Detective and mystery stories; Poirot, Hercule (Fictitious character) -- Fiction; Private investigators -- England -- Fiction
“As to the first points, the question seems to be whether we adopt the
theory of blackmail, or of an infatuation for this woman.”
“Blackmail, decidedly. You heard what Stonor said as to his character
and habits.”
“Mrs. Renauld did not confirm his view,” I argued.
“We have already seen that Madame Renauld’s testimony cannot be relied
upon in any way. We must trust to Stonor on that point.”
“Still, if Renauld had an affair with a woman called Bella, there seems
no inherent improbability in his having another with Madame Daubreuil.”
“None whatever, I grant you, Hastings. But did he?”
“The letter, Poirot. You forget the letter.”
“No, I do not forget. But what makes you think that letter was written
to M. Renauld?”
“Why it was found in his pocket and—and—”
“And that is all!” cut in Poirot. “There was no mention of any name to
show to whom the letter was addressed. We assumed it was to the dead
man because it was in the pocket of his overcoat. Now, _mon ami___,
something about that overcoat struck me as unusual. I measured it, and
made the remark that he wore his overcoat very long. That remark should
have given you to think.”
“I thought you were just saying it for the sake of saying something,” I
confessed.
“Ah, _quelle idée!___ Later you observed me measuring the overcoat of
M. Jack Renauld. _Eh bien___, M. Jack Renauld wears his overcoat very
short. Put those two facts together with a third, namely that M. Jack
Renauld flung out of the house in a hurry on his departure for Paris,
and tell me what you make of it!”
“I see,” I said slowly, as the meaning of Poirot’s remarks bore in upon
me. “That letter was written to Jack Renauld—not to his father. He
caught up the wrong overcoat in his haste and agitation.”
Poirot nodded.
“_Précisement!___ We can return to this point later. For the moment let
us content ourselves with accepting the letter as having nothing to do
with M. Renauld _père___, and pass to the next chronological event.”
“May 23rd,” I read, “M. Renauld quarrels with his son over latter’s
wish to marry Marthe Daubreuil. Son leaves for Paris. I don’t see
anything much to remark upon there, and the altering of the will the
following day seems straightforward enough. It was the direct result of
the quarrel.”
“We agree, _mon ami___—at least as to the cause. But what exact motive
underlay this procedure of M. Renauld’s?”
I opened my eyes in surprise.
“Anger against his son of course.”
“Yet he wrote him affectionate letters to Paris?”
“So Jack Renauld says, but he cannot produce them.”
“Well, let us pass from that.”
“Now we come to the day of the tragedy. You have placed the events of
the morning in a certain order. Have you any justification for that?”
“I have ascertained that the letter to me was posted at the same time
as the telegram was despatched. Masters was informed he could take a
holiday shortly afterwards. In my opinion the quarrel with the tramp
took place anterior to these happenings.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account