The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1900-07-27


feallzed that Mr.. Mitchell was depre-
eating his talents, placing him on the
p,ahe OF the common thief taker, a
pane Which he knew that Mr.. Mitchell
considered very low one intellectual
~. nevertheless he did not even now
KNOW wherein he had offended. Was
not true that the practical detective
should confine himself to the imme-
ulate 1acts connected with the crime in
hand' If he hoped to bring the wrong
uoer to justice, rather than to make
speculative pilgrimages into the re-
hlote past? He still believed so, vet
II annoyed him to find that he was
evidently at variance with Mr.. Mitchell
On this point, for, though he thought
mat gentleman egotistical in the high
est degree. he fully appreciated his in
tellectual capabilities. He would now
nave preferred to discuss the question,
ous 1T was not easy to reopen the sub
Ject, MI. Michel having dismissed the
Topic. This made him irritable, as he
oIten was when in Mr. Machel's So
clety, despite the uniform courtesy
Win Which he was always treated.
MI Barnes therefore found himself
Obliged to confine himself to the re-
lation of his case
We'll. them" began the detective
after pause, "about a week ago
most startling murder aroused the in
terest of the community The victim
was no less a man than Matthew
Mora, many times millionaire. prom.
lnent in Wall street banking circles as
well as in Fifth avenue drawing rooms
and conspicuous for his many deeds of
philanthropy
How was the killing effected?"
In a most brutally horrible manner
Inc old man was dubbed to death.
This is not speculation, but fact. The
murderer did not deign to hide the
weapon, but left it upon the floor near
the body. This was shrewd. because
mad he taken it away from the house
its discovery might have been a clew
which would have led us to solu-
tlon. But as it appears that the
Dludgeon was one of q collection of
Indian implements of war owned by
Mr.. Mora its presence in the bedroom
tells us nothing
"Oh, yes, it tells you somethingr' in
terjected Mr.. Mitchell. Every known
fact connected with crime tells it's
quota of the truth and is therefore
more important than the theoretical or
evidence which may be
gathered"
VI course know that" said the de-
tective testify. What mean is that
the weapon left in the room, having
belonged to the dead man. gives us
no direct clew to the identity of the
murderer. 1t does. however, tell US
and it may even. however
indirectly, point to the right man. For /
example, it is positive that the MUIR |
derer did not bring this club with him. .
from this postulate there are two pos
slDle deductions-tirst, the man NAV /
not have intended murder when he
entered the house; second, he NAV not I
nave entered the house at ALL"
All. Now you are doing better, Mr..
Barnes said Mr.. Mitchell, with
pleasant smile.
You mean that the criminal may
nave been an inmate of the house and
therefore did not need to look for
weapon, being familiar with those at
hand, eh?'
Exactly. And this is the more
OF the two theories because
The Indian weapons We're kept locked
n a case in the library on the floor be-
ow Mr.. Morals bedchamber."
This case was not broken open. I
No; but as the key was commonly in
he lock this counts for nothing. The
of the cabinet, however, to-
'ether with the weapon used, furnish
IS us with another safe deduction. AS
Iou know, t is often difficult to de-
ide whether a crime be premeditated
II not. In this instance it was certain
Y planned.
"This is interesting. How do Won
'rove it,"
"The cabinet, as l have said, is
Usually locked, though the key is left
ticking. On the morning after the
lurder the door was found open. Thus
is evident that the master of the
ouse had not himself taken the CLUB
0 his room, for, being man of ex-
eedingly orderly habits. he would
ave locked the door. No; the MUIR
erer. knowing that a weapon of this
ind was to be had, took it from the
abinet. but in his excited or abstract
d frame of mind he might naturally
ave left the door open" ,
You said awhile ago, Mr.. Barnes,
nat the more plausible theory is that
ne criminal was an inmate of the
ouse. This may be, but do not over
'ok the possibility that, coming from i
Inside and planning against detec- g
on, the murderer may have chosen / /
his weapon for the very reason that it f
'ould divert the attention of Il de-
,ctive away from himself and toward !,
)me other man. He would need, Of ,
)urse, to have knowledge of the eX-
tence of the Indian weapons and of
lie fact that they were within easy K
,ach.'
He would also have needed the op- o
ortunity of entering the house and of il
cd No I'll. 4;