“The evidence of the newspaper report, therefore, clearly pointed to the probability that John Bellingham had been murdered by Mr. Jellicoe and his body concealed in the mummy-case.

“I do not wish to give you the impression that I, then and there, believed that Mr. Jellicoe was the murderer.  I did not.  There was no reason to suppose that the report contained all the essential facts, and I merely considered it speculatively as a study in probabilities.  But I did decide that that was the only probable conclusion from the facts that were given.

“Nearly two years passed before I heard anything more of the case.  Then it was brought to my notice by my friend, Doctor Berkeley, and I became acquainted with certain new facts, which I will consider in the order in which they became known to me.

“The first new light on the case came from the will.  As soon as I had read that document I felt convinced that there was something wrong.  The testator’s evident intention was that his brother should inherit the property, whereas the construction of the will was such as almost certainly to defeat that intention.  The devolution of the property depended on the burial clause—­clause two; but the burial arrangements would ordinarily be decided by the executor, who happened to be Mr. Jellicoe.  Thus the will left the disposition of the property under the control of Mr. Jellicoe, though his action could have been contested.

“Now, this will, although drawn up by John Bellingham, was executed in Mr. Jellicoe’s office, as is proved by the fact that it was witnessed by two of his clerks.  He was the testator’s lawyer, and it was his duty to insist on the will being properly drawn.  Evidently he did nothing of the kind, and this fact strongly suggested some kind of collusion on his part with Hurst, who stood to benefit by the miscarriage of the will.  And this was the odd feature in the case; for whereas the party responsible for the defective provisions was Mr. Jellicoe, the party who benefited was Hurst.

“But the most startling peculiarity of the will was the way in which it fitted the circumstances of the disappearance.  It looked as if clause two had been drawn up with those very circumstances in view.  Since, however, the will was ten years old, this was impossible.  But if clause two could not have been devised to fit the disappearance, could the disappearance have been devised to fit clause two?  That was by no means impossible:  under the circumstances it looked rather probable.  And if it had been so contrived, who was the agent in that contrivance?  Hurst stood to benefit, but there was no evidence that he even knew the contents of the will.  There remained only Mr. Jellicoe, who had certainly connived at the misdrawing of the will for some purpose of his own—­some dishonest purpose.

“The evidence of the will, then, pointed to Mr. Jellicoe as the agent in the disappearance, and, after reading it, I definitely suspected him of the crime.