Thirty five explanations. Explanations, Puaro smiled. He was sitting opposite the millionaire
at a luncheon table in the latter's private suite at the Negresco. Facing him
was a relieved, but very puzzled man. Puaro leant back in his chair,
lit one of his tiny cigarettes and stared reflectively at the ceiling. Yes,
I will give you explanations. It began with the one point that puzzled
me. You know what. That point was the disfigured face. It is
not an uncommon thing to find when investigating a crime, and it rouses an
immediate question, the question of identity. That naturally was the first thing that
occurred to me. Was the dead woman really missus Kettering? But that line
led me nowhere, For Miss Gray's evidence was positive and very reliable, so
I put that idea aside. The dead woman was Ruth Kettering. When did
you first begin to suspect the maid? Not for some time, But one
peculiar little point drew my attention to her. The cigarette case found in the
railway carriage, and which she told us was one which missus Kettering had given
to her husband. Now that was on the face of it, most improbable.
Seeing the terms that they were on, it awakened a doubt in my
mind as to the general veracity of Adam Maason's statements. There was the rather
suspicious fact to be taken into consideration that she had only been with her mistress
for two months. Certainly, it did not seem as if she could have
had anything to do with the crime, since she had been left behind in
Paris, and missus Kettering had been seen alive by several people afterwards. But
Poirot leant forward. He raised an emphatic forefinger and wagged it with intense emphasis
at van Alden. But I am a good detective. I suspect there is
nobody and nothing that I do not suspect. I believe nothing that I am
told. I say to myself, how do we know that Ada Mason was
left behind in Paris? And at first the answer to that question seemed completely
satisfactory. There was the evidence of your Secretary Major Knighton, a complete outsider
whose testimony might be supposed to be entirely impartial. And there was the dead
woman's own words to the conductor on the train. But I put the latter
point aside for the moment, because a very curious idea, an idea perhaps
fantastic and impossible, was growing up in my mind. If by any outside
chance it happened to be true, that particular piece of testimony was worthless,
I concentrated on the chief stufre rumbling block to my theory, Major Knighton's statement
that he saw Ada Mason at the Ritz after the Blue train had left Paris.
That seemed conclusive enough. But yet, on examining the facts carefully,
I noted two things. First that, by a curious coincidence, he too
had been exactly two months in your service. Secondly, his initial letter was
the same k supposing, just supposing that it was his cigarette case which had
been found in the carriage, then if Ada Mason and he were working together
and she recognized it when we showed it to her, would she not act
precisely as she had done at first? Taken aback, she quickly evolved a
plausible theory that would agree with mister Kettering's guilt bien and tendu that was not
the original idea. The Comte de la roche was to be the scapegoat.
Though Ada Mason would not make her recognition of him too certain in case he
should be able to prove an alibi. Now, if you will cast your
mind back to that time, you will remember a significant thing that happened.
I suggested to Ada Mason that the man she had seen was not the Comte
de la Roche, but Derrick Kettering. She seemed uncertain at the time,
But after I had got back to my hotel, you rang me up and
told me that she had come to you, and said that on thinking it
over, she was now quite convinced that the man in question was mister Kettering.
I had been expecting something of the kind. There could be but one
explanation of this sudden certainty on her part. After my leaving your hotel,
she had had time to consult with somebody and had received instructions which she acted
upon. Who had given her these instructions Major Knighton? And there was another
very small point which might mean nothing or might mean a great deal. In
casual conversation Knighton had talked of a jewel robbery in Yorkshire in a house where
he was staying, Perhaps a mere coincidence, perhaps another small link in the
chain. But there is one thing I do not understand Monsieur Poirot, I
guess I must be dense, or I would have seen it before. Now,
who was the man in the train at Paris, Derrek Kettering or the
Comte de la roche. That is the simplicity of the whole thing. There
was no man, Ah mil Toneris, do you not see the cleverness of
it all? Whose word have we for it that there ever was a man?
There only Ada Mason's. And we believe in Ada Mason because of Knighton's
evidence that she was left behind in Paris. But Ruth herself told the conductor
that she had left her maid behind there, demured van Alden. Ah,
I am coming to that. We have missus Kettering's own evancevidence there. But
on the other hand, we have not really got her evidence, because Monsieur
van Alden, a dead woman cannot give evidence. It is not her evidence,
but the evidence of the conductor of the train. A very different affair altogether,