“Thuswesee，ataglance，thatwhathasbeenmosttriumphantlyadducedinsupportoftheideathatthearticlesbadbeen’foratleastthreeorfourweeks’inthethicket，ismostabsurdlynullasregardsanyevidenceofthatfact。Ontheotherhand，itisexceedinglydifficulttobelievethatthesearticlescouldhaveremainedinthethicketspecified，foralongerperiodthanasingleweek-foralongerperiodthanfromoneSundaytothenext。ThosewhoknowanythingofthevicinityofParis，knowtheextremedifficultyoffindingseclusionunlessatagreatdistancefromitssuburbs。Suchathingasanunexplored，orevenanunfrequentlyvisitedrecess，amiditswoodsorgroves，isnotforamomenttobeimagined。Letanyonewho，beingatheartaloverofnature，isyetchainedbydutytothedustandheatofthisgreatmetropolis-letanysuchoneattempt，evenduringtheweekdays，toslakehisthirstforsolitudeamidthescenesofnaturallovelinesswhichimmediatelysurroundus。Ateverysecondstep，hewillfindthegrowingcharmdispelledbythevoiceandpersonalintrusionofsomeruffianorpartyofcarousingblackguards。Hewillseekprivacyamidthedensestfoliage，allinvain。Herearetheverynookswheretheunwashedmostabound-herearethetemplesmostdesecrate。WithsicknessoftheheartthewandererwillfleebacktothepollutedParisastoalessodiousbecauselessincongruoussinkofpollution。Butifthevicinityofthecityissobesetduringtheworkingdaysoftheweek，howmuchmoresoontheSabbath！Itisnowespeciallythat，releasedfromtheclaimsoflabor，ordeprivedofthecustomaryopportunitiesofcrime，thetownblackguardseekstheprecinctsofthetown，notthroughloveoftherural，whichinhishearthedespises，butbywayofescapefromtherestraintsandconventionalitiesofsociety。Hedesireslessthefreshairandthegreentrees，thantheutterlicenseofthecountry。Here，attheroad-sideinn，orbeneaththefoliageofthewoods，heindulges，uncheckedbyanyeyeexceptthoseofhisbooncompanions，inallthemadexcessofacounterfeithilarity-thejointoffspringoflibertyandofrum。Isaynothingmorethanwhatmustbeobvioustoeverydispassionateobserver，whenIrepeatthatthecircumstanceofthearticlesinquestionhavingremainedundiscovered，foralongerperiod-thanfromoneSundaytoanother，inanythicketintheimmediateneighborhoodofParis，istobelookeduponaslittlelessthanmiraculous。
　　“Buttherearenotwantingothergroundsforthesuspicionthatthearticleswereplacedinthethicketwiththeviewofdivertingattentionfromtherealsceneoftheoutrage。And，first，letmedirectyournoticetothedateofthediscoveryofthearticles。
　　Collatethiswiththedateofthefifthextractmadebymyselffromthenewspapers。Youwillfindthatthediscoveryfollowed，almostimmediately，theurgentcommunicationssenttotheeveningpaper。
　　Thesecommunications，althoughvariousandapparentlyfromvarioussources，tendedalltothesamepoint-viz。，thedirectingofattentiontoagangastheperpetratorsoftheoutrage，andtotheneighborhoodoftheBarri鑢eduRouleasitsscene。Nowhere，ofcourse，thesuspicionisnotthat，inconsequenceofthesecommunications，orofthepublicattentionbythemdirected，thearticleswerefoundbytheboys；butthesuspicionmightandmaywellhavebeen，thatthearticleswerenotbeforefoundbytheboys，forthereasonthatthearticleshadnotbeforebeeninthethicket；
　　havingbeendepositedthereonlyatsolateaperiodasatthedate，orshortlypriortothedateofthecommunicationsbytheguiltyauthorsofthesecommunicationsthemselves。
　　“Thisthicketwasasingular-anexceedinglysingularone。Itwasunusuallydense。Withinitsnaturallywalledenclosurewerethreeextraordinarystones，formingaseatwithabackandfootstool。Andthisthicket，sofullofanaturalart，wasintheimmediatevicinity，withinafewrods，ofthedwellingofMadameDeluc，whoseboyswereinthehabitofcloselyexaminingtheshrubberiesabouttheminsearchofthebarkofthesassafras。Woulditbearashwager-awagerofonethousandtoonethatadayneverpassedovertheheadsoftheseboyswithoutfindingatleastoneofthemensconcedintheumbrageoushall，andenthroneduponitsnaturalthrone？Thosewhowouldhesitateatsuchawager，haveeitherneverbeenboysthemselves，orhaveforgottentheboyishnature。Irepeatitisexceedinglyhardtocomprehendhowthearticlescouldhaveremainedinthisthicketundiscovered，foralongerperiodthanoneortwodays；andthatthusthereisgoodgroundforsuspicion，inspiteofthedogmaticignoranceofLeSoleil，thattheywere，atacomparativelylatedate，depositedwherefound。
　　“Buttherearestillotherandstrongerreasonsforbelievingthemsodeposited，thananywhichIhaveasyeturged。And，now，letmebegyournoticetothehighlyartificialarrangementofthearticles。Ontheupperstonelayawhitepetticoat；onthesecondasilkscarf；
　　scatteredaround，wereaparasol，gloves，andapocket-handkerchiefbearingthename，’MarieRog阾。’Hereisjustsuchanarrangementaswouldnaturallybemadebyanotover-acutepersonwishingtodisposethearticlesnaturally。Butitisbynomeansareallynaturalarrangement。Ishouldratherhavelookedtoseethethingsalllyingonthegroundandtrampledunderfoot。Inthenarrowlimitsofthatbower，itwouldhavebeenscarcelypossiblethatthepetticoatandscarfshouldhaveretainedapositionuponthestones，whensubjectedtothebrushingtoandfroofmanystrugglingpersons。’Therewasevidence，’itissaid，’ofastruggle；andtheearthwastrampled，thebusheswerebroken，’-butthepetticoatandthescarfarefounddepositedasifuponshelves。’Thepiecesofthefrocktornoutbythebusheswereaboutthreeincheswideandsixincheslong。Onepartwasthehemofthefrockandithadbeenmended。Theylookedlikestripstornoff。’Here，inadvertently，LeSoleilhasemployedanexceedinglysuspiciousphrase。Thepieces，asdescribed，doindeed’looklikestripstornoff；’butpurposelyandbyhand。Itisoneoftherarestofaccidentsthatapieceis’tornoff，’fromanygarmentsuchasisnowinquestion，bytheagencyofathorn。Fromtheverynatureofsuchfabrics，athornornailbecomingentangledinthem，tearsthemrectangularly-dividesthemintotwolongitudinalrents，atrightangleswitheachother，andmeetingatanapexwherethethornenters-butitisscarcelypossibletoconceivethepiece’tornoff。’Ineversoknewit，nordidyou。Totearapieceofffromsuchfabric，twodistinctforces，indifferentdirections，willbe，inalmosteverycase，required。Iftherebetwoedgestothefabric-
　　if，forexample，itbeapocket-handkerchief，anditisdesiredtotearfromitaslip，then，andthenonly，willtheoneforceservethepurpose。Butinthepresentcasethequestionisofadress，presentingbutoneedge。Totearapiecefromtheinterior，wherenoedgeispresented，couldonlybeeffectedbyamiraclethroughtheagencyofthorns，andnoonethorncouldaccomplishit。But，evenwhereanedgeispresented，twothornswillbenecessary，operating，theoneintwodistinctdirections，andtheotherinone。Andthisinthesuppositionthattheedgeisunhemmed。Ifhemmed，thematterisnearlyoutofthequestion。Wethusseethenumerousandgreatobstaclesinthewayofpiecesbeing’tornoff’throughthesimpleagencyof’thorns；’yetwearerequiredtobelievenotonlythatonepiecebutthatmanyhavebeensotorn。’Andonepart，’too，’wasthehemofthefrock！’Anotherpiecewas’partoftheskirt，notthehem，’-thatistosay，wastorncompletelyoutthroughtheagencyofthorns，fromtheuncagedinteriorofthedress！These，Isay，arethingswhichonemaywellbepardonedfordisbelieving；yet，takencollectedly，theyform，perhaps，lessofreasonablegroundforsuspicion，thantheonestartlingcircumstanceofthearticles’
　　havingbeenleftinthisthicketatall，byanymurdererswhohadenoughprecautiontothinkofremovingthecorpse。Youwillnothaveapprehendedmerightly，however，ifyousupposeitmydesigntodenythisthicketasthesceneoftheoutrage。Theremighthavebeenawronghere，or，morepossibly，anaccidentatMadameDeluc’s。But，infact，thisisapointofminorimportance。Wearenotengagedinanattempttodiscoverthescene，buttoproducetheperpetratorsofthemurder。WhatIhaveadduced，notwithstandingtheminutenesswithwhichIhaveadducedit，hasbeenwiththeview，first，toshowthefollyofthepositiveandheadlongassertionsofLeSoleil，butsecondlyandchiefly，tobringyou，bythemostnaturalroute，toafurthercontemplationofthedoubtwhetherthisassassinationhas，orhasnotbeen，theworkofagang。
　　“Wewillresumethisquestionbymereallusiontotherevoltingdetailsofthesurgeonexaminedattheinquest。Itisonlynecessarytosaythatispublishedinferences，inregardtothenumberofruffians，havebeenproperlyridiculedasunjustandtotallybaseless，byallthereputableanatomistsofParis。Notthatthemattermightnothavebeenasinferred，butthattherewasnogroundfortheinference：-wastherenotmuchforanother？
　　“Letusreflectnowupon’thetracesofastruggle；’andletmeaskwhatthesetraceshavebeensupposedtodemonstrate。Agang。Butdotheynotratherdemonstratetheabsenceofagang？Whatstrugglecouldhavetakenplace-whatstrugglesoviolentandsoenduringastohaveleftits’traces’inalldirections-betweenaweakanddefencelessgirlandthegangofruffiansimagined？Thesilentgraspofafewrougharmsandallwouldhavebeenover。Thevictimmusthavebeenabsolutelypassiveattheirwill。Youwillherebearinmindthattheargumentsurgedagainstthethicketasthescene，areapplicableinchiefpart，onlyagainstitasthesceneofanoutragecommittedbymorethanasingleindividual。Ifweimaginebutoneviolator，wecanconceive，andthusonlyconceive，thestruggleofsoviolentandsoobstinateanatureastohaveleftthe’traces’
　　apparent。
　　“Andagain。Ihavealreadymentionedthesuspiciontobeexcitedbythefactthatthearticlesinquestionweresufferedtoremainatallinthethicketwherediscovered。Itseemsalmostimpossiblethattheseevidencesofguiltshouldhavebeenaccidentallyleftwherefound。Therewassufficientpresenceofminditissupposedtoremovethecorpse；andyetamorepositiveevidencethanthecorpseitselfwhosefeaturesmighthavebeenquicklyobliteratedbydecay，
　　isallowedtolieconspicuouslyinthesceneoftheoutrage-I
　　alludetothehandkerchiefwiththenameofthedeceased。Ifthiswasaccident，itwasnottheaccidentofagang。Wecanimagineitonlytheaccidentofanindividual。Letussee。Anindividualhascommittedthemurder。Heisalonewiththeghostofthedeparted。Heisappalledbywhatliesmotionlessbeforehim。Thefuryofhispassionisover，andthereisabundantroominhisheartforthenaturalaweofthedeed。Hisisnoneofthatconfidencewhichthepresenceofnumbersinevitablyinspires。Heisalonewiththedead。
　　Hetremblesandisbewildered。Yetthereisanecessityfordisposingofthecorpse。Hebearsittotheriver，butleavesbehindhimtheotherevidencesofguilt；foritisdifficult，ifnotimpossibletocarryalltheburthenatonce，anditwillbeeasytoreturnforwhatisleft。Butinhistoilsomejourneytothewaterhisfearsredoublewithinhim。Thesoundsoflifeencompasshispath。Adozentimeshehearsorfanciesthestepofanobserver。Eventheverylightsfromthecitybewilderhim。Yet，intimeandbylongandfrequentpausesofdeepagony，hereachestheriver’sbrink，anddisposesofhisghastlycharge-perhapsthroughthemediumofaboat。Butnowwhattreasuredoestheworldhold-whatthreatofvengeancecoulditholdout-whichwouldhavepowertourgethereturnofthatlonelymurdereroverthattoilsomeandperilouspath，tothethicketanditsbloodchillingrecollections？Hereturnsnot，lettheconsequencesbewhattheymay。Hecouldnotreturnifhewould。Hissolethoughtisimmediateescape。Heturnshisbackforeveruponthosedreadfulshrubberiesandfleesasfromthewrathtocome。
　　“Buthowwithagang？Theirnumberwouldhaveinspiredthemwithconfidence；if，indeedconfidenceiseverwantinginthebreastofthearrantblackguard；andofarrantblackguardsalonearethesupposedgangseverconstituted。Theirnumber，Isay，wouldhavepreventedthebewilderingandunreasoningterrorwhichIhaveimaginedtoparalyzethesingleman。Couldwesupposeanoversightinone，ortwo，orthree，thisoversightwouldhavebeenremediedbyafourth。Theywouldhaveleftnothingbehindthem；fortheirnumberwouldhaveenabledthemtocarryallatonce。Therewouldhavebeennoneedofreturn。
　　“Considernowthecircumstancethatintheoutergarmentofthecorpsewhenfound，’aslip，aboutafootwidehadbeentornupwardfromthebottomhemtothewaistwoundthreetimesroundthewaist，andsecuredbyasortofhitchintheback。’Thiswasdonewiththeobviousdesignofaffordingahandlebywhichtocarrythebody。Butwouldanynumberofmenharedreamedofresortingtosuchanexpedient？Tothreeorfour，thelimbsofthecorpsewouldhaveaffordednotonlyasufficient，butthebestpossiblehold。Thedeviceisthatofasingleindividual；andthisbringsustothefactthat’betweenthethicketandtheriver，therailsofthefenceswerefoundtakendown，andthegroundboreevidenttracesofsomeheavyburdenhavingbeendraggedalongit！’Butwouldanumberofmenhaveputthemselvestothesuperfluoustroubleoftakingdownafence，forthepurposeofdraggingthroughitacorpsewhichtheymighthaveliftedoveranyfenceinaninstant？Wouldanumberofmenhavesodraggedacorpseatallastohaveleftevidenttracesofthedragging？
　　“AndherewemustrefertoanobservationofLeCommerciel；anobservationuponwhichIhavealready，insomemeasure，commented。’A