was not a lady's, but a slip or sailor's knot.
After the recognition of the corpse, it was not, as usual, taken to
the Morgue, (this formality being superfluous,) but hastily interred
not far front the spot at which it was brought ashore. Through the
exertions of Beauvais, the matter was industriously hushed up, as far
as possible; and several days had elapsed before any public emotion
resulted. A weekly paper, {*9} however, at length took up the theme;
the corpse was disinterred, and a re-examination instituted; but
nothing was elicited beyond what has been already noted. The clothes,
however, were now submitted to the mother and friends of the
deceased, and fully identified as those worn by the girl upon leaving
home.
Meantime, the excitement increased hourly. Several individuals were
arrested and discharged. St. Eustache fell especially under
suspicion; and he failed, at first, to give an intelligible account
of his whereabouts during the Sunday on which Marie left home.
Subsequently, however, he submitted to Monsieur G----, affidavits,
accounting satisfactorily for every hour of the day in question. As
time passed and no discovery ensued, a thousand contradictory rumors
were circulated, and journalists busied themselves in suggestions.
Among these, the one which attracted the most notice, was the idea
that Marie RogΩt still lived - that the corpse found in the Seine was
that of some other unfortunate. It will be proper that I submit to
the reader some passages which embody the suggestion alluded to.
These passages are literal translations from L'Etoile, {*10} a paper
conducted, in general, with much ability.
"Mademoiselle RogΩt left her mother's house on Sunday morning, June
the twenty-second, 18--, with the ostensible purpose of going to see
her aunt, or some other connexion, in the Rue des Dr⌠mes. From that
hour, nobody is proved to have seen her. There is no trace or tidings
of her at all. . . . There has no person, whatever, come forward, so
far, who saw her at all, on that day, after she left her mother's
door. . . . Now, though we have no evidence that Marie RogΩt was in
the land of the living after nine o'clock on Sunday, June the
twenty-second, we have proof that, up to that hour, she was alive. On
Wednesday noon, at twelve, a female body was discovered afloat on the
shore of the BarriΦre de Roule. This was, even if we presume that
Marie RogΩt was thrown into the river within three hours after she
left her mother's house, only three days from the time she left her
home - three days to an hour. But it is folly to suppose that the
murder, if murder was committed on her body, could have been
consummated soon enough to have enabled her murderers to throw the
body into the river before midnight. Those who are guilty of such
horrid crimes, choose darkness rather the; light . . . . Thus we see
that if the body found in the river was that of Marie RogΩt, it could
only have been in the water two and a half days, or three at the
outside. All experience has shown that drowned bodies, or bodies
thrown into the water immediately after death by violence, require
from six to ten days for decomposition to take place to bring them to
the top of the water. Even where a cannon is fired over a corpse, and
it rises before at least five or six days' immersion, it sinks again,
if let alone. Now, we ask, what was there in this cave to cause a
departure from the ordinary course of nature? . . . If the body had
been kept in its mangled state on shore until Tuesday night, some
trace would be found on shore of the murderers. It is a doubtful
point, also, whether the body would be so soon afloat, even were it
thrown in after having been dead two days. And, furthermore, it is
exceedingly improbable that any villains who had committed such a
murder as is here supposed, would have throw the body in without
weight to sink it, when such a precaution could have so easily been
taken."
The editor here proceeds to argue that the body must have been in the
water "not three days merely, but, at least, five times three days,"
because it was so far decomposed that Beauvais had great difficulty
in recognizing it. This latter point, however, was fully disproved. I
continue the translation:
"What, then, are the facts on which M. Beauvais says that he has no
doubt the body was that of Marie RogΩt? He ripped up the gown sleeve,
and says he found marks which satisfied him of the identity. The
public generally supposed those marks to have consisted of some
description of scars. He rubbed the arm and found hair upon it -
something as indefinite, we think, as can readily be imagined - as
little conclusive as finding an arm in the sleeve. M. Beauvais did
not return that night, but sent word to Madame RogΩt, at seven
o'clock, on Wednesday evening, that an investigation was still in
progress respecting her daughter. If we allow that Madame RogΩt, from
her age and grief, could not go over, (which is allowing a great
deal,) there certainly must have been some one who would have thought
it worth while to go over and attend the investigation, if they
thought the body was that of Marie. Nobody went over. There was
nothing said or heard about the matter in the Rue PavΘe St. AndrΘe,
that reached even the occupants of the same building. M. St.
Eustache, the lover and intended husband of Marie, who boarded in her
mother's house, deposes that he did not hear of the discovery of the
body of his intended until the next morning, when M. Beauvais came
into his chamber and told him of it. For an item of news like this,
it strikes us it was very coolly received."
In this way the journal endeavored to create the impression of an
apathy on the part of the relatives of Marie, inconsistent with the
supposition that these relatives believed the corpse to be hers. Its
insinuations amount to this: - that Marie, with the connivance of her
friends, had absented herself from the city for reasons involving a
charge against her chastity; and that these friends, upon the
discovery of a corpse in the Seine, somewhat resembling that of the
girl, had availed themselves of the opportunity to impress press the
public with the belief of her death. But L'Etoile was again
over-hasty. It was distinctly proved that no apathy, such as was
imagined, existed; that the old lady was exceedingly feeble, and so
agitated as to be unable to attend to any duty, that St. Eustache, so
far from receiving the news coolly, was distracted with grief, and
bore himself so frantically, that M. Beauvais prevailed upon a friend
and relative to take charge of him, and prevent his attending the
examination at the disinterment. Moreover, although it was stated by
L'Etoile, that the corpse was re-interred at the public expense -
that an advantageous offer of private sculpture was absolutely
declined by the family - and that no member of the family attended
the ceremonial: - although, I say, all this was asserted by L'Etoile
in furtherance of the impression it designed to convey - yet all this
was satisfactorily disproved. In a subsequent number of the paper, an
attempt was made to throw suspicion upon Beauvais himself. The editor
says:
"Now, then, a change comes over the matter. We are told that on one
occasion, while a Madame B---- was at Madame RogΩt's house, M.
Beauvais, who was going out, told her that a gendarme was expected
there, and she, Madame B., must not say anything to the gendarme
until he returned, but let the matter be for him. . . . In the
present posture of affairs, M. Beauvais appears to have the whole
matter looked up in his head. A single step cannot be taken without
M. Beauvais; for, go which way you will, you run against him. . . .
For some reason, he determined that nobody shall have any thing to do
with the proceedings but himself, and he has elbowed the male
relatives out of the way, according to their representations, in a
very singular manner. He seems to have been very much averse to
permitting the relatives to see the body."
By the following fact, some color was given to the suspicion thus
thrown upon Beauvais. A visiter at his office, a few days prior to
the girl's disappearance, and during the absence of its occupant, had
observed a rose in the key-hole of the door, and the name "Marie"
inscribed upon a slate which hung near at hand.
The general impression, so far as we were enabled to glean it from
the newspapers, seemed to be, that Marie had been the victim of a
gang of desperadoes - that by these she had been borne across the
river, maltreated and murdered. Le Commerciel, {*11} however, a print
of extensive influence, was earnest in combating this popular idea. I
quote a passage or two from its columns:
"We are persuaded that pursuit has hitherto been on a false scent, so
far as it has been directed to the BarriΦre du Roule. It is
impossible that a person so well known to thousands as this young
woman was, should have passed three blocks without some one having
seen her; and any one who saw her would have remembered it, for she
interested all who knew her. It was when the streets were full of
people, when she went out. . . . It is impossible that she could have
gone to the BarriΦre du Roule, or to the Rue des Dr⌠mes, without
being recognized by a dozen persons; yet no one has come forward who
saw her outside of her mother's door, and there is no evidence,
except the testimony concerning her expressed intentions, that she
did go out at all. Her gown was torn, bound round her, and tied; and
by that the body was carried as a bundle. If the murder had been
committed at the BarriΦre du Roule, there would have been no
necessity for any such arrangement. The fact that the body was found
floating near the BarriΦre, is no proof as to where it was thrown
into the water. . . . . A piece of one of the unfortunate girl's
petticoats, two feet long and one foot wide, was torn out and tied
under her chin around the back of her head, probably to prevent
screams. This was done by fellows who had no pocket-handkerchief."
A day or two before the Prefect called upon us, however, some
important information reached the police, which seemed to overthrow,
at least, the chief portion of Le Commerciel's argument. Two small
boys, sons of a Madame Deluc, while roaming among the woods near the
BarriΦre du Roule, chanced to penetrate a close thicket, within which
were three or four large stones, forming a kind of seat, with a back
and footstool. On the upper stone lay a white petticoat; on the
second a silk scarf. A parasol, gloves, and a pocket-handkerchief
were also here found. The handkerchief bore the name "Marie RogΩt."
Fragments of dress were discovered on the brambles around. The earth
was trampled, the bushes were broken, and there was every evidence of
a struggle. Between the thicket and the river, the fences were found
taken down, and the ground bore evidence of some heavy burthen having
been dragged along it.
A weekly paper, Le Soleil,{*12} had the following comments upon this
discovery -- comments which merely echoed the sentiment of the whole
Parisian press:
"The things had all evidently been there at least three or four
weeks; they were all mildewed down hard with the action of the rain
and stuck together from mildew. The grass had grown around and over
some of them. The silk on the parasol was strong, but the threads of
it were run together within. The upper part, where it had been
doubled and folded, was all mildewed and rotten, and tore on its
being opened. . . . . The pieces of her frock torn out by the bushes
were about three inches wide and six inches long. One part was the
hem of the frock, and it had been mended; the other piece was part of
the skirt, not the hem. They looked like strips torn off, and were on
the thorn bush, about a foot from the ground. . . . . There can be no
doubt, therefore, that the spot of this appalling outrage has been
discovered."
Consequent upon this discovery, new evidence appeared. Madame Deluc
testified that she keeps a roadside inn not far from the bank of the
river, opposite the BarriΦre du Roule. The neighborhood is secluded
-- particularly so. It is the usual Sunday resort of blackguards from
the city, who cross the river in boats. About three o'clock, in the
afternoon of the Sunday in question, a young girl arrived at the inn,
accompanied by a young man of dark complexion. The two remained here
for some time. On their departure, they took the road to some thick
woods in the vicinity. Madame Deluc's attention was called to the
dress worn by the girl, on account of its resemblance to one worn by
a deceased relative. A scarf was particularly noticed. Soon after the
departure of the couple, a gang of miscreants made their appearance,
behaved boisterously, ate and drank without making payment, followed
in the route of the young man and girl, returned to the inn about
dusk, and re-crossed the river as if in great haste.
It was soon after dark, upon this same evening, that Madame Deluc, as
well as her eldest son, heard the screams of a female in the vicinity
of the inn. The screams were violent but brief. Madame D. recognized
not only the scarf which was found in the thicket, but the dress
which was discovered upon the corpse. An omnibus driver, Valence,
{*13} now also testified that he saw Marie RogΩt cross a ferry on the
Seine, on the Sunday in question, in company with a young man of dark
complexion. He, Valence, knew Marie, and could not be mistaken in her
identity. The articles found in the thicket were fully identified by
the relatives of Marie.
The items of evidence and information thus collected by myself, from
the newspapers, at the suggestion of Dupin, embraced only one more
point -- but this was a point of seemingly vast consequence. It
appears that, immediately after the discovery of the clothes as above
described, the lifeless, or nearly lifeless body of St. Eus
tache,
Marie's betrothed, was found in the vicinity of what all now supposed
the scene of the outrage. A phial labelled "laudanum," and emptied,
was found near him. His breath gave evidence of the poison. He died
without speaking. Upon his person was found a letter, briefly stating
his love for Marie, with his design of self- destruction.
"I need scarcely tell you," said Dupin, as he finished the perusal of
my notes, "that this is a far more intricate case than that of the
Rue Morgue; from which it differs in one important respect. This is
an ordinary, although an atrocious instance of crime. There is
nothing peculiarly outrΘ about it. You will observe that, for this
reason, the mystery has been considered easy, when, for this reason,
it should have been considered difficult, of solution. Thus; at
first, it was thought unnecessary to offer a reward. The myrmidons of
G--- were able at once to comprehend how and why such an atrocity
might have been committed. They could picture to their imaginations a
mode - many modes - and a motive - many motives; and because it was
not impossible that either of these numerous modes and motives could
have been the actual one, they have taken it for granted that one of
them must. But the case with which these variable fancies were
entertained, and the very plausibility which each assumed, should
have been understood as indicative rather of the difficulties than of
the facilities which must attend elucidation. I have before observed
that it is by prominences above the plane of the ordinary, that
reason feels her way, if at all, in her search for the true, and that
the proper question in cases such as this, is not so much 'what has
occurred?' as 'what has occurred that has never occurred before?' In
the investigations at the house of Madame L'Espanaye, {*14} the
agents of G---- were discouraged and confounded by that very
unusualness which, to a properly regulated intellect, would have
afforded the surest omen of success; while this same intellect might
have been plunged in despair at the ordinary character of all that
Poe, Edgar Allen - The Complete Works of Edgar Allen Poe Page 24