“Now, then, a change comes over the matter.  We are told that on one occasion, while a Madame B——­ was at Madame Rogêt’s house, M. Beauvais, who was going out, told her that a gendarme was expected there, and she, Madame B., must not say anything to the gendarme until he returned, but let the matter be for him. . . .  In the present posture of affairs, M. Beauvais appears to have the whole matter looked up in his head.  A single step cannot be taken without M. Beauvais; for, go which way you will, you run against him. . . .  For some reason, he determined that nobody shall have any thing to do with the proceedings but himself, and he has elbowed the male relatives out of the way, according to their representations, in a very singular manner.  He seems to have been very much averse to permitting the relatives to see the body.”

By the following fact, some color was given to the suspicion thus thrown upon Beauvais.  A visiter at his office, a few days prior to the girl’s disappearance, and during the absence of its occupant, had observed a rose in the key-hole of the door, and the name “Marie” inscribed upon a slate which hung near at hand.

The general impression, so far as we were enabled to glean it from the newspapers, seemed to be, that Marie had been the victim of a gang of desperadoes — that by these she had been borne across the river, maltreated and murdered.  Le Commerciel, {*11} however, a print of extensive influence, was earnest in combating this popular idea.  I quote a passage or two from its columns: 

“We are persuaded that pursuit has hitherto been on a false scent, so far as it has been directed to the Barrière du Roule.  It is impossible that a person so well known to thousands as this young woman was, should have passed three blocks without some one having seen her; and any one who saw her would have remembered it, for she interested all who knew her.  It was when the streets were full of people, when she went out. . . .  It is impossible that she could have gone to the Barrière du Roule, or to the Rue des Drômes, without being recognized by a dozen persons; yet no one has come forward who saw her outside of her mother’s door, and there is no evidence, except the testimony concerning her expressed intentions, that she did go out at all.  Her gown was torn, bound round her, and tied; and by that the body was carried as a bundle.  If the murder had been committed at the Barrière du Roule, there would have been no necessity for any such arrangement.  The fact that the body was found floating near the Barrière, is no proof as to where it was thrown into the water. . . . .  A piece of one of the unfortunate girl’s petticoats, two feet long and one foot wide, was torn out and tied under her chin around the back of her head, probably to prevent screams.  This was done by fellows who had no pocket-handkerchief.”