“Let us sum up now the meagre yet certain fruits of our long analysis.  We have attained the idea either of a fatal accident under the roof of Madame Deluc, or of a murder perpetrated, in the thicket at the Barrière du Roule, by a lover, or at least by an intimate and secret associate of the deceased.  This associate is of swarthy complexion.  This complexion, the ‘hitch’ in the bandage, and the ‘sailor’s knot,’ with which the bonnet-ribbon is tied, point to a seaman.  His companionship with the deceased, a gay, but not an abject young girl, designates him as above the grade of the common sailor.  Here the well written and urgent communications to the journals are much in the way of corroboration.  The circumstance of the first elopement, as mentioned by Le Mercurie, tends to blend the idea of this seaman with that of the ‘naval officer’ who is first known to have led the unfortunate into crime.

“And here, most fitly, comes the consideration of the continued absence of him of the dark complexion.  Let me pause to observe that the complexion of this man is dark and swarthy; it was no common swarthiness which constituted the sole point of remembrance, both as regards Valence and Madame Deluc.  But why is this man absent?  Was he murdered by the gang?  If so, why are there only traces of the assassinated girl?  The scene of the two outrages will naturally be supposed identical.  And where is his corpse?  The assassins would most probably have disposed of both in the same way.  But it may be said that this man lives, and is deterred from making himself known, through dread of being charged with the murder.  This consideration might be supposed to operate upon him now — at this late period — since it has been given in evidence that he was seen with Marie — but it would have had no force at the period of the deed.  The first impulse of an innocent man would have been to announce the outrage, and to aid in identifying the ruffians.  This policy would have suggested.  He had been seen with the girl.  He had crossed the river with her in an open ferry-boat.  The denouncing of the assassins would have appeared, even to an idiot, the surest and sole means of relieving himself from suspicion.  We cannot suppose him, on the night of the fatal Sunday, both innocent himself and incognizant of an outrage committed.  Yet only under such circumstances is it possible to imagine that he would have failed, if alive, in the denouncement of the assassins.

“And what means are ours, of attaining the truth?  We shall find these means multiplying and gathering distinctness as we proceed.  Let us sift to the bottom this affair of the first elopement.  Let us know the full history of ‘the officer,’ with his present circumstances, and his whereabouts at the precise period of the murder.  Let us carefully compare with each other the various communications sent to the evening paper, in which the object was to inculpate a gang.  This done, let us compare