met the eye in the case of the perfumery-girl, and yet told of
nothing but easy triumph to the functionaries of the Prefecture.
"In the case of Madame L'Espanaye and her daughter there was, even at
the beginning of our investigation, no doubt that murder had been
committed. The idea of suicide was excluded at once. Here, too, we
are freed, at the commencement, from all supposition of self- murder.
The body found at the BarriΦre du Roule, was found under such
circumstances as to leave us no room for embarrassment upon this
important point. But it has been suggested that the corpse
discovered, is not that of the Marie RogΩt for the conviction of
whose assassin, or assassins, the reward is offered, and respecting
whom, solely, our agreement has been arranged with the Prefect. We
both know this gentleman well. It will not do to trust him too far.
If, dating our inquiries from the body found, and thence tracing a
murderer, we yet discover this body to be that of some other
individual than Marie; or, if starting from the living Marie, we find
her, yet find her unassassinated -- in either case we lose our labor;
since it is Monsieur G---- with whom we have to deal. For our own
purpose, therefore, if not for the purpose of justice, it is
indispensable that our first step should be the determination of the
identity of the corpse with the Marie RogΩt who is missing.
"With the public the arguments of L'Etoile have had weight; and that
the journal itself is convinced of their importance would appear from
the manner in which it commences one of its essays upon the subject -
'Several of the morning papers of the day,' it says, 'speak of the
_conclusive_ article in Monday's Etoile.' To me, this article appears
conclusive of little beyond the zeal of its inditer. We should bear
in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather
to create a sensation -- to make a point - than to further the cause
of truth. The latter end is only pursued when it seems coincident
with the former. The print which merely falls in with ordinary
opinion (however well founded this opinion may be) earns for itself
no credit with the mob. The mass of the people regard as profound
only him who suggests _pungent contradictions_ of the general idea.
In ratiocination, not less than in literature, it is the epigram
which is the most immediately and the most universally appreciated.
In both, it is of the lowest order of merit.
"What I mean to say is, that it is the mingled epigram and melodrame
of the idea, that Marie RogΩt still lives, rather than any true
plausibility in this idea, which have suggested it to L'Etoile, and
secured it a favorable reception with the public. Let us examine the
heads of this journal's argument; endeavoring to avoid the
incoherence with which it is originally set forth.
"The first aim of the writer is to show, from the brevity of the
interval between Marie's disappearance and the finding of the
floating corpse, that this corpse cannot be that of Marie. The
reduction of this interval to its smallest possible dimension,
becomes thus, at once, an object with the reasoner. In the rash
pursuit of this object, he rushes into mere assumption at the outset.
'It is folly to suppose,' he says, '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.' We demand at once, and very naturally, why? Why is it
folly to suppose that the murder was committed _within five minutes_
after the girl's quitting her mother's house? Why is it folly to
suppose that the murder was committed at any given period of the day?
There have been assassinations at all hours. But, had the murder
taken place at any moment between nine o'clock in the morning of
Sunday, and a quarter before midnight, there would still have been
time enough ''to throw the body into the river before midnight.' This
assumption, then, amounts precisely to this - that the murder was not
committed on Sunday at all - and, if we allow L'Etoile to assume
this, we may permit it any liberties whatever. The paragraph
beginning 'It is folly to suppose that the murder, etc.,' however it
appears as printed in L'Etoile, may be imagined to have existed
actually thus in the brain of its inditer - 'It is folly to suppose
that the murder, if murder was committed on the body, could have been
committed soon enough to have enabled her murderers to throw the body
into the river before midnight; it is folly, we say, to suppose all
this, and to suppose at the same time, (as we are resolved to
suppose,) that the body was not thrown in until after midnight' -- a
sentence sufficiently inconsequential in itself, but not so utterly
preposterous as the one printed.
"Were it my purpose," continued Dupin, "merely to _make out a case_
against this passage of L'Etoile's argument, I might safely leave it
where it is. It is not, however, with L'Etoile that we have to do,
but with the truth. The sentence in question has but one meaning, as
it stands; and this meaning I have fairly stated: but it is material
that we go behind the mere words, for an idea which these words have
obviously intended, and failed to convey. It was the design of the
journalist to say that, at whatever period of the day or night of
Sunday this murder was committed, it was improbable that the
assassins would have ventured to bear the corpse to the river before
midnight. And herein lies, really, the assumption of which I
complain. It is assumed that the murder was committed at such a
position, and under such circumstances, that the bearing it to the
river became necessary. Now, the assassination might have taken place
upon the river's brink, or on the river itself; and, thus, the
throwing the corpse in the water might have been resorted to, at any
period of the day or night, as the most obvious and most immediate
mode of disposal. You will understand that I suggest nothing here as
probable, or as c÷incident with my own opinion. My design, so far,
has no reference to the facts of the case. I wish merely to caution
you against the whole tone of L'Etoile's suggestion, by calling your
attention to its ex parte character at the outset.
"Having prescribed thus a limit to suit its own preconceived notions;
having assumed that, if this were the body of Marie, it could have
been in the water but a very brief time; the journal goes on to say:
'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 sufficient decomposition to take place to bring them to
the top of the water. Even when a cannon is fired over a corpse, and
it rises before at least five or six days' immersion, it sinks again
if let alone.'
"These assertions have been tacitly received by every paper in Paris,
with the exception of Le Moniteur. {*15} This latter print endeavors
to combat that portion of the paragraph
which has reference to
'drowned bodies' only, by citing some five or six instances in which
the bodies of individuals known to be drowned were found floating
after the lapse of less time than is insisted upon by L'Etoile. But
there is something excessively unphilosophical in the attempt on the
part of Le Moniteur, to rebut the general assertion of L'Etoile, by a
citation of particular instances militating against that assertion.
Had it been possible to adduce fifty instead of five examples of
bodies found floating at the end of two or three days, these fifty
examples could still have been properly regarded only as exceptions
to L'Etoile's rule, until such time as the rule itself should be
confuted. Admitting the rule, (and this Le Moniteur does not deny,
insisting merely upon its exceptions,) the argument of L'Etoile is
suffered to remain in full force; for this argument does not pretend
to involve more than a question of the probability of the body having
risen to the surface in less than three days; and this probability
will be in favor of L'Etoile's position until the instances so
childishly adduced shall be sufficient in number to establish an
antagonistical rule.
"You will see at once that all argument upon this head should be
urged, if at all, against the rule itself; and for this end we must
examine the rationale of the rule. Now the human body, in general, is
neither much lighter nor much heavier than the water of the Seine;
that is to say, the specific gravity of the human body, in its
natural condition, is about equal to the bulk of fresh water which it
displaces. The bodies of fat and fleshy persons, with small bones,
and of women generally, are lighter than those of the lean and
large-boned, and of men; and the specific gravity of the water of a
river is somewhat influenced by the presence of the tide from sea.
But, leaving this tide out of question, it may be said that very few
human bodies will sink at all, even in fresh water, of their own
accord. Almost any one, falling into a river, will be enabled to
float, if he suffer the specific gravity of the water fairly to be
adduced in comparison with his own - that is to say, if he suffer his
whole person to be immersed, with as little exception as possible.
The proper position for one who cannot swim, is the upright position
of the walker on land, with the head thrown fully back, and immersed;
the mouth and nostrils alone remaining above the surface. Thus
circumstanced, we shall find that we float without difficulty and
without exertion. It is evident, however, that the gravities of the
body, and of the bulk of water displaced, are very nicely balanced,
and that a trifle will cause either to preponderate. An arm, for
instance, uplifted from the water, and thus deprived of its support,
is an additional weight sufficient to immerse the whole head, while
the accidental aid of the smallest piece of timber will enable us to
elevate the head so as to look about. Now, in the struggles of one
unused to swimming, the arms are invariably thrown upwards, while an
attempt is made to keep the head in its usual perpendicular position.
The result is the immersion of the mouth and nostrils, and the
inception, during efforts to breathe while beneath the surface, of
water into the lungs. Much is also received into the stomach, and the
whole body becomes heavier by the difference between the weight of
the air originally distending these cavities, and that of the fluid
which now fills them. This difference is sufficient to cause the body
to sink, as a general rule; but is insufficient in the cases of
individuals with small bones and an abnormal quantity of flaccid or
fatty matter. Such individuals float even after drowning.
"The corpse, being. supposed at the bottom of the river, will there
remain until, by some means, its specific gravity again becomes less
than that of the bulk of water which it displaces. This effect is
brought about by decomposition, or otherwise. The result of
decomposition is the generation of gas, distending the cellular
tissues and all the cavities, and giving the puffedappearance which
is to horrible. When this distension has so far progressed that the
bulk of the corpse is materially increased with. out a corresponding
increase of mass or weight, its specific gravity becomes less than
that of the water displaced, and it forthwith makes its appearance at
the surface. But decomposition is modified by innumerable
circumstances - is hastened or retarded by innumerable agencies; for
example, by the heat or cold of the season, by the mineral
impregnation or purity of the water, by its depth or shallowness, by
its currency or stagnation, by the temperament of the body, by its
infection or freedom from disease before death. Thus it is evident
that we can assign no period, with any thing like accuracy, at which
the corpse shall rise through decomposition. Under certain conditions
this result would be brought about within an hour; under others, it
might not take place at all. There are chemical infusions by which
the animal frame can be preserved foreverfrom corruption; the
Bi-chloride of Mercury is one. But, apart from decomposition, there
may be, and very usually is, a generation of gas within the stomach,
from the acetous fermentation of vegetable matter (or within other
cavities from other causes) sufficient to induce a distension which
will bring the body to the surface. The effect produced by the firing
of a cannon is that of simple vibration. This may either loosen the
corpse from the soft mud or ooze in which it is imbedded, thus
permitting it to rise when other agencies have already prepared it
for so doing; or it may overcome the tenacity of some putrescent
portions of the cellular tissue; allowing the cavities to distend
under the influence of the gas.
"Having thus before us the whole philosophy of this subject, we can
easily test by it the assertions of L'Etoile. 'All experience shows,'
says this paper, 'that drowned bodies, or bodies thrown into the
water immediately after death by violence, require from six to ten
days for sufficient decomposition to take place to bring them to the
top of the water. Even when a cannon is fired over a corpse, and it
rises before at least five or six days' immersion, it sinks again if
let alone.'
"The whole of this paragraph must now appear a tissue of
inconsequence and incoherence. All experience does not show that
'drowned bodies' require from six to ten days for sufficient
decomposition to take place to bring them to the surface. Both
science and experience show that the period of their rising is, and
necessarily must be, indeterminate. If, moreover, a body has risen to
the surface through firing of cannon, it will not 'sink again if let
alone,' until decomposition has so far progressed as to permit the
escape of the generated gas. But I wish to call your attention to the
distinction which is made between 'drowned bodies,' and 'bodies
&
nbsp; thrown into the water immediately after death by violence.' Although
the writer admits the distinction, he yet includes them all in the
same category. I have shown how it is that the body of a drowning man
becomes specifically heavier than its bulk of water, and that he
would not sink at all, except for the struggles by which he elevates
his arms above the surface, and his gasps for breath while beneath
the surface - gasps which supply by water the place of the original
air in the lungs. But these struggles and these gasps would not occur
in the body 'thrown into the water immediately after death by
violence.' Thus, in the latter instance, the body, as a general rule,
would not sink at all - a fact of which L'Etoile is evidently
ignorant. When decomposition had proceeded to a very great extent -
when the flesh had in a great measure left the bones - then, indeed,
but not till then, should we lose sight of the corpse.
"And now what are we to make of the argument, that the body found
could not be that of Marie RogΩt, because, three days only having
elapsed, this body was found floating? If drowned, being a woman, she
might never have sunk; or having sunk, might have reappeared in
twenty-four hours, or less. But no one supposes her to have been
drowned; and, dying before being thrown into the river, she might
have been found floating at any period afterwards whatever.
" 'But,' says L'Etoile, '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.' Here it is at first difficult to perceive
the intention of the reasoner. He means to anticipate what he
imagines would be an objection to his theory - viz: that the body was
kept on shore two days, suffering rapid decomposition - morerapid
than if immersed in water. He supposes that, had this been the case,
it might have appeared at the surface on the Wednesday, and thinks
that only under such circumstances it could so have appeared. He is
accordingly in haste to show that it was not kept on shore; for, if
so, 'some trace would be found on shore of the murderers.' I presume
you smile at the sequitur. You cannot be made to see how the mere
Poe, Edgar Allen - The Complete Works of Edgar Allen Poe Page 25