“And what are we to think,” I asked, “of the article in Le Soleil?”

“That it is a vast pity its inditer was not born a parrot — in which case he would have been the most illustrious parrot of his race.  He has merely repeated the individual items of the already published opinion; collecting them, with a laudable industry, from this paper and from that.  ‘The things had all evidently been there,’ he says,’at least, three or four weeks, and there can be no doubt that the spot of this appalling outrage has been discovered.’  The facts here re-stated by Le Soleil, are very far indeed from removing my own doubts upon this subject, and we will examine them more particularly hereafter in connexion with another division of the theme.

“At present we must occupy ourselves with other investigations You cannot fail to have remarked the extreme laxity of the examination of the corpse.  To be sure, the question of identity was readily determined, or should have been; but there were other points to be ascertained.  Had the body been in any respect despoiled?  Had the deceased any articles of jewelry about her person upon leaving home? if so, had she any when found?  These are important questions utterly untouched by the evidence; and there are others of equal moment, which have met with no attention.  We must endeavor to satisfy ourselves by personal inquiry.  The case of St. Eustache must be re-examined.  I have no suspicion of this person; but let us proceed methodically.  We will ascertain beyond a doubt the validity of the affidavits in regard to his whereabouts on the Sunday.  Affidavits of this character are readily made matter of mystification.  Should there be nothing wrong here, however, we will dismiss St. Eustache from our investigations.  His suicide, however corroborative of suspicion, were there found to be deceit in the affidavits, is, without such deceit, in no respect an unaccountable circumstance, or one which need cause us to deflect from the line of ordinary analysis.

“In that which I now propose, we will discard the interior points of this tragedy, and concentrate our attention upon its outskirts.  Not the least usual error, in investigations such as this, is the limiting of inquiry to the immediate, with total disregard of the collateral or circumstantial events.  It is the mal-practice of the courts to confine evidence and discussion to the bounds of apparent relevancy.  Yet experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of truth, arises from the seemingly irrelevant.  It is through the spirit of this principle, if not precisely through its letter, that modern science has resolved to calculate upon the unforeseen.  But perhaps you do not comprehend me.  The history of human knowledge has so uninterruptedly shown that to collateral, or incidental, or accidental events we are indebted for the most numerous and most valuable discoveries, that it has at length become necessary,