“The third hypothesis, that he may have been murdered by some unknown person, is, under the circumstances, not wildly improbable; but, as the police were on the lookout and a detailed description of the missing man’s person was published in the papers, it would involve the complete concealment of the body. But this would exclude the most probable form of crime—the casual robbery with violence. It is therefore possible, but highly improbable.
“The fourth hypothesis is that Bellingham was murdered by Hurst. Now the one fact which militates against this view is that Hurst apparently had no motive for committing the murder. We are assured by Jellicoe that no one but himself knew the contents of the will, and if this is so—but mind, we have no evidence that it is so—Hurst would have no reason to suppose that he had anything material to gain by his cousin’s death. Otherwise the hypothesis presents no inherent improbabilities. The man was last seen alive at Hurst’s house. He was seen to enter it and he was never seen to leave it—we are still taking the facts as stated in the newspapers, remember—and it now appears that he stands to benefit enormously by that man’s death.”
“But,” I objected, “you are forgetting that, directly the man was missed Hurst and the servants together searched the entire house.”
“Yes. What did they search for?”
“Why, for Mr. Bellingham, of course.”
“Exactly; for Mr. Bellingham. That is, for a living man. Now how do you search a house for a living man? You look in all the rooms. When you look in a room if he is there, you see him; if you do not see him, you assume that he is not there. You don’t look under the sofa or behind the piano, you don’t pull out large drawers or open cupboards. You just look into the rooms. That is what these people seem to have done. And they did not see Mr. Bellingham. Mr. Bellingham’s corpse might have been stowed away out of sight in any one of the rooms that they looked into.”
“That is a grim thought,” said Jervis; “but it is perfectly true. There is no evidence that the man was not lying dead in the house at the very time of the search.”
“But even so,” said I, “there was the body to be disposed of somehow. Now how could he possibly have got rid of the body without being observed?”
“Ah!” said Thorndyke, “now we are touching on a point of crucial importance. If anyone should ever write a treatise on the art of murder—not an exhibition of literary fireworks like De Quincey’s, but a genuine working treatise—he might leave all other technical details to take care of themselves if he could describe some really practicable plan for disposing of the body. That is, and always has been, the great stumbling-block to the murderer: to get rid of the body. The human body,” he continued, thoughtfully regarding his pipe, just as, in the days of my pupilage, he was wont to regard the blackboard chalk, “is a very remarkable object. It presents a combination of properties, that make it singularly difficult to conceal permanently. It is bulky and of an awkward shape, it is heavy, it is completely incombustible, it is chemically unstable, and its decomposition yields great volumes of highly odorous gases, and it nevertheless contains identifiable structures of the highest degree of permanence. It is extremely difficult to preserve unchanged, and it is still more difficult completely to destroy. The essential permanence of the human body is well shown in the classical case of Eugene Aram; but a still more striking instance is that of Sekenen-Ra the Third, one of the last kings of the seventeenth Egyptian dynasty. Here, after a lapse of four thousand years, it has been possible to determine not only the cause of death and the manner of its occurrence, but the way in which the king fell, the nature of the weapon with which the fatal wound was inflicted, and even the position of the assailant. And the permanence of the body under other conditions is admirably shown in the case of Doctor Parkman, of Boston, U.S.A., in which identification was actually effected by means of remains collected from the ashes of a furnace.”
“Then we may take it,” said Jervis, “that the world has not yet seen the last of John Bellingham.”
“I think we may regard that as almost a certainty,” replied Thorndyke. “The only question—and a very important one—is as to when the reappearance may take place. It may be tomorrow or it may be centuries hence, when all the issues involved have been forgotten.”
“Assuming,” said I, “for the sake of argument, that Hurst did murder him and that the body was concealed in the study at the time the search was made. How could it have been disposed of? If you had been in Hurst’s place, how would you have gone to work?”
Thorndyke smiled at the bluntness of my question.
“You are asking me for an incriminating statement,” said he, “delivered in the presence of a witness too. But, as a matter of fact, there is no use in speculating a priori; we should have to reconstruct a purely imaginary situation, the circumstances of which are unknown to us, and we should almost certainly reconstruct it wrong. What we may fairly assume is that no reasonable person, no matter how immoral, would find himself in the position that you suggest. Murder is usually a crime of impulse, and the murderer a person of feeble self-control. Such persons are most unlikely to make elaborate and ingenious arrangements for the disposal of the bodies of their victims. Even the cold-blooded perpetrators of the most carefully planned murders appear as I have
