hem,’ — that is to say, was torn completely out through the agency of thorns, from the uncaged interior of the dress!  These, I say, are things which one may well be pardoned for disbelieving; yet, taken collectedly, they form, perhaps, less of reasonable ground for suspicion, than the one startling circumstance of the articles’ having been left in this thicket at all, by any murderers who had enough precaution to think of removing the corpse.  You will not have apprehended me rightly, however, if you suppose it my design to deny this thicket as the scene of the outrage.  There might have been a wrong here, or, more possibly, an accident at Madame Deluc’s.  But, in fact, this is a point of minor importance.  We are not engaged in an attempt to discover the scene, but to produce the perpetrators of the murder.  What I have adduced, notwithstanding the minuteness with which I have adduced it, has been with the view, first, to show the folly of the positive and headlong assertions of Le Soleil, but secondly and chiefly, to bring you, by the most natural route, to a further contemplation of the doubt whether this assassination has, or has not been, the work of a gang.

“We will resume this question by mere allusion to the revolting details of the surgeon examined at the inquest.  It is only necessary to say that is published inferences, in regard to the number of ruffians, have been properly ridiculed as unjust and totally baseless, by all the reputable anatomists of Paris.  Not that the matter might not have been as inferred, but that there was no ground for the inference:  — was there not much for another?

“Let us reflect now upon ‘the traces of a struggle;’ and let me ask what these traces have been supposed to demonstrate.  A gang.  But do they not rather demonstrate the absence of a gang?  What struggle could have taken place — what struggle so violent and so enduring as to have left its ‘traces’ in all directions — between a weak and defenceless girl and the gang of ruffians imagined?  The silent grasp of a few rough arms and all would have been over.  The victim must have been absolutely passive at their will.  You will here bear in mind that the arguments urged against the thicket as the scene, are applicable in chief part, only against it as the scene of an outrage committed by more than a single individual.  If we imagine but one violator, we can conceive, and thus only conceive, the struggle of so violent and so obstinate a nature as to have left the ‘traces’ apparent.

“And again.  I have already mentioned the suspicion to be excited by the fact that the articles in question were suffered to remain at all in the thicket where discovered.  It seems almost impossible that these evidences of guilt should have been accidentally left where found.  There was sufficient presence of mind (it is supposed) to remove the corpse; and yet a more positive evidence than the corpse itself (whose features might have been quickly obliterated