Worcester Democrat and the ledger-enterprise. (Pocomoke City, Md.) 1921-1953, 1942-02-20
CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN

moment that | started my investiga-
tions there was always the strong
possibility that Elinor Carlisle was
guilty of the crime of which she was
accused. But | fulfilled my obliga-
tions toward you and I discovered
that a fairly strong case could be
made out against another person.
Nurse Hopkins ?"
mot to begin with. Roderick Wei
man was the first person to attract
my attention. In his case, again, we
start with lie. He told me that he
left England on July 9Th and return
ed on August 1st. But Nurse Hop
kins had mentioned casually that
nary Gerard had rebuffed Roderick
Welman's advances both in Maidens-
ford and again when she saw him in
London Mary Gerard, you inform
ed me, went to London on July 10th
"a day after Roderick Welman had
left England. When then did Mary
Gerard have an interview with Rod
erick Welman in London? | set my
burglarious friend to work, and by an
examination of Welman's passport /
discovered that he had been in Eng
land from July 25th to the 9th. And
he had deliberately lied about it.
"There had always been that per-
iod of time in my mind when the sand
witches were on plate in the pantry
and Elinor Carlisle was down at the
lodge. But all along | realized that
in that case EInor must have been
the intended victim, not Mary. Had
Roderick Welman any motive for kill
ling Elinor Carlisle? Yes, very good
one. She had made a will leaving him
her entire fortune; and by adroit
questioning / discovered that Roder-
lex Welman could have made himself
acquainted with that fact"
Peter Lord said: "And why did
you decide that he was innocent?"
Because of one more lie. Such a
silly stupid negligible little lie, too.
Nurse Hopkins said that she had
scratched her wrist on a rose tree,
that she had thorn in it. And went
and saw the rose tree, and it had no
thorns So clearly Nurse Hopkins
had told leland the lie was so sill
ly and so seemingly pointless that it
focused my attention upon her.
b oh
Hopkins. Up until then she had struck
me as a perfectly credible witness,
consistent throughout, with strong
bias against the accused arising nat
urally enough out of her affection for
the dead girl. But now, with that sill
" pointless little lie in my mind, l
considered Nurse Hopkins and her ev-
idence very carefully, and / realized
something that / had not been clever
enough to see before. Nurse Hopkins
knew something about Mary Gerard
which she was very anxious should
come out"
Peter Lord said in surprise: Il
thought it was the other way round 2"
"Ostensibly, yes. She gave a very
fine performance of someone who
knows something and isn't going to
tell But when l thought it over care
fully realized that every word she
had said on the subject had been ut
tered with Numerically the opposite
end in view. Ny conversation with
Nurse O'Brien confirmed that belief.
Hopkins had used her very cleverly
without Nurse O'Brien being con-
scious of the fact.
ct was clear then that Nurse Hop
kins had a game of her own to play.
l contrasted the two lies, hers and
Roderick Welman's. Was either of
them capable of an innocent eXplana-
ton?
''In Rodericl's case, 1 answered i'm
mediately. Yes. Roderick Welman is
a very sensitive creature. To admit
that he had been unable to keep to
his plan of staying abroad, and had
ben compelled to stink back and hang
around the girl, who would have moth
ing to do with him, would have been
most hurtful to his pride. Since there
was no question of his having been
near the scene of the murder or of
knowing anything about it, he took
the line of least resistance and avoid
ed unpleasantness "a most character
istic traitD by ignoring that hurried
visit to England and simply stating
that he returned on August 1st when
the news of the murder reached him.
"Now as to Nurse Hopkins, could
there be an innocent explanation of
her lie? The more thought of it
the more extraordinary it seemed to