CHAPTER XV

THE BLACK GOWNS

"An extraordinary event has taken place, a series of facts have been discovered, every one of them of such importance in the 'Impasse Ronsin Affair,' that the mystery is bound very soon to be cleared, and the three men in the black gowns and the red-haired woman you saw that night will be found and arrested.... We hold the clue of clues!"

These words were spoken to me at Bellevue on June 19th, 1908, three weeks after the crime, by one of the inspectors who almost daily called on me.

"What have you discovered, M. Pouce," I eagerly asked.

"I cannot, I must not tell you now. All I can say is that it is about the black gowns worn by the murderers...."

"Have they been found? Have their owners been traced?..." I was frantic with excitement.

"Madame, I am not allowed to speak on the matter. But I can tell you this: Your troubles will soon cease and the murderers will be in our hands.... Don't ask me any more questions. I cannot answer them. And now will you kindly look at this photograph, and tell me if you see any one there who reminds you... of some one."

The photograph represented a group of three persons: two men and a woman. I seemed to recognise one of the men, a bearded person with sharp shaped features and keen eyes.

"There is a striking likeness," I said, "between this man and the red-bearded individual who on the night of May 30th-31st, stood near the door of the corridor, in the room, and who never spoke."

M. Pouce showed his delight: "We are on the right track, madame," he said in tones of great satisfaction. "I thought that was one of the men." And once more he repeated: "We shall run the murderers down."

Inspector Pouce was mistaken and so was I--as I realised months afterwards--the bearded man of the photograph was not one of the murderers. He was Mr. Burlingham, an American journalist, and I will deal in another chapter with the story of this false scent.

It was several weeks after the day when Inspector Pouce showed me the photograph, that I learned all about the "extraordinary facts" which he had not been at liberty to reveal to me before, the facts which had made him assert that "the mystery would soon be unravelled."

When the reader has heard what those facts were he will not fail to admit that Inspector Pouce was right to call them "extraordinary"; they were indeed more than that; they were conclusive. Here they are:

_On Sunday_, _May 31st_, 1908, at about 10 P.M. a _contrôleur_ of the Paris _Métropolitain_ (Underground) called Villemant, picked up in a carriage of that railway two documents which had some connection the one with the other.

One was a visiting card bearing the name of Mme. Mazeline, on which were written the address of two wig-makers and of a _theatrical costumier called Guilbert_, and a card of invitation to the exhibition of M. Steinheil's paintings, in the Impasse Ronsin. The two were together on the floor of the compartment, and had undoubtedly been lost by the same individual.

M. Villemant also stated that the seat where he had found the two documents "had just been left by a young man, wearing a smock; that he appeared to be intoxicated, that he was playing with gold pieces, in his purse, and that the carriage was a 'first-class' one!"

_Now, on May 30th, 1908, six hours before the murder, three black gowns and a long black cloak similar in all ways to those worn by the three men and the red-haired woman, which I had fully described, were stolen from the "Hebrew Theatre" in Paris, and it was from the very M. Guilbert whose name and address were scribbled on the card found in the Underground together with the invitation card to M. Steinheil's exhibition, that the three black gowns and the long black cloak had been hired by the "Hebrew Theatre!_"

Why was I not told about all these important facts at once? Why did I only hear of them weeks and weeks after they had taken place?... That passes my understanding.

I grant that they could not be disclosed to the newspapers, for though the Press is often very useful to the police--in giving the description, for instance, or publishing the portrait of some wanted person--it must be admitted that the publication of a clue which can be followed to a successful issue only if the criminals are unaware of what is going forward, is likely to defeat the object of the police.

Why this sensational discovery of the theft of the gaberdines, a few hours before the murder, was not revealed to the newspapers, although many published attacks--veiled and indirect but none the less transparent--against me, such a revelation would of course have proved my absolute innocence beyond all doubt. It seems to me an unpardonable act of cruelty not to have informed me of this most essential development in the mystery of the Impasse Ronsin. It might have been necessary to swear me to secrecy, but was it not enough, in order to ensure my complete discretion, to tell me that the clue would lose all its value if I were in the least indiscreet! It might be objected that the conduct of the police was no business of mine. But my circumstances were unusual. Many newspapers were publishing articles which more or less roused public opinion against me. My narrative of the fatal night made thousands shrug their shoulders. It was "incredible" that men would disguise themselves in the manner I had described... I had "invented" this "fantastic account"... and so forth. Now, the discovery of the theft--a few hours before the crime--of three black gowns which tallied in every way with that which I had given of the costumes worn by the murderers, completely vindicated me. And if the police did not wish to inform the public of this startling fact, they ought at least to have informed _me_, if only to give me the courage to withstand the dreadful insinuations of certain journals; to bear with equanimity the ordeal of all those suspicions in which I felt myself more and more enveloped. For then I should have felt that the time would soon come when it would be no longer against the interests of the public to let the whole world know that I had spoken the truth, to acquaint the public with the discovery of the theft at the Hebrew Theatre, and thus to proclaim my innocence and put an end to all attacks and suspicions.

* * * * *

Of the two cards so miraculously found by the Underground _contrôleur_ and handed by him to the police, one, as I have stated, was a card of invitation to my husband's exhibition, and the other bore the name of a certain Mme. Mazeline, and the addresses of two wig-makers and that of M. Guilbert, a theatrical costumier.

Mme. Mazeline, a painter of repute, was then sixty-two, I had known her well in the days of President Faure. She had resided many years at Le Hâvre, Félix Faure's birth-place, and had been on terms of friendship with Félix Faure and his family. She had begun painting a portrait of the President in his studio at the Elysée, shortly before his death and had to complete the portrait from memory. The portrait was shown at the Salon.

Mme. Mazeline and I have never met since the death of the President.

Questioned about her card found in a carriage on the Underground, she suggested that it might possibly be a card which many years before she had given to some model, man or woman, who had kept it to use it as a means of introduction to other artists. (She had written her address on the card herself, in pencil.)

The other addresses on the card were those of the two wig-makers and that of M. Guilbert. The investigations at the wig-makers yielded no result. But when the inspector called on M. Guilbert his researches were rewarded.

I had described the mysterious men and the woman first on the morning of May 31st, 1908, a few hours after they had left my house--on June 1st and again June 5th, when a detective wearing a black gown and hat was paraded before me at Count d'Arlons, and I had described their attire as follows: "The three men wore long black gowns, and the woman wore a man's cloak, long and dark. The long black gowns with their flat, tight sleeves reminded me of the _soutanes_ worn by Catholic priests; the hats were felt hats with high crowns." As regards these hats--and the reader, a little later, will realise the importance of the statement I made--the report of the _Sûreté_ (Criminal Investigation Department) drawn up on June 5th, contained this:

"_Concerning the hats, it is useful to recall that, on Monday, June 1st, when Mme. Steinheil gave a description of the individuals whom she saw on the night of May 30th-31st, she specified that the men did not wear hats such as those usually worn by priests, but hats of black felt, the brims of which, bent down, had appeared to her as wide and the crowns higher and more pointed than the hats of ecclesiastics._"

And now that my description of the gowns and hats worn by the murderers stands quite clearly before the reader's eyes, let us follow Inspector Pouce to M. Guilbert, the costumier on the Boulevard St. Martin, where he had gone in the hope of discovering a connection between the card and the murder.

The Inspector found Mlle. Rallet, one of M. Guilbert's assistants.

What did Mlle. Rallet--to whose accurate book keeping and absolute reliability, her employer paid a glowing tribute--have to say?

I can do no better than quote the evidence she gave, not only to the Inspector, but to M. Hamard himself.

"This Wednesday, June 10, 1908, we, Gustave Hamard, Knight of the Legion of Honour, head of the Criminal Investigation Department, continuing our investigations, have heard, on oath, Mlle. Georgette Rallet... who has declared:

'I have been employed since September 1907 by M. Guilbert.... My duties are to receive customers and to record the despatch and return of all goods. It goes without saying that I examine the goods when they are returned as well as when they leave our premises. Our customers are chiefly actors and actresses, and among them there is a Russian society, which has its headquarters at the Eden Theatre (or Hebrew Theatre), 133 Rue Saint Denis. The orders of the society are given by M. Goldstein and Feinberg, who are usually accompanied by Mlle. Jankel....

'The last time M. Goldstein, M. Feinberg, and Mlle. Jankel called was on Wednesday, May 27th, the day before Ascension Day. They arrived between 3 and 4 P.M. It was Goldstein who addressed me, as usual, for Feinberg only speaks German, Russian, and English. He ordered, for a play entitled _Le Vice-Roi_ which was to be performed the following day, a few Roman and Spanish costumes, and two gowns for priests.

'Between 7 and 8 P.M. the messenger delivered the costumes.... I generally send, on the day after the performance, for the costumes we have lent, but on May 29th I was too busy to do so. Besides, I intended to have the costumes fetched back on the Monday, June 1st, together with others which had been hired for the performance of Sunday, May 31st. For M. Goldstein after giving his order for the _Vice-Roi_, which was to be performed on the following day, had ordered four costumes for Jewish priests for a play entitled _Cain and Abel_, which would be performed on Sunday, May 31st.

'Now, on Saturday, May 30th, at 5.30 P.M., the messenger only took to the Eden Theatre three gowns for Jewish priests, for Goldstein had already received two previously....

'To sum up, on the evening of May 30th, the Eden Theatre had received from us--by two deliveries--five black gowns, including another black gown specially ordered by an actor, the other five being for supers. I must add that on May 30th, at 4 P.M., Mlle. Jankel and an actor called Hamburger came to order a black _soutane_ and a black _redingote_ which were needed for the performance on that very evening.... After five applications, I managed on the following Wednesday to have returned to me, not all the costumes we had let, but only three of the gowns, the _soutane_ and the _redingote_.

'There remains, therefore, in the hands of the Russian Society, three black gowns belonging to us....'

Signed GEORGETTE RALLET. O. HAMARD."

(Extract from _Dossier_, Cote 662.)

Later, Mlle. Rallet gave further details to M. Hamard.

"... M. Goldstein, M. Feinberg, and Mlle. Jankel, on May 27th, tried on a few of the costumes just ordered....

"There were twenty-seven parcels.... The costumes in those parcels had been handed to me for checking before being packed, by M. Guilbert and Riegel, a clerk.... Fremat, the messenger, placed the parcels in two large baskets. In _another basket_, he placed the thirteen hats which completed some of the costumes. After having filled the baskets and secured them with rope, Fremat hired a barrow... loaded up, and left the shop at about 8 P.M.

"On May 30th, M. Guilbert and Riegel packed eighteen costumes ordered for the performance of May 31st. I checked the costumes which were spread before me on the counter....

"On the following Wednesday, June 3rd, Fremat recovered possession of the costumes ordered on the 27th. When I counted them, in the afternoon, I found that _four were missing: the large black cloak and three costumes of Jewish priests_...."

(Quoted from _Dossier_, Cote 669.)

The Inspector, having discovered that three black gowns and a black cloak had been let out by M. Guilbert to the Hebrew Theatre and not returned to him, went, of course, straight to that theatre. I can imagine the Inspector's feelings, and his thoughts. Would he find the missing garments there? Had they merely been mislaid? Or had they been _stolen_! And _when_? If they had been stolen on the 30th, a few hours before the double murder, then, as he had said, he held the clue of clues!

What did he hear at the theatre?--That the three black gowns and the black cloak had been _stolen_.

Here again, I can do no better than quote from the _Dossier_, the evidence given either to M. Hamard, Chief of the _Sûreté_, or to M. André, the examining magistrate in charge of my case, _after_ I had been arrested.

After confirming on every point the statements made by Mme. Rallet, M. Goldstein stated, among other facts:

"None of the artists were told off to check the deliveries of costumes made by the firm Guilbert, and the messenger was in the habit of placing the baskets of costumes in the vestibule, near the box-office of the Hebrew Theatre. Any one could easily make his way into the theatre, for the door, opening inwards, had only to be pushed, and is never closed...

"For the performance of May 28th, all the costumes were there... But things were different on May 31st. On that day at about 7 P.M., I opened the basket which had been put down in the vestibule the day before, by the messenger from Guilbert's. _The ropes of the basket were undone._ I also found at once that, contrary to custom, _the costumes were in disorder_. Feinberg, who was standing near me, told me that he had noticed the same thing on the previous evening (May 30th)... At the moment when every one had to put on his costume, we found that _the gowns of the Jewish priests were missing_... M. Feinberg sent Gabriel, the watchman of the theatre, to Guilbert's. But the shop was closed...

"... In spite of all our searches, throughout the theatre, it has been impossible to trace the four missing costumes..."

(_Dossier_, Cote 677.)

And M. Goldstein added, on another occasion, when asked for further details:

"... The baskets were undone, and the lids were 'free.' The baskets delivered by Guilbert's were always fastened with rope..."

(_Dossier_, Cote 683.)

Finally, on March 2nd, 1909, M. Goldstein, once more interrogated, said among other things:

"... Feinberg told me that on Saturday, May 30th, at 6.30 P.M., when he looked for the various parts of the Hamlet costume, which he was to wear at the matinee performance the next day, in the play _Queen Isabella_ and which he thought he would find in the basket, he had found what he wanted, but had noticed that the basket was undone and that the contents were overturned and in great disorder.

"It would be quite easy for any one to steal the gowns since the basket was left in the corridor of the theatre at a time when we were all in the _café_, and since the door had only to be pushed...."

(_Dossier_, Cote 724.)

M. Feinberg corroborated all these statements; but the exact words he used concerning the state of the basket from which the three black gowns undoubtedly worn by the three murderers, and the long black cloak undoubtedly worn by the red-haired woman, were stolen a few hours before the crime, are worth quoting:

"I found that the contents of the basket were in disorder; the parcels, which are usually packed with the greatest care by M. Guilbert's, were undone and the various parts of the costumes were all mixed together. On May 31st we were unable to find the three Jewish priests' gowns and the garment which Guilbert's call a Russian cloak, and which we call a 'Pastor costume.'"

(_Dossier_, Cote 676.)

The three gowns and the dark cloak were never found again. And Mlle. Rallet, basing her claim _on the entries in her books_, sent a registered letter (on June 9th, 1908) demanding the return of those garments or the payment of a sum of money--which she duly quoted--representing their value.

Thus three black gowns and one black cloak had really been stolen in the corridor of the Hebrew Theatre on May 30th, 1908. And the times when those costumes were stolen is easy to calculate. The basket which contained them was delivered at 6 P.M. M. Feinberg found it "undone and in great disorder" at 8.30 P.M. There had been no one present when the messenger had put down the basket. There had been no one in the corridor of the theatre between 6 and 8.30 P.M.--the whole staff was "at the _café_," chatting, or dining... And the door needed only to be pushed!

Does it require a great stretch of imagination--not to believe in the theft, for it is impossible not to believe in it--to admit that the gowns worn by the four persons whom I saw in my room on the fatal night were the identical ones that had been stolen from the Hebrew Theatre?

If coincidence be called upon to explain things, let the sceptics turn to my description of the appearance of those persons--the criminals.

Let us suppose I had said, for instance, that the gowns had collars or that the sleeves were wide and loose... Then my description would not have exactly tallied with that of the stolen gowns. But no; I did not mention collars. I _did_ say that the sleeves were tight-fitting, and in every detail my description corresponded to that which M. Guilbert himself would have given of the gown and the cloak he sent to the Hebrew Theatre for the performance of May 31st. Better than that, when Mlle. Rallet, on December 26th, 1908, was once more asked to describe the stolen gown, she declared--as I had done in the case of the gowns worn by the murderers--that those supplied by her firm had "flat and tight sleeves"!

If I had invented the amazing scene, I might have said that there were four men in black gowns, but no. I declared that there had been three men in black gowns and one woman in a dark cloak. And three gowns and one cloak had been stolen!

I will go even further to meet the doubts and questions of the sceptic.

Had I invented this "tale," as M. André called it, how could I have imagined that the three men wearing black ecclesiastical gowns, had _not_ worn black ecclesiastical hats? Surely coincidences have limits. I said that the men wore "felt hats with high, pointed crowns"--not ecclesiastical hats. And the ecclesiastical hats which belonged to the stolen gowns were found in their separate baskets--a small basket; and M. Goldstein declared: "We generally put the hats aside; we hide them so as to prevent the performers from choosing among them just as they please."

There can be no longer any question of coincidence. There cannot exist one single human being endowed with the most ordinary amount of common sense who could or would deny, after the fact which I have quoted from evidence given to the head of the _Sûreté_ and to the magistrate in charge of my case, that suspicions or attacks against me should not have been allowed to go on, and that it was quite unpardonable to dare accuse me of having murdered my husband and my mother.

Among the thousand and one anonymous letters I received later on, there was one written by some one who had realised the whole importance of the stolen gowns as a proof of my complete innocence. But in his--or her--desire to prove to me that I was a murderess, the anonymous writer explained: "You stole the gowns yourself or had them stolen by some one!" The prosecution possibly thought the same, but never expressed the thought, for its absurdity was, of course, obvious.

The prosecution, however, wanted to find me guilty even on the fact of such an overwhelming proof of my innocence.

Will the reader now hear how the prosecution dealt with this _affaire des lévites_, as it was called? Here are the very words used in the indictment on this matter:

"_A strange circumstance_ revealed by the witness Villemant _had made it possible to believe for one moment that the narrative of the 'accused' concerning the men in the black gowns could have some character of likelihood_...."

After a rapid survey of the evidence given by M. Villemant, Mme. Mazeline, and M. Guilbert... the indictment says:

"The evidence thus gathered seemed likely to throw some doubt on the judicial _instruction_, and to lend some truth to Mme. Steinheil's narrative. But... firstly, it is certain that the disappearance of the ecclesiastical gowns was only noticed on the evening of May 31st--that is, several hours after the crime. Secondly, the ecclesiastical hats were never lost and have been found. Now, Mme. Steinheil has stated that the criminals wore hats which harmonised with their costumes.... It is, therefore, necessary to wave aside that fable and to note an unimportant coincidence between the thefts of the gowns and the crime of May 31st...."

Could anything be more revolting in its absolute lack of good faith! For surely the prosecution had read the evidence of the various witnesses and was bound to know, firstly, that the black gowns were stolen, _not after_ the crime, _but before_ the crime, on May 30th, as the evidence of M. Feinberg and Goldstein established beyond discussion; secondly, that the report of the Criminal Investigation Department itself, dated June 5th, 1908, contained this sentence, which I have already quoted:

"Concerning the hats, it is useful to recall that on Monday, June 1st, when Mme. Steinheil gave a description of the individuals whom she saw on the night of May 30th-31st, she specified that:

"'The men did not wear hats such as those usually worn by priests, but hats of black felt, the brims of which, bent down, had appeared to her as wide and the crowns higher and more pointed than the hats of ecclesiastics.'"

(_Dossier_, Cote 914.)

In spite of the prosecution and its wilful blindness to all the proofs of my innocence, the jury of the Paris Assize Court, in November 1909, after I had spent a whole year in prison, saw the truth and acquitted me.

In my heart I have often blessed the honest and zealous Underground _employé_ who handed the cards he had found to the police. There can be no doubt that the "stolen black gowns" helped the jurors to understand that I had spoken the truth, and could not have murdered my husband and my mother. And I have often blessed the memory of my father, too. For had he not taught me to observe and see at a glance the main lines, the striking or essential parts of a person or object? And how without that training of the eye and mind could I have noticed and remembered on that night of terror the principal points of the murderers' attire?