The Murder on the Links
by Agatha Christie
20
An Amazing Statement
The next moment Poirot embraced me warmly. “_Enfin!___ You have
arrived. And all by yourself. It is superb! Continue your reasoning.
You are right. Decidedly we have done wrong to forget Georges Conneau.”
I was so flattered by the little man’s approval that I could hardly
continue. But at last I collected my thoughts and went on.
“Georges Conneau disappeared twenty years ago, but we have no reason to
believe that he is dead.”
“_Aucunement___,” agreed Poirot. “Proceed.”
“Therefore we will assume that he is alive.”
“Exactly.”
“Or that he was alive until recently.”
“_De mieux en mieux!___”
“We will presume,” I continued, my enthusiasm rising, “that he has
fallen on evil days. He has become a criminal, an apache, a tramp—a
what you will. He chances to come to Merlinville. There he finds the
woman he has never ceased to love.”
“Eh eh! The sentimentality,” warned Poirot.
“Where one hates one also loves,” I quoted or misquoted. “At any rate
he finds her there, living under an assumed name. But she has a new
lover, the Englishman, Renauld. Georges Conneau, the memory of old
wrongs rising in him, quarrels with this Renauld. He lies in wait for
him as he comes to visit his mistress, and stabs him in the back. Then,
terrified at what he has done, he starts to dig a grave. I imagine it
likely that Madame Daubreuil comes out to look for her lover. She and
Conneau have a terrible scene. He drags her into the shed, and there
suddenly falls down in an epileptic fit. Now supposing Jack Renauld to
appear. Madame Daubreuil tells him all, points out to him the dreadful
consequences to her daughter if this scandal of the past is revived.
His father’s murderer is dead—let them do their best to hush it up.
Jack Renauld consents—goes to the house and has an interview with his
mother, winning her over to his point of view. Primed with the story
that Madame Daubreuil has suggested to him, she permits herself to be
gagged and bound. There, Poirot, what do you think of that?” I leaned
back, flushed with the pride of successful reconstruction.
Poirot looked at me thoughtfully.
“I think that you should write for the Kinema, _mon ami___,” he
remarked at last.
“You mean—?”
“It would make a good film, the story that you have recounted to me
there—but it bears no sort of resemblance to everyday life.”
“I admit that I haven’t gone into all the details, but—”
“You have gone further—you have ignored them magnificently. What about
the way the two men were dressed? Do you suggest that after stabbing
his victim, Conneau removed his suit of clothes, donned it himself, and
replaced the dagger?”
“I don’t see that that matters,” I objected rather huffily. “He may
have obtained clothes and money from Madame Daubreuil by threats
earlier in the day.”
“By threats—eh? You seriously advance that supposition?”
“Certainly. He could have threatened to reveal her identity to the
Renaulds, which would probably have put an end to all hopes of her
daughter’s marriage.”
“You are wrong, Hastings. He could not blackmail her, for she had the
whip hand. Georges Conneau, remember, is still wanted for murder. A
word from her and he is in danger of the guillotine.”
I was forced, rather reluctantly, to admit the truth of this.
“_Your___ theory,” I remarked acidly, “is doubtless correct as to all
the details?”
“My theory is the truth,” said Poirot quietly. “And the truth is
necessarily correct. In your theory you made a fundamental error. You
permitted your imagination to lead you astray with midnight
assignations and passionate love scenes. But in investigating crime we
must take our stand upon the commonplace. Shall I demonstrate my
methods to you?”
“Oh, by all means let us have a demonstration!”
Poirot sat very upright and began, wagging his forefinger emphatically
to emphasize his points.
“I will start as you started from the basic fact of Georges Conneau.
Now the story told by Madame Beroldy in court as to the ‘Russians’ was
admittedly a fabrication. If she was innocent of connivance in the
crime, it was concocted by her, and by her only as she stated. If, on
the other hand, she was not innocent, it might have been invented by
either her or Georges Conneau.
“Now in this case we are investigating, we meet the same tale. As I
pointed out to you, the facts render it very unlikely that Madame
Daubreuil inspired it. So we turn to the hypothesis that the story had
its origin in the brain of Georges Conneau. Very good. Georges Conneau,
therefore, planned the crime with Madame Renauld as his accomplice. She
is in the limelight, and behind her is a shadowy figure whose alias is
unknown to us.
“Now let us go carefully over the Renauld Case from the beginning,
setting down each significant point in its chronological order. You
have a notebook and pencil? Good. Now what is the earliest point to
note down?”
“The letter to you?”
“That was the first we knew of it, but it is not the proper beginning
of the case. The first point of any significance, I should say, is the
change that came over M. Renauld shortly after arriving in Merlinville,
and which is attested to by several witnesses. We have also to consider
his friendship with Madame Daubreuil, and the large sums of money paid
over to her. From thence we can come directly to the 23rd May.”
Poirot paused, cleared his throat, and signed to me to write.
“_23rd May.___ M. Renauld quarrels with his son over latter’s wish to
marry Marthe Daubreuil. Son leaves for Paris.
“_24th May.___ M. Renauld alters his will, leaving entire control of
his fortune in his wife’s hands.
“_7th June.___ Quarrel with tramp in garden, witnessed by Marthe
Daubreuil.
“Letter written to M. Hercule Poirot, imploring assistance.
“Telegram sent to Jack Renauld, bidding him proceed by the _Anzora___
to Buenos Ayres.
“Chauffeur, Masters, sent off on a holiday.
“Visit of a lady, that evening. As he is seeing her out, his words are
‘Yes, yes—but for God’s sake go now. …’ ”
Poirot paused.
“There, Hastings, take each of those facts one by one, consider them
carefully by themselves and in relation to the whole, and see if you do
not get new light on the matter.”
I endeavoured conscientiously to do as he had said. After a moment or
two, I said rather doubtfully:
“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.”
“I do not see that you can fix that definitely—unless you question
Mademoiselle Dabreuil again.”
“There is no need. I am sure of it. And if you do not see that, you see
nothing, Hastings!”
I looked at him for a moment.
“Of course! I am an idiot. If the tramp was Georges Conneau, it was
after the stormy interview with him that Mr. Renauld apprehended
danger. He sent away the chauffeur, Masters, whom he suspected of being
in the other’s pay, he wired to his son, and sent for you.”
A faint smile crossed Poirot’s lips.
“You do not think it strange that he should use exactly the same
expressions in his letter as Madame Renauld used later in her story? If
the mention of Santiago was a blind, why should Renauld speak of it,
and—what is more—send his son there?”
“It is puzzling, I admit, but perhaps we shall find some explanation
later. We come now to the evening, and the visit of the mysterious
lady. I confess that that fairly baffles me, unless it was Madame
Daubreuil, as Françoise all along maintained.”
Poirot shook his head.
“My friend, my friend, where are your wits wandering? Remember the
fragment of cheque, and the fact that the name Bella Duveen was faintly
familiar to Stonor, and I think we may take it for granted that Bella
Duveen is the full name of Jack’s unknown correspondent, and that it
was she who came to the Villa Geneviève that night. Whether she
intended to see Jack, or whether she meant all along to appeal to his
father we cannot be certain, but I think we may assume that this is
what occurred. She produced her claim upon Jack, probably showed
letters that he had written her, and the older man tried to buy her off
by writing a cheque. This she indignantly tore up. The terms of her
letter are those of a woman genuinely in love, and she would probably
deeply resent being offered money. In the end he got rid of her, and
here the words that he used are significant.”
“ ‘Yes, yes, but for God’s sake go now,’ ” I repeated. “They seem to me
a little vehement, perhaps, that is all.”
“That is enough. He was desperately anxious for the girl to go. Why?
Not only because the interview was unpleasant. No, it was the time that
was slipping by, and for some reason time was precious.”
“Why should it be?” I asked, bewildered.
“That is what we ask ourselves. Why should it be? But later we have the
incident of the wrist watch—which again shows us that time plays a very
important part in the crime. We are now fast approaching the actual
drama. It is half-past ten when Bella Duveen leaves, and by the
evidence of the wrist watch we know that the crime was committed, or at
any rate that it was staged, before twelve o’clock. We have reviewed
all the events anterior to the murder, there remains only one unplaced.
By the doctor’s evidence, the tramp, when found, had been dead at least
forty-eight hours—with a possible margin of twenty-four hours more.
Now, with no other facts to help me than those we have discussed, I
place the death as having occurred on the morning of June 7th.”
I stared at him, stupefied.
“But how? Why? How can you possibly know?”
“Because only in that way can the sequence of events be logically
explained. _Mon ami___, I have taken you step by step along the way. Do
you not now see what is so glaringly plain?”
“My dear Poirot, I can’t see anything glaring about it. I did think I
was beginning to see my way before, but I’m now hopelessly fogged.”
Poirot looked at me sadly, and shook his head. “_Mon Dieu!___ But it is
_triste!___ A good intelligence—and so deplorably lacking in method.
There is an exercise most excellent for the development of the little
grey cells. I will impart it to you—”
“For Heaven’s sake, not now! You really are the most irritating of
fellows, Poirot. For goodness’ sake, get on and tell me who killed M.
Renauld.”
“That is just what I am not sure of as yet.”
“But you said it was glaringly clear?”
“We talk at cross-purposes, my friend. Remember, it is two crimes we
are investigating—for which, as I pointed out to you, we have the
necessary two bodies. There, there, _ne vous impatientez pas!___ I
explain all. To begin with, we apply our psychology. We find three
points at which M. Renauld displays a distinct change of view and
action—three psychological points therefore. The first occurs
immediately after arriving in Merlinville, the second after quarrelling
with his son on a certain subject, the third on the morning of June
7th. Now for the three causes. We can attribute No. 1 to meeting Madame
Daubreuil. No. 2 is indirectly connected with her since it concerns a
marriage between M. Renauld’s son and her daughter. But the cause of
No. 3 is hidden from us. We have to deduce it. Now, _mon ami___, let me
ask you a question; who do we believe to have planned this crime?”
“Georges Conneau,” I said doubtfully, eyeing Poirot warily.
“Exactly. Now Giraud laid it down as an axiom that a woman lies to save
herself, the man she loves, and her child. Since we are satisfied that
was Georges Conneau who dictated the lie to her, and as Georges Conneau
is not Jack Renauld, follows that the third case is put out of court.
And, still attributing the crime to Georges Conneau, the first is
equally so. So we are forced to the second—that Madame Renauld lied for
the sake of the man she loved—or in other words, for the sake of
Georges Conneau. You agree to that.”
“Yes,” I admitted. “It seems logical enough.”
“_Bien!___ Madame Renauld loves Georges Conneau. Who, then, is Georges
Conneau?”
“The tramp.”
“Have we any evidence to show that Madame Renauld loved the tramp?”
“No, but—”
“Very well then. Do not cling to theories where facts no longer support
them. Ask yourself instead who Madame Renauld _did___ love.”
I shook my head perplexed.
“_Mais, oui___, you know perfectly. Who did Madame Renauld love so
dearly that when she saw his dead body, she fell down in a swoon?”
I stared dumbfounded.
“Her husband?” I gasped.
Poirot nodded.
“Her husband—or Georges Conneau, whichever you like to call him.”
I rallied myself.
“But it’s impossible.”
“How ‘impossible?’ Did we not agree just now that Madame Daubreuil was
in a position to blackmail Georges Conneau?”
“Yes, but—”
“And did she not very effectively blackmail M. Renauld?”
“That may be true enough, but—”
“And is it not a fact that we know nothing of M. Renauld’s youth and
upbringing? That he springs suddenly into existence as a French
Canadian exactly twenty-two years ago?”
“All that is so,” I said more firmly, “but you seem to me to be
overlooking one salient point.”
“What is it, my friend?”
“Why, we have admitted Georges Conneau planned the crime. That brings
us to the ridiculous statement that he planned his own murder!”
“_Eh bien, mon ami___,” said Poirot placidly, “that is just what he did
do!”
****
