had found the two
documents "had just been left by a young man, wearing a smock; that he
appeared to be intoxicated, that he was playing with gold pieces, in his
purse, and that the carriage was a 'first-class' one!"
_Now, on May 30th, 1908, six hours before the murder, three black gowns
and a long black cloak similar in all ways to those worn by the three
men and the red-haired woman, which I had fully described, were stolen
from the "Hebrew Theatre" in Paris, and it was from the very M.
Guilbert whose name and address were scribbled on the card found in the
Underground together with the invitation card to M. Steinheil's
exhibition, that the three black gowns and the long black cloak had been
hired by the "Hebrew Theatre!_"
Why was I not told about all these important facts at once? Why did I
only hear of them weeks and weeks after they had taken place?... That
passes my understanding.
I grant that they could not be disclosed to the newspapers, for though
the Press is often very useful to the police--in giving the description,
for instance, or publishing the portrait of some wanted person--it must
be admitted that the publication of a clue which can be followed to a
successful issue only if the criminals are unaware of what is going
forward, is likely to defeat the object of the police.
Why this sensational discovery of the theft of the gaberdines, a few
hours before the murder, was not revealed to the newspapers, although
many published attacks--veiled and indirect but none the less
transparent--against me, such a revelation would of course have proved
my absolute innocence beyond all doubt. It seems to me an unpardonable
act of cruelty not to have informed me of this most essential
development in the mystery of the Impasse Ronsin. It might have been
necessary to swear me to secrecy, but was it not enough, in order to
ensure my complete discretion, to tell me that the clue would lose all
its value if I were in the least indiscreet! It might be objected that
the conduct of the police was no business of mine. But my circumstances
were unusual. Many newspapers were publishing articles which more or
less roused public opinion against me. My narrative of the fatal night
made thousands shrug their shoulders. It was "incredible" that men would
disguise themselves in the manner I had described... I had "invented"
this "fantastic account"... and so forth. Now, the discovery of the
theft--a few hours before the crime--of three black gowns which tallied
in every way with that which I had given of the costumes worn by the
murderers, completely vindicated me. And if the police did not wish to
inform the public of this startling fact, they ought at least to have
informed _me_, if only to give me the courage to withstand the dreadful
insinuations of certain journals; to bear with equanimity the ordeal of
all those suspicions in which I felt myself more and more enveloped. For
then I should have felt that the time would soon come when it would be
no longer against the interests of the public to let the whole world
know that I had spoken the truth, to acquaint the public with the
discovery of the theft at the Hebrew Theatre, and thus to proclaim my
innocence and put an end to all attacks and suspicions.
* * * * *
Of the two cards so miraculously found by the Underground _contrôleur_
and handed by him to the police, one, as I have stated, was a card of
invitation to my husband's exhibition, and the other bore the name of a
certain Mme. Mazeline, and the addresses of two wig-makers and that of
M. Guilbert, a theatrical costumier.
Mme. Mazeline, a painter of repute, was then sixty-two, I had known her
well in the days of President Faure. She had resided many years at Le
Hâvre, Félix Faure's birth-place, and had been on terms of friendship
with Félix Faure and his family. She had begun painting a portrait of
the President in his studio at the Elysée, shortly before his death and
had to complete the portrait from memory. The portrait was shown at the
Salon.
Mme. Mazeline and I have never met since the death of the President.
Questioned about her card found in a carriage on the Underground, she
suggested that it might possibly be a card which many years before she
had given to some model, man or woman, who had kept it to use it as a
means of introduction to other artists. (She had written her address on
the card herself, in pencil.)
The other addresses on the card were those of the two wig-makers and
that of M. Guilbert. The investigations at the wig-makers yielded no
result. But when the inspector called on M. Guilbert his researches were
rewarded.
I had described the mysterious men and the woman first on the morning
of May 31st, 1908, a few hours after they had left my house--on June 1st
and again June 5th, when a detective wearing a black gown and hat was
paraded before me at Count d'Arlons, and I had described their attire as
follows: "The three men wore long black gowns, and the woman wore a
man's cloak, long and dark. The long black gowns with their flat, tight
sleeves reminded me of the _soutanes_ worn by Catholic priests; the hats
were felt hats with high crowns." As regards these hats--and the reader,
a little later, will realise the importance of the statement I made--the
report of the _Sûreté_ (Criminal Investigation Department) drawn up on
June 5th, contained this:
"_Concerning the hats, it is useful to recall that, on Monday, June 1st,
when Mme. Steinheil gave a description of the individuals whom she saw
on the night of May 30th-31st, she specified that the men did not wear
hats such as those usually worn by priests, but hats of black felt, the
brims of which, bent down, had appeared to her as wide and the crowns
higher and more pointed than the hats of ecclesiastics._"
And now that my description of the gowns and hats worn by the murderers
stands quite clearly before the reader's eyes, let us follow Inspector
Pouce to M. Guilbert, the costumier on the Boulevard St. Martin, where
he had gone in the hope of discovering a connection between the card and
the murder.
The Inspector found Mlle. Rallet, one of M. Guilbert's assistants.
What did Mlle. Rallet--to whose accurate book keeping and absolute
reliability, her employer paid a glowing tribute--have to say?
I can do no better than quote the evidence she gave, not only to the
Inspector, but to M. Hamard himself.
"This Wednesday, June 10, 1908, we, Gustave Hamard, Knight of the Legion
of Honour, head of the Criminal Investigation Department, continuing our
investigations, have heard, on oath, Mlle. Georgette Rallet... who has
declared:
'I have been employed since September 1907 by M. Guilbert.... My duties
are to receive customers and to record the despatch and return of all
goods. It goes without saying that I examine the goods when they are
returned as well as when they leave our premises. Our customers are
chiefly actors and actresses, and among them there is a Russian society,
which has its headquarters at the Eden Theatre (or Hebrew Theatre), 133
Rue Saint Denis. The orders of the society are given by M. Goldstein and
Feinberg, who are usually accompanied by Mlle. Jankel....
'The last time M. Goldstein, M. Feinberg, and Mlle. Jankel called was on
Wednesday, May 27th, the day before Ascension Day. They arrived between
3 and 4 P.M. It was Goldstein who addressed me, as usual, for Feinberg
only speaks German, Russian, and English. He ordered, for a play
entitled _Le Vice-Roi_ which was to be performed the following day, a
few Roman and Spanish costumes, and two gowns for priests.
'Between 7 and 8 P.M. the messenger delivered the costumes.... I
generally send, on the day after the performance, for the costumes we
have lent, but on May 29th I was too busy to do so. Besides, I intended
to have the costumes fetched back on the Monday, June 1st, together with
others which had been hired for the performance of Sunday, May 31st. For
M. Goldstein after giving his order for the _Vice-Roi_, which was to be
performed on the following day, had ordered four costumes for Jewish
priests for a play entitled _Cain and Abel_, which would be performed on
Sunday, May 31st.
'Now, on Saturday, May 30th, at 5.30 P.M., the messenger only took to
the Eden Theatre three gowns for Jewish priests, for Goldstein had
already received two previously....
'To sum up, on the evening of May 30th, the Eden Theatre had received
from us--by two deliveries--five black gowns, including another black
gown specially ordered by an actor, the other five being for supers. I
must add that on May 30th, at 4 P.M., Mlle. Jankel and an actor called
Hamburger came to order a black _soutane_ and a black _redingote_ which
were needed for the performance on that very evening.... After five
applications, I managed on the following Wednesday to have returned to
me, not all the costumes we had let, but only three of the gowns, the
_soutane_ and the _redingote_.
'There remains, therefore, in the hands of the Russian Society, three
black gowns belonging to us....'
Signed GEORGETTE RALLET.
O. HAMARD."
(Extract from _Dossier_, Cote 662.)
Later, Mlle. Rallet gave further details to M. Hamard.
"... M. Goldstein, M. Feinberg, and Mlle. Jankel, on May 27th, tried on
a few of the costumes just ordered....
"There were twenty-seven parcels.... The costumes in those parcels had
been handed to me for checking before being packed, by M. Guilbert and
Riegel, a clerk.... Fremat, the messenger, placed the parcels in two
large baskets. In _another basket_, he placed the thirteen hats which
completed some of the costumes. After having filled the baskets and
secured them with rope, Fremat hired a barrow... loaded up, and left the
shop at about 8 P.M.
"On May 30th, M. Guilbert and Riegel packed eighteen costumes ordered
for the performance of May 31st. I checked the costumes which were
spread before me on the counter....
"On the following Wednesday, June 3rd, Fremat recovered possession of
the costumes ordered on the 27th. When I counted them, in the afternoon,
I found that _four were missing: the large black cloak and three
costumes of Jewish priests_...."
(Quoted from _Dossier_, Cote 669.)
The Inspector, having discovered that three black gowns and a black
cloak had been let out by M. Guilbert to the Hebrew Theatre and not
returned to him, went, of course, straight to that theatre. I can
imagine the Inspector's feelings, and his thoughts. Would he find the
missing garments there? Had they merely been mislaid? Or had they been
_stolen_! And _when_? If they had been stolen on the 30th, a few hours
before the double murder, then, as he had said, he held the clue of
clues!
What did he hear at the theatre?--That the three black gowns and the
black cloak had been _stolen_.
Here again, I can do no better than quote from the _Dossier_, the
evidence given either to M. Hamard, Chief of the _Sûreté_, or to M.
André, the examining magistrate in charge of my case, _after_ I had been
arrested.
After confirming on every point the statements made by Mme. Rallet, M.
Goldstein stated, among other facts:
"None of the artists were told off to check the deliveries of costumes
made by the firm Guilbert, and the messenger was in the habit of placing
the baskets of costumes in the vestibule, near the box-office of the
Hebrew Theatre. Any one could easily make his way into the theatre, for
the door, opening inwards, had only to be pushed, and is never closed...
"For the performance of May 28th, all the costumes were there... But
things were different on May 31st. On that day at about 7 P.M., I opened
the basket which had been put down in the vestibule the day before, by
the messenger from Guilbert's. _The ropes of the basket were undone._ I
also found at once that, contrary to custom, _the costumes were in
disorder_. Feinberg, who was standing near me, told me that he had
noticed the same thing on the previous evening (May 30th)... At the
moment when every one had to put on his costume, we found that _the
gowns of the Jewish priests were missing_... M. Feinberg sent Gabriel,
the watchman of the theatre, to Guilbert's. But the shop was closed...
"... In spite of all our searches, throughout the theatre, it has been
impossible to trace the four missing costumes..."
(_Dossier_, Cote 677.)
And M. Goldstein added, on another occasion, when asked for further
details:
"... The baskets were undone, and the lids were 'free.' The baskets
delivered by Guilbert's were always fastened with rope..."
(_Dossier_, Cote 683.)
Finally, on March 2nd, 1909, M. Goldstein, once more interrogated, said
among other things:
"... Feinberg told me that on Saturday, May 30th, at 6.30 P.M., when he
looked for the various parts of the Hamlet costume, which he was to wear
at the matinee performance the next day, in the play _Queen Isabella_
and which he thought he would find in the basket, he had found what he
wanted, but had noticed that the basket was undone and that the contents
were overturned and in great disorder.
"It would be quite easy for any one to steal the gowns since the basket
was left in the corridor of the theatre at a time when we were all in
the _café_, and since the door had only to be pushed...."
(_Dossier_, Cote 724.)
M. Feinberg corroborated all these statements; but the exact words he
used concerning the state of the basket from which the three black gowns
undoubtedly worn by the three murderers, and the long black cloak
undoubtedly worn by the red-haired woman, were stolen a few hours before
the crime, are worth quoting:
"I found that the contents of the basket were in disorder; the parcels,
which are usually packed with the greatest care by M. Guilbert's, were
undone and the various parts of the costumes were all mixed together. On
May 31st we were unable to find the three Jewish priests' gowns and the
garment which Guilbert's call a Russian cloak, and which we call a
'Pastor costume.'"
(_Dossier_, Cote 676.)
The three gowns and the dark cloak were never found again. And Mlle.
Rallet, basing her claim _on the entries in her books_, sent a
registered letter (on June 9th, 1908) demanding the return of those
garments or the payment of a sum of money--which she duly
quoted--representing their value.
Thus three black gowns and one black cloak had really been stolen in the
corridor of the Hebrew Theatre on May 30th, 1908. And the times when
those costumes were stolen is easy to calculate. The basket which
contained them was delivered at 6 P.M. M. Feinberg found it "undone and
in great disorder" at 8.30 P.M. There had been no one present when the
messenger had put down the basket. There had been no one in the corridor
of the theatre between 6 and 8.30 P.M.--the whole staff was "at the
_café_," chatting, or dining... And the door needed only to be pushed!
Does it require a great stretch of imagination--not to believe in the
theft, for it is impossible not to believe in it--to admit that the
gowns worn by the four persons whom I saw in my room on the fatal night
were the identical ones that had been stolen from the Hebrew Theatre?
If coincidence be called upon to explain things, let the sceptics turn
to my description of the appearance of those persons--the criminals.
Let us suppose I had said, for instance, that the gowns had collars or
that the sleeves were wide and loose... Then my description would not
have exactly tallied with that of the stolen gowns. But no; I did not
mention collars. I _did_ say that the sleeves were tight-fitting, and in
every detail my description corresponded to that which M. Guilbert
himself would have given of the gown and the cloak he sent to the Hebrew
Theatre for the performance of May 31st. Better than that, when Mlle.
Rallet, on December 26th, 1908, was once more asked to describe the
stolen gown, she declared--as I had done in the case of the gowns worn
by the murderers--that those supplied by her firm had "flat and tight
sleeves"!
If I had invented the amazing scene, I might have said that there were
four men in black gowns, but no. I declared that there had been three
men in black gowns and one woman in a dark cloak. And three gowns and
one cloak had been stolen!
I will go even further to meet the doubts and questions of the sceptic.
Had I invented this "tale," as M. André called it, how could I have
imagined that the three men wearing black ecclesiastical gowns, had
_not_ worn black ecclesiastical hats? Surely coincidences have limits. I
said that the men wore "felt hats with high, pointed crowns"--not
ecclesiastical hats. And the ecclesiastical hats which belonged to the
stolen gowns were found in their separate baskets--a small basket; and
M. Goldstein declared: "We generally put the hats aside; we hide them so
as to prevent the performers from choosing among them just as they
please."
There can be no longer any question of coincidence. There cannot exist
one single human being endowed with the most ordinary amount of common
sense who could or would deny, after the fact which I have quoted from
evidence given to the head of the _Sûreté_ and to the magistrate in
charge of my case, that suspicions or attacks against me should not have
been allowed to go on, and that it was quite unpardonable to dare accuse
me of having murdered my husband and my mother.
Among the thousand and one anonymous letters I received later on, there
was one written by some one who had realised the whole importance of the
stolen gowns as a proof of my complete innocence. But in his--or
her--desire to prove to me that I was a murderess, the anonymous writer
explained: "You stole the gowns yourself or had them stolen by some
one!" The prosecution possibly thought the same, but never expressed the
thought, for its absurdity was, of course, obvious.
The prosecution, however, wanted to find me guilty even on the fact of
such an overwhelming proof of my innocence.
Will the reader now hear how the prosecution dealt with this _affaire
des lévites_, as it was called? Here are the very words used in the
indictment on this matter:
"_A strange circumstance_ revealed by the witness Villemant _had made it
possible to believe for one moment that the narrative of the 'accused'
concerning the men in the black gowns could have some character of
likelihood_...."
After a rapid survey of the evidence given by M. Villemant, Mme.
Mazeline, and M. Guilbert... the indictment says:
"The evidence thus gathered seemed likely to throw some doubt on the
judicial _instruction_, and to lend some truth to Mme. Steinheil's
narrative. But... firstly, it is certain that the disappearance of the
ecclesiastical gowns was only noticed on the evening of May 31st--that
is, several hours after the crime. Secondly, the ecclesiastical hats
were never lost and have been found. Now, Mme. Steinheil has stated that
the criminals wore hats which harmonised with their costumes.... It is,
therefore, necessary to wave aside that fable and to note an unimportant
coincidence between the thefts of the gowns and the crime of May
31st...."
Could anything be more revolting in its absolute lack of good faith! For
surely the prosecution had read the evidence of the various witnesses
and was bound to know, firstly, that the black gowns were stolen, _not
after_ the crime, _but before_ the crime, on May 30th, as the evidence
of M. Feinberg and Goldstein established beyond discussion; secondly,
that the report of the Criminal Investigation Department itself, dated
June 5th, 1908, contained this sentence, which I have already quoted:
"Concerning the hats, it is useful to recall that on Monday, June 1st,
when Mme. Steinheil gave a description of the individuals whom she saw
on the night of May 30th-31st, she specified that:
"'The men did not wear hats such as those usually worn by priests, but
hats of black felt, the brims of which, bent down, had appeared to her
as wide and the crowns higher and more pointed than the hats of
ecclesiastics.'"
(_Dossier_, Cote 914.)
In spite of the prosecution and its wilful blindness to all the proofs
of my innocence, the jury of the Paris Assize Court, in November 1909,
after I had spent a whole year in prison, saw the truth and acquitted
me.
In my heart I have often blessed the honest and zealous Underground
_employé_ who handed the cards he had found to the police. There can be
no doubt that the "stolen black gowns" helped the jurors to understand
that I had spoken the truth, and could not have murdered my husband and
my mother. And I have often blessed the memory of my father, too. For
had he not taught me to observe and see at a glance the main lines, the
striking or essential parts of a person or object? And how without that
training of the eye and mind could I have noticed and remembered on that
night of terror the principal points of the murderers' attire?