|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 14
"Possibly, but as I have not been able to find it I cannot believe
it very likely, though closer search may reveal it," replied
Maitland. "Your father's right forefinger," he continued, "is
slightly stained with blood, but the wound is of a nature which
could not have been caused by a finger nail previously poisoned.
Since we know he pressed his hand to his throat this blood-stain
makes no more strongly toward the truth of the suicide theory than
it does toward that of the murder hypothesis. Suppose now, for we
must look at all sides of the question, the officers begin to act
upon the assumption that murder has been committed. What will
they then do? They will satisfy themselves that the east window
was opened six and three-quarters inches and securely fastened in
that position; that the two south windows were closed and fastened
and that the blinds thereof were also closed. They will ascertain
the time when death occurred,--we can easily tell them,--and this
will show them that neither of the blinds on the south side could
have been opened without so increasing the light in the room as to
be sure to attract our attention. They will learn also that the
folding doors were locked, as they are now, on this side and that
these two gentlemen [indicating Browne and Herne] sat against them.
They will then turn to the hall door as the only possible means of
entrance and I shall tell them that the Doctor and I sat directly
in front of this door and between it and Mr. Darrow. I have taken
the liberty to cut the carpet to mark the positions of our chairs.
In view of all these facts what must they conclude? Simply this:
no one entered the room, did the deed, and then left it, at least
not without being observed." "But surely," I ventured to suggest,
"you do not think they will presume to question the testimony of
all of us that no one was observed."
"That is all negative evidence," he replied, "and does not
conclusively prove that another might not have observed what we
failed to detect. However, it is all so self-evident that they
will not question it. I know so well their methods of reasoning
that I am already prepared to refute their conclusions at every
point, without, I regret to say, being myself able to solve the
mystery, though I may say in passing that I purposely am refraining
from formulating any theory whatever until I have ascertained
everything which it is possible to learn in the matter. In this way
I hope to avoid the error into which the detective is so prone to
fall. Once you set up an hypothesis you unconsciously, and in spite
of yourself, accentuate unduly the importance of all data making
toward that hypothesis, while, on the other hand you either utterly
neglect, misconstrue, or fail to fully appreciate, the evidence
oppugnant to your theory. In chemical research I gather the material
for an entire series of experiments before performing any, so that
the first few shall not, either by satisfying or discouraging me,
cause me to leave the bush half beaten.
"Let us see how, from the officers' standpoint, the murder hypothesis
now stands. No assassin, it will be clear to them, could have
entered or left this room unobserved. If, therefore, a man did enter
the room and kill our friend, we, all of us, must be his accomplices."
This remark drew some sort of exclamatory protest from every other
person in the room save Browne.
"Ah, that is probably the true solution," said the artist with
ill-concealed disgust.
This remark and the tone in which it was uttered would have been
discourteous under any circumstances; at this particular time and in
the painful situation in which we all found ourselves it was boorish
almost beyond endurance.
There was nothing in Maitland's manner to indicate that he had heard
Browne's remark, as he quietly continued:
"You see this cold-blooded view, the mere statement of which causes
you all to shudder,--the more so because one of our number is the
daughter of the dead man,--is not to be entertained a moment and
is only mentioned to show the logical chain which will force the
officers into the certain conviction that no assassin did enter or
leave this room. What, then, remains of their theory? Two
possibilities. First, the murderer may have done the deed without
entering. If so, it is clear that he must have made use of the
partly-opened window. This seems so likely that they will seize
upon it with avidity. At first they will suggest that the assassin
reached in at the window and struck his victim as he sat by it.
This, they will urge, accounts for our not finding the weapon, and
they will be so sure that this is the correct solution of the
problem that I shall probably have to point out to them its patent
absurdity. This illustrates the danger of forming an hypothesis
from imperfect data. Remind them that Mr. Darrow did not sit by
the window, but eight feet three and one-half inches from it, in
almost the exact centre of the room, and their theory falls to the
ground, only to be hastily replaced, as a drowning man catches at a
straw, by a slightly varied theory. If the victim sat that distance
from the window, they will inform us, it is clear the murderous
implement must have been thrown or shot at him by the assassin."
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|