The Mystery of the Yellow Room
it was evident that one of the four present in the gallery must be a
double—he must be himself and the murderer also. Why had I not seen
this before? Simply because the phenomenon of the double personality
had not occurred before in this inquiry.
“Now who of the four persons in the gallery was both that person and
the assassin? I went over in my mind what I had seen. I had seen at one
and the same time, Monsieur Stangerson and the murderer, Daddy Jacques
and the murderer, myself and the murderer; so that the murderer, then,
could not be either Monsieur Stangerson, Daddy Jacques, or myself.
Had I seen Frédéric Larsan and the murderer at the same time?—No!—Two
seconds had passed, during which I lost sight of the murderer; for,
as I have noted in my papers, he arrived two seconds before Monsieur
Stangerson, Daddy Jacques, and myself at the meeting-point of the
two galleries. That would have given Larsan time to go through the
‘off-turning’ gallery, snatch off his false beard, return, and hurry
with us as if, like us, in pursuit of the murderer. I was sure now I
had got hold of the right end in my reasoning. With Frédéric Larsan was
now always associated, in my mind, the personality of the unknown of
whom I was in pursuit—the murderer, in other words.
“That revelation staggered me. I tried to regain my balance by going
over the evidences previously traced, but which had diverted my mind
and led me away from Frédéric Larsan. What were these evidences?
“1st. I had seen the unknown in Mademoiselle Stangerson’s chamber. On
going to Frédéric Larsan’s room, I had found Larsan sound asleep.
“2nd. The ladder.
“3rd. I had placed Frédéric Larsan at the end of the ‘off-turning’
gallery and had told him that I would rush into Mademoiselle
Stangerson’s room to try to capture the murderer. Then I returned to
Mademoiselle Stangerson’s chamber where I had seen the unknown.
“The first evidence did not disturb me much. It is likely that, when I
descended from my ladder, after having seen the unknown in Mademoiselle
Stangerson’s chamber, Larsan had already finished what he was doing
there. Then, while I was re-entering the château, Larsan went back to
his own room and, undressing himself, went to sleep.
“Nor did the second evidence trouble me. If Larsan were the murderer,
he could have no use for a ladder; but the ladder might have been
placed there to give an appearance to the murderer’s entrance from
without the château; especially as Larsan had accused Darzac and Darzac
was not in the château that night. Further, the ladder might have
been placed there to facilitate Larsan’s flight in case of absolute
necessity.
“But the third evidence puzzled me altogether. Having placed Larsan at
the end of the ‘off-turning gallery,’ I could not explain how he had
taken advantage of the moment when I had gone to the left wing of the
château to find Monsieur Stangerson and Daddy Jacques, to return to
Mademoiselle Stangerson’s room. It was a very dangerous thing to do. He
risked being captured,—and he knew it. And he was very nearly captured.
He had not had time to regain his post, as he had certainly hoped to
do. He had then a very strong reason for returning to his room. As for
myself, when I sent Daddy Jacques to the end of the ‘right gallery,’
I naturally thought that Larsan was still at his post. Daddy Jacques,
in going to his post, had not looked, when he passed, to see whether
Larsan was at _his_ post or not.
“What, then, was the urgent reason which had compelled Larsan to go
to the room a second time? I guessed it to be some evidence of his
presence there. He had left something very important in that room.
What was it? And had he recovered it? I begged Madame Bernier who
was accustomed to clean the room to look, and she found a pair of
eye-glasses—this pair, Monsieur President!”
And Rouletabille drew the eye-glasses, of which we know, from his
pocket.
“When I saw these eye-glasses,” he continued, “I was utterly
nonplussed. I had never seen Larsan wear eye-glasses. What did they
mean? Suddenly I exclaimed to myself: ‘I wonder if he is long-sighted?’
I had never seen Larsan write. He might, then, be _long-sighted_. They
would certainly know at the Sûreté, and also know if the glasses were
his. Such evidence would be damning. That explained Larsan’s return.
I know now that Larsan, or Ballmeyer, is long-sighted and that these
glasses belonged to him.
“I now made one mistake. I was not satisfied with the evidence I had
obtained. I wished to see the man’s face. Had I refrained from this,
the second terrible attack would not have occurred.”
“But,” asked the President, “why should Larsan go to Mademoiselle
Stangerson’s room, at all? Why should he twice attempt to murder her?”
“Because he loves her, Monsieur President.”
“That is certainly a reason, but—”
“It is the only reason. He was madly in love, and because of that,
and—other things, he was capable of committing any crime.”
“Did Mademoiselle Stangerson know this?”
“Yes, Monsieur; but she was ignorant of the fact that the man who was
pursuing her was Frédéric Larsan, otherwise, of course, he would not
have been allowed to be at the château. I noticed, when he was in her
room after the incident in the gallery, that he kept himself in the
shadow, and that he kept his head bent down. He was looking for the
lost eye-glasses. Mademoiselle Stangerson knew Larsan under another
name.”
“Monsieur Darzac,” asked the President, “did Mademoiselle Stangerson
in any way confide in you on this matter? How is it that she has never
spoken about it to anyone? If you are innocent, she would have wished
to spare you the pain of being accused.”
“Mademoiselle Stangerson told me nothing,” replied Monsieur Darzac.
“Does what this young man say appear probable to you?” the President
asked.
“Mademoiselle Stangerson has told me nothing,” he replied stolidly.
“How do you explain that, on the night of the murder of the keeper,”
the President asked, turning to Rouletabille, “the murderer brought
back the papers stolen from Monsieur Stangerson?—How do you explain
how the murderer gained entrance into Mademoiselle Stangerson’s locked
room?”
“The last question is easily answered. A man like Larsan, or Ballmeyer,
could have had made duplicate keys. As to the documents, I _think_
Larsan had not intended to steal them, at first. Closely watching
Mademoiselle with the purpose of preventing her marriage with Monsieur
Robert Darzac, he one day followed her and Monsieur into the Grands
Magasins de la Louvre. There he got possession of the reticule which
she lost, or left behind. In that reticule was a key with a brass
head. He did not know there was any value attached to the key till
the advertisement in the newspapers revealed it. He then wrote to
Mademoiselle, as the advertisement requested. No doubt he asked for a
meeting, making known to her that he was also the person who had for
some time pursued her with his love. He received no answer. He went to
the Post Office and ascertained that his letter was no longer there.
He had already taken complete stock of Monsieur Darzac, and, having
decided to go to any lengths to gain Mademoiselle Stangerson, he had
planned that, whatever might happen, Monsieur Darzac, his hated rival,
should be the man to be suspected.
“I do not think that Larsan had as yet thought of murdering
Mademoiselle Stangerson; but whatever he might do, he made sure that
Monsieur Darzac should suffer for it. He was very nearly of the same
height as Monsieur Darzac and had almost the same sized feet. It
would not be difficult, to take an impression of Monsieur Darzac’s
footprints, and have similar boots made for himself. Such tricks were
mere child’s play for Larsan, or Ballmeyer.
“Receiving no reply to his letter, he determined, since Mademoiselle
Stangerson would not come to him, that he would go to her. His plan
had long been formed. He had made himself master of the plans of the
château and the pavilion. So that, one afternoon, while Monsieur and
Mademoiselle Stangerson were out for a walk, and while Daddy Jacques
was away, he entered the latter by the vestibule window. He was
alone, and, being in no hurry, he began examining the furniture. One
of the pieces, resembling a safe, had a very small key-hole. That
interested him! He had with him the little key with the brass head,
and, associating one with the other, he tried the key in the lock. The
door opened. He saw nothing but papers. They must be very valuable to
have been put away in a safe, and the key to which to be of so much
importance. Perhaps a thought of blackmail occurred to him as a useful
possibility in helping him in his designs on Mademoiselle Stangerson.
He quickly made a parcel of the papers and took it to the lavatory
in the vestibule. Between the time of his first examination of the
pavilion and the night of the murder of the keeper, Larsan had had
time to find out what those papers contained. He could do nothing with
them, and they were rather compromising. That night he took them back
to the château. Perhaps he hoped that, by returning the papers he might
obtain some gratitude from Mademoiselle Stangerson. But whatever may
have been his reasons, he took the papers back and so rid himself of an
encumbrance.”
Rouletabille coughed. It was evident to me that he was embarrassed.
He had arrived at a point where he had to keep back his knowledge
of Larsan’s true motive. The explanation he had given had evidently
been unsatisfactory. Rouletabille was quick enough to note the bad
impression he had made, for, turning to the President, he said: “And
now we come to the explanation of the Mystery of The Yellow Room!”
* * * * *
A movement of chairs in the court with a rustling of dresses and an
energetic whispering of “Hush!” showed the curiosity that had been
aroused.
“It seems to me,” said the President, “that the Mystery of The Yellow
Room, Monsieur Rouletabille, is wholly explained by your hypothesis.
Frédéric Larsan is the explanation. We have merely to substitute him
for Monsieur Robert Darzac. Evidently the door of The Yellow Room was
open at the time Monsieur Stangerson was alone, and that he allowed
the man who was coming out of his daughter’s chamber to pass without
arresting him—perhaps at her entreaty to avoid all scandal.”
“No, Monsieur President,” protested the young man. “You forget that,
stunned by the attack made on her, Mademoiselle Stangerson was not in
a condition to have made such an appeal. Nor could she have locked
and bolted herself in her room. You must also remember that Monsieur
Stangerson has sworn that the door was not open.”
“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