The Deductions by Alexandre Dupin concerning the Death of Martha McHale

The Deductions by Alexandre Dupin concerning the Death of Martha McHale

The police had received the following letter from Monsieur Alexandre Dupin:

“It is the dearest of tragedies, yet the most baffling of them all. How something so seemingly simple has been made to look so mindbogglingly improbable - I know not! But all it does is make me wonder. Nay, it in fact makes me jealous and envious! - as this is of genius craftsmanship, and had the motive itself known of its valor, I believe a newfound love would be instilled.
“One question that must arise in the minds is the question of the killer. This, we can come to once we are to determine the conspirator. I shall reveal to you the puppeteer of this monstrosity, but in my own soul I shall yearn for their wit. In order to solve this case, I have worked this way - I started with the incident, discovered the killer, and thus made the link to the conspirator. But if I am to go about that way, you may not necessarily agree with me. I fear that I shall be labeled a lunatic in the public eye, and hence assert that I shall no further justify my means of revelation.
“I’m afraid that the detectives were not able to reach this conclusion due to an error in thinking. I do not blame them for this, but I simply must express that the levels of involvement between them and myself differ strongly. I have not seen more than the ends of my armchair, but the detectives have seen the victim. I cannot speak of any bias, and do not wish to! - but it cannot be ignored that it is a tragedy. It is the death of someone so young, and someone so beautiful. She was a great loss, and justice must be served. It perhaps lies in the thinking of the location of the truth. The truth is sometimes not deep in the valleys where we seek her, but she is found atop the mountain! - profound in every regard. It is sometimes the different details that entail doubt, but when there are such differing things, the patterns must be sought. We must not always ask, ‘what has happened?’ But, rather, we are to ask, ‘what has happened, that has not happened before?’ And only then, clarity cometh.
“I had to arrive at the conclusion that this very act of indecent nature was committed by two parties - one being the conspirator, and the other being the killer. I was of this suspicion upon learning the strange facts of the case, such as how the people heard the voice of an Italian, a Czech person, a Frenchman, an Austrian, and a German!
“The puppeteer is indeed the person that is the least suspicious. And their most genius of plans would have worked extravagantly if and only if the execution of the plan were perfect. The motive is present, and hence I shall blame Melissa Rodriguez! - not for wanting to commit a vile crime, but rather for orchestrating a beauty of criminal indecency! It is indeed the Spanish woman residing on the second floor that had the motive, the means, and the wit that was needed for this orchestra.
“The testimonies, as well as the diary, prove validity in affairs between her husband and the deceased - affairs so indecent, I do not wish to comment! This is one plausible theory for motive, but for me to know that it is indeed the correct one, I needed to invalidate each of the other ones. The diaries shine the most light on what can be trusted and what cannot. It is, after all, words of the deceased. Truthful words indeed! - this cannot be debated. A diary serves the purpose of being a personal memoir. Hence, anything the diary says is the absolute truth. All other testimonies cannot be stated as absolute truths or absolute faults. They can only be relatively true, else relatively false. Surely once the detectives had acknowledged that the deceased was American, and hence used the ‘month-date’ format, and not ‘date-month’ format, the preceding time line will have been established.
“Here is one example to explain the importance of the diary. The diary invalidates the theory of money being motive. The deceased had earned, and earned more than what was required to pay back. Hence, at any time she could have repaid the debt. Also, her death does not give money back - money that was still lying in the room untouched. Thus, I concluded that the motive must be one that requires the death of Ms. McHale. None of the other tenants prove to have wanted her death. There are traces of them wanting things from her, but no one, but one, benefits solely from her death. There also does not exist any possible circumstance, given the details of the crime, where her death just so happens to be an inevitable by-product of another crime. I think that the aforementioned puppeteer is thus the one that benefits the most.
“There are some things that seem impossible - that will cause more doubt. But fear not! - that is the purpose of the diary. One suspicious mention is that of the pink gin given to her by the tenant on the third floor. He testifies that he has given a bottle of pink gin. The truth to this statement has been validated by the pink gin found in her apartment. But this is an instance where her diary may seem to cause more doubt. She writes about the blue gin she drank. I can say, that in all my endeavors I have drank both pink gin as well as blue gin. But a color changing gin! - how truly marvelous a drink that would be. Perhaps I would have the same enthusiasm as Ms. McHale had. How, I wonder, a bottle of pink gin can turn into a bottle of blue gin. It has been overlooked, unfortunately, by the detectives.
“It must be understood that the testimonies, and the diary for the matter, are not statements of what has happened. They are statements of how people perceived those things to happen. I may perceive my wireless to be playing quietly, but the old lady downstairs tells me it is too loud. How are we to determine which one it is? The only way is to imagine ourselves in their place. If we are to put ourselves in Ms. McHale’s place, we would see a blue gin bottle. We would drink it. We would remind ourselves to save some of the blue gin given to us to drink for tomorrow. But the witness argues that the bottle they gave was pink. And a third eye, the inspecting detectives, can confirm that one person is relatively correct. We also know that the deceased has been truthful in her statements. The only way there would be such a disagreeance on color would be a defect in sight. And that is exactly it! Ms. McHale is colorblind! - and her type of colorblindness perceives the color pink as blue. There is, thus, only one bottle.
“This deduction clears doubt of there existing a second person by the name of Dave. Red and pink are of differing hues in her type of colorblindness. It is thus the scientific knowledge of human biology that confirms that she had perceived the red hair of the Dave that lives on the second floor as ‘blond’. It is this type of colorblindness that makes the color red appear as a shade of yellow! This is where the diary also clears ambiguity by bringing the absolute truth into the matter. Perhaps only, if Ms. McHale had addressed her own colorblindness in her diary, the detectives would have had one less red herring. But, such is the nature of the job. The detectives are to remember that one diary will not tell a full story. Perhaps she had learned of her condition years prior, and felt no compulsion to address it again now.
“I wish to bring attention now to the killer, as you will see how things fall into place easily. The genius of this murder, nay! - I deem it to be akin to an assassination, for she, the deceased, was of the most glorious kind. The puppeteer is a genius, I do not argue. But the killer, is quite pathetic and sloppy, I must confess. Perhaps, the only error in the conspiracy was too much belief in a genius plan. It must be overconfidence, and the absence of serenity.
“The apartment was indeed the top floor - it just had to be, else this genius plan would have not been created. What led me to the thought of the killer being something preternatural was the difference in testimonies. I now wish to bring attention to the voices heard. There is only one thing in common that the detectives have realized so far. It was that they heard voices indeed! The number of voices must first be determined. I bring attention to the testimony of the person on the third floor who ‘could not determine intonation.’ His testimony must be weighed more than others, as he spoke of only two voices. Being unable to determine the intonation - I wonder, why? Especially if it were screams and yells, I must expect any person to be able to tell the tone. But this brings me to think of that witness as tone deaf. Hence, without tones to cause further doubt, he was the only one that could hear two different voices.
“What baffles the detectives is the different nationalities all of them seemingly heard. I remind you of the details in the depths, but the truth is at the mountain top. As all statements are different, I wish for you to find what is common between them. It seems impossible, as we have a Belgian person who said it ‘sounded like a Czech person,’ but has never previously spoken with one. I do not wish to debate that, as the witness themselves may have been unaware if they are or are not speaking with a Czech person. We must look to other witness statements, for clarity, and not for ambiguity. We have two Spaniards that agreed together first and then said that it was the voice of an Austrian, ‘judging by the intonation.’ We have a Polish person, who says that they heard the words ‘Mon Dieu’ and has thus made the belief in themselves that it must be a Frenchman. A Frenchwoman, however, does not recognize the voice saying ‘Mon Dieu,’ and instead feels it was an Italian, ‘because of the loudness.’ A Russian says she heard the words ‘Mon Dieu’ and ‘Sacre’ and thus instills the belief in themselves that it is a Frenchman. Another Spaniard hears the voice and says it must be a German, ‘judging by the harshness’. Another Polish person hears the voice and says it must be an ‘Italian’, ‘based on the words.’ These testimonies do not seem to be of the ‘words’ as much as of the sound of the words.
“It can thus be deduced that no two people of the same nationality agreed to hear the same sound. And no two people that agreed on the same sound were of the same nationality. This led me to believe that each person simply heard the voice of a foreigner. They heard the voice of one that they cannot associate themselves with, or one they cannot associate their country with. They know, for sure, that it is not the voice of one of their own countrymen, and hence attribute it to whatever foreign sound they seem to have remarkable memory of. I am afraid, that much time was wasted because too much information was given. This has led the police to follow someone that somehow resembles all of these different nationalities at the same time.
“I bring your attention now, to the other noises. This will allow you to understand the killer. There is agreeance on the number of gunshots, which is two. These two gunshots, as verified by the detectives, were the shots of the pistol she had. It cannot be determined whether the killer used the gun, or if the deceased used the gun herself. What can be determined, and this, I am afraid, is what the missing piece of the puzzle is. It found me mindbogglingly dumbstruck, to learn of the incompetence of whoever it was that held the gun. The cause of death was stated to be the fall, and not a gunshot. I believe that the answer to that lies in the fact that it was only two gunshots. The other shots were not fired due to a few possible reasons. Considering that fact that the gun was not silenced, I believe that the person holding the gun was perfectly comfortable with alerting everyone in the building. This only raises the probability that it is indeed the deceased that held the gun, but it does not verify it. I can say, definitely, considering that fact that neither of the targets were hit, the competence of the holder of the gun must be judged. If it were the killer, they weren’t competent enough to aim at the deceased. And if it were the deceased that held the gun, they weren’t competent enough to aim at the killer.
“What baffles me even more than before, is either the astounding dedication of the killer, or the incredibly idiocy. The killer had not thought of stealth as an option, else it was an option that was taken away, which could have been prevented with a perfect execution. There was four and a half thousand francs in cash, lying for the killer to take away. There were documents of importance, and diaries that are all clues to the case. But the killer was so determined to only commit the assassination, and hence made the choice of not taking any of these away. I cannot determine whether it is the faithfulness or the idiocy that had left a trail. This can lead me to believe that the killer had no motive, apart from committing the act. This seems to me more like an instruction, but Nay! I shall not give my personal opinions on it just yet.
“I bring your attention now once again to the victim. She had no bullet wound, and no other wounds. The fall killed her, and locks of her hair were pulled from the roots. I mention to you, the great strength required to pull hair from the roots, and especially, four handfuls full of it. Not any more, not any less. This leads me on the suspicion that this crime is indeed of the preternatural character.
“One fact overlooked by the police is that the fall was what killed the victim. I am afraid, again, that it is the clues of this case that should show the difficulties of the case, and not the possibilities of the case. The gunshots play no part in the act of falling, as there is no trace of it in her body. Then, what must be the reason for the gunshots? But, I believe that the competence of the killer must be questioned again. One assumption that has been made by the police is that murder was committed at such a position, and under such circumstances, that the falling of the body was necessary. I wonder how, and why, after the shooting, it must be necessary to make the body fall. It cannot be to direct attention elsewhere, as there were already gunshots in the room! The only thing this can lead me to believe is that it was the falling of the body that was resorted to as the means of killing! Hence, from this, I can say that the killer had given up on using the gun, due to circumstances that will become evident later, else it was the deceased that held the gun, which meant that resorting to making the body fall was the only way for the killer.
“I bring attention now, to the means of ingress and egress. Ingress appears much tougher than egress, as the killer could have only been allowed into the apartment, and then locked it, else it could have been through the balcony doors. The pipe that runs up the building - is perfect as means of ingress. One can spend all the time they need climbing it. Hence, I shall bring your attention to egress first. With the other tenants around, and the policemen, the stairway is not the means the killer used. It brings it to being the balcony. It indeed requires strength and speed greater than any man to be able to descend. It is also important to remember that all tenants were within sight of each other, and the policemen. Hence, it was in fact, a third party - the killer - that had strength and speed greater than any man. Here, I believe, is where the police chose not to pursue further, but I argue! - that for a crime of this indecency, and for seemingly being able to leave no trace, the task did indeed require a killer that had strength and speed greater than any man. Hence, the egress has led to this deduction, and so ingress is easier to see.
“I must remind you once again of what I have said earlier. It is that the clue should show you the difficulty of the case, and not the possibility. For this seemingly impossible circumstance to have been established, it needed something preternatural indeed. I believe that the answer lies in the traces of the killer that the victim held onto! Brown hair, rougher than human hair, and not synthetic. There are only two tenants that have brown hair, but I do not feel that their hair is ‘hard’ and ‘brittle’. Their ages are quite young, and I need to remind you that the victim used their non-dominant hand. This, in line with my suspect, allows for a lot of clarity.
“I believe that the conspirator had come to knowledge of the behavior of other beings that could potentially perform the same actions as humans. One peculiar event from her past that stood out to me was the visit to the petting zoo, where chimpanzees were mentioned. I believe, I am afraid, that the killer is in fact a chimpanzee. The conspirator, had discovered the human likeness of chimpanzees, an animal that can be communicated with, and instructed. Ascent and descent of the pipe are not difficult at all for the creature. The gunshots were indeed by the deceased, and the chimpanzee had learned this by watching the human. This marks the bullet in the floor. The competence of the deceased must be remembered, as the victim was under the influence of drink as well as fright. The second shot, I believed had flown straight out the window. The shooter this time, I believe was the monkey. The screams that are human-like are just that! - they are human-like and I believe that those French words that they heard are just the associations of their minds to things they already know. If you are to mimic a monkey, in the same way a monkey mimics a human, surely you will understand why you are saying ‘Sacre’ or ‘Mon Dieu’ especially in the same amplitude and frequency. It is the sad nature of humans to not believe in the preternatural, but this incident proves otherwise.
“The locks of hair being pulled, and the random unreasonable ransacking, all point towards a chimpanzee performing these actions. What truly makes me believe this theory is the fact that there were only two gunshots. Therefore it was a killer that did not know that the gun could be fired more than once each! - as it simply intended to mimic what it saw.
“A chimpanzee would defend itself, and the locks being in the non-dominant hand as the gun was in the dominant one, by climbing onto the shoulder of the deceased and thus pulling four handfuls of hair. I must state one fact overlooked by the police, which further elucidates my statement of people not believing in the preternatural. It is indeed four human handfuls.
“The means of ingress and egress, the reason for only two shots, the ransacking, the hair, and screams - all point towards this. And there is only one detail left that fully validates this theory. It is the detail that I have already proved earlier. It is that the killer felt that the falling of the victim was necessary when there was a gun in the room!
“This, I understand, was the instruction of the conspirator. Thus, now that we have understood the means of the murder, we can come to further discovery by simply eliminating. Thus, I believe that the killer has to be Melissa Rodriguez. If it is not her, then that means that there was another person, that lives in that building, that has motive, that knows she would be under influence, and that has the knowledge of the human likeness of chimpanzees! I bring to your notice, the trip to the petting zoo, and there is the evidence needed.
“Now, to clear up the last remaining doubt, it is the question of motive. There is no person with motive, and no person without motive. There are only varying degrees of motive. I remind you of my statements prior. The motive of hers is strong indeed, and whether it is stronger or weaker than others cannot be determined. But, the one thing that is certain is that her motive is the only motive that will benefit from the death of Ms. McHale!
“I have presented to you the facts of the case, the invalidity of all other possibilities, and the reasons for truth in this one. I had thus recommended earlier that only one person needs to be arrested, for the purposes of the law. The chimpanzee has run far and free, and only that person can lead us to it, possibly. I conclude this letter, in hope of providing enlightenment to the police, and the detectives. I urge them to rest themselves, and avoid the insanity often induced by great lengths of deep thought.”

Signed,
Alexandre Dupin