“That, however, is the only way in which it can be explained. The Yellow Room was as closely shut as an iron safe. To use your own expression, it was impossible for the murderer to make his escape either naturally or supernaturally. When the room was broken into he was not there! He must, therefore, have escaped.” “That does not follow.” “What do you mean?” “There was no need for him to escape—if he was not there!” “Not there!” “Evidently, not. He _could_ not have been there, if he were not found there.” “But, what about the evidences of his presence?” asked the President. “That, Monsieur President, is where we have taken hold of the wrong end. From the time Mademoiselle Stangerson shut herself in her room to the time her door was burst open, it was impossible for the murderer to escape. He was not found because he was not there during that time.” “But the evidences?” “They have led us astray. In reasoning on this mystery we must not take them to mean what they apparently mean. Why do we conclude the murderer was there?—Because he left his tracks in the room? Good! But may he not have been there _before_ the room was locked. Nay, he _must_ have been there before! Let us look into the matter of these traces and see if they do not point to my conclusion. “After the publication of the article in the ‘Matin’ and my conversation with the examining magistrate on the journey from Paris to Epinay-sur-Orge, I was certain that The Yellow Room had been hermetically sealed, so to speak, and that consequently the murderer had escaped before Mademoiselle Stangerson had gone into her chamber at midnight.