in the drive.
The girl Fredaâs evidence of having seen these two men was the most sensational, and probably the most significant, clue on which we had stumbled. Her story tallied with that of the young mechanic, and it was fairly safe to assume that the first man, the one with the bicycle, the one who had twice rung the front-door bell, was the mechanic himself. But what about that second man whose presence had so startled the first, and who had waited until the cyclistâs disappearance before he had quietly crept away? Was he the murderer? That seemed a most important point on which we had still to decide.
11.
Front-door keys.
So far as our information went, the only people with keys were Stewart, Duncan, Mrs. Duncan, Ed Wilson, Rose, and Freda. Now, since the house had been carefully locked up and no one had broken in, the murderer had to be one of the three following: (a) one of those with a key, mentioned above, (b) someone who secretly had a key and had not ever used it to the knowledge of those we had cross-examined, and (c) someone who had remained hidden in the house while Duncan had locked up. I noted down this point, but I realized that it still left the net a wide one.
12.
The âPassing Moment.
â
Peter and Wakefield had badly wanted money for this, and Wakefield at least had seemed to me a man who would stop at nothing in attaining his means. Had they done more than ask Stewart for the money and resign themselves to his emphatic refusal?
This was all the evidence that I knew of whichhad come to light, and I proceeded to consider the people so far involved in the case.
When I began to consider these I was faced by one very obvious difficulty. It was to divide them into those who might possibly have committed the murder, and those who couldnât have done so. In all the cases with which I had been connected this had been the first measure in finding suspects. What made it difficult now is that really only one of these people seemed to have any motive at allâand that was Stewart. With an absence of motive to guide one, one could go on listing possible murderers among people known and unknown,
ad infinitum.
One could start with the probables, those in and out of the house, and continue down to the individuals like the policeman who had been on duty that night, and further, to that half of the people in London who could not account for their movements at the time of Bensonâs murder.
So, instead of attempting to make a list of suspects, I decided to put down on paper the names of those who seemed to have some direct connection with the matter, and consider what we knew of them. This was my list:
1.
Stewart Ferrers.
We had not yet interviewed him, of course, though I understood that Peter was arranging with his solicitor for Beef to see him. (There seemed to me, by the way, something almost superstitious in Peterâs faith in Beef. Only superstition could account for the trouble he was taking to give Beef every facility.)But in the meantime, the personality of Stewart, so far as it had been revealed, was not very attractive. We had been taught to imagine him as a stern, uncharitable, religious man, keeping his own counsel, and his own bank balance. He had certainly been drawing these curious sums of money, and there seemed a good chance of his having been blackmailed. The actual circumstances of the crime as the police knew them were strongly against him, and it would need some startling work on Beefs part to exonerate him.
2.
Peter Ferrers.
He was a strong possibility, I had felt from the beginning, as a murderer. We hadnât yet investigated his alibi, but so far as we knew there was no reason why he shouldnât have kept a key of the house, dropped Wakefield that evening, gone to his flat and established his presence there, crept out by some back way, murdered Benson, returned in the small hours, and received Duncanâs telephone call as if nothing had happened. On
The girl Fredaâs evidence of having seen these two men was the most sensational, and probably the most significant, clue on which we had stumbled. Her story tallied with that of the young mechanic, and it was fairly safe to assume that the first man, the one with the bicycle, the one who had twice rung the front-door bell, was the mechanic himself. But what about that second man whose presence had so startled the first, and who had waited until the cyclistâs disappearance before he had quietly crept away? Was he the murderer? That seemed a most important point on which we had still to decide.
11.
Front-door keys.
So far as our information went, the only people with keys were Stewart, Duncan, Mrs. Duncan, Ed Wilson, Rose, and Freda. Now, since the house had been carefully locked up and no one had broken in, the murderer had to be one of the three following: (a) one of those with a key, mentioned above, (b) someone who secretly had a key and had not ever used it to the knowledge of those we had cross-examined, and (c) someone who had remained hidden in the house while Duncan had locked up. I noted down this point, but I realized that it still left the net a wide one.
12.
The âPassing Moment.
â
Peter and Wakefield had badly wanted money for this, and Wakefield at least had seemed to me a man who would stop at nothing in attaining his means. Had they done more than ask Stewart for the money and resign themselves to his emphatic refusal?
This was all the evidence that I knew of whichhad come to light, and I proceeded to consider the people so far involved in the case.
When I began to consider these I was faced by one very obvious difficulty. It was to divide them into those who might possibly have committed the murder, and those who couldnât have done so. In all the cases with which I had been connected this had been the first measure in finding suspects. What made it difficult now is that really only one of these people seemed to have any motive at allâand that was Stewart. With an absence of motive to guide one, one could go on listing possible murderers among people known and unknown,
ad infinitum.
One could start with the probables, those in and out of the house, and continue down to the individuals like the policeman who had been on duty that night, and further, to that half of the people in London who could not account for their movements at the time of Bensonâs murder.
So, instead of attempting to make a list of suspects, I decided to put down on paper the names of those who seemed to have some direct connection with the matter, and consider what we knew of them. This was my list:
1.
Stewart Ferrers.
We had not yet interviewed him, of course, though I understood that Peter was arranging with his solicitor for Beef to see him. (There seemed to me, by the way, something almost superstitious in Peterâs faith in Beef. Only superstition could account for the trouble he was taking to give Beef every facility.)But in the meantime, the personality of Stewart, so far as it had been revealed, was not very attractive. We had been taught to imagine him as a stern, uncharitable, religious man, keeping his own counsel, and his own bank balance. He had certainly been drawing these curious sums of money, and there seemed a good chance of his having been blackmailed. The actual circumstances of the crime as the police knew them were strongly against him, and it would need some startling work on Beefs part to exonerate him.
2.
Peter Ferrers.
He was a strong possibility, I had felt from the beginning, as a murderer. We hadnât yet investigated his alibi, but so far as we knew there was no reason why he shouldnât have kept a key of the house, dropped Wakefield that evening, gone to his flat and established his presence there, crept out by some back way, murdered Benson, returned in the small hours, and received Duncanâs telephone call as if nothing had happened. On
Similar Books
