Poe, Edgar Allen - The Complete Works of Edgar Allen Poe

by Volume 01-05 (lit)

  duration of the corpse on the shore could operate to multiply traces

  of the assassins. Nor can I.

  " 'And furthermore it is exceedingly improbable,' continues our

  journal, 'that any villains who had committed such a murder as is

  here supposed, would have thrown the body in without weight to sink

  it, when such a precaution could have so easily been taken.' Observe,

  here, the laughable confusion of thought! No one - not even L'Etoile

  - disputes the murder committed _on the body found_. The marks of

  violence are too obvious. It is our reasoner's object merely to show

  that this body is not Marie's. He wishes to prove that Marie is not

  assassinated - not that the corpse was not. Yet his observation

  proves only the latter point. Here is a corpse without weight

  attached. Murderers, casting it in, would not have failed to attach a

  weight. Therefore it was not thrown in by murderers. This is all

  which is proved, if any thing is. The question of identity is not

  even approached, and L'Etoile has been at great pains merely to

  gainsay now what it has admitted only a moment before. 'We are

  perfectly convinced,' it says, 'that the body found was that of a

  murdered female.'

  "Nor is this the sole instance, even in this division of his subject,

  where our reasoner unwittingly reasons against himself. His evident

  object, I have already said, is to reduce, us much as possible, the

  interval between Marie's disappearance and the finding of the corpse.

  Yet we find him urging the point that no person saw the girl from the

  moment of her leaving her mother's house. 'We have no evidence,' he

  says, 'that Marie RogΩt was in the land of the living after nine

  o'clock on Sunday, June the twenty-second.' As his argument is

  obviously an ex parte one, he should, at least, have left this matter

  out of sight; for had any one been known to see Marie, say on Monday,

  or on Tuesday, the interval in question would have been much reduced,

  and, by his own ratiocination, the probability much diminished of the

  corpse being that of the grisette. It is, nevertheless, amusing to

  observe that L'Etoile insists upon its point in the full belief of

  its furthering its general argument.

  "Reperuse now that portion of this argument which has reference to

  the identification of the corpse by Beauvais. In regard to the hair

  upon the arm, L'Etoile has been obviously disingenuous. M. Beauvais,

  not being an idiot, could never have urged, in identification of the

  corpse, simply hair upon its arm. No arm is without hair. The

  generality of the expression of L'Etoile is a mere perversion of the

  witness' phraseology. He must have spoken of some peculiarity in this

  hair. It must have been a peculiarity of color, of quantity, of

  length, or of situation.

  " 'Her foot,' says the journal, 'was small - so are thousands of

  feet. Her garter is no proof whatever - nor is her shoe - for shoes

  and garters are sold in packages. The same may be said of the flowers

  in her hat. One thing upon which M. Beauvais strongly insists is,

  that the clasp on the garter found, had been set back to take it in.

  This amounts to nothing; for most women find it proper to take a pair

  of garters home and fit them to the size of the limbs they are to

  encircle, rather than to try them in the store where they purchase.'

  Here it is difficult to suppose the reasoner in earnest. Had M.

  Beauvais, in his search for the body of Marie, discovered a corpse

  corresponding in general size and appearance to the missing girl, he

  would have been warranted (without reference to the question of

  habiliment at all) in forming an opinion that his search had been

  successful. If, in addition to the point of general size and contour,

  he had found upon the arm a peculiar hairy appearance which he had

  observed upon the living Marie, his opinion might have been justly

  strengthened; and the increase of positiveness might well have been

  in the ratio of the peculiarity, or unusualness, of the hairy mark.

  If, the feet of Marie being small, those of the corpse were also

  small, the increase of probability that the body was that of Marie

  would not be an increase in a ratio merely arithmetical, but in one

  highly geometrical, or accumulative. Add to all this shoes such as

  she had been known to wear upon the day of her disappearance, and,

  although these shoes may be 'sold in packages,' you so far augment

  the probability as to verge upon the certain. What, of itself, would

  be no evidence of identity, becomes through its corroborative

  position, proof most sure. Give us, then, flowers in the hat

  corresponding to those worn by the missing girl, and we seek for

  nothing farther. If only one flower, we seek for nothing farther -

  what then if two or three, or more? Each successive one is multiple

  evidence - proof not _added_ to proof, but multiplied by hundreds or

  thousands. Let us now discover, upon the deceased, garters such as

  the living used, and it is almost folly to proceed. But these garters

  are found to be tightened, by the setting back of a clasp, in just

  such a manner as her own had been tightened by Marie, shortly

  previous to her leaving home. It is now madness or hypocrisy to

  doubt. What L'Etoile says in respect to this abbreviation of the

  garter's being an usual occurrence, shows nothing beyond its own

  pertinacity in error. The elastic nature of the clasp-garter is

  self-demonstration of the unusualness of the abbreviation. What is

  made to adjust itself, must of necessity require foreign adjustment

  but rarely. It must have been by an accident, in its strictest sense,

  that these garters of Marie needed the tightening described. They

  alone would have amply established her identity. But it is not that

  the corpse was found to have the garters of the missing girl, or

  found to have her shoes, or her bonnet, or the flowers of her bonnet,

  or her feet, or a peculiar mark upon the arm, or her general size and

  appearance - it is that the corpse had each, and _all collectively_.

  Could it be proved that the editor of L'Etoile _really_ entertained a

  doubt, under the circumstances, there would be no need, in his case,

  of a commission de lunatico inquirendo. He has thought it sagacious

  to echo the small talk of the lawyers, who, for the most part,

  content themselves with echoing the rectangular precepts of the

  courts. I would here observe that very much of what is rejected as

  evidence by a court, is the best of evidence to the intellect. For

  the court, guiding itself by the general principles of evidence - the

  recognized and _booked_ principles - is averse from swerving at

  particular instances. And this steadfast adherence to principle, with

  rigorous disregard of the conflicting exception, is a sure mode of

  attaining the maximum of attainable truth, in any long sequence of

  time. The practice, in mass, is therefore philosophical; but it is

  not the less certain that it engenders vast individual error. {*16}

  "In respect to the insinuations levelled at Beauvais, you will be

  willing to dis
miss them in a breath. You have already fathomed the

  true character of this good gentleman. He is a busy-body, with much

  of romance and little of wit. Any one so constituted will readily so

  conduct himself, upon occasion of real excitement, as to render

  himself liable to suspicion on the part of the over acute, or the

  ill- disposed. M. Beauvais (as it appears from your notes) had some

  personal interviews with the editor of L'Etoile, and offended him by

  venturing an opinion that the corpse, notwithstanding the theory of

  the editor, was, in sober fact, that of Marie. 'He persists,' says

  the paper, 'in asserting the corpse to be that of Marie, but cannot

  give a circumstance, in addition to those which we have commented

  upon, to make others believe.' Now, without re-adverting to the fact

  that stronger evidence 'to make others believe,' could never have

  been adduced, it may be remarked that a man may very well be

  understood to believe, in a case of this kind, without the ability to

  advance a single reason for the belief of a second party. Nothing is

  more vague than impressions of individual identity. Each man

  recognizes his neighbor, yet there are few instances in which any one

  is prepared to give a reason for his recognition. The editor of

  L'Etoile had no right to be offended at M. Beauvais' unreasoning

  belief.

  "The suspicious circumstances which invest him, will be found to

  tally much better with my hypothesis of romantic busy-bodyism, than

  with the reasoner's suggestion of guilt. Once adopting the more

  charitable interpretation, we shall find no difficulty in

  comprehending the rose in the key-hole; the 'Marie' upon the slate;

  the 'elbowing the male relatives out of the way;' the 'aversion to

  permitting them to see the body;' the caution given to Madame B----,

  that she must hold no conversation with the gendarmeuntil his return

  (Beauvais'); and, lastly, his apparent determination 'that nobody

  should have anything to do with the proceedings except himself.' It

  seems to me unquestionable that Beauvais was a suitor of Marie's;

  that she coquetted with him; and that he was ambitious of being

  thought to enjoy her fullest intimacy and confidence. I shall say

  nothing more upon this point; and, as the evidence fully rebuts the

  assertion of L'Etoile, touching the matter of apathy on the part of

  the mother and other relatives - an apathy inconsistent with the

  supposition of their believing the corpse to be that of the

  perfumery- girl - we shall now proceed as if the question of identity

  were settled to our perfect satisfaction."

  "And what," I here demanded, "do you think of the opinions of Le

  Commerciel?"

  "That, in spirit, they are far more worthy of attention than any

  which have been promulgated upon the subject. The deductions from the

  premises are philosophical and acute; but the premises, in two

  instances, at least, are founded in imperfect observation. Le

  Commerciel wishes to intimate that Marie was seized by some gang of

  low ruffians not far from her mother's door. 'It is impossible,' it

  urges, 'that a person so well known to thousands as this young woman

  was, should have passed three blocks without some one having seen

  her.' This is the idea of a man long resident in Paris - a public man

  - and one whose walks to and fro in the city, have been mostly

  limited to the vicinity of the public offices. He is aware that he

  seldom passes so far as a dozen blocks from his own bureau, without

  being recognized and accosted. And, knowing the extent of his

  personal acquaintance with others, and of others with him, he

  compares his notoriety with that of the perfumery-girl, finds no

  great difference between them, and reaches at once the conclusion

  that she, in her walks, would be equally liable to recognition with

  himself in his. This could only be the case were her walks of the

  same unvarying, methodical character, and within the same species of

  limited region as are his own. He passes to and fro, at regular

  intervals, within a confined periphery, abounding in individuals who

  are led to observation of his person through interest in the kindred

  nature of his occupation with their own. But the walks of Marie may,

  in general, be supposed discursive. In this particular instance, it

  will be understood as most probable, that she proceeded upon a route

  of more than average diversity from her accustomed ones. The parallel

  which we imagine to have existed in the mind of Le Commerciel would

  only be sustained in the event of the two individuals' traversing the

  whole city. In this case, granting the personal acquaintances to be

  equal, the chances would be also equal that an equal number of

  personal rencounters would be made. For my own part, I should hold it

  not only as possible, but as very far more than probable, that Marie

  might have proceeded, at any given period, by any one of the many

  routes between her own residence and that of her aunt, without

  meeting a single individual whom she knew, or by whom she was known.

  In viewing this question in its full and proper light, we must hold

  steadily in mind the great disproportion between the personal

  acquaintances of even the most noted individual in Paris, and the

  entire population of Paris itself.

  "But whatever force there may still appear to be in the suggestion of

  Le Commerciel, will be much diminished when we take into

  consideration the hour at which the girl went abroad. 'It was when

  the streets were full of people,' says Le Commerciel, 'that she went

  out.' But not so. It was at nine o'clock in the morning. Now at nine

  o'clock of every morning in the week, _with the exception of Sunday_,

  the streets of the city are, it is true, thronged with people. At

  nine on Sunday, the populace are chiefly within doors _preparing for

  church_. No observing person can have failed to notice the peculiarly

  deserted air of the town, from about eight until ten on the morning

  of every Sabbath. Between ten and eleven the streets are thronged,

  but not at so early a period as that designated.

  "There is another point at which there seems a deficiency of

  observation on the part of Le Commerciel. 'A piece,' it says, 'of one

  of the unfortunate girl's petticoats, two feet long, and one foot

  wide, was torn out and tied under her chin, and around the back of

  her head, probably to prevent screams. This was done, by fellows who

  had no pocket-handkerchiefs.' Whether this idea is, or is not well

  founded, we will endeavor to see hereafter; but by 'fellows who have

  no pocket-handkerchiefs' the editor intends the lowest class of

  ruffians. These, however, are the very description of people who will

  always be found to have handkerchiefs even when destitute of shirts.

  You must have had occasion to observe how absolutely indispensable,

  of late years, to the thorough blackguard, has become the

  pocket-handkerchief."

  "And what are we to think," I asked, "of the article in Le Soleil?"

  "That it is a vast pity its inditer was not born a parrot - in which
/>   case he would have been the most illustrious parrot of his race. He

  has merely repeated the individual items of the already published

  opinion; collecting them, with a laudable industry, from this paper

  and from that. 'The things had all evidently been there,' he says,'at

  least, three or four weeks, and there can be _no doubt_ that the spot

  of this appalling outrage has been discovered.' The facts here

  re-stated by Le Soleil, are very far indeed from removing my own

  doubts upon this subject, and we will examine them more particularly

  hereafter in connexion with another division of the theme.

  "At present we must occupy ourselves with other investigations You

  cannot fail to have remarked the extreme laxity of the examination of

  the corpse. To be sure, the question of identity was readily

  determined, or should have been; but there were other points to be

  ascertained. Had the body been in any respect despoiled? Had the

  deceased any articles of jewelry about her person upon leaving home?

  if so, had she any when found? These are important questions utterly

  untouched by the evidence; and there are others of equal moment,

  which have met with no attention. We must endeavor to satisfy

  ourselves by personal inquiry. The case of St. Eustache must be

  re-examined. I have no suspicion of this person; but let us proceed

  methodically. We will ascertain beyond a doubt the validity of the

  affidavits in regard to his whereabouts on the Sunday. Affidavits of

  this character are readily made matter of mystification. Should there

  be nothing wrong here, however, we will dismiss St. Eustache from our

  investigations. His suicide, however corroborative of suspicion, were

  there found to be deceit in the affidavits, is, without such deceit,

  in no respect an unaccountable circumstance, or one which need cause

  us to deflect from the line of ordinary analysis.

  "In that which I now propose, we will discard the interior points of

  this tragedy, and concentrate our attention upon its outskirts. Not

  the least usual error, in investigations such as this, is the

  limiting of inquiry to the immediate, with total disregard of the