“That was the evidence itself,” said Dupin, “but it was not the peculiarity of the evidence.  You have observed nothing distinctive.  Yet there was something to be observed.  The witnesses, as you remark, agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous.  But in regard to the shrill voice, the peculiarity is — not that they disagreed — but that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that of a foreigner.  Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own countrymen.  Each likens it — not to the voice of an individual of any nation with whose language he is conversant — but the converse.  The Frenchman supposes it the voice of a Spaniard, and ’might have distinguished some words had he been acquainted with the Spanish.’ The Dutchman maintains it to have been that of a Frenchman; but we find it stated that ’not understanding French this witness was examined through an interpreter.’ The Englishman thinks it the voice of a German, and ‘does not understand German.’ The Spaniard ‘is sure’ that it was that of an Englishman, but ’judges by the intonation’ altogether, ’as he has no knowledge of the English.’ The Italian believes it the voice of a Russian, but ’has never conversed with a native of Russia.’ A second Frenchman differs, moreover, with the first, and is positive that the voice was that of an Italian; but, not being cognizant of that tongue, is, like the Spaniard, ‘convinced by the intonation.’  Now, how strangely unusual must that voice have really been, about which such testimony as this could have been elicited! — in whose tones, even, denizens of the five great divisions of Europe could recognise nothing familiar!  You will say that it might have been the voice of an Asiatic — of an African.  Neither Asiatics nor Africans abound in Paris; but, without denying the inference, I will now merely call your attention to three points.  The voice is termed by one witness ‘harsh rather than shrill.’  It is represented by two others to have been ‘quick and unequal.’ No words — no sounds resembling words — were by any witness mentioned as distinguishable.

“I know not,” continued Dupin, “what impression I may have made, so far, upon your own understanding; but I do not hesitate to say that legitimate deductions even from this portion of the testimony — the portion respecting the gruff and shrill voices — are in themselves sufficient to engender a suspicion which should give direction to all farther progress in the investigation of the mystery.  I said ‘legitimate deductions;’ but my meaning is not thus fully expressed.  I designed to imply that the deductions are the sole proper ones, and that the suspicion arises inevitably from them as the single result.  What the suspicion is, however, I will not say just yet.  I merely wish you to bear in mind that, with myself, it was sufficiently forcible to give a definite form — a certain tendency — to my inquiries in the chamber.