“Yes, that is my opinion. But there is no ‘of course’ about it, my friend. Technically speaking, Madame Beroldy is innocent.” “Of that crime, perhaps. But not of this.” Poirot sat down again, and regarded me, his thoughtful air more marked than ever. “So it is definitely your opinion, Hastings, that Madame Daubreuil murdered M. Renauld?” “Yes.” “Why?” He shot the question at me with such suddenness that I was taken aback. “Why?” I stammered. “Why? Oh, because—” I came to a stop. Poirot nodded his head at me. “You see, you come to a stumbling-block at once. Why should Madame Daubreuil (I shall call her that for clearness sake) murder M. Renauld? We can find no shadow of a motive. She does not benefit by his death; considered as either mistress or blackmailer she stands to lose. You cannot have a murder without a motive. The first crime was different, there we had a rich lover waiting to step into her husband’s shoes.” “Money is not the only motive for murder,” I objected. “True,” agreed Poirot placidly. “There are two others, the _crime passionnel___ is one. And there is the third rare motive, murder for an idea which implies some form of mental derangement on the part of the murderer. Homicidal mania, and religious fanaticism belong to that class. We can rule it out here.” “But what about the _crime passionnel?___ Can you rule that out? If Madame Daubreuil was Renauld’s mistress, if she found that his affection was cooling, or if her jealousy was aroused in any way, might she not have struck him down in a moment of anger?” Poirot shook his head. “If—I say _if___, you note—Madame Daubreuil was Renauld’s mistress, he had not had time to tire of her. And in any case you mistake her character. She is a woman who can simulate great emotional stress. She is a magnificent actress. But, looked at dispassionately, her life disproves her appearance. Throughout, if we examine it, she had been cold-blooded and calculating in her motives and actions. It was not to link her life with that of her young lover that she connived at her husband’s murder. The rich American, for whom she probably did not care a button, was her objective. If she committed a crime, she would always do so for gain. Here there was no gain. Besides, how do you account for the digging of the grave? That was a man’s work.” “She might have had an accomplice,” I suggested, unwilling to relinquish my belief. “I pass to another objection. You have spoken of the similarity between the two crimes. Wherein does that lie, my friend?” I stared at him in astonishment. “Why, Poirot, it was you who remarked on that! The story of the masked men, the ‘secret,’ the papers!” Poirot smiled a little.