M. Filleul raised no objection. “Agreed. The complicity is established. And what conclusion do you draw?” “This, first of all, that it was not the runaway who killed Jean Daval, because Jean Daval was his accomplice.” “And after that?” “Monsieur le Juge d’Instruction, I will ask you to remember the first sentence uttered by Monsieur le Comte when he recovered from fainting. The sentence forms part of Mlle. de Gesvres’ evidence and is in the official report: ‘I am not wounded.—Daval?—Is he alive?—The knife?’ And I will ask you to compare it with that part of his story, also in the report, in which Monsieur le Comte describes the assault: ‘The man leaped at me and felled me with a blow on the temple!’ How could M. de Gesvres, who had fainted, know, on waking, that Daval had been stabbed with a knife?” Isidore Beautrelet did not wait for an answer to his question. It seemed as though he were in a hurry to give the answer himself and to avoid all comment. He continued straightway: “Therefore it was Jean Daval who brought the three burglars to the drawing room. While he was there with the one whom they call their chief, a noise was heard in the boudoir. Daval opened the door. Recognizing M. de Gesvres, he rushed at him, armed with the knife. M. de Gesvres succeeded in snatching the knife from him, struck him with it and himself fell, on receiving a blow from the man whom the two girls were to see a few minutes after.” Once again, M. Filleul and the inspector exchanged glances. Ganimard tossed his head in a disconcerted way. The magistrate said: “Monsieur le Comte, am I to believe that this version is correct?” M. de Gesvres made no answer. “Come, Monsieur le Comte, your silence would allow us to suppose—I beg you to speak.” Replying in a very clear voice, M. de Gesvres said: “The version is correct in every particular.” The magistrate gave a start. “Then I cannot understand why you misled the police. Why conceal an act which you were lawfully entitled to commit in defense of your life?” “For twenty years,” said M. de Gesvres, “Daval worked by my side. I trusted him. If he betrayed me, as the result of some temptation or other, I was, at least, unwilling, for the sake of the past, that his treachery should become known.” “You were unwilling, I agree, but you had no right to be.” “I am not of your opinion, Monsieur le Juge d’Instruction. As long as no innocent person was accused of the crime, I was absolutely entitled to refrain from accusing the man who was at the same time the culprit and the victim. He is dead. I consider death a sufficient punishment.” “But now, Monsieur le Comte, now that the truth is known, you can speak.” “Yes. Here are two rough drafts of letters written by him to his accomplices. I took them from his pocket-book, a few minutes after his death.” “And the motive of his theft?”