“And now what are we to make of the argument, that the body found could not be that of Marie Rogêt, because, three days only having elapsed, this body was found floating?  If drowned, being a woman, she might never have sunk; or having sunk, might have reappeared in twenty-four hours, or less.  But no one supposes her to have been drowned; and, dying before being thrown into the river, she might have been found floating at any period afterwards whatever.

" ‘But,’ says L’Etoile, ’if the body had been kept in its mangled state on shore until Tuesday night, some trace would be found on shore of the murderers.’  Here it is at first difficult to perceive the intention of the reasoner.  He means to anticipate what he imagines would be an objection to his theory — viz:  that the body was kept on shore two days, suffering rapid decomposition — morerapid than if immersed in water.  He supposes that, had this been the case, it might have appeared at the surface on the Wednesday, and thinks that only under such circumstances it could so have appeared.  He is accordingly in haste to show that it was not kept on shore; for, if so, ‘some trace would be found on shore of the murderers.’  I presume you smile at the sequitur.  You cannot be made to see how the mere duration of the corpse on the shore could operate to multiply traces of the assassins.  Nor can I.

" ‘And furthermore it is exceedingly improbable,’ continues our journal, ’that any villains who had committed such a murder as is here supposed, would have thrown the body in without weight to sink it, when such a precaution could have so easily been taken.’  Observe, here, the laughable confusion of thought!  No one — not even L’Etoile - disputes the murder committed on the body found.  The marks of violence are too obvious.  It is our reasoner’s object merely to show that this body is not Marie’s.  He wishes to prove that Marie is not assassinated — not that the corpse was not.  Yet his observation proves only the latter point.  Here is a corpse without weight attached.  Murderers, casting it in, would not have failed to attach a weight.  Therefore it was not thrown in by murderers.  This is all which is proved, if any thing is.  The question of identity is not even approached, and L’Etoile has been at great pains merely to gainsay now what it has admitted only a moment before.  ’We are perfectly convinced,’ it says, ’that the body found was that of a murdered female.’

“Nor is this the sole instance, even in this division of his subject, where our reasoner unwittingly reasons against himself.  His evident object, I have already said, is to reduce, us much as possible, the interval between Marie’s disappearance and the finding of the corpse.  Yet we find him urging the point that no person saw the girl from the moment of her leaving her mother’s house.  ‘We have no evidence,’ he says, ’that Marie Rogêt was in the land of the living after nine o’clock on Sunday, June the twenty-second.’  As his