That much can't be denied
and is granted. If he was sane, he committed the murder with a
motive; and pretty careful inquiry proves that no motive existed. I
attach no importance to words, no matter who may utter them, and the
fact that Mrs. Pendean herself said that her husband and her uncle
were the best of friends don't weigh; but the fact that Robert
Redmayne stopped at Princetown with the Pendeans for over a week in
friendship and asked them to Paignton, is of some weight. I'm
inclined to believe that Redmayne was perfectly friendly with
Michael Pendean up to the time of the latter's disappearance, and
that there was no shadow of motive to explain why Redmayne did in
his brother-in-law. Then, assuming him to be sane, he would not have
committed such a murder. The alternative is that he was mad at the
time and did homicide on Pendean while out of his mind.
"But what happens to a madman after a crime of this sort? Does he
get off with it and wander over Europe as a free man for a year?
Granted the resources of maniacal cunning and all the rest of it,
was it ever heard that a lunatic went at large as this man did, and
laughed at Scotland Yard's attempt to run him down and capture him?
Is it reasonable that he runs away with a corpse, disposes of it
safely, returns to his lodgings, makes a meal, and then, in broad
daylight, vanishes off the face of the earth for six months,
presently to reappear, hoodwink fresh people, and commit another
crime? Once more he scorns law and order, vanishes for another six
months, and now flaunts his red waistcoat and red mustache in Italy
at his remaining brother's door.
Pages:
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282