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,