Another possibly important clue had been obtained when the corpse was laid out for the postmortem. The doctor, in trying to straighten out the left arm, had seen a brass finger ring drop to the floor from the inner bend of the elbow. This ring had not belonged to Mother Holzmann. No doubt it was the property of the murderer and, in the excitement of carrying on the dismembering process, it must have slipped off his finger unknown to him. The arm of the dead woman had caught and detained it. Here was conclusive evidence at first hand. But to whom did the ring belong? No one could say. Suspicion at once fell on the former lodgers of Anna Holzmann. They were the last persons who admitted having seen her and they had remained in the house without giving notice of her disappearance. Besides, who but they could have accomplished the dismemberment of the corpse, for which time and freedom from interruption were essential? Again, it was in the room occupied by them that a portion of the body had been disinterred. Rauschmaier had plainly prevaricated; he had stated on oath before the court of justice that his landlady had gone away on Good Friday with another woman, leaving him the keys of the lodging; yet this statement was, according to the clear evidence adduced, a distinct lie. It also developed that on the Saturday after Good Friday, Rauschmaier had, with the help of his sweetheart, carried off a part of Holzmann’s property and sold or pawned the articles. This was deemed sufficient ground for his arrest. Rauschmaier had not left Augsberg and his lodging was well known. When apprehended, he behaved with a mixture of calm indifference and seemingly absolute ingenuousness. He denied all knowledge of any crime committed on the woman Holzmann and again declared that she had gone away on Good Friday with another woman whom he did not know, leaving her keys in his charge. When taken to the cemetery and shown the corpse with its dismembered limbs pieced together, he exhibited no emotion and declared that he did not recognise the body. After being detained till the end of January, he begged to be brought before a magistrate and requested to be set at liberty. On the following day, however, he admitted that he had allowed himself to be tempted to take possession of some of his landlady’s belongings during her absence. Yes, he was the thief. He also confessed that his sweetheart had removed the stolen goods with his knowledge and consent. With this frank avowal, all hope of further elucidation seemed at an end. There was nothing against him but that he had been the last to see the murdered woman; that he had omitted to report her disappearance; that he had excellent opportunities for murdering and dismembering her and that he was clearly a thief. But there were no witnesses to prove him worse.