Evening star., 1927-03-13
CONTINUED from Yesterdays star.l

Now what was that object? You
heard my arguments tonight in ref
erence to the scrap of conversation
overheard? As soon as / learned that
q representative of a dictaphone com
pany had called, the idea of a dicta-
phone took root in my mind You
heard what / said in this room NOT
half an hour ago? They all agreed
with my theory--but one vital fact
seems to have escaped them. Granted
that a dictaphone was being used by
Mr.. Ackroyd that night-why was no
dictaphone found"
'I never thought of that" | said.
I'VE know that a dictaphone was
supplied to Mr.. Ackroyd. But no dc
taphone has been found among his
effects. So, IL something was taken
from that table--why should not tnat
something be the dictaphone? But
there were certain difficulties in the
way. The attention of every one was,
of course, focused on the murdered
man. / think any one could have
gone to the table unnOticed by the
other people in the room. But die
taphone has a certain bulk--it cannot
he slipped casually into pocket.
There must have been a receptacle OF
some kind capable of holding ii.
You see where | am arriving? The
figure of the murderer is taking shape.
A person who was on the scene
straightway, but who might not have
been IL the crime had been discovered
the following morning. A person car
ryfng a receptacle into which the die
taphone might be fitted"
] interrupted.
But why remove the dictaphone?
What was the point?"
You are like Mr.. Raymond. You
take it for granted that what was
heard at $50 was Mr.. Ackroyds voice
speaking into a dictaphone. But CON
slider this useful invention for little
minute. You dictate into 1t, do you
not? And at some later time sec
retary or typist turns 1t on, and the
voice speaks again
You mean" | gaSped.
Poirot nodded.
Yes. / mean that. At $50 Mr.. Ack-
royd was already dead. 1t was the
dictaphone speaking---not the man"
And the murderer switched 1t on.
Then he must have been in the room
at that minute?'
Possibly But we must not exclude
the likelihood of some mechanical de-
vice having been applied--something
after the nature Of a time lock, or
even of a simple alarm clock. But
in that case we must add two oualffi
cations TO our imaginary portrait OF
the murderer 1t must be some one
who knew of Mr.. Ackroyds purchase
of the dictaphore and also some one
with the necessary mechanical knoWl-
edge.
"I had got thus far in my own mind
when we came to the footprints on
the window ledge. Here there were
three conclusions open to me. 81
They might really have been made by
Ralph Patton. He had been at Fernly
that night, and might have climbed
into the study and found his uncle
dead there. That was one hypothesis.
~ There was the possibility that the
footmarks might have been made by
somebody else who happened to have
the same kind of studs in his shoes.
But the inmates of the house had
shoes soled with crepe rubber, and
declined to believe in the coincidence
of some one from outside having the
same kind of shoes as Ralph Patton
wore. Charles Kent, as we know from
the baTmaid of the Dog and Whistle,
had on a pair of boots clean dropping
off him. (3) Those prints were made
by some one deliberately trying to
throw suspicion on Ralph Patton. To
test this last conclusion, it was neces-
saTy to ascertain certain facts. One
pair Of Ralph's shoes had been OBJ
taired from the Three Bears by the
police. Neither Ralph nor any one
to have worn Ralph's shoes that eve
ming, since they were downstairs be-
ing cleaned. According to the. police
theory, Ralph was wearing another
pair Of the same kind, and / found out
that 1t was true that he had two pairs.
Now for my theory to be proved cor
rect il was necessary for the murderer
10 have worn Ralphs' shoes that eve
ning-in which case Ralph must have
been wearing yet third pair of foot.
wear of some kind. could hardly
suppose that he would bring three
pairs of shoes all alike-the third pair
of footwear were more likely 10 ne
boots. / got your sister to make In
ouiries on this point-laying some
stress on the color. in order--l admit
II frankly--to obscure the real reason
for nay asking.
You know the result of her inves-
LEGATIONS. Ralph Patton had had
pair of boots with him. The first ques-
tion asked him when he came to my
house Yesterday morning was what he
was wearing on his feet on the fatal
night. He replied at once that he had
worn boots-~he was still wearing
them, in facilitating nothing else to
put on.
$50 we get a step further in our
description of the murderer-a person
who had the opportunity TO take tnese
shoes OF Ralph Paton's from the
Three Boars that day"
He paused. and then said, with a
slightly raised voice:
'eThere is one further point. The
murderer must have been a person
who had the opportunity TO purloin
that dagger from the silver table.
You might argue that any one IN
the house might have done so, but
/ will recall to you that Miss Ackroyd
was very positive that the dagger
was not there when she examined
the silver table
He paused again.
LET US recapitulate--now that all
Is clear. A person who was at the
Three Boars earlier that day, per-
son who knew Ackroyd well enough
10 know that he had purchased a
dictaphone, person who was of a
mechanical turn OF mind. who had
the opportunity to take the dagger
from the silver table before Miss Flora
arrived, who had with him recepta-
Gle suitable for hiding the dictaphone
such as a black bag. and who had
the study to himself for a few min
utes after the crime was discovered
while Parker was telephoning for the
police. In fact--Dr. Sheppard